[ Page 5703 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Establishing the Windy Bay–Dodge Point ecological reserve.

Mr. Passarell –– 5704

Oral Questions

Additional income for income assistance recipients. Ms. Brown –– 5704

Queen Anne apartments application deposit. Mr. Lauk –– 5704

Failure of Vancouver travel agencies. Hon. Mr. Hyndman replies –– 5705

Mr. Barber –– 5705

Milfoil and knapweed control. Mr. Skelly –– 5706

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

Fraser)

On vote 189: minister's office –– 5706

Mr. King

Mr. Davis

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Hanson

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Last weekend I had the pleasure of the company of a couple from Wellington, in the county of Shropshire, England, on a very brief trip through a part of my constituency. Their company made me realize once again how fortunate we are to live in this beautiful part of British Columbia. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Ken and Barbara Sankey from England.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery this afternoon are a group of students, with a few teachers and parents, from the North Island Secondary School in Port McNeill. That high school serves as a catchment for much of the North Island constituency. I'd like the House to make all the students and adults feel welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd ask all hon. members to join me in welcoming to our members' gallery two visitors from far-away Perth, Australia. This is their first visit to our province, and I do hope they will come again. They are the Hon. lan Medcalf, the Attorney-General for Western Australia, and his child bride, Mrs. Medcalf.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd ask the House to welcome Mrs. Minnie Driesen from Vancouver and her friend Mrs. Mervennee, of good Dutch descent, from Holland.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With us in the gallery today are representatives from the Canadian Manufacturers Association: Mr. Ted Newall, chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and chairman, president and chief executive officer of Du Pont of Canada Ltd., from Montreal, Quebec; Mr. Jacques Gagnon, who after June will become the next chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and is the senior executive vice-president and director of the aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd. and the vice-president of Alcan Smelters and Chemicals Ltd. of Montreal, Quebec; Mr. Roy Phillips, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, from Mississauga, Ontario; Mr. Les Strike, chairman of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and president and general manager of Stanley Drug Products Ltd. of Vancouver; Mr. Dave Fraser, first vice-president of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and general manager of Canadian Industries Ltd. of Western Canada; Mr. Fred Veuger, second vice-chairman of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and president of CAE Machinery Ltd. of Vancouver; and Mr. Frank Kenny, manager of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, Vancouver. I hope the House will make them warmly welcome here today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, as we are living in a bilingual country, "Wit ik look die Dame uit Nederland Welkom aanbieden." Nobody understood.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to welcome someone I think many of us know. He has provided us with the devotions in the House a number of times: Rev. Gilbert of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Victoria, who has with him a visitor from Londonderry, Northern Ireland, Mr. T.S. Mooney. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Today we've had the opportunity to have a couple of visiting groups from Langley. This morning an elementary school group from Glenwood Elementary School in Langley had the opportunity to tour the buildings.

Some of the members may also have had the opportunity to enjoy the music on the steps of the Legislature this afternoon. I'm proud to say that those students were from Langley. They had the opportunity this morning to play for a group of senior citizens at Matson Lodge. Following their concert, the students from Mountain Secondary School in Langley are now touring the parliament buildings, and I hope the members will also show their appreciation for the concert and for their visit.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the arrival of the distinguished Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), is there any indication about when she will be travelling into the chamber? There are several people here who have indicated a desire to be introduced to the hon. minister, and I would hate to point them out, in case the hon. minister wasn't in the chamber. Is she on her way? Has anyone seen the hon. minister?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: She's hosting a ministers' conference? I see. Well, under standing order 8, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps these are matters which would be best discussed with the Whips on both sides of the House. We should not be taking time in the House....

MR. LAUK: I just can’t communicate to either of them, Mr. Speaker; I can't make hide nor hair of what they're saying. But I do know that there are several interested individuals, not the least of whom is the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who would like to see the minister today. In the meantime, I'll defer to the hon. member for Prince George South.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House today two fellows from Prince George: Bob Dick and Bill Kennedy. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the hon. Premier could introduce the acting Minister of Human Resources today. Is that possible?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said: "Silly little games." We have a very serious question to ask the Minister of Human Resources. If she's busy, who's the acting minister? Shall we ask it of the Premier? He never knows anything. I don't know why we'd ask the Premier. We'd have to ask the acting minister.

[ Page 5704 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if the member wishes to gain the floor by virtue of a point of order, that's in order. If the member wishes to introduce guests to the chamber at this point in time, that is in order. In order to have possession of the floor, he must have a reason to have possession of the floor.

MR. LAUK: Could I introduce absent friends?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not in order.

Presenting Petitions

MR. PASSARELL: I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a petition from the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Western Canadian Wilderness Society. It's signed by 14,000 residents. It says: "Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House may be pleased to establish the Windy Bay–Dodge Point ecological reserve for this special area for future generations to observe and study. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

Oral Questions

ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR
INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. It has to do with a question I raised on May 12. I asked the minister to explain why the provincial government was not going along with the federal government's guidelines with respect to added income for income assistance recipients who work. In part of her answer the minister stated that the ministry had a pilot project in Victoria which lasted 18 months and was found not to be successful. Has the minister decided to table the report of that pilot project?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MS. BROWN: Is the minister reluctant to table the report because it clearly shows that the way in which the project was set up in the first place, it was doomed to failure? I would like to refer specifically to chapter 5, page 20, of the first interim report and to the addenda of the second interim report of May 8. Is that the reason why the minister has decided not to table this very condemning report?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer is no.

MS. BROWN: Has the minister any objections to me tabling the report?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, within the rules of the House the member can do whatever she would like with the report.

QUEEN ANNE APARTMENTS
APPLICATION DEPOSIT

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Before I ask the question, I think it's clear to the chamber that the Minister of Human Resources would like something done with the report other than tabling it.

To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — there he is; the reflection from his glasses blinded me for the moment. Vancouver Park Lane Towers Ltd. has been making a practice of requiring an application deposit of $550 from prospective tenants. Can the minister advise the House whether he has decided to take any action with respect to this issue?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I think the member probably refers to a matter which first arose to public notice this morning. I'm awaiting a copy of the so-called deposit or application form. If the member has one, I would value it and in so doing, Mr. Speaker, take the question as notice. Once I've had a chance to look at the document, I'll provide the earliest reply.

MR. LAUK: I'm understaffed, and I was able to phone around and get some information.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's not all you're under.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has a question.

MR. LAUK: This company, which owns Queen Anne Place in Vancouver, further requires that successful applicants sign a tenancy agreement which is not seen at the time of the application. If they refuse to do so, these prospective tenants lose $300 from that $550 deposit. Has the minister decided to recommend that his cabinet colleagues issue an order under section 7(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act which would prohibit the practice of fining tenants for refusing to sign any tenancy agreements which they do not find to their liking?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I continue to recommend to my cabinet colleagues the practice of first getting the facts before we decide what action, if any, should be taken. That will be my practice in this case.

MR. LAUK: That's a policy followed by many of us, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question, please.

MR. LAUK: Having gotten the facts myself, I'm putting it to the minister: has he decided to recommend that action be taken under section 7(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act to avoid these further ripoffs of innocent tenants in my constituency?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A question which may have been in order would very easily have been jeopardized by the last statement, which was not part of the question.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, we're in the process of checking out that report and obtaining the facts. When we have the facts, I'll be happy to respond to the member's question. I do not propose as a practice to swing into alleged action on the basis of third-party reports which I have not yet had the chance to have verified.

While I'm on my feet, I wonder if I might answer a question which I took as notice on Monday of this week.

[ Page 5705 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

FAILURE OF VANCOUVER TRAVEL AGENCIES

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In so doing, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) might well appreciate my caution in answering certain questions.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) on Monday of this week raised several questions relative to certain travel agencies. The first was an allegation by the first member for Victoria that a letter of Mr. Cummings of April 25, 1980, to the registrar of travel agents "was not even acknowledged, much less replied to." I'm advised that on May 2 the letter in question was answered by the registrar of travel agents. Before tabling with you, sir, a copy of that letter, may I read the reply.

"Dear Mr. Cummings:

"Re: Winmil Holidays Co. Ltd.

"I am in receipt of your letter of April 25, 1980, pertaining to the above subject and appreciate your interest.

"With respect to your comments, I can assure you that inspections by the registrar are carried out on an ongoing and on a demand basis to ensure conformity with the Travel Agents Registration Act. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. I would be happy to meet with you.
Yours truly,
W.H. Rourke,
Registrar of Travel
Services"

Mr. Speaker, I'm further advised that Mr. Rourke at no time had any followup request from the writer of that letter for such a meeting.

Secondly, there were allegations of unconcerned replies to alleged telephone calls of March and April 1980. I'm advised, upon a check being made internally by the office of the registrar of travel services, that there is no record of any such replies being given, and there appears to be no record of the particular type of call, as alleged.

Thirdly, there was a question alleging that the office of the registrar of travel agents did not sufficiently monitor a package-tour bus operator in the province about a year ago at a time when that company was in serious difficulty. I'm advised, Mr. Speaker, that the company in question about a year ago was called Tripmakers. It was discovered to be in financial difficulty. Its continuing operation from that time forward was regularly monitored and showed steady improvement. The registrar monitored this business and its business recovery program, and in so doing he estimates that about 500,000 travel consumers' and creditors' dollars were protected. The only claim arising was the single claim of $364.51, which was paid from the fund.

With respect to events of this last weekend concerning the collapse of what is called the Holliday group of companies, and with respect to the further question about alleged non-monitoring, I'm advised that an audit accountant of the travel fund reviewed the books of the Holliday group of companies as recently as May 7 of this month and found a positive financial position.

Further, I was asked whether the ministry or the registrar was aware of any other British Columbia travel agents facing this type or size of difficulty. I'm advised that the registrar is aware of none.

In general answer to the questions raised, may I confirm that on Monday, two days after the Saturday difficulties, under section 27 of the Travel Agents Act, the registrar obtained a court appointment of Mr. Donald Manning, chartered accountant, as receiver of the defunct companies. Further, I am today announcing the appointment under section 24 of Fredrick Shandro, a Vancouver lawyer who specializes in insolvency and bankruptcy matters, to do two things: to investigate what happened and why, and to review the entire events of the last year and make recommendations for the future operation of the fund.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I observe that Mr. William Rourke, the registrar of the travel fund, has devoted long and virtually continuous hours to saving the holidays of more than 700 British Columbians. I want to thank him for his efforts and assure the House that he enjoys my continuing confidence for the very conscientious manner in which he approaches his duties.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the minister for his speedy reply — certainly speedier than the replies to the questions I asked last year of the then-minister, the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who never answered at all.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have a question?

MR. BARBER: I have several questions,

I'm pleased to be advised that the letter of April 25 was replied to. The correspondent of April 25 says he never received such a reply, and I can only take both parties at their word and ask the minister if he's prepared to table in the House a copy of that correspondence so that I may forward it to the gentleman who tells me he never received it.

Further, is the minister prepared to table in the House the dates they were conducted and the auditors who conducted them for each of the several audits which I presume and gather have been conducted not simply on Holliday Tours but on all of the other companies: Boyarski Tours, Lucky 3 Travels, Winmil Holidays, and so on, all controlled in effect by Stephen Milne?

Will you give us the letter? I appreciate your undertaking to do so, which, if I haven't misheard, was given earlier. Will you tell us as well who conducted the audits, and would you be prepared to table the content of those audits and when they were?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe I've already tabled the letter, so it should be available to the member.

With respect to the second question, I think a fuller answer would be that I am quite prepared to say that Mr. Shandro is going to conduct a very full investigation covering not just the events of the last weekend, but going back to last year. I have no hesitation in saying I will be quite happy to release that report publicly upon its conclusion. It seems to me that will cover all the matters raised by the member plus many others of interest to travel agents and the public.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, we're aware that the fund protects the travelers. Our general question is: who protects

[ Page 5706 ]

the fund? I wonder if the minister can advise whether it is within the terms of reference of Mr. Shandro to consider such changes as may be required in law or regulation to guarantee that we are not, once again, in the position of one company or group of companies getting so heavily into debt that we've now lost, apparently, 50 percent of the $600,000 fund. Is it within his terms of reference to tell us not only who protects the travelers, but who protects the fund itself?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I believe I stated a few moments ago in my remarks that his terms of reference would include recommendations as to making the future operations of the fund even better.

MILFOIL AND KNAPWEED CONTROL

MR. SKELLY: My question is for the Minister of Environment. On May 4 Dr. Buchanan of the ministry advised local governments in the Okanagan by letter that unless they approved of the use of 2, 4-D to control Eurasian milfoil within their boundaries, the pesticide permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka Lake would be withdrawn. After a special meeting with Dr. Newroth on May 11, 1981, the Central Okanagan Regional District reaffirmed its opposition to the 2, 4-D permits. Has the minister now decided to withdraw the 2, 4-D permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka Lake?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member has the correct point. Where the regional district or the locally elected body is not in favour of our attempting to eradicate Eurasian water milfoil with the use of chemicals — in this case 2, 4-D — we will not do it. We have one situation where there is a question of jurisdiction — whether it's within a municipality or regional district. I believe that's the only one that's still in question. Where the regional district or municipality — should the water body be within their jurisdiction — has indicated that they do not wish us to continue with the program, we're not going to do it.

MR. SKELLY: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Environment. The Central Kootenay Regional District recently voted against the use of pesticides for knapweed control in Central Kootenay. Has the minister decided to extend the policy that he has applied to the Okanagan area to the Central Kootenay Regional District?

HON. MR. ROGERS: My responsibilities deal mainly with aquatic weeds. I think that question should be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, for the information of the House, the document from which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) quoted has been tabled with the House.

MS. BROWN: I would like to ask leave of the House to table two documents dealing with the Victoria earnings exemption project, which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has been endeavouring to keep secret from the people of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

HON. MR. FRASER: We were rudely interrupted for lunch, and I wanted to attempt to complete the answers for the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). I think I was at the point about information officers, but he had a lot more questions I'd like to try and clean up.

