[ Page 3165 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Business Licence Act (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3165

Oral Questions.

Vancouver General Hospital Emergency Section. Mr. Cocke –– 3165

Bank of Canada interest rates. Mr. Stupich –– 3165

Nechako River fisheries. Mr. Lea –– 3166

Use of 2, 4-D in province. Mr. Hall 3166

CLEU and Fraser River task force. Mr. Macdonald –– 3167

Rejection of proposed act to protect farmworkers. Ms. Sanford –– 3167

Training and working conditions of paramedics. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3167

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

Fraser).

On vote 193: minister's office 3168

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Macdonald

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Wallace

Matter of Privilege

Alleged statements by member for Alberni.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 3188

MONDAY, JULY 7, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: I have two introductions today. First of all, in the precincts is my very able executive assistant, Mrs. Sandra Moskwa. But more importantly, in the gallery is her son Spencer, and I would ask the House to make him very welcome.

Also in the gallery today, from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, are the chairman, Mr. Herb George; the director of planning, Mr. Herb Virdi; and the secretary treasurer, Mr. Eric Shishido. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: In your gallery today is an outstanding citizen from the community of Vanderhoof, Mr. Archie Patrick, and I wish the House to extend him a welcome today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have visiting the House today a young lady who lived the first 15 years of her life in British Columbia and is now living in Holland. She has returned to our province with her fiancé, and I'd like the House to welcome a young couple who may make British Columbia their home in the future: Mary-Ella Hilgerdenaar — I should have our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) doing this introduction — and Gabriel Simons.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have as guests today a group from Ontario: Scottie and Chris Dutton, who are visiting Liz and Lex Milton and Cynthia Milton. They are all in the gallery today. I ask the House to welcome them.

I'd also like to introduce a resident of my constituency who is visiting Victoria today. He's a successful businessman; he's been a resident of Canada since 1959. His attraction to Canada came about because of being rescued by a Canadian who was serving in the the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade in 1936 in the first declared war against fascism during the thirties in Spain. Manual Alvarez was saved by this Canadian soldier and then spent 40 years of his life seeking out the particular soldier who saved his life. Indeed, he did finally find him in Canada. The consequence of his search over those years and the successful conclusion of that search was his book The Tall Soldier — The 40-Year Search for the Man who Saved my Life. The political climate of the world at that time was very volatile. But as we all read history and understand it, the efforts of those young Canadian men in volunteering to serve in Spain against Nazism and fascism was the paramount move by the western democracies which led to the final defeat of Nazism and fascism in 1945. It is a heart-rending story by a man who is now a Canadian. Mr. Alvarez has written a very interesting document of his life. I ask the House to welcome him and by welcoming him to extend his thanks to those Canadians, many of whom gave their lives during the Spanish Civil War.

MR. LEA: Visiting in the gallery today are two British Columbians and one Albertan; but  above all they are Canadians — Murray and Molly Olson from Prince Rupert and Barb Olson from Alberta. I'd like to ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Today in the gallery is someone not from New Westminster but someone from far-off Ottawa, the capital of Canada. I'd like the House to welcome Dennis McGann, an old friend of mine.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the mayor of Langley, George Preston, who is with us in the gallery today. Accompanying George over to Victoria today is an exchange student, Vicky — and I've forgotten Vicky's last name — from Australia. She's been here for some time, and she is an exchange student living in Langley right now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the House is informed that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) are absent in New York City on business of the House at the request of the Speaker, and will be so for the duration of the week.

Introduction of Bills

BUSINESS LICENCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Business Licence Act.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL
EMERGENCY SECTION

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. On July 2 top administrators of the Vancouver General Hospital met to discuss the crisis in the emergency department. Each administrator now has the authority to shut down the emergency section of the hospital when they can't safely cope with further admissions. On the same day the emergency section was shut down for a period of time and emergency admissions were redirected to other hospitals. Has the minister investigated this situation at VGH and, if so, what action has the minister taken?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the first moment that I heard of this problem I asked my staff to provide me with the report immediately. I anticipate having that within the next day or two. I will be glad to relay its basic contents to the House.

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, regarding interest rates. The Bank of Canada rate in April was at 15 percent. By July it had

[ Page 3166 ]

dropped to 10.24, a drop of 4.76. The prime bank lending rate in April was 17 percent. By July it had dropped to 13.25, a drop of 3.75 — one point less. Mortgage rates have dropped in that period by four points. Consumer loan rates have dropped by two points. I am wondering whether the government has made any representations to the federal government to oblige the banks to pass on the reduction in interest rates.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in asking the question I realize the member knows full well as a former Minister of Finance that there is no provincial responsibility for the banking system in any part of Canada. Also, it is still to be regretted that the governor of the Bank of Canada found it not possible to participate in a meeting of the western Premiers in April of this year. Specifically to answer the member's question, as of this moment, no, that concern has not been communicated to Ottawa.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, my next question then would have to be: has the Minister of Finance considered passing on this concern to his federal counterpart?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, certainly the matter has been discussed with the very senior staff of my ministry. Yes, the answer to that question is in the affirmative.

NECHAKO RIVER FISHERIES

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, theAluminum Company of Canada has taken a position that whether or not they allow water into the Nechako, it is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. I would like to know whether the Minister of Environment is in accord with the position taken by the Aluminum Company of Canada.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give legal advice to the Aluminum Company of Canada on what their position is. I haven't taken the matter under consideration, because it doesn't affect me, other than the flood control portions of that particular act.

MR. LEA: I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Has the government decided to move to protect the fishery under section 2 of the Industrial Development Act?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker. However, at my request the comptroller of water rights did request — not demand — that the Aluminum Company of Canada increase the flow from the Skins Lake spillway one week ago, after the federal fisheries officers had asked. I had a conversation with the vice-president of the Aluminum Company of Canada and he said that in the past all of their instructions had been received from Mr. Howard Debeck, the comptroller of water rights for the province. Therefore I asked Mr. Debeck if he would request, on behalf of those fish for which we are responsible, that they increase the flow. As a result of that request they increased the flow to 800 cfs.

MR. LEA: Do I take it from the minister's answer that because the provincial government did not order, but requested, he considers he has no authority?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The legal advice that I have, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not have the authority to order the increased water flow over Skins Lake spillway.

MR. LEA: Could you tell me the source of your advice, and does that include section 2 of the Industrial Development Act?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I received legal advice from legal counsel.

MR. LEA: From the Attorney-General's office?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I had that information gathered by staff. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. LEA: To the Attorney-General: has the Attorney-General received a request from Alcan to provide a legal opinion concerning the federal government's authority to release more water into the Nechako River system?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. LEA: Has the Attorney-General received that request from any branch of government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have not; but the ministry provides legal advice to the various ministries of the government, and I assume that the response to the member's question will come when my colleague, the Minister of Environment, returns with the answer that he's taken on notice.

MR. LEA: The Attorney-General is then telling me that his department has been asked for a legal opinion from the Ministry of....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You may have been? Does the Attorney-General know whether his department has been asked by the Ministry of Environment or any branch of government for a legal opinion on this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no personal knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I'd be happy to take the question as notice.

USE OF 2, 4-D IN PROVINCE

MR. HALL: I address a question to the Minister of Environment. It is with reference to the planned spraying by the owner of the chemical 2, 4-D on property and particularly on lawns at a multi-unit townhouse development in Surrey and the subsequent protest by tenants and the municipal council of Surrey. Can the minister now advise the House what his investigation response has been?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The Pesticide Control Act requires that where pesticides or herbicides are being applied on publicly owned property, a permit is necessary. However, on privately owned property, the applicator need only read the instructions, hopefully, on the particular pesticide or herbicide that they wish to apply. We have no authority in that area.

MR. HALL: Has the minister decided, on a request by the Surrey council, to conduct an investigation into 2, 4-D, and to put a stop to its use during such an investigation?

[ Page 3167 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: The schedule for chemicals which are permitted for use in Canada is determined by the federal Ministry of Agriculture. In that regard, any requests that I have for inclusions or exclusions of chemicals from their schedule are forwarded to the federal Minister of Environment, although I personally haven't received it. It may have gone through my staff.

MR. HALL: Could the minister advise us whether or not he has decided that ample notice should be given to all affected persons when toxic chemicals are sprayed, giving full details of the substance to be used?

HON. MR. ROGERS: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, in terms of private property, I think your question might better be addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), because I don't think this particular problem was ever envisioned at a time, for example, when condominiums were developed, in terms of who was applying pesticides or herbicides. But I might remind all members, for those of you who live in a single-family detached home, that you have absolutely no control over the application of pesticides or herbicides by your neighbour. A condominium complex is in somewhat the same situation. We only hope and counsel everyone to read the instructions and follow the information laid down by the manufacturer as it's approved by the federal agencies.

MR. HALL: Could the minister tell us if there's any use at all in going to his ministry?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have a substantial amount of mail from satisfied British Columbians that indicates that yes, there is quite a lot of....

MR. HALL: I would like to ask the minister a further question, in view of his response about satisfied mail. In the riding of Surrey alone we've got radioactive material, PCBs and now 2, 4-D. I want to tell him he hasn't got one single satisfied customer in Surrey.

CLEU AND FRASER RIVER TASK FORCE

MR. MACDONALD: In view of CLEU's operation to espy the undercover work of illegal fly-by-night contaminators of the environment, and training conservation officers — which I think is a proper function for CLEU — I ask the Attorney-General if he knew that CLEU was going to undertake this particular operation before it commenced.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I was not aware of CLEU's involvement before it was undertaken. I am pleased the member asked the question, because if he doesn't mind perhaps I will give him some more information.

I am advised that the Fraser River task force required, in the course of their investigation, to use special night viewing equipment including cameras. These were loaned to the task force by CLEU because they were expensive and sophisticated in their use. CLEU officials trained the members of the Fraser River task force in their use for two purposes: to ensure that the equipment wouldn't be damaged and that the results would be obtained.

Secondly, with respect to the press reports that in return for this CLEU received certain assistance, may I advise you, Mr. Speaker, that the only information obtained by CLEU were two lists of names of property owners who were under investigation. These were used by CLEU for normal police checks plus searches in the office of the registrar of companies and the land titles office to provide the task force with information.

Of particular concern to me was a suggestion that environmental organizations of assistance to the task force were identified to CLEU. I am advised that such was not the case. CLEU was unaware of the participation of SPEC or the other environmental organizations, received no information with respect to those persons and has, of course, no concern other than that they gave the assistance to the task force which they properly should have.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary, in view of the want of knowledge of the Attorney-General of an important operation of this kind. In view of the fact that the present government has totally undercut civilian participation in the policy review board of CLEU, in that all of the members on that policy review board, without exception, are either in the Attorney-General's department or police officers — good people, but no civilian control whatsoever — has the Attorney-General decided, in keeping with the original concept of CLEU, that he will appoint prominent British Columbians outside of his department and police forces, so that the concept of civilian control will return to CLEU?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

REJECTION OF PROPOSED
ACT TO PROTECT FARMWORKERS

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). In view of the Social Credit caucus rejection of the act to protect farmworkers, is it the policy of the government not to protect farmworkers or has the minister decided on further action?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

HON. MR. MAlR: With leave, I would like to answer questions put to me in question period on July 2.

Leave granted.

TRAINING AND WORKING
CONDITIONS OF PARAMEDICS

HON. MR. MAIR: I hope the member opposite will forgive me if I paraphrase the questions a little bit, because some of them referred to my grandson, who incidentally is home — walking, talking and handling a fly-rod, I'm told. The first question was generally as follows:

Eighteen people have just completed a one-year training program for paramedics. Dr. Vertesi has suspended the program indefinitely, prior to graduating these 18 paramedics. In the event that the dispute between Dr. Vertesi and the paramedics is not settled within 30 days, these 18 people will have another year's training to requalify. What action, has the minister taken to solve the dispute on the paramedic training program? Incidentally, that dispute has been on for some time, I've known about it for six weeks.

[ Page 3168 ]

In reply, Dr. Vertesi is the medical coordinator for all paramedic programs in British Columbia, and chairman of a committee that includes all physicians who have local responsibility for conducting paramedic programs in individual communities.

Several months ago a fourth paramedic program, which was intended to increase the availability of paramedics to the Vancouver area, began with an enrolment of more than 20 students. However, during the second semester of instruction a dispute arose between the physicians conducting the program, the graduate paramedics currently working in the greater Vancouver area, and the students, concerning the way in which the course would be conducted — in particular, the methods which would be employed during the third and final semester to evaluate the performance of students while they were applying their skills for the first time outside the controlled environment of a hospital as a member of a paramedic ambulance crew.

Since that development several meetings have been held in an attempt to resolve the dispute, and if a resolution does occur in the near future, the course will recommence at the stage reached prior to suspension. If there is a more substantial delay, it will be necessary to incorporate some refresher, didactic and in-hospital module before the third semester begins. This dispute is not involved in any way with questions of funding or fiscal restraints, nor is it a part of any intention to limit or restrict the development of the paramedical programs in the province in any way.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, responsibility for the supervision of the training and ongoing performance of advanced life support or paramedic teams must rest with the emergency physician who has accepted that responsibility and who has been appointed by the commission. I understand that view is also shared by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The second question: "Can the minister confirm that approximately 50 overtime shifts have been allocated in a two-week period to over 22 staff in the lower mainland because they lack holiday relief in the emergency health services program?"

I have a somewhat shorter answer to this one, Mr. Speaker. Concerning the member's question about overtime shifts being covered by paramedic personnel in the Vancouver area, I've obtained the information that in the last four weeks there have been 80 shifts covered in this manner. Although this may not coincide precisely with the numbers cited by the member, the basis for the concern is recognized, and it can be acknowledged that this can only be a short-term approach to the provision of paramedical service in the community. More students are in training and further paramedical courses are planned both in Vancouver and in other communities of British Columbia. The addition of these further members will moderate this problem substantially and eventually resolve it entirely.

The third question was: "Can the minister confirm that paramedics themselves are responsible for supplying their own maps and that they're not always reimbursed for these expenditures?"

In response to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, concerning maps, I'm informed that it is the practice of the administrators of the ambulance service in the Vancouver area to supply maps to vehicles rather than to individual crew members, and that it is the normal practice to maintain a supply of the map which is used to cover the area of Vancouver and the immediately adjacent communities, and that these maps are distributed as requested by the crew members. The area south and east of the Fraser River is not covered by a commercially available, consolidated type of map, and the crews who work in this area are authorized to obtain those maps, which are locally available for the particular areas. In the normal course of events, the crew members claim and are reimbursed for the expense of these maps.

