[ Page 5691 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 189: minister's office –– 5691

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Lockstead

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise on a question of privilege. The question of privilege is founded upon an item broadcast by BCTV on its 6 o'clock news last evening after the House had risen for the day. Therefore this is the first opportunity available to raise a question of privilege based upon that newscast. In that newscast the Premier was reported to have said that his government has 30 bills stacked up and waiting introduction to the Legislature, but that certain private members — namely those in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — were preventing the introduction of the said bills.

Before proceeding to present a citation from May's sixteenth edition on this matter, may I say first that it is the direct responsibility of the government to introduce or not introduce bills as it so chooses, and to take action in that regard upon its own initiative. At no time during this session has the government or any representative of it approached the opposition with regard to the government's legislative program for the session. Also at no time has Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition engaged in any activity which would — by the wildest stretch of the imagination — prevent the government from introducing its legislative program.

In my view, the statement made by the Premier contravenes the following provision of May's sixteenth edition. I quote from page 117 thereof:

"...indignities offered to their House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have been constantly punished by both the Lords and the Commons upon the principle that such acts tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due them.

"Reflections upon members, the particular individuals not being named or otherwise indicated, are equivalent to reflections on the House."

I submit that the statement of the Premier so cast a reflection upon this House by seeking to place upon Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition blame for the government's own lack of initiative in introducing its legislative program to the House. If Your Honour finds that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to propose to the House the following motion: this House regrets that the Premier has such little understanding of the procedures of this House that he would seek to cast reflections upon it. Further, I move that Your Honour be asked to invite the Premier to a private meeting with Your Honour in order that the Premier may be educated about the procedures of this House, preferably in language understandable by a grade 4 student.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members. I will take into consideration the matter brought to the House by the member for Skeena, to determine whether or not a prima facie case does exist. If it does exist we would then, of course, find whether or not the motion itself is in order. If the motion itself is in order then, of course, we can proceed. This will be done later today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

HON. MR. FRASER: First of all, I'm happy that the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways arc now before the committee to discuss. First of all I would like to touch on a few things that happened last year, and then just roughly try to inform the committee where we're going in this fiscal year. It is a large ministry, and I certainly don't expect to touch on everything. First of all dealing with the highway system as such, there are very large and different problems in all areas of our province — weatherwise, with terrain and so on — but in 1980, slowly but surely, we achieved further upgrading of that highway system all over the province. We're trying to keep up with the ever-increasing traffic volumes that make demands on that system.

So much for the existing system, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to clarify and make comments on government policy regarding new projects and inform the committee that we are still going on with the Coquihalla route — the third route to the Pacific Coast. Two large contracts have been awarded. One is completed, the other one is about half completed, and a third one will be called. I believe we said in the throne speech debate in 1977 that we'd build this third alternative route to the coast. We started in 1978 or 1979, as funds were available and so forth, but there has been constant work going on since late 1978 in this difficult part of the terrain of British Columbia, and I'm happy to report progress. I believe we said in 1977 that we hoped wc'd have this artery from the basic part of the Coquihalla from Merritt to Hope constructed by 1986 –– I hope that is the case — funds being available and a lot of other things — and then of course we have to go on and build a new road from Kamloops, which we publicly announced we intend to do. Our engineers have found a line that will take us out of the valley between Merritt and Kamloops. putting us more or less on top of the valley where we have Highway 5. That will follow the main connection. Hopefully towards the end of the construction of the main route we'll have started on the other link — Merritt via close to Logan Lake and back down into Kamloops.

There's another one that never gets any press: I guess it doesn't matter. For about seven years now we've been building a new road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories. I believe the B.C. portion of that, from Fort Nelson to our north boundary, is around 120 miles. The federal government is building down to meet us — from Fort Simpson to the boundary. I'm happy to say a lot has been achieved there. Hopefully, weather permitting and so on, that new road joining the Northwest Territories with British Columbia for the first time will be in place by freeze-up 1982. The significance is that we have our own railroad, BCR, terminating at Fort Nelson. We look forward to getting quite a lot of additional southbound freight once this connection is made, because there are new mines going in now in the Northwest Territories. Hopefully they'll ship their ore concentrates out by truck from the Northwest Territories on this road, down to Fort Nelson and out by rail.

There is an achievement I'd like to speak on, Mr. Chairman. I think you know about this. We have lots of traffic congestion on the lower mainland and we have tried to relieve it. I think one project that has achieved its purpose is the

[ Page 5692 ]

three-laning of the Massey Tunnel during rush hours and putting an express bus lane in for the southbound route that's quite popular. Unfortunately there was one fatal accident soon after it was open, but we have found out that the cause of that accident was not because of the three-laning of the tunnel. It has expedited travel for the people who want to go north from Delta and south of the Massey Tunnel into the metropolitan area where they work. While it has caused a little slowdown in the southbound traffic, which is reduced to one lane during the rush hours, it's not too serious. I'd like to congratulate our senior engineers who designed that. They were worried about the concept, but we put a lot of safety features into it before it was open. They deserve our congratulations for that. I guess if you think of the energy crisis and that alone, it's been a big help. All in all, there's very heavy traffic there. That's really only patchwork to try and look after the ever-increasing traffic.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Slowly but surely, we're trying to build a safe and reliable highway system for our people, so that it will enhance the social and economic development of our province. Transportation these days gets a lot more public attention than it ever did. Even five years ago it didn't get the attention it gets today. More of our citizens, whether they work or not, are concerned about our highway system. Of course I think what's brought it into focus as well are the energy increases. Talking transportation generally — whether it be by air, land or water — the costs of transportation are advancing rapidly. Basically behind it is not only world energy prices but inflation generally with the cost of vehicles and so on. So a lot more attention is being paid to it by all of our citizens. A good transportation system is basic to the development of our natural resources, which is the creation of jobs. It's basic to the development of our secondary industry, which again is jobs. It's very basic to the development of our tourist industry, which again is important to all of us and is important to the creation of jobs. Without a safe and reliable transportation system nothing much will happen.

For a long time now, this provincial government and prior provincial governments have not only owned but operated certain elements of our transportation system. For example, the B.C., Ferry Corporation is a wholly owned Crown corporation owned by the people of British Columbia. We not only own it, but the Crown corporation operates it. We have the Highways ferries that are an important part of our transportation system throughout the province. While I realize that B.C. Ferries hauls far more people and vehicles, B.C. Ferries hasn't got as many ferries in operation as the Highways side of ferries.

