[ Page 3147 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

On vote 193: minister's office –– 3147

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hanson

Division that the committee rise –– 3162

Tabling Documents.

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills fourth report.

Mr. Strachan –– 3162

FRIDAY, JULY 4, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming two of what we can call, I am sure, some of the truly independent and free business people in British Columbia. These gentlemen are involved in log salvaging in the Fraser River and Howe Sound. Would the House please welcome Gordon and George Moore.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two friends of mine from Fort St. John. They are combining a vacation and business trip to the Island. I'd like the House to welcome Jim and Margaret Little.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning is Mrs. Wendy Hardy, my constituency secretary from Cranbrook. I would like the House to welcome her.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 193: minister's office, $212,089.

MR. LEA: I'd like to touch this morning upon marine transportation off the coast of our province. I'd like to go back to the signing of the agreement between Canada and the province of British Columbia, in regard to what at the time was an $8 million subsidy for marine transportation, and some of the wording in that contractual arrangement between Canada and the province.

I'd like to go back to the immediate time after the signing of that agreement and relate to the Legislature a meeting that was held between the Premier — the member for Kelowna — and members of various regional districts from along the coast questioning the contract and asking what that contract would mean. Up until that time the federal government had been the agency responsible for marine transportation.

As we all remember, that agreement changed it so the province had the jurisdiction. But one of the most integral parts of that agreement was the part dealing with just exactly what this province was letting itself in for by signing that agreement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there appears to be an awful lot of conversation here. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor. Could you come to order, please?

MR. LEA: One of the key sections in that agreement was that this province would take over the responsibility for two items — passenger and freight movement. In that agreement the province agreed to give reasonable service to the residents of the coast for passenger and freight, in terms of marine transport. At that meeting of the regional districts and the Premier, the Premier, I'm sure, had not been made aware of exactly what it was the province was signing, because the Premier made it clear, in front of a great many witnesses, that his government was opposed to the subsidy of freight and that in terms of the freight section of that contract this government was not ready, in any way, to honour that agreement. They obviously didn't know what they'd signed. Mr. Chestnut had negotiated the agreement on behalf of the previous Minister of Transport, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), and I think the Premier was quite surprised when he saw freight in it, and he acted surprised. At that meeting he told us — the regional district people and myself — that the government was not interested in subsidizing freight.

Therein lies the crux of our problem for marine transportation along the coast: the rigidity and the stubbornness of government in not realizing that what's good for one area of the province — subsidized freight on the BCR — should be.... And I'm not saying we should take away that subsidization of freight on the BCR. The BCR can be a tool that can be used socially and economically for the benefit of all of us. But it seems to me that what's good for the BCR and the people who live along that line must also be good for the people who live along the marine highway and the lifeline that takes their goods and supplies into those communities along the coast. The province has never lived up to that agreement they signed with Canada. They say that they are only responsible for using those subsidy dollars from federal government for passenger transportation, not freight.

There have been times when political pressure has meant that this government had to live up to that freight contract, but they've never done it willingly and positively. They've always been dragged, kicking, into living up to that freight agreement within the entire agreement.

Now we have had a series of disasters that have followed because of that stupid misconception of what they signed in the first place. I was on "Capital Comment"; it was being taped. This was some time ago. One of the reporters said: "What is your reaction to the government's announcing that they're going to send the Queen of Prince Rupert into the Queen Charlotte Islands?" I didn't believe the reporters. I said: "If that is indeed an announcement made by government, it has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of." Lo and behold, I found out that yes, they'd done one of the stupidest things we'd ever heard of. No one I know thinks that the Queen of Prince Rupert should go into the Queen Charlotte Islands. They want a ferry service, but we have to define their needs and desires.

For the most part, for instance, when people who live on the Queen Charlotte Islands are going to transport their bodies off, they fly to Vancouver or Prince Rupert. But the thing that they face every day of the year is the high cost of those items they have to buy such as groceries and lumber supplies. All the things you have to buy in order to live on the Queen Charlotte Islands are affected every day because of the high freight rate. Those are the items they are concerned about. All along the coast they are crying, telling the government: "For God's sake, passenger service is not the main priority. It is freight." This government continues to make passenger service its high priority, when it's not the service that's needed and wanted. The main priority must be freight.

[ Page 3148 ]

It must be the priority that deals with everyday life for the residents along our coast, as the BCR supplies those goods and services needed along its line, going up through the centre of this province.

Out of these fiascos has come one stupid decision after another. Once they lost their balance on the marine transportation system in terms of policy-making, they have been stumbling ever since and cannot regain their balance. Now one of the stupidest things they are going to do is to take the Queen of Prince Rupert, when it is finished here, they say, and put it on the Queen Charlotte Islands run.

Do you know how many people live on the Queen Charlottes? About 6,000. Do you know what the passenger load of the Queen of Prince Rupert is, and the crewing that is needed because of federal regulations in order to run that boat over there? Economically and socially it is stupid. In a survey of the people on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 70 percent say they don't want that service as it is planned by government.

I went in to meet the minister. It was a good meeting, and the minister has cooperated wherever he can. But this minister has tried to pull out of the fire the stupid mistakes of this government before he was given the responsibility for some of the items he has — stupid, stupid mistakes that they won't admit to. If they would admit to them, then they could rectify them; but you cannot rectify those stupid decisions until you admit that they've taken place.

The Queen of Prince Rupert, as I understand it — maybe it has changed somewhat since the conversion — has a capacity of about 450 passengers. That is a 450-passenger capacity to deal with islands that have residents in the number of 6,000. You could take the whole population off and on every two weeks. Is there going to be that kind of demand? The answer is, obviously, no. So if there is a demand for high capacity, where will that high demand come from? That high demand will come mostly from people from the mainland in the northern area at certain times of the year. It will come from people who want to go hunting and camping on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and this government has done absolutely nothing to prepare the Queen Charlotte Islands for that possible influx.

We're afraid, on the Queen Charlotte Islands, that we will become the garbage dump for people who come there for their recreational facilities, because this government has not done any planning whatsoever — no parks; three hotels burned down. There have been no studies. There has been no work done to prepare the Queen Charlotte Islands for the kind of influx that could happen. Out of the 70 percent who say no ferry, there are people who say we should do those sorts of things first. Then 43 percent say that yes, then the ferry wouldn't be a bad deal. Then at least we would be prepared on the Queen Charlotte Islands for that kind of influx that is going to happen to us.

There are other ramifications to this. At the present time, the freight that's going to the Queen Charlotte Islands is subsidized by the government. The subsidy works through the RivTow barge company, who does the hauling of the goods from the mainland to the Queen Charlotte Islands. I'm afraid that that main item of concern, the cost of freight, groceries and lumber, is going to go even higher with the advent of the ferry. I find it very hard to believe — and I'd like the minister to comment on this particularly — that once the government feels it has met its obligation by putting the Queen of Prince Rupert into the Queen Charlotte Islands they will continue to subsidize RivTow.

If you take the freight subsidy away from the Queen Charlotte Islands and put on a streamlined, over-capacity, passenger service, you're going to have freight rise in the grocery store, hardware store and everywhere you go to buy those goods that you need to survive. Once the subsidy is taken away from RivTow and all the subsidy goes into this crazy passenger service that the government is deciding, then the freight is going to go up. It seems to me pretty simple economics. Take the freight subsidy away from RivTow, and the freight is going to go up for the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

You could say: "Well, if the Queen of Prince Rupert has all the capacity to haul all of those people and vehicles — somewhere near 80 vehicles — then surely we can take freight across on the ferry. " But that's not true. The Queen of Prince Rupert, as other boats on the fleet, has a rule. You can't drag a tractor-trailer on, drop the trailer and take the tractor off. So it becomes very, very expensive in the procedures of loading and unloading and carrying when you have those kinds of rules.

There may be an out somewhat on this. If the Ferry Corporation would bend its rules.... They shouldn't bend them, because I've talked to a number of people, and they don't know why the rules exist in the first place. They just seem to be rules that everybody is afraid to change because they've always been there. As far as I can make out, nobody's ever examined who did it, why those rules apply or whether something could be done if there's a valid reason for those rules. Why couldn't there be some changes made so that validity does no longer exist?

It seems to me that it's stupid to run a boat of the size and capacity of the Queen of Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands and have rules that make sure that the freight can't be packed along with those passengers on that boat — unless, of course, the government is afraid of setting a precedent. If they do it there, they'd ask: "Well, what do we do in other areas?" I don't think government should be afraid of precedents. They should make rules of common sense to fit specific needs and not be afraid to say that's exactly what they've done.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) should all be involved in taking a look at the Queen Charlotte Islands and saying: "Exactly what's going to happen here when we put the Queen of Prince Rupert on the run?" For instance, there's an application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for a water-sewer system for the Queen Charlotte Islands and Queen Charlotte City. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) has to be involved, because unless that water-sewer system goes in, any facility that's put up there is going to have a very difficult time meeting the health requirements in terms of water supply and the disposal of sewage. So there are all sorts of things that have to be done on the Queen Charlotte Islands before this stupid decision to put the Queen of Prince Rupert in there can be carried out.

I also talked with people on the job, the people who run the ship. I said: "What kind of a vessel is this that we're planning to run over to the Queen Charlotte Islands? Is it the kind of vessel that should be on that piece of water?" They said no. Some of the crew said: "We're sure glad that we're in the crew, because we wouldn't be riding down below in some of this weather that that ship is going to face going over there. "

[ Page 3149 ]

The repairs are going to be high on the old Queen of Prince Rupert. It's going to be literally torn apart. The repair bill for keeping the Queen of Prince Rupert on the Queen Charlotte Islands run is going to be horrendous. Not only that, but docking at both ends is going to be changed. On the Queen Charlotte Islands side a lot of money is going to be spent in land acquisition, and a lot of money spent in construction to build dock facilities to meet the Queen of Prince Rupert, which is not the ship that should be there in the first place. Once that's done, once the money is expended, a decision to disregard that money that's been spent and to put the proper vessel on may be much harder to come to in the future. Once that service is in, it will be damned hard to take it away because of the money spent and because of the facilities designed to meet that specific vessel.