The fourth and last question was: "Can the minister confirm that greater Seattle, with a smaller population, has four paramedic units per shift? What action has the minister taken to increase the number of paramedic units available to the lower mainland to avoid staff burnout and excessive overtime?"

In answer and referring to the member's previous question, one of the reasons that the type of overtime referred to occurs at the present time is that an attempt is being made to maintain no fewer than three paramedic crews in the Vancouver-Burnaby-New Westminster area, and usually that is the number of crews available, rather than two.

The city of Seattle does, to my knowledge, maintain four paramedic units, but their circumstances vary in several important respects from those in the greater Vancouver area. First of all, they have been developing their system since 1970, and the system in Vancouver is still in the process of development and expansion and will undoubtedly be expanded beyond its present capacity, as evidenced by the further course of training which has been authorized — notwithstanding the fact that it is temporarily suspended. Another difference is that the Seattle system is called upon to respond to a much wider range of cases, which, because of the predictable and high training level of the normal ambulance attendant in the greater Vancouver area, can be handled quite adequately by these people without the aid of a paramedic team.

When the current group in training are graduated and, in fact, once the third semester of their course commences, it will be possible to increase the availability of paramedic units to some extent, and to substantially moderate the present overtime load which the existing paramedics are accommodating. Our plan, Mr. Speaker, is to eventually have a minimum of six teams in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

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.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to start off this afternoon by replying to several questions that were asked on Friday morning in committee. First of all, I'll deal with remarks made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — most of the answers I have are replies to the member for Mackenzie, and also the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

In remarks made by the second member for Victoria — to lead off — he wanted to know why we had such a generous

[ Page 3169 ]

fencing policy in the highway system. I think he mentioned Cariboo, which I have the honour to represent. First of all, we have a fencing policy that doesn't only involve the Cariboo; it is a provincial policy. The basis of the policy is safety — to keep all types of animals off the highway system so that they don't get hurt and, more importantly, so the people driving the vehicles and the vehicles themselves don't get damaged. Even with the fencing that we have, unfortunately, there are still a lot of fairly bad accidents caused by animals, whether they be domestic or wild, that break through the fences.

I want to emphasize that it is provincial policy. The reason it is emphasized in the Kamloops and Cariboo ridings is probably that that is where all the cattle and all the movers and shakers are. There were 50,000 head of cattle shipped from Williams Lake in my riding last fall — the largest shipment in the province. I believe around 45,000 were shipped from Kamloops. We do try to keep the fences up in those areas. They are prioritized on arterial highways or secondaries, and so on.

I am happy to report to the Legislature that the basis of the fencing policy is safety. Whether it is better or worse in other provinces, I am not aware. I believe the second member for Victoria said it was the best in Canada. I take credit for that, on behalf of our government. We have nothing to be ashamed of whatsoever, when we are trying to deal with safety measures. There are a lot of other things we could do along that line as well, that we are trying to do, but that is one that we have achieved.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Mackenzie said that $170,000 was spent in his riding on day labour. I just want to correct the record, referring to the fiscal year 1978-79. I imagine the member's research people didn't give him all the information; the records I have show that $1,073,000 was spent in his riding in that year on day labour. The total expenditure in the Mackenzie riding, highways-wise, was $6,073,357. I want the record to be very clear there — where he referred to the fact that $170,000 was spent in his riding.

While we are on expenditures by electoral areas, I want to provide a little information for the committee on that, and also on the inventory of the road system in the province. The Cariboo riding has almost 7,000 kilometres, by far the most publicly gazetted roads of all different types. The next closest riding is Omineca, with 2, 495 kilometres of roads. In the case of the Cariboo riding, which everybody seems so concerned with, 17 percent of our roads are paved and 83 percent are gravel or potholes filled with car parts. Of Omineca's 2,495 kilometres of roads, 21 percent are paved. Those two findings alone have by far the lowest percentage of paved surface roads in the whole of the province, but the largest mileage, in some cases arterial, in some cases secondary, and so on. To deal with it in another way, expenditures per kilometre, they are way down the line as compared with some ridings that have been mentioned. However, I don't want to go into too much detail on that.

I now want to reply to the second member for Victoria. I see that he was really waiting for the answers — he's not even here. He wanted the details on project C-3565. I think this project goes back to 1977 — and I'd like to ask him a question. However, I have the information here on project C-3565, Jesmond road, west of Clinton. The project was 1.2 miles of class 6 feeder industrial road, ditched and gravelled. The hired equipment expenditure was $7,912. The hired equipment used was Jay's Transport, Catchmore Construction, Lake City Ford, AMA Haulings and Sid's Construction. Material for the job was $59; Highways ministry equipment was $241; and ministry labour was $5,984.

The second member for Victoria also asked a question in committee on Friday morning, I believe it was, about project 3934 at Quesnel. This project was for miscellaneous feeder roads — slash, ditch and reconstruct, $744,000. The roads involved were the Quesnel-Hydraulic road, Bowron Lake road, and the French road. The feeder roads involved were Bushy Lake road, Biernson road, Abbott road, Koogler road, Chub Lake road, Ziederich road, Baziko road and Blackwater road. The work was done by day labour using hired local equipment.

Another project about which the particulars were asked was project S-3777, 100 Mile House. This was, I believe, a paving contract with Peters Bros. of Penticton, it was for 38.7 kilometres of paving in that area.

I believe that covers the specific projects asked about. I've covered the specific projects and the fencing policy. I corrected the member for Mackenzie with his figures.

A question was also asked about what a gentleman by the name of Art Mickey was doing working for Highways. I don't know just what was behind that, but I'll say that Mr. Mickey is a temporary employee. He drives about the province of British Columbia monitoring Highways projects, specifically day labour. He has a lot of experience. He usually works from April through to October of each year. He reports in detail on jobs; his reports are sent to the chief engineer and the deputy minister for their monitoring. In other words, he gives an overview week by week as the jobs are progressing, specifically as to whether they are held up and why they're held up; because we do have right-of-way problems and they can be expensive. If we get into a job and the job is tied up, he transmits that information back here; then head office picks it up from there and tries to clear it up. He has no authority to instruct anybody, and he doesn't instruct anybody. He's strictly an observer. He does an excellent job and he's well experienced in it. He used to be a superintendent of public works in a municipality and had direct experience. He knows about building roads under all conditions. That's the work he does.

I think that pretty well covers most of the things that were asked on Friday.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I should preface my remarks today by saying how much I personally, and certainly the members on this side of the House, appreciate the detailed answers the minister gives us on many of these items. I know that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has an unanswered question, but he will have the opportunity to ask the question again later during the course of this debate. I'm sure that the minister will reply. However, Mr. Minister, if you keep filibustering my salary vote like this, I'm wondering if I'm ever going to get paid. In any event, we do appreciate the answers.

My colleagues and I have numerous questions, because there are many aspects of the minister's responsibility that we have not as yet dealt with. However, there is one aspect which I'm going to raise in a few moments. Because of the seriousness, in my view, of this topic, I've taken the liberty of making very copious notes, because a lot of figures are involved. I wish to be extremely accurate in the questions and on the points I'm going to make during the next 15 or 20 minutes on this particular item dealing with airport manage-

[ Page 3170 ]

ment not only throughout our nation, but particularly in British Columbia. I feel that this particular item must be dealt with — not at length, although I do have a great deal of information. I will be try to be as brief, to the point and precise as possible on this matter.

I would now like to turn to the Transportation minister's responsibility in the area of aviation and airports, because there are some seriously disturbing developments flowing from the Premier's blunder of jumping into this field three years ago. In a short while I intend to forward and send over to the minister a copy of my speech — if I have it. It's fully in order under this minister's vote, Mr. Chairman. I've checked that out very carefully.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do hear this strange braying from somewhere on the other side of the House and I have not identified the source. It sounds like a sick jackass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have identified the source. It's the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment please. All members are honourable and you must maintain order. If you have inferred in your comments that the member is not honourable, I would ask you to withdraw the statement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I certainly withdraw any imputation I made against jackasses or members for Omineca.

Before I was so rudely interrupted, I started out to say that I am going to forward a copy of my speech to the minister so that he and his people may have the benefit of the figures which I'm going to use in this document. As a matter of fact, I thought I had an extra copy of these notes here, but for some reason or another I don't. Perhaps I can get a spare copy from my office.

A terribly high price, in my view, may be paid by many British Columbians, possibly including local homeowners, because of our Premier's silly vanity. I think it's time for this minister to stand up for the province by standing up to the Premier and warning him of the folly which I'm about to document.

This frightening story began about a year after this administration came to power. If you recall, this government very quickly puffed up its chest in dealing with Ottawa and traded away the federal responsibility for coastal marine transportation for the sake of a paltry few million dollars. Our Premier did a lot of strutting then while Northland Navigation services were scuttled and all hope of decent federal contribution to our ferry system was written off. By the way, Mr. Chairman, this is the topic that we canvassed quite thoroughly in this House the other day, so I won't pursue that.

This matter is under the direct responsibility of this minister, even though he didn't know it then. The Premier had taken a bath in the ferry subsidy deal, or at least he had made British Columbia citizens take the bath. He was still boasting then as he flew around the province in the government jet. I didn't hear him or this minister boasting about the ferry subsidy deal then. I'd like to send a copy of these notes to the minister so that he can reply, utilizing the figures contained therein.

I will just go back a bit. Back in March 1977 the Premier was still in a boastful mood and he had his eye on even higher stakes. He told this Legislature on March 4, 1977, that as he flew around the province he wasn't happy with the way the federal government was keeping the airports. I had some sympathy on that point. Many of us represent rural areas. The federal government was extremely lax, tightening up its financial belt, and we had problems from the federal government at that time in obtaining funding for airports like Bella Coola, in my riding, for example, and other airports throughout the province. I know the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is not in the House at the moment but did interject a while ago, did receive some aid under this airport program.

Let me quote from Hansard:

When we were talking about ferry services along the British Columbia coast, we also made a plea for better air services.

That is what the Premier said. I'm sure the present Minister of Transport remembers his leader continuing west.

All of us who have had the opportunity to travel the province as politicians will have come to know the very poor facilities and transportation access that many of our people are forced to live with in this province. If the federal government doesn't meet its commitment in the future and if we can develop the economy and the dollars to help build that economy, the province itself may consider taking a look at doing something in the area of air transportation and air facilities.

This was just by way of giving a bit of background to what we are leading up to, quoting directly from the Premier's own statements from Hansard. These were cocksure words and Ottawa, fresh from skimming this province on the ferry subsidy trade-off, quickly pricked up its ears at the Premier's words. Sure enough, by next spring the provincial government had evolved an airport program, clearly intruding into the field that everyone in Canada was willing to let Ottawa have. A $5 million capital program was announced in the 1978 throne speech to help communities develop airports. This government insisted that municipalities or regional districts which applied for the grants would have to put up the funds on their own as well — in other words, a cost-sharing program, usually 75/25 percent. At least that was the intent at that time. Later the same year the Premier merrily flew around the province handing out cheques — I was present at some of those occasions, by the way — to local airport commissions, happy in his role as a hero. It was much more exciting than pressuring Ottawa to fulfill its responsibility at the time, you will recall, Mr. Chairman — you may have been involved in your own airport in your own community at that time in this matter. About the same time the federal government set up a task force on airport administration — now we are getting into the meat of this — to find ways of sharing out the mounting costs of airport operations across the nation to so-called local airport authorities, and discussions began with provincial and municipal governments, as well as business associations. About the same time the Premier was flying about the province handing out these cheques.

I know that this Minister of Transport has some doubts about the whole business. In fact — I want to include this in the record — I happen to have in my possession a copy of correspondence which I will later quote from, not extensively, from the present minister to the now-federal Minister of Transportation. In any event, it is more than a curiosity that this Social Credit government's own report, assessing the task force proposal, argued that it be recognized that municipal ownership of airports is an alternative to federal ownership which at some point in time should be considered. This was the recommendation in the federal government report. I

[ Page 3171 ]

know the minister maintains the posture that neither the province nor the municipalities should be expected to chip in any capital assistance under the local airport authority's reorganization. But how strongly can he resist, in view of the Premier's multimillion dollar precedent doing just that?

I'm aware that this government's spokesmen have noted that the reorganization proposals are consistent with our Premier's constitutional proposal for giving provinces an increased weight in federal matters. Specifically, I understand that this government has indicated that part of its price for agreement to the airport management reorganization would include B.C. representation in any future decision-making process and overall system planning for the nation's airports. This includes provincial membership on any interim or permanent regional and/or national advisory council. So that's the Ottawa carrot, Mr. Chairman.

Our Premier can appoint his friends to national airport and aviation bodies. And who is likely to pay for this newfound glory, Mr. Chairman? I'll tell you — the local communities again. Just as they have to pay for B.C. Hydro's AAA status on Wall Street, when this government dumped a huge transit deficit off Hydro onto the backs of the municipalities, just as the coastal communities have to pay for this government's stupid posture on ferry subsidies by losing traditional services that we had enjoyed over many, many years, just as Victoria has to pay for the Premier's bungling by scrapping the Princess Marguerite. How long is this minister, who has had to carry the can on the water transportation bungles by his government and by his leader, going to allow negotiations to continue which will inevitably dump all airport facilities onto local commissions in our province?

The minister has been sitting on the report all this year, and I'm pretty upset about that point as well. The minister has actually been sitting on more than one report. There are several reports, copies of which I have in my possession at this time, and these reports point out that the Vancouver and Victoria airports would run up huge deficits if transferred to local authorities. Almost a $9 million cash deficit in 1978 dollars on the Vancouver airport case alone — if all of the overhead costs are included — and as much as $762,000 in terms of the Victoria airport would be dumped onto the local taxpayers and local government in 1978 dollars. So that would be, if you project that — I'm just guessing — somewhere in excess of $1 million. No wonder Ottawa is willing to share the costs of airport management, Mr. Chairman. No doubt they would be willing to let the Premier have a few patronage appointments in return for this type of program.