I'd like to give credit to all the people who operate and do the work — whether they be B.C. Ferries or Highways — on the transportation side. This ministry is a little different than most government ministries. We're not a Tuesday to Thursday ministry. We operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Boy, we have problems, night and day. Whether it be avalanches, rockslides or floods, we're always the first there. The reason that we are is the fact that we have men and equipment all over this province, whether it be in Cassiar, Telegraph Creek or even Alberni. We're always there and we are the first called out. I can't say more and better things than about the people who actually operate the system and about the great job they do for us.

As a matter of fact, our work really starts on Thursday night. We work harder from Thursday night to Tuesday than we do from Tuesday to Thursday. Being specific, whether they are truck drivers, grader and bulldozer operators, ferry captains, deckhands or whatever, they don't really honour the Tuesday to Thursday concept. They have shift work night and day, and that's why our citizens are able to get around. And our citizens are very demanding, I might say, and rightly so. Today they don't want to stop for two minutes for anything, because they're all in a big hurry, We have such a dynamic province; they want to get on with their business, and I don't blame them for that. But sometimes it's difficult when we have floods, rockslides and so on; it takes us a few hours to sort things out so we can get things going again.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing we're having difficulty keeping up with in this ministry is traffic congestion in lots of places of our province. We'll have lots of discussion about where it is. I'll tell you where it is by factual documents. Where some members think they've got traffic congestion they're really just dreaming; they haven't got any, if you look at the facts and the traffic counts. What is really behind it all....

MR. MACDONALD: Look at Cassiar and Hastings.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll get to that. Would you keep that member in line, Mr. Chairman, because....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: We'll talk about Hastings and Cassiar — one of my favourite areas in the great city of Vancouver, I might say.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll tell you about that too.

But, basically, behind it all is the fact that in 1976 we had 1.4 million registered vehicles in our province. Today we have 1.9 million vehicles. So it's an additional 500,000 vehicles. While we have improved some of the highway systems, there are some that we haven't. That many more vehicles are forced into the same space. There is no indication of any decline. I think a lot of our citizens tried to say that once gasoline became a dollar a gallon, that would stop vehicles. Quite frankly, it's way beyond that now, and it isn't stopping. As a matter of fact, because of our buoyant economy the density of vehicles in the province is increasing. I don't see any reason that that will change. But this causes problems for all of us.

I know that members in the House will feel that I'm not concerned if I don't mention what is going on in our highway system and what is going on with the operation of motor vehicles as such. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is just terrible what's going on in our highway system regarding accidents. The fatal accidents, damages to property and injuries to people are just something hard to believe. I deal with it every day. I'll try to summarize. In 1979 we had 720 fatal accidents in British Columbia. In 1980 it jumped to 800. That pattern seems to exist and continues to exist. In other words, fatals alone are advancing about 10 percent per year. I guess we can expect some advance in view of the higher

[ Page 5693 ]

inventory of vehicles, but I don't really know what we do about it. Our government isn't going to put up with it. We've already done a lot of what we would like to see — driver education, the counterattack program and so on and so forth. Through our ministry I also instituted the mechanical inspection of commercial vehicles, which shocked us all last year — and it's continuing. Approximately 50 percent of our commercial vehicles aren't fit to be on the highway. Our inspection people are finding that out. We have it all documented.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you what the experts say is causing all of this carnage on our highways. It's only two things, or a combination of two things: booze and speed. Sometimes it's one of them and sometimes the other one. A lot of times it's the combination of them. That is as much as I want to say now, except to tell you that following the task force report that was made public last year.... That task force report was a combined effort by the Ministry of the Attorney-General, this ministry, ICBC and a lot of the experts who were on it for a long time — two years, I think. I'm happy to tell you that before this sitting of the Legislature is out, you'll have a bill before you in the form of amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act — to get tougher. I can't go into all the details, but basically we're going to move to taking the wheels away from the constant offenders. The young people know what you mean by "wheels." The vehicle will be impounded. This is getting fairly harsh. When the amendments come forward, I'm looking forward to a unanimous vote of the House on these, because we have to do more than we're doing.

The other sad story about the fatals is that it's young people who are being killed. It seems to me that in some cases they're really killing themselves. I think it's terrible. We've got to get a message across somehow. One way we think we can do that is to at least impound their vehicles, or any driver's vehicle — I believe it will be spelled out in detail — where they have had a second suspension and they're picked up on the road. They will get their vehicles back when they can prove to us that they're going to be better drivers and citizens.

MR. COCKE: Bring in the bill today.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, the bill is being worked on, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: It's being held up by Bennett.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, sir. It isn't being held up at all. I'm sure this bill has been looked at by all the experts for a long time, I think it will be here any time.

I'd just like to point out the estimate summary of this ministry that all members have in their possession. It shows a total expenditure of $618,601,215. You have last year's figures beside it and it would appear that we've had an increase in this ministry, and that's not so. Last year in the estimates you will recall that we had — I believe it was — Bill 5, which provided $100 million for this ministry. We haven't Bill 5 this year, so on a global basis the money vote for this ministry is approximately the same as it was for last year. The other thing that doesn't appear here is money that we have because it was from continuing legislation. Last year, as you know, a bill was passed for an ongoing $30 million for the Annacis Crossing. I'd just like to say that that major project is proceeding very well. Of the $30 million, it is my understanding that as of now about $16 million has been committed. I don't think very much of it will be left by the end of March 1982. I might also add that most of these expenditures are for engineering and acquisition of rights-of-way that has gone on so far.

I just have a few observations and explanations regarding the breakdown. There isn't a lot. I might mention highway maintenance. That vote is up a fair amount, but probably just enough to look after inflation. You'll note that highway maintenance is now approaching $200 million a year. That's nothing to do with construction at all. Highway construction capital is where all the major projects are. It's not broken down. I imagine there will be questions asked on that. Again, we're about the same as last year.

Hydro development highways is all to do with the Mica-Revelstoke dam.,where we've just about completed a new road. B.C. Hydro paid for it. It will cost approximately $100 million to change the road from one side of the valley to the other, north of Revelstoke. I believe that job should be finished sometime this year.

The motor-vehicle branch is in here. I imagine we'll have some discussion on the motor carrier branch. We seem to have a lot of dissatisfied people regarding the motor carrier branch and the Motor Carrier Commission. I make that observation from correspondence I get that there are not enough licences. Everybody wants a licence and people are even having problems getting permits.

The transport policy analysis branch is headed up by the assistant deputy minister, Dr. Kasianchuck. We're starting with Vancouver Island transportation problems. I enjoy working with this branch because they certainly do a lot of research in all types of transportation — land, sea and water. They are not confined to one.