I ask the government to take a second look at this. The ferry board director from Prince Rupert also knows it's not the proper ship, but he's scared; he's afraid that if he doesn't get that Queen of Prince Rupert somehow, we're going to lose it permanently to the south. So even though it's the improper ship for the Queen Charlottes run, he's going to go along with it, because he doesn't want to lose the Queen of Prince Rupert.

Now we all should know what's going on. When I saw the minister in his office I said: "Look, if it's politics you're interested in, then here is the scheme that you should put in, because you'd make yourself and your government heroes, and maybe you could knock me off next time. But why, for God's sake, do you do something that's going to make me look like a hero? Giving me the opportunity to attack you for stupid decision-making is beyond my ken. Why do it?"

Now everybody who lives along that coast knows what's needed, knows that freight is the priority. They say that through the government service we should either acquire or build — and to build is the proper way to go, because we have shipbuilding businesses in this province, both in Vancouver and Victoria, that should be stabilized.... If this government would go to design and go to tender to build ships to meet the job for the 1980s, they would indeed be heroes along the coast. What is needed are freight vessels; I suggest two freight vessels are needed — maximum freight, some passenger facility and some vehicle facility. When people really do want to travel by marine transport to get off the Queen Charlottes or out of some of the other communities, it's usually at vacation time, and they'd like to take their vehicles with them. But they don't take their vehicles with them when they go to see the doctor in Vancouver: they don't take their vehicles with them when they go on business to Prince Rupert. The one time in a year that they may need their vehicles is when they're going out on their annual vacations or when, possibly, they're being transferred there in the Armed Forces — we have an Armed Forces base — and when they go there on that transfer they might want to take their vehicles with them. So those are the times when they want passenger and vehicle service. It's a minimum demand on the system. The larger, maximum demand is for the facility to carry freight at a reasonable rate along the coast, in the same way that the BCR supplies the central areas of this province.

The minister should know very well what I'm talking about; his community in Quesnel, in Cariboo, is serviced by exactly the same kind of service that I'm talking about, only by rail. Transfer your policy in terms of freight over from the BCR to your marine. Why have two separate policies? Are we second-class citizens along the coast?

Or is it because the Premier dug his heels in when that contract was signed with Ottawa, and said: "We're not in the freight subsidy business''? He said that in that meeting, even after the government had signed the contract with Canada to take up the responsibility for delivering freight. The province hasn't lived up to that agreement; they played fast and loose with those government dollars coming in; they made a stupid decision early on in their governmental career to up the rates so much on the southern runs that they had to use some of our northern subsidy dollars to take the political heat off them in the south. Fine, we all understand politics; we all understand how things work. But it seems to me that over and beyond the political arena this government has a responsibility to deliver the kind of service that's needed along the coast in marine transportation, and that main responsibility has to be freight.

If this government went about it in the correct way, adding stability for probably a five-year period in our shipyards in the southern part of the province — economic activity jobs created. stabilization of a shipbuilding industry that badly needs to be stabilized — and built the two ships to do the job along the coast, designed to meet the needs and the desires of coastal communities and the economic activity along the coast that has somewhat been thwarted by this stupid marine policy, or lack of marine policy, that this government insists must go ahead....

What's wrong? If this government can go into the BCR and do that kind of job in the interior, why can't this government do that kind of job along the coast? You don't have all passenger cars and one freight car on the BCR. In fact the ratio is the other way around, and the ratio should be the other way around on the northern and central coastal communities. You, as a government, Mr. Chairman, are going the wrong way. You're wasting money. You're wasting the time of your civil service. You're wasting the patience of people along the coast. We know what's needed.

I'm not asking you to do something that will make you look politically stupid. For you it's perfect, Mr. Chairman. For the government it's perfect. You can do the proper thing, and at the same time it will be a maximum benefit to the government politically. It's one of those crazy instances where the proper thing to do would be the political thing to do. So often they conflict, but in this case there's no conflict between the political and the proper thing to do. They are in perfect harmony. If the political, economic. social and proper thing is all in perspective and harmony, why is this government so stupid not to realize that? Is it stupidity or is it stubbornness'?

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that minister would like to do the right thing. I have no indication in front of me that he would like to do other than the correct thing. Taking into consideration that even though he is a cabinet minister and he does have some political leanings, I, for the life of me, can't understand why this decision has been made — the big decision for passenger instead of freight — when it's not needed, when the obvious choice is the obvious political choice. So, after having said that, they've made that wrong, fundamental decision that overrides the whole situation. Even going along with the decision they've made — the wrong one — they've handled it badly. It was the wrong decision to go to passenger priority instead of freight, but now they're going to put the Queen of Prince Rupert on a run that it's not suited for, that it's not wanted for, and that it won't work on. It's costly. Are we actually going to have a ferry with a 450-passenger capacity and an 80-vehicle capacity

[ Page 3150 ]

to serve an island of 6,000, with the money that's needed to build the facilities on each end? I mean, it's stupid.

I just don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that if this government changed its mind fundamentally and set its priority and its policy according to where it should be, they would suffer politically. Indeed, they would gain politically. The only thing they would suffer is the bent pride of the Premier, who is a stubborn man. Once he's made up his mind, it's very, very difficult to get the Premier to change it. He feels it's some point of pride. He feels it's a human trait that's admirable to be stubborn instead of to consider and maybe change your point of view as new facts come in. The Premier obviously figures that's a weakness in the human makeup. I think most people would agree that it's not. That's the Premier's personal problem to work out. It's just too bad that we, as the residents of this province, have to suffer with that kind of stubbornness and personality makeup of a man who is stubborn and won't deal with the problems in reality, but is afraid he is always going to lose face.

I'd be very surprised this morning if the minister, when he takes his place, could assure me that the cost of freight on the Queen Charlotte Islands won't increase once the Queen of Prince Rupert goes in. I believe it will.

I just had a note from one of my colleagues that says that now, after the renovations, the ship carries 800 passengers. Well, that's getting better. You can move the island off and back in one week if you have two runs.

It is nuts. It is a nutty decision, and for this government to continue to make this crazy policy, which doesn't meet the needs and is bad politically and in every other way, is quite honestly beyond me. It is like the Marguerite. In our caucus we sat down and said: "There must be a hidden motive behind all this. There must be politics at play here that in our ignorance we can't fathom, because the decisions they are making are stupid decisions. They are bad politically and bad because they're not the proper decisions. Why are they doing it? They've got a plot." But as time unfolds, there is no plot. There doesn't seem to be a political plot or any other. It just seems to be a stumbling, bad decision-making process that the government is going through. If the minister can stand up here and justify to me the decision to put the Queen of Prince Rupert on that run, boy, I would be glad to hear it.

There is another thing. Yesterday the minister was relating to us the passenger load on the Queen of the North. You know something? You are leaving people behind. There is no doubt that the time has come for two north-south vessels, the Queen of Prince Rupert and the one the government just put on — no bitch about your putting that one on; we need it. But we also need the Queen of Prince Rupert on the north-south run, possibly one plying to Port Hardy and the other one maybe coming down as far as Tsawwassen, at certain points of the year at least. I am surprised to see all the money this government spends trying to get people to go on that northern run, and then they take the ship off to deal with the kind of business they're getting through their advertising, That doesn't seem to make sense either. I said, "Well, God, maybe there's another political plot here that I don't understand," but as time unfolds you just can't understand why these decisions are made.

The Queen of Prince Rupert is the wrong vessel for the Queen Charlotte Islands. We need two freighters, with limited passenger and vehicle service, mainly freight for the coast, to give the kind of service that Northland did, only an upgraded service with vessels to meet today's needs and docking facilities to match. We need to take a look at the Queen Charlotte Islands, probably through the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat or maybe some other agencies. We don't have parks there to take the influx that will come with the Queen of Prince Rupert. We don't have the hotel and restaurant facilities. We don't have any of the facilities that are needed for a sudden influx of tourism. There has been no study done that I can find. I've written to the Minister of Environment a number of times. He is so vague you may as well not do it. I realize he is a new minister. There just hasn't been a job done to see what the impact is going to be on the Queen Charlotte Islands of putting this kind of vessel in there.

It is a mess. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) described the marine policy of this government as stupid, a mess and a bungle, and it is. It's not unusual. It is a group of human individuals who make those kinds of mistakes for one reason or another in their decision policy. There is no crime, politically or any other way, in making a mistake. The social crime comes in later, when the government, which I believe fully understands the mistakes it has made, will not turn its ability to rectifying those problems. From the Princess Marguerite to the Queen of Prince Rupert to the fundamental bad policy of marine transportation in this province, the government is wrong. Everyone in this chamber knows that the government is wrong. Every resident of the coast knows it is wrong. I suspect, in marine transportation matters, everyone in this province believes that this government has bungled it.

Mr. Minister, you and your government have a chance to put it right. Politically you'll come out of it very, very well. You will have done the proper thing, and this province will be served. I ask you to consider taking a look at the fundamental marine policy of this province. It is a mess.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the remarks of the member for Prince Rupert. I sincerely believe that he has a real concern because it affects his riding.

Before I attempt to reply I would like to make a brief announcement, with the permission of the House, one I think we're all concerned with: that the Highways ministry got the Bear River bridge completed last night at 12 o'clock, and traffic started moving out of that community. On behalf of us all, I want to pay credit to the bridge crews of the Highways ministry from the northwest part of the province. They were all used.