The horror story doesn't stop there. This government's own analysis shows that only two of 14 other airports in the province would operate on a cash or surplus level. If all costs and capital expenditures were projected on the 1978 experience, let me list this government's own figures. These are not my figures, nor federal government figures, but this government's figures: Abbotsford airport would operate at an annual deficit of $469,300; Penticton airport would operate at an annual deficit of $140,000; Pitt Meadows — $71,500 per year; Port Hardy — $246,400; Prince Rupert — $33,700; Princeton — $32,400; Quesnel, which is in the minister's own riding, has an operating deficit under this proposal of $383,300; Sandspit — $335,500; Smithers — $68,100; Terrace — $47,500; Tofino — $91,600; Williams Lake — $445,500; and I could go on and on. Only Prince George and Kamloops airports can expect to make a profit utilizing the government's own figures.

These are the frightening figures at the end of the Premier' s flight plan into Cloud Cuckooland, where he boastfully took off in 1978 on a program of getting the province and its municipalities into the airport business.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely imperative that you  show intestinal fortitude and stand up to the Premier on this issue and tell him that he's got to come down to earth, His efforts to show himself smarter than Ottawa are boasts that this province cannot afford, in my view. I'm personally getting really fed up with this continued program of that government and the Premier's effort of Canada-bashing. We are one nation.

But back to this airport thing. I know you have expressed reservations.... Mr. Chairman, I really do require the minister's undivided attention on this very serious issue, because this not only affects British Columbia; it affects every province in Canada and our province's relationship, and possibly future relationship, during certain negotiations with the federal government.... I know that minister has expressed certain reservations, and I'm prepared to table and quote the minister's own remarks in this regard. I also know that the minister sent a letter to Ottawa a couple of months ago expressing support for the federal plan to decentralize airport management. I would think that the minister should withdraw from that position unequivocally, even if it means the Premier has to eat a little more crow, as he did on the ferry subsidy fiasco.

I'm recommending to the minister now that he make a very strong presentation to his own cabinet in this regard. Otherwise, sooner or later, as the government's own report shows and as that ministry's own report indicates, local communities across this province are going to be stung. This government's record is to try to dump its embarrassments and its losers onto the backs of the local taxpayers. I want to guarantee you that if this wishy-washy government doesn't do something about this within a reasonable length of time, every municipality in the province is going to be faced with another tax increase, a mill rate increase, to pay for these staggering deficits that we can anticipate in the future if Ottawa is allowed to proceed.

It's happened time and time again — with the Urban Transit Authority, the old shell game with constant increases in school tax mill rates set by this government, and with a host of other things. The list could on and on. I'm not going to take the time of the House going over that list, as we have done that on several occasions. The only way for you to give assurance, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that our communities will not suffer again is to publicly declare your refusal to continue further discussions on the local airport authority with the federal government, and stand up as other provinces have. I have in my possession the position papers of several other provinces — Quebec, Newfoundland, New Brunswick. and the list goes on and on. I know the minister has the documents in his possession but, in any event, I will table them if requested. They're no secret. They're public documents,

I'm very much concerned that the minister, during the course of his correspondence dated April 15 1980, to the Hon. Jean Luc Pepin, Minister of Transport, signed by the Hon. Alex V. Fraser, minister, said — I'm not quoting out of context, this is a public document — "We generally agree, as we have with the proposed ports legislation, that the basic concept of local autonomy through establishment of airport authorities can have attractive features." That phrase, within

[ Page 3172 ]

the minister's own correspondence, bothers me as it should bother everyone in this House and every municipality and local government in this province. The minister has the opportunity today to get up in this House and assure us that he will take a position at least as strong as that taken by Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec and other provinces, and ministers of other provinces. I'm sure he must have copies of their correspondence; it was certainly made available on request to me.

The other thing that concerns me in several other findings.... One of the people attending a seminar on the dumping of federal airport management patrol stated publicly: "This could save the federal government a great deal of money and put the control of all airports throughout Canada — whether it be Mirabel, Vancouver, Winnipeg International; it doesn't matter — under the control...which would save us great gobs of money and put the responsibility onto the province, and we'll get away with it."

I'm asking this minister now to take a position at least as strong as that of Quebec and Newfoundland, which took a very strong and unequivocal position over this matter.

The Canadian Union of Transportation Employees tells me that it has proof positive that the federal government is going to proceed on this course whether we like it or not. I think that under proper federal-provincial negotiations....

This is not a matter of national unity and this is not a matter of Canada-bashing or Ottawa-bashing. That is not the issue. This is a matter of negotiation between federal and provincial authorities, as are many other issues, such as health care. There is no end of issues where federal and provincial ministers meet to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern in the best interest of all Canadians. I would greatly resent it if this minister got up today and attempted to give us another speech — and it's done by his government — on Canada-bashing, Ottawa-bashing. We don't accept that in this party. The majority of people in this province don't accept that approach. It's not a matter of overwhelming proportions. Canada will not disintegrate over this issue.

As a matter of fact, while we're on the topic, it does disturb me a great deal that this government should be taking an approach which is contrary to what I think most Canadians feel. It's an approach which would be harmful to the long-term future of this nation. I feel that we are not just a nation of 11 provinces and three territories; we are more than that. In my view, we are a nation of 28 parts or more. We have our native Indian people, our Metis people, our Eskimo people, and the people who have immigrated to this nation. All of their views should be considered. We are not a nation like the United States, which has become a melting pot. I think this nation is great and has the opportunity to be greater. It should not be pulled apart by the little, local, regional political differences of small political parties in one province. With all of these fine things going for us, we have the opportunity to create a nation that will withstand these little stresses and strains. But we won't; the nation will not withstand these stresses and strains, in my view, if we have.... I don't care — I'm not saying the Social Credit Party, in this particular instance, or the Liberal Party or the NDP or anybody else.... But we must put ourselves above these local, petty regional differences if we are to remain a nation.

You know, I view this nation as a family, Mr. Chairman. When one member of the family gets sick or has a problem, the other members of the family will help. Because of geographical and regional differences and because of different ethnic groups, and a whole variety of issues.... We are a family, but we have different interests. If one part of that family has problems, then I feel that it's up to the rest of us to assist where we can. We must look beyond our own little selfish interests. Quite frankly, in my view, this nation can, if we're careful, set an example for the rest of the world.

HON. MR. FRASER: Just to keep the record straight, I want to go back to water service on the Pacific coast. I mentioned earlier in this debate — and I feel it's a good one — that the opposition are saying that under our government everything went to pieces in water service. Well, you know, everybody is entitled to his opinion.

It's another observation of mine that when they were government they knew all about Northland Navigation and it appearing that they were leaving the water service on the Pacific coast. There was a good chance they would be. I now find that in 1973 the now first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who was then Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, commissioned a study. I have a copy of this study, and I will quote portions of it:

"The subsidy received by Northland Navigation to provide a service to northern coastal points was presumably initiated because of their isolation and size. The majority of these towns and villages do not generate enough freight traffic to make a profitable service possible exclusive of subsidy. The subsidy which expires March 31, 1974, is currently under review by federal authorities. Northland officials expect that it will be significantly reduced if not eliminated.

"The implications for users of Northland Navigation are twofold. The level of service will deteriorate and rates will likely increase. Loss of subsidy could neutralize any possible cost savings related to more efficient handling techniques."

The point I want to make here is that this was when they were government and they had this knowledge. Of course, we know they didn't do anything about it. This did proceed and Northland Navigation did withdraw from the Pacific coast. They are now critical because our government went and made a deal, after Northland Navigation had withdrawn, and got the first subsidy ever for the B.C. Ferry Corporation of $8 million. Escalated on a cost-of-living basis to the current year, I believe it is $9.6 million. The point I want to make here is that our government did something about it. Of course, it is a fact of life that they knew all about the problem and didn't take any action at all. I would like to table this study of theirs where they were notified in 1974. I will table it when we get to the House.

I want to go on to air transportation now. I am really amazed at the member for Mackenzie getting up on this because he is really mixed up in the observations that he makes regarding air transportation and airports in the province of British Columbia. First of all, I think I should tell the committee, particularly to straighten out that member, that Transport Canada commissioned a study of what to do with their airports that exist in this province. I don't know whether that goes on into the other provinces or not. We have certainly contributed information there. That study is still ongoing, but it has been a subject of a federal task force looking into ways that Transport Canada can reduce its involvement in their day-to-day airport operations.

[ Page 3173 ]

A preliminary report from this task force proposes the establishment of local airport authorities, but our review indicates that Ottawa would transfer little effective decision-making powers or control to the local body. Serious concerns are also raised on the financial arrangements that would accompany an establishment of the authorities. These and other shortcomings are identified in our response to Ottawa — I am talking about the government of British Columbia — wherein we indicate that any transfer of financial liability to municipal governments or to the province for what is a federal responsibility will not be acceptable. That is addressing that from that level. We are trying to assist them in their study about management of federal airports.

This member is so misinformed, I will read into the record....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, I resent the use of the term "misinformed." I have accurate and detailed accounts from across Canada and Ottawa. This research has been going on for two and a half months and my figures are totally accurate.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know really what that point of order was. I was trying to say that he inferred that we were going to assume these liabilities on behalf of our municipalities and/or the province of British Columbia. I want to deny that emphatically. It is a federal task force that is ongoing, has been going for a long time, and is continuing to go. I'll list the airports that are involved that are major, or to some degree minor, airports in the province and are affected under federal jurisdiction. I hope I don't miss any. Of course, Vancouver International is the largest. We have Victoria, Abbotsford, Penticton, Pitt Meadows, Port Hardy, Prince Rupert, Princeton, Quesnel, Sandspit, Smithers, Terrace, Tofino and Williams Lake. Those are some of the airports that are operated by Transport Canada, the government of Canada. They have actually operated all of them for quite some time. They are having their problems in operations and deficits, but that's what this federal task force is all about. Yes, we have dealt with them.

What the member seems to get involved with is the Local Airport Assistance Program that this government brought out in 1978. It was announced by the Premier that we would give local airport assistance to areas, other than those I've mentioned, that were never under federal jurisdiction. I might say that I'm very proud to be part of that government that came out with this program, which is going on now. It is bringing more remote areas a better level of transportation.

In quick summary, I would say that it has been highly successful. It was originally brought out in 1978 at a cost of $5 million; in 1979-80 we spent $1.9 million; and it's estimated that we will spend $4 million this year; a total of $11 million. It was brought out in 1978 as a five-year program at a total cost of $26 million. So we're moving more or less to the halfway mark, and what have we achieved? During the first two years we have received and reviewed 61 applications and 23 inquiries. Some 56 projects, including 11 ongoing projects, were recommended for award of funds.

I guess that I should go into this further and say that as we in our government envision it we have the federal airport authority, and we haven't any intention of taking those over. We're glad to assist them if they want to go to local authorities, as long as it doesn't cost, as I said earlier. We have a lot of other areas in our province that need better transportation than they've got at the present time. More or less, where the airports are under federal jurisdiction, they are looked after by the regional carrier. But we did not have backup community airports to feed into the regional areas, and that's where our plan comes into effect. It's been very successful. As a matter of fact — getting right up to date — believe it or not, a community the size of Salmon Arm never had an airstrip. I was there on Saturday and opened the new 4,000-foot paved airstrip at Salmon Arm. This government put in approximately $1 million, but that airstrip will probably serve 25,000 people. Otherwise, they had to drive to Kelowna or to Kamloops. So this brings a better level of transportation to them.

Our funds are given out for varying reasons. On local airports, we'll upgrade existing airports. I think I used an example of that, and they're not necessarily all in isolated areas. We've put a lot of money in the Cassidy airport at Nanaimo, for example. That included paving, navigation assistance and so on.

Now let's get into the more remote areas — semi-remote and remote. The Premier and I, with the MLA for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), opened the Burns Lake airport just a month ago — a 4,000-foot strip. Are the opposition saying that they deny those communities an airport? I really can't get his argument or his debate at all, because our government stands squarely that it's one of the better programs our government has brought out, and we're happy and proud of it. We intend to expand it fully and, as I say, we're only halfway through the upgrading.

I would like to relate another experience. I know this member is more or less local to Mackenzie, but our province is large and there are very difficult transportation problems all over. I'd like to relate to this House our province-wide transportation problems,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Mackenzie on a point of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Once again, the statement made by the minister.... I have travelled to every nook and cranny, driven every highway, and landed at nearly every airport in this province. I resent his telling me I'm locked up in my own riding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That really was not a point of order, Mr. Member. There is ample opportunity in committee for free-wheeling debate from side to side with really no restriction on the number of times that a member may speak. Committee is designed with that in mind — to allow all members a chance to speak and clarify any misunderstanding that the member might bring to the committee. If the member for Mackenzie has a correction to make or feels that he has been misrepresented, then committee does allow time for that member to make his clarifying statement during the normal course of debate.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I upset the member. I was going to say what great assistance it is for the remote and semi-remote areas. I had the honour last Tuesday.... Monday night I was phoned while all the rest of you were holidaying — including the member for Mackenzie — and told that we had a bridge failure at Stewart. Because we have an airport there — we gave them a paved

[ Page 3174 ]

airport last year — we flew in on Tuesday morning with the senior engineers of the Highways department and on the spot decided what we were going to do. Consequently, instead of being cut off for up to 30 days, that community was put back on the map in three days. You know, if we hadn't had an airport to land on.... We provided that under the Local Airport Assistance Program. That is one shining example of bringing a better type of transportation to the remote areas of our province, and we're really proud of this program.

For that member to get up and say what he said regarding his own riding — he never tells you that.... But we have put a new strip into Bella Coola and upgraded the strip in his home town of Powell River under this Local Airport Assistance Program in the short time of two years that we've had it. You know, he doesn't tell you these things. But I want to say that so the citizens he represents will know that it wasn't federal money; it wasn't municipal money; it was provincial money — and we're happy to be able to do that for Bella Coola and for Powell River. Furthermore, in all these communities we have contractors and people in every walk of life now using aircraft to do business and have pleasure and so on, and this government feels to have better strips adds immensely to the economy of our province. We've had 61 applications — 56 projects, including 11 ongoing ones — and I can't relate all....

I want to deal for a minute with the very large, beautiful riding of Atlin, where Stewart is. We've fixed that airport and paved it. We're now, this day, working on our large new strip for Dease Lake — again, a key community in that area. Our problem, Mr. Chairman, is that so many of our citizens have never been up there, but we have. We have citizens there. It's on a main transportation link in our province; Dease Lake is halfway between Stewart and the northern B.C. boundary, and we're building them a new airport right now. We're building it, to start with, on a gravel-finish basis. Some day it will probably be paved, but the fact is that we'll have a decent strip for the people in that remote area. The work is underway and that in itself is going to cost, I think, $1 million.

