[ Page 8451 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office (continued) –– 8451

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Davis

Mr. King

Waste Management Act (Bill 52). Report. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

Third reading –– 8465

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Report. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 8465

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office (continued) –– 8465

Mr. Ree

Royal Assent to bills –– 8466

FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this morning is a very nice lady, a 20-year resident of the Kispiox Valley in the constituency of Skeena who operates a steelhead camp in that very beautiful valley. I'd like the House to make Mrs. Olga Walker very welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today and in the city for the last several days, is a group of young seamen from the Japanese merchant training vessel, the Seiun Mara. I would like the House to welcome our Japanese friends here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, Wednesday last the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) rose on a question of privilege involving statements made outside the House by another hon. member, which had allegedly been reported in a local newspaper. The minister did not table a copy of the article in the House, and, on the authority of a previous ruling in this House to be found in the Journals of 1974 at page 23, it is necessary that the article be tabled with the member's submission. Although the minister did not table the article, I note that it was tabled by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who also indicated that it was an accurate report of his remarks.

On a second ground, however, the minister's application fails. In matters of privilege, it is necessary that the member, when raising the matter, present to the Chair a copy of the motion that he proposes to move. I refer you to British Columbia Journals, 1973, page 196.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $228,769.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we got started on the discussion of this ministry yesterday, and I'd like to reply to some of the questions asked by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). We pretty well looked after the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). The first item I'd like to address is the controversy over the airports proposed on the mid-coast. I would like to respond to several observations and comments that the member for Mackenzie made yesterday regarding my ministry's air transport assistance program, and particularly the program involvement in his riding of Mackenzie at Denny Island in the Bella Coola area. I am somewhat surprised at this member's sudden interest in this project, as we had not heard him speak out so loudly against this program prior to the moneys being allocated to construction of a road to an already existing public airport. I'm sure the member would not play politics with this issue, but he does enjoy holding up newspaper articles to make certain points.

I draw his attention to the letter which appeared in this morning's issue of the Vancouver Province. Mr. Chairman, this letter is from the B.C. Aviation Council, an organization that for many years in this province has been the well-respected voice of the aviation community in advising on all aspects of the development of air transportation. I'd like to comment that we always consult them, rightly or wrongly, on all projects. We feel they are a representative provincial voice. I'd like to read the letter into the record, as I believe it most important that a non-partisan light be given to this issue as the member opposite seems set on making this a political issue now that he is assured the mid-coast will have an airport. I refer to this morning's Province article. "Bella Bella Airport Not for Big Business" is the caption of the letter. It's written by Ron Heath, the executive officer of the B.C. Aviation Council.

"In his June 16 Province article, 'Airport Aid Riles Indians,' Tony Wanless either didn't do his homework, or preferred to accept biased, unsupported claims regarding the public airport at Bella Bella.

"Having been involved with the requirement to establish a safe haven for aviation up the coast at a site which could also provide wide public benefit, and having been approached by the Indian band's representatives several years ago, I would like to set the record straight.

"The dispute over the airport hasn't been 'dragging on for almost ten years'; the Indian band approached my office five to six years ago asking for support of 'any' site which could confer air service to their area. Even after I told their representatives that our studies pointed to the Denny Island site as offering the best operational facility to the whole area, their response to me was positive — a good local airport was better that nothing.

"Unfortunately, subsequent encouragement by several federal ministries added to the Campbell Island expectation for funds for their own airport as well, to which was then added local provincial partisan politics.

"The public-use airport at Denny Island has been constructed solely by private capital at a cost to members of the Denny Island Airport Society of several hundreds of thousands of dollars to date. This existing airport at Bella Bella has had a 'public-airport' licence, issued by Transport Canada, for the last two years.

"The Denny Island land site is now co-located with the old RCAF Shearwater facility, still used by amphibious aircraft, connecting Bella Bella to major centres, so the Indians don't 'now pay $5 for a water taxi' — they always have had to cross the water to the air facility.