For the information of the House, they worked for 40 hours with four hours' sleep to accomplish what they did. They spanned the Bear River, a distance of 300 feet. They worked night and day. I congratulate them all on behalf of us all. In closing I say that the Bailey bridges will handle the highest and heaviest traffic for an indefinite period of time. It is planned that that will be approximately 12 months. We'll be calling a tender for the permanent replacement shortly, we hope, and it will take, I would say, a minimum of 12 months to get that bridge built. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman and members of the House, that the new bridge will be fireproof.

Getting back to discussing marine transportation, I'd like first of all to go back a short way as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) did, regarding the history of marine transportation on the coast as I see it. As I understand it, a very able private-sector firm, Northland Navigation, served that area for years. They were subsidized, I think, latterly, to the

[ Page 3151 ]

amount of about $4 million a year by the government of Canada. They wanted to have that increased because of economics, and the government of Canada.... I'm never clear what their answer was, but they certainly wouldn't increase it, or gave no answer, or even withdrew what they had been putting in. A former Minister of Transport did that, by the name of Otto Lang. He is no longer on the political scene, maybe because of some actions like this. But referring to those days, I doubt that Ottawa knew where the Pacific coast was, let alone its problems, and that's how they reacted.

In any case, Northland Navigation disappeared. Along came our government in December 1975, and this problem was there. I'd like to make the observation, Mr. Chairman, that I think some members of the government that preceded our government must have known about this imminent problem. I haven't been able to find out anywhere where they did anything about it. If they didn't know, they should have known that we had a disaster coming up regarding marine service on the coast because of the Northland Navigation problem with the government of Canada.

I might be a little wrong here, but not far out. This government decided with this coming on that they would assume responsibility for marine transportation — freight and passenger — on the Pacific coast, if the government of Canada were to help. I want to emphasize that our government was the first one that approached Ottawa on this basis. On April 18, 1977, the agreement with the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia was concluded. I'd like to pay my respects and admiration to the minister at that time, Jack Davis, the present member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who did all the hard work — he and the Premier of our province — and got the agreement signed which provided, among other things, for an $8 million subsidy to supply passenger and freight marine service to the Pacific coast.

What took place after that? This is my version again, Mr. Chairman. Immediately before this — I don't think this was mentioned — the government of British Columbia had been running the Queen of Prince Rupert from Kelsey Bay to Prince Rupert since, I believe, 1968. This service had been put in by a previous government and was becoming very popular. So they already had some service on the Pacific coast. Following the legal agreement signed with the government of Canada, the next thing to do was expand it. Since April 1977.... I would like to emphasize this, Mr. Chairman; I said this in my opening remarks. One part of the legal agreement — and I want to have it on the record for the benefit of the House — reads as follows: "...it being further agreed that future provision of subsidies shall be entirely within the discretion of the province." In other words, the province has the discretion, and along with that the responsibility, to upgrade the marine services.

Since then service has been put in at Bella Bella, and required port facilities. I might say I don't know whether the government of Canada helped or not. This is always our problem.

We have also extended subsidies to the private-sector operators in different areas of the Pacific coast. I'll have difficulty with some of these names. Kyuoquot Freight Service is subsidized by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Ahousat Freight Service in the Tofino area is subsidized. The Nootka Sound freight service is subsidized; it operates in Gold River and other areas of Nootka Sound, I mentioned that improvements were made at Bella Bella. Ocean Falls was involved in the upgrading. Also, as you know, a new dock has been built at Port Hardy for a terminal.

Now we get into the area that the member for Prince Rupert is interested in — and rightly so because it is his riding. Again, service through subsidy to the private sector has been extended since this agreement to private operators in Prince Rupert — Port Simpson and Prince Rupert — and Kincolith. They are operating a passenger and light-freight service in those particular instances. I think we should get to the nub of the concerns of the member — and, I would think, all of us — getting service to the Queen Charlotte Islands. With the withdrawal of Northland Navigation, they weren't left without water transportation. but it was certainly depleted. Tug and barge services go in there from the private sector, but they were without a scheduled marine service. Of course, the only way out of that community for people was by aircraft. I might say that I recently took a look at the air fares being charged. They are advancing at a phenomenal rate. Even I was surprised, and I don't surprise very easily. It is quite a fare the citizens of the Queen Charlottes Islands now have to pay to go from Sandspit to Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Port Hardy or wherever. It is a costly item.

Speaking on behalf of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the government of British Columbia, I might say that decisions to serve the Queen Charlotte Islands were put off for a long period of time, but the policy decision was made to take service in there after many, many requests from the citizens of the Queen Charlotte Islands. As the member for Prince Rupert pointed out. they are 6,000 — British Columbia citizens being denied basic transportation. That's really what we are saving. So the decision was made by the Ferry Corporation to take ferry service in there.

Regarding that, impact studies were done by the Acres Consulting Services firm. They were done by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. They were done from a marine standpoint, certainly, and social impact as well, I understand. But the emphasis really was on marine impact. When the policy decision was made, with this information.... I would like to give credit to Mr. Gallagher, who is here on the floor this morning. As the general manager of B.C. Ferries, he conducted public meetings on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I don't know whether that was in 1978 or 1979. He kept in close touch at all times with the local elected people, the community of Masset — an organized municipality — and other organized municipalities, as well as the regional district for that area.

There was no question in our minds that the majority of the citizens on the Queen Charlotte Islands wanted an upgrading of their system, but a great argument went up as to where this service should be. I might say, on behalf of all of us who worked on it, that there is no question in my mind that the citizens of the Queen Charlotte Islands wanted us to come into Masset. To relate this to the distribution of population, the village of Masset and the surrounding area has about half the population of the Queen Charlotte islands.

Naval engineers had told us, because we were planning on the Queen of Prince Rupert at that time being the boat going in there, that we couldn't rely on the Masset Harbour. We certainly could rely on the Skidegate Harbour, so the decision was made to go into Skidegate and distribute from there. The contract is underway now to the low bidder to develop the dock at a cost of $4.7 million. As said earlier in the debate, we will have the service in there, hopefully, by October 1980.

[ Page 3152 ]

The service we will have — and this is where I think there's disagreement — is a passenger and freight service with the now Victoria Princess, which will probably again be called the Queen of Prince Rupert when it goes back there.

Again, I think we're dealing with policy. The B.C. Ferry Corporation have a policy of roll-on, roll-off freight service. In other words, your freight has to be on wheels and that, of course, is what will happen with the Queen of Prince Rupert. It will be roll-on, roll-off freight service as well as passenger service.

I don't think that the citizens in any area of our province are exempt from the high cost of freight charges. They are really high, and this is caused by inflation and the cost of equipment and fuel. There doesn't seem to be anything in sight to show it's going to stabilize. That's the concern I have.

In other words, I can relate to the Legislature that a diesel freight truck with a van on it today costs approximately $100,000 to purchase new. Three years ago the same unit was $60,000. Tires for that machine used to be $120; they're now $300. Parts for that machine for maintenance have doubled in the last three years, and I don't have to relate to the Legislature what's happened in wage costs for drivers and warehouse people. I guess the biggest one of all is the ever-escalating cost of fuel.

The point I'm trying to make is that while l realize that people from the Queen Charlotte Islands have high transportation costs, so has everybody else if they don't live at the base where the goods are coming from. In our province, I guess, it's Vancouver that would be the greatest base for distribution. As you get away from that area, up goes your cost of living. I'm aware that it has a big impact on the cost of living, but the facts of life are there whether you live in Prince George, Dawson Creek or Masset on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

As a matter of fact, Bella Coola, in the member for Mackenzie's (Mr. Lockstead's) riding, has the same type of problems. I believe they're now charging 7 cents or 8 cents a pound for freight from Vancouver to Bella Coola by freight truck. If you go the water side, it's roughly the same thing. You can get one operating at 10 cents a pound and another at 6 cents. Their costs seem to be there. Of course, these costs are naturally passed on to the consumer.

I would like to dwell on the Queen of Prince Rupert for a minute. The reason that the Queen of Prince Rupert is going on the service is that it's an open, substantial water vessel, and we have to have a substantial vessel on that run. We have to cross the Hecate Strait from Prince Rupert to get to the Queen Charlotte Islands. Talking to marine people, I guess it's one of the most difficult pieces of water on'the Pacific coast, and you cannot cross there with a bathtub. Maybe Frank Ney might think that he can use one of his Nanaimo bathtubs, but you cannot do that. You have to have a substantial vessel. This has the combination of both, and of course, I have been told that even for odd stormy weather the Queen of Prince Rupert will have some difficulty. I think these things should be said. We can't get along with a small vessel.

You know, there is irony in this debate, where there is no question about. It that we will have over-capacity on the Queen of Prince Rupert passenger-wise and maybe freight-wise. When the member for Mackenzie talks, he talks in the opposite direction — not enough capacity. It is an ongoing problem that you try to settle on a rational and economic basis, and it is very difficult.

I would just say to the member for Prince Rupert, regarding the Queen Charlotte Islands, that while their costs are more than they are down in the lower mainland, I think they have terrific assets on the other side that they don't tell us about. I think it's a great area to live in, and they offset those other things. They have not got costs as, for example, an urban citizen has in transportation who has, in my opinion, a high cost when dealing with traffic jams going back and forth to work. They don't have that in the Queen Charlotte Islands. They have a lovely climate and lovely beaches on their asset side. In this world of ours the individual citizens make these choices, and I don't think any government wants to interfere with that. The facts are there. There are 6,000 people there. They are entitled to an upgrading of transportation services, and we're going to get that to them in the best way we see. That is how the decisions were made.

I might add that our government believes also the private sector can help with transportation, but they've been lacking. In fact, they've pulled out of a lot of these areas; Northern Navigation is a good example. That is where we feel, then, that the public sector has to get in. We would like to actually see both. The tug and barge service is an example. We don't want to run them out of business, and I hope this doesn't happen.