So we see these Local Airport Assistance Programs as a great feeder for our regional carriers in the larger centres. As an example, right now there is a feeder carrier operating from Bella Coola to Williams Lake and, of course, they call at a strip that we've built at Anahim Lake. This is the way the people get their mail. The people there get a lot of other things and they get twice-a-week service. I know they had some service before, but it was intermittent, because they never knew whether they could land or not. Now, with better landing facilities and upgraded navigation facilities — which will come — this will bring them better service. I think the day is long gone that the people the member for Mackenzie is talking about should be second-class citizens. We want to bring them up to the same level as the other citizens in our province at a small additional cost.

I might also say that this program is based on working with the regional districts and/or the municipalities. We're not doing this on our own. We give the engineering advice; the regional district and/or the municipality work with us, and we supply a lot of the capital for the improvements. But immediately that's done, we don't want to have any part of the operation. That's why we deal with the regional districts, and we have responsible local authorities left to operate these rural and remote strips after the money is expended on them. And I think, transportation-wise, it's one of the biggest assets that we've had in a long time in our province.

I believe the member for Mackenzie said that I should stand up to the Premier of our province. I'll stand up with him. I'm proud that it was his program; he brought it out. The member for Mackenzie better believe I'll take his advice and stand up with our Premier, who was the minister responsible at the time this program was started, and he worked hard to get the local people interested. He got it going, and I assumed the responsibility for this program — I can't recall when, but I believe it was November '78 — and I have the same feeling about it, to push it for all it's worth.

Before I sit down.... I didn't mention all the areas in the province; but another one that the Premier and I have the honour and go and open very shortly is a beautiful new strip at Vanderhoof in the great riding of Omineca. Thank you for listening.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the standing orders clearly point out that when two members rise, the Chairman will indicate whom he has seen first.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have two or three matters of clarification, to make sure that the statements appearing in Hansard are correct. I just want to remind the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if we were in second reading, where you are only allowed one opportunity to speak, then your point would be well taken. We are in committee and there is ample time during committee to recognize members who wish to clarify their statements or say whatever they wish to say. But I have recognized the member for Omineca.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish to clarify statements that the minister attributed to me during the course of his speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the member for Mackenzie to take his place. The Chair will recognize the member for Omineca on vote 193.

MR. KEMPF I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't going to stand in this minister's estimates, but when I hear a member say what the member for Mackenzie has said this afternoon in regard to one of the most magnificent programs that has ever been brought forward in this province, the Air Transport Assistance Program — particularly when I hear a rural member such as the member for Mackenzie speak against that kind of program — it is necessary for me to get to my feet today and speak in favour and to commend the Premier and to commend this minister for such a program in this province.

Since its inception some three years ago, there has been great upgrading of airports in my constituency, as well as in many other areas of this province, and I'd just like to talk a little bit about that this afternoon. The minister mentioned the Burns Lake airport. It's a 5,000-foot strip instead of 4,000, and it was upgraded. Moneys from the assistance program spent in the last two years now enable the air ambulance — and I think this is particularly important, Mr. Chairman — for the first time in this province to land in Burns Lake and to

[ Page 3175 ]

put the people that I represent in Burns Lake within an hour of the magnificent hospital facilities that we enjoy in Vancouver and in other large points in this province.

The minister mentioned the Vanderhoof strip this afternoon as well as Burns Lake. There, as well, we now have a 4,000-foot paved strip, which again enables the air ambulance for the first-time to land there and to put those people in need of hospital facilities there within an hour of those found in the lower mainland of this province. I think that's very important. The member for Mackenzie can speak against airports if he wishes, Mr. Chairman, and certainly if he doesn't wish to have any airports upgraded in his constituency, I'll be only too happy to have all of my airports upgraded in my constituency. But as well as the Vanderhoof and Burns Lake strips, we now have an application in from the district of Houston — my home town — and I want to tell you, those people are very excited about this program, as are all of my municipal councils. They look forward to the upgrading of their strip. It is hoped that within the next year we'll have 4,000 feet of blacktop as well in Houston — one of the fastest-growing communities in this province. Not only do they need that strip for the landing of the air ambulance; they also need it for the great expansion that's going on there.

In Fort St. James — again in my constituency — we have upgraded the strip there to 3,000 feet of blacktop, and that isn't enough. I want to say that it won't be too soon for me that moneys will be made available from the Air Transport Assistance Program to increase the length of that strip to 4,000 feet. So there again the air ambulance will be able to help that community put those people within an hour's flying time of places such as the Vancouver General Hospital.

Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet and speaking in favour of this Air Transport Assistance Program, I would just like to commend the minister as well.... I've heard comment in this House in the last few days about all the blacktop and about all the roads that we are improving and putting down in this province. Well, I want to tell you that as late as yesterday I attended a very large barbecue in a very rural community just out of Burns Lake in my constituency where I met many people, and nobody is happier than the people of this province for the Social Credit blacktop that is being laid down.

I'd like to commend the minister on a paving project going on in the vicinity which I attended yesterday: 38.5 kilometres of new blacktop on the south side of Francois Lake, an area that hasn't had a foot of blacktop, Mr. Chairman. It's the first time that they've seen it on that side of the lake, and I want to tell you that any of those members opposite can go up into that area, or any area in my constituency, and speak against blacktop. I'd invite them to do so, Mr. Speaker, particularly if they do it just before the next election. I'd be very happy to have them.

Before I sit down again, I'd like to commend the Premier for bringing in the airport assistance program and this minister for carrying it on. It meets with the approval of the people I represent. Again I say: if there are members opposite who do not want those dollars spent in their constituency, I'll have them all.

MR. PASSARELL: A couple of points back onto the message that the....

MR. KEMPF: He'll speak in favour of airports.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, can you bring the member for Omineca, who just walked into the House, back to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member has taken his place and will remain in order.

MR. PASSARELL: I wish to get back onto the aspect that the member for Mackenzie was bringing up concerning airport assistance and the Ministry of Transportation — of federal and provincial governments' jurisdictions. The minister spoke of the task force. Has the minister made direct representation to the task force that the jurisdiction of airports in the province should remain in federal hands? Have you made that emphatically to the federal government, Mr. Minister? I see there's no answer.

Basically what the member for Mackenzie was speaking about was the weak-kneed approach the government has taken compared to the approach by many other provincial governments concerning this aspect of federal-provincial jurisdiction over airports. I'm not opposed to the local airport development program but opposed to political concessions that, airport assistance programs can be used for. An example, Mr. Chairman, is the airport up in Atlin. It is a good idea, but the political concessions made by the board of trade, using that example of an airport, because they represent a specific political party.... It is not in the best interests of rural or northern residents. If one particular group gets a contract on an airport and goes around waving the flag that they got it because they belong to a political party, it is wrong. I was under the belief that the airport assistance program is to help residents, not political parties. I certainly hope that the minister would look into that aspect of the board of trade and its representation in Atlin of the airport assistance program.

Another one: it was a very good idea to put a runway into Dease Lake. I was up there two weeks ago, and I hope that the minister's staff is aware of the hole on the south side of the airport at the end of the runway, the new construction aspect. The hole is 60 feet deep and something like 300 yards wide. An engineer from Highways in Dease Lake has said that to complete that construction project it would cost $1.3 million to fill in that hole. I hope that the minister can give some clarification on that aspect.

The air ambulance service is an excellent program, but it'll never replace first aid or hospital care. It's a tremendous idea to have the air ambulance service and paved runways, but one of the problems concerned with the air ambulance service is weather. The minister is quite aware that in the north and many parts of this province weather determines how the air ambulance can travel. If there's no primary first-aid station in a community like Dease Lake, or any other rural community, and the weather conditions during winter prevail, it's very difficult for the jet to land to help somebody, to take him back down.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the weather would come under the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) rather than the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member. Although there's much that we like to do in estimates, I don't think that's a grant that we could bring forward.

[ Page 3176 ]

MR. PASSARELL: I don't know what's happening to that member's snoose. I wonder what you're mixing into it. You should pay attention in the House.

To get back onto the topic, the air ambulance service depends on weather, and if the weather does not prevail the air ambulance cannot land on a paved runway. But that's pretty difficult for you to understand, I guess.

There's a definite need for the Minister of Transportation and Highways to tell this House today what the position of the ministry of transport is in regard to the provincial government's jurisdiction. Are you emphatically saying you're not going to take over the operation and maintenance of local airports?

Air safety is not a matter to be dealt with in partisan politics. To have the province take total jurisdiction is an expense that taxpayers in this province cannot really bear. The member for Mackenzie read government material, that two of 14 airports in the province are in the black and 12 are in the red. That's an expense that is not needed and cannot be afforded in these times of financial crisis — to take over those mass amounts of debt by airports if they are taken over by the provincial government.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) reported to the public that there were shortcomings in the provincial revenue. The idea of turning airport responsibility over to local taxpayers is horrendous, to say the least. For example, if you have a rural area that has an airstrip, certain standards might have to be attained. If the federal jurisdiction responsibility is taken away, all the local residents will have to bear the brunt of the cost for that airport, particularly, as the example continues, onto the Dease Lake airstrip. Who is going to have to pay that additional money to fill in the hole at the end of the runway if this plan goes through? These are costs that many families in the province can't afford, especially in rural areas.

Stewart has an excellent runway. I give credit to the minister for putting the paved runway into Stewart, This is probably the third time I've told him this and I'll continue to say it. What has happened in Stewart with the paved runway is a tremendous situation. If the provincial government takes over the responsibilities of the airport, what of the municipality of Stewart? They'd have to pick up a tab that the municipality, to a certain extent, would find themselves strained to pay. Those local taxpayers will have a punitive tax increase to cover operating costs.

I would certainly never want to see some type of local tax placed on the air ambulance service, if this ever came to local or regional jurisdiction of airports. They might find it very favourable to find ways of putting taxes on services for their local airports. One of the things I would hope would never happen but could is that air ambulance service could be taxed to help out with the operating costs. Regulations made for airports like Vancouver could also be made to include Stewart or Atlin if the provincial government had their wish to take over the airports. Certain technological equipment would have to be purchased by the municipality or the regional board for the local airports. Who is going to pay for it? The local community, the municipality or the regional district. In many areas of this province it would be very difficult for local communities to pay for runway lights or radio frequency equipment. The cost is punitive; the policy is wrong.

In conclusion, I would certainly hope that the minister can get up and emphatically state in the House today that the provincial government is not pursuing a policy to take over the responsibilities of the federal MoT, putting the brunt of the cost upon the residents of the local area. The responsibility upon the taxpayers of this province, if this program was completed.... The responsibility of air service is not a matter to be used within a strict partisan, political sense. I would certainly hope that the minister can clarify some of these positions.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the remarks of the member for Atlin. I did say before that I don't know why the opposition is saying that the province is going to take over the federal government airports. I think it has been brought about by the fact that the federal government has a task force going regarding the administration of their strips in our province. I named 10 or 12 locations where they have federal strips. The province of British Columbia has definitely given input into this task force, but never at any time have we said that we would take them over. I think I can safely say that we don't intend to take them over.

As an example, if they decided they were going to close Prince George airport tomorrow.... You are saying now you want a commitment that we won't take them over, but let's look at the other side. Suppose they decided that they weren't going to operate Prince George airport as of tomorrow. What do you think should happen then? Would you let it be closed down? Of course, then I think the province has a responsibility. We are not looking for that responsibility and we're not inviting it.

What the federal task force is looking for is to bring the administration closer to the action, as I understand it. By that I mean that rather than orders coming out of Ottawa, they will have a local airport authority. That is what they are looking into. We don't see anything too wrong with that, as long as they don't delegate any of the financial burden. We have said that in writing to the task force that is looking into airports for the government of Canada.

Getting down to specifics, Atlin is another area I didn't mention. We are trying to develop an airstrip there to upgrade their transportation facilities for their citizens. What we have done so far, as far as I know, is give the Atlin board a $100,000 study allowance. I believe the Atlin board of trade had an advance on that of some $10,000. The reason we dealt with the Atlin board of trade.... I don't even know who the members are. We didn't deal with them on a political basis. They're the only organization in the community that we could deal with locally, as far as I'm aware. That's why we're dealing with them. We haven't gotten very far. The study and the principle of $100,000 has been approved; there's been an advance of $10,000. At Atlin we're not anywhere near any construction or anything like that. I'm sorry to say that. I'd like to see it a little further ahead than that, but that's my information.

Regarding the Dease Lake airstrip and the big hole there, I haven't heard of that one. Last October I was there myself at the Dease Lake proposed strip. As I said earlier, we're working there at the present time — or should be. The Highways people are supervising the construction. I only hope that what the member says does not turn out. I believe that this year we're planning the expenditure of half a million dollars on upgrading, but we realize that won't be the full job. It will probably go into 1981 before we get it fully upgraded. The intention for 1980 is to spend half a million

[ Page 3177 ]

dollars, but whether or not that fills the hole, I don't know. We've had problems there: we even had to relocate our own road to Telegraph Creek to get the strip fitted in. I believe that is what's going on at the present time — the relocation of the Telegraph Creek road.

I just got a note regarding the hole the member is concerned about. The hole is in fact at the side of the strip. It was cleared so that the area can be used to dump surplus material which will be stripped off the runway during construction. They have cleared the area of the hole, which is a natural area. They want to use the hole for putting fill in that they'll be taking off the strip. That's a note from the engineers.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Dealing with the air ambulance: yes, this will bring the air ambulance back to a lot of communities, when they are fully upgraded. A lot of them will only be able to go in in the daytime, until we get further facilities. But at least it's a step along the road. The member for Atlin mentioned that this would put a financial burden on the municipalities. I hope not — that's not the intent, as we envision it. We haven't had too much experience yet. Once we have the capital improvements done, they will charge a user fee; that's where they'll get their revenue from. Therefore, hopefully, there will be no subsidization from the municipal or regional tax base. As I said earlier, the province allots a contribution to the capital. But we will be getting out when the improvements are done, and then the regional district and/or the municipality will be the operator. They intend to get their revenue from a user fee — which is done in other places. I understand they make money in some places. Most of the municipalities I've talked to say that they cannot see a problem in getting enough user fees to look after the operation, the maintenance and so on of the airstrip. Along with that, hopefully they will make a little profit in the selling of fuel to the aircraft involved.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to take part in this debate, after waiting my turn quite patiently, having to leave for Vancouver fairly soon to have a good socialist meal on the B.C. Ferries, in the buffet.

AN HON. MEMBER: No beer!