"Further, as Denny Island will be able to accommodate aircraft at night and in poor weather, the air services for the Indian band will be much better than heretofore. Rather than having another government department construct yet another airport on Campbell Island at taxpayers' expense, our recommendation was to locate a multipurpose, all-weather helicopter in the area to complement the existing Denny Island capability. The Indians, apparently, still opt for another multimillion-dollar airport instead.

[ Page 8452 ]

"Transport Canada, responsible for aviation matters, has not endorsed an airstrip on Campbell Island in lieu of the existing licensed airport at Denny Island. "The airport runway at Denny Island is not 4,000 feet, as stated in your article, but 1,500 feet — an error in reporting which is dangerously misleading to some of your readers.

"Finally, the provincial support being provided is to improve the road access between the marine facility noted above and the public airport, not for the airport itself. There is no doubt that more money will be required to capitalize on the potential at the Denny Island site.

"In summary, the gist of your article on the Bella Bella airport was that the provincial air transport assistance program was being used to fund 'big business' instead of the citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Further, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what report or study the member for Mackenzie was referring to as being conducted in 1968, as I am told the only real study took place in 1977. I am also informed that this study did not take into consideration the importance of serving all the residents of the mid-coast. I would suggest the member opposite is refusing to do that as well.

The debate over the location of an airstrip in the Bella Bella area has gone on for many years, and I blame the federal government for the controversy. It is that government's responsibility to license airstrip locations, and they refused to settle the location battle. The end result was that no airport was ever developed. I attempted over several years to have the federal government make that decision, and stated publicly that I would work to have the airport assistance program participate at whatever site the federal government recommended. That recommendation never came, and the people involved in the Denny Island Airport Society got tired of waiting for the government to do anything, and I can't blame them. Finally, in frustration, they went ahead without any assurances of government involvement of any level and built an airstrip. That airstrip was built as a public airstrip with good old private-sector know how. The important point, Mr. Chairman, is that it was built and licensed by the federal government, and the first plane had landed on it prior to any application being received by the Campbell Island Indian band. The public has not spent one cent on this public airport development, and the mid-coast finally had an airport. The band's application for $4.7 million was not received until after the airport was built as a public strip and licensed by the federal government and the first aircraft had landed. I'm pleased to report to you today that a scheduled air service is now operating into the Denny Island airstrip on a daily basis, and that is what the air transport assistance program is all about.

The member for Mackenzie stated that he thought the members of the Denny Island airport had a lot to gain through the involvement of building an airstrip. But I would say that all his constituents up and down the coast have a lot to gain, and he should remember that. Also, out of courtesy, I sent to the member a copy of the agreement signed between my ministry and the Denny Island Airport Society. It specifically states: "No funds can be utilized towards the past expense of building the airport." It also states: "These funds, up to a maximum of $350,000, can only be spent on — the airport access road." Mr. Chairman, my ministry builds roads to public facilities all over this province completely at the taxpayers expense. This airport is a public facility being utilized by residents of both islands, and we have offered to participate in the building of a public road. That member is complaining about this. I know the member has trouble understanding private initiative, and that is why he is on that side of the House. I can only say that we now have a public airstrip that can be used in the development of the mid-coast emergency services, search and rescue, etc., and the taxpayers of B.C. have offered $350,000.

You will recall that the band council's application was originally for $4.7 million, which would take up an entire year's budget for this program. I'm pleased that we have finally gone ahead with some transportation development at Bella Bella, even though the most politically acceptable action would have been no action, which that member is now taking advantage of. But we now have an airport that is accessible by the floatplane base that serves the entire coast. I should also mention that the great B.C. Ferry system provides regular service to Campbell Island; therefore the area is being well serviced. I should also mention that recent tragedies on the mid-coast involving aircraft prompted us to move on this development.

I have on file many letters supporting the development of aviation fuel depots on Denny Island to serve the mid-coast, including a letter from the Central Native Fisherman's Cooperative, which operates a cannery on Denny Island. This fuel depot will provide a greatly needed service and will add greatly to the safety of the area's aviation service.