The next one was regarding claims of automobiles as they relate to the Highways ferries or B.C. Ferries. Yes, I recall that last year we said we'd do something about it. One thing that's happened is that Highways claims do not look after B.C. Ferries claims; they are separated. The notes I have here from senior staff are that B.C. Ferries have their own claims officer, and they're not referred to the Minister of Highways' claims officer. It also goes on to say that if a claim is investigated and the corporation is not liable, it is suggested the claimant makes a claim against his or her own insurance with ICBC. If ICBC, having settled with the claimant, consider they can recover the cost from B.C. Ferries, then ICBC will make a claim against us — that is B.C. Ferries. The driver of a vehicle going on or off a ferry is in charge of that vehicle, and usually it is a driver error that causes the problem in the first place. That's the advice I've been given on that.

I have a further note regarding claims on ferries. We pay for blind-side single-vehicle collisions. We do not normally pay for a driver who drives too close on the driver's side and strikes the ferry. When two vehicles collide, obviously the insurance companies take over. When a vehicle has not got a legal underside clearance we do not pay. In other words, if they high-centre on one of the ramps we refuse to pay that on the basis that they haven't got the legal clearance in the first place. I think I could just add to that. I see trailer hitches on vehicles that haven't any clearance, even on a flat surface. They're far too low and very dangerous for the people operating that unit, because the trailer hitch, just by the motion of the vehicles, can get broken. It's a very dangerous practice to have a trailer hitch that hasn't got some clearance to cope with that. The on-off ramps present a further problem.

I think the member brought up the fact that we got rid of some boats. We did get rid of two older vessels, but what I failed to say, and I would like to take a moment to say, is that we're now going to put tremendous extra capacity in the system, starting right away. We have two $30 million jumbo vessels, I call them, ready to go. I'm happy to tell the committee that the Queen of Surrey, the new vessel, will be in service on May 27 on route 2, Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay. She's been on trial runs, and the crew is getting acquainted. The Queen of Oak Bay, a new $30 million vessel, is right behind. It's going on route 1 from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay. Further, it's the first time ever that we've had a jumbo, vessel on route 1. There's been a lot of construction going on — particularly in the terminal on the Swartz Bay side — to accommodate this large vessel with the top unloading. Then the Queen of Vancouver and the Queen of Victoria have been sliced in half and a third deck has been put in them. They go from 194-car capacity to something like 300, and I believe from 1,200-passenger capacity to 1,500. It's hoped that both these vessels with the additional deck will be on the routes prior to July 1 this year. After spending $90 million in two years on vessels and docks, I've said they'll all be in the

[ Page 5707 ]

service of the B.C. Ferries system starting May 27 and hopefully all in service by July 1, 1981. This actually gives 30 percent more capacity to route 2 and 25 percent more capacity to route 1. I am happy to report that to the committee, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to make the observation after that report that I don't want the citizens of the province or members of this committee to go away thinking that all our line-ups will dissipate; they certainly won't. In this affluent province of ours, I have personally noted that if a holiday falls on a Friday or a Monday, the long weekend starts on a Thursday due to different work patterns and so on. It certainly starts for the B.C. Ferries system. We have line-ups, and lots of them. I was in one at Easter that took five hours to get on a boat at Swartz Bay. I don't think the B.C. Ferries will ever be able to accommodate that kind of thing. Otherwise, I think there will be a big relief in the system. I'd advocate that our citizens do a little better planning. We're doing a lot of advertising about where the problems are. We've asked for cooperation from the travelling public for these peak periods.

In essence, Mr. Chairman, the capacity of the B.C. Ferries system on a 12-month basis is used 50 percent of the time. I think we should remember that. Mostly on long weekends everybody wants to travel at the same time going to the same place. But even the experience we had at Easter seemed modified somewhat for the May long weekend. The next test will be July 1, and I hope that because of extra capacity we won't see what we've seen earlier this year.

The member for Mackenzie referred to the CPR. In this case it's the Highways ferry system that is interested in acquiring the Princess of Vancouver, which is being put out of service by the CPR in a week or so, at the end of May. Yes, we're looking at that. There are other people looking at it as well. We think that the Princess of Vancouver can be used on our Comox-Powell River run. We have to replace the vessel there. The estimate of building a new boat in British Columbia is $20 million. We think that the Princess of Vancouver will accommodate this run and at probably less expense. That's as far as I'd like to go at this time. They're negotiating, and we really don't know what it's going to be worth, but after we acquire it we have to make major modifications to it. It's my understanding that the major modifications will cost about $10 million to accommodate our system. I want to repeat that that has nothing to do with the acquisition costs which we would have to pay to CPR for the boat.

You mentioned using the CPR dock at the foot of Granville to relieve Horseshoe Bay. I'm sure that has been looked at. It's not very acceptable to CPR. I think we'd also incur some difficulty with the city of Vancouver — causing further traffic problems in that busy area. I guess that really applies to your suggestion of a Courtenay-Vancouver route. It seems to us that we're not very welcome wherever we want to go because of the traffic congestion we cause. That's why we're not very popular tenants at Horseshoe Bay.

I would like to mention that we are trying to relieve the congestion at Horseshoe Bay, and the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the management are looking at a scheme to use the Queen of Alberni, our truck vessel, and create a new run in the system from Tsawwassen to Departure Bay. We haven't fully decided on that because we want to talk to the trucking industry. We have talked to them somewhat. Quite frankly, I'm very nervous about it. First of all, will the commercial trucks patronize us and cooperate with us if we go from Tsawwassen to Departure Bay? The other thing that I don't like about it is that we will only be able to sail every four hours. In other words, it is estimated it would take the Queen of Alberni two hours each way between Tsawwassen and Departure Bay, a little bit longer than it would take to run from Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay.

It would have the advantage of relieving congestion at Horseshoe Bay. But if they won't use it and continue to use the Queen of Coquitlam or the Queen of Cowichan, we've achieved nothing. We have thrown around the idea that they must use it, but that's getting a bit dictatorial and they have their operational problems. In conclusion on that proposed new run, I don't think we should even try it on a trial basis until our rush season is over this year, which would be, say, September or October. But it definitely has been looked at, primarily to relieve the congestion that we have at Horseshoe Bay.

I want to say that most of these decisions are made by the B.C. Ferry Corporation board of directors on advice from our excellent management team. I would like to comment on the board of directors. There have been some changes there, inasmuch as I've stepped down as chairman of the board and am a member of the board only. Mr. Stu Hodgson has become the full-time chairman of the board of directors. He's an outstanding Canadian and we're really delighted to have someone of his calibre. He's been on the job since February. The directors have at least one meeting a month and sometimes two or three. In practically all cases they are from the areas where the ferry system operates. We have Victoria directors, Vancouver directors, a Sunshine Coast director and a Prince Rupert director. They do a great job at very little recompense. They are good citizens and I'd like to pay them public compliment.

Last but not least, I believe you mentioned the central coast water transportation problems. I think you're referring to statements made by myself and others about inaugurating a central coast water transportation system; specifically, as I envisioned it, it would be Klemtu, Bella Bella, Bella Coola and Ocean Falls. As you know now, our large boat, the Queen of the North or the Queen of Prince Rupert — whichever is on the run — now calls at Bella Bella and Ocean Falls. Bella Coola hasn't any boat service other than from the private enterprise side, and very little of that. Klemtu is really an isolated Indian village that the present MLA is concerned about getting some more service for, so they could be linked all in the general area. We have looked and had studies, and we have not made any decisions about that. We are getting propositions from the private sector, and if we put it out to contract, if that decision is made.... We seem to have all the facts together now, but I myself would like to know a little more about Ocean Falls, which is a key player in what is going to happen. It's a case of priorities of spending — we've spent a lot of money expanding water transportation — and this one, no doubt, will cost a fair amount of money, I would guess probably $2 million to $3 million a year if we put it out to contract. I just want to repeat that Bella Coola has other alternatives. Bella Bella and Ocean Falls now have the big vessel; Klemm really hasn't very much. I guess the up-side of that is that if we put in this service on the central coast, the big vessel would only stop at Bella Bella and wouldn't have to go into Ocean Falls and back out again on the big run going north.

I think I've covered most of your concerns so far, Mr. Member. We'll wait for further questions.

[ Page 5708 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I thought the minister wasn't going to finish there. Unfortunately I have to leave for another appointment, and I wanted to raise with the minister a number of the perennial problems which afflict my riding before I go. I probably won't be able to stay long enough to hear all of the minister's responses; nevertheless, I will look forward to reading in Hansard the very positive and affirmative commitments that he gives to me regarding the much needed work on a variety of mainly secondary roads in my area that are a major problem. I've had a good deal of correspondence with the minister and I think he's generally apprised of most of the problems I'm going to raise.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let me say just before beginning on those problems that I've browsed through the report which the minister has put out, and I note that the bulk of highway construction work in the Shuswap-Revelstoke riding is related to Highway 23 north from Revelstoke to Mica Creek. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that that road is not of great service to the citizens of our riding. This is a replacement road made necessary by the construction of the high Revelstoke dam, whereas the original plan was for two low-level dams and the existing highway would have done. This is the second time the highway has been replaced, basically to accommodate Hydro and the maintenance staff of the dam, rather than the general citizens of the area who deserve some consideration too. I point out to the minister simply that this kind of problem is irksome to local people, when they see the general condition of their secondary roads going to pieces and they see this major reconstruction, for the third time, of the Big Bend Highway up to Mica Creek to accommodate a handful of maintenance workers and Hydro's interests, while the citizens — the taxpayers — are denied completion of the Mabel Lake road, while there is no sign of progress as yet on the conclusion of the bridge across the Okanagan River at Enderby. I appreciate that there is a problem there in terms of Indian land. I want to ask the minister specifically, with respect to the Enderby bridge, which the mayor of Enderby and I met with the minister on a short time ago, if he would agree to meet with Chief Wayne Christian of the Indian band and I sometime early in June to see whether or not we can resolve this conflict between the Highways ministry and the Indian band with respect to the very small incursion onto the Indian land which will flow from the construction of the new bridge. I would hope the minister would be agreeable to that kind of meeting. Quite frankly, Chief Christian is coming to Victoria, and I think it would be an excellent opportunity for us to sit down together and see whether or not we can find some solution to this long delay. That bridge is sorely needed. The existing structure jeopardizes the public safety, in my view, and it's long past satisfactory service as a safe structure.

The tourist traffic flow to Mabel Lake which utilizes that bridge is increasing. The number of summer cottages and the tourists travelling into that area make it a heavily used secondary road. It needs attention and it needs completion, both in terms of the bridge and in terms of that centre section of the road which is not yet finalized in terms of construction.

I appeal very strongly to the minister. Our chambers of commerce and city councils in the area and literally dozens of citizens are appealing to the ministry and certainly to me to be as persuasive as I can in getting his ministry to move on that thing. When we're spending hundreds of thousands — probably millions — on the Mica Creek road to accommodate Hydro, surely we can be sensitive enough to serve the needs of the tax-paying citizens in general.

Another road I want to mention to the minister again is the Grandview Bench Road which is a branch between Grindrod and Deep Creek on the Salmon Arm–Enderby Road; it is sorely in need of upgrading. It's dangerous, and there are school children utilizing that road heavily. In the spring, particularly, vehicles are quite frequently prevented from even traversing it. It is very dangerous at times, so I would appeal for an allocation of money to upgrade at least the corners and the surface on that road.

One other road that the regional district of Columbia-Shuswap is very concerned about is the Salmon River Valley road. I think the minister is familiar with that. It goes between Salmon Arm and the O'Keefe Ranch, approximately, on the Falkland Highway. It's a cutoff through there. It's quite heavily populated and quite heavily utilized. There are some right-angle curves on that road with little wooden bridges. We're seeing an increasing number of accidents because there are quite a number of large trucks using the road now. In making their right-angle turns onto a small wooden structure, some small private automobiles are either getting squashed against the railing or battered up, certainly. Some serious accidents and personal injuries are flowing from that. I would ask the minister to look very closely at that. I believe he's had representation from the regional district members on that one too. It should be a priority, in my view.

Another one is the Skimikin Road, which goes through from Chase to Falkland. It's heavily used, with a large agricultural community in there. There is certainly a need for upgrading of the surface — not major construction but better maintenance, a higher allocation of funds for upgrading, and improvement of the surface where sloughing and dangerous shoulders occur. There are quite a number of those on that road.

Those are the main ones which are problematic in my riding. I would appreciate it very much if the Minister of Highways would take a look at the situation with some sense of urgency. I've been raising these matters now for the last two years, and I believe that the Highways ministry has an obligation to give some priority to those areas I have mentioned. I'll look forward to reading the minister's response in Hansard, and I will hopefully look forward to a meeting with him to further discuss the Enderby Bridge, to see whether or not we can't remove the roadblock that's been there up to now.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'll answer all the member's questions, but I'll attempt to. First of all, concerning the observation about Highway 23, I'm inclined to agree with you somewhat; this is the second or third time the road has been changed. I said this morning that that cost has been about $100 million. Hopefully, it will be finished in 1981. It's a major project that Hydro paid us for doing, and of course it was incorporated in the cost of the dam. But one other thing you didn't mention I think probably helped, regarding getting timber out of there — I think that was a factor involved as well — not only just people but the economy and getting timber out from above.

So much for that. About the other question, I'll be really happy to accept whatever assistance you can give. I'll gladly have a meeting with Wayne Christian, the chief. I've already

[ Page 5709 ]

had meetings with him. I am a little concerned about meeting him again, because he put me on tape during the last meeting we had. I'll gladly go ahead. We want to get that resolved. That bridge is in bad shape. We'll certainly cooperate in any way we can. He's got the Grandview Bench road. We're going to spend money on that in 1981 — not very much; we're going to spend $100,000 or something like that. That's a lot of money to committee members, but it isn't today when we're doing road work. I believe a D-8 bulldozer now rents at $85 an hour. It doesn't take long to go through that type of money. If my memory serves me correctly, we worked on this road in 1980 as well. The member didn't mention that. I'll have to get information on the Salmon River valley road and the road from Chase to Falkland.