MR. MACDONALD: Don't you start knocking a good socialist meal! There'll be a fine class of people on the B.C. Ferries; there will be a lot of them from out of the province, I know, but there'll also be some of our B.C. citizens enjoying the fresh air and not having to submerse themselves in that tunnel that the minister.... Why doesn't the Minister of Highways speak up? Let the people who come to and from the Island enjoy the fresh air and the scenery and the salt air. It's beautiful at this time. Why don't you take the Meccano set away from that other minister of technology before some serious harm is done to this province?

I've talked to the minister privately. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my colleague, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), about what is a very serious problem in a riding which has gotten very little through the years from that Highways budget. It's peanuts compared to what's spent in the Cariboo and other parts of the province. It's understandable in a sense. But when we have a real problem, we need real resources put into the solution of it. I'm talking in particular about the representations made to the minister by a very able group of conscientious citizens, the Hastings Sunrise Citizens Planning Committee, under the chairmanship of lan Mass. They're meeting every week, and it ~s a real community endeavour to try to save the northeast quadrant of the city from the destruction of the neighbourhood that is taking place there and to be of assistance to the ministry. We have, coming through that little area, 10,000 to 14,000 vehicle movements per day along Cassier, spinning off into the side streets because of the frustration of trying to get through and trying to get between the 401 and the Second Narrows Bridge or some other point in the downtown waterfront or downtown into the city of Vancouver.

The minister is now concerned with that traffic bottleneck, and that's fine, but as I gather from his letters, he's not listening to the pleas of this group that you try to provide a solution to the traffic problem that will not destroy more neighbourhood space — it's a residential area — and not lead to the destruction of homes. While we can't complain of your messengers, Mr. Minister, you have Mike O'Connor, highway engineer, and your property negotiator, Lionel Mercier, and they are speaking with the local people. We appreciate that, but the message that's coming back is blurred and out of focus, and while I'm speaking there may be another house on the west side of Cassiar Street bought up by the Highways department, boarded up and about to be torn down.

There should be a real search for alternatives to just another freeway section through that neighbourhood area. One might be a tunnel. Okay, it's expensive, but so is this proposed Annacis Island bridge, which is going to debouch thousands and thousands of extra cars per day going into Burnaby and southeast Vancouver and down Boundary Road, which has already been a problem for the residents in that area, and help to make Vancouver East and Vancouver South, for that matter, a dumping ground for the heavy truck traffic and the vehicular traffic that is coming into the main centre of population.

So a real solution with some real resources in terms of bucks behind it is called for. The very least, it seems to me, that should be explored in terms of alternatives is a submerged or sunken arterial link between 401 and the Second Narrows Bridge with a cover, so that you don't have the noise, exhaust, pollution and the traffic coming through there and spinning off into the side streets of what should be a regular residential neighbourhood, which is being destroyed. There are alternatives. The minister ought to, before he goes ahead with just another road — just another widening of Boundary Road, just another freeway right through a city section — have some regard for the local residents and try to preserve the kind of family life and stability of a residential area.

So what I'm asking the minister to do is stop what he's up to now, which is to be going blindly ahead with the ordinary traditional highway solution: widen the road and put more cars on it. Then when that gets to be too much congestion Parkinson's Law applies — the more you build the roads the more traffic comes onto them and then you have to build more. I think an imaginative solution is called for. I would ask the minister to employ some outside consultants over a period of two or three months — if only that — to look at an alternative that will preserve neighbourhood values and at the same time handle this kind of traffic flow.

I know the minister is not in charge of light rapid transit. I wish he was and that instead of spending some of that highway budget on some of these white elephants that, as I

[ Page 3178 ]

say, are going to just increase the congestion problems in the long run, he would be able to devote some of those big resources that he has at his disposal to move people by rail and all the other modern means whereby people can be moved with convenience and without pollution or the congestion which is really jamming up and destroying the cities. What I'm asking him now is if he'll give attention to it, stop the buying up of houses — every day or two we lose another one — consider an imaginative solution and be willing to pour some real bucks into the solution of this problem on Cassiar.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm really pleased to hear from the hon. member for Vancouver East on highway matters. He's brought up quite a major problem in the highway system in the city of Vancouver and his riding, specifically the Hastings-Cassiar corridor, as we call it, which goes from the end of the freeway, where it never should have ended when it was built, to the Second Narrows Bridge. I believe it was in the fall of 1979 — I'm not sure — that the city of Vancouver approached my office and wanted to know what we were going to do about it. I went and told them that we would upgrade that corner at an estimated cost of approximately S25 million. We had a lot of work to do. The first thing was to get out and get property lines and that. We wrote letters to all the citizens in the area telling them that there would be Highways personnel around looking for legal survey pins and so on. We also had communication with the Hastings organization. At that point the city of Vancouver was very happy that something was going to be done about it. For the information of the House, the comer of Hastings and Cassiar is the most congested traffic area in the province of British Columbia and probably in western Canada. But how to relieve it....

Our engineers want to build a depressed grade and widen out the area so we can move the volumes of traffic in a more efficient manner.

This is always our major problem in these modern days — the acquisition of the right-of-way, as we call it, to build on. In that corridor, as you know, things are fairly tight and we have to acquire property and housing and so on. I'm not too sure how many houses have already been acquired by the city of Vancouver for this project over the years. We had been acquiring houses without using any of our expropriating powers. I get the message from you that maybe you think we should stop this. I might say that our current policy is that where we know that it will be on a right-of-way, we are acquiring from people who want to sell. We have an office there where the citizens go and discuss things.

Where it's at at the present time.... Our engineers drew up the rough design of the job. The people on the Hastings-Cassiar corridor use quite a.... You know, they gave us their views and they want a tunnel. At least they want us to look at a tunnel concept. That's fine. Our engineers have looked at a tunnel concept. Regarding the social upheaval, they advise me that going the tunnel way will require more homes to be acquired than going the depressed construction way.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not talking about a tunnel to Vancouver Island, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about a tunnel as an artery to connect the freeway with the Second Narrows Bridge. You say: "Why is that?" I asked the same question.

The reason for it is that the access at either end of the tunnel would require a lot broader area, and that in turn requires more housing and more property to be acquired.

Furthermore, there are a lot of operational problems regarding tunnels. You can tell my colleague that. Suppose a tunnel was built. Highways has the experience of operating the Massey Tunnel. You, Mr. Chairman,, will know about that. They are not simple items to maintain or operate. They need constant maintenance, and we're talking from experience.

In any event, the people at Hastings-Sunrise.... Is that the...?

MR. MACDONALD: Hastings Sunrise community planning.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes. They have been dealing with their city council, and rightly so, and to some degree our ministry. Where we are at now, the mayor of Vancouver contacted me some two weeks ago by telephone and he is really asking for the same thing you just asked for, and that is another look at it by an independent group of consulting engineers. Much to my amazement, although I haven't got it in writing, he said: "We're even prepared to pay for part of the costs. " That's the city of Vancouver. I said sure. At first I thought that we had the answer, but we'll gladly take a second look at it. At the present time the mayor of Vancouver is trying to get an appointment with me to discuss it. While there are no commitments made one way or another, it appears that if they want a further study, I guess that's what we'll do.

I'd like the committee to consider that as time goes on we have this weeping of traffic in residential areas. In my opinion it'll only get worse until we have a permanent solution. We certainly want to look at all the options, and we're prepared to. Speaking for the government, we'd like to get on with the project, but we'll take another look at it. I don't know how long that study will take or what type it will be, but our senior people intend to meet with the mayor as soon as we can find an appointment time. Being more specific, I certainly think we can see the mayor on the subject before the end of July. So that's the current situation on that, Mr. Member.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to respond very briefly and ask one question of the minister. As the minister is aware, the people of Burnaby North, in that area I represent, are affected by this problem, and very seriously too. I think I speak for my colleague for Vancouver East when I express my appreciation to the minister for responding to us very clearly today. I think most people will be gratified to know that you're willing to hold back any immediate plans, to take a second look and perhaps go for an independent survey. We all know that it is a very difficult situation to solve, and the longer we wait the worse it will become, as the minister says. I know Burnaby North too will be pleased that the minister is willing to take a second look at it.

You have been in contact, from what you said, with the mayor of Vancouver. As it does affect Burnaby, I was wondering if at the same time you will be making the same contact and communication with the officials of Burnaby.

MS. BROWN: Since we're on the topic of Burnaby, I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions about some plans to destroy another neighbourhood in Burnaby. Specifi-

[ Page 3179 ]

cally I'm referring to the Newcombe-Stormont-McBride connector. I'm going to ask the minister approximately six questions, and then I want to make some comments before I get his answer.

Firstly, what specific plans have been evolved for that connector, if any? Secondly, will the plans follow the conceptual plan which was put forward by the transportation committee of Burnaby? That is, if the decision is to go ahead with the connector, will it be cut-and-cover, or is the government going to insist on doing it at surface level? Are we going to have six lanes running through the centre of another neighbourhood in Burnaby? Have any funds been committed to develop the connector yet? Have any funds been earmarked, put aside and actually committed to the development of the connector? Have any funds been committed to connecting Marine Way to the connector; getting from Marine Way up to either McBride or straight through to Newcombe and onto Stormont that way?

In his response earlier the minister indicated — I think we were debating the transportation bill — that research was being done on the Pattullo with a view to putting LRT on the Pattullo Bridge. If that is done, will it still be necessary to go ahead with this Newcombe-Stormont-McBride connector; or has the minister, based on a decision to go through with the LRT, found that it's no longer necessary to proceed with this?

My final question on this particular area is: recognizing that the primary concern is with the moving of goods rather than the moving of people, has the minister looked at the alternative concept of a ring road rather than the idea of running trucks and heavy vehicles right through the centre of the neighbourhood?

I have a couple of comments while the minister is preparing a response to those questions. I remind him that the draft transportation policy of Burnaby, in its very first resolution presented to the government, stressed that liveability and the general environment of residential neighbourhoods was the priority. It's not going to be possible to realize this priority if a six-lane highway is run straight through a neighbourhood that affects somewhere between 11,000 and 12,000 people. That's what we're talking about. We're not discussing just the people living right on Newcombe itself but the people who are going to be affected by what the minister refers to as traffic "weeping" through the neighbourhood as a result of trying to get on or off the connector. Of course, if it's cut-and-cover that's quite different; you just have one access or two very defined ones. If it is a six-lane highway running straight up Newcombe and straight through these residential neighbourhoods, what we end up with is schools on one side of a six-lane freeway that students have to cross in order to get to them. We have churches, community centres, parks being absolutely destroyed as a result of a six-lane freeway going straight through the centre, to say nothing of the smoke and the noise and the fumes and the general pollution that the people bordering right on that connector will have to deal with. There is very, very strong opposition to that.

There is also opposition to a statement which had to do with the whole business of dealing fairly with the property values which would be affected. I wonder whether the ministry has taken into account direct or indirect effect in terms of property values — depriving the residents of recreational facilities because Burnaby Park will be on one side and they will be living on the other, and jeopardizing the lives of children going to elementary, junior and senior secondary schools — as a result of this six-lane freeway going straight through the centre of what is now a homogeneous residential area. It is now a community, a neighbourhood. This connector is going to do absolutely nothing but destroy that and start compartmentalizing the area into little boxes. The residents won't be able to get in and they won't be able to get out, certainly not safely the way they can now.

The members of the East Burnaby committee have been in contact with the minister, and the minister has very kindly responded and expressed a willingness to meet with them. They are hoping that before any final decision is made this meeting will take place. They are aiming for an end of July meeting and I understand that telephone contact with the minister's office indicated that September and October would be a more reasonable time for a meeting. In view of the fact that the opposition is moving as quickly as it possibly can to discuss the business of the House, maybe the minister will find it within his power to meet with them by the end of July — certainly before any decision is made.

Take into account, Mr. Minister, that we are dealing with an area that is not just Newcombe. We are talking about 19th Avenue to Cumberland and Edmonds to 10th. It is a very large area, as I said before, which affects somewhere between 11,000 and 12,000 people. Also take into account that the opposition to this connector is not new, but has been around a very long time. One of the members of the committee tells me that he can remember, as a young man, the fear expressed about what would happen when the decision was eventually made to push Newcombe through and hitch it onto the freeway. He thinks that was probably somewhere around 1930, or around 1927, 1928, 1929. This has been going on for a long time, and we really would appreciate some straight answers from the minister in terms of what the plans are. We hope that the minister will take two things into account. One is that there has to be some kind of consultation, not just with the municipal government but also with the residents of that area, the people who live in that neighbourhood, who live in that community. If it is possible to have a meeting with the committee, which has a membership, incidentally, of nearly 700 paid-up members, sometime before the end of July, they would appreciate that.

While I am on my feet, I would just like to ask the minister a couple of other questions. What is the future of that great superhighway known as Kingsway? Is it going to continue to become so congested and so cluttered that it is not going to be usable to anyone, or does the minister have some plan for Kingsway?

Re the new Marine Way which is well on its way, have any final decisions been made as to how many exits are going to be coming off it into the East Burnaby area? Can you give me some idea of the location of those exits? Also, what about Highway 1? Are there any plans for further upgrading, any additional lanes? Are there any plans to widen the Lougheed? We keep hearing about the possibility of an extra lane on the Lougheed. Have any decisions been made about that yet?

The major feeling of the residents of Burnaby-Edmonds is that they would like to see the existing roadway system upgraded and improved before any decision is made about introducing any new system like the Stormont-Newcombe-McBride connector. Before doing anything about that, they would prefer to see things like access to Highway 1 improved, and Kingsway and the roads that are there now. It would also help if we could have some better public transportation in the municipality as well, because it is continuing

[ Page 3180 ]

to deteriorate. All of that should be done before any decision is made about the Stormont connector. Even before that happens, you should have a meeting with the members of the East Burnaby Ratepayers Association, as you have agreed to do.

Finally, seriously look at the alternative of a ring road around the municipality, rather than continually using the idea that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. It may be the shortest distance, but it could also be the most destructive in terms of neighbourhoods, residential areas and communities where people have to live. Sometimes it is going to cost a bit more. Residents of Burnaby recognize that it is going to cost maybe $7 million or $8 million more to cut and cover it, if the connector goes through, than if you go with a straight, above-ground freeway. A government that can afford to put millions of dollars into a playing field for little men to run around in and kick a pigskin surely to goodness can pay some kind of attention to the quality of life of people living in their homes in their particular neighbourhoods.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, in a quick response to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), we certainly will have the municipality of Burnaby involved in the discussions regarding Hastings-Cassiar, because they are affected. I thank her for bringing that to my attention.