In conclusion, I would state that we have many letters of support for this development, including a letter from the Central Coast Regional District that urges development of an airport on either site. For years everyone has been sitting on the fence on this issue, to the detriment of the people of the mid-coast and the aviation community of this province. This fence-sitting has not only added to the dangers of flying on the mid-coast of B.C., but it has also kept services from the residents. We have decided to participate in the development in a small way, and I believe that the decision will prove to be absolutely correct. The member asked for a public inquiry. As a member of this government, I certainly won't recommend that type of nonsense. I'm sure the government will not see to that request. I can't understand this member. Whenever we want to improve transportation on the Pacific coast, he objects to it. He was violently opposed to the extension of the ferry service from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands, where they had never had any ferry service.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not true.

HON. MR. FRASER: You rattled a lot of sabres and said the way we did it was all wrong, but that's all history now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You wasted $22 million of the taxpayers' money.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think you'll find out what the Queen Charlotte Islands think about it soon. Even the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was against that. He'll have to account for that very shortly as well. They've had service there since November 1980.

I'd like to say one other thing regarding the article appearing in the Times-Colonist that I referred to before. They're so parochial that I really don't pay any attention. They don't

[ Page 8453 ]

even know where Denny Island or Campbell Island are. I really don't think they care, according to what they wrote. I didn't want to miss that. Mr. Heath answered them better than I could.

A few other remarks were made by that member, but that was the main one.

There were a few other questions asked, though, and I want to reply to them. Yes, we are building the Annacis Island bridge. We'll have vehicles crossing it, hopefully, in 1985, and not later than 1986. Dealing with this year and the Annacis Island vote that you asked about that you couldn't find, it is in the capital section of the highway budget for the Annacis Island project to proceed. I believe the amount is $30 million.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What vote number, Alex?

HON. MR. FRASER: I haven't got it handy, but it's under the capital vote; it's spelled out as capital. The capital total in the vote is $149,419,383.

You also asked about northeast coal. Yes, our ministry is heavily involved in northeast coal. In the year 1981-82, $5 million was expended. It is anticipated to spend $42 million in 1982-83. All the contracts are awarded, and the contractors are at work. We expect to spend a further $45 million in 1983-84 on the road from Chetwynd to Tumbler Ridge; when the project is completed, by freeze-up 1983 — at least a lot of it will be done — the total expenditure is expected to be $92 million.

You mentioned subdivision approvals. We deal with hundreds and thousands of them. With regard to Gibsons and the Sunshine Coast area, which you referred to, we certainly have our problems there; we are on top of them, though, but they are still probably taking too long.

By the way, I've been given a note: the vote number for highway capital is vote 78.

Regarding delays in subdivision approvals on the Sunshine Coast, there are a lot of problems there; far too many politicians are involved. I'm referring to the local politicians. The Regional District of Sunshine Coast is one of our problems; they can't make up their minds to start with, and that puts a delay on it. I'm not saying there's delay on our part. We are aware of it and have been for some time. We are trying to expedite it. If you have any individual ones, give them to us, and I'm sure the senior people will see what they can do to expedite it. They mightn't approve it; they might say no. They are certainly entitled to an answer.

You mentioned the Coquihalla. We are building the Coquihalla, but it is going to be slower than we expected. Contractors are now working on one section of the Coquihalla, but there were not enough funds to call for a further contract or two, which we would have liked to have done in this fiscal year 1982-83. Consequently the new road from Hope to Merritt.... It will finally be Hope to Merritt and then on to Kamloops, but it will be delayed somewhat. There is still work going on there.

I think that pretty well covers the queries from the member for Mackenzie yesterday.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister seems very defensive this morning. It looks like we have hit a sore spot in terms of the outlay of $350,000 to a few private developers who don't live in the area and who stand to make a profit from sheer discrimination against the 1,200 native Indians.

The minister did not fully inform this House. The fact is that I have correspondence dating back to 1972 — the first year I was elected — that deals specifically with this topic of airport location; a lot of it with the federal government. The minister should certainly look back through his files on that matter. He says I've suddenly become interested. I have correspondence in my files — and the minister can look at it — dating back to 1972, urging the federal and provincial governments to take some action — at least the proper type of hearings. That never happened, in spite of the fact that the federal government committed $250,000 for that airport location on Campbell Island, contingent upon approval of that same airport site, with a grant of $100,000 from the First Citizens Fund.... It was arbitrarily blocked by this government.