To the member for Prince Rupert, the decision has not been made to suspend the tug and barge service to the Queen Charlotte Islands. On that, RivTow towing has a contract with the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and the net cost of that after the freight fares are collected is, I am advised, about $600,000 a year. The decisions, I want to make it abundantly clear, have not been made. This decision has been made that we're not going to interfere with the tug and barge service at least until the spring of the year, if we do anything about it then. It will stay in place. We have an agreement with RivTow, and we intend to honour it. I am not sure when it expires, but there is a debate going on now in the board of directors of the Ferry Corporation, but at this moment I'd say it will probably extend at least until spring. There is no intention of suspending the tug and barge service as well as running the Queen of Prince Rupert.

I would like to expand, a little further the member's concern of a large vessel going in there. I don't deny that for one minute. I hope I've convinced the committee that we have to have a substantial vessel to get across the Hecate Strait in safety. That was the other thing that I haven't told the committee — that we are now, for the first time, the proud owners of docking facilities at the city of Prince Rupert. We have worked with other people, and it hasn't worked out very well. Our ship, previously the Queen of Prince Rupert and now the Queen of the North, can arrive at Prince Rupert and have to stay in the harbour waiting its turn to unload. The board of directors have bought property in the city of Prince Rupert and we are going to develop that for our own terminal as soon as possible. We have purchased the property from the CNR, and we intend to develop our own port. I don't want to put a time frame on it, but I hope we'll have that in place at the very latest by this time next year.

The reason I gave that background is that it is correct that we have the Queen of Prince Rupert headquartered at Rupert to service the Charlottes and we are looking at an expansion of that service using Prince Rupert as a base. I would like to philosophize. We have to get agreement for subsidization when we expand and that approval has to come from cabinet,

[ Page 3153 ]

but we are looking at expansion of, say, a boat like the Rupert, based at Prince Rupert and maybe tied in to a run up to Kitimat. I think when you talk about over-capacity and you're looking into the future, if that decision is made, that would be more use of this vessel.

We have another community on the coast that would love to see boat service: I refer to the community of Stewart. I'm not saying that in either case we will get in there in a hurry, because we're only looking at those things now. Again we have the same problem we always have with docks; we have to build our own roll-on, roll-off dock at Kitimat, as an example, to get in there, and I've got to assume it will cost $4.7 million, as we're currently building one, and that's what it costs.

With the fire recently at Eurocan, I sent a senior engineer to Kitimat the next day to deal with Eurocan, to go in on a shared basis with them on the replacing of that dock, and they said: "No, thanks. We've got to get back into business; we're losing $50,000 a day. We would like to help the government, but we really don't want your ferry traffic through our backup facilities." So that's where that's at. We're now looking for our own, and maybe if we're successful we can expand that. Dealing with the facilities for the Queen of Prince Rupert, we see that happening. I'd say one thing I didn't say, some information I just got — again, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Prince Rupert: you made the observation that the cost of freight to the citizens of Queen Charlotte Islands would go up, and the senior staff have advised me you're correct; according to their calculation it will go up one-third of a cent a pound using the roll-on, roll-off facilities. I think I've covered a lot; no doubt I've missed some. The other observation I think the committee should know, Mr. Chairman, is regarding the crewing of any of our vessels, and specifically the Queen of Prince Rupert. Whether or not we like it, they're dictated to the B.C. Ferry Corporation by federal regulations, as you pointed out: that's correct. A crew of about 60, I think, is required on the Rupert, and if we wanted to economize and go to 30, we couldn't get a ticket to run the vessel. There's probably nothing wrong with that. We are dictated to and do observe all the federal marine regulations.

I guess I could make another comment in closing. Mr. Chairman, I can't understand the member's opinion regarding passenger service. He has really said that the citizens are happy with only air service to get out of there. We're saying that they'll have an alternative way by water. If we went with the member's suggestion that we stay with air transportation only, the only alternative the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands would have to get out is by swimming the Hecate Strait, and that's a long way — I understand it's 90 nautical miles. Citizens whom I know in the Queen Charlottes are very concerned about the air fare; they can't afford it. We're not going to have a fare on the Queen of Prince Rupert that will try and to compete with the air fare. In other words, we'll have an economic fare. I don't think it's been settled yet, but I'm almost sure, knowing the fares on the rest of the system, that it won't come close to the air fare. So that's the advantage I see of giving them an alternative type of transportation.

I think I've covered pretty well everything the member Mr. Prince Rupert brought up, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: After listening to the minister, I'm convinced that it's true: he doesn't understand. The political makeup of the province breaks down so that the Social Credit holds interior seats and we on this side, for the most part, hold the coastal seats. It would really pay, I think, for the government to listen to what we have to say instead of thinking they know better on this one,

The minister said the member for Prince Rupert would like them to swim to get out or would like them to pay high air fares. It's not like Prince George; it's not like Quesnel. If you want to get to Quesnel from Prince George, you have a number of ways that you can do it. We don't have those options.

HON. MR. FRASER: You can't take a ferry.

MR. LEA: Well. you could. You don't understand the options that the people on the Queen Charlottes or along the coast have, and that's the basic problem.

There's something I forgot to mention — to have the freighter service with limited passenger service, with limited vehicle service, supply those needs that you were wondering about. When people go out, normally they don't want to take their vehicle. I mean, where are they going to go? You can get on the plane at Sandspit and go to the Queen Charlottes return for approximately $200. What you have to remember is that the Queen Charlotte Islands, for the most part, use Vancouver as their supply and service base, not Prince Rupert. They don't want to go to Prince Rupert; that's not where they're going. So what the minister and the government are going to allow these people to do is take their car onto the ferry at Skidegate, go to Prince Rupert and drive a thousand miles to Vancouver. or put their car on the ferry in Skidegate, go to Prince Rupert and catch the plane down to Vancouver, which costs the same amount as it does from Sandspit. It doesn't make sense.

You don't understand what the problems are. That's why your solutions are in error. People don't want to take their vehicles off the islands unless they are going on vacation, or they are being transferred in or out, or they are moving in or out on a permanent basis because they've found a job somewhere. They don't want the ferry for that reason. When they say ferry, they're really expressing themselves incorrectly in a way. They want a freighter service with limited ferry service. That's what they need, and that's what they want. If the minister understands what I just said, he'll realize the folly of what the government's doing. I mean, what in God's name would they want to use the ferry for if they are going to Vancouver? There would be no sense in it. It just wouldn't make sense.

You say that the freight will go up a third of a cent per pound. That's not really true. Maybe the new rate of the Queen of Prince Rupert will be that much more. But you say that you have no immediate plans to withdraw the freight subsidy from RivTow; I understand that. But when you do, the Queen of Prince Rupert won't handle the freight going onto the Queen Charlottes, with the best of intentions. So the RivTow service will still be in place without the subsidy. The freight is going to go up drastically for the Queen Charlotte Islands because the Queen Charlotte Islands residents are now going to have to pick up that $600,000 in their freight bill that you are talking about paying RivTow. That's going to go. The Queen of Prince Rupert will not be a substitute for that RivTow service. Freight is going to go up horrendously when you put that service in and stop your subsidy to RivTow. There's no doubt about it. You're going to put the cost of living on the Queen Charlottes up by probably about 50

[ Page 3154 ]

percent. That's what you're going to achieve with this well-intentioned move. It does not make sense.

Now the other thing is that when you talk about this kind of ferry service and these little offshoots and using the Prince Rupert as a transportation mode, again, you're doing it wel-intentioned, I believe, but misinformed. One of the beauties of having the system that we had, and the one that I'm saying we should have — the freighter service with limited passenger and vehicle service — is that you can take a basketball team from Hartley Bay to Klemtu; you can take a businessman from Klemtu to Skidegate. In other words, you tie those communities together socially and economically, a desirable goal. So this plan is going to — I prophesy — put the cost of living on the Queen Charlotte Islands up 50 percent, and they'll have a ferry that they can take to Prince Rupert if they want to get the plane from Prince Rupert to Vancouver instead of from Sandspit. It doesn't make any sense, but maybe somebody will want to do that.

The impact study from Acres — I've asked the government for that. All I've gotten is a runaround. I'd like the minister to tell me whether he will obtain a copy of that Acres study for me. I've gotten the runaround from other ministers, not yourself. I'd like to get that study.

By the way, the regional district is now on record by a resolution as being opposed to the Queen of Prince Rupert. I'll read it to you.

"A resolution passed by the Graham Island Advisory Planning Commission and supported by the regional district at their meeting of May 24, 1980. The commission strongly recommends the development of basic utilities and services, as well as the facilities and necessary infrastructure for a viable quality tourist industry paralleled, if not preceding, the development of the ferry landing and service.

Also they recommend:

"...that the regional district encourage the Parks department to develop the island parks before the ferry service begins."

If you're putting that in in October, there's no way it can happen. The Acres report and everything goes down the tube. It doesn't matter whether you've got the report done or not, because there's no time. I think I've pointed out again the folly of the decision. Try to put yourself in the place of someone living in Masset. Where do they want to go if they want to get off the island? They're usually going — unless it's for their annual vacation — to see a doctor. Why would they want to take their car down to Vancouver to see a doctor? Why would they take the ferry from Queen Charlotte Island to Prince Rupert and then drive a thousand miles, when they can fly from Sandspit for a couple of hundred bucks? It doesn't make sense.

There isn't anything about this Queen of Prince Rupert plan of going to the Queen Charlottes that makes good common sense. It was a decision that was made, I believe, in political panic to get the political dogs away from the door of all those communities along the coast upset by the lack of service.