The air services branch seems to get some discussion. I'd just like to say that they do an excellent job for the people of British Columbia. We have a fine staff of approximately — it says in here — 54. Our pilots know this province inside and out and do a great job in flying government personnel as well as the air ambulance side of it. They bring people from other areas of the province to better medical care. Again, they're a service the government has that operates seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

I imagine there will be a little discussion about British Columbia Ferries. B.C. Ferries, I might say, is the largest and finest ferry fleet in the world. You can see that this year the province will pay a subsidy of approximately $63 million, after everybody has paid their fares.

While I'm on B.C. Ferries, I'm happy to report to you that last year we started the first roll-on, roll-off ferry service to the Queen Charlotte Islands, a part of British Columbia that has been forgotten about for a long time. The only way they could get off the islands was by air. We now have an economical transportation system from Prince Rupert to Skidegate on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I might say that business is booming. Pessimists thought we would be running empty — far from it. We're delighted by the response of those citizens. They get two round trips a week.

On the route from Tsawwassen to Port Hardy, or in the summer months from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert — the main run — we have eliminated the month or so of service they have been used to for 15 years; we now have 12-month service on that run. We only have two open-water vessels: the Queen of Prince Rupert and the Queen of the North. They are

[ Page 5694 ]

accommodating operation 12 months of the year by having one vessel pick up the slack when the other vessel is down for refit. In other words, one vessel carries out all the runs, including the run to the Queen Charlottes. The Ferry Corporation decided to do that this year, in the months of April and May. By June 1 both of those open-water vessels will have gone through their refit and will be ready to go, gung-ho, for the busy summer months — and they are very busy. An excellent job is being done for all of us.

B.C. Railway is in here. I would just mention that I understand this is the last year that this vote — $13.2 million — will be in there. Our government decided to rejuvenate the line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. This year we'll see that road put in stable condition at a cost of close to $45 million. Instead of the locomotive running off into the muskeg when they make the trip, they now have a secure road-base and a reliable railroad from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. I only mention that because this $13.2 million is a commitment our government made to upgrade that. I might say that this is coming in at about the estimate that was given by engineers to build a safe and reliable line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson — about $45 million to $50 million. It appears that it's going to come in at a gross of about $45 million. This is the last $13 million of that in this year's budget, and the work is supposed to be completed.

I'd like to conclude now by introducing the people who do the work — this good public service for us. All I do is the talking. First of all, this is my deputy minister, Bob Harvey. If you fellows stand up and bow they'll know who you are. Charles Gallagher is the general manager of B.C. Ferry Corporation. Tom Johnson is the assistant deputy minister of highway operations. Al Rhodes had an argument with his wife last night; he's assistant deputy minister in charge of administration of transportation and highways. Bob Whitlock is superintendent of motor vehicles.

Hopefully you have enough information to lead off. I look forward to the debate on my estimates. Thank you for listening.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave front the committee to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have the pleasure today to introduce, in the gallery opposite you, Mr. Chairman, the Permanent Secretary of Education and Science for the United Kingdom, Sir James Hamilton. Sir James is touring British Columbia. He's been to Pearson College. He's been visiting the universities. He's visiting Camosun and Malaspina today. I know the House wishes him well. We're glad to have him here with us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next speaker, the minister has made passing reference to legislation which may or may not be coming to the House. The committee has no knowledge of that. Our business, of course, is to debate the estimates that are before us. Comments dealing with the legislation will be better dealt with when the legislation is in the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I do have a lot of opening statements to make in reply to the minister, but right now there is an immediate problem facing us here in the harbour in Victoria. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to answer one question right now. What arrangements have you made for the Princess Marguerite, which is going to be blockaded, and obviously is sailing towards Victoria? Have you made alternate arrangements for docking facilities? Could you tell us what your plans are, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: I understand through the press that the fishboats might try and block Victoria harbour. I make it abundantly clear that it's not under the jurisdiction of the provincial government or any branch of it. It's under the branch of the government of Canada. But I'm happy to tell the member that the Princess Marguerite is on her way, and she'll be here on time as usual. If she can't get into Victoria harbour we're going to unload her at Esquimalt.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the answer from the minister, because this is a very current issue. The fact that the Marguerite is sailing at all is a minor victory for the people of Victoria and British Columbia — and the NDP of course. I'm very sure that's a topic we're going to get into later.

I thought, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that we would concentrate for a bit on the highways side of the minister's portfolio. The minister has a great number of responsibilities, and the minister mentioned his staff. I have occasion, of course — as all members do — to talk and work with staff either here at the senior level in Victoria or at the local level throughout the regions. Overall, I think I join the minister in complimenting the people in his office. The staff are primarily technical people. They have a large responsibility and have to make a lot of decisions, sometimes good ones and sometimes decisions we don't all agree with. All in all, I think it's quite a competent and good staff.

With that out of the way, it's down to business, Mr. Chairman. The minister referred to a number of articles during his opening address, and you've already ruled that we can't discuss the proposed new Motor Vehicle Act and the task force report, which I've studied and don't understand yet. I guess we'll get it eventually. It's a monstrous document. In any event, I want to concentrate on the highways side of the minister's portfolio for the first few minutes.

I really hate to say this, but the fact is that what I detect as a very bad pattern is developing out of the office of the minister over the past several years. I've gone back over the annual reports, and I must say that the annual report of the Ministry of Highways is a very thorough document. It has to be read carefully to understand the thing, but the fact is that it is a very thorough document. You can get a pretty fair idea of where these vast amounts of money are going if you study that document. In going through that document — going through the electoral districts one by one — you can see where the money is going and how it is being spent overall. What really shocks me is the pattern that's been developing over the last several years in the ministry and out of the minister's office of the plundering of taxpayers' money in the highway budget to go into a few selected ridings.

I raised the matter of the unreasonable amount, I felt, of funds going into his own riding last year. I know the minister's explanation is that they've got more roads than anybody else. The fact is that the population — and I'm sure the voters in Cariboo will agree — of that riding is receiving an undue amount of highway funding out of this whole total budget. I'm going to give you some examples. I'm not putting down

[ Page 5695 ]

the voters in Cariboo, because everybody all over this province wants their piece of highway fixed. The total highways budget could be tripled or quadrupled and there would still be potholes in front of somebody's house or yard that they wanted fixed right now. I understand these things.

