[ Page 3223 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Employment Standards Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Heinrich.

Introduction and first reading –– 3223

Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 3223

An Act to Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British Columbia

(Bill M211). Mr. Hanson.

Introduction and first reading –– 3223

Matter of Privilege

Alleged bias of Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker rules 3224

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3224

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Fisheries jurisdiction. Mr. Lea –– 3224

Hydro line between Prince George and Prince Rupert. Mr. Howard –– 3224

Fisheries jurisdiction. Mr. Lea –– 3225

Mr. Howard –– 3225

Mr. Barrett –– 3225

Future of St. Mary's Hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 3225

Victoria-Seattle ferry service. Mr. Lockstead –– 3225

Mr. Hanson –– 3226

Emergency facilities at Vancouver General Hospital. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3226

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

Mr. Fraser).

On vote 193: minister's office –– 3227

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. King

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Davis

Mr. Lorimer

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: In the galleries today is Mayor Tom Mason of the city of Williams Lake in the riding of the Cariboo, which is the stampede capital of the world. I would like to ask the House to welcome Mayor Mason.

MR. STUPICH: In the gallery today are Chief Petty Officer Dorrington, serving with HMCS Provider, and his lovely daughter, Miss Robin Dorrington, visiting Victoria from Halifax, Nova Scotia. I would ask the members to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, today we were privileged to hear the prayer and the blessing on this House from the commissioner for Canada and Bermuda for the Salvation Army, Commissioner Waldron. I would like to ask the House to welcome him. His home is in Toronto. He is visiting us in British Columbia this week and we have just had a meeting with him. Would you please welcome the commissioner?

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to explain that the commissioner is here for a historic meeting of the two advisory boards from Vancouver and Victoria, which have met today. Some members, after the luncheon meeting today, have joined us in your gallery. I would like to announce to the House that with us are: Lieutenant-Colonel Willard Rae, the divisional commander for British Columbia; Major Hugh Tilley from Vancouver; Captain Bill Merritt of Victoria and Vancouver Island; Mr. Merlin Hawes from Victoria; Murray Glazier from Victoria; and David Mellor from Vancouver. They are all members of the advisory boards. Will the House please welcome them,

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, visiting the capital today is Her Worship, Mayor Mabel McCrory, from the large metropolis of, New Denver, British Columbia. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to Mayor McCrory.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, also visiting the House today is another mayor, Mayor Salvador of Creston. In the absence of his member, I would ask that the House make him welcome today as well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, as well as welcoming the Governor-General of Canada, who is visiting my home community of Powell River today, we have in the members' gallery my mother, my daughter Gina, her good friend Fay Hall, and the apple of my eye, my nine-year-old daughter Jennifer.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are three constituents from Dewdney. I would like the House to welcome my mother; Alderman Perry Cleven from the district municipality of Mission; and Min Delmonico. I might add that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I think, last saw my mother when I was six weeks old. This is revenge, to the hon. member. He came out into the valley in 1936, six weeks after I was born, I think, and tried to sell my father a new sedan. My father was having no part of it; he retained his convertible.

Introduction of Bills

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Heinrich presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Act.

Bill 36 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.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 41 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.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN
INSTITUTE OF NATIVE INDIAN
LANGUAGES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Hanson, Bill M211, An Act To Establish an Institute of Native Indian Languages for British Columbia, 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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) rose on a matter of privilege to give notice of that matter to the House at the earliest opportunity pending efforts to obtain a transcript of certain statements which give rise to the alleged breach.

The hon. minister advised the House of the substance of the statements in question, which was sufficient upon which to frame a motion.

The House will appreciate that situations of this kind present a dilemma in that if they are not raised at the earliest opportunity, priority over other business will be denied. But on the other hand, complaints founded upon reports of statements made outside the House require the tabling of the publication in question, whether it be a newspaper or other transcript. Without such tabling, a matter of privilege may not be proceeded with. Had the hon. minister not brought the matter to the attention of the House until he was in a position to table a transcript, and provided that he later offer a valid reason for the delay, he would be procedurally in order.

This being the case, I cannot conclude that the hon. minister was not in order as far as he went in rising at the first opportunity to make the House aware of his intention to complete his presentation to the House upon receipt of a transcript.

However, the authorities and previous rulings by Speakers of this House make it clear that the motion intended to be made giving the House power to impose a remedy must be

[ Page 3224 ]

presented even although a ruling has yet to be made by the Chair on whether or not a prima facie case exists.

Since this was not done the Chair must rule that notice as required by standing orders would be required in order to proceed further.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I might just get a point of clarification out of your ruling, which I appreciate, it seems to me that by your ruling — which I of course accept — a Catch-22 situation is raised whereby if a member is to raise a question of privilege in a timely way and yet does not have the evidence with which to bring a motion, then he cannot raise the question of privilege and the matter can never be before the House. Yet if he waits until he has the evidence he is out of time for bringing the motion. I wonder if the Speaker has any direction he might give other hon. members who, in keeping with their duties to this House, wish to protect the Speaker and other hon. members by raising a question of privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I am sure that the hon. minister, in having an opportunity to read the decision I have just handed down, will find the clarification and remedies available to him.

Oral Questions

FISHERIES JURISDICTION

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Yesterday it was announced that British Columbia was demanding jurisdiction over fisheries. On June 17 the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada reducing the power of federal fisheries officers to prosecute polluters of provincial waters. Can the minister confirm that the change in British Columbia's position on fisheries is designed to accommodate Alcan in its pursuit of the Kemano completion project?

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

MR. LEA: Does he deny it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: By the first question I assumed he would understand that yes, I am denying it.

MR. LEA: Can the minister tell us what made him, as the minister responsible, and his government, change their minds about jurisdiction over fisheries?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It is a matter of policy.

MR. LEA: I am asking for the reasons behind the policy decision that has been announced. That is an entirely different question, I believe.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No policy decision has been announced.

MR. LEA: Is the statement that was made yesterday not an accurate statement of the province's position?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps the member could clarify for members on this side of the House what statement he is referring to.

MR. LEA: The statement made by the Premier yesterday. Is the position of the provincial government now that they don't want jurisdiction over fisheries?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, I'm not asking for future policy. I'm asking: is the position of the provincial government of British Columbia at this moment that you do or don't want jurisdiction over fisheries in this province?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the position of the province of British Columbia will be put forward by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) at the constitutional conference.

MR. LEA: I'm not asking what the minister is going to do in Ottawa. I'm asking: what is the position of the government now?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are very closely related to matters of policy and I wonder if possibly, for clarification purposes, the member might expand a little on his question.

MR. LEA: I could ask the minister: has corruption gone on in government, or do you plan it? It's two different things. I'm asking now: what is the present policy — what is the present position — of the British Columbia government in terms of jurisdiction over fisheries?

MR. HOWARD: The answer is obviously that they don't have any policy.

But I wonder if I could....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is question period. It is not time for remarks. The member has a question?

HYDRO LINE BETWEEN
PRINCE GEORGE AND PRINCE RUPERT

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I have a question and I hope I get an answer. Question period implies an answer period as well.

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Environment. I'm advised that B.C. Hydro has recently obtained rights-of-way for a 500-kilovolt line parallel to an existing B.C. Hydro 500-kilovolt line generally between Prince George and Prince Rupert, in the area where the Kemano completion project is contemplated. Can the minister advise or confirm that B.C. Hydro is doing this and acquiring these rights-of-way in anticipation of the Kemano completion project being allowed to proceed?

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

[ Page 3225 ]

FISHERIES JURISDICTION

MR. LEA: In the past two weeks, has the Premier told anyone that the position of the British Columbia government is that the British Columbia government wants jurisdiction over fisheries?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, policy decisions on fisheries are a matter for the cabinet, and its discussions are privy to cabinet and a matter of confidentiality.

MR. LEA: I'm not asking about future policy; I'm asking whether the Premier has said to anyone that the position of the provincial government is that it wants the jurisdiction over fisheries. Have you said that to anyone?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, Beauchesne's fifth edition clearly states: "A question ought not to refer to a statement made outside the House by a minister." The Chair cannot insist on an answer, hon. member. It can only recognize questions.

MR. HOWARD: One final question: can I ask the Minister of Environment whether he knows that B.C. Hydro has acquired rights-of-way for that 500-kilovolt line?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be facetious, but does the member know I'm not the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro?

MR. HOWARD: I know you're the minister not responsible for very much.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask the Premier a very simple question. Will he state, as Premier of this province, what this province's position is on offshore fisheries?

HON. MR. BENNETT: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Are we to believe, by that answer, that this government has no known policy on offshore fisheries?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: If the Premier knows what his position is on offshore fisheries, can he give this House and the people of British Columbia the assurance that he knows it's the same policy he had a week ago?

HON. MR. BENNETT: One thing this government has that that member, when he was government, doesn't is consistency in our policy, Mr. Speaker.

FUTURE OF ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we've learned consistency is inconsistency over there.

I have a question I'd like to direct to the Minister of Health. Two months ago the senior assistant deputy, Mr. McDermit, assured the mayor of New Westminster that St. Mary's Hospital would not be closed. At a recent meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District the same Mr. McDermit asked for an in-camera session, and from that meeting came a decision advising that the St. Mary's Hospital should be closed and converted to an extended-care facility. Did the minister instruct Mr. McDermit to ask the GVRHD to hold a closed meeting to consider St. Mary's?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, in direct answer to the question, no. I did not ask Mr. McDermit to hold a meeting, but I know that it was going to be held. Let me say that it seems to me that the member opposite is now attempting to build a case for use in the future. I'm not sure that the conversion of an acute-care hospital to an extended-care hospital now or some time in the future means that the hospital is closed. This is the same thing that's happened at St. George's Hospital. and in London, England, and elsewhere. The moment you change the classification from acute care to something else, immediately the NDP, the Labour Party or whatever it may be on the socialist side says that you've closed an acute-care hospital.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. I'm extremely impressed with the intelligence of the minister. Did the minister instruct his deputy to persuade the GVRHD to have St. Mary's Hospital changed from an acute-care to an extended-care facility? Incidentally, it doesn't lend itself to that. I know a little bit about this subject, and it does not under any circumstances.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I did not instruct Mr. McDermit to do anything of the sort. The question of St. Mary's Hospital ultimately converting from an acute-care hospital to an extended-care hospital has been discussed. As a matter of fact, it was discussed some two or three months ago in my office between myself and the directors of that hospital. Of course, I knew that Mr. McDermit was going to be meeting with the regional hospital district and so on about this and other matters, I might say, relating to Eagle Ridge Hospital, Surrey Memorial and the Royal Columbian. All of these conversations took place. But no conversation has taken place concerning the changeover from an acute-care facility to an extended-care facility that I specifically know of. Certainly, it may have taken place.

MR. COCKE: I have one more question. Will the minister produce his own task force report, which recommends that that first-class facility continue as an acute-care facility?

HON. MR. MAIR: I think that question implies more than I can answer without taking the question as notice. I have really no objection to making that report available, except for one thing. I read the report very carefully. It contains some things therein on a personal basis which, I think, if the minister opposite were the Minister of Health, he would have some doubts that it should be put into the public domain. But I will look very carefully at the report, and if I can present that report to the member or to the House and still be consistent with the confidentiality that went into the making of that report, I will do so.

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY SERVICE

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has the minister obtained information showing that the Victoria Princess has suffered severe lack of patronage and is losing so much money that its schedule will have to be cut in half as an emergency measure, or has the minister avoided getting a report at all on that matter?

[ Page 3226 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I reported the traffic on the Victoria-Seattle run to the Legislature a week ago.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has the load factor in the past few weeks dropped to one-third of the ship's capacity, an average of 239 per trip? Were there six or more trips last month in which the crew outnumbered the passengers?

HON. MR. FRASER: A meeting has been called for next week to look into the details that you're referring to, but I haven't seen those details.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do have those details, and I'll be pleased to make them available to the minister prior to his meeting.

On a supplementary, is it true that the ticket revenue is not even covering the full cost of fuel to operate the Victoria Princess, let alone the wages, charter fee, dock fees, insurance and other operating costs?

HON. MR. FRASER: I have no idea. Those are the figures we'll review next week.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Once again, I have these figures in my possession. I'll be pleased to make them available to the minister so he can go to the meeting well equipped.

MR. HANSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, has B.C. Steamship Company had to borrow money to meet operating expenses, and float loans to meet payroll?

HON. MR. FRASER: For the member's information, they're constantly borrowing money. They have a credit line, and it varies up and down. I wouldn't doubt that they have borrowed money. I believe the credit line was originally installed in 1975.

MR. HANSON: Would the minister confirm that the deficit for this present season will be in excess of $2.4 million?

HON. MR. FRASER: I certainly will not confirm that. The season is really only getting started.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like, with leave, to answer a question asked of me yesterday in oral question period.

Leave granted.

EMERGENCY FACILITIES AT
VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

HON. MR. MAIR: Yesterday the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) raised the question of the closure of the emergency department of Vancouver General Hospital. This type of closure is not new and it is related directly to the reduction in the nursing workforce that happens every summer — among other things, I might say. On top of that, there are about 600 vacancies for nurses in British Columbia, and the demand for nurses is steadily increasing because of additional services being provided in the province by this government. The Vancouver General Hospital is acting in a responsible, planned manner to allow for the nursing shortage by reducing service in certain areas over peak holiday periods. For example, elective surgery was suspended for one day to clear up emergency patients requiring admission.

I don't think it accurate to describe this situation as a crisis. However unhappy it may be, it is a normal problem many acute-care hospitals encounter, Vancouver General Hospital particularly. At least 60 percent of the workforce are married and many earn enough to be able to take advantage of the leave-of-absence benefit in their contract to fulfill family commitments. It should be noted that any nurse is able to take three months' leave of absence without losing seniority benefits. Above all, the demand for nurses is also increasing because of the many increased services being provided in the province.

It is interesting to note that in 1974 at the peak holiday period, up to 320 beds at Vancouver General Hospital were closed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who was the minister then?

HON. MR. MAIR: I believe the member for New Westminster was the minister at that time, Mr. Premier.

Every year at this time we have the same problem. In 1974 the Minister of Health of the day was no doubt faced with the same questions I am faced with today and, as events proved, had no more control over the situation than either his predecessors or his successors. I have every confidence that the Vancouver General Hospital is acting responsibly in every way and has made every effort to see that other arrangements with other hospitals are made to handle the emergency requirements.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I would like to correct a statement made during question period in reference to myself. During question period the member for Prince Rupert attributed statements to me which are incorrect. That member stated that the Supreme Court of Canada had made a decision which allowed the pollution of salmon rivers in British Columbia and that that decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was welcomed by the Minister of Forests. On both counts the member for Prince Rupert is, as is usual for him, absolutely incorrect. The Supreme Court of Canada made no such decision. Had they made such a decision, it certainly would not have been welcomed by this minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member was doubtless rising under standing order 42 for a correction.