I'd like to have the Acres report, Mr. Minister. I'd like — although I guess it wouldn't be worth a pinch — the government's word that putting in the Queen of Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlottes won't put the freight rates up by about 50 percent. It will. There's just no doubt about it. Do you think RivTow is going to pick up the subsidy? Do you think the private enterprise corporation going in there is going to say, out of the generosity of their pocket-book: "Oh, that $600,000 that the provincial government was picking up and they're no longer picking up, we'll pick it up ourselves. We like supplying the Queen Charlotte Islands. We get a feeling of pride out of it. Profit be damned"? It's not going to happen. You can't convince me that once the provincial government puts the Queen of Prince Rupert into the Queen Charlotte Islands, they won't say to themselves and to others: "We've met our obligations under the contract with Ottawa, and we're now going to cancel our subsidy for freight to RivTow.

The Queen of Prince Rupert won't handle that freight even if it wanted to. So the one-third of a cent per pound is absolute hogwash, Mr. Minister, because it isn't the problem. I don't know whether I can't articulate it or what, but I cannot seem to get through to this government, nor can friends of mine who are mayors of those communities and the aldermen and people on the regional district. We don't feel angry any more, but we're damned frustrated that we can't seem to get through to the government on the thing that's needed and wanted. You demand that you spend a lot of money to give us something that isn't needed or wanted. We're thankful that you're taking the effort to give us something, but for God's sake, spend the taxpayers' money in the method that it should be spent in. Give us the service that's needed. It won't cost you any more. You'll make more political points. The community will be served. Boatyards and the shipbuilding industry in the southern part of the province in Vancouver and Victoria will be served. It will create a stabilization and jobs. It's the kind of service that we need on the coast. I do believe that it's the landlubber mentality on this one that's driving us to absolute distraction. How can we get through to you? It's not what's needed; it's not what's wanted. You're blowing the money. You're making stupid decisions based, I'm sure, on good intentions. It just isn't needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do anything. He might sit down.

MR. LEA: It's okay for you to talk, Mr. Member for Penticton. You've got rail service, freight service and air service. You've got all of the kinds of services. People from the north know what I'm talking about. Jack, you know what I'm talking about. Stand up and make your voice heard. You backbenchers quit sitting there like a bunch of burnps on a log and get up and try and convince this government that they're going the wrong way. It's your job too. It's not only the government backbenchers' job to protect the government; they're damned well here to serve the community as well, and they're not doing it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I must tell you that we have one of our members who is frantically running down the halls to get here because he has to catch an aircraft for New York and wishes to speak for five or ten minutes. The minister has very graciously agreed to reply to the member for Prince Rupert's questions after our member has had the opportunity to make a statement. Where are you, Lorne? Get in here. I must remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that yesterday the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) intimated that the debate was getting kind of dull.

I fully intend to liven things up a little bit this afternoon, but I'm going to wait until the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has had the opportunity to pose his

[ Page 3155 ]

questions to the minister. Then, Mr. Minister, we will liven up the debate. He is a slow runner, Mr. Chairman; I hear he was running down the halls. There are three or four people tracking him down now.

In any event, I might pose a couple of questions to the minister while I have the opportunity. I wish to explain to the House that as much as I enjoyed my visit to Williams Lake last weekend, and met with the minister and various people, I did contract a most terrible cold, so I hope the House and the minister will bear with me. I don't blame the minister for giving me this cold. I know that that government over there does make people sick occasionally, but I am not going to blame this particular cold on the government.

HON. MR. FRASER: It was that screech you drank.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It wasn't the first two shots; it was the second three shots that got to me.

I have a question or two on very routine items that I did promise to people throughout the province I would raise on their behalf. You may wish to make a note of this, Mr. Minister. We still seem to be on water transportation and things, but I am going to switch the topic very briefly here. I did promise a group of people in the community of Penny....

A brief interjection here, Mr. Chairman. I find that the member for Nelson-Creston has run out of time and must leave immediately for his aircraft, so we didn't quite make it. I do express his regrets on his behalf, and another member in the House will be raising the constituency matters that I know he wishes to pose to the minister on behalf of his constituents.

I started on Penny so I guess I'll just ask this one question, and then we'll get into the exciting part. Having explained that, I hope that the member for Nelson-Creston will represent British Columbia and this caucus in the very fine manner that he always does. I was going to continue on with this question of the small community of Penny, as the minister is very much aware that this has been an ongoing problem for some years.

I must say that I did receive a reasonably good response from senior people within the ministry about this community that was cut off — people falling through ice bridges and things. The ministry came up with a program that did not appear to be acceptable. There is a Mr. Stewart who seems to be the fellow who does most of the writing on behalf of the residents of that community. I should tell you right off the bat, Mr. Minister, that they do not accept in that community your earlier written reply to them, where you state.... It may not be your personal reply; it may have come from someone in your ministry. But the fact is that the correspondence states that half or more of the people in that community don't want a road into that community, As a result of that statement, I did take the trouble to make personal inquiries and a great deal of investigation into that particular allegation. Quite frankly, it is not correct. They are not asking for a paved highway. They were originally asking for a bridge at some point across the river to connect with the highway, but the fact is that that plan did not appear to be too feasible and a Bailey bridge in that area probably would not have been successful. The ministry has come up with a proposal to eventually construct a highway to and through that small community of lumbering and agricultural people. Having raised the issue in the House...perhaps the minister could reply briefly when he gets the opportunity.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Minimum. That's if some of you people get up. We could be here another three weeks if you guys get up to speak. You'd better or, by gosh, you're not going to get re-elected.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Threaten, threaten.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I wouldn't do that. I am just giving you fair warning, Mr. House Leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As much as the committee enjoys the traditional Friday morning levity, I think at this point we should get back to the vote.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On this question of the community of Penny, I would appreciate it if the minister could indicate to this House when they expect that project to be completed and perhaps give a rough estimate of the cost of the transportation plight of the people of that community.

What I really wish to discuss this morning, Mr. Chairman, is a much more serious matter: that is to deal, primarily, with the total spending of the Ministry of Highways. We seem to have finally got away from water transportation, at least for the time being, and we're going to direct our attention to the Highways portion of that minister's portfolio.

I think I'd like to open my remarks by saying that that ministry has had a consistent record of overspending through the years. I have a lengthy record of that overspending before me at the present time. I won’t go back to 1976, but I intend to start off with this year's overspending of the Ministry's estimates in terms of highway capital projects, day labour projects and a number of other items. In fact, I happen to have copies of the special warrants — orders-in-council — with me, and there's no point in giving these to the minister, because the minister is very familiar with them. In fact, they were signed by the minister, so I'm sure he must know all about them.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the figures I'm utilizing here are the figures of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and are not facts that I made up on my own. During the 1979-80 fiscal year, which by the way happened to be an election year, a total of $95 million of Highways special warrants were issued for capital construction programs. In fact, when you add that to other special warrants, the total overspending for that ministry is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $119 million, just on that one item alone. I'm talking about over the budget passed in the House last year. Furthermore, there was a further $5,086,000 highway maintenance overrun last year, which was an election year. For the same period the year before there was $2.5 million on the same program.

So what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is quite a clear indication that the Ministry of Highways not only is blacktopping where and when needed, but is certainly using that ministry for sheer political purposes, as I indicated in the House in my speech last Wednesday. It is a very political ministry.

It just so happens that I have in my possession the costs of

[ Page 3156 ]

the day labour projects for that particular ministry. I was astounded to learn, as I was going through the various annual reports dating back through the years and studiously working until morning — this morning I was reading these manuals, books and reports by candle-light — that, first of all, you must understand that day labour projects are not necessarily let out to tender but are almost solely under the discretion of the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

I'm not charging politics. Far be it from me to charge politics in this august assembly. However, what we have when you compare the figures.... I won't go through them, because it is long and boring and there are many pages of it here. The total breakdown or analysis of what has happened, I find, is that if you happen to be an MLA from a Socred riding you get piles of money for capital projects and day labour. I might just cite a few examples for the record. If you happen to be from an opposition riding, well, you're lucky if you get anything; the relative figures are extremely low. I'll give a couple of examples right now for the edification of the House, Mr. Chairman. Let's use my own riding as an example for starters. That way I can kill two birds with one stone — get in some constituency stuff and knock the minister at the same time.

The total spending on day labour projects in my particular riding amounted to about $170,000 — from the minister's own figures; I have them right here.

HON. MR. FRASER: Too much.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That remark could cost you another 10,000-name petition, you know. You better cool it.

Let's compare that with day labour projects in the minister's own riding. You might as well say it is $16 million, as compared with $170,000 in my own riding. Can you believe that, Mr. Chairman? I know you can't. Almost $16 million on day labour projects in the minister's own riding, as compared to the paltry $170,000 in my riding. But that isn't the worst. I got off great for an opposition riding. I have a figure here for one of the ridings. Can you believe this? The poor little riding of Burnaby-Willingdon — a paltry $137,000. I cannot believe it. But that isn't the worst.

That minister, as a good MLA, is probably fighting for the best transportation system he can get in his riding; and that's what he should be doing. However, he does have a little bit of an advantage; he controls the purse-strings. We'll pick out a riding at random. Let's pick the riding of Mackenzie. There's a random riding for you. The grand total of Highways expenditure — it's a very difficult terrain with winding snake-trails up, down and through the riding; side roads are in disrepair; pot-holes are coming out of our ears — is about $7,500,000. That's approximate; I can't find the figure offhand.

HON. MR. FRASER: What riding is that?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mackenzie. I just picked a riding at random.

HON. MR. FRASER: Draw me a map.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We may get into that.

Last year when I raised this topic in the House, I pointed out that overall Highways capital expenditures in the minister's riding far exceeded that in any other riding. I thought that after that little tirade, drawing public attention to this matter, the minister would reconsider, be a little bit more fair, reduce the Highways expenditures in his riding, and perhaps distribute it around the province a little more evenly. But what do we find? We find, in fact, that the minister has increased in excess of $40 million in one fiscal year the total expenditures on highways in his own riding.