The minister implies that I'm knocking and belittling private initiative and development; that's sheer, utter nonsense.

MR. SEGARTY: A typical socialist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just open your ears and listen for a minute, because you might learn something; I doubt it, but you might. The fact is that in my riding and throughout this province private initiative has been responsible for the development of many projects, including the road into Bella Coola, which your government refused to participate in until they put the road in themselves. The construction of many other facilities, certainly in my riding, by private initiative.... I'm not mocking that.

HON. MR. FRASER: When they built the road to Bella Coola you didn't even know where Bella Coola was.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's beside the point, and I was there probably before you. As a matter of fact, since I've been elected that road has been improved by 3,000 percent, so don't give me that garbage.

HON. MR. FRASER: By this government.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Order! Let's have some order here. I'm making a very important point on behalf of all of the native Indian people of this province in terms of that airport location, and I'm charging once again in this House that we should have an inquiry into that whole matter, because I think the possibility exists of direct collusion between a few friends of the government and the minister to make a few people wealthy at the expense, once again, of the native Indian people of this province. I don't think the people of this province should stand for that kind of action by this government, who have a proven track record of dirty tricks, sleaze, spending public money for their own personal pleasure. That's the kind of government we've got over there, so don't give me that crap, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let's have some names. Talk about sly and dirty....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've got some words for you too. Where is that $350,000 loan authorization that's been sitting on your desk while those people on theSunshine Coast are without water, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs? Sign that loan authorization and get on with it. Do your job!

[ Page 8454 ]

I have a few other questions for the minister, dealing with highways. I have been asked by the people of Prince George to ask the minister — I expect the members for Prince George will not get up under these estimates — a couple of questions relating to highway problems in that area: primarily whether the minister would tell us what is taking place in terms of the Foothills crossing, the design work. I don't know the exact location of this; I haven't personally seen this particular problem. But perhaps the minister would be good enough to answer that question for the people in that area and for the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) over there and the other member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), who is not in the House at the moment — he's probably in Prince George.

There is some concern about the Highway 97 and 5th Avenue interchange. How is that proceeding? What's happening? Are you meeting with anybody up there on this particular project?

Those seem to be the two. They're requesting, I take it, extra lanes on Highway 97 from the BCR to the existing truck lane. So perhaps the minister or his staff could answer those questions for those people there.

While I'm on highways, you did announce an upgrading of the Squamish highway. We're all aware of the difficulties on that highway over the years, particularly last year when we had some real tragedies there. I know you have a political problem on your hands as to selecting alternate routes, as suggested by people living in Squamish, various groups and subcommittees — the subcommittee of the regional district, which has members from a lot of other community groups, such as the chamber of commerce. I won't go through all the questions they've asked me to pose to you here; there are literally four pages of them.

I know that the minister has made an announcement recently about upgrading that particular highway and making it safer, but the reality is that over a ten-year period the current highway, even with some upgrading, will not be capable of carrying the anticipated traffic. I hope the minister and the ministry are looking down the road to a permanent solution to that particular problem, particularly if it is someday going to be a major link from the lower mainland to the interior of the province and to eastern points.

At this time, Mr. Minister, I'd like to shift over very briefly to the water transportation side of your portfolio. I must say that in the last while I, and in fact all the members over here, certainly have received quite a bit of fairly good cooperation. We don't get what we want, because everybody wants four to six more boats in their riding, if they depend upon water transportation. We know those kinds of things simply won't happen in this time of restraint. For example, with the reduction of about 25.1 percent in the government subsidy to B.C. Ferry Corporation, we know very well that the corporation does have financial constraints placed upon it. I'm aware that overall capacity has increased, etc. But the fact is that we still have severe overloads from time to time. I know that the new schedule for the two major routes went into effect just yesterday, but I suppose there will be overloads this summer, if people have any money left to travel after the taxes that this government has imposed on them. It's anticipated. I don't know if the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is correct or not, but certainly her ministry does believe that because of the value of the Canadian dollar the United States residents will be coming to Canada to take advantage of the exchange rate. They do have an economic depression there as well and so people from that country are not liable to travel as far as they did in the past. As a matter of fact, British Columbians themselves will be travelling closer to home. So what I'm leading up to is that we can expect pretty heavy volumes this coming summer, at least on the three major routes. We don't know that yet. As a matter of fact, it's my information that to date overall traffic volumes are down slightly from last year.