To the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I will try to answer some of your questions. Stormont-McBride — this three-kilometre graded street connection from the Trans-Canada to the Cariboo Road interchange to McBride Avenue at 10th Avenue in New Westminster — is an element in Burnaby's major street network. Considerable design work has been done. Current suggestions from Burnaby and local citizens to lower the grade for about one kilometre of the route are not cost effective. I have invited the ratepayer group representatives for discussion; I think you referred to that. That is where that stands. We are in the design stage of it, but there has been no authorization to proceed with construction or anything like that.

You also asked whether we have discussed this with the Burnaby transportation committee. The answer is yes. Have any funds been committed to connect Marine Way to Stormont? The answer is no. Have any funds been committed to Stormont-Newcombe? The answer is no. You also asked about Kingsway. We have no plans for Kingsway at the present time. You asked about Marine Way exits to East Burnaby. Details are being worked out now with Burnaby and New Westminster. I don't know whether that answers all your questions.

Maybe the member would repeat one question I didn't get, because it is important to me. I did say under one of the bills that we were considering the feasibility of installing LRT on the Pattullo Bridge. That study is still going on, but we expect to have an answer soon. I didn't make a full note of your question; perhaps you wouldn't mind bringing that up again.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I just wondered, if we had the LRT route coming off the Pattullo Bridge, whether there would still be that great need to have the Newcombe-Stormont connector go through. The first response which the minister gave, simply saying that it is not cost effective — that is precisely the issue that I am asking the minister to look at. We recognize that it is more expensive to cut and cover than it is to just do a straight surface freeway, but in the long run, not just in terms of the quality of life of people, it could in fact be more expensive, because a six-lane freeway going through the centre of a neighbourhood puts your elementary schools on one side and the students using it on the other side. You end up running straight through a park, preventing half of the neighbourhood from having access to that park. We're talking about disturbing churches and the congregations that use them. In terms of balancing books, certainly what happens to the 11,000 people, who are now living in a homogeneous neighbourhood and using all of its facilities and resources, has to be taken into account. We're not discussing the $30 million or $40 million which is going to be spent to build a sports arena or a trade centre. The difference would probably be in the vicinity of $7 million or $8 million or $9 million. That is a lot of money; there isn't any question about it.

In terms of what is going to happen to the lives of the people living in that area with those big trucks going by — the smoke and the stench and the noise and the filth — and the fact that you can't get from one side to the other.... You have a six-lane freeway running down the centre of your neighbourhood. It's not enough just to say that it's not cost effective. It is going to cost more to put it under ground and to cover it; the people know that. What they're suggesting is that the minister seriously look at the long-term impact on the neighbourhood of having that six-lane freeway running through the centre of a neighbourhood. Probably the minister will find that in the long term it is cheaper to preserve that neighbourhood and the quality of life of those 11,000 to 12,000 people living there now than to simply say it's not cost effective and throw a six-lane freeway right down the centre of their neighbourhood. That is precisely the point I'm trying to bring to the minister's attention on behalf of that small and very old community.

As I pointed out to the minister, the battle against this connector is not a new one. From the very time that Newcombe Street was put in and not completed, fear was expressed about what would happen to that area once the street was put through. If the decision has not yet been completely made — even if plans have been drawn up — please stop and sit down and speak to the people living in that area, not to the transportation committee of council or council itself. Speak to the people who are going to be affected by that decision before going any further or assigning any money to the development of that. This road is not to move people, it's to move trucks, heavy equipment and that kind of thing. It's a commerce route that's going to be running straight down the middle of an old and very homogeneous residential area. It is absolutely callous to make the comment about it not being cost effective and to discard what this decision is going to do to the quality of life of the people living there.

The minister raised another issue; I'm sorry I can't remember what it was. I feel very strongly about the decision affecting the Newcombe-Stormont-McBride connector. I believe that the minister should take a second look at it at this time.

MS. SANFORD: I don't know whether the minister wishes to respond at this stage; if not, I certainly will continue.

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of issues I wish to raise with this minister as they relate to my own constituency. There is one that I want to raise very early, because I think the

[ Page 3181 ]

minister should be aware of what is happening within his ministry and within his public information services department of that ministry.

Within the constituency of Comox there is a very dangerous corner. I'm very pleased that that Ministry of Highways has recognized that corner and has put up all those special lights. It's a corner on the Island Highway which crosses the E&N Railway tracks at Shaws Hill. It has claimed so many lives over the years that the ministry finally, this year, put in special lights which flash continuously to alert people who are not used to the Island Highway that they must exert particular caution as they approach that corner. In order to get a realignment of the road along the E&N Railway, it is necessary for the Ministry of Highways to apply to the federal government through the transport commission in order to get permission to realign the road across the railway tracks. We have finally received the approval of the Canadian Transport Commission to realign the road. This has been an exciting piece of news for people in the area who have been working for a long, long time in order to ensure that that dangerous corner was eliminated.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When I notified the press in the Parksville area that in fact permission had been granted by the Transport Committee, the reporter immediately got on the phone to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in order to determine when work would start on realigning that particular road. Let me tell you the answer the reporter received from the public information officer in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I hope I have the minister's attention in this, because I think it is an important issue. The reporter, when he called the Ministry of Transportation and Highways last week, spoke to an information officer and said: "I understand that permission has now been granted to realign the Island Highway at Shaws Hill corner. When will the work begin?" Let me quote the answer that was given by the information officer to the reporter from the Parksville paper: "Oh, they won't be able to proceed with any work until the estimates are approved." This sort of information that goes back to reporters in my constituency annoys me, because it is coming not only from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways but from one department after another. I expect that it is probably the Premier who is asking all the ministers to give out that information. After all, the Premier knows that the government is in trouble. They have to utilize every possible dirty trick in order to try to convince the public that it is in fact the opposition that is holding up the expenditure of funds for important projects such as this one in Parksville.

Surely the Minister of Highways is going to stand up today and say that he is very embarrassed about this, that there is no way he would advise his public information officer to give out that kind of information and that it must be the Premier who has given out this kind of information to all the people who are answering questions of reporters throughout the province. Why else is it happening? Why is it coming out of one ministry after another? I think it comes right from the Premier, and the Premier...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MS. SANFORD: Well, this is the Ministry of Highways. It is the public information officer out of that ministry that is giving this information and it applies to other ministries, so I have to assume that it is coming directly from the Premier. I think it is just an example of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are discussing specifically the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I hope that the Minister of Transportation and Highways will not stand for this kind of dirty tricks out of his ministry and that he will get up and say he is putting an end to it today.

The other aspect of this is that the information officer also indicated to the reporter that he is not sure, even once the estimates are passed. whether or not money will be allocated for that particular dangerous corner. When so many lives have been lost there, and when the ministry has recognized the seriousness of the problem by putting in these special flashing lights, I hope the minister will indicate to us today that money will in fact be allocated immediately for the Shaws Hill corner.

The minister has indicated previously, through correspondence, that work would begin as soon as possible after permission had been received from the transport committee in order to go ahead with that realignment.

The second issue I would like to raise with the minister relates to a problem that has been longstanding in the constituency relating to ferry transportation between just north of Parksville and Lasqueti Island. That ferry is one of the rare ferries in the province, in that the owner is a private person; it is not part of the ferry fleet as such. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways pays a fee in order to have a private owner operate a ferry service between Vancouver Island and Lasqueti Island. A lot of discussion took place a short time ago in order to have a new ferry put onto the service between Parksville and Lasqueti Island. The islanders were quite satisfied with the arrangements that had been worked out, because they were also told that the owner of that ferry was going to build a new and larger ferry, which would accommodate the needs of the people of Lasqueti Island. Now it turns out — and they have just been informed of this — that the person who won the contract has no intention whatsoever of going through with the commitment that he made to the people of Lasqueti Island. He's going to take the present ferry off for a period of six weeks and then he's going to replace it with two water taxis, which will not accommodate the various freight needs of the people on the island.

I think the minister knows that it's not a car ferry, and the people of Lasqueti Island are not asking for that much — they don't want a car ferry. They just want a basic service once or twice a day. In fact, they were satisfied to have a couple of days without any service at all. But they understood that the new owner of that vessel — the one who received the contract from the Ministry of Highways — was going to build a bigger vessel and accommodate the freight and passenger needs of Lasqueti Island, and he backed off.

The people of Lasqueti are not happy with this situation. They were given the distinct impression that the new owner was going to build a vessel, beginning in July, and then in July they were told: "No, he's not going to build a vessel after all." As a result, the people on Lasqueti Island are not going to be able to get their freight over and they're going to be under the same sort of conditions that they had before.

Mr. Chairman, I should let the minister know that, yes,

[ Page 3182 ]

I'm going to speak about the bypass. I know that it was only a few weeks ago that I raised this issue, and the minister at that time complained that I was asking for too much for the constituency of Comox. He complained that I was always on my feet yelling and screaming for more money to be spent through the Ministry of Highways within my constituency. I can assure him that, yes, I'm going to continue to do that, and that's why I wanted to warn him that I'm going to raise this issue again today.

Mr. Chairman, within the last few minutes or so the minister was talking about the congestion in the Vancouver area. He was also quoted, I read in the paper one day — as saying that Nanaimo was one of the most heavily congested areas in the province. I think that he forgot Courtenay, because he knows the problem that the people in the Courtenay area are facing at this stage. They need the construction of a bridge, and I don't understand why the minister has not yet called for tenders for that particular bridge. They also need a bypass. The minister knows that one of the most congested roads in the province is between Courtenay and Campbell River. He's mentioned that himself in this Legislature; he knows it well.

I would like to know (a) when construction is going to start on the bypass — and I hope the minister writes this down, because I would like to get an answer to that; the people in the Courtenay area are very keen to know; and (b) when tenders are going to be awarded for the bridge in Courtenay. Mr. Chairman, the 1981 Summer Games have been awarded to Courtenay. The Ministry of Highways initially indicated that a second bridge in Courtenay would be ready and available in time for the Summer Games in 1981. I would like assurance from the minister today that the ministry officials who have been making those statements are in fact accurate.

It's not very long ago that the minister said, when we were debating a special bill in this House which allotted a whole lot of money to the Minister of Highways, that part of that money was going to be to construct one of the footings on that bridge. Since that money has been allocated, I'm wondering why tenders have not been called for that bridge. What's he waiting for? We read in the local papers up there that tenders were going to be called last January. They still haven't been called and the congestion in that area is among the worst in the province, and I think the minister knows it.

I would like the minister to answer some of those questions. I do have some more issues that I wish to raise.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Comox, I'll try to go from back to front here with the questions. First of all, I'll deal with the bypass and the bridge, specifically the bridge. I'd like to deal with that. The funds for that were in Bill 5, and that has just been given royal assent. The member is aware of that. I think it was just prior to June 30.

The other thing that really didn't matter.... We had not had approval from federal Fisheries. We got the approval on that on June 29. On June 30 everything came together. The approval has been given by them: we have to have that. We're ready to call for tenders now. Those are the two factors from different.... I don't think I ever said we would call for tenders in January. Maybe we did two years ago, but time has gone by with so many approvals required, and we have to deal with the federal people. But the decks are now clear, as I understand it, and the tender call will be going out anytime.

When the council was down from Comox — it seems to me it was a couple of months ago — they brought up the fact that they have the Summer Games in 1981, and I'm fully aware of that. I told them at that time that I wouldn't bet a lot of money on having the bridge finished to accommodate the Summer Games. As a matter of fact, our engineers don't think that's possible at all, because it'll take longer than 12 months to build the bridge. That's our problem.

We've got lots of problems with the Lasqueti Island ferry, and we are working on them now. We awarded a contract, apparently, and I guess the contractor can't perform. But we are working on those now and we are going to have to do something else.

Regarding the public information officers saying that we're waiting on the budget, I guess to some degree that is correct.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, you know, let's face the facts, Mr. Chairman. Bill 5 is part of our budget and you know when that was approved, and also Bill 7. They were just approved. I've got the dates....

MR. BARRETT: That never stopped you with $100 million worth of warrants.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, would you send the Leader of the Opposition back to Japan or whatever? At least keep him quiet while I've got the mike. Send him on a holiday. You can't have it both ways, folks. I know from my own memory, and I have no notes, that Bill 7 was brought up and debated starting March 11 in this Legislature and it just cleared the other day. So don't get the waters all muddied up. It's part of this budget and so is Bill 5. The Lieutenant-Governor was here the other day and gave royal assent. They would be the first to say we had spent the money illegally prior to the passing of this. We're not going to get caught in that trap by them over there. Let's just get it absolutely clear here what's going on.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member said the Premier had given instructions. The Premier never gave any such instructions to this ministry — I don't know about the others — about having public information officers say that and neither did I. I want to defend the public information officers, too, because this is just.... We have interim supply on the main budget and that isn't the problem, but there have been problems with Bills 5 and 7 where they effect certain ministries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as I have reminded other members in this House, we cannot debate or reflect upon past or future legislation. We are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and I would remind all hon. members that we are in committee now.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thank you very much for your direction, but the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) brought it up.

Shaws Hill. Again we've had problems there getting approval from CTC, I believe it is — the Canadian Transport

[ Page 3183 ]

Commission. I think we got that on June 27, 1980, and we are....

MS. SANFORD: Will you be spending money this year?

HON. MR. FRASER: What we are going to do....

Acquisition is now going on right at the present time, and we hope to start construction by the end of July 1980.

I think that covers most of the questions brought up by the member for Comox.

MS. SANFORD: I don't understand the minister. Why does he want to protect that public information officer when he's giving out that kind of nonsense? The minister knows that the information officer is spouting nonsense. He knows that they have had interim supply for a period of three months and then another interim supply bill for another three months. They can spend half the budget at this stage. As for this business of putting these funds into special pieces of legislation, Bill 5 and Bill 7, what are they doing in those bills anyway? They should be in the estimates that we are discussing this afternoon. Estimated expenditures of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways — that's where these things should be contained. The minister, according to the statements that he made previously in this House, can at this stage go ahead and award the contracts for that bridge because the only thing that was contained under previous legislation — Bill 5, in this case — was the footing for the bridge. That's what he said in this House. So there's absolutely no reason why he couldn't have awarded those contracts by now. I think that public information officer should be taken to task on giving out that kind of information to reporters in this province. After six months, they can spend half the whole budget at this time, Mr. Chairman. What kind of garbage is the minister peddling this afternoon? I'm really surprised at him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll have to ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark. It's unparliamentary. Will the member withdraw?