I don't want to listen again to this old reasoning that his riding is 18 times as big as any other riding in the world, or something like that. We have heard all that before. That is not a good enough reason. I say that fair play is called for here. I am not talking about my riding versus the minister's. I am talking about every riding in the province. It's the same story. You can go through page after page of the ministry's own figures. The ridings are all clearly indicated. When you come to an NDP riding.... By the way, I should say that I appreciate the fact that, in terms of Highways expenditures, the ministry does list these expenditures in terms of constituencies rather than regions. It makes it much easier for us to debate these estimates.

I know that the minister is going to give the same explanation for what I consider to be a serious, unfair situation as he did last year and on a television program a few months ago. I personally resent the fact that because an MLA happens to be a member of the executive council he will take advantage of that position to overly favour one area over another.

Look at poor little Vancouver East. I see the Leader of the Opposition has just walked in. I went over these figures last night; it's a paltry sum being spent there, and I don't know why. We've got the Leader of the Opposition and a very excellent member in the former Attorney-General representing that riding, and they've done an excellent job in this House over the years. I think they should be entitled to the same consideration as the people in Williams Lake. I don't want to deny the people in Williams Lake and Quesnel and 100 Mile, who are fine people with hard-working councils and very active chambers of commerce — and 80 percent Socred, but I know that wouldn't have anything to do with the minister's figuring out and going over his estimates; I know that wouldn't have any bearing on the case. I think the minister is a fair minister.

The day labour projects bothered me not because of the unequal distribution of funding. I don't suspect this minister of doing anything underhanded; although, quite frankly, he did better than I in the bull-throwing contest, and he was underhanded then; but I could throw it further than he, so we were even in that category. Mr. Minister, by preparing your estimates and your expenditures in this manner, day labour projects, which are almost totally under the your jurisdiction, are questionable. People do question them, and wrongfully so, I think. I think you leave yourself open to charges of patronage — probably not true, as far as I know; totally incorrect — by handling the situation in that way. Next year — if you're still the government, that is — when we come in to debate this very same topic as we do every year, I wish to be able to stand up and say: "The minister has taken some sound advice from a very responsible opposition. He has decided to change his ways, and there is going to be equal distribution of funds throughout the province for these projects."

I have a very detailed breakdown.... Oh, the member to my immediate right has said he's having a breakdown as well. Just bear up! I'm sure he'll be able to survive the next

[ Page 3157 ]

hour or so. I have an itemized breakdown of the funding and the overexpenditures, not only riding by riding but ministry by ministry, department by department, and I would hope that the minister will heed my advice and all these figures. I'd make them available to the minister, except that I got them from his ministry in the first place, so he does have all this information.

While I have the floor, there are a couple of other items. We did discuss, Mr. Chairman, the problem at Penny. I want to raise a couple of other items which don't relate to my riding. I will be getting into the problems of my own riding in a short while, I hope.

First of all, there was the question of the aerial tram at Boston Bar; the minister is very familiar with this. Right at the outset, I keep complimenting the minister from time to time on action. There was no action on that thing. That aerial tram has broken down. People were stranded; potential heart-attack victims were in a sad state; children couldn't get to school; occasionally the thing would break down over the middle of the river and you'd be dangling over it. For one or two hours at a time we'd have 16 or 18 children dangling over the middle of the Fraser River while they were waiting to repair this aerial tram. When this matter was brought to my attention, I talked to the minister personally as well as to people in the ministry about this matter, and I received an explanation in this House as to why these things were happening. But the fact is that the problem still exists. When the minister gets up to reply, I wonder if he could tell us now that that situation has finally been resolved, that once and for all the necessary repairs have been made on a permanent basis — not the band-aid type of thing, that the thing would run for a day and break down for two days and they would have to rush technicians in. I promised the people at Boston Bar I would raise this issue in the House, and I look forward to the minister's reply. It's not an earth-shaking matter, and it won't bring the government down; none of those things will happen, but it's an important matter to the people living in that community, and particularly if you happen to be under medical care. Perhaps the minister could discuss that matter for a moment as well.

What else do we have here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no, don't resign until I finish my speech. Then you can resign. It took me 15 or 20 minutes to prepare this material. I don't want to waste it.

Onward and upward here. The minister, I think, may be aware of this because there is a Mr. Riste of North Vancouver who has written letters all over the world, to every MLA, I think to every senior person in the ministry and to the minister himself. I am going to just discuss this particular topic for a couple of minutes because I promised these very fine people that I would.

I think I'll just read this very short résumé because the brief that was forwarded to all of us in this Legislature, pretty well, and to your ministry and to yourself, was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75 pages long. I've attempted to reduce the problem down to one single page so it wouldn't take up too much time in this House.

"Marjorie and George Riste are in their late 50s and own an apartment at 2429 Lonsdale Avenue. Their mortgage on the building is almost paid off, and they see their building as a source of income and security which they will eventually pass on to their children. The problem with the Department of Highways began about ten years ago when the ministry told their tenants that the apartment building would be demolished to make way for an interchange at Lonsdale Avenue and Upper Levels Highway. Since then they have lost hundreds of dollars in rent and have had their windows broken by a company that was hired by the government to demolish a neighbouring building. They have never been reimbursed for that damage. To date the government has not built any interchange at this location. According to a January 3, 1980, letter from the minister, the ministry hopes to commission a new design, which may or may not affect the property."

There are two questions right there — compensation and the new design — that this family would like answered, Mr. Minister.

"The Ristes also raise a more general question about government priorities. They wonder why the government persists in huge highway expenditures instead of investing in light rapid transit and improved bus service."

Well, we have been through that in this House, and we will be going through it again, but this is the question they pose.

"In view of all the discussion about energy shortages and rising gasoline prices, they feel that the government should not be pouring more money into projects that serve car users at the expense of public transit users. While the Ristes have received an answer from the Highways minister, they are not satisfied. They, are afraid the government will try to force them" — question no. 3 — "to sell their apartment building in spite of their determination to hold onto it. It is unclear just what the Ristes expect us in opposition to do for them."

Well, what I am doing for them, I am doing right now: looking for answers. I think they would like to see me press for a decision on this intersection with the minister and perhaps even raise the issue in the House — which I am in the process of doing now. "The Ristes still expect a reply to their last letter in which they included their telephone number," etc.

This is dated March 20, 1980. I am presuming that by now the ministry has replied to their most recent correspondence. They say they have contacted the MLA for their area, and while they personally are not criticizing their MLA, they tell me here that their MLA was unable to do anything for them.

This general problem of government priorities should be pursued during the Department of Highways estimates as well. The government's indecision on this intersection has gone on long enough.

MR. GABELMANN: In order to give the opportunity to the member for Mackenzie to continue with his comments, I will act as the intervening speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't have too much to go on this particular matter at this time. We've got weeks ahead of us, but at this particular point....

To continue the résumé of the Riste correspondence, the column points out that when the NDP were in power, some traffic designs that would have eliminated the need to acquire

[ Page 3158 ]

any further property were worked out. They were scuttled by the Social Credit government when they came to power. That's their view of the situation. Mr. Minister, when you have the opportunity to reply to that, I'd appreciate it very much.

I have a great deal of information on the matter of the transporting of dangerous cargo, Mr. Minister. I was hoping that you would be good enough to make a public statement on that matter today when you rise in your place to comment and reply to some of these questions. This matter is not only of concern to large urban areas, but it is becoming an area of increasing concern to other smaller communities throughout the province.

You will recall that some years ago in my own riding four huge chlorine tanks were lost somewhere in the Malaspina Strait between Texada Island and Powell River. They never have been located. In my view, and in the view of many people who are familiar with these matters, they are a time bomb ticking away under the ocean. It may well be that if those huge tanks of chlorine rust through, or if something else happens, it could be a major disaster on the coast of British Columbia.

I'm just using this as an example, Mr. Chairman. I know that the federal and provincial governments did expend quite a bit of money to try and locate these chlorine tanks, but they were never located. The people responsible were hoping that people would forget about the matter, that it would go away and nothing would ever happen. That could well be, if we're lucky.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought I told the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) that if he cools it and doesn't interject we'd be out of here and out of these estimates within two or three weeks. If he's going to carry on like that, we'll be here until Christmas. Besides, I'm trying to get that minister up to Okeover to personally view the very fine mariculture area, and he refuses to go. He keeps saying something about pairing. I don't understand. What's this pairing stuff he's always talking about? Okay, back to the estimates, Mr. Chairman.

In any event, what I'm asking the minister in terms of the transport of dangerous cargo at this time, not only in North Vancouver and the major localities throughout the province, is what steps the government has taken or will be taking to assure that we don't have another Mississauga in British Columbia. But, you know, it's not necessarily the big disasters; it's also the smaller disasters that could occur in any community in British Columbia, particularly where we have a pulp mill or a facility of that kind. So I would ask the minister to comment on that.

I must take a few minutes to discuss a couple of constituency matters. First of all, Highway 101 is primarily the only highway link for my constituents from Lund, Powell River, Texada Island south to the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver. Of course, the minister will recall that when we were the government.... I didn't ask for $500 million to build and reconstruct that whole highway in one year. All I asked of the minister at that time was that a certain amount of funding — $3 million to $6 million — be set aside every year to upgrade that Highway 101, and eventually we would have a decent road for people to travel on. You must remember that the total population of the Powell River regional area, including the Sunshine Coast, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 32,000 people, with 17,000 people in municipalities, if I recall correctly. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will agree with that. He's familiar with those figures. But the fact is that in order for people to get to the lower mainland — and they must pretty well go to the lower mainland, no matter where else in the country or the world they may be going — they have to utilize that highway. While a few dollars have been spent taking a few of the worst curves out, we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 22 miles of what I can only describe as a very good cow trail or a very bad snake trail, one of the two. But work should continue. I'm not asking the minister right now to expend $100 million on that project.