But there is improvement for the system and I'm going to put forward a couple of things that I would like the Ferry Corporation and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to consider. You know, Mr. Chairman, the rational economic development on the coast of British Columbia depends almost entirely upon our water transportation systems. I don't want to go back into history and the long harangue that we had when Northland was about to fold because the federal and provincial governments would not come up with a $4.5 million subsidy. Northland provided a vital service to this coast. There were many, many routes at that time without any water transportation whatsoever. There are still communities without water transportation of any kind. Northland provided a lift-on, lift-off freight and passenger service. People complained about it from time to time at that time, but most people in these communities are now very much aware of the good service Northland actually did provide. Never mind. All that happened. Northland pulled out.

As a result of all that faux pas, that miscalculation in judgment, it cost the federal and provincial governments literally millions and millions of dollars. In spite of that, the federal member up at Prince Rupert at the time lost her seat on that issue in the next federal election, because they came up with too little too late. The provincial government was then placed in a position of having to provide services to those people in some of those communities, particularly Ocean Falls, Bella Coola, Port Hardy, Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands. Contrary to what the minister said, we did not oppose that service. We never opposed that service; we opposed the method and we opposed the millions that could have been saved had that paltry little subsidy for Northland been kept, even by the provincial government. We've never opposed upgrading transportation services to anybody in British Columbia.

I'm saying that we're going to have severe problems in the future in terms of capacity. New routes are being considered, and I wonder if the minister would care to report — not on what came out in the press release in terms of the third crossing.... I would hope that the minister would soon release the total study relating to the third crossing. I agreed with the government at the time when I commented on the press release, because the Ferry Corporation people were good enough to show me figures, the volumes and even the financial figures, which I was asked to keep in confidence, and I have and I will until the annual report comes out. Based on that information, I want to tell you that I agree with the corporation's decision not to proceed with the third crossing at this time. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't, because of the subsidy cutback. Certainly there's a great deal of controversy, I think, in your riding, Mr. Chairman, as to the location of the terminals on the mainland side and the Vancouver Island side and all of these things.

You might consider, though — and I have discussed this at some time with people within the corporation.... I

[ Page 8455 ]

know that when we become the government, we will seriously consider some of these proposals which I'm about to put forward to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll be mighty old and grey by that time, Don.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I might have a pension by then.

Departure Bay, which is probably the busiest terminal, has the biggest buildup and waits of up to six hours occasionally, particularly during the holiday weekends. We need to alleviate the pressure there. We have a terminal at Little River, Comox, and there's no reason why the traffic coming from North Island, Courtenay, perhaps from as far south as Parksville, couldn't be channelled through Little River, thereby alleviating the pressure at Departure Bay. We could possibly have a direct sailing to Horseshoe Bay, or, if that's too congested, I know, because I've discussed it with people in the CPR, that docking facilities are available in downtown Vancouver.

The same might be applied on a direct sailing from Powell River to Horseshoe Bay, or to the lower mainland. Leave the present scheduling on for the people on theSun shine Coast and Powell River, where we have to maintain the crossing on Route 7 across Jervis Inlet. A direct sailing, utilizing a vessel of the Tsawwassen class, would be three hours and fifteen minutes each way; a seven-hour return sailing, two sailings daily each way for commercial. It would be faster for the 28,000 or 30,000 residents living in the Powell River area. There are two crossings now, and in the summertime there is usually a one or two sailing wait at Langdale. It's always congested, because aside from the local residents in theSunshine Coast area, there are some 6,000 residents who have summer homes there. As well there are more and more commuters on that sailing every year. What can be at times a ten-hour drive from Powell River to Vancouver — it's a 90-mile drive with two crossings — could become a four-hour sailing. It's something to consider. And in the process, it would alleviate the congestion at Langdale. We should be looking at alternate and other routes.