MR. LEA: I think we can clear this up. I didn't say what the minister said I said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are now clearly engaging in a debate. The Minister of Forests rose under standing order 42, quite properly, to correct a statement that had been attributed to him by another hon. member. To seek the floor on a point of order, rather than under a regular standing order, would be most inappropriate and would certainly only lead to debate, which is very much out of order at this time.

MR. LEA: I would like to rise under standing order 42. The minister just now wrongly attributed a statement to me.

[ Page 3227 ]

The statement that he made is not true and I would like to correct that. The statement that was made was: "The Minister of Forests welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada reducing the power of federal fisheries officers to prosecute polluters of provincial waters."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That's not what you said.

MR. LEA: That is exactly what I said. You check Hansard.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am going to attempt to be very brief on this matter. [Applause.] They're not always like this, Mom. Sometimes they are nice.

I hate to tell you this, Mr. Minister, discussing the Seattle-Victoria route, but we told you so. Months ago the government announced that horrendous decision to take the Queen of Prince Rupert off its northern route to service the Victoria-Seattle route. My colleagues in this House — the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) — and I warned the public of this province, this minister and this government what the end result would be. The end result is exactly as we predicted — even worse. We are in possession, as are people in the press gallery, of a confidential memo from the manager of the terminal in Seattle to Mr. David Price of the B.C. Steamship Company advising the minister that revenues are down, the schedule is a disaster and should be cut in half, and they now have to borrow money to meet their financial commitments in the interim.

Are you aware, Mr. Chairman, that had the government in its wisdom left the Princess Marguerite on that route — it is perfectly capable of sailing at this time and can accommodate approximately 1,800 passengers — the projected revenue increase — profit — for this year would have been in the neighbourhood of very close to $1 million — over $900,000? Those are the government's own figures. What do we have now? We have a projected revenue loss by the operation of the former Queen of Prince Rupert, now the Victoria Princess, on this route of some $2.4 million, and that's not the total cost. My own projections indicate that the loss to the people of this province on that route due to government bungling is going to amount to close to $5 million. But that is not nearly the worst part.

The worst part revolves around the small business people in the city of Victoria and lower Vancouver Island. How much revenue has been lost to these people? How many of these people are going to go broke this summer because of this government's bungling? A dozen? One hundred? Five hundred? Who knows? We know that that vessel, the Victoria Princess, has only been utilized at 32.7 percent of capacity since it has been in operation. If you project those figures over this one week and through the busy 1st and 4th of July holiday weekends, the average daily number of passengers has only amounted to about 33 percent of that vessel's capacity. Shocking!

I recall standing up in this House several months ago and warning the minister and the government of this predicament. I warned the government, as did the first member for Victoria and other members of this House. Did they pay any heed? Did they take a second look? Did they ask for any information? They did not. Do you know that border crossings in British Columbia are generally up, in spite of the fact that this government says it's the volcano, the bad weather, the recession, the opposition, their mothers-in-law? They don't blame themselves. The blame lies with none of those factors; it lies with that government over there, Mr. Chairman.

In any event, I did say I was going to be short. I have made my point. The government has been proven wrong, The very positive suggestions and recommendations that have been put forward by me and this very responsible and constructive opposition will be listened to in the future, I hope.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was raising with the minister quite a number of problems in my particular riding that I wished the minister to have a look at and give me some kind of response to. I hadn't completed that process. I have four or five other matters related to the riding to raise.

The minister has received correspondence from the city of Revelstoke regarding the plans for improvement of the western access to the city off the Rogers Pass highway. I would appreciate an indication from the minister of what the precise plans are for upgrading the western access. I understand that a need for some property acquisition is involved in coming up with a better and safer access to the city. The minister can appreciate that the traffic which has developed incident to construction of the Revelstoke dam has created further congestion in that particular area. It's a pressing matter on which the city has been in touch with the minister's office. I would appreciate an indication from the minister as to what we might expect in that regard.

Further, again I would ask of the minister that he stay in very close touch with the city officials in terms of developing the final plans for improvement on that problem.

The new Highways portion between the city of Vernon and the city of Armstrong has been received with a great deal of satisfaction by residents in that area. But there is a problem regarding the access road that exists on the south end of Armstrong, to Highway 97 — I think that's known as Pleasant Valley Junction — and I'm advised by the local ministry officials that, again, there is a property acquisition involved in moving the location of that junction somewhat further south. There is a tremendous increase in traffic on that particular road. The existing access is not a particularly safe one, and I would request that the ministry give priority to completion of that new access at Pleasant Valley Junction.

Another problem which I would like the minister to have a look at relates to a safety problem — it would be west of the village of Falkland, where there is a CNR railway crossing. It's just below a hill, and when trains occupy that crossing the traffic is frequently backed up a considerable distance.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How long do they stay in the crosswalk?

[ Page 3228 ]

MR. KING: Well, my friend knows, Mr. Chairman, that railroaders always observe the rules and vacate the crossing within the five-minute limitation — that is CP; I can't vouch for CN.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that heavy logging trucks, of which there are a great many on that particular road, experience difficulty in stopping once they come over that hill and find a backup of traffic in front of them, particularly in winter conditions, and it's a very dangerous situation. It's mainly the logging truck operators in that area who are complaining and very concerned about it. There have been a few minor tail-end collisions there; but as one can appreciate, with a very, very heavy load of logs we could be looking at a very serious disaster unless something is worked out to try and alleviate that problem.

I'm not in a position at the moment to make any recommendations to the minister about what precisely the solution may be, but I would be happy to discuss it with him privately later on. He might wish to comment on it, and he may have some plans in that regard.

The other problem of long standing is Adams Lake Road from Squilax up to the Trans-Canada Highway, and the negotiations with the Neskainlith Indian band for an exchange of land. The current section 6 road traverses Indian land, and they have been in dispute with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways regarding payment or an exchange of land which they would be prepared to negotiate. The upshot of it was that the native Indian band placed a blockade on the road, which resulted in a family of permanent residents being blockaded from access to their home. I met with the native Indian band and persuaded them that it was a rather dangerous situation to have a family isolated at any location in the province of British Columbia where there could be a delay — not only in the provision of foodstuffs, but also in the delivery of health care, particularly for emergency situations. Chief Jules and his band council were sensitive enough to that kind of human problem that they agreed to remove that blockade and give access to the family involved.

I was a little bit disconcerted, Mr. Chairman, that the Highways ministry took a rather bland, standoffish position on it. I submit, with all due respect, that the Highways ministry has a responsibility to ensure that access is provided for all citizens of the province, and I urge the minister to sit down with the native Indian band and negotiate a property exchange. I know that that negotiation process will not be easy, but I think with good faith and with a willingness — indeed, an eagerness — to find a permanent solution, something can be worked out. Once again, on that particular issue, if the ministry feels that I as the local MLA can be of any assistance in the process, I am more than willing to do what I can in terms of organizing the meetings and sitting down or trying to assist in some compromise solution to a very difficult problem.

Lastly, Chase Creek, Mr. Chairman. The minister is familiar with this, because that one is the creek across which the famous bridge runs; the minister made a small grant to it. There is an erosion problem with that creek and it creates a bit of a safety problem for some of the senior citizens' housing, which is located very close to it. I know it's not precisely the Minister of Highways' responsibility, but it does occur to me, Mr. Minister, that from time to time the Ministry of Highways is involved in fairly heavy construction involving the movement of rock and so on. I think that if the opportunity arises it would be useful and very beneficial to have some of that rock placed along the river for the short portion where the safety question and erosion problem are involved as a form of rip-rapping, which provides a location for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to get rid of their waste material and which would serve a very useful function as well for solving that local problem.

There are the issues I wanted to raise. I would appreciate it very much if the minister could respond and give me an indication of what's happening — a status report, as it were, on all of those issues.

I want to congratulate the minister on the improvement of the Trans-Canada Highway at that very difficult location of Kay Falls, west of Revelstoke, where there have been numerous bad accidents over the years. A new bridge is well on the way to completion. It straightens out the curve at that particular location and is going to be a very significant improvement both in terms of driving enjoyment and, mainly, safety.

Finally, I would like to make a suggestion to the minister about an issue I raised with him once before — that old road around Shuswap Lake, the Celista-Angleniont road. It bears a heavy flow of traffic, particularly in the summer, for it's a choice tourist area. We don't expect a first-class, wide highway there — you can't do that for all the areas of the province — but I think the minister could consider trying to develop some passing lanes there where traffic, particularly local traffic, could get by once in a while. The tourist flow and the congestion around there is so heavy in the summertime that the same matter which my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) talked about happens — where you have local people trying to get into town to shop or to get to work. Many of them live permanently around the lake and are tied up by tourists travelling at a leisurely pace around the lake. Then the frustration level becomes exceedingly high, and that is a formula for accidents in the province of British Columbia. So I think the minister might look at some temporary solutions there by trying to develop a passing lane every few miles at least along the way so the local traffic can get out of the way and go about their business without interfering with the right and the opportunity of tourists, who enjoy the beautiful scenery in that location, too.

HON. MR. FRASER: First of all I'd like to try to reply to some observations and questions that were directed to me last evening just prior to adjournment.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) brought up the Gabriola ferry. The note I have on that is that the Gabriola ferry does wait for the CPR ferry and is in radio contact with it to check and see if it is on time. If someone missed the ferry, it must have been an individual incident. I think his questions were about radio contact and trying to meet each other.

Regarding the Ivy Green....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not aware of that position, but it could well be in and it will be replied to, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Nanaimo also asked about Ivy Green Road and the fountain. The widening of the highway does not disturb the spring, but our ability to continue to give a pull-off for access will require more land from the Indian band. Negotiations for land in the Indian reserve

[ Page 3229 ]

are not completed at this time. In other words, we're trying to protect the spring, but we would like better access and we're dealing to get that better access from the Indian band.

Some of the second member for Surrey's (Mr. Hall's) questions were not answered and I'll just quickly go through those. Regarding the crosswalk at 96th Avenue and 176th street in Surrey, during the last year there was a joint project between the ministry and municipality to make improvements for pedestrian safety. We understand that the widening has been done and a guardrail installed. Recently a signal was suggested for this intersection, but signal warrants are not met. In other words, by that we have guidelines to go by and there isn't a quantity of traffic to warrant that. Presently there is a four-way stop at the intersection, which is safe for pedestrians.

Street lighting on King George Highway was another question of the second member for Surrey. When the highway was being designed the ministry indicated we'd be installing lighting at the intersections and areas where there are islands. The ministry asked the municipality if they wanted the rest of the lighting installed at their cost, as this is a municipal responsibility. The municipality declined the offer as they do not intend to install lighting.

Regarding King George Highway landscaping, we are presently placing topsoil and seeding behind the sidewalks. We have no further plans other than this.

The second member for Surrey also asked what the standards were for freeway on and off ramps. All freeway exits and entrances were constructed to North American standards. Where extra storage or length is needed, we are making improvements as required. There is no overall program to lengthen all the entrances.

Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — I believe I answered this, but I'll clarify it further — asked about the proposed road from Tahsis to Woss Camp. The ministry has discussed this with the municipality and is presently working with Forests to have a joint road project where the ministry would pay towards the logging roads which would be built to highway standards and could be used by everyone.

The Campbell River bridge. We have discussed the suggestion with the city of Campbell River of constructing that portion of the future bypass first to provide an early crossing of the river. This looks to be feasible, but we're waiting for the consultant's report.

I want to quickly get to items that are a little larger, that seem to get our citizens interested and certainly the fourth estate. I'd like to comment on food services, which I feel have had detrimental remarks made about them that were not all warranted. I'm referring to the B.C. Ferries food service. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) commented yesterday on remarks made to the press by my colleague from Omineca (Mr. Kempf) regarding the possible removal of food services from the ferries and consideration of providing liquor on board. The hon. member for New Westminster also stated that I had received this as a suggestion. Mr. Chairman, if I was responsible for responding to every comment that is made to the media, you wouldn't believe some of the subjects that I would have to comment on. The member for Omineca, I believe, made his remarks outside of this House and at no time had he ever mentioned them to me as the minister responsible for the Ferry Corporation until after they were made.

Mr. Chairman, the question of whether or not food services on board the ferries are to be removed, decreased or increased is a matter for the board of directors of the Ferry Corporation, and I can tell you, as chairman, that such changes have not been discussed or considered since I've been a member of the board.

Secondly, I would have to agree with the comments made by my colleague and friend, the Minister of Health, the MLA for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), that it would certainly not enhance the many programs my ministry and others have become involved in regarding highway safety if we were to serve liquor on board.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca is certainly not alone when he suggests that a certain amount of liquor should be served on board our ferries. I have listened to lots of citizens who feel it would be nice to be able to sip a little wine or whatever during the one and a half hour sailing. I suppose that if you could restrict everyone to possibly one glass of wine there might not be any difficulties whatsoever.

The bottom line is that this item is also one that would require the board of directors' full support as well as the approval of other government agencies, and I can tell you that the board has not issued any instructions to staff to research the feasibility of such service, nor has it been discussed at the board level, nor do I anticipate that it will be in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Chairman, as the minister responsible for the motor vehicle branch, I can tell you that our staff and I are constantly concerned over highway safety, and I don't wish to initiate any action, service or programs that in any way would detrimentally affect this situation.

While I'm on the subject of highway safety and driving, I would like to take this opportunity to bring certain information to the attention of the committee. Recently accident statistics issued by Stats Canada regarding incidents on B.C. highways caused quite a stir in the media, and our citizens were led to believe that they were some of the worst drivers in Canada. We have some serious problems on our highways and with many of our drivers, but I don't like scare tactics, and I feel that our citizens should not receive a report card that does not represent the facts.

Before the motor-vehicle branch established its new incident reporting system in January 1977, many minor accidents were unreported by drivers who had the responsibility to report the incidents. Now, with the police making out these reports, we have a more comprehensive reporting system. Again this is since 1977. Other jurisdictions in Canada do not have this type of reporting system, nor the same reporting criteria, so it isn’t accurate to make comparisons based only on the number of incidents. Since 1977 the incidents per thousand vehicles licensed and deaths per hundred million kilometres in British Columbia have dropped: of course this is very encouraging. We must all be concerned, but I see no evidence to conclude that B.C. drivers are in any way different from drivers in other areas. I think our citizens would wish to know that.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

I would like to now deal with another matter for a moment, while I'm on my feet, regarding food services on B.C. ferries. I refer you to remarks made last Wednesday by the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) and the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) — I'm unhappy to find they're not in their seats.

[ Page 3230 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They're paired.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's a cosy arrangement.

The second member for Victoria stated that the food is terrible, that it's not nutritious, not pleasant, and that it's poor throughout. He stated that the B.C. Ferry Corporation should be utilizing more locally produced products, such as vegetables, fruit and marine foods. May I remind you that both these members referred to the food on B.C. ferries as "Social Credit goulash." It is in Hansard, Mr. Chairman. They called it Social Credit goulash and I think they owe us an apology for just that wording alone, with those adjectives.