This riding reminds me a lot of my own. They've got rural cow-trails running all over the place. They're delightful rural roads, but what is happening is that even city people are finding them now. We have increased traffic. It might be tourism and interested B.C. citizens, or it might even be for logging. All of a sudden, where a quiet rural road was quite adequate, the use of it changes and then all our troubles start — particularly on the logging side, through failure of bridges that are not adequate for that type of equipment and so on. It goes on in many rural parts of the province. Our people grapple with them and finally get them up to the standard they should have been at before the increased density of traffic started — whether it be passenger or commercial vehicles. I learned that governments don't work that way. They wait until the demand is there even if they know the demand is coming; then funds are finally made available so you can get on. That pretty well covers what I had for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. DAVIS: This minister is much too modest. I listened to him this morning, saying that he did all the talking and his very capable staff did all the work. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman — I'm sure you know — that the minister is not only very accessible and understanding, but he gets a great deal done. This is one of the reasons why he's so popular, not only in this chamber but also generally throughout the province.

I want to ask the minister a few questions. They essentially relate to matters which have not been raised so far in his estimates. They involve several important initiatives which I believe the government should be taking now or very soon. I'll start in my own riding of North Vancouver–Seymour. It's the only constituency in British Columbia — and perhaps on the North American continent — which is connected by a one-lane Bailey bridge with the outside world. The minister has heard me say this several times before. It's also one of the very few B.C. ridings which gets an average of less than $100,000 per year from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Some get tens of millions. Many get millions. So financially it's North Vancouver–Seymour's turn. It badly needs a four-lane bridge over the Seymour River, approaches which connect it to the parkway to Mount Seymour in the east, and an interconnector with the Trans-Canada Highway, just north of the Second Narrows Bridge in the west.

I don't blame the Highways minister or his ministry for the delay in this case. It is, indeed, quite the opposite. The regional highways engineer, Mr. Mike O'Connor, has attended numerous — I might say, innumerable — meetings between the district municipality of North Vancouver and the Squamish Indian band. The problem is that the western approach to the Seymour River crossing is on Indian land. This land is already criss-crossed with B.C. Hydro and highway rights-of-way. The Squamish band, quite rightly, is trying to correct a number of these ancient ills. It's trying to tidy up its remaining property, while the district of North Vancouver, for its part, is trying to make sure that future developments on and surrounding the reserve don't conflict too violently with its planning for the same general area.

Hopefully we'll have a three-party agreement — Highways, the Squamish band and the district municipality — in a few weeks' time. Then construction of this much needed east west link on the North Shore can get underway. With it will be the opening up of literally hundreds of acres of prime residential land, reaching eastward as far as Deep Cove on Burrard Inlet. Remember, these lots would be within a half an hour's easy drive of downtown Vancouver when the connector is in. That's the kind of development which many prospective homeowners will welcome in the 1980s.

My second priority, one which rates highly with many North and West Vancouver residents, is the building of the Cassiar Street throughway in Vancouver East. It's one which the first and second members for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett and Mr. Macdonald) in this Legislature should welcome also. It's the long-overdue link south from the Second Narrows Bridge through to Trans-Canada Highway 1. Built to a six lane standard and passing under Hastings Street and other east-west connectors in a trench, it would relieve much of the congestion around the PNE site. It would speed up the traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway, and it would take a lot of traffic off local streets. Incidentally, Cassiar and Hastings is presently the busiest street corner in all of British Columbia. It would eliminate two red lights on the Trans-Canada Highway. It is my understanding that there are only four lights on all of the Trans-Canada Highway from the east coast to the west coast; two of them are on the Cassiar connector and two are on the North Shore in Vancouver. I know the minister would like very much to eliminate those lights and improve the traffic flow in that part of our province.

I know that the present mayor of Vancouver and some members of the Vancouver city council are dragging their feet on this one, but sooner or later they are going to have to make up their minds about a Cassiar Street connector — whether it should be in a trench or in a more expensive tunnel, and if it's a tunnel, who should pay the additional tens of millions of dollars for this vital intersection. Surely the province shouldn't have to foot the bill for 100 percent of the cost of this nominally $100 million facility, when it's the city of Vancouver which is responsible for all the delay, and when the city also is toying with the idea of a tunnel when financial considerations, neighbourhood priorities and indeed safety indicate otherwise.

I'd like to ask the minister what progress, if any, has been achieved in recent weeks re this Cassiar connector, and whether he has heard anything at all from our two NDP members for Vancouver East on this matter. Is the Leader of the Opposition, for example, in any way interested in this vital transportation artery in his own area? Is the second member for Vancouver East, the former Attorney-General, lobbying with his party friends in city hall in Vancouver to get this problem resolved? It's one which affects not only Vancouver East but also Burnaby and all of the lower mainland municipalities indirectly.

On finances, just to refresh everyone's memory, is the Highways ministry prepared to put up the $100 million or

[ Page 5710 ]

more it will cost to expropriate property and build the Cassiar connector through Vancouver East to Burnaby? What, if anything, are Mayor Harcourt and his council saying about this bottleneck in our street and highway system, which the province is prepared to move at provincial expense, if only the city would give it the go-ahead?

Still on highways, I believe it's about time we started planning for a third route to the B.C. Interior. It would run north through Pemberton and directly into the south Cariboo country. It would cut between 100 and 150 miles off a trip from Vancouver to Williams Lake or to Prince George. It would relieve some pressure, at least, on the Trans-Canada Highway through the Fraser Canyon. It would improve the service by truck from the lower mainland into the Peace River area as well.

While I applaud the minister's efforts to build a new four lane highway from Hope through the Coquihalla Pass into the southern interior, I think that another highway north from Vancouver is at least as important to the citizens of B.C. — certainly to the citizenry north of Clinton. After all, the geographical centre of the province, as the Chairman well knows, is due north of Vancouver. But to go north we have to go out of our way at least as far east as Hope. There's all that country north of Pemberton to be opened up. There's the southern Chilcotin country as well. No one knows this better than the hon. Minister of Highways, who represents that particular area. It's a vast inland empire. It's about time that we, with all our provincial wealth, modern equipment and construction techniques, made it easier for our people not only to visit the Cariboo country but to make their livelihood there as well.

I know the minister is going to tell me that he's spending many millions of dollars this year and next year on the highway from Vancouver to Whistler. He's straightening out the worst sections of Cheakamus Canyon, but there's a lot more to do between North Vancouver and Squamish, especially in the 100-mile gap between Pemberton Meadows and Big Creek in the Chilcotins, if we're to have a real third route, one that can be traversed year-round from Vancouver, north to the interior. That route running through Bralorne has to scale two passes, one at Hurley Creek and the other leaving the Bridge River watershed going north. The engineering required to build a highway through those passes is by no means insurmountable, and the tourism potential of this little-known part of the province is second to none.

We're going to have to bypass Howe Sound for much of our traffic as the years go by. Sooner or later we're going to have to build a highway directly north from the Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver. It would run 12 or 15 miles up the Seymour River, and then through a two- or three-mile tunnel into the Indian River watershed. The Indian River, as you know, discharges into the extreme north end of Burrard Inlet. From there it would continue more or less in a straight line to Squamish. This way we would cut some 40 miles off the run to Whistler, and 40 miles, of course, on any run to the central interior, and make it a much easier drive in the first 60 miles from Vancouver as opposed to the tortuous drive along Howe Sound today via Horseshoe Bay and Britannia Beach.

Specifically, I ask the hon. minister whether his ministry has any long-term plans with regard to a direct north-south route from Vancouver to the Cariboo. If so, where, roughly, would it go, and when might we see the first real work begin on the link from Pemberton Meadows, north through Bralorne to Big Creek in the southern Chilcotins?

I'm not forgetting Vancouver Island. Also, I'm not forgetting the congestion which is developing at the B.C. Ferries terminal at Horseshoe Bay in West Vancouver. The answer, in my opinion, insofar as the Strait of Georgia is concerned, is a ferry crossing from Iona Island next to the Vancouver International Airport to Gabriola Island just south of Nanaimo. This is a one-hour ferry crossing across the Strait of Georgia. It's a crossing over only 17 miles of open water; not 34 miles, as is the case now, from Horseshoe Bay on the north shore of Burrard Inlet to Departure Bay in downtown Nanaimo. In other words, it's a much shorter run: half as long and half as much time. There would be less manoeuvring at each end. Half as many ferries could carry the same number of passengers, cars and trucks. The saving would certainly pay for two new terminals, one at Iona and one at Gabriola Island, with some to spare. Most people living in Vancouver, New Westminster, Richmond, Surrey and up the Fraser Valley would find this a more direct and convenient route to Nanaimo and north on Vancouver Island. It would save them a lot of time. It would also reduce the congestion on the First and Second Narrows Bridges over Burrard Inlet to the North Shore — congestion which we experience now. Horseshoe Bay would still be needed as a jumping-off point for theSun shine Coast. The occasional ferry would also run from Horseshoe Bay to Gabriola Island. But the congestion caused by ferry traffic in downtown Nanaimo would also be eliminated. Anyone on Vancouver Island who was headed for the Vancouver International Airport would find an Iona-Gabriola crossing the route to take to the mainland. To put it another way, a short Iona-Gabriola ferry crossing over the Strait of Georgia would save a lot of gasoline, a lot of wear and tear on vehicles, literally millions of hours in crossing time, take the bulk of the population more directly to their main destination, reduce the need for another bridge over Burrard Inlet and relieve congestion both on the North Shore and in downtown Nanaimo.

What would be needed, of course, would be a suitable highway connector from, say, the Oak Street Bridge in Vancouver, over the Fraser and along the north side of Sea Island to the Iona terminal. This is no engineering feat. It's really a matter of getting our lower mainland municipalities together and planning a ferry-feeder system which makes sense both from a traffic flow and an environmental point of view. This is no small undertaking, but it's certainly possible. It's very definitely desirable.

Could I ask the minister another question? What is his ministry doing about this Iona-Gabriola crossing? Are any provincial transportation people working on it? Have B.C. Ferries been given any marching orders in this connection, and are there any recent estimates of costs as to terminal approaches, etc? As I see it, this is a major requirement. It's a several hundred million dollar crossing; not several billion dollars, as a fixed-link bridge-tunnel would cost, but several hundred million dollars nevertheless. It's certainly cheaper than continuing to build more ferries — any number of additional ferries at $30 million a copy — and manning them with the required number of ferry workers. The Iona-Gabriola crossing would be much cheaper, especially in the long run, than adding more and bigger vessels to our existing Strait of Georgia ferry routes. It's peanuts as compared with northeast coal or the financing of a modern light-rail rapid transit system in the greater Vancouver area. It's the best possible link between our two principal centres of population on the coast, the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. The sooner we get at it the better.

[ Page 5711 ]

Still on the subject of a new ferry crossing over the Strait of Georgia, I would like to see a cost-benefit study done, comparing the building of an Iona-Gabriola link with that of putting more and larger vessels on our existing runs. It would show that the addition of a short one-hour crossing would have an excess of benefits over costs of the order of three or four to one, whereas reinforcing our present routes might be of the order of one to one. Clearly we're losing money by failing to act, if this is true. We're not using our imagination. Worse than that, we're not planning ahead even as much as five years into the future.

New stretches of highway are needed on Vancouver Island. That's apparent from a recent study released by the ministry. I know the minister is on top of that subject. Following B.C. Hydro and old railway rights-of-way will avoid the built-up areas and leave the best waterfront locations for residential and other purposes. Already we can drive to Port Hardy with relative ease. Before this decade is out, Vancouver Island will have first-class express highways running from one end to the other.

But here I'd like to make an aside. Why does the government also have to run a government-owned bus system on Vancouver Island? It's putting enough money into the road system, and it's trying to get people to ride the E&N Railway. I can't see why we don't leave long-distance highway transport on Vancouver Island for the private sector. We do in the interior, we do in the north. It's generally the rule elsewhere in North America. The taxpayer builds the roads, the user pays the rest. To that extent it makes sense in the rest of the world, so why not here on Vancouver Island?

While I'm still on the subject of user-pay, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer again to B.C. Ferries. Commercial traffic across the Strait of Georgia should pay a commercial rate. B.C. Ferry rates should cover all costs: salaries, wages, fuel and capital. These B.C. Ferries rates shouldn't be subsidized by the taxpayer. As it is, B.C. Ferries is tending to drive private competitors off the water. It's done this with the passenger mode. Perhaps that's inevitable. But it's also doing it with trucking, and it could easily do it with container freight as well. Hopefully B.C. Ferries will limit its activities to traffic of the roll-on, roll-off variety. It has to, or the ferry union will really have Vancouver Islanders by the throat. Not only will the CPR have left the scene insofar as the barging of truck trailers is concerned, but there will be little private sector help left in the event of a B.C. Ferries shutdown in the future.

I'd like to ask the minister what the government's pricing policy will be with respect to commercial traffic across the Strait of Georgia. Is B.C. Ferries going to charge commercial rates — that is, for commercial traffic — or isn't it, and are these rates going to be set in such a way as to tolerate a certain kind of competition? Or is the government intent on socializing all of our roll-on, roll-off traffic on the west coast?

Finally, a detail: I gather B.C. Ferries will shortly be ordering another Queen of Alberni-type ferry. This is the fast so-called overheight ferry, which carries big trucks between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay currently. I gather a second ferry of this kind may be ordered, built and running between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo by 1984. My question really is: why not run this particular type of ferry, these overnight, freight-carrying ferries, on a 24-hour basis? They're fast, efficient, and could easily be run on a three-shift basis. They could carry trucks running at night, and they could also look after a substantial number of cars and passengers which presently have to wait until the following morning to go to their destination on either side of the Strait of Georgia.

Finally, a word about the Highways ministry's own ferries — that is the ministry ferries as opposed to B.C. Ferries. The rates they charge, both on the coast and throughout the rest of the province, should be rationalized. In some cases this would mean rate increases, some of them even by a factor of two or three or four. But common sense must also prevail here. Where the ferry crossings are lightly travelled, or where the traffic is highly seasonal, or where the community served has no other access to the outside, then perhaps there should be no user charge at all. The cost of administering a toll system, certainly if the crossing was lightly used, could use up much of the income obtained from the fares. So in those cases there should be no payment whatsoever. But there are other crossings intensively used, and they should pay more. I say this not only for the Highways ministry's own ferries, but also for B.C. Ferries, In other words, the big volume, extensively travelled routes should be user-pay to a significant extent at least. But on the thin, lightly travelled routes, especially those connecting small communities to the rest of the province where those communities have no alternative means of transport, the charge should be zero — in other words, free ferry service — because these people also pay taxes and they aren't receiving any substantial transportation service from the government of B.C. now.