What I'm talking about is fair play. Here's an interesting way of looking at it. In the minister's riding of Cariboo, in terms of highways dollars alone, it costs the taxpayers $2,114.62 per vote. Would you believe it? The list goes on. South Peace, I suppose because of the smaller population.... Yale-Lillooet is way up: it costs S3.825.33 per vote. That's the highest in the province, by the way. I'm talking about highways funds, no other funding. That's the kind of pattern which has developed.

Some of the figures that really disturb me, before we get into single issues of highways, etc.... We're talking about one aspect of your portfolio. I think the people of the province should be made aware of this, as well as your own colleagues. I'm sure some of your own colleagues are a bit distressed about the amount of funding going into your riding alone, and perhaps one or two other Social Credit ridings, and about ridings which are being left out. I hope they're not left out for political reasons.

Let's look at some more figures. You remember Bill 7, the appropriation fund we passed last year'? The fact is that while other ridings received 1.1 percent — that happens to be my own riding — of that particular bill passed through the Legislature, other ridings received 3.6 percent, 0.03 percent for another riding, and I could go down the whole list. But guess what — he only riding that received more than 8 percent, more than 14 percent, more than 16 percent....

Would you believe that Cariboo received 18.1 percent of all the funds out of that particular special appropriations act? Incredible!

HON. MR. HEWITT: There are a lot of roads in that constituency.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We've all got a lot of roads, Mr. Minister of Agriculture.

That's just one figure. Out of the total Highways budget, while other ridings received 1.4, 2.3 — I could go over the ridings one by one — even Kamloops received 3.5 percent.... The rest of the figures are more or less, with a couple of exceptions — South Peace.... I don't know why South Peace is getting so much money. But the minister's riding once again received 8.3 percent of the total highways budget of last year.

Those are the Minister of Highways' own figures. I'm utilizing their figures, not mine. In the Ministry of Highways, the minister has a great deal of discretion in how funds are spent, where they're going to be spent and in what manner. In fact, second- third- and fourth-class roads in the minister's riding — and I'm not knocking it; the people are probably very happy about it — are being upgraded to an undue extent while other areas of the province, in my view, are being neglected.

For example, the day-labour portion of the minister's budget is a portion of the budget over which, once again, the minister has complete and total control. I've taken some time and gone through it, utilizing the ministry's own figures, to work out by electoral district the proportion of the day-labour portion of his budget, and how the money was spent, and in what area. Once again we see it: Columbia River 2.3 percent.

Dewdney 0. I percent, Mackenzie 2.1 percent, and the list goes on; the figures are all pretty well in that range. But once again, astoundingly out of line with every other electoral district in the province, with the exception of one or two favoured ridings, we have Cariboo with 20.1 percent — to be on the safe side I'll say 20.1 percent, because it's hard to tell if that's a 7 or a 1. What can you say? In the old days they'd call it porkbarrelling. But in this day and age they don't call it porkbarrelling any more. What do they call it, Mr. Chairman? There's a name for it, isn't there?

Mr. Minister, when you get up to respond on this particular item I would appreciate it if you would not give us the length and miles of roads or the terrain of your riding. I know it's a large riding, and I understand more highways and roads are required. There are miles and miles between ranches and farms. But we all have that. I was up to the Minister of Agriculture's riding about six weeks ago. You're in trouble up there, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, but that's another story. You must have read the paper: they had a very good article.

Back to the vote. Mr. Chairman. I think that the people of the province have a right to know that while this is a very popular minister over here and, in fact, one of the few ministers whom you can phone down to in his office and if he's got time he'll say: "Sure, come on down and tell me your problems...." I appreciate that. I think most members in this House do. But that's not what we're talking about right now. We're talking about the undue amount of public money under the Highways estimates that, In my view, have been plundered and have gone into one particular riding. I think that's taking advantage of a situation as a minister.

I don't want to discuss ferries for a while. At this point, I don't want to discuss the situation in my own riding, which I will be getting into. I will ask the minister various questions about these matters. I'm going to take a few minutes to ask the minister about a couple of matters that I promised people I would bring to the attention of the minister through the Legislature.

We have a situation — I know you're very familiar with it — in Penny, just south of Prince George. There's an ice bridge with people falling through. It was a big issue about a year and a half ago. At that time. I do believe that certain commitments were made on behalf of the people living in the small community of Penny, south of Prince George. If you would be good enough to make a note and bring us up to date on what's happening there.... There's an ice bridge and they have a problem on the south side of the road. People were falling through and kids were swimming and breaking through the ice. I bring it to your attention because I received a phone call approximately two weeks ago from that area. They tell me that nothing is being done there. I'm not sure about that. I haven't been up there for about a year. So if the minister would be good enough to bring us up to date on that situation, I'm sure the people in that community would appreciate it.

Part of the reason I went up to Oliver and to your riding, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, was to personally look at a horrendous situation. Look at the size of this file. The gentleman's name is Mr. Nemes. I'm sure the Minister of Highways must be familiar with it by now. In fact, I have copies of a great deal of correspondence. Just to bring you up to date very quickly....

Interjection.

[ Page 5696 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He says the MLA solved that. Well, we'll see.

Here's what happened. With limited funds, this gentleman bought a piece of property and found, lo and behold, that it had access through Crown land to his property. He didn't realize when he purchased this property as there was no advertising in any of the local papers that this Crown land was put up for sale and sold to a neighbour. Access was denied to Mr. Nemes to his own property. It's a long, horrendous case which has gone through the ombudsman, the minister's office and the MLA for the area. The MLA for the area has got copies of all this correspondence. The MLA has just told me that he has solved the case, which is very interesting.

I'll be looking forward to the minister's answer on this particular item. If the case has not been solved on behalf of Mr. Nemes, then it's going to be raised in this Legislature again and again. In my view, the ministry has a direct responsibility on behalf of this fellow who has spent all his funds on legal fees fighting this case through the courts over the years. He's a fine old gentleman who is just trying to make a living with his family on this piece of property that he bought in good faith. I hope that the matter is solved, as the Minister of Agriculture says it is.

I have such a host of items to discuss with you here. Because I made a pretty serious allegation in this Legislature about the amount of spending in the minister's riding, I would very much appreciate it if at this time the minister would and could reply to that particular allegation and to these two items I just raised.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the observations of the member for Mackenzie, but I wish he'd broaden his outlook a bit. We've got serious transportation problems and all he can dwell on is whether the Cariboo people have decent roads or not, which he doesn't seem to care about. I'd like to give him a few facts of life of this province concerning the Cariboo riding that I have the honour to represent. As far as I'm concerned, everything in British Columbia rotates from the Cariboo in all directions. It's a central part of the province.