What I'd like to say on behalf of the 800 hard-working people on the B.C. ferries who prepare this food on behalf of the producers from British Columbia.... I'd like to set the record straight. The B.C. Ferry Corporation spends approximately $6 million for food products to be served on board our ferries, and these products are purchased through the B.C. Purchasing Commission. It is the policy to purchase as many of the products as possible from British Columbia producers. As a matter of fact, B.C. producers are provided with a 10 percent bid-differential advantage. In other words, the B.C. Ferry Corporation will purchase supplies from the B.C. agricultural producers if their products are compatible with the appropriate standards.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shall the vote pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, if that member wants to make observations on my remarks would you send him back to his chair, which is the only place he can speak from. Send him back to his own chair or give him a crossword puzzle to work on while he's sitting there.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Ferry Corporation has a special program of cooperation with the marketing branch of the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture. This program does not only utilize B.C. agricultural products but promotes them. If you think I'm just giving you a lecture, here it is. Here are the signs that are up on the B.C. ferries. If you'd get on there and sail home, as fast as possible.... Those are examples of the program to promote fresh strawberries and B.C. potatoes. These products are not only being sold on the ferries but are being actively promoted to those people travelling with us. Lo and behold, when I asked where these strawberries originate — the second member for Victoria called them goulash and the Maillardville-Coquitlam member said.... Actually they come right from the area they have the honour to represent. I think the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam and the second member for Victoria owe the agricultural community that they ran down an apology, not necessarily for calling these products Social Credit goulash but for stating that the food is not pleasant, not nutritious, and that the food is terrible.

The second member for Victoria also mentioned marine foods. I am pleased to provide the catering service on board B.C. ferries with a little additional advertising. I'd recommend the seaburger, which consists of sole, and where do we see that from? Prince Rupert. Where's the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)?

In concluding my remarks on this item I would state that this month the 800 catering staff on B.C. ferries will serve 1.5 million people. I believe they do an excellent job when you consider the number of people they will serve on a one hour and 20 minute voyage — getting them into the cafeteria, serving them, and cleaning up before the next sailing. To put it in some perspective, this month we will serve 1.5 million people, and I understand the average McDonald's restaurant serves 1.25 million people in a year. So I think they should be given a big hand for the quantity and quality of food they serve. I'm proud of them. I just wanted to get those remarks on the record. I know the "goulash" remark made three-inch headlines in the paper. I only hope the fourth estate is awake. I don't think they are; they're not around. If they would print some of the facts now, it would be greatly appreciated.

Now, Mr. Chairman, back to other items in our responsibility, and to reply to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). Cape Horn Bluff and the Selkirk van lines, which you brought up last evening: I have notes on that. Bus service from Mica to Slocan Valley: all businesses are being interviewed as part of the planning for construction. Closure will be four to six months during the winter. It will not be possible to provide for any vehicle use of the road during this time. We are investigating the feasibility of foot-passenger transport around the work area. The best possible arrangements will be made. In closing my remarks on that subject, I think I could say that we are quite a long way yet from this happening, as the member probably knows; I believe it is about a year away, if I recall. But they are doing all the planning for the necessary closure of a main road in our....

MR. KING: You provide the bus for the other side.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member says we supply the buses. The Highways ministry usually gets stuck with all the costs. I don't see that this is different. You know, at the expense of the Highways ministry we transported the people out of Stewart just a week or ten days ago. We're glad to help the motorists and other citizens wherever we can.

The Mara bridge. The present timber bridge, 583 feet long, was built in 1929. You should make a note of this, Mr. Member. It's in poor condition. The load limit is 15 tons. Because of its advanced age, it's not possible to repair it. A new structure is estimated at $2.25 million. The completion of the road system on the west side is intended to give an alternate route, particularly for trucks. No decision has been made as to the future of the bridge.

Grindrod railroad crossing. The alternate routes were selected to reduce two sharp curves. One was approved by the B.C. Agricultural Land Commission. The next step is to undertake final survey and design. The survey is proposed for this fall, with the design work in the winter. But I'm not saying when construction will start. It sounds like we're not even ready for a contract call until at least the spring of '81.

Enderby Bridge. This is a bridge that badly needs replacing, as the member pointed out. We're aware of this, but we have what I like to refer to as right-of-way problems, which are not solved. To be right up to date, a meeting of the ministry with the Indian band and their lawyer is scheduled for next week.

Revelstoke, west access. Currently this city is proposing improvements on Victoria Road which will require us to undertake some drainage work to meet this. It is proposed to do this this year, and that we commence right-of-way negotiations this fall for the revision of the intersection.

[ Page 3231 ]

Enderby — Mabel Lake. More work is scheduled to be done this year, commencing in the next two weeks. Completion of the project will cost about $1 million, and it will take several years to complete. I just want to point out to the member.... He seemed to make some remark that the only time we work on this very important road is around election time. I'm not aware of any imminent election call, and I'm announcing that the work will be starting in two weeks.

The road from Chase to Tod Mountain. To the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the distance from Chase to Tod Mountain via Kamloops is 60 miles. If it were a direct route, the distance would be approximately 30 miles. The cost to upgrade the forest roads on the direct route to winter maintainable standard is estimated at $2 million. This is necessary due to steep grades, switchbacks and a narrow road. Considering that this is a second route to Tod Mountain, we do not place its priority as high as other ski areas which do not yet have one good access road. So I agree with the staff report on that road, that they are very fortunate to have two accesses. One might not be up to the standard they would like, but our government has spent a lot of dollars on ski access roads all over the province — it’s our policy — and we still have ski areas that haven't got one good access route. So what I'm saying in the case of that access is that it has a low priority.

Enderby, south access. This work was partially completed last year to assist an access to a developing area. We do intend to complete this routing beyond the development, but no definite schedule is available.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke asked about rock for erosion control at Chase. We will look into this and we will provide material as available.

Again, in the Shuswap-Revelstoke riding, there is the Adams Lake road access problem. We have been in touch with the Indian band, without too much progress. We will contact them again. The road beyond the reserve has been ruled private by the courts, and this requires further investigation and negotiations.

Falkland railway crossing. I am aware of this one. It has been there for a long, long time. We have nothing under design on this at the present time, but we will certainly look into that. On the Anglemont-Celista road: we will look at this for passing areas. It is a very low-volume road.

I think that cleans up most of the questions I have so far.

MR. KING: Just very briefly, further to the minister's answers: that junction was not Enderby, Mr. Minister, but rather Armstrong — the Pleasant Valley junction. The minister's response wasn't too clear. Is that slated for completion this year?

The other thing is that the road around Shuswap Lake to Celista is a low-volume road at normal times, but the minister can appreciate that during the summer months it is extremely congested because of the very heavy tourist flow. That is the problem there.

On the low priority for the second access road to Mount Tod, all I can say to the minister is that I promise not to tell his colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) what he said, because I don't think he is going to take too kindly to that. I agree that it is not the highest priority, but I think that some work may be looked at on a day-labour basis from time to time to improve it and a little bit of maintenance in the way of snowplowing during the winter months.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, I referred to Enderby south access; it should have been Armstrong south in the notes I have here on this, This work was partially completed last year to assist in access to the developing area. We do intend to complete this routing beyond the development, but no definite schedule is available and it probably won't be this year.

MR. BARRETT: I have just a few brief comments. First of all, I want to tell the minister, on behalf of the official opposition, that there will be no support over here for any attempt to push any booze on those ferries. Let's get that straight. The idea of selling beer and wine on a sailing of an hour and 30 minutes is absolutely absurd. I know government revenues are falling, but that is going too far. If any one person came off any of those sailings and got into an accident as a result of consuming liquor sold on that ferry, it would make a mockery of every single statement peddled by the former Minister of Health and other cabinet ministers. Let's have it clear. You can't have the selling of booze on a ferry ride of an hour and 30 minutes and at the same time go around advertising, telling people not to drink and drive.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What do you think the Minister of Transportation and Highways just told you?

MR. BARRETT: Well, there he is; he's not listening again. The Minister of Transportation and Highways just told us he didn't see what was wrong with one glass of wine on the ferries. That is what he said. Is that what you believe in too?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What a liar!

MR. BARRETT: Would you ask the member to withdraw, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Energy kindly withdraw his imputation of lying attributed to the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: I tell the minister clearly that as far as we are concerned, no wine and no beer on the ferries, period.

HON. I MR. WATERLAND: Didn't you ever have a drink on the ferries?

MR. BARRETT: No, as a matter of fact, I have not and I think it would be the most stupid thing in the world to go on the ferry with any citizen, cabinet member, opposition member or anyone else on an hour-and-a-half ferry ride and go up and pack away some booze. It would be irresponsible and stupid. Now if some people are doing that on the ferries, I hope that it is discouraged, but the idea of selling booze on the ferries and agreeing with the consuming of liquor on an hour-and-a-half ride and then coming off that ferry is absolutely stupid. The member who made the suggestion was flying on his own, and I hope that further cabinet ministers don't leave any impression that somehow we're going to move in that direction here in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 3232 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now look, Mr. Minister, if you want to run around accusing members of drinking in the stateroom, have the guts to stand up here and name people. If you think this is funny, I don't. I think those stupid remarks across the floor indicate that this government has absolutely no concern about statements made by backbenchers and indications given by the minister that somehow they are in favour of that kind of program.

I will tell you this: there are enough families in this province who have suffered the consequences of irresponsible drivers who have been drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car and driving. Any attempt by the government to give the impression that it's a funny little matter or something to joke about across the floor of the House, or to leave a backbencher the idea that it is something to fly, is totally irresponsible. I challenge you as a government to state categorically that there will be no liquor sales on the one-and-a-half-hour ferry crossing between Vancouver and the Island.

The chairman of the Crown corporations committee, which is just examining the ferries, gets up and says: "Well, maybe one glass of wine." Nonsense. Absolute nonsense!

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about friendlier things with the minister.

Interjection,

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if that minister is attempting to leave the impression that it's some kind of joke to talk against liquor on ferries, then let me go on record as saying I don't consider it to be a joke; I can't think of anything more serious that this House should take a stand on, and that is in opposition to selling beer and wine on the ferries. If you don't agree, the least you can do is shut up about it and go and promulgate it somewhere else. Don't sit in this House and somehow leave the impression that it's some kind of joking matter, because as far as I'm concerned it is no joking matter to even contemplate selling liquor on a government ferry service between the mainland and Vancouver Island.

I want to go on record as supporting the statements made by my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) about the Cassiar problem. I just want to ask one question. My colleague has outlined that problem very clearly, and two days ago you indicated that you'd be in touch with the mayor for a further study. I'd like to know whether or not you have been in touch with the mayor of Vancouver, and if a further study will take place on this problem.

HON. MR. ERASER: Mr. Chairman, to reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I want to apologize to the members in the House that I didn't make it abundantly clear — I guess, wearing my hat as chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation I thought I'd done it before — that we have no intention of putting one glass of wine or any liquor on the ferry system, now or in the future, that I'm aware of. I thought I made that abundantly clear when I spoke. I referred to it to clear up any misconceptions that maybe we were considering it. After all, as I said in my remarks, it is up to the B.C. Ferry Corporation board of directors to make those decisions; it's never been discussed, and I hope it never will be as long as I'm around there.

Regarding the large project of trying to do something with the bad traffic problems raised by the two members for Vancouver East, Mr. Chairman, specifically from the end of the freeway to the Second Narrows Bridge, I reported to the second member for Vancouver East the other day. But in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver East: yes, a meeting has been set up with the mayor of Vancouver. I can't give you the exact dates, but I believe it's sometime next week. Because the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asked the question in the House, I've asked my staff to invite the mayor of Burnaby as well, as the member for Burnaby North felt that they were affected, and they certainly are, indirectly. No decision has been made about a second study, but that's what the meeting is all about: to try and come to some conclusions about that.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Minister, I would like to ask if you would be good enough to share with the House your government's policy with respect to the use of the bicycle as an alternative method of transportation, especially in the urban areas of Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria, and lesser populated areas, where the automobile is becoming an increasingly expensive and cumbersome method of transportation. In the past, one would get the impression, the government hasn't considered the bicycle as a serious alternative mode of transportation, in light of the lack of initiative in respect to accommodating the bicycle in terms of regulations, training programs, safety programs, licensing and incentive programs to industry in terms of benefits that would encourage them to provide some of the means of making cycling safer and more dependable. I don't know if the minister is aware of it, but in the last several years bicycles have been outselling automobiles by a substantial margin in the United States and in Canada. In fact, if I recall, there were something like ten million bicycles sold in the United States last year. Just a few years ago, I think, bicycles outsold automobiles in Canada by about 10 percent. So the bicycle is not a new mode of transportation, it's just coming into its own by virtue of the extremely heavy financial burdens that are placed upon people who are using other modes of transportation.

The problem that I would like the minister to address before the assembly today is what initiatives the government can take to give the cyclist the kind of security when using a bicycle on the public thoroughfares and roadways that automobiles have. In other words, I would like to have the minister explain some of the problems that he has encountered through assessing the problem, taking a serious look at some of the briefs that have been put forward indicating to the House just what the future of the bicycle is in this province.

I'm of the impression that it has a very real future if for no other reason than the fact that the bicycles are here. Perhaps we're not sure just how they will be accommodated and whether or not some of the studies that have been suggested are in fact applicable in this area in British Columbia, but we know that in some other areas bicycles and automobiles mix very well. I wouldn't suggest that they will mix absolutely in this province, but certainly there are circumstances in which the bicycle does have a legitimate role to play. For instance, Vancouver traffic that leaves the North Shore in the morning for downtown Vancouver and the West End would do well to be encouraged to use their bicycles. However, no one in his

[ Page 3233 ]

right mind is going to mount a bicycle and go across the First Narrows Bridge without risk of losing life and limb. They could travel from most places in North Vancouver and West Vancouver to their offices downtown in about 10 or 15 minutes, whereas it takes about half an hour to 45 minutes sitting in their cars fuming because of the heavy traffic congestion. The distance that they would be travelling is probably less than three miles. So there's every incentive and reason why the government would want to encourage and develop facilities that would accommodate those people who are prepared to experiment with a system that the Highways department might introduce that would be safe.

Obviously, going back to past performance, the government didn't show that much interest in bicycles when they permitted the SeaBus to come into operation without accommodating bicycles, although the Minister of Municipal affairs did experiment briefly in an ineffective way with permitting bicycles under certain circumstances, on weekends and what not, but did not seriously take a look at bicycles as a serious alternative during business hours, during the time when traffic is most onerous.

[Mr. Lauk in the chair.]

I notice the minister was pointing at the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, who introduced the SeaBus concept, but I should remind the Minister of Highways that I happen to have approached that member when he was a minister and he gave the directives for the engineers to make the alterations to the SeaBus in order to permit bicycles, and your government slipped in through the back door and formed the next government and cancelled them. So as far as that goes, it wasn't a case of us not being prepared to adjust to and be flexible about something as obvious as the need for bicycles on the SeaBus; we were victims of a shortage of votes at the time.

Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about history; I'm concerned about the future. I'm concerned about bicycling as a serious alternative mode of transportation. I would like this government to address itself to a comprehensive program that would not only look at cycling from its recreational and health standpoint — its traditional role in the community — but as a serious alternative to using the private automobile, especially on short runs and in congested areas. I think it wouldn't take much to calculate. The savings to the taxpayers would be tremendous and would certainly take a burden off the highway budget in terms of road repairs, trying to expand roads, having to go through the whole problem of getting rights-of-way and doing a number of other things. Most people are very interested in riding bikes. In fact, I'm sure many automobile operators would be more than willing to use their bicycles — purchase bikes or get them out of their basements or wherever they are — if this government took the serious initiative to do something. But it has to happen through legislation. There's no point in telling people to go out and run the risk of getting run over by an irate automobile operator who doesn't understand that cyclists have a right to the road the same as automobile drivers. So the campaign has to start from here. There has to be a sincere desire to give the bicycle its proper place along with rapid transit, light rail transit, automobiles, buses and other modes of transportation.

I would just like to indicate that I'm a little concerned that the government wants to play politics rather than seriously address the problem. When it brought in, for instance, its shuttle service through the Massey Tunnel, which allowed two trips in the morning and two trips in the afternoon, north and south through the tunnel, in a restricted period of five hours, which is hardly sufficient to really accommodate anyone who seriously wants to mount his bicycle, say, to go to work or to go home.... Those hours from 9 to 2:30 are just not adequate. There should be a dawn-to-dusk type of system set up, and it should certainly not be for just two months in the summertime: it should be, at the very least, year-round, depending on weather. The information should be well publicized. I would challenge the minister to find his way himself — and he's the Minister of Highways — through the tunnel on a bicycle. Because if you were to leave Tsawwassen, heading for the entrance to town, you wouldn't get any information: you'd just be riding along and you would go right past it, because there's no indication that you can get through. It doesn't give any information on schedules or anything of the sort.

So I would say that that's the kind of attitude that.... Maybe the minister himself is not projecting it, but that's the attitude the public gets — that you're not serious. If you're serious, then come out with a comprehensive policy statement — a program that involves licensing, education and programs, the same as you do with the automobile. There has to be a comprehensive program rather than one where people are confused — where youngsters get on their bicycles without being properly trained and run the risk of being run over by a father who is backing out of the garage, or they get a bicycle at Christmas and they go out onto the highway and get into an accident. That bicycle is a serious contraption. It's not a toy. It can be used for recreation and fun, but it's a very serious and a dangerous vehicle.

We need to take a look at the definition of vehicles and the definition of roadways and start to look seriously at options other than the automobile, which in 20 years will be outdated. I know most of you over there have a large investment in the automobile business, but let's not just think of our own personal financial futures. Let's take a look at the rest of British Columbia's future and take a look at the escalating costs, through taxation, that we're going to have to pay for these short-sighted schemes.

Certainly, If you do go ahead with the Annacis Island crossing, at least begin there to do something for cyclists and also pedestrians. Allow the option of being able to ride your bike or even walk. People who walk can't even get through the tunnel — not even on that shuttle service you have.

There are many issues related to the bicycle that shouldn't be done in a makeshift way. I don't intend to stand here and hit on the odd point. I think what I'm suggesting to you is that you instruct your ministry to come up with a comprehensive policy. Involve it at the planning level, amend your Highway Act so that engineers must include the bicycle, at least as a consideration, before any action is taken. There's no reason why you shouldn't have at least an extra two-or-three foot strip along roadways rather than cutting them off with a white line on either side and no room for cyclists. Expand it just a bit and encourage people.

I say this without playing any politics, because I'm sincerely interested in the future generations. I think that you're going to find that we'll have quite a few white elephants on our hands with these roadways that are totally incompatible with the future, as we begin to move into other modes of transportation.

[ Page 3234 ]

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll save my remaining remarks until about 5:30 or 6 and maybe tomorrow.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few remarks. First, I want to congratulate you on your elevation.

To the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) on bicycles and bicycle policy, you raised some really good questions. I hope we take them seriously, but there are problems. I would like to spell out our current policy on bicycles.

Our policy for bicyclists is to provide paved shoulders at least six feet wide on the provincial trunk highway system. We are carrying out that policy. It's being progressively implemented with priority assigned to highways which are being reconstructed or reinforced in the vicinity of urban areas. Presently there are 2,000 miles of trunk system with either paved or stabilized shoulders. We are either paving or stabilizing 300 miles per year. I take it from my notes that this is to a six-foot width outside the outside strip. So we've had a policy for a while, and we're expanding it as construction takes place.

The senior staff of the ministry have examined the possibility of bicycle pathways separated from the highway roadway. There are difficulties with the design of these separate bicycle-ways where they intersect with busy cross streets. Considering these difficulties the ministry recommends in urban areas that emphasis be placed on providing bicycle routes on major municipal network streets rather than arterial highways. To facilitate this process the criteria for 50 percent sharing of costs on major streets through revenue sharing were changed last year to include bicycle-ways adjacent to network streets as part of projects which met other qualifying criteria.

So what I'm saying is that this is another part of bicycle policy that is new. We will share 50 percent through revenue sharing on the major municipal networks or the adjacent network streets with municipalities. I don't think that's really common knowledge so I'm happy to say that we've progressed some there. What we've been saying in the past is that we should build the bicycle paths with municipalities but we never put our money where our mouth was. Now we are putting our money where our mouth is and sharing 50 percent when this is agreed on.

I have a few other observations on bicycles. The B.C. Safety Council observation brought to my attention recently has advocated that bicyclists use less busy routes and attempt to avoid busy arterial highways. That is apparently an observation they've made.

I have a few other observations on bicycles for the benefit of the committee. Bicycles are free on B.C. ferries; there's no charge for bicycles on B.C. ferries.

MR. BARNES: Publicize the fact; it's a good idea. Let the people know.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's a good idea; maybe we should say bicycles are free. But they are free on B.C. ferries.

I'm sorry to hear again — I think we're talking communication, Mr. Chairman.... We have a bicycle transport for the Massey Tunnel crossing, as the member is aware. It's a costly item. You were saying that it should be expanded further.

MR. BARNES: And publicized. so you can prove that you can make the people use it.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, and publicized; I certainly take your observations there. I agree that in that very busy lower mainland area we could add that to highway information that we're using. I'll see that something is done along that line right away.

MR. BARNES: That would increase the use and therefore cut down the cost.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right. But it is a costly item and that, I guess, is what restricts what it is. If we step it up.... I think we're talking $50,000 to $60,000. I don't know. I've asked for the actual cost; it's a contract. I might be wrong there; I want to clear that up.

MR. BARNES: It can't be.

HON. MR. FRASER: What I'm trying to say is that we can expand the service if we supply the additional money. But I'll clear it up, because we have a contract there. I might be wrong on that.

The other thing regarding bicycles, Mr. Chairman, is that we are encouraging the use of the bicycle; we're making grants to the safety councils now for learning to ride bicycles. That's mostly, of course, for children.

Two more observations and then I'm finished. The government of British Columbia doesn't have any licensing structure or anything for bicycles, and we're not anticipating it. But municipalities have a licensing structure, I think. Some municipalities have; they can do it under the Municipal Act. But as far as the province is concerned we're not looking at it as a revenue item at all. We have never had it and we're not looking at it now.

I assume from your remarks, Mr. Member, that if we provide a combination for bicycles on Annacis Island you'll vote in favour and will support Annacis Island. I really appreciate that.

MR. BARNES: I just have to say that I'm not going to vote for the Annacis Island crossing.

MR. COCKE: Just in case Hansard wasn't clear on what the second member for Vancouver Centre just said, he said that under no circumstances will he support that Annacis Island crossing. I just want to congratulate that member for taking a very responsible position with respect to that crossing.

Mr. Chairman, there is a major transportation corridor that the Annacis Island crossing is proposed to cross. That corridor is the main arm of the Fraser River. This minister, being the Minister of Transportation, would be very interested, I'm sure, and I'm sure it's been brought to his attention, that the federal department of public works are proposing to make the river much more dangerous to transportation. The way they are going to do that is they are pulling the Samson out of service. Now everyone knows that the Samson is a snag-puller. It gets the deadheads out of the river. It also tends the buoys which make the channel significantly safer.

[ Page 3235 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For instance, the minister has a ferry called the Albion Ferry, and it, from time to time, has called upon the Samson to come and get snags out of the way. The federal government are using as an excuse their boom at Laidlaw. It's called a coffer dam. They put $10 million into it as a one-time grant. The coffer dam is maintained by the provincial government on a one-third basis; the federal government pays one-third and the Council of Forest Industries pays one-third because they are the main contributors to the floating debris in the river. The problem that we have in that river is deadheads and snags. It's a major problem. As our Albion Ferry captain will tell you, from time to time they've called on the Samson. There is no way that the coffer dam is going to get rid of the snags.

The north arm of the river has never had the Samson service, and that's regarded as one of the most dangerous transportation channels in the province. It's full of deadheads, snags and all that sort of thing. I'm wondering if this minister along with his colleagues will put a strong word to Ottawa on maintaining the Samson, regardless of the historic significance of that.... It's the only waterwheel left on the river, or in B.C. for all I know, that is actually operating. It's a super machine in terms of its inspection. Last year it was inspected and the inspector said it was good for another 30 years. It burns not bunker C but the next grade, which I think is bunker 5 or 6, which is very crude oil. Therefore it is not a huge burner of refined fuel. It is a very productive machine. I'll tell you right now, people seeing it on the Fraser are always impressed, and it's always working. It's always got something to do and that is a very positive contribution that it has been making.

The federal government bailing out of that service is, in my view, making a very bad move. What's going to happen is that it's going to be finally lodged onto the provincial government and be their responsibility to do the job. I think that this minister along with the other ministers should get on to Ottawa, along with the rest of the negotiations that are going on, and say: "For heaven's sake, leave it alone unless you've got something that's compatible and something that will do the job.'' Now there are those who say: "For heaven's sake, let's make a restaurant out of it" or, "let's do this or that. You know it has historical significance and so we'll maintain it." That's not the way we should maintain that Samson. It should be maintained to look after the waterway. It's done a credible job over the years — 14 jobs incidentally, as well, for B.C. citizens.

It's done a first-class job of keeping that south arm of the river — that is the main channel of the river — clear of underwater debris. There's no way it's going to sweep the river in terms of the floating debris. You know, they are still dumping logs in that river and some of them are still sinking or partly sunk, and those are the things that are required to be taken out of there. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest very strongly to the minister that he says to the federal government: "For heaven's sake, continue spending that measly $300,000 per year that it costs them to maintain the Samson."

There is absolutely no reason for this to be taken out. As I said, the last time the Samson V was inspected, they gave it 30 years. One of the reasons why it is so important is that there are very few boats that could do this work. You see, it is a low draft; it is a stern wheeler. If you pull a vessel in there with a relatively deep draft, then it can't get into some of the areas where the Samson can. It is a very practical consideration. I think that the feds are absolutely crazy taking that very productive Samson V out of service. I would just like to know what the minister has to say about the whole situation.

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to correct something I said to the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) regarding the cost of bicycles. I wasn't right but I now have something closer to the facts. The deal we have in the Massey Tunnel under contract for bicycles costs $92 per day. In the month of May 1980 we transported 116 bicycles; in the month of June, 251. Based on eight bicycles per day, which would be roughly June's case, each bicycle we transport in the month of June would cost the ministry $11.50. I did use a different figure and I just wanted to clarify it. The gross cost for the season when we transport bicycles, from May 17 to September 28, will be roughly $13,500.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brings up a good point. I don't want to get into an Ottawa-bashing discussion, but they are pulling out in so many areas. I will take this up and write the Minister of Transport. I didn't catch whether they had already withdrawn or warned they are going to but we will look into it in the transport section of our ministry and get word to them. I agree with you, it is a safety measure and helps to clean up the water. It is a good vessel. We will look into it and urge them to continue this good service.

MR. COCKE: Oddly enough, the Ministry of Transport doesn't run the Samson V. It is being run by the Ministry of Public Works for some obscure reason. However, it does a lot of the work of the other. For instance, there are 56 lighted buoys on that river and the Samson tends the buoys as well, pulls out each of them at least once a year, scrapes the barnacles and puts them back in and so on. I just don't know what they are going to do but they are probably going to spend a great deal more money. I think that they should be alerted against doing something that is actually going to do them out of pocket in the long run. Certainly if it is not them then it will be us. I am with you. I am not Ottawa-bashing or anything else. I am just suggesting that there is a very serious, foolish mistake being made by the Ministry of Public Works federally.

MR. SKELLY: I just have a few questions to ask of the minister on highway problems. Before I do that I would like to follow up on the comments the minister made about food on the ferries. While I can understand the feelings that my friend from Victoria had on the quality of food, I think a lot of people see the quality of food tied up with the quality of service. When you take away the food service that we had before on the B.C. ferry system — I am not just saying under the NDP government but under previous governments — where the food was served by waiters and was on dishes and you had silverware and that type of thing.... When people see that quality of service go down, they think the quality of food is going down. That has certainly been the case in terms of the quality of service. I am not saying that the people doing the work on the ferries are not serving the customers well. They are, under some pretty tough circumstances, attempting to put that many people through a cafeteria-type of service during an hour and a half crossing. But it brings up another problem and that is, when you get rid

[ Page 3236 ]

of dishwashers and busboys and dish-handling people, then you end up looking like McDonald's. You have a whole pile of paper and plastic garbage which you have to remove from the ship at both ends of the passage. That is where the quality of the service really appears to have deteriorated, whether or not the service itself has deteriorated. I am just wondering how much money the ministry spends on that type of plastic containers for soup and sandwiches and all the paper that goes into the wrappings of these things and just what happens to that stuff at the end.

Whenever you sit at the ferry terminal — and you do that for three or four hours during the summer — and watch the cubic metres of garbage coming off the ferries, you wonder where it all goes. I wonder what means of disposal the ministry has developed to take care of all the garbage that comes off the ferries. In terms of employment, I also wonder if it might not be better for the minister to look into the cleaning of dishes at the terminal rather than doing it on the ferries. I realize it's a problem of space and accommodation. If the dishes could be removed from the ferries and cleaned at the terminal, similar to what the airlines do, rather than using all this paper and natural gas-derived plastic junk which ends up probably going into a landfill or incinerator somewhere and causing problems down the line, maybe we could gainfully employ people and improve the appearance of the service on the ferries by using dishes and silverware as we did in the past. I'd like the minister to look into that and possibly come back with an answer later, or else comment on how all that junk is ultimately disposed of when the paper and plastic comes off the ferries.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The seagulls will eat it.

MR. SKELLY: Seagulls don't eat plastic. I know the seagull used to be the kind of bird of the Social Credit Party; maybe it has something to do with that.