As far as a number of up-coast points are concerned, I'd say this: if a new highway or road has been built into a remote community, then there's really no need for a big expensive ferry to call in. Generally speaking, roads and highways are much cheaper to maintain and operate than ships are. A good highway to the rest of the province, especially if it's backed up by an airport, should mean no ferry service. Conversely, if there's no way of getting out of one of these relatively remote communities other than by water or by air, then a ferry service must be considered. I say considered because the air mode is often the best, especially as far as passengers are concerned.

This brings me to my last point, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I can phrase it in terms of a question to the minister. Has the government considered, or is it now considering, the establishment of a transportation voucher system which would give these prospective users of provincial transportation services a choice — I mean those who live in remote and difficult to-get-at locations, especially in northwestern B.C.? Then British Columbians in those places could go by air if they wanted to or by water on a neighbour's fishboat or by a commercial surface carrier, whichever was most convenient to him or her at any particular day or month of the year. A proposal along these lines was made to the government by the director of transportation studies at the University of British Columbia, Dr. Karl Ruppenthal, in 1978. In my view, it's bound to be a better system insofar as convenience to the user is concerned — at least users in those remote and poorly served areas. By relying primarily on the private sector, it will be less expensive to administer than an elaborate government-owned ferry system or a government air lift and ferry system would be in the 1980s.

Mr. Chairman, those are all of my questions for the moment. I know they involve transportation policy to some extent, but they also raise matters to which I know the minister has given a great deal of thought. So I'll listen to his response with interest.

[ Page 5712 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: To my hon. colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour, I always appreciate his observations. They're well thought out. He has another advantage over the rest of us — he's also a good professional engineer. So he has that professional expertise as well, and it's much appreciated.

I don't know just where to start, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to deal with the Bailey bridge in North Vancouver–Seymour, and tell you that I've always thought since I've been minister that it's a disgrace in the metropolitan area of our great province. While I don't want to blame anybody, it is again involved with the acquisition of Indian land. I'm happy to report to the committee today and to the member who represents that area that an agreement has been reached. We have acquired the land. Someday we'll all know how much it cost, but it's a lot of money. It's my information that the Bailey bridge will be history in North Vancouver–Seymour, hopefully within 18 months. What has been holding it up is acquisition of the right-of-way.

We have here the same problem that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) brought up. We have to have the land there for that structure and the natives want tough conditions attached. We've been negotiating with them for some time, but we haven't concluded that. I've sat in on some of these negotiations, and I might say that they're very interesting. The native people have a lot of cause to be tough with us. In the case of North Vancouver–Seymour, I think the government has taken advantage of this people's lands in the past, no matter who the government or the Crown corporation was. When we want more land, they're coming along and saying: "You correct the mistakes you made in the last hundred years to start with, and then we might consider talking about what you want to take now."

The same applies in the Enderby situation, where we have public roads through their reserve. We want further land to construct a bridge on. We don't need very much land, but they're saying: "Oh, no. You clean up the mess you made 50 years ago, because we can't find where any permission was given to put these roads on this reserve. They're our lands." They're correct there. So there are two sides to every story and that's their side of the story there. Negotiations take time. In a lot of these cases we are cleaning up errors of the past. I only say that factually, not critically. Things are different today.

I'm happy in the case of the Bailey bridge in your riding of North Vancouver–Seymour. Hopefully we can get on and get construction started this fall. I'd say that it could be a Christmas present for December 1982. That's roughly 18 months.

The member mentioned the building of the Cassiar Street throughway in Vancouver East. This is a vital piece of road that has to be upgraded. The best way I can describe it is that the freeway ends and then we go down to a street system to get to the Second Narrows Bridge. At the corner of Hastings and Cassiar in the city of Vancouver we have the busiest intersection in the province of British Columbia. No matter what day of the week it is, thousands and thousands of vehicles of all descriptions are going through there. It's way over capacity. What have we done about it? We've done lots about it, but haven't achieved very much. We're dealing with the city of Vancouver because it's their street. We have offered to correct this. I believe the cost in 1979 dollars was about $30 million. That will have escalated now. Our engineers recommend a sunken street on Cassiar. Then we got all the sidewalk engineers in, as we do when we deal with municipalities, and they said a tunnel has to be built. Our engineers say no way.

In any case, we were dealing with the city of Vancouver in 1980 and had come to some policy arrangements. Then we had a change of government. As a minister of the Crown, I might say for the press that I find this very time-delaying, regardless of party politics. I find, so often, dealing with 147 municipalities in this province, that we would just about get a deal set by October of the year and the old yearly municipal election bandwagon would start rolling out. Where we think we have a deal, all of a sudden I find out — particularly in this ministry, being in the centre of the municipal election battle, pro and con — that all the negotiations we had going are invariably thrown out the window and we start all over again with a new council. As you know, the city of Vancouver is on a two-year basis, as are some other places. But 50 percent of our municipalities' councils change every year. I find it very difficult to make progress, based on that fact of life. I appreciate that if, say, 40 percent of the people on the council are new, everything has to start from square one again.

In dealing with Hastings and Cassiar, there was a change of government. Just prior to the change of government the city of Vancouver had asked for what we call a multi-disciplinary study to evaluate the proposed freeway design and other alternatives. Terms of reference had been agreed to by staff. That was where it was during the elections of November 1980. I have recently written the new mayor of Vancouver and suggested we have a meeting and see where we're going on it. I haven't heard a thing about it — maybe staff have — from the new mayor of Vancouver. I don't know what their attitude is. We feel that it's a very necessary improvement to our network, that it's an advantage to the city of Vancouver and an advantage to all the people of British Columbia.

We have bought I don't know how many houses to make way for the widening of Cassiar — I might say on behalf of the city of Vancouver — and they've acquired a lot, through the parks branch and so on. When I get about an hour off a month I spend it near Hastings and Cassiar. I was looking there the other day and there are a lot of dwellings boarded up. We'd sure like to get on with it. There is a big investment already in acquisition of property either by the city or by us and it is my understanding that whatever money the city has spent for acquisition of property, our ministry ends up paying them for that as well — and that's fine. That's where it's at.

The other comment I have on this serious bottleneck is that we have this — as I like to call it — rat-running going on in the Burnaby North riding. There isn't adequate capacity on the road, so the motorist takes the quick way out and tears all over residential streets. Where municipalities won't live up to their obligations of moving their main traffic, we have this running through residential areas that shouldn't be happening at all, if we would upgrade the main arteries. It's serious in the East End, and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has asked what contribution we had from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and his seatmate the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I kept them informed of what was going on, but I can't say that I've had any real pressure from the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Vancouver East, because this is in their riding as well. All we have is the agreement that I keep them informed, and I've done that, but there hasn't been much to inform them about, because not a great deal has been going on. I would like their help in trying to move on to get something done about it.

[ Page 5713 ]

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour mentions a third route to the B.C. interior running north from Pemberton and into the Cariboo country. Well, I'd sure like to buy that. What we've actually done, Mr. Chairman, is taken over the Duffey Lake road and put it from the forestry inventory into the highway inventory — now that is a public road — and we go from North Vancouver to Whistler to Pemberton and across the Duffey Lake road into Lillooet. I might say that that's a gravel road from Pemberton over to Lillooet; it's a fairly good alignment, as the engineers say. We try to maintain it 12 months of the year, but because part of it is in an avalanche area, it might be closed for a couple of months. I don't know whether it was closed last winter, and maybe it wasn't, because we didn't have heavy snow, but that is another route there now. Then of course you come out at Lillooet and go on Highway 12 to Highway 97, which goes north. We have started on that and we intend to keep on upgrading. Where it isn't on the route that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour recommended....The engineers tell me the other route is very difficult and far more expensive than this one. We have made, I guess we'll say, a feeble start. But when I'm talking about Highway 99, I think that the member certainly raised a big problem that we're aware of: we haven't really a decent road from North Vancouver to Squamish. Someday somebody is going to have to make a decision to get out of Howe Sound. To get out of Howe Sound is quite simple. We go up into the Greater Vancouver Water District's reservoir area, and again we're not very popular. The decision would be simple, if that's all we had to do.

The present road is confined between the railroad and Howe Sound, and only a week or so ago we had a rockslide that closed it. We haven't got an adequate road from North Vancouver to Squamish; we're trying to make it adequate. Then we go from Squamish to Whistler, and we're working at that now. We're eliminating Cheakamus Canyon, and there has been horrendous expansion at Whistler — hundreds of millions of dollars; I can't believe it when I look at it. If the members haven't seen it, they should go and look at it. But again their vital link, of course, is the highway. We had floods last winter. But we are expanding that road. The road's not too bad from Whistler north to Pemberton. As I say, it's not an urgent matter; it isn't something you lie awake at night and worry about, but somebody's going to have to.... The road from North Vancouver to Squamish is completely inadequate for the modern-day density of traffic, and the traffic is getting denser every day.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour raised so many serious transportation policy items that I want to take some care in replying. He dealt with the Strait of Georgia ferry crossing from Iona Island to Gabriola Island. Mr. Chairman and members, I told you earlier in committee that we're putting $90 million worth of new boats into the water between now and July 1 to try and keep up, but at B.C. Ferries we know that policy decisions are going to have to be made. We're not going to be able to accommodate the ever-increasing traffic load on B.C. Ferries; it averages at least 10 percent per year. If we keep putting these large boats in the water, they're going to start hitting each other pretty soon. It seems to me that a large decision has to be made by B.C. Ferry Corporation directors in the form of a recommendation to the government. They're going to have to look at Iona-Gabriola or any other alternatives that have been around for years. In 1969 I heard discussion in this Legislature about the Iona-Gabriola crossing. I didn't know very much about it then, and I didn't worry about it. It does cut down the time to cross to approximately three-quarters of an hour. Maybe it's the right way to go.

There's one thing on which I'd like to correct the member for North Vancouver–Seymour: B.C. Ferries now have a ten year plan, where this is being discussed. The ten-year plan is not written in stone. It has some rough outlines of what they feel should happen to this very important transportation link to 1990, how it would be financed and so on.

Regarding the proposed Iona-Gabriola route, a decision on it or on an alternative route has to be made at a policy level within the next 12 months, so that it would be in place to look after the ever-increasing use of the ferry system. Maybe I'm a little optimistic, but I don't think the decision as to where we are going should be left for, say, two years. Once the decision is made, there are bridges to build from Gabriola to the Island; there are a lot of things to do if this is the route decided on. I've heard different figures mentioned, but I'm not too interested in figures. The policy decision hasn't been made. Time rolls on, and with inflation, figures are only approximations when you are moving into construction time-frames. But I think we are getting pretty close to where somebody has to face the music on the facts of the ferry system.

One thing I'll say on behalf of the government is that the government has made a policy decision that we're not going to build a tunnel, or whatever it is; that is out. I think that brings things into focus. We'd better get on with the question of what we are going to do with this very vital transportation link and its expansion in the immediate ten-year future.

I agree with the member for North Vancouver- Seymour in his observation that this is the better thing to do, and the government agrees with the bridge-tunnel concept.

Another question the member asked is really interesting to me. Why does the government have to run a government owned bus system on Vancouver Island? I'd like to make it abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that it doesn't come under my responsibility. But it really is a good question, because in the rest of the province the private sector looks after that. Through my riding, Greyhound Bus Lines — I have no shares in them — go through the Cariboo and into Prince George and over to prince Rupert and back three times a day. I've never heard the Greyhound Bus Lines complaining that they're losing money, but the Vancouver Island bus line will lose $10 million this year. I don't know if I said I agreed with you, Mr. Member, but those are the facts of life. Why? Again, it doesn't come under my jurisdiction. The member wanted a reply and that's as I see it.

He also dealt with the idea of running the Queen of Alberni — commonly referred to as the truck ferry — on a 24-hour basis. That has certainly been kicked around somewhat. We have no ferries running 24 hours a day at the present time. I think Mr. Gallagher will agree with me that we have to have some downtime in a 24-hour period to service these large and fine vessels — to fuel them and so on. But I guess it's not impossible. Right now the Queen of Alberni starts work every day at 6 o'clock in the morning, long before you people are awake, and finally ties up at 10 or 11 o'clock at night. She's certainly doing her share. But I guess we can close the gap further on that.

[ Page 5714 ]

Regarding the rates of the Alberni that the member brought up, a real policy question and one of great concern to the government and the board of ferry directors is the rates we charge for commercial vehicles. I'd like to advise the committee that we have burnped the rate for commercial vehicles quite substantially in the last 12 months. We now have a rate per foot; I believe it's $1.80 a foot. That rate is not based on what Charlie Gallagher or Alex Fraser grab out of the sky; it's based on the cost of running the Queen of Alberni. It's not based on profit, but based on the cost of running the Queen of Alberni. Maybe at that rate we should have a profit, but we've never had a rate before that would cover the total cost of operation of any vessel, including the Queen of Alberni. We now have that.

Why is it so important? I'd like to make one observation for the Island members particularly. You see only the tip of the iceberg when I talked about the Princess of Vancouver going out of service with the CPR. What they have left is a tugboat service — a barge. I predict here today that it will be out of service in two years. I haven't got that from the CPR, but I predict that here and now. This is an important tie to the rate that we charge commercially. When they're gone, we only have one option left for the Island — B.C. Ferries — and that worries us. They now charge more than we do. I understand the CPR says that that's not enough. I guess from the size of that company, they can probably take the money they have invested in CP Marine on the west coast and put it somewhere else where it will do more good for the shareholders of CPR. As I say, I predict that we've seen the tip of the iceberg with the Princess of Vancouver going. I think more are going. It is quite a worry. B.C. Ferries are left with the responsibility of all the marine transportation to the Island.

The member mentioned ordering another Queen of Alberni. The board of directors have not made that decision. It's only under discussion. Once a decision is made for a second truck ferry, it will take approximately two years to build.

The last item is Highways ferry rates. There is always a lot of discussion about that. Some Highways ferries are fairly good and some are pretty antiquated. Some have a toll and some don't. In any case, the fact is that we have raised the ferry rates on Highways ferries. It was approximately doubled last year. The revenue from the Highways ferry system — I believe we operate 35 vessels — is $2 million a year. I want the committee to remember this: the operating cost is $20 million. That vote is in highway maintenance. That's where that is picked up, so the gap is quite substantial.