Let's deal with some facts of life, rather than just straight mudslinging, which gets none of us anywhere. I realize it gets him a headline, but I repeat that I think we have more serious matters. I'd like to give you some facts of life. I don't take it very kindly for this member particularly — a semi rural member like myself — to make these kinds of statements when he's got real problems too. I thought he'd come out of the barrel a little more about what they'd do if they were government. They'd rip all the blacktop up and put gravel back in, or as they did when they were government, they'd let all the blacktop go to pot-holes.

Dealing with the facts of life and first of all the Cariboo riding, the electoral area of Cariboo has the largest mileage in roads by far of any riding in the province. They're in different states of repair and disrepair. For the record I'm going to put some mileage on road networks down for some tinker-toy ridings. The Mackenzie riding that this member has the honour to represent has 970 kilometres of paved road and 419 kilometres of unpaved road, for a total — I know he'd like to know this; I'm sure he doesn't — of 1,389.8 kilometres. This is why I can't understand him trying to make personal attacks.... They aren't personal; they're attacks on the good mover and shaker citizens of this province and the Cariboo.

Our ridings adjoin each other. A lot of the expenditures we've made had a direct benefit to the Mackenzie riding. We had an absolute cow trail from Williams Lake to the Pacific Ocean at Bella Coola when this government took power, and we've made it a safe road now. His people in Bella Coola, Hagensborg and Firvale are delighted with what we did with the road. As far as he's concerned, that's all charged against Cariboo, because Highway 20 goes 300 miles from Williams Lake to Bella Coola and the Pacific Coast. I know they'll be happy to hear what he has to say. He really is saying that we shouldn't have paved the Bella Coola valley. We did, Mr. Chairman, from the Pacific Ocean to the foot of the Coast Mountains — 50 miles. That was done long before the 1979 election too, as that member knows. It was the first pavement they ever had. We rebuilt all their bridges and so on. Then that road goes on from there over the Coast range through the Chilcotin plateau to Williams Lake. What is wrong with another outlet to the Pacific Coast? The next message he'll be saying is that he wants more boats and everything. I say we have provided alternate transportation for the people on certain areas of the central coast by developing Highway 20 to a safe and reliable standard.

I got carried off the subject there. I'll get back to the message I want to give the committee. As I said, the Mackenzie riding has 1,389 kilometres of public roads; 70 percent of those are paved. Let's deal with the famous Cariboo and take the same comparison. The paved roads in the Cariboo are 2,474 kilometres. The unpaved roads — this is what you should make a note of — are 10,344 kilometres, for a total inventory of public roads of 12,818 kilometres that I didn't create. The MacKenzie riding has 70 percent of their roads paved. Do you know what the Cariboo percentage is? It's 19 percent. They have 81 percent gravel, pot-holes and car parts to run on. As a member of Legislature, that member is really saying that they can keep it that way, and he's against any improvement to that. I guess he can take that self-satisfied position when he's got 70 percent of the roads in his riding paved now. Thanks very much, but as the member for Cariboo I'm going to to do all I can to close the gap, Mr. Member. I am fed up with that chikaree from that side saying that Cariboo is denied the roads because I represent the Cariboo. Are they not at least entitled to have 30 percent of their roads paved, when your people have 70 percent? How about taking a look at that?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm not finished with Mackenzie and Cariboo. I've got lots of other comparisons, and it will take me till lunchtime to give them. Let's deal with the Kamloops riding. How I love Kamloops, where all the press went out and said that we would get 20 percent of the votes. I told the press all along we'd win the riding, but they had to make up their own polls.

One of the other reasons that we had such great luck in the Kamloops riding, Mr. Chairman, was the fact that it is a neighbour of the Cariboo riding on the other side. As I say, all ridings are neighbours of the Cariboo riding. The thinking of the Cariboo people translated to the people of Kamloops, and it came out in the polls. But the news media didn't understand that, and they'd better go back and do their news reporting and not polls. Anyway. I got carried away.

I certainly look forward to that fine MLA-elect, who will be here shortly. I wish he was here to hear me this morning about Kamloops riding. That used to be a famous riding too,

[ Page 5697 ]

following along the same lines as they're talking here this morning. The Kamloops riding has 1,405 kilometres of paved road, 2,450 kilometres of gravel, for a total inventory of roads in that riding of 3, 855 kilometres. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 36.5 percent of their roads are paved.

Now let's deal with one of the postage-stamp ridings in British Columbia. I'll deal with Alberni, one of the huge enormous ridings. Their road inventory is as follows: 566 kilometres of paved road, 214 kilometres of gravel road, for a total inventory of 780 kilometres of public roads in that riding — 73 percent paved. That member there denies Cariboo people the right to upgrade their roads from a low of 19 percent of their road inventory. Thanks very much — I'll have a message to tell them.

Now Comox, one of our huge ridings of the postage stamp variety.

MS. SANFORD: I've been waiting.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I know you've been chirping, and now I'll give you the answer. In that riding of paved roads the inventory is 1,374 kilometres paved, and 690 gravel, for a total inventory of 2,000 kilometres — 66.5 percent paved, Mr. Chairman. Those members on that side are trying to make politics out of Cariboo trying to move up from 19 percent. Thanks very much.

Well, we have better ones than that. Let's deal with Nanaimo.

MR. LEA: Start with your own riding.

HON. MR. FRASER: I dealt with that one when you were down having breakfast.

There are 930 kilometres of paved roads in Nanaimo riding, 264 of gravel, for a total inventory of 1,178 of roads in the riding — 78 percent paved. They've had pavements for so long, now somebody else wants pavement, and they can't understand that that exists in our province. That side wants to keep people of the Cariboo as second-class citizens. Well, Mr. Chairman, they aren't going to be second-class citizens as long as I represent them, and I'll get them up to first class — like Nanaimo, Comox and Mackenzie — as soon as I can, regardless of your two-bitting us about it.

Now we have Prince Rupert. This is a large riding that's mostly water, but they have some roads. The mileage there is 495 kilometres paved, 101 gravel, for a total of 596 kilometres. Mr. Chairman, would you believe, 83 percent of the Prince Rupert roads are paved roads?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, come on, Alex!

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to give the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) full marks for not getting on the kick the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) got on. You'll notice that he didn't get on that kick, and you know at one time he was Minister of Highways.

Now we'll go to the great riding of North Peace River. Let's take an inventory of that riding.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Let's look at South Peace.

HON. MR. FRASER: We'll give you any riding you want, you know.