I don't know if the minister is aware of this, but the reason I've been given in the past, particularly by the corporation, when I've discussed new routes of this nature where terminals exist is that they are not in the business of cruise ship sailing; they go from point A to point B. However, we now have two vessels plying the coast in the wintertime, from the lower mainland to Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes, and during the summer period, Port Hardy, Prince Rupert, Queen Charlottes, etc. Therefore B.C. Ferry Corporation is essentially already doing what I'm suggesting for other routes. It could save the corporation a great deal of money in the long term, and it would be more convenient for the travelling public on those parts of the coast.

On the smaller ports, I'm going to ask the minister again about the study relating to water transportation and ferry connections between Bella Coola, Ocean Falls, Bella Bella, Port Hardy, etc., which has never been tabled or made public. It's a very expensive proposition, and I know that at this time of budgetary restraint there's no hope the government, the corporation or the Ministry of Highways is going to spend millions of dollars on new terminals, although I understand that the vessels could be made available at this time. But they won't do it. I can understand that; although the people in Bella Coola might not. They do have a highway link, so they're not completely stuck. I hope the minister will make that study available to me someday; I'd like to look at it. Certainly the people in Bella Coola would like to look at it.

I agree that Ocean Falls has virtually been killed by this government. There are only some 58 souls in the community at the present time. But there will be a future for that community, possibly a plywood lumber operation, or that kind of thing. Some small activities are starting in the community now under private enterprise.

The community of Bella Bella will continue to expand. The minister has had a request for some years for a roll-on, roll-off service at Bella Bella. The government has always said it will not build a ferry ramp at Bella Bella without federal government participation, and that's where we stand at this point. I did tell the band council that I would raise this issue again in this session of the Legislature, and I've done so.

I'd like to go to another item concerning the water transportation side of the Ministry of Highways, once again relating primarily to my own riding. The government purchased the Princess of Vancouver some time ago, and I didn't oppose that. In fact, I think we should seriously consider purchasing the Princess Patricia for other purposes as well. A major refit is taking place, and the total cost of that, I understand, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million, to use round figures. It's a beautiful and much larger vessel and should handle the capacity out of the Vancouver and Powell River side for some years to come. However, that vessel isn't ready yet, and I understand the Queen of Tsawwassen is going into service on that route today as an extra vessel. I am told, however, and I don't know if this is correct or not, that the Ministry of Highways could have purchased the Queen of Tsawwassen for $1 from the B.C. Ferries Corporation.

HON. MR. FRASER: As a director of B.C. Ferries I'd say the answer is no.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I fail to understand why, when the Minister of Highways sits on the board of directors of the B.C. Ferries Corporation, we have this continual split in the two operations. If the B.C. Ferries Corporation has saltwater vessels available, then those vessels should be utilized by the Ministry of Highways if necessary and as required, not on a loan basis.... In any event, the charge I hear in both communities, Vancouver Island and Powell River, is that while we're pleased to have the larger vessel, the Queen of Vancouver. eventually placed on the route — even though that beautiful vessel has been gutted, hacked and cut — it may well be that the ministry could have placed the Queen of Tsawwassen, which apparently is available, on that route and thereby have saved them a lot of money on refitting the Princess of Vancouver, which perhaps could have been used on another route in a much better manner without spoiling that beautiful vessel.

I'd like to hear from the minister if the third crossing study will be made available. Will the Sechelt Queen be mothballed? Will it be put up for sale? Will it be put up for normal tender? Will it be placed arbitrarily to some junk dealer for $50,000, where they will immediately make a $2 million profit by turning the vessel over to some Hong Kong outfit? Perhaps the minister would care to answer those few simple little questions.