All I'm asking is that he announce the policy that a certain amount of reconstruction will take place on that particular highway every year, that's all — three to six miles, at least to Pender Harbour, a major community with an area population of about 2,400 people with hospital facilities, etc. That's all I'm asking of the minister at this time. I personally don't agree that just going along down that highway and knocking out the odd corner is going to solve the problem, particularly now that ferry schedules for the summer are designed in such a manner that people are going to speed. They're going to speed, and they are speeding. They're taking their lives in their hands, and we've had some pretty serious accidents on that highway, although no deaths yet this summer — not yet, but for sure there will be. So I'm asking the minister to just consider giving us a reasonable amount — if he could just transfer, say, $3 million. His riding would hardly miss $3 million; that's a drop in the bucket to the Cariboo riding, and it could be of such great benefit to the people in my riding.

Furthermore, while we're on to righting a few constituency matters here, I want to ask the minister as well if he would consider again Highway 101. We discussed this topic last year, and I must admit that a few loads of blacktop were dumped in, but it has not solved the problem. This is Highway 101 within the municipality of Powell River. I know that the council has met with your senior people on this matter — Mr. Stewart and others. But the fact is that the highway there is caving into the ocean and will continue to do so. You can drop blacktop into those cave-ins and holes until hell freezes over, but the fact is that it's going to continue to cave away because of the undermining of the ocean in that area. There have been some very bad accidents, although to my knowledge no fatalities in the last couple of years in that area. What I'm asking the minister and the ministry to do at this time is, in conjunction with the municipality of Powell River, the council and the planners, to look at the possibility of alternate routes for this fast-growing community. There are alternate solutions to that problem. There are three or four. There's a bit of controversy, as there is over any proposal, but I think we should be seriously considering an alternate route. The reason we're continuing that route through the municipality and putting up with some traffic jams and things is because it's cheaper. That's the only reason. There's no other reason. It's not the best way or safest way; it's the cheapest way, and that isn't quite good enough. Perhaps the minister could tell me today, when he gets up to reply to some of these questions, that he will ask the senior people in his ministry to meet in a serious way with the planners and the Powell River regional council on this matter.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 3159 ]

Having had the opportunity very recently to once again traverse Highway 20 between Williams Lake and Bella Coola, which serves a large proportion of my riding, although the majority of it is in the minister's riding, I have to admit there have been vast improvements on that highway. Certainly you don't take your life in your hands nearly as badly as you used to a few years ago. I can tell the minister that from various representations on my numerous visits into the Bella Coola area, highway work is appreciated. In fact those highway improvements have decreased the travelling time from out of that community to the Williams Lake area — or to Vancouver and the lower mainland area, where most people go — by two and a half hours, approximately. I'll tell the minister now that that work was appreciated.

But there's still a great deal of work to do, not necessarily on Highway 20 so much as in the Bella Coola valley itself. Some of the major side roads in that valley are terrible. In fact you need four-wheel drive vehicles to utilize some of the roads in subdivisions. Subdivisions within the valley itself, because it is a flood valley, have been totally banned — rightfully so — because once every 10 or 15 years the whole valley floods out and there's multi-million dollars worth of damage. It was a good policy that was brought in to disallow any further subdivisions on the flood plain; it makes sense. It upset a few developers and things, but you can't please everyone in politics, as you well know. However, as a result of that, people are compelled to build on up the side roads and in the valleys, and so I hope the minister and the ministry will consider improving some of the side roads in those areas.

I'd like to say this — one last item on this. I'm going to ask the minister to pay attention to this last remark — through you, Mr. Chairman. Some time ago I wrote to the minister, with copies to senior people within the ministry, requesting this year's anticipated and total highway projects — capital projects, day labour projects and routine maintenance projects — that were set in my riding. While I said earlier in this debate that the minister was quite good in answering his correspondence, I have not received a reply on this particular matter from anyone within the ministry. When I wrote and asked you for the anticipated capital expenditure programs for this fiscal year — for the day labour projects and the routine maintenance-type programs — I received no reply whatsoever.

What kind of bothers me about this — and I'll just mention it again; I did mention it the other day — is that when I go to the local road foreman — it depends on the area; if it's a small community, I go to the regional engineer based in Gibsons or to the regional highways manager based in North Vancouver — the answer I get on these items is one of two. One answer is: "I can't give this answer to you. You must get this information from the minister." Okay, I accept that; that's why I wrote the minister. But I still haven't received a reply. I'll grant the minister this: going from memory, I only wrote that letter approximately one month ago, so he may not have had time to get the reply to me. I certainly didn't anticipate debating these estimates this early in the game. I thought we'd be in October or November before we got into transportation.

In any event, I would appreciate the minister replying to that correspondence — not in detail here in the House; we won't take up the time of the House with a constituency matter. But I would appreciate it if the minister would reply to that particular important piece of correspondence.

I know we have a lot of people here who have comments and speeches to make. I have a great deal more material to discuss with this minister, which we'll get into next week. Did you finish your little job? Yes, you did. With that, Mr. Chairman, I await the minister's reply and took forward to his answers.

HON. MR. FRASER: I will attempt to answer, to the best of my ability, the questions that were asked, but I've got so many notes here.

For the benefit of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), regarding an item that was not clarified on water transportation on the Pacific coast.... I would like to tell the committee that we are looking at a vessel of about, I believe, 350-tonne capacity that would be built in B.C. shipyards. I didn't mention that before, but the member for Prince Rupert did — that we create work in shipyards. I'd just like to say this. At the present time the B.C. Ferry Corporation has two jumbo-type vessels under construction in B.C. shipyards, one in Victoria and one in Vancouver, at a cost of approximately $30 million apiece. They've been worked on for a year, and we hope that they will be ready for service and launching in March and May, I believe it is, of 1981. I want to tell the committee that this government, through the Ferry Corporation, has supplied more work to the shipyards than any other people, whether it be the private sector or the government of Canada or whoever. I think that we are doing 101 percent as far as trying to maintain our shipyards and the work created there.

As a matter of fact, we've had difficulties getting our vessels out of the shipyards with the work we want done. That happened in 1980. Business is so good, because of the amount of business we give them, that they are not meeting their delivery dates. Those are the facts of life, and I get quite a kick when I see the press writing up that they're concerned about work in the shipyards. I give them a message now. We'd appreciate them delivering on contracts on time. They haven't been doing that. This might be an internal problem, but it appears to me that we're already giving them too much work, as they can't meet these deadlines. So don't get carried away with the fact of lack of work in the shipyards, because our experience in the year 1980 alone.... I can relate some horror stories to you on their promised delivery dates that didn't take place.

Dealing with this other vessel, the board of directors of the Ferry Corporation are looking at the possible expansion of the ferry fleet with a 350-tonne vessel. I forget what the cost was. I think it was estimated at $5 million or $7 million, but there is nothing definite. It will be a combined passenger and vehicle service for areas on the coast that are partly served now, and some that aren't at all. We haven't made any final determinations on it, but the areas that we are considering servicing that have no service are the communities of Kitkatla and Hartley Bay, and we are considering improving the service we have going to Port Simpson and Kinkolith now. We are certainly looking at a smaller-type vessel to service the smaller-type communities that I referred to, but no decisions have been made on that so far.

I will try to deal with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — I will go from back to front as quickly as possible — regarding his letter to me regarding the day labour estimates or any other plan for Mackenzie riding. He said he wrote the letter about a month ago. I imagine it is in the system, and we will certainly answer it. That is about the

[ Page 3160 ]

length of time it takes in our ministry to get all the accurate information pulled together to reply to a letter like that. I am aware of our road trying to fall into the ocean in the community of Powell River. So are our engineers, and we have had senior engineers looking at that problem. Hopefully, they will have a solution to it. I think you mentioned that maybe we should desert it and have another area.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: An alternate route, possibly.

HON. MR. FRASER: I've had experience with that, dealing with councils. If we abandon that and create another one, we'll end up with two because surely they won't accept any responsibility for the one slipping into the ocean. Of course, we will have that one as well as the alternate route. These are problems we deal with every day, but we are aware of that. There has to be more specific geotechnical work done to come up with an engineering resolution of the settlement there. That really is what I'm saying. They plan on doing that.

You had a fair amount to say about the Sunshine Coast, Highway 101. We are doing work there, probably not fast enough. As a matter of fact, I had to get the mayor of one of those communities out of bed one Sunday morning a short time ago because his community was all up in arms because we were paving. You can't win, no matter what you do. They were mad because we were paving and they were going to get some tar on their sandals. He wanted our paving contractor to shut down because the merchants of that community didn't want the tar that we have to have for paving tracked into their places of business. So we shut the contractor down. What I am saying is that we are doing work to improve the road and we will go on and cooperate with all citizens. I know about that improvement job from a personal standpoint.

We are looking at an area now, hopefully funded — a difficult section that you would know better than I do, Mr. Member, from Secret Cove to Garden Bay. They are planning to do some work there, and that is difficult rock work. One thing that I find, dealing on the islands in the province, as well as the coast, is that we either have solid rock to contend with or a muskeg or both. It makes it very difficult but we gradually, with our fine engineering and that, get them resolved and get the improvements done that are so necessary.

I have a note here about — I think these are the people you brought up in North Vancouver — Mr. and Mrs. Riste. The information I have on that is that they do not wish to sell. The ministry offered to move the building. This was refused. The ministry is presently redesigning this intersection. We have no knowledge of any specific claim from the Ristes. We expect to have the design completed within a few months. We will advise these people at the earliest possible date if their property will be affected.

On a larger item, on a national and provincial basis you brought up a good subject, the transportation of dangerous goods, whether it be in the province or nationally. I think another reason our citizens are becoming more aware of the importance of transportation, regardless of how it is done, is the higher instance of failure of parts of our transportation system. The news coverage of the Mississauga incident in Ontario is an example. You bet, there are lots of dangerous goods travelling by air, water and land. With the millions of miles travelled and the millions of pounds of dangerous goods that are transported — and have to be, in our economic system — I think generally our transportation systems have done an excellent job.