Thank you very much for your contribution, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I've tried to hit some large policy matters for the committee.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, could I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The national government has a program called Open House Canada in which students are exchanged from one part of the country to another. One of the schools in my constituency — the Fort Langley Junior Secondary School — has been fortunate in having, as its twin school, a school from St. John's, Newfoundland. They've been in Fort Langley and they're in Victoria today. I'd like very much to introduce the students from Fort Langley Junior

Secondary School and the 40 students from St. John's, Newfoundland, along with the people who are accompanying them. They are three teachers from Newfoundland: Clayton Handrigon, Herb Hopkins and Jan O'Brian, and from Fort Langley, a teacher from the secondary school, Diane Gorton, and Mrs. Pitt, one of the mothers of the children. They're all led by the sponsor teacher, Burns Maddin, from Fort Langley. I'd like you all to make them very welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: I was amused in listening to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and the minister discussing the issue of the Bailey bridge in North Vancouver. I'm the MLA who arranged with the Highways minister of the day to put that bridge in seven or eight years ago. At that time it was going in for about 18 months at the most. It was a temporary bridge to repair the old structure that did cross the river at that point. I think it's a typical length of time for these Bailey bridges to be in operation. Later on in my comments I want to talk about another Bailey bridge in my present riding.

Today I don't want to make any broad philosophical comments about transportation, but rather to talk about a number of very specific issues that are almost exclusively North Island political issues. They have been raised by various people in my constituency — not only by the public, through letters, phone calls and public meetings, but also through municipal councils and regional districts. A couple of the issues are a little broader than North Island, but most of them are North Island issues.

On the question of fares on ministry ferries, there's a lack of understanding in the community which uses those ferries on the coast of the reason that a ship, boat or vessel sailing in fresh water should be free and one sailing in salt water should cost money. That's a policy distinction that doesn't make much sense. I don't know what the quality of the salt water does to suddenly create some fare on the ferries. It may be cleaning barnacles — I don't know what it is. But there is some illogical policy in effect in that respect, when most of the inland water ferries are free.

I would agree, in general, with what I sensed as a developing theme coming from both the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and the minister about the way in which fares should be applied on those ferries. If the ferries are serving communities that are not otherwise served by transportation links available to an automobile, then the people who live on those islands should be able to use the ferry system in the same way I can use the highway system from Campbell River to Victoria. It is, in effect, free — apart from my gasoline tax for the number of gallons of gasoline I burn. Perhaps the fare should be the equivalent of the number of gallons of gasoline that would be burned. That's such a minimal amount that it wouldn't be worth collecting.

It seems to me that the policy which should be developed is one that works toward a solution where a kind of commuter card or pass would be issued to people who are dependent on the ferry to get from their home to the nearest highway, and people who are casual users of the ferry — tourists, visitors or other people that are casual users — should pay an appropriate fee. I think that's a policy direction that should be worked towards on all the ferries operated by the ministry. I know the political problems that are involved in that, but I think a rationalization like that could be sold and would be appropriate. That's all on that issue.

The major issue this afternoon is one that relates to this document, which you'll recognize, Mr. Minister. It's the

[ Page 5715 ]

"Vancouver Island Inland Highway — section from Mud Bay to Menzies Bay...Study." I spent almost all of yesterday afternoon reading the report. I read all the copy and studied most of the maps fairly extensively. From my layman's point of view it's a comprehensive report. I'm not an engineer or qualified at all to make any technical judgments, but it's a report that I sense to be well done. It's quite comprehensive and very well done.

In that connection I want to read a headline from a Province newspaper printed in 1949. The headline says: "Island Highway Linked to Election." They've reprinted that headline in today's Province. There's a lot of skepticism on central and northern Vancouver Island about this inland highway. The old-timers there tell me it's been surveyed, resurveyed and talked about since at least 1949. I hope this study, which is a consultant study and not a ministerial study directly, is finally a firm indication that the bypass will occur.

I want to raise a couple of questions. Most of the questions do not relate to the route selected. I have a general bias toward the same recommendations that the report makes, which is that the middle route be chosen — roughly the hydro access line. Obviously there are some variations. There are some real complications crossing Campbell River itself, with the park and various other problems up there. But in general my own bias would be that the recommendation of the consultants, the mid choice, be taken as appropriate. To take the one close to the existing highway would, I think, interfere too much with existing settlement: to go back to the base of the mountains would make the road like a ghost town much of the time, because a lot of the local traffic would not use it. To be specific, in the Campbell River area one of the real needs is to get the pulpmill traffic from the pulpmill through Campbell River and then down through Willow Point, Shelter Point and often down through into Comox, because there are a lot of people who live in Courtenay, Comox, Black Creek, Merville and that area who work in the pulpmill. If the inland highway is way back against the mountains, those pulpmill workers are going to think twice about driving 20 miles out of their way to get home. Those kinds of considerations have to be taken into account as well as the technical and environmental concerns, property acquisition and all those other concerns that exist. But in general I think there would be some widespread support for that hydro line right-of-way route which, as I say, is the one the consultants recommend.

On page 24 of the report, in talking about the natural gas pipeline which would come up the Island and in some cases interact with the highway, it says: "It is most likely that the gas pipeline will be designed and built before detailed design of the highway is carried out." In going through the report I was trying to pin down when we might see a bulldozer or chainsaw on the route. I gather that we won't even see design details completed until after the gas pipeline is built. It will be at least three years, I would guess, before we see that. I wonder if the minister could clarify that comment.

On page 73 they talk about future growth of tourism. Tourism has been growing at about 9 percent per year in that area. They say that between 1986 and 1991 — in other words, from five years until ten years from now — there will be an almost half-halfing. The growth in the tourist industry will be cut almost in half in that second five years of the next ten. From everything I've heard to date about this highway, according to the minister it will be ten years from now before the road is built. My appeal there would not only be because of tourist shortfalls or growth cutbacks in the second five years. Basically, the time-frame for this highway should be speeded up.

The traffic flows in 1979 — a summer average, basic Highway 19; we're not talking about the excesses in Courtenay and in downtown Campbell River — show that the average daily traffic count is 8,500. In 1991 that would go to 15,200 — not quite but almost double in the ten years. That highway can't take double the traffic, even with the nice new paving we've got now between Campbell River and Courtenay and the little bit of widening, the odd curve straightened and those kinds of things. I'm sure the minister knows, and anyone driving that road knows, that we can't take any more, much less doubling. Yet according to the report, it will virtually double in ten years. It will increase by 50 percent in five years. I don't know how the existing highway is going to take that. You look at some of the stories in the local press about the death rate on that highway — the number of accidents and the number of people who are killed — between Courtenay and Campbell River particularly. The police call it the "path of death." That's not going to change very much even with a new coat of pavement, because the basic alignment hasn't changed — the ups and downs. I don't know the engineering terms for it; "the horizontal and vertical alignments" makes the most sense to me — those haven't changed very much. We've got some real problems. If the minister is still talking about a ten-year plan for this road, we've got some problems in terms of handling that traffic if the projections are anywhere near accurate.

There's a curious statement on page 123 of the report, which is hopeful. I'd like the minister to confirm this. It's in a section dealing with tourism impacts. It talks about the average number of vehicles in the area from May to September which are tourist-component only. They talk about there being almost 3,000 tourist vehicles in the area in 1981. In 1985 they expect just over 4,000 — about a 50 percent increase again and consistent with the other figures. Then they have a gap between 1985 and 1986. In the gap it says: "New inland highway constructed, summer of 1985." This is in the report. I see a few smiles in the far back row. This would be welcome news indeed, Mr. Chairman, in Courtenay, Campbell River and all up and down the Island if this consultant's report is predicting anything near what could be achieved. I appreciate that these things take time. You haven't even selected the precise route yet, so how can you start building. We appreciate all of that. All I would urge you to do is see whether or not we can target the summer of 1985 as a completion date. That would meet all the needs and demands of people in our area, I'm sure.

When you look at the figures, if you go through to 1991, which is the ten-year number that has been talked about, you go from 3,000 tourist vehicles to just over 12,000 — a quadrupling. There is no way that the road system that exists up there can handle that kind of traffic volume.

I won't say very much more about the by-pass. I hope the headline and the story in the Province are — I'm not quite sure how to put this, Mr. Chairman.... We will all gain politically should the road be built, but that's not why it should be built. It should be built because it's long overdue. It's one of the worst areas — as I'm sure the minister knows — in the province for highway problems. I won't say more about it than that at the present time.

In recognizing what the needs are in each constituency, presumably the ministry has to make some priorities. We all do. As I said to a group of high school students this morning

[ Page 5716 ]

who were down from Port McNeill and the surrounding area, to meet all the needs that I hear of in North Island we would have to have a tripled and quadrupled Highways budget. Then we could just begin to do the kinds of things that everybody is demanding that we do. We all have to make some choices. In making my comments in these estimates, I make some choices too. While I will raise five or six different issues in doing that, I want the minister to understand that each of the issues does not have an equal importance or urgency.

There is unanimity that the urgent priority is the bypass of the Campbell River-Courtenay area. That's not just something that is asked for by people who live in Campbell River and Courtenay. That is particularly asked for by people who live all the way up the Island, who are trying to get down to meet a ferry and who often miss the Nanaimo ferry because they don't take into account that it takes an hour to get through Courtenay on many days, particularly Friday afternoons at 4:30 — which is about the time I go through there going north on Friday afternoon, and it seems to take me forever. This is something that everybody in our constituency — and in the constituencies of both Comox and North Island, I think — would see as the priority.

There are, however, other things that need to be done. I'm not going to mention them all. I'm only going to mention a few of them. There are a whole variety of them,

We have a beautiful highway — the best part of it, anyway from Menzies Bay right to Port McNeill. It's gorgeous from Sayward to Port McNeill. I think that next to the skyway — Salmo-Creston — it's one of the nicest roads in the province. It's well engineered. The speed limits are ridiculous because your car just can't go that slow on a road that's so great. Fortunately, the police are expanding their radar traps.

When you get to Port McNeill and are on your way to Port Hardy, you've got to drive over an old logging road with pavement on it. The logging road was built in the days when trucks were under-powered, so it goes this way, that way and curves around. Every corner that's imaginable is found because it's attempting to follow grade. In one place there's a hill that might be 3 percent. The guy who designed the road back in the late 1940s tells me that he made a mistake and it was too steep. In short, the road is absolutely inadequate. You come off the new stretch from Port Hardy down to just south of the airport turnoff, and from there through to Port McNeill you're driving on what is, in effect, a paved logging road. It's a treacherous road. There are many accidents because people aren't expecting that kind of grade. There must be some decisions made soon to realign that road. It's not expensive work in there. There's not a lot of rock work and there are no big hills. It should be relatively simple work.

There are two issues involved in the three communities of Gold River, Tahsis and Woss that I want to talk about. Essentially, the problem is that the people of Tahsis have this terrible 44 miles of forest access road to get out of their community to Gold River. I've driven that road many times. Sometimes it's passable. Sometimes it's flooded and you can't get through. I know there have been problems with the ambulance getting out of Tahsis because there are a couple of spots where the road is flooded, sometimes two and three feet deep. The community — through the general comment in the community and also through the council of the community — have been pushing for a road from Tahsis to Woss and up past Rugged Mountain.

I had an opportunity a month or two ago to fly over that proposed route in a helicopter, down Woss Lake to the existing CanFor logging roads on the east side. That's tough terrain. I'm not an engineer and I don't know how to build roads, but I would agree that it's a very difficult road-building area. I gather that the ministry has looked at it. I also gather that you've looked at the costs of upgrading the connection between Tahsis and Gold River going the other way. The figures I saw most recently indicate that you've got an expensive proposition either way. Some decision — like so many other issues that are in front of us — is going to have to be made soon, one way or the other. The community very overwhelmingly wants the Woss connection because it's quicker, it's lower and they claim there wouldn't be as much snow clearance, although that one pass is fairly high.

I can't make the judgment. On the one hand I've got the village council and the people telling me that they want the new road through Woss and on the other hand I've got the Tahsis Co. saying that it's insane and that it could never be built and that the logical thing to do is to go through Gold River. The position I've taken on the matter is that I want to see what the costs are either way. I want to see what the benefits and problems are for going either way. Hopefully we'll get a decision soon so we can put the arguments and what not that are going on in Tahsis to rest. What we have now is not good enough. The existing road to Gold River is just not satisfactory for a community the size of Tahsis.

(Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

I have a lot of forest access roads or, in some cases, logging company roads in my riding in the various TFLs. Many of these serve public communities use, sometimes more than they serve the TFL or logging company use. I think a policy that said "publicly used roads should be public roads" would make sense. At the present time we upgrade and maintain a lot of these roads by writing off stumpage through section 88 of the Forest Act. I would just as soon have the stumpage come in, have it collected, have the Highways budget increased by a similar amount, and have these roads become the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that, for example, the road north of Woss from the Island Highway — through to Zeballos and onto Fair Harbour — should be in the control of CanFor and then Tahsis. That's a public highway. When I drive that road there are freight trucks, tourist vehicles and vehicles from logging companies — Doman's, Crown Zellerbach and other companies — using the road, yet it's a road that is controlled and maintained by two logging companies. Why should the Tahsis Co. spend as much time and money as they do maintaining their section of the road, when they are only a partial benefactor, a partial user, of the road? They are a significant user, yes; the major user, yes; but not the total user. So the whole policy of publicly used roads remaining under the Forest Service responsibility or forest company responsibility doesn't make sense to me. If they're publicly used, they should be public highways, in my judgment, and I'd be interested in how the minister sees that.

Now to the Bailey bridge — and the minister knows, I'm sure, I'm referring to the Bailey bridge over Marble Creek. I'd be interested in knowing what the timetable is for the construction and the realignment of that bad corner there and the construction of a new bridge at that particular point.

[ Page 5717 ]

There have been some problems with the bridge; I gather that there has been some strengthening of it, because it tends to bow in the middle whenever there is heavy weight on it. Nevertheless, people in Port Alice particularly are concerned that there be some decision made soon about the construction of that road. They also would like to have the road straightened out between the Island Highway and Port Alice, but I said to them that that's pretty much low down on the priority list and that there are some other issues that will have to come ahead of that one. So I'm not asking you to do that at the moment, but I am asking you to consider, or tell us if you can, when the new bridge will be constructed there.