I'm a third-generation family from New Westminster. For all the years that my family lived in New Westminster, the Samson I, II, III, IV and V, I guess it is now, used to ply the Fraser River and pick the snags out of the river. I think the federal government's desire to do away with the Samson is, in part, a desire to give the river a little more functional engineering style. They plan to channelize the river, using jetties and directing the water to make the river run a little faster so that the bottom will be self-scouring. This has a serious environmental impact on the river and on the life that river sustains. I think you have to tie the federal government's desire to do away with the Samson V into the plans they have to channelize the Fraser River and have the bottom self-scouring. It seems that the engineers in the Ministry of Public Works and in the National Harbours Board are more concerned about the river as a ditch or a seaway than they are about its potential to sustain life, particularly the salmon and the fish for which that river is renowned around the world. I hope the government of British Columbia will take a position against that type of management of the Fraser River. All of this would be done under a joint agreement between the federal and provincial governments. If the government took a strong stand against channelizing the river, then we would probably be keeping the Samson V and maintaining the Fraser River in its present state.

During the last several years I've been in almost constant contact with the Minister of Highways about highway problems in Port Alberni. The citizens of the Alberni valley are getting pretty frustrated with this Minister of Highways, especially when they hear the statements from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and from the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that an under-utilized road in the Cariboo seems to get any amount of treatment it wants. It can get all the maintenance it requires or all the pavement it requires. Yet a road in Port Alberni that's used by people travelling to and from work, which is a fairly highly utilized road, doesn't get any treatment at all. When we write to the minister about it and when the citizens of the Alberni Valley approach him directly, they get nothing but delays and excuses and rationalization. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) knows that, because one of the roads we are constantly writing about to the government is under his jurisdiction. Because we get such a small amount of activity from the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, we would prefer that the Minister of Highways handle this one, thank you very much. In almost every case, we get nothing but delays, excuses and rationalization.

I'd like to bring to the minister's attention some of these problems that I've been writing to him about and about which my constituents have been contacting him time after time. I know the minister has been out to Ucluelet and he's visited other parts of the riding. I'd just like to bring this list to his attention while he's listening — hopefully, he's not listening to the member for Cranbrook. I'd like to talk about some of the roads in my riding that need help and improvement. Constant contact with the minister has done very little to get some support on these roads.

I'll start from the western end first — that is the Spring Cove road in Ucluelet. I see the member is aware; I see the member is reading the briefing notes from his staff. When the municipality of Ucluelet expanded to take the Spring Cove area into its boundaries, one of the promises they received from the provincial Ministry of Highways was that the Spring Cove road would be improved and paved so that the people who use that road daily to drive to work at the vessel traffic management service out there at Spring Cove could drive over an improved road. Yet I'm still receiving letters and communications from Ucluelet that the road has yet to be paved, and I'm wondering just why there is delay in getting to work on that road this year. We have a very short construction season out in Ucluelet, and we'd like to see some activity on that road.

While we're in Ucluelet, the minister has promised year after year that some attention will be paid to the road between the Ucluelet-Tofino highway and the Ittatsoo Indian Reserve road. Something between 500 and 800 people live at that reserve. This year they planned an accelerated housing program to improve housing conditions on the reserve. Because of load limit restrictions on a bridge that's rotting away on the present New England Fisheries road, they couldn't get concrete out and they had to curtail their housing program. What they want now is for the minister to finish the road that he's promised them year after year, to take that road right up to the reserve boundaries so that they can get on with the job of improving the Ittatsoo Indian Reserve and putting in new housing and facilities. I'd like to know at what stage of planning this road is, or whether we can see some construction on the Ittatsoo Indian Reserve road within the next short period of time.

The minister also visited the Ucluelet–Port Albion chamber of commerce a few months ago. It was good to see him in the riding for a change. They brought to his attention the poor

[ Page 3237 ]

condition of the highways right at the village boundaries of Tofino and Ucluelet — those winding roads that go into each of the communities — and the fact that a great deal of work needs to be done to straighten out those roads and improve their safety. As the minister is aware, thousands upon thousands of people are visiting the national park each year. It's been a decision of the parks service that no commercial facilities will be located inside the park, so that users of the park now have to go into the two villages. Those roads present a real problem to the travelling public. I'd like to see some work done on those roads in the very near future.

It was also brought to the minister's attention at that chamber of commerce meeting that only half of the Port Alberni–Tofino Road had been improved in the last construction period. The western part of the road is still in pretty bad shape. There are some 20 and 30 kilometre per hour curves on that road that need to be upgraded. I realize that the terrain is difficult, but really, a lot more work needs to be done on that section of the road than is being done. It would be appreciated if the minister would go out and take a careful look at it, have his staff appraise the possibilities for upgrading that road, and get to work as soon as possible on that section.

The last time the minister was in Port Alberni was at election time, and that's when he told all my constituents that I hadn't been in to see him. He said he never saw the member for Alberni. Yet when I went into his office just before the election he was pleased to see me, he said, because I was the only member of the opposition who had been in there for a long time. So I really don't know what to expect from this minister, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Possibly it was just a short memory. I'm hoping that's it.

But actually something good did come out of that meeting. The minister got to work on a number of the problems that I had had up to that point and he resolved them in short order. So I'm beginning to think that there is some point in going to see the minister, as there isn't with some of the other ministers of this government, Mr. Chairman.

At that time we discussed the Cumberland road, and I believe we also talked about it during debate on Bills 5 and 7. We can't seem to get any kind of firm policy out of the Ministry of Highways on the Cumberland road.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, having been to Port Alberni many times yourself, the Alberni Valley has only one entrance and egress. It is Highway 4, the highway that runs between Port Alberni and Parksville. If there's ever any problem on that road, then people in the Albernis are pretty well stuck with transportation problems with freight in and out.

Now you can go out on a few dirt roads. There's the road to Cumberland, which is in pretty shabby shape. There are also the roads out through the Cowichan Valley, but most of those are industrial roads, and it's pretty difficult for people to go in and out with 14- and 16-foot-wide logging trucks using those roads from day to day. It's hazardous for the loggers and it's hazardous for those unfamiliar with industrial roads. So we need more roads in and out of the Alberni Valley.

The policy or the messages we are receiving from the Ministry of Highways vary. At one time the minister says he's going to put money into the Cumberland road, and at another time he says no, it's a forestry responsibility, What we're hoping is that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the Minister of Highways can get together on a plan to upgrade that road. I know that the minister is going to have some difficulty, because once he puts some money or work into the road, then it becomes a public road and he's committed to it forever and a day, whereas if the Forest Service does it, it's a different story. But we would like to see more work done on that road to make a tourist circle road. It opens up that whole central area of Vancouver Island, the Della Falls area at the west coast north of Tofino, and also the southern end of Strathcona Park, and also makes it possible for a tourist to do a complete circle between the Cumberland–Comox Valley area and the Alberni Valley west coast. So it has some economic value for the citizens of northern and western Vancouver Island, and we'd like to see a lot more financial commitment to that road from the Minister of Highways.

The thing that I've been discussing with the Minister of Highways time after time through letters and correspondence and petitions and telephone calls and whatever is the maintenance on the.... Perhaps the minister is dealing with some health matters now. Mr. Chairman, and I should move that you leave the chair and get back to his estimates later. Oh, no, sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you making a motion?

MR. SKELLY: Oh, no. I was going to move a motion that the Chairman leave the chair and we come back to Highways estimates later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, have you made a motion?

MR. SKELLY: No, we haven't made a motion yet, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues on vote 193.

MR. SKELLY: But I would like to talk to the Minister of Highways about the reconstruction and the maintenance of those suburban and rural roads in the Alberni Valley; I think the minister knows the names of those roads by heart right now, with all the petitions and all the letters he's been receiving over the last little while. When my constituents hear statements made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) or the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that all of the money seems to be going into Cariboo constituency and none of the money seems to be going into Alberni. and when they hear from the staff in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that it would take over $1 million a year in additional funding just to bring those roads up to the shape they were in before without improving those roads substantially to the standard that they should be at, then they get concerned that the minister might be handling the public's money on a political basis, so that some of it is going into Social Credit ridings, whereas the NDP ridings are being deprived of those funds. You know, when citizens in the Alberni Valley — this is one of the major forest products production areas of British Columbia, with some of the highest-quality timber and some of the highest-quality timber growing sites anywhere in North America, and some of the

[ Page 3238 ]

most productive mills and the most productive forestry labour force anywhere in North America — see that the tremendous amount of resource revenue funds they produce for this provincial government and the tremendous amount of income tax funds from their labours is going to other constituencies, whereas they have to make do with substandard roads and substandard highway service, then they get pretty angry, and they've asked me to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'm telling you right now, Mr. Chairman, these people aren't all that happy with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'd like the Minister of Transportation and Highways to give me some idea today just what his plans are to upgrade those rural roads in Alberni provincial constituency and to do some construction work on some of the roads that's been sadly lacking over the years since 1975.

I see that the minister is planning to do a study of the transportation requirements for Vancouver Island — at least I read this in the paper — and it's going to cost a considerable amount of money, and it should be completed by the end of the year. Well, I would like to support the minister. I think it is a good thing that we should have an overall assessment of the transportation needs on Vancouver Island. Once we have the results and the recommendations out of this study, we should act on the basis of those recommendations and on the basis of need; that's the way we should be dividing Highways funds in this province, Mr. Chairman.

I also see that he's doing a special study in Nanaimo on how to bypass the Nanaimo area and serve the highway needs of the Nanaimo area, and that's going to cost, possibly, another $100,000. I think that's $100,000 well spent; in fact, we'll probably have it back in the first day if that study will find for us a good route through the Nanaimo area that will save funds and property acquisition and obviate the need for new bypasses at some time in the future. So I support this kind of study being done by the minister and hope that he will act in a non-political way based on need once he has the results and the recommendations of the study.

But I would also like the minister to come into my area and bring some of his staff — and I know he's done this in Courtenay and I know he's done that in the Qualicum Beach area — and come to my constituency and listen to some of the grievances on highways that these people have in the Alberni Valley and on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I know that the minister will do it in a non-political way and listen to the complaints and to the needs as expressed by local governments and by the citizens of Alberni provincial constituency. I would invite him to do it. First of all I would invite him to spend money along the same lines of what he's doing in Nanaimo. I realize that the need isn't so great, because we don't have that need to bypass the Nanaimo area and the problem of finding land and good routes, but I'd invite him to spend money to do a study of transportation needs in the Alberni Valley prior to coming there and doing an accountability session there, and to let the people look at the results of that study or finance the regional district. I know the regional district is in the process of releasing their transportation study. But produce the whole thing at the same time — the regional district study and Ministry of Highways plans and projections — and have the minister come there himself and do an accountability session in the Alberni Valley. I'd like to hear the minister's response to those suggestions.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Alberni, he raised a lot of issues in his riding, but I'll try to reply to most of them. First of all, the access to your community. My version of it.... I know that it's not in your riding, but we have upgraded the Island Highway considerably and, in fact, for your information, this time next year it'll be four lanes from north of Nanaimo right to the Parksville bypass. You can see them working there. Again, for the citizens out of Alberni coming back — I always think of that side — not too far out they have a two-lane road becoming a four-lane road, and they can go to Nanaimo and get a ferry and go where they want. So much for that.

The local roads in the area. Yes, I was in there and I enjoyed the trip. I visited the community of Ucluelet as well as.... I didn't get to the community of Tofino, but I got within three miles of it. I saw Long Beach and so on and got a general idea. My impression of the road from Alberni to Ucluelet was that we have sections of good road there, but we have some sections there of very inadequate road and very expensive road to fix — that is rock work. I think one request I had when I made the trip was that we could at least put some guardrail up as a safety measure in some of the higher points there. I believe that's happened and probably some other work has been done, but not of a major nature.

I have a few notes here from staff on the pavement conditions of Highway 4 east of Port Alberni. The condition of the pavement from Port Alberni to 25 kilometres east is not good. It requires a recap. The recap has been delayed, since the Cameron Lake–Angel Rock section is scheduled for reconstruction. The Angel Rock design is complete, but we still haven't decided on when to call the tender. But we seem to be getting closer. In other words — and the member knows — that's a substantial rock job. I certainly would like to see that out of there. I guess it's not too far away from a tender call — I'd say within 12 months. The pavement has been extensively patched this year, according to the engineers. That's one of the reasons....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right, patching on patches.

I believe the MLA complained about the Cherry Creek road. Part of this road is in the city limits and is not ours. The section in the city is in bad condition and, as a city street, maybe they can.... If they've got financial problems, and it's a collector street, they might get into a revenue sharing. I don't know just where that's at. The section outside the city, which Highways looks after, is in good condition, according to the notes I have.

The MLA has complained about the condition of Beaver Creek Road. It's ten miles long and five miles are in good condition and five miles need rebuilding. Half a mile at the bridge approach has been rebuilt and paved this year.

The MLA for Alberni requested $30 million for the upgrading of the west end of the highway from Alberni to Tofino. The notes I have here on that say we're designing some four-lane passing sections for construction; that will be done on a repaving job. Then we'll be doing a repaving job at the west end. So they're moving up to getting some permanent improvements done there.

The note on the Cumberland road.... I've never heard so much about a road that doesn't belong to the Highways system as I have on the Cumberland-Alberni road. It's a Forests road. The notes I have here say that in the last two years Highways has supplied $50,000 to upgrade locations

[ Page 3239 ]

where it was difficult for passenger cars. I know that both Cumberland and Alberni really want to see this road. We're helping in a small way, and we will continue to help with giving funds so they can upgrade the road to a better standard.

MR. SKELLY: How much this year?

HON. MR. FRASER: I can get the figure. I don't know what the figure is for this year, but I'll get it. It's not large, but I don't know what it is.

The observation I want to deal with here. Mr. Chairman, is that this is a forest road. There are complications regarding taking it over. This is my understanding. If we're to take it over and bring it up to a more decent grade, we're going to affect jobs in the area, I understand. That is, logging trucks are now allowed to run with wider bunks than they would be allowed if we took the highway over. They would have to come to legal highway width, and I don't think the logging companies want that to happen.

So what we're doing is a band-aid approach to the Cumberland-Alberni road. I think the community of Cumberland wants the road even worse than Alberni, but both communities are in full support of it, and I realize that it certainly would be a nice alternative access for both of them. I say there are problems, but we move to do it properly. In the meantime we're making minor grants to get it upgraded.

I think I've covered most of the items.

MR. SKELLY: What about the food service on the ferries? All the junk — wrappers and stuff.

HON. MR. FRASER: I haven't got an answer to that. I don't know where the garbage from the ferries goes, but I'll get that answer.

MR. PASSARELL: I'll be addressing a number of questions to the minister concerning air services, out of the latest brochure report that we have. I'd like clarification from the minister concerning the following figures. On page 159 of the report it says the total number of passengers carried on the four daily flights between Victoria and Vancouver was 10,545; unscheduled service 4,217; for a total of 14,762. This excludes the air ambulance service. I'm asking the minister why 14,762 passengers yearly go on a government aircraft between Victoria and Vancouver when there are quite a few commercial flights available out of Pat Bay to Vancouver.

On the air ambulance service — an excellent facility and project — there were 507 patients on 356 flights — that's on page 158 — for a total of 528 hours, while the aerial photography section took a total of 739 flying hours. Why were 210.4 more hours spent on photographing trees and land than on flying sick people to hospitals? Where are the priorities?