MS. SANFORD: I'll withdraw.

The minister is quite capable of playing various political games. I should remind the minister that during the last election there was great concern within that constituency with respect to the Shaws Hill corner. There was a petition that circulated, and thousands of people that signed that petition because they were aware of the danger of that particular comer. So what did we see during the campaign? We saw these surveyors out. They went out during the campaign, they put up all their flags and they cut down some of the brush to show that the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the Social Credit government were finally going to do something about the Shaws Hill corner. But do you know what I discovered, Mr. Chairman? It wasn't until October. I waited until after the election; I waited for the rest of May, June, July, August and September — still no action. still nothing happening at the Shaws Hill corner. So I wrote to the minister to find out why it was taking so long for the railway transport committee to give approval for the realignment. Do you know what I discovered after waiting all those months — after we saw the surveyors out there putting out their little flags and cutting down the brush? That the application was made to the transport committee on October 5. So we waited May, June, July, August, Septembe — five months after the election — before the minister even bothered to make application. So he's telling us today: "We've just got the money. We've just got approval recently." It's no wonder, after waiting five months after the election was over, and after we had all this indication from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that they were going to resolve that particular problem.

I wanted to raise with the minister as well a problem that one of my constituents has brought to my attention. This particular constituent owns a towing company. He's concerned about a new ferries policy as of July 1. Apparently nothing wider than ten feet is now able to travel between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay. I haven't checked this out, and he may be incorrect. but he's been concerned and been in contact with me. He feels that this is a real hardship on those people who are attempting to move mobile homes. It's much longer if they have to travel through Tsawwassen and come through to Swartz Bay and up the Island. It's between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay that this new policy has gone into effect. I'm wondering if the minister would comment on that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Would you just repeat that again, hon. member? Just the last part, please.

MS. SANFORD: Well, as I understand the new policy, as of July 1 this year nothing wider than ten feet is allowed on the B.C. Ferries between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay. Apparently it's still permitted between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay. This is a hardship for people like my constituent, who owns a towing company and tows mobile homes, because they have to either travel at night on the CPR ferry or else come through the Tsawwassen route. I'm wondering if the minister would comment on that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of it at all, but I will certainly comment when I get the reply. It was just effective July 1. I don't know anything about it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions to ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I certainly give him credit for answering or trying to answer all of the questions. It is a pleasure dealing with him, in that respect. I asked some of these questions of his ministry previously, but I want to raise them now perhaps to reinforce answers that have been given in the past.

Starting from the southern end of my riding, there has been pressure from the community for some time for an overpass over the Trans-Canada Highway between Transfer Beach and the community of Ladysmith. The position taken by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways originally was that the highway was going to be widened as part of the Trans-Canada Highway program, and that nothing would be done about that particular pedestrian crossing until then. But it is my understanding more recently that the ministry has agreed to consider or even to construct a pedestrian overpass at the highway in advance of the actual highway work. I would like the minister to confirm whether or not that is the case.

With respect to the highway itself and when the changes might be made in that area, I think perhaps the worst example of ribbon development on the Island would have to be Duncan. Duncan was bypassed and the bypass has since become

[ Page 3184 ]

the main street. To some extent this happened in Ladysmith as well. I know some thought was given to rerouting the highway at one stage. I don't know whether there are any plans or any consideration for any kind of change in traffic through or around Ladysmith, or whether the current thinking of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is that the present routing of the Trans-Canada Highway would be improved.

I've had some pressure from the community council not a great deal, but some — for additional accesses to the highway at that particular point. It is pressure that I have been very reluctant to pass on. I feel that if it is going to be part of the Trans-Canada Highway system, we should try to limit access, even though at the present time it is almost a main street in the town. I have been very reluctant and have not raised that issue, either privately in the ministry or publicly in any way at all. I know that pressure is there, but I would hate to see it become more of a main street and less of a highway, unless there are some plans to do something different about the highway. I would just suggest that if there are any ideas to have an arterial route, a new bypass or something around Ladysmith, acquisition of the land or consideration of the route should take place sooner rather than later.

The Diamond bridge — I know the property has been acquired. The store that was at the westerly or southerly end of the bridge — depending on what the lines are there — was acquired. All the windows were broken in it, but since then somebody has taken the store down. I don't know whether that was the ministry or not, but obviously the ministry is getting ready to do something about the Diamond bridge. I wonder when that might happen, as well.

Moving towards Nanaimo, I recall the Minister of Transportation and Highways saying some time ago that the question of traffic to and from Duke Point, with the work that is going on there, could not really be resolved until the questions of arterial routes and bypasses for Nanaimo and whether or not there would be a third crossing of the Strait of Georgia between Gabriola Island and the mainland were looked at. Until then it would be very difficult to make any final decisions with respect to the road improvements that are going to be needed for Duke Point, but the sawmill at Duke Point will be opening almost any time now. It would seem to me that something is going to have to be done about the road program in that area. What are the ministry's plans with respect to that?

I wonder also whether the ministry is still considering the Gabriola crossing. I know in the past various ministers have looked at the possibility of a crossing between Gabriola Island and some point on the mainland. It has been considered, generally, as an alternative to the Horseshoe Bay–Departure Bay route. I know the idea of using Gabriola is not all that popular on Gabriola. I have been subjected to petitions and letters and have attended meetings, but I believe that the last time I did any kind of check on the island it was about 50-50 between those who wanted a bridge connection to Gabriola and those who didn't. Leaving apart the question of the ferry crossing, there are those on the island who believe that a bridge connection is the only practical way of handling the transportation. As I say, I would probably make more enemies than friends by raising that question now, but I have been concerned in the past, and I have a question on the order paper asking just how much it is costing the taxpayers of the province to maintain the ferry. It is not entirely satisfactory, in that there are times when the weather is so bad that the ferry can't make the crossing.

In view of the increasing population on the Island, it's not satisfactory in that it doesn't give service continually — that is, there are hours when the ferry isn't operating. That's all very well for an island that has a relatively low population, but the population of Gabriola is increasing, and the day is going to come when there is just going to have to be a bridge connection. That's my opinion on the matter anyway. I think that day is coming. As part of the Highways program in that area, I wonder if the ministry is currently looking at the possibility of a bridge connection to Gabriola Island, whether or not it's part of the crossing to the mainland.

My position has not always been popular. As far as the crossing of the Gulf of Georgia is concerned, my position is that what we're talking about is not a second crossing, an alternative to the number 2 route, but rather a third route. The traffic between the Island and the mainland is increasing to such an extent that having a replacement for the existing second route would not really solve the problem. We're going to need three crossings rather than two. It would also help the traffic situation in Nanaimo, in that the traffic crossing the Gulf of Georgia and wanting to move south of Nanaimo would not have to make the trip through Nanaimo, as they apparently have to do, or around in the event that there is a bypass; the Horseshoe Bay–Departure Bay crossing would still serve as a route for those heading north of the Island. There is a tremendous amount of traffic coming across the Gulf of Georgia, landing in Departure Bay and heading north to other constituencies, perhaps. There's a lot of development going on in the North Island. I would hate to see the Gabriola crossing accepted as a second route in place of the Departure Bay–Horseshoe Bay route, and have all the traffic that would be coming across the Gulf of Georgia and heading north having to go through or even around Nanaimo, with what we have now in the way of highway facilities.

I know the ministry is concerned about the arterial route situation. I know the community looked at the possibility of an arterial route on the westerly side of town, the route that would involve Wakasiah Avenue. Perhaps the community has made another final decision. They're not always the same, but they make many final decisions. To turn down that proposed arterial route.... It's all very well to say: "No, that's not what we're going to have." But what are they going to have? What can happen to do something about the traffic in that community? With the development going on in the area to the north and south of Nanaimo, certainly something is going to have to be done about the traffic through the downtown area and arterial routes to the immediate westerly side of the downtown area. I know that a corridor has been identified as a possible bypass route. I just wonder if the minister can tell me a little more about that.

There is the problem — I think I can even take a chance and name the people involved — of Mr. and Mrs. Nichol, who live just north of Townsite on Terminal Avenue. They're very concerned about the volume of traffic along Terminal Avenue at that point. I know the ministry is concerned about this and wants to do something about it. I'm talking about the traffic along north Terminal Avenue, in particular, just north of Townsite, where they wanted to get it rezoned. They just can't live with the noise and volume of traffic travelling along Terminal Avenue. I visited in their home, and I can believe that the situation is every bit as bad as they tell me it is: they find it very difficult to sleep; they can hardly carry on a conversation in their home during the day or night. They're right on the highway, and it's extremely

[ Page 3185 ]

noisy. It's getting, busier rather than less so. Something is going to have to be done. I know the ministry has been discussing this with the city. I wonder whether the minister can tell me anything that will bring me further up to date with respect to that particular problem.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Nanaimo, I'll try to deal with some of these, Mr. Member. First of all, Ladysmith and Transfer Beach: we intend to construct that overpass this year. In that general area we have a connection there. We haven't got four lanes. We're at the design stage to do some more four-laning south of Nanaimo that hooks up with other four-laning. But I don't think any construction will take place there this year; the design work is going on.

The Duke Point access is six kilometres; it includes a bridge over the Nanaimo River. Design is well underway. That's what is planned for the Duke Point access.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: You brought up a big issue there. You are quite right.

Iona-Gabriola crossing. I know that you've been away, Mr. Member, but I appeared, as chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, before the Crown corporations committee; you could check my attitude there. At the present time — it's already come up here to some degree last week — the studies are still there. We haven't made any decisions at all.

There are so many things happening so fast. As an example, it now looks as if we can get a lot more capacity out of the present ferries than we ever anticipated — it changes so many things; that's new news for 1980 I'm talking about — rather than buying new jumbos to upgrade the stretched ferries that we have, which is a breakthrough, engineering wise. The other thing we are looking at that affects Nanaimo — I don't know whether you have picked it up — is the possibility, because of high pressure on Horseshoe Bay, that the ferry terminal there.... The board of directors of the Ferry Corporation are looking at the possibility of buying another Queen of Alberni, which would be two years down the road, and then running it from Tsawwassen to Nanaimo. I'd like to hear what you, Mr. Chairman, think about it. It's going to add time to that trip, but we've got a very urgent situation in Horseshoe Bay.

Just while I'm on my feet, the member for Comox brought up the fact that you can only bring ten-foot wide trailers across. That is correct. We can't get them any wider now because the mayor of West Vancouver will not allow us to go down through to get them loaded. That's apparently what has stopped anything over a ten-foot width being loaded for the Nanaimo run. So now we have anything over a ten-foot width going to Tsawwassen. That's apparently the cause of that.

The member did mention the Gabriola bridge. The note I have here says it will not go ahead until B.C. Ferries route 2 decisions are made, and that seems to tie in that there is no intent to go ahead. You mentioned that a bypass was built, and then everybody built by the bypass at Duncan, and you can certainly see that. I don't know where these things go wrong, but I guess some land-use decisions were made and now we're back to square one: that's the way I look at it.

I haven't heard, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), about Ladysmith wanting more access to the highway. My general feeling is the same as yours, that I try to play them down as much as possible.

I have a note here about the Diamond bridge that you asked about. The Diamond bridge, as you are probably aware, is part of the four-laning north of Ladysmith. The design is nearing completion and the construction will probably take place next year. That's where that structure is.

I think that fairly well covers everything. I have said in public, and I will say it again: we are concerned with the congestion in Nanaimo, but the most recent thing that has happened, and you maybe haven't seen it — I think you were away — is that we have announced another study for a bypass, and that's where that's at. I hope it doesn't take too long, but somebody's got to make some decisions pretty soon.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bypass or arterial?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, the study is for a bypass, and actually, if you would check with my office, we have a rough map situation on it. There has been a study proposal put out, and we got to this point. It is my understanding that we wanted to put a couplet in Nanaimo — a good example here is Blanshard Street and Douglas Street — and the city of Nanaimo violently opposed it because we have to intrude into a residential area, and so that's why we're on the study of the bypass again. I think we've studied that before. I'll gladly give you the maps of the proposed bypass. That's where that's at.

I was in Nanaimo the other day and it must be the shopping centre capital of the free world, because there are shopping centres for miles, and more are still going up. I guess our ministry's involved in the approval of those, but it's absolutely amazing — it goes for miles. We are, of course, again working on the north end, to four-lane and hook up with the Parksville bypass that's through there.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, it's very difficult to follow the minister when the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) sits there muttering: "Aye, aye." We're trying to listen to what the Minister of Transportation and Highways is saying and the Minister of Forests keeps interrupting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is well taken. All members are reminded that courtesy in debate is always a feature of this House, and it is courteous that when a member is speaking all other members remain quiet and listen to what the member has to say.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Minister, you mentioned the possibility — I think it was more than a possibility — of a crossing between Tsawwassen and Departure Bay. I don't know just how long a route that is, and I'm wondering what the sailing time would be between Tsawwassen and Departure Bay.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think it adds almost an hour.

MR. STUPICH: To the Tsawwassen–Swartz Bay crossing or to the Horseshoe Bay–Departure Bay crossing?

HON. MR. FRASER: Horseshoe Bay–Departure Bay. We loaded a Queen of Alberni-type vessel at Tsawwassen and it ended up at Departure Bay almost an hour....

[ Page 3186 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the minister wish to stand up?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister is telling me that the proposed crossing between Tsawwassen and Departure Bay would add almost an hour to the Departure Bay–Horseshoe Bay crossing, which means that we're talking about a three-hour or perhaps even a three-and-a-quarter-hour turnaround period. Maybe it's the only way. I know that improvements are being made at the Departure Bay terminal. I don't know whether the improvements to Departure Bay terminal that are currently planned are ready to start. They may even have started. The minister keeps telling Hansard that I've been away. Perhaps something has happened while I have been away — maybe the improvements have actually started. What I'm wondering now is whether the improvements at Departure Bay — where the planning has been completed — would be sufficient to accommodate this new vessel.

Mr. Chairman, I can't help but comment on what must be one of the worst intersections in the province, I would think, which is going to be made even worse by increasing the traffic up Brechin Hill Road. When you get to the intersection of Brechin Hill Road, Estevan, Departure Bay and the highway, you have that whole conglomeration of streets in that one area, and there are stoplights all over the place. I don't know how you can change it, I don't know how you can improve it, but it's certainly a very bad situation. When the minister asked me to comment on the possibility of bringing more traffic — traffic from Tsawwassen — into Departure Bay, my first question would have to be: is the terminal as planned now sufficient to handle it? My second question would have to be: what is going to happen to the traffic on Brechin Hill Road, how is it going to enter the highway, and what's going to happen to the intersections with Estevan Road and Departure Bay Road? I guess it's going to be worse.