MR. LEA: Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, we'll give you that too.

In North Peace River riding there are 677 kilometres of paved roads and 4,164 kilometres of unpaved roads. The total inventory of roads is 4,842 kilometres. Fourteen percent of this riding is paved. Are you saying. Mr. Member, that they stay that way? They're down in the sump with the Cariboo. I'm going to tell you something: we're doing something about that in 1981; we're increasing that percentage. We're going to get it up higher.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: At the expense of the other ridings.

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh, no — at the expense of the other ridings!

I want to say another thing about transportation. I'm trying to bring this member up into total transportation problems and relate it to his riding. Highways are only one part of your transportation problem, like Cariboo. But you never tell us. Mr. Member, how much the ferry system in your riding is subsidized.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're getting to that.

HON. MR. FRASER: You are, eh? Well, you don't need to worry. Just jot it down: I'll give it to you right now — it's all transportation costs. After all the boats we send over to theSunshine Coast and all the excellent service we give you....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're cutting them off. You're taking my boats out of there.

HON. MR. FRASER: I never said a word when you were up. Now you shut up while I'm up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay.

HON. MR. FRASER: While we're talking total transportation costs and after your good citizens have paid all our very reasonable ferry fares to theSun shine Coast, the province of British Columbia, including the Cariboo people, contribute a further $5 million for your transportation subsidies on the ferry system.

I know I've answered all your questions. I'll wait for more.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Nemes and Penny while you're up, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member did ask about an area. I don't know where the member went for that; I wish he'd stay around. First of all, on behalf of that fine MLA for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), who has other obligations and duties — this member has asked about a problem in his riding.... I want to tell you that you don't have to worry and stick your nose in that. That member is very capable of looking after those problems himself.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What did he do?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll have a look. The note from senior staff on the access to Penny.... The problem has

[ Page 5698 ]

been there for a hundred years. The long-term plan is to extend the road from West Fraser to Longworth, and then on to Penny. This will take three to five years, and we're starting this year. The regional district agrees with this approach. As an interim measure we're investigating an aerial ferry. As the minister, I think it's about time we did something about the perennial access problem, even if it is on something like a reaction aerial ferry, or whatever they're thinking of. They are very unsatisfactory to operate, but better than nothing; we've had our problems with those. We are extending a road on the north side of the Fraser and have done quite a bit of work on it to get moving in that direction, but it's still a long way to go as far as permanent access to Penny is concerned.

You mentioned that the name of the party in the Boundary-Similkameen area is Mr. Nemes. He purchased property that had no legal access. We in Highways deal with this every day. First of all, I think that people should be very aware that this is a continuing problem. I can only say let the buyer beware, because even where a road exists, then with a change of property, bang, you've got a problem. You'll find there was a neighbour relationship, and then one of the neighbours sells out. Then the new person coming in says: "You're not going to have access over my property." Bang, down come the gates, and in comes the Highways department to be the judges between disputing parties. It's always very difficult for the people who are affected. It doesn't worry us because we have people trying to sort these things out every day, and they do a good job, but we become involved in legalities and so on.

But in dealing with this one, that's what happened. Our people contacted him. There was no legal access. If that gentleman arranges the required easement, as an act of grace to build and maintain an access road to his land.... I think what we're saying here is that he'd better cooperate as well. Then we'll help solve this problem. We're not saying that we won't help them. I've had correspondence with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who has been trying hard to help this citizen in his riding. I wrote a letter to Mr. Nemes, saying:

"As you know, I've been discussing your longstanding access problem with your MLA, the Hon. James Hewitt, and by now I'm sure that you have been advised that as a matter of grace and in an attempt to provide you with a solution to your problem, this ministry is willing to assist in the provision of a suitable access road if you can arrange the required easement, I certainly hope this will lead to a final solution to what I'm sure is a frustrating situation for you and your family."

That letter is dated March 9, 1981.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the fact that the minister appears to be trying in this particularly horrendous Nemes case. He will be relieved to hear that. However, you are putting the onus back on this gentleman. I'm going to keep on top of this case.

The minister seems to take exception to the fact that people in this province come to the New Democratic Party and the caucus to ask us to help solve some of the problems they're having with the minister and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. One of the reasons they do is that we are the loyal opposition of the people of this province. We have every right to assist people to the best of our ability, even though you are the government. I take exception to the fact that the minister seems to resent the fact that people come to us with their problems. We appreciate it. I want to hear from people all over this province on their transportation problems, whether they be highways, ferries, aircraft, boats, trains or you name it. I'm going to continue to travel the highways, airways and seaways of this province and talk and discuss these problems with the people. So next time around, when we're the government again within the next year or two, we'll know exactly where the heck we're at.

I want to get back to a couple of local issues. I don't want to dwell a long time, but the minister did mention my riding to some extent. I also resent the implication that we on this side of the House, myself specifically, are trying to deny people in any riding — in this case Cariboo — adequate transportation systems. That is not the point we're making at all. The single point we're making here this morning is that we want fair distribution of the highways budget. I agree with the minister that the highways budget could be doubled. We know that's not possible, because there are priorities. We know that health care, which has deteriorated badly under this government, the education system, the over-taxing that goes on and the priorities for our disabled, which this government over here is ignoring.... You can't have it all ways, but the fact is that if the minister did have double the highway budget he has now he could spend it very easily. What were asking for here this morning is fair distribution of those funds.

When he mentioned the highways of my riding, the fact is, and the minister knows, that the continued reconstruction of Highway 101 up my riding was cut off in 1976 after the last contract. I'm going to offer some solutions, and I'm going to discuss coast transportation in a few minutes. I'm going to put forward some positive suggestions, suggestions I've talked to your people about. Your people are very good about discussing these matters quite openly and frankly, as I've said before, and I appreciate that.

Before we get off highways I want to ask the minister because sincerely I do not know — if he discusses the revenue-sharing programs with people within the municipalities or if these are just arbitrary decisions. In terms of revenue-sharing programs I sincerely do not know. I'm not too sure about the exact amount; I have $15 million listed here. I get conflicting reports on this, and I thought it would be well to have the minister's answer in this regard on the record. I'm asking this question on behalf of certain elements and certain people within the UBCM, and I did tell some of these people I would raise the matter in the Legislature.

Another little item bothers me a bit. I know there must be a rational explanation, but I cannot for the life of me understand why this minister needs three information officers. I understand he's just hired another one. I don't know who the heck he is. I don't think the Premier's got three. He could use ten, and they still wouldn't improve his image. What does one minister do with three information officers? I think a large portion of your budget going into propaganda will be political. I don't think it's anything to do with advising people about icy conditions on the highway.