[ Page 8456 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the observations of the member for Mackenzie. I don't know about the Sechelt Queen, but I took his remarks at the last there.... The socialists are suspicious of everybody and everything; it doesn't matter what it is. They want to always raise some doubt, and nobody is right except them. I just want to say, regarding disposal of vessels, that they are all disposed of by a tender call by the Purchasing Commission. If you're suggesting some hanky-panky, you should get hold of them. I think they always sell to the highest bidder. Once they are sold to the highest bidder, whatever that bidder does with them after that is certainly of no interest to the government of British Columbia. He or she can go out and sell them a hundred times. It isn't any of the government's business.

Regarding the rumours that the member suggests about the cooperation between Transportation of Highways and B.C. Ferries, since I have had the dual responsibility, I hope we're getting along a lot better in discussing our mutual problems together. I suggest that when you're talking about the Queen of Tsawwassen you're listening to socialist gossip, not the other gossip. Please listen to all gossip, not just the socialist gossip. The Queen of Tsawwassen is going on the Comox-Powell River run July 1, because the Princess of Vancouver's not ready to go on; it's in the shipyards. I believe the Queen of Tsawwassen's going on there for a charge from B.C. Ferries to Highways of $1. The last I heard, the staff were having a big meeting about whether they should charge sales tax on the dollar. There's complete cooperation and they're getting along great.

Regarding the Princess of Vancouver that we bought from the CPR a year or so ago for a million-odd, that vessel should be ready to go on the Comox-Powell River run in August, at a cost of about $10 million total, That's the latest information I've had on that. We aren't interested in buying the other vessel, the Princess Patricia, because we now find we have a surplus of boats in the B.C. Ferries system because of....

I'll touch on that in a minute.

Bella Bella and roll-on, roll-off. I really don't know where that's at. I don't think we're really.... If we're waiting on the federal government, we'll wait forever, I think. It's something that I haven't heard, but I will before we're finished here. We're not looking immediately at roll-on, roll-off at Bella Bella. I don't see anything wrong with giving you the study for the Bella Coola.... I think you're referring to the study about the run between Bella Bella and Bella Coola that was made by Highways. Is that the study?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes.

HON. MR. FRASER: We have another marine study going on — you weren't referring to that — but I don't see anything wrong with giving you the Highways study that was made on connecting Ocean Falls, Bella Bella and Bella Coola.

You're quite right, though: please send the message that we have no intention of carrying out what's in the study. A lot of things have happened, particularly the good highway that we've built them from the interior — Highway 20 from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. They're better off. I might say, while we're talking about Bella Coola, that they had a bad fire and lost their dock. That's strictly a federal matter, but our information is that they're going to get on it and do something about it fairly shortly. On that issue, we've contacted Transport Canada, and it's been decided that they're going to replace the dock with the old, outdated style of dock. The latest I've seen in the correspondence is that if we want to go to roll-on, roll-off, we can add to that dock and put roll-on, roll-off on it — I'm referring now to Bella Coola.

You raised some interesting items about direct service, as I recall, from Powell River — from the coast. You always get the answer that we're not in the cruise-ship business, then make the observation that we already are. I'm inclined to agree with you to a certain degree. I hope Mr. Baldwin will give us a report to see if anything can be done. My observation there is that it'll be an additional impact cost on the corporation, which would be pretty rough at this time.

I'm happy to see that you agree with the decision made about the third crossing, and again, I think you wanted that report. In any case, that decision is made, and what it really says is that it's way on into the 1990s before we would be required.... We have adequate capacity to look after the traffic that is envisioned for that period of time, and we're going to go with what we have.

Just commenting on B.C. Ferries, while all the doom and gloom is going on in all the news media — mostly about our economy and everything — we have a little brighter picture, I have to report, regarding B.C. Ferries. Yes, they are down, but very slightly — probably 5 percent- in business volume for the first five months of 1982 compared to the first five months of 1981. I consider that excellent in view of our total economic picture in British Columbia and Canada. It isn't all blue ruin; people are still travelling and using this fine facility.

Another thing that has come out from our operations that Tourism would probably be interested in — motel and so on — is that while passenger-vehicle and commercial traffic is down, the over heights are up 16 percent this year over last year. That seems to indicate a change of pattern in travelling, and that people are travelling in campers and so on. I think it also indicates that Canadian residents are travelling more than Americans. That has never happened before — the 16 percent increase in overheights. So a different trend in travel and tourism is going on.