MR. KEMPF: Are you suggesting we should have more sick people?

MR. PASSARELL: We certainly know that the member for Omineca is against the air ambulance service, as his statement just made....

On the travel recording centre located in the legislative building, to quote from page 158: "The purpose of the centre is to coordinate and record all commercial and government air travel by members of the executive council." Why were 36,847 travel warrants charged back to ministries for a total of $430,000? Almost half a million dollars were charged back to ministries for government travel. We find that $430,000 are spent on that aspect while communities such as Dease Lake go without a first-aid station.

Another question to the minister is, why was the Beechcraft Turbo flown only 3.9 hours in the last fiscal year? What was the matter with this aircraft? The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) says it was dangerous. Isn't this a tremendous expense, to have a government aircraft flying 3.9 hours a year? What's happened to this aircraft? Is it in storage somewhere or is it in operation this year?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Sell it.

Just to switch off of the air ambulance and air services branch, since I've asked the minister a number of questions, one aspect concerns maintenance for the Atlin electoral district, which makes up roughly 20 percent of the province in area — $3,709,776, compared to over $11 million for the Cariboo, the constituency of the Minister of Transportation and Highways; $10 million for Prince George North, the constituency of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich); $9 million for the constituency of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair); $4 million for South Peace River, the constituency of the Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon. Mr. Phillips); and $4,692,000 for the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). I'm wondering why so little is spent on maintenance up in the Atlin constituency. If you took it in priority listing, starting with the top and working down, the Atlin maintenance budget is fifteenth behind the Cariboo, and fifteenth for a maintenance budget for a constituency as large as Atlin should.... I would hope the minister could bring that fifteenth up a little bit more so we could get a little bit better service on the roads. I certainly hope that the minister can and will make the Atlin constituency maintenance budget a bit higher.

Snow removal in the Atlin constituency is $1,383,000, compared to the Minister of Agriculture's constituency in Boundary-Similkameen of $1,167,000 — a big snow belt down in that area. Almost as much was spent on snow removal in the Minister of Agriculture's region of the Okanagan as is spent up in northern British Columbia. There was over $3 million spent in snow removal in the Cariboo as compared to only $1,300,000 in Atlin. There was $2 million spent in Fort George: $1,953,837 was spent on snow removal in Kamloops. There was more money spent on snow removal in Kamloops than on the entire northwest of British Columbia. The sum of $2,039,000 was spent in Yale-Lillooet, another big snow belt of this province located in the southern regions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm just cleaning up the snowjob Hartley did.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, if there is anything to know about snowjobs, that Minister of Forests would certainly know about it.

There is more money spent on snow removal in Yale-Lillooet than on the entire northwest of British Columbia. There is another interesting aspect about snow removal from the minister's report here. The total lower mainland snow

[ Page 3240 ]

removal budget for West Vancouver, Vancouver East, Vancouver Centre, Surrey, Langley, Richmond, North Vancouver–Seymour, North Vancouver–Capilano, Delta, Coquitlam, Chilliwack, Burnaby North, Burnaby-Willingdon, Burnaby-Edmonds amounts to the grant total of $1,300,000. This compares to the exact same amount of area for snow removal in all of northwestern British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: Did you check the snowfall?

MR. PASSARELL: The member for Omineca, once again, is interrupting. Could you bring him to order please, Mr. Chairman? Thank you.

On to some constituency problems concerning the bridge into Greenville. There were some conflicting reports concerning the bridge into Greenville. One of the federal members had made a statement — he said he was in conjunction with the Minister of Highways — that it would take four years to build that bridge into Greenville. The minister, I saw in a press release I think it was, stated two years. Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll reply to you, but I would remind you that if the federals would put their money where their mouth is, it would sure help.

MR. PASSARELL: Terrible, Mr. Chairman — more of this Ottawa-bashing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All remarks should be addressed to the Chair, hon. members. The member for Atlin continues.

MR. PASSARELL: I think the children of Greenville who have to walk across the ice to get to school across the Nass River aren't really concerned that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is getting into a petty argument with Ottawa concerning the bridge.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's not very petty.

MR. PASSARELL: It's not petty. That's right. Why isn't there a bridge in there? It's been too long. A child almost died this summer going across.

HON. MR. FRASER: Are you relying on Ottawa for the answers?

MR. KEMPF: I think he almost does.

MR. PASSARELL: There goes the minister, or the member — he would like to become maybe the minister of booze — once again putting down the poor children of Greenville who must go across the Nass River to get to school because there is no bridge. They have to walk across the ice.

Once again, Mr. Minister, there is a need for ferry service into Stewart. I know it will take a while. It is good for the community, good for northern British Columbia, being the most northern ice-free port on the coast.

On Highway 37, I was up there this weekend and there is some very good construction going on between the junction and Good Hope Lake. Definite improvement is still needed on the junction between Cassiar and Highway 37.

There is one question I would have the minister answer. Can the minister clarify if the Good Hope Lake maintenance camp is transferring from its present location to a location about three kilometres from Cassiar? Quite a few people in the area are concerned about this. If the camp does move, could the structure remain there for some kind of training centre for the people of the area, specifically in Good Hope Lake?

There is a need for local contractors. I've written the minister concerning a problem which was brought up through the constituency. I will wait for the minister's response to the letter that I contacted him with on this.

The member for Omineca once again has something the matter with him. He's jumping up and down. He's spending too much time talking about the new program that he has underway; I think it's something like the Floating Unified Canteens of Kempf's Under Progress — something of that nature. But we'll continue, Mr. Chairman, on some highway estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, back to vote 193.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me against this wild man from Omineca.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that remark is unparliamentary. Will you please withdraw it.

MR. PASSARELL: Certainly. I will withdraw "wild man."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. All members are reminded that we are on vote 193, the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and if we could contain our debate to that and address our remarks to the Chair, the debate can proceed in a courteous and orderly manner.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate that.

MR. KEMPF: I would appreciate you being right for a change.

MR. PASSARELL: There he goes again, Mr. Chairman. There's something definitely the matter with that man. But I will address my remarks to you, Mr. Chairman.

There is the need of local employment on Highway 37, Mr. Minister. Some of the small communities located along Highway 37 were under the impression they would get more summer employment projects out of the construction aspects. Since there is much construction going on in the area I would certainly hope the minister could help out a bit with the summer employment program for residents living in the area.

The earth receiver programs I talked about last year with the minister are very good programs. They are very helpful to the many rural communities along Highway 37 — the maintenance camps where the minister put in the receiving dishes that are very welcome and appreciated by the communities.

Finally, on the aspect of the Stikine bridge, if the possibility exists that that's going to be flooded over, the bridge would be 600 feet under water. Can the minister give any assurances that the bridge won't be left under water by Lake McClelland? If the bridge is left under, before it's flooded

[ Page 3241 ]

over, could it be taken down and maybe moved into Stewart which could benefit from the Stikine bridge? Those are a few questions I'd like some answers on, if possible, from the minister.

MR. KEMPF: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. to correct the member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: I know he's very seldom correct, but he's certainly incorrect in saying, as he just did in that debate, if in fact it was debate, that I am not in favour of air ambulances in this province. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if that member had been in the House on Monday last he would certainly have heard me when I was on my feet speaking vehemently in favour of the air ambulance system, telling the people of this assembly and of the province of British Columbia what has been done in my constituency in regard to airport improvement to facilitate the air ambulance service.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct that incorrect member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will recognize the member for Atlin, but the Chair will also point out that in committee there is really not any need to rise under standing order 42 to qualify a point, because, in fact, debate in committee is allowed to any member who wishes to speak. In second reading, where a member is only allowed to speak once, standing order 42 does offer the privilege of a member standing to correct a statement that might have been in appropriate or in which the explanation or material part of his speech might have been misquoted or misunderstood. So the member for Omineca has simply risen in debate, and the Chair will now again recognize the member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL The member for Omineca is once again making statements — stating that I was incorrect as something. I would like him to withdraw that statement....

MR. KEMPF: You weren't libelous this time, just incorrect.

MR. PASSARELL: I find it unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, and offensive, as he usually is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh! Hon. member, I will caution you that courtesy in debate is always a function of this House and of the committee. The word "incorrect" is not unparliamentary. If the member deliberately imputed a falsehood against another member, then the member would have to withdraw it. But the Chair has not heard any....

MR. PASSARELL Mr. Chairman, he was referring to the truthfulness of my statements, just like you found it offensive when I called him a wild man, which he is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Atlin is recognized. Repeat your remarks, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: I found the statements made by the member for Omineca were offensive and I would like him to withdraw them.

MR. KEMPF: What statements?

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, there are some words you can't use in this House. I wouldn't want Hansard to be burned by them. I wish he would withdraw the remarks he made to me that I found offensive, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if the remarks were offensive, the Chair would have ruled on it. The Chair has not heard anything offensive from the member for Omineca.

MR. PASSARELL Mr. Chairman, I certainly heard the words. I mean, do we have to listen where the Chairman hears these words? I can say them, but they are going to be very terrible words. I wish he would withdraw the statements I found offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member for Omineca has made any offensive statements towards any other hon. member, will the member withdraw in the courtesy of the House?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I made no offensive statements. Therefore I refuse to withdraw. Withdraw what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has heard no offensive statements made in this last discourse. The member has clearly indicated that he has said nothing.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) on vote 193. We will have to contain our debate to the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman. words were spoken cross the floor that the Chairman did not hear, it appears. I found them offensive. I do not believe that they should be said. I would like the member to....

MR. KEMPF: What did I say?

MR. PASSARELL: I don't talk as dirty as you do. I found some words offensive. I expect them to be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair finds great difficulty in ruling on something the Chair has not heard.

HON. MR. MAIR: Perhaps I can help, Mr. Chairman. I thought I heard the word "fuddle duddle." If that came from he member, perhaps he could withdraw it. That is the only word I heard that could be offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be worthy of withdrawa1. If anything was said that the Chair might or might not have heard, would the member for Omineca withdraw?

MR. KEMPF: No. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, but I uttered no offensive words. If the member for Atlin heard some, he is certainly hearing things, I would suggest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has heard no offence against another hon. member. I must ask that debate continue

[ Page 3242 ]

on vote 193, the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, if a member says something that is offensive to another member of this House but you don't hear it, and he says he doesn't have to withdraw it, then it is just dropped. Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member had not been recognized. There might be side-conversation happening at the other end of the assembly, hon. members. The Chair is not aware of anything offensive that has transpired.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to challenge your ruling on that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all hon. members please come to order. I find it very hard to rule on something offensive, unless I am aware of what the offending statement was. I have not heard an offending statement.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, a lot of talking goes on in this House that the Chair certainly does not always hear. It is the prerogative of members to stand up when they hear something offensive said to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would first have to understand and hear what the offending statement was, so I could rule it parliamentary or unparliamentary.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, there are some words that I believe should not be said in the sanctity of this House. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said those words. They came out of his mouth and I will not repeat them. I found them offensive.

MR. KEMPF: Let's go out in the hall and you can tell me what words I said.

MR. PASSARELL: Now the member for Omineca wants to go out in the hall and fight, I guess. I found the words offensive.

MRS. WALLACE: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I heard the words and I am not afraid to repeat them. I hate to do it, but I will. That member said, and I heard it clearly: "Fuck off."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will call the assembly to order.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. The Chairman is standing. Will all hon. members please come to order. Hon. members, I have to repeat again, the Chair did not hear any of the discussion that's transpired. The hon. member for Omineca denied saying anything and there is nothing more that I can say except that courtesy in debate, politeness in language, moderation and good humour are features of debate. I will insist that any further discussion about this discontinue and I will ask that we continue on vote 193.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I have never in my life had such an accusation levelled at me, whether in this House or out, and I demand an apology.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will have to ask the member for Cowichan-Malahat to withdraw.

Will the member for Cowichan-Malahat withdraw the statement that she attributed to the member for Omineca? The Chair did not hear it: the member has denied saying it. All members are honourable, and I think we can end this debate at this point if the member would simply withdraw.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I cannot withdraw, because that's what I heard. I'm offended. If I misheard, that's unfortunate, but I understood the member for Omineca to make that statement. I am offended and I would ask that member to apologize.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair did not hear it; the member for Omineca has denied saying it. You have indicated to me that if you misunderstood, then you feel that is unfortunate. I would accept the fact that you have misunderstood the member's comments.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could clarify this for me. Isn't it true that's it's always been the rule in the House, recognized certainly by other Speakers — Speaker Smith, Speaker Dowding, Speaker Schroeder, Speaker Davidson and yourself on other occasions — that when a member stands on his or her feet and says that they have been offended by a remark and asks for a withdrawal, whether the Speaker hears that remark or not, as an act of courtesy and custom, the person who's made the offending remark has been asked to stand up and withdraw? Is that not a fact?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct, hon. member, unless the member denies making that statement. The hon. member for Omineca has denied making the statement; the member for Cowichan-Malahat has indicated to the House that the statement attributed to the member for Omineca might have been misunderstood. I see no point in carrying this discussion on any further. I would remind all hon. members that the debate should be addressed to the Chair, and that we could continue with the debate — and only members who have the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the member for Atlin requested some guidance from you. I would like to repeat his question, and maybe you can guide me as well. Does the Speaker have to hear the comment? The member for Atlin said that he was offended by a comment made by the member for Omineca. The Chairman admitted that he did not hear the comment. Nonetheless, the member for Atlin heard a comment which offended him, and the member for Atlin asked for a withdrawal. Will the Chairman clarify? Does the Chairman or the Speaker always have to hear the comment before a withdrawal can be requested?

[ Page 3243 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member denies that he has made the statement, that is a withdrawal.

MR. SEGARTY: I sit relatively close to the member for Omineca. If he had made that comment, I as well would have asked for a withdrawal. I'm really disappointed in the member for Cowichan....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're entering into debate now; I don't want to do that. We are a committee of the House to discuss vote 193. I would like to carry on with that vote.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have had sufficient debate. We are in committee. I must ask that we return to vote 193, the estimates of the Minister of Highways.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman. I think an apology is due the member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I would again like to make it very clear to this House that I did not utter those words or anything like them. I have not heard either a withdrawal or an apology from the member for Cowichan-Malahat. I again demand that apology.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat rose and indicated that she may have misunderstood you.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The statement by the member for Cowichan-Malahat does satisfy the Chair. The member clearly indicated to this committee that the member for Cowichan-Malahat might have misunderstood. I would like to continue with vote 193.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, when a similar situation occurred in the House of Commons in Ottawa, a common term was used to mask that particular word; the term was "fuddle-duddle."

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) got up shortly after that word was uttered here, and he told the House that he heard the member for Omineca say "fuddle-duddle." In fact, that is the word that has been used to mask that, in parliamentary tradition.

I would ask that you order the member for Omineca to withdraw the statement that was heard by several members on this side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member. one more time I will repeat what I have said, that in fact the member for Omineca has denied making that statement. I am going to take the matter under advisement and peruse Hansard. I ask that all discussion with respect to this matter discontinue and that we carry on with the debate on the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I said I have taken the matter under advisement.