Interjection

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, there's more to it than that. To upgrade the image you're probably going to do a TV special, then go out and take a survey afterwards. We hear the minister on the radio every half-hour. Every time you turn on the

[ Page 5699 ]

radio, there's Alex telling us about something or other. Don't drink, drive carefully, do drink — or whatever you do every half-hour. I can hardly listen to Rafe Mair anymore without the minister interjecting something about some highway condition somewhere. How much is all of this costing the people of the province?

I hope the minister will make a note of this. Last year, during the course of your estimates — before we go on to water transportation and other matters — you promised me, standing here in this House, along with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) responsible for ICBC, that something would be done in regard to those people who suffer vehicle damage on the Highways-operated ferries. You promised me. It's in Hansard. You said there was something wrong, and something would have to be done, because ICBC won't cover it, or Transportation or B.C. Ferries if it happens on B.C. Ferries.

In some cases, people suffer substantial vehicle damage, loading or unloading or while on board, Sometimes it's poor driving, and sometimes it's poor direction by the mate. But the bottom line is that these people don't get reimbursed. Nobody is willing to take the responsibility. And some of these people can't afford it. I cited a number of cases to you this year. I've got a file that's growing month by month. I don't want to go on and cite chapter and verse about the individuals and the circumstances of the accidents. The minister knows what I'm talking about. He's got a lot of people there who are aware of the situation. So I would appreciate it very much if the minister would just respond this year to this problem. All he has to do is get up and say that, yes, there's a problem and they're going to do something about it.

I think it should be done through ICBC, because ICBC has been abdicating its responsibilities and putting the burden of premiums back onto the working people. Who else? They take less and less of the responsibility for the people they were supposed to assist and help. But that's another story. If the minister could answer, I'd appreciate it.

I know we're going to be spending some time on coast transportation problems. I might say, before we get into that whole thing, that it is my personal view — well, it's more than my personal view: it's the view of a lot of people I've discussed these matters with up and down the coast — that any rational economic development that's going to take place on the coast of British Columbia depends almost entirely on the water transportation system we have. I know what they're doing: I also know what they haven't done in the past. I don't want to go through the history of how Northland was scuttled down the tube, and how the feds were partly responsible for that. We've been through that in the House so many times.

I just want this on the record. For many years on route 7 between Earls Cove and Safety Bay we had two vessels over the busy five-month period. Last year we had two extra sailings but only one vessel on that route. As a result, over busy weekends, we had up to six-hour waits. A petition with 5,000 or 6,000 names was presented in this House; it was dismissed with a wave of a hand and never heard of again. We're going to have the same situation this summer. In the meantime, the Ferry Corporation has sold two vessels. They sold the Pender Queen, a very old vessel; but it could probably have been pressed into service on that route, in a pinch. until more vessels could be constructed; and the Sunshine Coast Queen was sold to Quesnel Redi-Mix for a million and some dollars — I didn't know they had that much water at Quesnel. Why that vessel was sold was explained to me by people in the corporation. Perhaps that vessel could have been utilized somehow to alleviate the situation until the jumbos came on stream. There could be a reshuffling of vessels. I discussed this with the minister.

Perhaps the minister could tell us what is happening with the Vancouver Princess. I know that the CPR is abandoning the Vancouver Princess service between Vancouver and Nanaimo. I understand that that ministry as well as some other shipping groups are probably interested in that vessel. Perhaps the minister could bring us up to date on that particular situation. I'm always asked when I go up-Island or over to my riding. I know the ministry is looking at it, but hopefully by now that survey has been completed.

Discussing CPR, it seems to me to make eminently good sense that the ministry should be discussing with CPR the possibility of using their ferries and terminal facilities in downtown Vancouver. We're all familiar with the congestion we have at Horseshoe Bay at times, and at Departure Bay on Vancouver Island. I'm sure those facilities would be available. In fact not long ago I had a telephone conversation with somebody from CPR about the possibility. I didn't go into a lot of detail: that's not my place. My reason for the telephone call was to ask if those facilities could be made available if required. The answer was very simply yes, they would be made available.

So it seems to me that in order to relieve the congestion at Horseshoe Bay and Departure Bay.... You can't keep building class C or jumbo class vessels forever. You're going to have to start looking at perhaps two or three other car vessels with 26- to 28-knot capacity and a turnaround service. The terminals won't handle it and the cost is horrendous.

The point I'm getting at is the possibility of a direct service, first of all. between Powell River and downtown Vancouver — or Horseshoe Bay — utilizing a vessel of the Tsawwassen or Sidney class: that would be a three-and-a-quarter-hour trip each way. I checked it out very carefully with your own technical people and it makes eminently good sense. It would alleviate much of the traffic congestion on theSunshine Coast and the problems we face at Langdale.

It's a positive suggestion. I have to be honest and say that while I discussed it with some of your senior people, they don't seem too interested. The fact is that some of the people employed within the corporation and your ministry think the idea is an excellent idea and that it would find a great deal of favour with the population.

Here's another interesting, positive suggestion that you might want to think about. Don't be too negative or too quick in answering and just say no. I want you to think about it a bit. It might well be worth looking at having a direct sailing between Courtenay, where the terminal already exists, and downtown Vancouver. If we can use the CPR facilities — or even to Horseshoe Bay for that matter, but I understand that the congestion problem is at Horseshoe Bay. The reason I raise this particular issue — I'm saying look at it — is that Departure Bay is becoming more and more congested. Where are you going to expand? Can you imagine what's going to happen there when you get the jumbos — the Alberni and what not — running back and forth on a steady basis, with the congestion that I'm sure the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has already discussed in this House many times? I drive through there practically every week. The fact is, this would funnel all the traffic from Port Hardy down-Island into Courtenay and up-Island, maybe from as far south as Parksville, up to Courtenay. There is room to

[ Page 5700 ]

expand and relieve the congestion on the Island Highway to a large extent, as well as relieve some of the pressure on Departure Bay. Anybody who has sat in a ferry lineup for six hours with three screaming kids on a 100-degree sunny day, or whatever, will know what I'm talking about. These are ideas that are worth looking at. I don't want them dismissed out of hand.

I think, possibly, that part of the problem within the Ferry Corporation and with Highways-operated ferries is that you really don't consult with people. I'll give you an example. We all know the results of the Crown corporations committee's report on the Ferry Corporation. I don't know if these recommendations are being implemented. I have no idea. I am hopeful, by the way, that Mr. Stu Hodgson will contribute significantly to the operation. I'm not knocking any individual within the corporation. I am saying that there is a great deal of room for improvement, even the smaller, so-called cosmetic items you've discussed on Highway s-operated ferries, as well as the B.C. Ferry Corporation....