Where we are policywise is that the government of Canada now has a bill in the House of Commons on dangerous goods. As a matter of fact, it has moved through second reading and is at the committee stage, and it is the intention of all the provinces of Canada, when that legislation is processed, to update the control of dangerous goods to fall in line as nearly as possible with the federal legislation. While they will do some of the policing, so will the provinces. What I am saying is that we are trying to get a national policy. As far as the government of British Columbia is concerned, we agree with it. We have notified the federal Minister of Transport of our position; it is his legislation. So have all the other provinces. They have all agreed that in some shape or form they will support a national policy on dangerous goods.

I would hope that by the end of this year that will be in place and we can get on with better regulation of dangerous goods, whether it is the railroads or commercial freight movement by road or water. I have met the federal Minister of Transport three times in the last month and a half. He certainly wants to get this through the House of Commons, and I think he will. He feels it is a high priority. The ministers of transport from each province have met on this. It is not an individual, ad hoc decision. We agreed in meetings that I attended that we want to support the government of Canada on this. So that is where we are going on that, and the sooner the better as far as I am concerned. I think it is safe to say that Mr. Pépin, the federal Minister of Transport, feels the same way.

You mentioned the Boston Bar–North Bend ferry. I shouldn't bring this up now. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who is the MLA for Yale-Lillooet, is in the House. We have had a very, very vexing time with that ferry. Yes, there have been lots of mechanical problems with it. I can understand the citizens' concern regarding it. That doesn't help very much when your access across the river is gone. I think the problems we have had with the North Bend–Boston Bar ferry could have been fixed a little faster. Basically, an electric cable that is part of that ferry system broke. I believe the ferry was bought in Italy or Germany, and they had to go back there to get the necessary parts. In the meantime, the good people of North Bend and Boston Bar had to either stay at home or swim the Fraser River — not a very happy thing to look forward to. At the time it was broken down their MLA was in contact with our ministry about three times an hour.

There is another story behind the North Bend–Boston Bar ferry, but I won't belabour that here today. What the engineers say now is that it will never break down again. I know they will shoot me for saying this, Mr. Chairman. They don't really say that, but they feel they now have the electrical malfunctions resolved, and there shouldn't be the serious downtime there has been in the past.

You dealt with the problem of access to Penny — yes, that's correct, that's a community on the CNR east of Prince George — and it does not have access, never has had access, from the highway standpoint. We're having meetings now with the regional district. I doubt that they'll achieve anything other than to recommend to us to spend more money. That's what they usually do. But we're looking at extending a road on the north side of the Fraser River from Sinclair Mills. The community of Penny, according to our information, is not in favour of major expenditures on a bridge across the

[ Page 3161 ]

Fraser River at Penny. They also feel that if that policy decision was made, it would delay the present program of the road extension from Sinclair Mills. So what the situation there is, at the present moment, is to extend the road on the north side to Penny. This will take several years to accomplish. In the meantime the highway engineers are looking for a low-cost direct river crossing. In other words, we are investigating either a temporary bridge or a reaction ferry. They're looking to see if they can find a better crossing than they've been able to find so far; they're looking at that now.

The last and probably the foremost thing that the member brought up was the overspending of this ministry's budget — the overruns — and I said in my opening remarks that we had these overruns, and that it was government policy that this is the way we would finance.... The ministry was given an original budget at the start of the fiscal year 1979, and if further funds were available, some of those further funds would be spent on upgrading our highway system. That in fact is what happened. I'm happy to say that happened, because this government created an economy to have these funds generated into the treasury and we could, in turn, improve our transportation network throughout the province.

The budget that is before you now that we are debating, plus the items in Bills 5 and 7.... It is my information and government instruction that that will be the budget for the highways for 1980-81. So I'm saying to you that a policy change has been made, and where the budget that we're debating here shows an item — so are items in Bill 5 and Bill 7.... I think if you relate those figures together you will find.... Totalling those together, compared with our actual expenditures for 1979-80 fiscal year, we're a little above. So that's the financial situation there. I think I've covered most of the items.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I find the debate on this ministry interesting, because many people find the Ministry of Highways boring, and I think it goes to the root of Social Credit. It has a long, important history in the government's party going back to Wesley Black and P.A. Gaglardi. I'm most interested in where the decisions are made when traffic volume, weather and so on do not justify upgrading of a road but where the upgrading takes place: in other words, where the political judgment comes into play.

In the minister's response to my friend from Mackenzie, he studiously avoided the comments made regarding the amount of day labour money spent in the minister's riding; the amount of paving money that is spent in the minister's riding. We continually hear about the number of miles or kilometres of roads in that electoral area.

HON. MR. FRASER: Come on up, and I'll open your eyes for you by showing you some of them.

MR. HANSON: Well, I'm hoping that you're going to be able to answer some questions that will open my eyes for me.

One of the things that characterized the Social Credit government all during the 1952-72 era was highways and the way that "government" and "highways'' were almost mutually interchangeable words. When Social Credit goes extinct, as they will at some point in time, they are going to be remembered not for social policy or educational policy. They will probably be remembered for two things. One will be building dams, where we got hosed by the United States, and two will be road building.

One of the things that was introduced in 1974 by my friend from Prince Rupert was....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the second member for Victoria has the floor. I would ask all other members to come to order, please.

MR. HANSON: My friend from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who was the previous Minister of Highways during the NDP regime, introduced a program which received little attention in the press and little recognition, which I think was unfortunate. What he tried to do was cut out some of the massive pork barrel that had been generated during the 1952-72 Social Credit period. He introduced a program in Highways called maintenance management. What that was was trying to look at the objective factors that would require the maintenance and upgrading decisions to flow up as a result of physical factors and traffic volume.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: They stir around a lot on this because they know that this is interesting stuff.

The political influence in where highway money goes is reduced as the objective factors take over: traffic volume, weather conditions, the importance of the road in terms of its industrial routing, what kind of vehicles, heavy axle and so on. That maintenance management program was to, on an on-going basis, monitor all of these so-called extensive roads within the interior that the minister so quickly feels account for the excessive spending in his ministry and his riding. I think that he is departing from that maintenance management system, and what he is doing is politically pouring more money into his riding than those low-volume roads will justify .

In the annual report — and here I'd like some specific information. If I may — on page 99, Cariboo district, there are a couple of job numbers that I would like specific information on. I would like to know about project 3934, which is "miscellaneous feeder routes/ditch gravel and reconstruction'' in the Cariboo district — $750,000. I would like to know what those roads were and what the traffic volumes were on those roads to justify that expenditure.

I would like to know about page 102 of the annual report — project S2977. Williams Lake area miscellaneous paving, 36 miles — that's a lot of miscellany — $2.3 million. I would like to know what class those roads are and what the traffic volumes on those roads are, and I would like to have a list of those roads — those jobs.

Then there is on page 103 project S3777, 100 Mile House, again in the minister's riding, miscellaneous paving, 11 miles for just under $1 million. I would like to know what class of roads those are, what the traffic volumes are and what the rationale is for the upgrading taking place. I would like that specific information.

I have another question. I want to know what percentage of each class of roads there is in the minister's riding. In other words, I want to know which ones are in class 1 — like the Trans-Canada Highway — class 2, class 3 and on down to the antelope trails. I want to know what percentage of the paving budget is spent on the lower-class roads in your riding. My analysis of day labour in the annual report indicates, I think,

[ Page 3162 ]

that a disproportionate amount of the paving budget is spent on lower-class roads in your riding, money not spent on lower-class toads in other ridings.

I have another question. I want to know from the minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — what other jurisdiction in North America has the generous fencing policy of this government in the Cariboo riding. The fencing policy is to keep the cattle off the roads.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Everyone in the province knows that the Annacis Island bridge was a political decision. Everybody calls it the W. Davidson Bridge.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I would suggest that the Annacis Island bridge has been fully discussed here and is out of order in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria is advised by the Chair that the discussion of legislation that has already gone through the House is not really debatable in the ministry estimates. In ministry estimates we discuss the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are before us. The reference to previous legislation cannot be allowed.

MR. HANSON: Thank you for your advice. I heed your advice. My point is that I am talking about the administrative and political decision-making that is going on in the minister's office, and I would contend that the Annacis Island bridge is a political decision emanating from the administration, within the Premier's office, and that it is a rush job. I don't think that much geotechnical work went on prior to the decision being made.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this member is not paying any attention at all to your instructions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will have to advise the member again that there has been ample discussion with respect to the legislation, and it cannot be debated now that we're in committee.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I will drop that particular inquiry. I do have another one, though. There is an employee within your employ by the name of Mr. Art Mickey. I'm interested in what his job description is and how he fits in with the organizational structure in the ministry. With your regions, the way they're currently established, my understanding is that Mr. Mickey travels and reports directly at a very high level on road conditions and work that should be done. Mr. Mickey, I understand, comes from Quesnel and was working with the Ministry of Highways there, but I'm interested in what his job function is at this point and how he fits in with the reporting structure within the ministry.

I also have a question regarding the 1977-78 annual report, page 227, and that question is under job project number 3565: "126 Jesmond Road: dozing, $14,196." I would like to know what that project was and who did the dozing. I'd be very happy to get the response on that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

NAYS — 9

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's fourth report.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: That the preamble to bill No. PR 403, intituled An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, has been approved and the bill ordered to be approved without amendment. All of which is respectfully submitted, W.B. Strachan, Chairman.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move by leave that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make a short introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 3163 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: In the gallery today are a group of 12 to 14 Pathfinders, a division of Girl Guides of Canada, and they are appreciating the performance of the House. Mrs. LaRose, who is their leader, also was a page in this House at a previous time. I wish you would make them welcome.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:54 p.m.