The municipality of Port McNeill has a road which is in effect one of its main streets; it is named Campbell Way after a former member of this House, and there are continuing problems. It's not only the main link into Port McNeill, but it's also the main road into the ferry terminal, which then takes you on to Sointula and Alert Bay and is therefore very clearly a public highway. There have been some concerns — and I know the minister heard from the mayor when he was last in Port McNeill, and he's probably heard since from the mayor and his council — about the need for some quicker action on some of the curbs and sidewalks and guttering that needs to be done, and then the repaving. I mention that just to remind the minister.

Erickson Road in Campbell River. We've got a perplexing one here, because it's a municipal street in many ways, but it connects the Island Highway to the municipal airport, but it's obviously a major airport facility that is used by PWA. I don't understand why that road couldn't be rebuilt on a one third, one-third, one-third basis, and why we can't say to the three levels of government, federal, municipal and provincial: "We'll get on with that job on a one-third basis each and just reconstruct that road." It needs to be realigned as well and reconstructed totally. So I ask the minister for his comments on that.

Before I go to a couple of comments in conclusion on the ferries, I'd be interested in the minister's reaction, if he's able to give me any today, about comments that are made by people who live on the Oyster River about the way in which the bridge was constructed and the abutments were placed on Highway 19 being the major factor for the flooding we had which destroyed several homes on the Oyster below the bridge this year. People had built in locations that were surrounded by trees 80 and 100 years old that had obviously never been affected by flooding over many years. On the other side of the river there was an obvious outlet. a flood plain, if you will, for excess water. This year in the December 26 flooding the water went in a direction that it has apparently never gone — at least for the last 50 or 100 years — and ripped out all the trees and houses. When you look at the way the bridge abutments — if that's what you call them, the supports — are built, it very clearly directs the water right in a new direction. I wonder whether there is much consideration given to those kinds of concerns. I assume there is — I don 't know for sure — but in this case it doesn't appear as if much concern was given to the way in which the bridge supports were built in order to make sure that the river continued to flow in the way that it had always flowed.

I want to say thank you and a good job done about the Quadra ferry — the two ferries. The ministry was going to put in a larger single ferry between Campbell River and Quathiaski Cove. We now have the two-ferry system running which started on the long weekend a week or so ago. I had a look at the passenger loads last weekend. They were running freely and well and they were being well used. There doesn't appear to be any problem at all with the two ships crossing in that fairly difficult channel. It's just working very well, and everybody is pleased. All those hundreds of people who wrote to you, I know, would write to you again and say thank you if they were good letter writers. But I do want to say that that's a vast improvement.

I've written a letter to the minister about a news report in Campbell River saying that there's an intention to berth both ferries overnight in Campbell River. I hope that is a mistaken news report. It's essential that one of the two ships be left on the Quadra side for any emergency runs required in the middle of the night. That's the situation with the Cortes ferry. Occasionally there is the need to make an emergency run. So I hope it will be be left on the Quadra side.

The final issue I want to raise is the possibility of an early ferry run on the Alert Bay-Sointula–Port McNeill triangle. The problem is that a lot of people work in logging operations on Vancouver Island, and they live in Alert Bay or on Malcolm Island for a variety of reasons; the climate is better and housing is cheaper. You can still buy a building lot in Alert Bay for $8,000 or S9,000 — they're going begging. People like to be able to commute to work. The small-boat solution is not particularly satisfactory. Even though it costs $100,000 or so a year, according to ministry figures, I would urge that that early run be established. It would be of great use to a lot of people; it would allow people to live in the non-congested areas of Alert Bay and Malcolm Island, as opposed to the very tight housing situation in Port McNeill. In fact, in many cases it's impossible to buy a home or a lot in Port McNeill. I know it's a lot of money for a limited run, and I appreciate that. When you look at the additional expense for families who have to live in Port McNeill as opposed to Alert Bay, they would be saving many times more than $100,000 a year if they were able to have that early run and know that they could get to work. The earliest you can get to Vancouver Island now is 8:30. They should be able to get there by 7 or 7:30 for regular work time.

I appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the remarks of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). First of all, your comment was very interesting regarding the story in the Province this morning — that it's a re-run of a 1949 story. I just want to say that I was interviewed by the reporter who wrote the story today. It was his speculation that it looked like the election of 1984. As for the election speculation in the story, it was never discussed at all in the interview I had with the reporter. So I guess that was picked up from the story that came out in 1949.

You started off talking about salt water and fresh water regarding ferries. It's a very interesting argument to me too. Discussion is how policy is set. I guess you can argue pro and con. I know the story of the interior ferry system. As I understand it, in the old days ferries crossing a main river like the Fraser or the Skeena were put in to have a continuing highway connection to the other side of the river. In the old days, as that progressed, they got to the ferry business in salt water. Maybe from the start they established that there'd be a fee structure on the salt-water side. I agree that it's always been very difficult for me to explain the difference. Now, of course, we're operating some very substantial ferries free of charge; we have no intention of changing that. Maybe we

[ Page 5718 ]

should be looking at salt water...and I'm suggesting we take it off. We don't seem to have a policy that is explainable — that's what it seems to be right at the moment. I don't in any way want to suggest that we are going to equalize them by putting on fares where we haven't got them. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) won the last election based on that rumour. I don't want that to happen again. The rumour was flying that if you voted Social Credit in Nelson-Creston, all you were voting for was putting fares on the Kootenay Lake ferry. It worked really well; I know he got a substantial majority. Again, I want to dispel any thoughts that we're putting a fare on the ferry at Kootenay Lake or other places. I addressed that, on behalf of the government, last year. We had no intention of putting fares where we didn't have them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I appreciate your observation regarding the middle location, Mr. Member. It's fairly new to me. I might say that I believe our ministry feels the same way as you do. The middle location seems to be the thing. But I'm a little worried when you talk about time-frame or when anything can happen. I've had my fingers burned rather badly in that area, as you know, and I don't know how long the public discussion will go on. I refer you to the Courtenay Bridge and so on. The public discussion is taking a lot longer than calling a contract and the construction. That's fine with me, but it does delay things. I think there'll be lots pro and con. I only hope our ministry can get the general public to come to the same conclusion. It would speed up when we could start if they all agreed on the centre location. I keep on emphasizing to the committee that our biggest problem in the highway system is acquisition of right-of-way. We can break the treasury branch pretty fast, but the acquisition of right-of-way is a problem wherever we go now, and a very serious one. We have to be very careful, whether we're four-laning a two-lane road or building a new road. Last year this ministry spent $20 million of public funds in acquisition for roads alone, and naturally it is spiralling because of the cost of real estate. Our people do an excellent job of negotiating for property, but it's a very slow process.

I've made a note about the gas line on the right-of-way. I think you said the gas line may be in the right-of-way before we are. I'm pretty fed up with gas lines and telephone lines on our right-of-way. They dictate what we can do, and as we're the landlord I think it's about time we started telling them. B.C. Tel and B.C. Hydro come along and say: "Oh, you can't build that road, because we've got a dirty old rotten telephone pole or hydro pole there." One of these days they're going to get a surprise, because I'm going to ask some friends that drive D-8s to push them out of the road, quick. They're there, and maybe we shouldn't worry about revenue, but I think they would respect us more if we got some revenue out of them. This is a personal opinion, but if we charge them for being on our right-of-way they'll only pass it on to the citizen, whether it's in telephone rates, hydro rates or whatever. But I'm getting pretty fed up with the way they hold us up.

The gas line is coming, and yes, we deal with the gas line. The gas line will come fairly fast, but I hope we've got a line on our right-of-way, and if they get on our right-of-way it will be by permit. That's what we have our senior people for. If they're going on our proposed right-of-way, they'll have problems with us if they don't go where we want them. I think we've got to get a lot tougher in the ministry than we've been in the past over use of our rights-of-way. Corridors are fine talk and everything else, but I think all these people have got to be a little cooperative. As I say, some of them are not even under permit on the highway right-of-way; others are. But when we want to do something with our own ground and right-of-way, they say: "Oh, no, we're too busy. You can go jump in the lake." As I say, one of these days we aren't going to jump; we'll take a D-8. When we want to improve our highway system we have to worry about their cables underground and their poles above ground, and it costs us a lot of money. At least they could pay that share, I think. I tell you, you hit me in the funny-bone when you talked about the gas line and the right-of-way.

Tourism growth. I don't know about that. I would say that beautiful part of our province will.... I don't agree with the consultant that it's going to drop off to 5 percent. In that part of the country I think it would stay at the level it's at or get greater, unless the federal government stops everybody from fishing, which they seem to be trying to do.

The 8,500 vehicles a day is predicted to go to 15,000. That's in the report, and I realize that. Obviously there are going to be real problems before we get the route built. I think we are paving right now between Courtenay and Campbell River, or parts of it. We'll just have to ad hoc and live with it. That's really where we're at, Mr. Member. The people along Highway 19, as you know, don't want us to expand within that right-of-way, so we're trying to sneak through with some passing lanes and so on, and repave the existing service. Hopefully we can live with that until we get something proper for through traffic.

I agree that the new road to Port Hardy is an excellent, beautiful piece of road. The engineers and contractors in our province deserve great commendation for putting that through. I might say that there were a lot of environmental problems and everything else, as you're aware, but it's certainly a great credit to them and to all the people of our province — the new section north from Sayward to Port Hardy.

MR. GABELMANN: Port McNeill.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, you have some observations on Port McNeill–Port Hardy.

Gold River–Tahsis and a proposed one to Woss Camp — I have flown that in a chopper, as you said you have, Mr. Member. That's really tough country. It reminds me of the Cariboo where there's a lot of solid rock. As our engineers say, that's a tough one. It seems to me that the existing Gold River–Tahsis road is the one we have to upgrade.

Regarding your observation about logging roads, private and public — I've thought a lot about that one. In some we're getting better cooperation than we had. Yes, they were paid for by public funds through write-off of stumpage. We have conditions in the province now where the public wants to use these roads, and they really paid for the roads, but it's dangerous for them to use them. In some cases on some of our logging roads they're using 16-foot bunks. If you come along with a Honda you'll get cleaned out, for sure. This is where our conflict is. I really don't know the answer. We want the loggers to keep going, naturally — for jobs and so on. I don't think we're very far away from reviewing some policy matters in this area.

[ Page 5719 ]

Marble River Bailey bridge — we tell the people there that we're going to replace the Bailey bridge. It won't fall down, I'm assured by the engineers. They'll really sag, but they won't fall down. I have great faith in Bailey bridges. I always take delight in concerned citizens saying: "The bridge is rotten; it's going to fall down." I always bear in the back of my mind that if that happens — hopefully nobody gets hurt — we can have a Bailey back up again in 24 hours. I've experienced that personally. They're a great innovation in short-term help. They shouldn't be up seven or eight years, but they are. That one is going to be replaced in 1982. Don't hold out too much hope for straightening the road. The priority is on a permanent bridge across the Marble River.

Campbell Avenue, Port McNeill — I visited there with my cabinet colleagues, in January I think it was. The mayor abruptly changed the name of the creek, the stream and the street to Junior Fraser River because I came, and it was pouring rain. We are going to do something about it finally. The Port McNeill community wanted to put that free-flowing water in a pipe down that ditch on Campbell Way. They'll get their pipe to do that in 1981.

Erickson Road, Campbell River — you opened up a big one there, Mr. Member. This is where I'd like to do a little fed-'bashing. The airport at Campbell River is a federally operated airport. I don't know how many miles it is, but I've driven Erickson Road several times to get out to the highway and hit the pot-holes. It's a fair distance — four or five miles, something like that. It's worn out; it's shot. We're at an impasse. I agree with you: I think a fair sharing formula should be one-third, one-third, one-third. I don't think the District of Campbell River disagrees with that. I'm just saying that you're spinning your wheels. It's just hopeless. We'll be at an impasse forever. Ottawa will take the stand that.... I find they cooperate with us provincially on everything as long as it doesn't involve bucks — they think we're great guys. But here we have a case where we're saying that Ottawa should pay a third. I agree, and the district agrees, I'm sure. We could arrive at it and fix this very essential road. It is not in our road system as a province; it's in the district of Campbell River and, of course, it serves a federal airport. I only hope it's resolved. I do resent Ottawa's attitude. I would hazard to guess that the Campbell River airport makes a profit for them. The profit goes back to Ottawa, but nothing comes back out.

We have the same situation in our highway system. Based on last year, our highway system earned about $200 million for the province in gas tax. The provincial taxpayer owns and operates that system. Something that I can’t get the press or anybody to talk about is that Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government put an excise tax on in 1975. The provincial highway system in British Columbia last year earned the federal treasury $175 million. We get nothing of that back. I don't know how good Canadians we have to be, but we're really first-class Canadians — we're Cadillac Canadians — because the revenue comes from this province. This is a small matter, but a big matter in principle. We don't get any of it back, contrary to public belief. Not one red cent comes back from the government of Canada into our highway system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, we get $8 million a year plus a cost-of-living allowance for ferries. But don't forget that you've seen in my estimates that the total subsidy is $63 million. So don't think they're big sugar-daddies by giving us $8 million plus, probably $9 million this year. Not one dime comes back.

We have the reverse going on with the provincial highway system. It's paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, but it's used as a revenue-gathering source for the Liberals in Ottawa. All I've got to assume is that they send it to the poor boys — Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. I don't know. They're not paying any of their debt off with it; it's just getting higher all the time. That's the situation there.

But back to Erickson Road. I think it's ridiculous when we get into these kinds of things. I say to you, Mr. Member, that the nigger in the woodpile is Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, the fellow that's holding the whole thing up is Ottawa — not holding it up, but financially. I don't see why it should be, because it's a federally operated airport.

I haven't got the answer on the Oyster River bridge, Mr. Member. You said that maybe — I have a note here — the piers caused the flooding. This worries me when you say that. The engineers say they will investigate this particular case. In general, we do a complete hydraulic study and maintain channel work as required. So we don't divert streams without permits first of all, and then with great care. I hope that isn't the case, but we'll certainly look into it.

The Quadra ferry. Yes, I'm happy that we got the two ferries. We got the second ferry there with much difficulty, as you know. It seems when B.C. ferries or Highways ferries go into a shipyard, they do their best to dump them on us. I think it was one of these ferries that was tipped over in the shipyard, but they still got the second ferry back. I'm pleased to hear you say that they're operating. I don't know about the point that you make about two at Campbell River overnight, but we'll look into it. Oh, here's your answer: we'll tie one up each night at each side.