I sent out a questionnaire just over two months ago now. One of the questions was: "Are you satisfied with the present water transportation system we have on the coast, and how do you think the system could be improved?" Approximately 81 percent of the people who replied answered that they were not satisfied with the present ferry system. The reasons they cited were surprising. The first was scheduling, which surprised me, because as I meet people on these vessels, the first thing they talk to me about is the food, which has been going gradually downhill over the years. I think there's room for improvement there. There are solutions — at least, possible solutions. Most people who responded to my questionnaire indicated that we should be acquiring and constructing more vessels. Vessels should be more suited to the routes that they're serving. When you put the wrong vessel on the wrong route, you're making a terrible mistake, which costs you horrendously in the long run.

While I've still got a few minutes, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to tell me as well what ever happened to the survey in terms of central north coast transportation which he undertook some time ago. I wonder if he's had a chance to examine that survey; in fact, he should be making a decision very quickly. There is no water transportation at the present time in Bella Coola and other coastal communities. I know that the minister has to make a decision at some point. Are we going to have a feeder service in that central coast area, or are we going to be subsidizing a private carrier? What route is he going to go? I'm interested, as the people living in that area certainly are. I know that there is only so much you can do. You've only got so much funding. We have come a long way. Under the former Social Credit government, the whole system was allowed to deteriorate — no new purchase of vessels to a large extent. It was our government who started the construction program which was continued by this government, even though they are selling the ferries out of the province. They're selling to back-east interests, and then we're buying them back on a lease-purchase at double the eventual cost to the taxpayers of the province. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to answer those few questions that I raised. We'll take it from there.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER: I made a lot of notes here. I'll try to reply to the member for Mackenzie. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Member; don't think that I resent anything the opposition does. That's fine. We're a government for all the people and we have to listen to everybody. But one thing is that we don't have to agree with them all. This is where this member started. I find that statements are made on theSun shine Coast by politicians, not necessarily the MLA, and at the local level they are developing policy for the government of the day, specifically B.C. Ferries. I just want to give them the message that we're glad to listen to them, but they are not the government and they're not the policy-makers. They say they're going to have more sailings and everything else at the local level, but it's never been discussed with the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It makes good print in the local paper, but it has no authenticity, because those expensive decisions are made by the B.C. Ferry Corporation management. The major ones are made by the board of directors of B.C. Ferries.

It's a phenomenon on the Sunshine Coast that the local elected people — not necessarily the MLA — make statements that they have no authority to make. It's as simple as that. I'm pleased with their observations, but the local people there think that they are the government and that that will automatically happen. I just want to make the point that they aren't the ones who make the decisions regarding transportation and its major items.

I'd like to make a short mention of Highway 101 on the Sunshine Coast, in the riding of the member who spoke a few minutes ago. We'd like to get on with some work there but we have had a dispute, as I understand it, by a village and a regional district. My senior people say they've just put that to bed. Maybe we can get on now. Wherever this occurs, whether it be in Delta, New Westminster or Cassiar, if the local people want to start fighting among themselves our ministry will withdraw right away and let them solve their own problems. We've got so many larger jobs to do; if the local people want to fight among themselves, let them go right to it. We'll get on with some work where the people unanimously want us to work. That's our policy. We don't have any difficulty in the greater part of the province. They're glad to see us come, glad to see us get something done. But where they fight and argue among themselves — I don't like to name names — I enjoy their debate and their headlines in their local papers, but we aren't going to get any part of that until we're called in. We're not going to be a referee between a village and a regional district, for example. That's up to the MLAs — all of you — to sort these things out, and we'll gladly listen to you.

Revenue-sharing, Mr. Chairman, was brought in by this government as a new program in 1977 or 1978 — I think by legislation in 1977 and put into effect in 1978. As for money, it is the program of my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). The first year there was $4 million allocated.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, you brought up revenue sharing, as I understand it. I thought I'd give you a lesson on how it goes. Don't you want to...? Well, I'm proud of the program.

Interjection.

[ Page 5701 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I will say to the member who brought it up that, yes, our ministry is certainly involved.

Mr. Chairman, would you bring that member to order. I've had to listen to his yapping here for two months; I've got the floor now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister continues.

HON. MR. FRASER: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that after listening to his yapping for two months I didn't learn anything.

But anyway, back to revenue-sharing, Mr. Member. It is a program this government brought in, and it started in 1978, if I recall, at $4 million gross. Now our ministry has a lot to do with that program, inasmuch as we advise Municipal Affairs when they ask for advice from our senior people on whether this street plan or whatever is part of the network plan. All municipalities pretty well have these plans in place. Our senior people advise Municipal Affairs on what they think the priority is and try and get agreement with the municipalities and so on according to the community plan. It's going very well. This year's funding — not under this ministry — is $15 million. I might say that we're very proud and happy with this program. It's brand new — it never existed before — and it helps our communities upgrade their major street systems. You know, Mr. Chairman, it is going to get more funding as it goes on; it's a new program, and we have to walk before we can run. But I think we've done very well to go from $4 million to $15 million this year.

I would also say that most of the municipalities.... I think you mentioned UBCM. I don't know whether I talked to them as individuals. They won't let me talk at UBCM. I'm a past president and life member, and they've heard enough from me. I have talked to individual municipalities, talked to them in my office, and they're very happy with it.

Coming as I do from public life in municipal office just a comment in passing — they've really got it good these days. I'm talking about municipalities all over our province. We're handing them money to build their streets and everything, and now they've got all the money in the world to go and build swimming pools which they can't run afterwards. I don't know where their priorities are, but sometimes they haven't got a street to get to the swimming pool. But we'll supply the money so they can, and they can enjoy the swimming pools, which we all love and like.

Regarding information officers, yes, I understand there are three. I'm sorry you're disturbed about it. We have three fine information officers. One looks after the motor vehicle side and the other two look after the highways and transportation side. They do a great job, and our government is trying to communicate with the public of British Columbia. If the opposition don't like it, I guess they'll have to take that position; but these are public servants doing a great job putting out information from this fairly large ministry, as you're well aware. They coordinate when we have to put out bulletins, road closures and so on and so forth. That's the reason we have three high-calibre people. I wish we had six.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I think somebody is getting hungry. So I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Mr. King moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.