Does the Minister of Health wish to speak to vote 193?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to the point of order of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have told you that I will take that debate under advisement and....

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman. I don't wish to enter that debate; I wish to answer another point of order raised by the member for North Island. Surely, I'm entitled to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You'll have to be recognized first.

The Minister of Health.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that when I made the remark to which the member for North Island alluded, I made it in what I thought was the humour of the moment; it did not refer to anything that the member for Omineca said. I sat next to the member for Omineca; I have extremely good hearing. He said nothing of the sort that he is accused of by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. Let me just say this: I know the lady well; she was my critic once. She said she misunderstood; I think she did. I think we should be prepared to accept her word for it, and my word as an honourable member that the words weren't spoken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already taken the word of the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I always like following a debate like that: I've got a little more of an audience here, the press and a few other things. Usually by the time I get around to speaking they're sitting down.

What I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and to the House.... One of the problems of following late in the debate — and this is in all debates — is that someone at times takes some of your speech. I'm happy the minister rose and brought out one part.

Part of my talk was going to be based on the stepping up of the safety program. What I wanted to bring out was a letter that I had written to the minister on November 20, 1979, where I asked the minister to consider a program of paving the shoulders of at least one of the main roads and especially the roads entering or approaching schools. I'm happy to hear the minister state that the department has gone into a policy of paving one of the shoulders of a road for bicycles, pedestrians and, I hope, as a safety lane for cars that are breaking down. I'm more than happy that he came in with that.

I've always been very amazed and intrigued by the manner of the Minister of Highways. He appears to have a working knowledge of the province: he has a working knowledge of the individual areas of each of our ridings. I know that in all debates about constituencies we have local problems that are very important to those who are living in that area. I would like to bring to the minister's attention a few programs that I would like to see the ministry head into take a serious look at my requests.

A few months back, one of the bridges on the road going into Port Renfrew collapsed. I don't know if you realize just

[ Page 3244 ]

what it implies when a highway bridge collapses. This is a bridge that, month after month, day after day, citizens, school students, businesses and logging trucks are going over. This one particular bridge, known as Jack Elliot Bridge, collapsed and is now being replaced with a Bailey bridge. In that same stretch of territory there are three other bridges of similar nature — old logging bridges constructed of cedar and hemlock logs. Over the years, since the logging show in that particular area has been shut down, the bridges are now part of the Highways system.

I would like to bring to the minister's attention the danger that I can see possibly developing on three of these bridges. One is known locally as Minute Creek Bridge. This particular bridge consists of Douglas fir stringers, which at the present time are showing signs of advanced rot. The average midspan diameter of these stringers is approximately 31 inches. They are stressed to an approximate rating of 1,900 pounds per square inch. This might be all right under certain highway standards, but this particular bridge is being used day after day by logging trucks loaded with logs. This is far below the standard for bridges that are built in the same area by B.C. Forest Products. The stress of the bridges that are carrying similar logging trucks is a lot higher than that. I would seriously ask that the minister take a look at the Minute Creek bridge prior to another collapse, because maybe when that collapses one of the school buses or other types of transportation that go through there may go down.

There's another bridge that I would like to bring to the minister's attention. It is one of the three Sombrio River bridges. It's a 32-foot span, which has a mixture of cedar and spruce stringers. There are approximately nine stringers in this particular bridge. Both ends of this particular bridge are sitting on a kind of cribwork built of cedar logs that are starting to deteriorate. In fact, one end of the cribwork is built on a kind of rotten hemlock stump, and I would seriously ask the minister to make some check of that area before we have another of those three bridges collapsing.

Regarding that particular area — while I'm on my feet — there are seven miles of unpaved highway on the road from Jordan River to Port Renfrew. I would like to see the ministry develop a policy that, where you do have stretches of unpaved road, there is a consistent policy of paving so much of it each year. The people living there don't demand a highway every year but they feel, as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) states, there is a vast amount of money coming out of that area from the resources of the forests. If they only knew that each year there would be a certain amount of it turned in, that the paving of the gravel roads would be extended and that they could took ahead three, four and five years and know that that unpaved area will be completed. I feel that this policy, in any general area and especially in my particular riding....

We have another area commonly called the Highlands. This is an area that has been developed and a lot of homes have been built. It is becoming a bedroom area of the greater Victoria area. There are a lot of unpaved roads. In that area I feel that the ministry should lay out and publicly announce that there will be one or two or three miles of pavement on a regular basis so that those who are paying taxes, running in and out, driving the school buses, will have some understanding and knowledge that eventually that road will be brought up to the standard that I think this province can afford.

There is another issue I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. That is the new policy of signing they have developed throughout the province. One of these is the large brown and black signs they have marking off the parks. If you are driving along on the main highways at 80 km/h, the first thing you can read is the name. As an example, I use the one at Goldstream. You can read "Goldstream." But underneath "Goldstream" in very small print is what it is. There is no indication that Goldstream is a provincial park, that it has camping facilities. People drive right by it. They go down another 200 or 300 yards and there is a large sign in plain English that says "Cardinal Camping Park," which is a private park. These two parks are beside each other but there are a lot of tourists who are looking towards provincial camping parks. There is an excellent camping park but they miss it because of the change in the policy of the ministry's signing. I bring it to the minister's attention that I would like him to seriously look at those signs, make them larger, and make the wording so it can be read safely at a high speed.

There are a number of issues I would like to bring up but I feel I will maybe bring them up later on in the estimates. There is one issue I would like to bring to his attention. Maybe by the time we get to the end of the estimates he can bring in some answer to it — that is the policy he announced that the ferries and highways are now doing their own investigation of accidents that take place on the ferries. I believe the minister is aware of a long series of correspondence we had on a vehicle that was damaged on a ferry. Basically, this is the history of this particular case. The gentleman was towing a trailer off a ferry. One of the workers on the ferry had waved him on to keep up with the traffic. He drove on, keeping up with the traffic, but because of the maladjusted ferry slip, the hitch on his vehicle hooked the ferry slip and tore it off. The minister has now announced that they are going to set up their own investigation branch within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I feel that it is wrong. It is like having the bad guys do the investigation.

Within the province we have ICBC set up to investigate all motor vehicle accidents, to find who is at fault. I feel that we should utilize their investigative staff and their adjusters. I feel that if it is good enough for ICBC to enforce guilt or lack of guilt or who is at fault and what is the percentage of fault out on the highways for the general public, the same policy and the same personnel can do it for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and for the ferries. To set up another group within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is going to give a poor feeling to those who feel they have a justified complaint and haven't got satisfactory answers. It is easy to say: "If you're unhappy, take it to small debts court." The chance of the smaller person taking it to a small debts court against the government becomes kind of ridiculous, especially when the cost of taking it to court is far in excess of the $300 or so of the damage. I feel that this should be brought to the department's attention.

MR. DAVIS: I'd like to ask the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways a few questions. These relate to subjects which haven't been raised so far, and I think he can answer them with one-liners.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

My riding of North Vancouver–Seymour is truly unique. It is the only constituency, to my knowledge, which is connected by a one-lane Bailey bridge with the rest of the

[ Page 3245 ]

province. It's also one of very few B.C. constituencies which, most years at least, gets less than $100,000 of expenditure from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Some get tens of millions, and quite a few of those are on the other side of the House. Many get millions of dollars' worth of expenditure, so I think it's North Vancouver–Seymour's turn. North Vancouver–Seymour badly needs a four-lane bridge over the Seymour River. With this new crossing in place, many of my constituents who line up in great traffic jams going to work in the morning, headed across the Second Narrows Bridge, and then again line up again in the evenings returning to the Seymour area will be able to enjoy the kind of highway connections which most of the people of this province have come to take for granted.

Recently the district municipality of North Vancouver decided to go around the local Indian reserve, the Squamish Band reserve, which is immediately abutting the Seymour River in that area. In that way we've overcome a problem which has prevented this essential four-lane highway link from being built. The province some years ago, and it has confirmed it annually, is prepared to put up the money to build the bridge and half of the money to build the approaches. All we really need now is action. We've got the route selected; we've got much of the engineering done; we simply need this link to be built. My question to the minister in this connection is: will construction of this link be in shortly? Will it, hopefully, be completed in the next two years? I certainly think it should; I'm looking forward to its completion.

Our second priority has to be the construction of the Cassiar Street throughway which connects the southern end of the Second Narrows Bridge with Highway 1. Building this throughway will relieve much of the congestion around the Pacific National Exhibition site. It will particularly relieve the congestion where Cassiar crosses Hastings Street in that area. It will also eliminate two red lights on the Trans-Canada Highway. I gather there's only four in all of Canada; the other two are on the North Shore. We're looking forward to the elimination of all four of them eventually, through the efforts of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. This Cassiar connector when it's built will certainly ease the traffic congestion — perhaps the worst traffic congestion anywhere in the province. It's overdue. In this connection I'd like to ask the minister when construction may begin on the Cassiar connector, and how much it will cost when it's complete, hopefully in 1984 or 1985. I'd like to know, at least for the record, if the province is going to be footing the entire bill for the construction of the Cassiar connector. What help, if any, is it getting from the city of Vancouver in this connection?

Looking north from the Second Narrows Bridge, we on the eastern end of the North Shore have to be concerned about a future highway due north to the Whistler area and beyond. Eventually we must have a major highway bypassing the Fraser River Canyon which runs up generally in the direction of Squamish, and through Pemberton into the Chilcotin country. What are the Ministry of Transportation and Highways priorities in this connection? Is it simply to improve our present two-lane highway up Howe Sound ad infinitum, or is it at some stage to build a much shorter highway up the Seymour and Indian River watersheds to Breckendale which, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is a few miles beyond Squamish in the Squamish River watershed. This will be an expensive link to build. It's roughly 40 miles in length and would include a tunnel. It would also have to go over the divide between the Indian River watershed and the Mamquam River watershed, an elevation of around 1,800 feet. But it would cut 30 miles off the drive to Whistler for most people in the lower mainland area. There would also be many fewer curves than currently; characterize the highway up Howe Sound; there would actually be some long straightaways; it would be a good highway, and I think a highway which would be fairly easily maintained — even in the wintertime — once it was built.

Again, what is the ministry's thinking in this connection and when, conceivably, might a start be made on a new north road? It's one which would really end up in the Cariboo and beyond; one which, I think, will eventually be built in this province and which, I think, along with the Fraser Canyon highway and the fine new highway which is now under construction between Merritt and Hope through the Coquihalla Pass, will really establish the kind of highway network which British Columbia will ultimately have to serve its people.

As for traffic across the North Shore to Horseshoe Bay, I'd say that we're rapidly approaching the saturation point. The minister has said repeatedly that B.C. Ferries sailings can't be increased out of Horseshoe Bay ad infinitum; larger vessels may be used, but we also lack the parking space for large trucks and trailers, especially in the numbers and particularly in the sizes which will be heading out to Horseshoe Bay in the late 1980s. So what is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways going to do about a new ferry crossing across the Strait of Georgia, one which will relieve Horseshoe Bay?

It's my view that it has to be a crossing from Iona Island, near Vancouver International Airport and just south of Point Grey, to Gabriola Island, which is immediately south of Nanaimo. That would be a one-hour crossing. It involves 17 miles of open water — not 34 miles, the length of the present crossing from Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay in the city of Nanaimo. Fewer ferries, obviously, would be needed on this much shorter route — a much more convenient route, a much better route as far as the user of the ferry service is concerned. With a one-hour crossing, B, C. Ferries wouldn't have to supply meals, for example. An Iona-Gabriola crossing would also, and more obviously, be a simple extension of the present highway system. It would connect the northern three-quarters of Vancouver Island much more effectively with most of the lower mainland area, certainly with the city of Vancouver, definitely with highways heading south into the United States. and also incidentally would make the Vancouver International Airport more accessible to the residents of Vancouver Island. It would reduce B.C. Ferries costs overall and — very important from my constituents' point of view on the North Shore indeed, and in West Vancouver, Howe Sound,Capilano and North Vancouver–Seymour — it would reduce traffic congestion on the Upper Levels Highway through our constituency. It would take some of the pressure off the Lions Gate and Second Narrows bridges; it would save a lot of fuel and wear and tear on vehicles which now have to take a roundabout route to Vancouver Island, especially the north Island destinations. The traveler could go directly to Iona Island rather than north across Burrard Inlet and 14 miles out of his or her way to Horseshoe Bay, where they face a two-hour trip to Vancouver Island rather than a one-hour trip direct from Iona to Gabriola Island across the Georgia Strait.

Economically speaking, the Iona-Gabriola route is

[ Page 3246 ]

obviously the way to go. It is the most efficient route as far as energy consumption is concerned. It's a time-saver. It would be the preferred route for many people living south of Burrard Inlet and in the lower mainland generally. It would also be the preferred route for many people living north of Duncan on Vancouver Island who wish to go to the majority of destinations in southwestern B.C.

Its cost, relative to other things anyway, Mr. Chairman, is not prohibitive. It is of the order of $150 million, including terminals at both ends and their approaches.

Also, while there is likely to be some opposition from certain quarters, I note that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is already advocating a road connector to Gabriola Island at the Vancouver Island end, Mr. Chairman. Why not build a four-lane connector, rather than a two-lane one, and a proper B.C. Ferries terminal on Gabriola Island now, or in the next few years? This would reduce the elapsed time for future ferry runs, at least in the interim, from Horseshoe Bay to Vancouver Island, because the ferry wouldn't have to go all the way into Nanaimo. Certainly if there were to be a future run from Tsawwassen up towards Nanaimo, if it were to be in a position to off-load at the Gabriola terminal, that would be a shorter and more efficient trip from the ferries' point of view, and I think from the point of view of most travellers as well.

I realize that many of the municipalities in the lower mainland would have to be consulted. Certainly so would the regional district of Nanaimo. Richmond, in particular, would have to be concerned about a ferry terminal on Iona Island. The city of Vancouver obviously has a traffic roads/streets concern. Environmentalists would be concerned; their views would have to be sought about the advantages and difficulties inherent in a new ferry terminal just south of Point Grey. But I'd like to point out that this is the safest area, if there are safe areas, from an environmental point of view, in which to build a two-mile-long quay and a ferry departure path. An old jetty is located there now. That area has been disturbed to quite an extent. Concentrating our vehicular traffic at the north end of the Fraser River delta makes sense when one of our main objectives must be to protect Sturgeon Bank and most of Roberts Bank from further encroachments of this kind in the future.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I know the minister is concerned about B.C. Ferries taking over most of the freight and other commercial traffic in and around the Strait of Georgia. I believe B.C. Ferries must be very careful in this regard. In my view, the Ferry Corporation should increase its rates to the point where they cover all costs where trucks and trailers are concerned. Even with the latest increase I doubt if B.C. Ferries will be covering all of its costs in 1981-82, including, incidentally, the costs of building new terminals and adding new overheight ferries to deal with this traffic.