The last item you had was the Alert Bay ferry. I've been working on that for some time. That was picked up when we were up in Alert Bay. I'm inclined to agree that we can work something out, but we haven't done it yet. In other words, we could have an earlier ferry in the morning so the people who live there could commute to work. But we have crew problems; we'll have to plan ahead for more crew. It's a little difficult to work out. I think that pretty well covers what you brought up, Mr. Member.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister a couple of specific questions about highways in my constituency. I can appreciate he might not be exactly familiar with them. Perhaps his officials are. First of all, I'm interested in the Mary Hill bypass and the progress on that particular route. Now I notice the contract has been let for the major overpass, for which I congratulate the minister. I'm glad that's been done. I'm wondering whether he's having any delays in completion of the southernmost section. If so, what are the reasons for the delays?

Secondly, there is a problem.... I don't know if it's a problem, but an archaeological dig has been discovered at the bottom of Pitt River Road. I'm wondering if the minister is familiar with that, and whether there's been accommodation between the Highways ministry and Simon Fraser University, who are doing the dig. I want to see if there's been any

[ Page 5720 ]

problem there, and whether it's been resolved. I think the residents of that area are anxious both to preserve the dig and to complete the highway, if that's possible. From what I can see, it is possible, unless there's been an application to declare the site. I understand that perhaps there hasn't been in this case, and there may not need to be.

That was one of the matters I wanted to ask the minister about. The other deals with the proposed highway on the north side of Port Coquitlam, which could have the effect of further dividing the city of Port Coquitlam. The council is most concerned about this. There is debate at the present time about an appropriate crossing of the Coquitlam River. I understand there's been a proposed Lincoln Avenue crossing, which is causing a great deal of concern. Now I'm not sure how far advanced the minister's plans are on the proposed north-side highway — that would be north of the Lougheed Highway. It's running somewhere around David Road. I understand it's going to wind up crossing the Coquitlam River at some point in the Lincoln area. Those are two specific things I wonder if the minister would care to comment on.

If you prefer me to go on while your officials are filling you in, okay. I wanted to comment a bit on the minister's concern — which, I think, is shared throughout this Legislature — about the increasing carnage on the highways and the mystification we all have as to how to find a solution to the continuing disasters occurring every day. I don't think anyone who has had anything to do with this in an intimate way fails to make the alcohol connection as the major contributor to the carnage on the highways. How do we go about educating people to not drive while drinking, and what kind of appropriate penalties are there?

There have been Criminal Code revisions from time to time. I haven't seen an objective study on whether they have made any impact at all in terms of reducing alcoholism, or reducing impaired driving, and frankly I question whether they have. There is another area of the law which doesn't seem to be enforced at all. That's the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, under which it is an offence for hotel establishments serving alcohol to serve those people who are in a state of intoxication or who appear to be in an impaired condition. I very rarely see any charges laid in that area. This is perhaps something which should be examined, because there are numerous examples of people walking out of beer parlours, being practically handed the keys to their car, and then getting out on the highway and causing tremendous injury and loss of life.

Now the police do what they can to control that kind of activity. But it seems to me that there's a responsibility not only on the driver, but also on the industry selling that liquor. One of the industries selling that liquor is the government itself, which takes a large share of every bottle that's sold. The hotel industry and the beverage industry have a responsibility to reduce carnage on the highways. We talk in a motherhood way about the appropriate solutions. It could be that we should have another look at the liquor act and at the penalties and prosecutions available for those who serve liquor to people who are not in a condition to receive it.

I want to ask the minister a couple of questions about the ferry system. One of them deals with the rate structure. It continues to have a weird sort of discriminatory feature in it. In an analysis of your rate structure, if you're using Tsawwassen–Swartz Bay as your base comparison and then allocating your fare structure based upon that route on a per-mile basis, there's still wide discrimination across the province. I think Mr. Gallagher probably dealt with this in the past. I think the figures are available to him. I won't bore him with them all, but we have variations from 25 cents a mile up to 50 cents a mile, depending upon which route you're on. It still doesn't seem to me that we have a rhyme or reason to the basis on the ferry charge.

The other question I want to deal with is the activities of the northern ferry which plies between the Queen Charlotte Islands and Prince Rupert. It's obvious that there is an overcapacity. I'd be the last one to stand up in this place and say that the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands shouldn't be properly served. They should be properly served, but I just the question the minister as to whether that's the appropriate vessel for the service of that area and whether he has any thoughts about finding a vessel that's more appropriate for that particular route. I think everyone here wants to see that the Queen Charlottes are served. There are 6,000 people living on the Queen Charlottes. But whether in fact they need that kind of capacity between Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes is questionable if one looks at that particular vessel, the passenger load on that vessel and the actual cost of providing the service. Previously the service was clearly inadequate, but I'd like the minister to direct his attention to what is the appropriate solution. I don't think the Rupert is the appropriate solution, given the kind of traffic load there is up there. I'm not proposing that we withdraw the Rupert. What I am proposing is that we re-examine that route to finally find an appropriate vessel to try to service the Queen Charlotte Islands.

The last item I wanted to ask the minister about deals with labour relations on the ferry system. I think it's general knowledge that the ferry system hasn't had the best labour relations of our Crown corporations. Proposals have been made from time to time for the appointment of someone to the board representing the labour side of that particular Crown corporation. There have been proposals about using suggestion boxes and involving the employees more in the decision-making, at every level if possible. I'm wondering if the minister would care to comment on the appropriateness of using a little industrial democracy in the ferry system so that there is some worker representation on the board and so that decisions taken are known to a representative of the trade union — so that the decisions taken and the impact on that union are known so we could try to improve some of the labour relations on the ferry system.

HON. MR. FRASER: You mentioned the Mary Hill bypass. The Mary Hill bypass is a new route between the existing Pitt River bridge on the Lougheed Highway and Coquitlam, South to connect the Cape Horn interchange. It will serve traffic from Mission and Haney travelling to Vancouver. It allows them to avoid the urban area of Port Coquitlam. The route is five miles long. It is being constructed in two sections. The first section from Pitt River south to Broadway is 1.4 kilometres long and is constructed to a two-lane standard. It services the adjacent industrial area. It was necessary to widen and increase the clearance of the existing overpass of the CPR mainline near Kingston Street. This work is now almost completed and open to traffic. The amount spent on that was $2.8 million.

The next section of the bypass is 3.1 kilometres long and presents several problems. There are two more grading projects to go. You're correct that we did let the structure

[ Page 5721 ]

contract. I think that was around $5 million. That contractor has hopefully started. I think he's had the contract for a month or so.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, it's underway.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's good.

Regarding the other item you mentioned, we're not familiar with the details. These projects are referred to the Provincial Secretary. Measures are then taken either to protect the deposit or properly move it before construction. The senior people say they're not aware of what you just brought up. We'll look into it, Mr. Member.

You mentioned Coquitlam North arterial. This is not a trunk highway alignment. It is a major municipal street to be built by revenue-sharing or land developers. That's where that fits in. In other words, it's in the street system. Under revenue-sharing they would qualify — or, of course, whatever the municipality can get from the land developer as well.

MR. LEGGATT: So it won't be a controlled-access s highway then, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: No.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased with your observations regarding your concern — as I think we all are in this House — about drinking and driving. As a layperson I understand there is a law in the books that you're not supposed to serve people after they drink too much. Maybe that needs stronger enforcement and tightening up. You may know better, but you're correct. I observe, particularly at pubs in rural areas adjacent to main highways, that they're turned loose about 1:30 in the morning. That's the time of day I don't want to be around in the rural area of any community in the province. I might say that our records show — not directly — that we're having a lot of our fatals, particular in the interior, at that time of day.

The ferry system and ferry rates. I'm not quite sure, philosophy-wise, how to answer the member. I do know that the ferry rates have one standard with them, and that is that they collect roughly 50 percent of the cost of operating the system. I'm given to understand that because of the volume the runs from routes 1 and 2 actually break even in July and August of each year. I don't think you'll find the run from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert ever breaking even, whether it's a busy time or not. So I guess there are some deficiencies there. Overall there's a principle, and I guess we would say that we recover 50 percent of the ferry operations from the fare box. I'd like to make the observation that that's not being done by transit or anybody else.

Dealing with the Queen Charlotte Islands, Mr. Chairman, we're very happy to take that service to the 6,000 people of British Columbia living on the Queen Charlotte Islands that have been denied it for years. As I said this morning, when B.C. Ferries arrived last year we spent $3.5 million building a roll-on roll-off dock at Skidegate. That terminal was determined by the professional people, and we built the dock and took the first boat, Queen of Prince Rupert, in there on November 16, 1980. I made that trip on the inaugural run. Yes, some of the citizens find, from their observations, that we have far too big a boat on the run. I don't think you, Mr. Member, use that as criticism, but it has been used. I would just like to make this observation. I think we thought so too at first, but business is really roaring. The vessel is hauling a lot more passengers from the Queen Charlotte Islands to Prince Rupert than we ever predicted.

I think the one thing we all lose track of — and I certainly would if I weren't directly involved — is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation only has two open-water vessels. They are Queen of the North and Queen of Prince Rupert. They're both excellent vessels, and presently we are crossing from Skidegate on the Queen Charlotte Islands to Prince Rupert twice a week. For the information of the committee, it's 90 miles of the toughest water in the west — the Hecate Strait, We cannot use a vessel that is similar to a bath-tub. It's very difficult, and even with a very substantial vessel like the Queen of Prince Rupert the waves go right over the top when they're plying the Hecate Strait in the winter months. To get service there we have these excellent boats, but we only have two of them and they alternate with each other now. At the rate they're being used I don't think they're going to be adequate before the end of 1981. They're roll-on, roll-off, and the majority of the people of the island are delighted that they can now get away with their families and a car for long week-ends, school sports events and so on, which they never thought of being able to do. Our business is going up, and the tourist season hasn't even started. That's a beautiful part of our province that I highly recommend all our citizens to visit there if they haven't done so. It’s got great sandy beaches. You'd have a really great family holiday there. So basically that's the reason the Queen of the North was used. We have to have a substantial vessel, and those vessels are roll-on, roll-off, which all our vessels are in the B.C. Ferries System.

The last item you mentioned is a labour representative on the board of directors, and that's a good observation you thought of. I think we corrected some of that just this year when we appointed Stuart Hodgson to the chairman's position, because he's a great man for labour and started the IWA in British Columbia, I believe in 1949. I don't think he'd like to be known as a labour expert, but he has a great labour background. Your observations there will certainly be kept in mind as changes go on with boards of directors. They like to move on, and we appreciate that. But I would like to say on behalf of Stuart Hodgson that he certainly has a labour background in this province, and since then he's been around the world doing jobs for the government of Canada and the people of Canada, but he is back home now.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to say the minister gets enough criticism, and before I get into that, I'd like to go over some of the things that his ministry has accomplished in Nelson-Creston. The Taghum Bridge is in operation; the alignment on the south end or the east end of it still leaves something to be desired and is a little bit dangerous. It's a problem, and I hope the ministry will work that out and fix it up a little bit better than it is. But the Taghum Bridge is certainly a great improvement. The Glade ferry is in operation. Your ministry has renovated and thoroughly rebuilt the old West Creston ferry; they moved it up Kootenay Lake and then down, took it out of the water at Taghum and took it down to Glade and relaunched it and refitted it. It's a very much appreciated improvement in the ferry service at Glade.

Also, of course, the whole Salmo-to-Nelway highway has been completed, the major portion of it being part of Highway 3, and also the bit down to Nelway. I would suggest to the minister, or to the minister's staff, who are being very attentive today, that they might just talk to their counterparts in Washington state and ask them to bring up the Washington state road south from Nelway to a comparable standard, since

[ Page 5722 ]

we've done our bit. I know that with some of their budget cuts down there.... I know that they've axed the West Seattle Bridge, which has been in trouble for 11 years since it was run into, like our Second Narrows Bridge, by a freighter. I don't know if it's a good time right now, but I would hope that they might do that.

I might also say in passing that somebody said: "You opposed something." I certainly didn't oppose that. What I did oppose was the alignment of the highway through Salmo. I wish the cutoff had been further south. For one person who used to be a friend of mine — a very nice person who happens to have a tourist facility, a very fine restaurant and a very nice motel — the road is maybe a kilometre longer than it need be, and it has very much inconvenienced several residents of Salmo. But the highway is superb.

I should say that I hope this year — and it appears to be the case — the ministry is keeping a very careful eye toward controlling potential flash-flood situations. Even last year in one of the areas out of Salmo — I sent memos to the minister — there was damage which, to my mind, was due to the fact that a creek was diverted and carried along parallel to the highway for several hundred feet, across several lots and then through a culvert. There is a twin culvert under the highway, and one of these culverts was still full of gravel when I reexamined it almost a year later in early spring, although I've seen the ministry out and doing some work in some of those roadside ditches. Maybe it was cleared up this year. I hope it is cleared up before we get into what could happen any day now in terms of reaching that peak flash-flood. As soon as the weather warms up and maybe we get a little bit of rain, there could be real problems. I think a lot of those can be avoided. Some of the things that happened last year could have been avoided. I think that some measures have been taken to avoid a repeat of what happened last year. I certainly hope so.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister three questions: firstly, I would like to know if there will be a start on the Cape Horn bluffs, which is a very long lead-time problem, because it's going to require a major shutdown. I would like to know if that is going ahead this year, or at least if we're going to start some of the things that we would have to do this fall and get on with those things — for instance, hearings with the local communities and setting up all the arrangements which will have to be made in anticipation of a closure.

I would also like to say that I think another priority very shortly down the road is improvement of the Coffee Creek bluffs between Kaslo and Balfour. I know that several years ago a person who was inebriated was asked to step out of his car. He stepped out, and he stepped off the highway and down he went. It is very precipitous area; it's very narrow and subject to slides. We need not say that obviously if it were an easy area to build in, it probably would have been done years ago. The rock structure is very steep and fractured in a very difficult manner. But I would suggest that that should be a very early priority — if not this year, maybe the year following.