If I could just comment on the bridge situation, I'm sure the minister is aware, or at least his ministry is aware, that when they say that any possible bridge to Gabriola Island would be considered only as part of a crossing between Gabriola and the mainland, there are some 10,000 land parcels on Gabriola Island. They're not all lived on, but subdivision has proceeded to the point where there are 10,000 land parcels and people are gradually filling in these land parcels. While the present ferry system seems to be working fairly satisfactorily — I don't get many complaints about the ferry now — I'm just concerned that the population on the island is going to increase to the point that. In spite of the fact — my friends are going to hate me for it.... I think that with the population increase, whether or not Gabriola is going to be considered a jumping-off pad to reach the mainland or vice versa, some other service — a bridge, I think — is going to have to be the answer.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

On the bypass, the understanding I have is that things are not quite the way the minister put it. His suggestion was, well, we're going to do another study and hopefully it won't take too long. I believe that we've gone a little further, in that a corridor route has been established and what is being studied now is the exact placement of the bypass within that corridor route. I believe this is the first time that the actual corridor route as such has been established. So I think progress has been made, and now the study is narrowed, in that it's considering that corridor rather than the whole question as to whether or not there should be a bypass.

On the couplet, I know there's some feeling in the ministry — having talked to their staff — that using Haliburton Street as one of the legs or arms, or whatever it is, of a couplet.... It was objected to on the basis that it is going through a residential area. I believe at least some of the officials in the ministry favour the idea of making greater use of Nicol Street and widening it, or at least limiting access and parking, so that it could be improved sufficiently to provide better two-way traffic than it currently provides, in the hope of obviating the necessity of using Haliburton Street or any other street as another arm of the couplet. In other words, this would be putting the couplet all on Nicol Street rather than using Nicol and Haliburton. I think the senior officials in the ministry favour that approach. It still leaves open the question of what is going to be done north of the Pearson Bridge. The minister, I think, didn't comment on that. I wonder whether he has anything to say about that.

HON. MR. FRASER: First of all, on the bypass your remarks are correct — your version that they are trying to locate inside that. I want to go back to a more important thing that I don't want to alarm anyone with. It's regarding a ship by the name of the Queen of Alberni. We are not suggesting that all the traffic to Horseshoe Bay will be moved to Tsawwassen. What we are looking at — and no firm decision has been made — is taking a lot of the commercial traffic out of Horseshoe Bay and having it go to Tsawwassen and then to Departure Bay. It would add some sailing time to that but it would alleviate a lot of real problems we have at Horseshoe Bay. I understand from the ferry management that we can't expand at Horseshoe Bay. We are fresh out of land. We have fair options, it is my information, at Departure Bay. There is a little room for expansion as well.

I just want to clear up the point that the only thing we would be doing is taking the oversize-vehicle ship. Of course, the decision has to be made even on that, but we are under tremendous pressure from Horseshoe Bay. The little trailer hitch is an example of why the West Vancouver people, I suppose rightly so — Horseshoe Bay is in their municipality — are very concerned about all the congestion there and are turning around and telling us. They haven't said, "Get out of Horseshoe Bay," but they certainly don't want us to expand very much.

We also had operational problems there, runaway trucks going down that hill and right through the toll booth. For a little humour, we had one a short time ago. There was a lady at the other toll booth paying her toll. The freight truck went flying by and almost into the ocean, and her question was: "Well, why didn't that fellow pay?" He was out of control. But it's congested in there, and that seems to be some way of solution.

I think we've covered most of the points now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STUPICH: I guess I still have that concern about the intersection at the top of Brechin Hill Road. I don't know whether anything is being planned, or what can be done. It's a terrible situation, and obviously traffic on that route is going to increase. While the minister is consulting his staff, as I say, it's not as though it were one intersection; it's about four intersections that are just far enough apart so that they

[ Page 3187 ]

can't be one, and yet they are too close together to be separate intersections. It may be an insoluble problem. I don't know what the answer is, but I would invite some comment from the minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: The deputy minister has advised me that they have no plans. They have a steep grade there, and it is a very difficult situation. They don't know what to do, really.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: The first topic I would like to discuss with the minister is dangerous cargo. Of course, I'm particularly concerned because of what has been happening in the Deerholme area where a tank-car which had been used to transport pentachlorophenol — PCP, a very highly toxic chlorinated hydrocarbon — was left unattended, parked on the siding at Deerholme, and somehow, either by someone accidentally opening the valve or someone deliberately flushing out the car — no one is saying anything at this point, to the best of my knowledge — that toxic substance was deposited. The very fact that such a car could remain unattended.... It is still there, incidentally. In fact, the rail company was going to move it, but the regional district moved to make sure the car is left there until they resolve the problem surrounding this particular spill or whatever the problem is in that area.

My concern as far as this minister goes is the kind of control or lack of control relative to transport and storage of that kind of product. I understand the car had been at B.C. Forest Products in Youbou, where it had taken in a carload of PCP. I also understood that some of the residue from the dipping tank — the wood sludge and so on — had been placed in that tank-car, I suppose because of hesitancy for burning the product, which is the only way they have of disposing of it. Of course, as it escapes into the atmosphere it is toxic also.

Surely a car just wandering around the countryside like that, at the will of whoever and whatever and left unattended, is not a very adequate kind of protection for the public as far as a substance that is known to be a very grave hazard. I am wondering if the minister has regulations. If he has regulations, what are they and what does he do about enforcing them? Surely if there are any regulations they must have been enforced very laxly in this particular instance. If in fact the regulations don't cover that kind of thing, I would urge the minister to take some steps to ensure that for products like that, and empty containers such as that tank-car, which is a very toxic thing, some kind of controls are instituted to ensure that some child, adult or whatever can't wander along, open a valve and let that substance leak out. It is certainly not a very reassuring thing for the people who live in that area to find that those kinds of things can happen.

That is the first point I want to raise with the minister. I don't know whether he wants to respond to that particular one before I go on to something else.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, what the member for Cowichan-Malahat is discussing is a federal responsibility. However, I reported in the Legislature the other day that there are federal regulations now going forward on dangerous goods in the House of Commons. It is my information that it is in second reading and committee. The provinces have all been asked for and have given their input in the legislation. After the legislation has passed, the provinces also, through the transportation ministries in each province, have agreed to work out arrangements so they'll be helping with the enforcement side of this, and I think you'll see a big difference in the enforcement of regulations governing transportation of dangerous goods in about a year from now. That's how it seems to be progressing, with the provinces probably in cooperation right across with the government of Canada and Transport Canada.

MRS. WALLACE: With apologies to my colleague for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), I'm looking at your estimates and I seem to see a lot of things that are in his constituency being charged to mine in last year's estimates. I expect this is because of the redistribution and the change during the fiscal year. I'm wondering if you can give me some idea of how this was worked out. When I see an item, for example, charged to Cowichan-Malahat — "Island Highway from Haslam Creek to Cedar Junction, $4.50" — I kind of wonder what you did for nine months that cost us $4.50.

There are a great many of those things in here. Some of them are fairly sizeable. of course, and I realize that the greater portion of the year would be charged to Cowichan-Malahat — is that correct? — inasmuch as the election was called in the middle of April and this goes through to very close to the end of the fiscal year. The election was called April 3, so that would be the point in time. In that case, if this just goes from 1978 to 1979, that would indicate that that is all the work on that particular road in that year. This is the point that I'm trying to sort out. Did you make the break at the time the election was called, or has some of it been divided up between the two constituencies? Because I see some things in the Nanaimo constituency as well that certainly were in my constituency prior to the redistribution. So I'm just a little bit confused as to how this counting has taken place.

There was one specific one that I wanted to ask about here. Phipps Road and Trans-Canada Highway is one where $1 has been set aside. Why do you set aside $1 for any given road? This is on page 110. Granted, it is rights-of-way, but why $1? What happens for $1 in the acquisition of rights-of-way? I happen to know that that is just at the point where you are now putting in a left-turn slot for Whippletree Junction, but I am surprised at just $1 being shown and wonder what you would cover for $1. I would like some clarification from the ministry as just to how he did allocate moneys and if there was any breakdown made because of the redistribution, because the figures look rather strange otherwise.

I raised my concerns with the minister before about the Trans-Canada Highway through my constituency where we have a four-lane highway which is also the only arterial highway up and down the Island. As we discussed in this House on other occasions, it becomes very hazardous to get on and off that highway if you don't have stoplights or an overpass. There are, at present, no overpasses. I would like assurance from the minister that this is correct, that he is prepared to undertake two overpasses for the school children, one just south of Duncan at the Koksilah School and the other one either at Shepherd or Calimalu Road towards Mill Bay. I am very concerned about children having to cross that highway with or without a crossing guard. I know we have had a crossing guard at the Koksilah intersection. It is not an intersection; it is just unfortunate that the school is on one side of the four-lane highway and the children live on the

[ Page 3188 ]

other side. It is a very hazardous situation there. It is presently being four-laned; it is not four-laned at the moment. I don't see any signs of any overpass going in there, and I would like the minister's assurance that he has provided for that overpass and also some assurance as to the status of the one in the more southerly end of the constituency where the four-lane highway is already in position and there are some 80 children required to cross that four-lane highway without even the aid of a crossing guard at this point in time. So I have some grave concerns about that.

I'd like the minister to tell me how he decided to choose the areas he did as 90-kilometre zones on a trial basis, I understand. There are two zones: one from Mill Bay to Koksilah, and the other north of Duncan up to the Chemainus–Fuller Lake Park. I checked with the RCMP, and they tell me that there has been no greater incidence of accidents on those particular test zones, nor has there been any greater incidence of speeding. My concern is that when you have certain areas noted as 90 kilometres, certainly the tendency is that people don't slow down to 80 kilometres in the intervening areas. I've had people come to me who are really concerned for their safety, people who regularly have to get off of and onto that highway by making left turns into the four lanes.

I'm thinking particularly of Whippletree Junction where there is no left turn slot at this moment, but there is going to be. It is really hazardous getting off and on that highway. It's the only place I know of where we have a highway with so much adjacent business and no overpasses, no cloverleaf.

We have a few lights, and they're getting more and more.

They are going to have to get even more and more until we have nothing but a stop-and-go street all the way from the top of the Malahat to Ladysmith. As development grows there, it's just impossible to use the Trans-Canada Highway as a secondary highway and not have a terrific number of stops. I know you are considering some frontage roads, some business roads. It is a unique situation. It's the only one I know of where there is no alternate route that you can take. In many of those instances you have to use the Trans-Canada Highway.

I have another concern, which was raised by a constituent. It's the long stretches — I think it's something in excess of 12 kilometres — where there is absolutely no passing on the Malahat on the downhill section. As a person who travels that road frequently, I would point out to the minister that his "No Passing" signs are not entirely being adhered to. Certainly that creates a hazard. When you find a long line of cars behind a slow tourist who's looking at the scenery or behind a big truck that's travelling very slowly, there is a great tendency to pass. I would urge the minister.... I don't imagine he's going to be able to four-lane that Malahat; it's a pretty expensive proposition, I'm sure. But some passing areas, well marked, even the system that has been used in other areas.... I notice there are signs that say "No Passing When Cars Approaching in Either Lane," which prevents the tendency to pass when you see a car in the outside lane and perhaps there's one behind it which pulls out and you're in a collision situation. I notice that terminology is being used in the interior in some places where there are three lanes, and I would urge the minister to consider either that or else putting in some passing areas on those downhill zones. It's pretty hazardous having those long stretches with no passing, some of them quite straight, where visibility is fairly good and the tendency to pass is very great. I have seen some rather scary situations where people have pulled out to pass and then a car has come out from behind the car on the outside lane and there's been a lot of pretty fast movement in order to avoid a collision.

Another point of interest. I was very interested to hear on the radio and read in the paper — this morning I think it was; over the weekend anyway — the proposal that the ministry has of reflected light to protect animals, to warn them and to prevent them from coming onto the highway when a car is passing. It certainly sounds like a great idea. I notice that the only spot where this is planned on the Island is Parksville, where apparently it has been indicated that there is a fair amount of animal crossing in that area. But I would ask the minister to consider the Malahat, because there are a lot of deer crossing there. It would certainly indicate that there would be a need. It sounds like a great idea; I hope it works. It has been tried in other jurisdictions, and it's fairly simple: just a reflected light that prevents the animal from crossing when the car approaches and then as the car has gone, of course, the light disappears. It is a great idea, and I compliment the minister on bringing it into being.

I've had some correspondence with the minister on the Lake Cowichan road. We had a rather bad situation there where the blacktop was torn up and paving was not able to be carried out until the next spring. We had a rather rough situation.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Wednesday, July 2, I undertook to the House to provide guidance on the practice to be followed in regard to private consultation with the Speaker. Every member of the House has the right to discuss in private with Mr. Speaker any matter on which he feels advice is needed. The Speaker will endeavour and has endeavoured to assist members to resolve difficulties of procedure and to find an appropriate method of bringing matters to the floor of the House. Such private consultations are sanctioned by practice, as noted in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and are of assistance to both the member and the Speaker.

When a member consults with the Speaker and matters are touched upon which will later arise in the House, the member remains responsible for the presentation of his case in the House and for presenting all the facts to the other members of the House. It would be inappropriate for the Speaker to bring to the House personal knowledge of facts gained through private consultations which are confidential. It would be neither fair nor responsible for other members to be denied the opportunity to answer allegations when the full case is not presented in the House. The Speaker's rulings will be based only on material brought forward in the House except when a fact is of such common knowledge that notice of it may be taken.

I would also point out that it is highly irregular for a member to breach the confidentiality of the Speaker's office, just as it would be inappropriate for the Speaker to reveal to a member what has been discussed with another member.

On Thursday, June 26, a matter of privilege was raised in the House by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). In that case prior consultations had taken place between the member

[ Page 3189 ]

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the Speaker, by which the Speaker was informed of certain facts. But these facts were not brought before the House when the member raised the matter. Notwithstanding what personal knowledge the Speaker may have thereby gained, the House was not aware of those facts, as they were not brought forward by the hon. member. The Speaker's personal knowledge of a particular situation or circumstance cannot be presumed, nor should it form a basis for any decision he reaches in the House.

Hon Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.