In other words, I don't want B.C. Ferries to become the sole carrier of freight on water around the lower mainland and serving Vancouver Island across the Strait of Georgia. This certainly isn't healthy from a commercial point of view. It eliminates the only effective competition available now, and it would expose many British Columbians to work slowdowns and stoppages of the kind which caused serious disruption to the B.C. economy in 1971, 1974 and 1977.

Mr. Chairman, there's one other matter which I would like to raise before I sit down. This has to do with transportation through the Coast Range in the northern half of this province. I'm really referring to the Alaskan panhandle, to access from the Pacific Ocean to the northeastern corner of this province and the opportunity for industries developing in that area, most of them with a great future — mining, forestry, even tourism. This involves the Atlin constituency, but it also requires access through the U.S. territory known as the Alaskan panhandle to the sea.

This access could be frustrated by new parks, new ecological reserves, new forestry reserves of the kind which are being contemplated by the administration in Washington, D.C. This is true, for instance, of land withdrawals which have been proposed within the last, comparatively few, months by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. The lands which those agencies of the United States government have in mind lie astride or about the estuaries, indeed many of the first miles, of a number of rivers which originate in Canada — in the Yukon, but much more likely in British Columbia — such as the Aksek, the Leduc, the Porcupine, the Yukon and, most important, the Stikine River itself. If these land withdrawals take place, if they are set aside as reserves, if they are reserves over which roads cannot be built, rail connections cannot be built, if they are set up by presidential proclamation in the United States, our long-term access to the Pacific Ocean from the northern half of much of this province — that part of the province above the 54th parallel — our future development in that corner of B.C. can be limited and maybe seriously restricted.

British Columbia may have already taken this matter up with the government of Canada and the Yukon territories. However, I would like to be sure that the rights of British Columbians to move freely from B.C. territory through the Alaskan panhandle to the sea are protected for all time. These rights were originally recognized in the treaty of 1825 between Russia and Great Britain. They were reconfirmed in 1903 by the Alaskan boundary treaty with the United States. I would like to be sure that those rights are in no way threatened by these land reserves, which are being actively considered on the U.S. side in the Alaskan panhandle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the House. I am looking forward to the answers from the minister.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the House, might I make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, in the members' gallery this afternoon is Mr. Douglas Strongitharm of Vancouver. Mr. Strongitharm is a senior member of the Workers' Compensation Board and has served the province with distinction in the Attorney-General's office in past years. Would members make him especially welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I have four MLAs to answer. I will try to go speedily through the queries. First, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was concerned about what B.C. Ferries do about their garbage. Quite frankly, their garbage is put through a macerator and put ashore where it is taken away by a contractor. They are presently looking at the possibility of incinerating garbage on board. We have an incinerator unit on the Queen of the North, which appears to

[ Page 3247 ]

be working satisfactorily. The member made another observation about dishwashing. We have dishwashing equipment and dishwashers on board on several vessels.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) brought up several items. I will try to respond quickly to them. He wanted to know why so many passengers were carried by Air Services. The notes I have on that say that 14,000 passengers were carried on scheduled and non-scheduled flights, because of economy and convenience, as opposed to commercial flights. I might say that the air services branch runs a scheduled service from Vancouver to Victoria. I believe it is about four round-trips a day each way. That has been going on for quite some time. It is certainly heavily used. It probably accounts for a lot of the flights here. I believe the member asked why they were charged back to the ministries. The policy of the government is to charge back to individual ministries for the use of the aircraft. That goes on continually and we do not propose to change it.

The member asked about a specific aircraft, CF-BCF. It is out of service. It has the total permissible hours on its engines. It is in the hangar at the air services branch. It has been put out to tender as surplus through the Purchasing Commission. We did not get satisfactory bids. What I am really saying is that the aircraft is not operable: it is surplus. Now we have to look at further decisions on its disposal because the Purchasing Commission did not get satisfactory bids. I believe the highest bid they got was some $60,000 for the aircraft, and that aircraft is in storage in a hangar at the Pat Bay airport.

Expenditures in Atlin. Well, there was still a lot of money spent in Atlin, and more so per kilometre than a lot of other roads in the province. That is one area of the province we have really upgraded — Highway 37 — from one end to the other. We have a lot to go on it yet, but we're off to a good start.

He brought up the Greenville bridge, Mr. Chairman. That is a native community downriver from Aiyansh on the Nass River, and they've had a real problem there. We're fully aware of it, but we have had difficulty getting an agreement with the natives regarding bridge approaches and access. I'm happy to report to the House that we just recently arrived at a deal with the Nishgas on behalf of Greenville, and we're now drilling for bridge foundations there.

We propose to go ahead with the bridge. It'll take about two years to build. I forget the cost, but I think it's around $2 million. There is not one cent of federal money in there, and that is the situation there. The member for Atlin said that somebody from the federal DIA, I believe they call it — Department of Indian Affairs — said it would take four years. Well, I didn't take kindly to that remark, because they haven't got a thing to do with it, whether it's from their chequebook or anything else. Quite frankly, that person doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm saying our engineers say that we're starting now and the bridge will be completed in two years. I advised the Nishgas that met me here last week on the same basis I am advising the House.

We have several maintenance camps on Highway 37 that operate 12 months of the year on maintenance. The Good Hope Lake camp — yes, we intend to relocate it up farther north near the Cassiar junction. We have not settled on the exact location. We have a large garage there. It will not be left at Good Hope Lake; it is movable and we will need it at the new location.

The Stikine River bridge on Highway 37 is a large and very substantial structure. The member asked if things are to be flooded — the Stikine River. We are going through this now at Revelstoke-Mica. If a new bridge is required, we will have to build it. But I don't want to infer in any way that they're going ahead and flooding in the Stikine. As a member of the government, I don't know of any immediate plans at all to develop power or to flood that area. I would think, from what I know, the bridge will be worn out long before anything like that happens, if it ever does. It's not in the plans at all.

There was another comment about Stewart. The good people of Stewart have lost a main link. We have put in a temporary link. I would just like to advise the committee that they won't have to wait long for the permanent replacement. I hope that in 12 months we will have a new permanent replacement bridge across the Bear River.

Local employment is a priority in that remote area. I hope they are hiring local people in the area of Dease Lake, Telegraph Creek, Stewart, Meziadin junction and in a few other local areas.

Regarding the earth receiver, yes, we installed those in our maintenance camps last fall. I'm happy to report to the House that, because of bringing them television, which they never had before, we now have a stable workforce. Prior to that, we had three crews on these maintenance camps: one coming to work, one at work and one leaving. It has now stabilized because there is a form of entertainment through television.

The Stewart airport — I think that was mentioned. Yes, that has been improved and paved, and we're working on the Dease Lake airport.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) brought up an incident regarding a trailer accident on the ferries, but I understand that the liability was denied in that case. It was considered that the hitch was not adequately designed for the type of trailer being towed. I think the member brought up a question there that I will be asking as well. The previous statement that I made was that B.C. Ferries were now handling their own claims, not Highways. B.C. Ferries have just established their own claims division. It used to be in conjunction with Highways, but now they have separated. I would like to ask the same question you did: why do we have that, in view of ICBC? I guess there is an answer, but I haven't got it. What I am saying is that up to April 1, 1980, all claims were handled by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, including the ferries claims. They are now separated. The B.C. Ferries have got their own claims division.

Regarding the road to Port Renfrew and your concern regarding the bridges, they are always a concern. The logstringer bridges on the Port Renfrew road have recently been inspected. The bridge inspection engineer is very conservative. Normally inspection cores are taken. A program has been drawn up to replace these as necessary.

The park signs that were erected — the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew brought this up — are on permit to the parks branch, and your comments should be taken up to the parks branch. That is their sign, installed with our permission. It is their design.

Regarding the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), I am aware of the Bailey bridge in a modern urban area. We have had access problems there, but I have a note from the engineers saying that we can safely say we will

[ Page 3248 ]

have a modern bridge up there within two years, so it seems things are moving along.

The Vancouver-Squamish route, the Seymour route the most likely new route is being looked at, and no date is scheduled for any construction or anything.

The total cost of the Hastings-Cassiar connector mentioned by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is estimated at $25 million, and it will be at the full cost of the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. minister. Hon. members, there appears to be an awful lot of discussion going on. The minister does have the floor. Perhaps we might offer him the courtesy which is owed to all members of this House and remain silent while the minister has the floor.

HON. MR. FRASER: The question I have here from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is about the Alaska panhandle wilderness river designations. The actions before congress had been drawn to the attention of the Department of External Affairs of Canada through our Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations with our position, which is that we maintain that the existing treaty conditions be retained. That's the situation there.

One other observation is that we are looking at the congestion at Horseshoe Bay. I mentioned that earlier regarding B.C. Ferries looking at maybe removing some of the truck traffic out of there. And, yes, we haven't made a decision one way or another on Iona-Gabriola. Thank you for your attention.

MR. LORIMER: I've got a couple of matters I want to raise and discuss with the minister. The first one is dealing with the proposed Annacis Island bridge. I've spoken on this before and I don't intend to repeat what I've previously said or repeat the concerns expressed by my colleagues, who I do agree with on those concerns. As the minister knows, and he is well aware, a bridge of this type will result in massive changes in the pattern of the movement of automobiles in the lower mainland. As a result of this there will be new traffic problems created in the variety of municipalities adjacent to those of that bridge. Those problems have probably not been foreseen as yet by the municipalities or by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, because the bridge will have to be erected and the traffic will use the bridge before it can be foreseen what other problems will arise. The minister knows and I'm sure that there will be a variety of problems arising due to the change in traffic flows.

What I would like to ask the minister is whether or not the provincial government is prepared financially to correct some of those problems that are bound to arise as a result of the activity of the provincial government in the construction of this bridge. For instance, I can foresee where it may be necessary in a number of municipalities to construct overpass pedestrian bridges for the purpose of allowing school children to go by and so on where the access routes may well go by schools. I can also foresee where the automobiles are moving into new neighbourhoods and creating traffic hazards. The municipalities or someone is going to have to do street-widening, street changes, street closures and so on. What is of interest to me is whether or not this bridge is not only an expense to the provincial government, but that it also creates substantial expenses to the municipalities in their quest to have an even flow of traffic through their particular region or through their municipalities.

I'm sure the minister has received a number of letters from citizen groups and individuals expressing their concerns about the end result of the construction of this particular bridge. I know I have and I'm sure he has. I have spoken in opposition to the bridge along with my colleagues, but it seems to me that the minister has still not changed his mind. He may yet, but he hasn't at the moment. In the event that he doesn't, I wonder if he could give me some idea of a timetable that he is hoping for when construction of the bridge may well be started and the target date for completion of the bridge.

He might also tell us what changes, if any, he expects to make on the Queensborough Bridge. Obviously those changes will be required if you're turning a six-lane bridge into a two-lane bridge. Maybe he can tell us what changes he intends to make on the Queensborough Bridge and when he intends to get this project on its way.

The other aspects are the feeder lines to the bridge south of the Fraser River. What steps have been taken and in what areas has there been a decision made as to the routes of those feeder lines?

Another problem that I want to discuss with the minister is the question of the works yard at the corner of Willingdon and Canada Way. I realize that yard has been there for a great number of years, and it has been serving a useful purpose for the Ministry of Highways. Now the first question is whether or not the minister intends to keep the yard in that location. It would solve the problem if it were moved. However, in the event that it isn't being moved, the problem is that the yard is an eyesore in the area, and has been for a number of years. I appreciate the fact that storage of pipes and machinery and so on isn't that beautiful, except to those that love machinery and pipes, but it would seem to me that a beautification project could be undertaken on that corner without too much expense or difficulty.

I know that the Burnaby Parks Board has written to the minister with reference to this problem. The simple solution, it would seem to me, would be to merely move the fences back a few feet along the highway and possibly plant some shrubbery or ground-cover plants to make it a beautiful sight rather than an eyesore. I don't think it would be a very difficult job to do this.

As you know, the traffic in that particular area — not only local traffic, but also commuters back and forth and the tourists who use that particular highway — is increasing regularly. The tourists come to that corner and it has to be the ugliest part of the trip to the interior. I'm sure it is — the corner of Willingdon and Canada Way. That is a government operation and I would think that the minister might well consider some program in order to clean up this mess.

The municipal parks board has suggested that the fences could possibly be moved back, as I mentioned to you. I would hope that the minister would look at this. I know it's an old problem; it's been there a long time. But I had no luck with my colleague when he was minister — to do anything about it — so I'm hoping that I might have more luck with you, Mr. Minister, in doing something to beautify this particular area.

One other problem that I would like to express is the conversion of the gasoline automobile and truck to propane, and the problem whereby those people who have done so on Vancouver Island find themselves basically isolated, because I understand under the rules and regulations they're unable to take those vehicles on the ferries. A number of

[ Page 3249 ]

suggestions have been made by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to convert from gasoline to propane or some other source of energy. Those who have followed his advice now find themselves stranded on Vancouver Island, because they're unable to take their vehicles on the ferry — unless, of course, they smuggle the tanks and a few other things across with them. That's an issue that I would recommend the minister take into consideration, as to what efforts can be made in resolving that particular problem.

Getting back to the Annacis Island bridge, I would like to point out that the municipalities are going to be faced with substantial costs in correcting a number of unforeseen bottlenecks, unforeseen problems on the streets, with traffic that is going to be placed there as a result of the action of this government in building the Annacis Island crossing. I would like to hear the minister tell us what solution he has to offer, what hope he has to give, or what he will offer to the municipalities in order to cure the expensive problems that the municipalities know they're going to face.

The difficulty as far as Burnaby is concerned is the fact that the traffic is bound to be going through Nelson, Gilley, up through to Kingsway and also up Boundary Road and Patterson. The streets are not that wide or able to handle a large influx of traffic. Not only is the problem in that particular area, but shortcuts will be made from those feeder routes to try to shorten the time element in getting from the southern part of the river to the downtown Vancouver area. As I have mentioned before, the Annacis Island bridge in fact will not be a solution to the problem that the minister is trying to correct, but will create hundreds of other problems which will be very difficult to correct. What I am afraid of is that the costs of the corrective procedures will be borne by municipalities and will not be borne by the provincial government.

The other problems are, of course, the unknown factors as to the changes of drainage and so on on those feeder routes, the widening of the streets, the necessity of putting in drainage and other necessary requirements for a street over on the side. I would hope that the minister, when he next speaks, will assure us that the millions of dollars that the provincial government is spending on the bridge will not create millions of dollars more that will have to be put in the budgets of the adjacent municipalities to satisfy the construction of that particular bridge.

The other matter that I wanted to raise....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LORIMER: There is an awful lot of chatter here, Mr. Chairman. I can't concentrate on the fine address I am trying to give this House. I'm a little concerned that the members are not paying enough attention to the words I am saying.

In any event, I am sure than when the minister replies he will assure me that Burnaby won't be stuck and my personal taxes will not be substantially increased next year or the year after to pay for the costs of servicing that particular community when the time comes to correct the methods of moving the traffic through that particular area.

I would like to bring the attention of the Chairman to the clock.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.