I understand that a report and the design was done on the black bridge in Creston over a year ago. That is always a worry because every time there is a fatality, it makes us think that maybe it could have been prevented. Some fatalities are caused by driving, by alcohol and by the many things that the minister outlined his concern about. Sometimes we have to look at the combining effects being just the physical nature of the highway. That area is one that does continue to cause concern. There certainly have been lots of little collisions and things on it, and in the past there have been fatalities.

I guess that's the shopping list for this year. The Cape Horn bluffs and the black bridge, I guess, are the things that I would have the highest expectations about. A lot of other work is being done. I might say that I support and have always supported the manner in which the Nelson-Balfour road is being upgraded. I think the ministry has done a great deal, section by section, bit by bit, in a very difficult area. It's like trying to improve Marine Drive from West Vancouver to Horseshoe Bay to a highway standard: we know that because of the traffic volume there, the ministry many years ago decided to build the Upper Levels Highway. I don't suppose that our traffic warrants an Upper Levels highway, although I hope someday parts of the road will be looped, but there are certain dangerous sections. I see the ministry taking the opportunity, whenever it arises, to acquire land because of a subdivision, straighten out a comer, fill a little bit into the lake and so on, so that improvements are made.

I would request that the ministry be urged to put a paved shoulder at least on one side, if not both. Try to build some paved shoulder, preferably on both sides, if possible, so we can get some of the younger cyclists and pedestrians onto a little safer area. There are the narrow, tight turns and various things. Those roads are used to a great extent as pedestrian ways, and people jog on them and go for recreational walks. There is really no other pedestrian circulation pattern other than along the highway for a good portion of that particular road. It would be very much appreciated if while you make improvements, as you're presently doing, you were able to do that.

Also, I would like to ask the minister to confirm to me an understanding which I had from him a few years ago. I raised the problem of spraying along rights-of-way in the Crawford Bay area, where concern was being shown. It was my understanding that the minister said that where there are local objectors the ministry will not spray. Mr. Minister, your regional office has made application to spray almost all of Highway 3. Part has been cancelled, but I think some spraying is going on right now in Grand Forks, for instance. Then there's an application between Paulson Bridge and Castlegar and between Castlegar and the Meadows junction. I think that the bit between Paulson Bridge and Castlegar has been cancelled, although it's still part of an application. Last Saturday the regional district of Central Kootenay passed a resolution objecting to the portion between Castlegar and the Meadows junction. Hearings are to take place in early June. I think that they would be appearing there as objectors. I suppose, if I can arrange my schedule, I would be too. I know that the minister has cooperated in terms of complying with local wishes. I think in the Fauquier area, even this year, there has been some change. I know that part of this is for knapweed control. I would certainly hope, though, that the minister could.... Another one of the applications goes from Meadows up through Salmo, down to the Nelway junction, and then, I suppose, along portions of the skyway. Over in the Creston flats it goes on to Goatfell and through Creston, Kitchener and Yahk.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm concerned for two reasons. One reason is the pesticides being applied for. One of them is Tordon 22K and the other is Primatol-atrazine. I don't know specifically about

[ Page 5723 ]

Primatol one way or another, but I understand that Tordon 22K is one of the chemicals which the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States found had been supported by falsified scientific data. This information has recently come to light. I know that the regional district of Central Kootenay is opposed to the use of these herbicides, at any rate. I would think that if any spraying has to be done, it might be over in the Creston area. Trying to control knapweed, I think, is like trying to control the spruce budworm. The thing is out of control, and I think that in the real agricultural areas of the Creston flats, the people who live there and own land would certainly want to see the program carried out. But there will be real objection if this is applied in the very marginal areas. I would have to be an objector myself if I could clear my schedule to attend those hearings, because Tordon 22K is not safe, as I understand it; studies which have supported it in the past — and this is admitted by the EPA of the United States — have been based upon falsified information.

How can you keep up with these new chemicals? There's always something new coming up, and it's a very difficult area. There will be a great deal of objection. As I recall the minister's statement in connection with Crawford Bay several years ago, he said that where there is local objection, there will be no spraying. So I'm asking the minister — besides the Cape Horn bluffs, Coffee Creek and black bridge — whether he will comply with the request of the regional district of Central Kootenay.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to reply to the member's good questions. First of all, yes, there was a flood in Salmo, on Boxing Day, 1980, caused by a quick change of weather conditions. I'm not so sure how it's all been cleared up, but I appreciate your taking it up with me. Other people have as well. I guess to some degree it was an act of God, as a lot of floods are. But on the other side of the ledger, of course, somebody has to do something about it to correct it. Hopefully that has happened. I think something is presently being done.

Dealing with an item that's of great interest in many parts of the province, this member has brought up the spraying of our roadsides. Years ago that was of no concern, but now it is a concern because citizens are more informed about these things. I think you mentioned they come out with new chemicals all the time, and it's hard even for the professionals to keep up. But on a broad-brush basis, our ministry must apply to the pesticide control people and get a permit. That's a public process. The citizens have the opportunity, whether it be the regional district or individual citizens, to respond. It's my information that in your area — what we call region 3 of Highways — there have been objectors. In most cases I think we have withdrawn and we're not going to spray. That is more or less the score there. As far as the province is concerned — and I think you mentioned it too — knapweed is a real problem agricultural-wise. We want to go ahead with that, but of course that's in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture. We've put our act together government-wise — Agriculture and ourselves and Environment. This is a big problem. In particular, the Grand Forks area looks horrendous when the knapweed is in full blow. That's something we in Highways want to do something about right away. There is now quite a procedure; there is no indiscriminate spraying anywhere in the province because they have to have permits.

Dealing with the Black Bridge, I feel badly about it. I know about the Black Bridge. We've got to go in and build it. It's not in the program this year. I'm sure it will be prioritized in 1982. We have another problem there: as I understand it, we've got to get ready for building the Black Bridge on the same site as the old one. We're going to have some difficulty in putting a temporary structure across — again, dealing with fishery people. Hopefully we can have that corrected. Our program now is to do it in 1982. But we have to put in a temporary crossing, take the old one out hard build the new one in its place. A modern, decent bridge is laid on for that location.

There will be no start on the Cape Horn bluffs in 1981. I think the engineering design is about ready to go, but it is not in our program. Mr. Chairman, you can tell the people up there that they're not going to be interfered with by us with this major project. I'm sure it will go in 1982. We can give them plenty of warning of road closure and so on. It affects so many people. That is a real complex project. It affects sawmilling, tourism and the local citizens. I've been there and I know how serious it is. We want it out of there, but that project won't get going until 1982.

I'm happy that the Taghum Bridge was built and is in place. I guess if there are some small things to do, they will be done. You mentioned paved shoulders, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I should just say what the policy is. When we're building or rebuilding a main trunk two-lane road the policy now throughout the province is to have six-foot shoulders. I believe the road you're referring to doesn't fall in the category of a main trunk highway. Highway 3 and so on would do. That is the policy, and it hasn't been the policy....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, if it fits into a main trunk, it will qualify and we'll go the six feet. We've been doing that for about two years. It's gradually showing up. I know the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) are always interested in the cyclists and pedestrians. That's a good place for them. That's the policy that's outside municipalities. That's the policy we have there. I think that covers most of the items you were concerned with, Mr. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd just like to say, with respect to that request for paving shoulders, if you look at traffic counts it would probably be a lot greater than some sections of Highway 3. It's a very heavily travelled thing. It's sort of like the West Vancouver Marine Drive used to be before the upper levels — and it looks like it. It's very scenic and very lovely, but it has a lot of problems and a lot of traffic. It certainly is not in a city, town or village.

The minister said that where they get considerable opposition, they have withdrawn. I think that was the case up in Fauquier, which was applied for a little earlier. Is that more or less policy, then? Maybe the minister hasn't received the objection yet; maybe it hasn't crossed his desk. I certainly haven't seen a copy of the regional district's recent objection. Does the minister suggest that if there's considerable objection they will withdraw from certain areas without the need to have to go to a hearing? If they're going to go to a hearing, they have to take some kind of scientific information and go through a rigmarole. In fact, people really feel very strongly about it. We just had a recent incident over in Penticton. All

[ Page 5724 ]

of these emotional things too are very important, as much as researching the various papers on Tordon. There are some very good papers pro and con Tordon 22K. As far as I'm concerned, there are some very compelling arguments against its use. Would the minister say that when the elected representatives of the regional district of central Kootenay are expressing their wish on behalf of the people of that area, is it necessary that John Q. Public — and many of them have contacted me — take time off of work and go to that hearing before the minister would withdraw from the area?

HON. MR. FRASER: I have some more detail here for the member on noxious weed control. I believe it applies in your general area. The information I have here is that 33 permits were issued for the 1981 season allowing the application of 2,700 pounds of Tordon 22K on 2,766 acres of highway right-of-way. This work is to control most of the Canadian thistle and knapweed. To date we have received notification that five noxious weed control permits have been appealed under the Pesticide Control Act. In vegetation control on highway shoulders, 14 permits have been received to date for the application of 3, 826 pounds of Primatol on 410 acres of road shoulder. This is in Region 3. Some formal complaints and two appeals were lodged against this region's shoulder sterilization program in 1980. The work under appeal was subsequently cancelled, and the appeals were subsequently dropped by the Ministry of Environment and appellants. We have been notified of one appeal to date against one shoulder-sterilization permit. It is the intention of the highway region not to cancel work this year, but to go ahead with the appeal hearings.

So I think that explains the situation, but I don't know whether it answers your question, Mr. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the regional engineer has perhaps decided to go ahead with it, to go the full appeal route and damn the torpedoes. But you and I are the politicians who have a responsibility to the people, and not just to departments and what departments might feel is in the best interest of their particular technical end of things. We could almost have a mini-debate, with the Ministry of Environment in here talking about carcinogens and the various studies which have been done at the various universities and so on. There is also the fact that some of the studies that are used to back up the use of Tordon have been based on what the EPA now finds to have been falsified scientific data. These are the things which will have to come out if it does go to an appeal. But as politicians, do we not have a responsibility to cancel this here and now? You can make that decision. You can tell the regional engineer that the decision is made. If the regional district is objecting, then we're not going to spray in that area. I can see spraying maybe in the Creston flats, where it's a very high-grade agricultural area. But where we're going through marginal land and then we're separated from the Creston flats by the Salmo-Creston highway and we're at an altitude of 6,000 feet in a pass, I can't see that the agricultural values in Salmo call for this kind of alarm. Are there no others ways of controlling it?

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know if I can answer the member's question. Yes, I guess the buck stops here, as Harry Truman said. The minister can do that, but if we cancel we still have this bad weed expanding in the province. I think we have some responsibility there. Even if the regional district, in their good judgment, said, "We don't want this to happen," then I guess the provincial government would say: "We have a provincial problem spreading here. It's not just regional." I know the knapweed is spreading from the Kootenays into the Okanagan. Now it's gone into the Cariboo and the Peace River in a smaller degree. I think we have a responsibility to say that we're sorry, but we're never going to eradicate or control this. Therefore we're going ahead. Again, these permits are issued and there is an appeal procedure to that as well.

MR. HANSON: I just have a couple of points to make to the minister regarding B.C. Ferries. First of all, I would like to say that we are very pleased to hear that the Victoria and the Vancouver will be coming online shortly.

I have a suggestion for the minister's consideration. I request that he take it under advisement because I believe it to be sound. As the minister is probably aware, when the shipyards gear up for a refit there are additional start-up costs in recruitment and so on. As time goes by there are also increased costs in material and labour in terms of the refit. In general, the shipyard industry — in recent times at least in Canada and particularly in Vancouver and Victoria shipyards — has been feast or famine. My suggestion, which I would like the minister to seriously consider, is that the tenders be let as soon as possible on the Saanich and the Esquimalt to offer some stability in the yards — both here in Victoria and in Vancouver — to offset the additional start-up costs and the disruption in the labour force which happens when they do wind down and lay off, and then have to gear up, recruit and start up again. I think that the steel costs and labour costs that will increase over time as that delay takes place, or the interim takes place, could be avoided in large part if the tenders could be put as soon as possible. I would like the minister to take that under consideration and perhaps give us some of his observations at this time.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the observations of the second member for Victoria. You're quite right: it's feast or famine.

You reminded me of something I want to say: the shipyards at Vancouver, North Vancouver and Victoria have done an excellent job for us. I want to tell you that we really used them and twisted them for schedules. They have more customers than the B.C. Ferry Corporation or, in the case of the Marguerite, the B.C. Steamship Company. We got no end of cooperation. I believe about 30 percent of their work is for B.C. Ferry Corporation. I want to congratulate the workers in the yards on tight schedules and so on. They met them all with excellent workmanship. We should be proud of the shipbuilding industry we have on the west coast. They're really busy. They don't have to jump around for us, as they've got a world of work to do, but they sure give us all the preference in the world, and it's greatly appreciated. Double shifting and so on — that's why we have this extra capacity to go in the water. The first big one is starting next week on May 27.

I haven't had the opportunity to ask Mr. Gallagher.... The next ones to jumbo are the Saanich and the Esquimalt. I'm not sure whether we're doing one or two of them for the 1982 season, but it has been discussed by the board of directors when I was there. I agree with you: we should make that decision and get those boats in the yard this fall, instead of waiting till February next year. I appreciate that observa-

[ Page 5725 ]

tion and so does the board of directors. I think there's a meeting next week, and it will be on the agenda. I completely agree with you, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: 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. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raised as a matter of privilege the content of a broadcast, described as a newscast, allegedly containing statements which offered indignities to the House by reflecting on its character or proceedings. The hon. member referred to the provision of the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May at page 117 in support of his complaint. It is interesting to note that the reference quoted is based on a resolution of the British House of Commons passed in the year 1701 and relates to constructive contempts arising from speeches or writings reflected on the House.

The same edition of Sir Erskine May, pages 135 and 142, also states that when such a complaint is founded upon something published in a letter, book or newspaper, the document or writing must be produced in the House and the pages complained of read for the information of the House. In the present instance no transcript of the words complained of was presented to the House by the hon. member, who founded his complaint solely on the allegation: "In the newscast the Premier was reported to have said...." In the face of this deficiency the Chair cannot see how the House could further proceed in the matter, and, consequentially, it is unnecessary to consider any other aspect of the matter including the possible irregularity of the motion itself proposed to be moved by the hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.