You mentioned the Squamish Highway. We've already announced what we're doing there. We're building two new bridges. On the M Creek bridge, where we had the disaster last October, the contract has been awarded and hopefully will be completed in November of 1982. We're doing a lot of rock-scaling and we're going to do some four-laning on that congested road. We've also awarded the contract for the Culliton Creek bridge, which is north of Squamish. Overall we are going to spend in excess of $5 million on this important Highway 99, from North Vancouver to Squamish, Pemberton, Whistler and, of course, now over to Duffey Lake and Lillooet. I'm certainly not saying we'll have it all under control, but we should have a safer and better road going there this winter than we had last winter, after spending $5 million to $6 million this year on the upgrading.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Regarding the alternative routes, again there is a lot of talk by the experts and the media and so on. But any alternative route out of the North Shore going to, let's say, Squamish, which is the worst section of that road, involves watershed routes and the water supply for a million people in the Greater Vancouver area. Our engineers have looked for a long time, and they have asked to wait until this fall before

[ Page 8457 ]

making a recommendation. I see a real problem there. I don't think our government wants to get into the controversy of an alternative route if we decided to go through any one of the watersheds, which would be very costly in all cases — $100 million to $150 million. At the present time we are putting our efforts and priorities into upgrading the existing road.

You mentioned some things up in the Prince George area. I realize that you are the critic for this ministry, but I have better advisers than you. I refer to two very competent MLAs from that area whom I consult with all the time. For your information, Mr. Member, the Foothills crossing you refer to crosses the Nechako River — just to get yourself located. We've looked at that for some time, and we are discussing it with the city and the two MLAs. The same applies to the interchange of 5th Avenue — it's all tied into the foothills crossing. I don't think we have a big problem with BCR regarding Highway 97. We have matters fairly well in hand.

I think I have covered most of the.... I've missed some things that you brought up late last evening. You referred to the Yellowhead Highway. There are promoters of the Yellowhead Highway — more power to them — but it's Highway 5 out of Kamloops, and then it's Highway 16 from the Alberta-B.C. border to Prince Rupert. We've spent millions of dollars on this road. But the Yellowhead Interprovincial Highway Association is located in Edmonton, and they don't seem to understand that when we build a road out here in British Columbia we don't build it through wheat fields and over level ground. We build it through mountains and valleys, and we've expended $50 million on one section of the Yellowhead alone. I'm referring to the section from Terrace to Prince Rupert, and we're not finished yet — that is, upgrading the existing road. I really recommend the Yellowhead route to anybody who wants to travel. There is very little traffic on it. You can drive all day long — a beautiful road travelling cast from Prince Rupert to the B.C.-Alberta boundary. Highway 5 from Kamloops is also a good road. There is nothing wrong with any of those roads, but the Yellowhead highway association don't necessarily feel that way. As I say, they think that road should be in the same condition as the level prairie roads. It's never going to be, but we keep upgrading it all the time.

The other thing you mentioned is the Motor Carrier Commission, and I'd just like to say that it comes under this ministry. It's run by three commissioners and the branch staff. They're not a large organization — about 50 in total — but they license all the passenger and commercial vehicles in the province. With their limited staff they do a fairly good job, but they really have had their problems — a lot of people applying for licences, permits and so on — and we're in the midst of an administrative reorganization now of the Motor Carrier Commission. We're giving them more help, and they need to be updated administratively, and that work is going on at the present time.

I might say to all the MLAs that I don't think you're going to hear as many complaints about the Motor Carrier Commission as you have in the past, because they'll be reorganized administratively and that should be taking place this year, in 1982, as you will see. The other thing is that there are not as many applications coming in, and they're getting caught up and pretty well current. We'll always have the people that apply and can't get a licence because the area is already well served, in the opinion of the Motor Carrier Commission, but we have now a full complement of three commissioners — for quite a while they were getting along with two — and we're paying more attention to helping the branch.

We're also going to use them now a lot more on enforcement on our roadside checks to find out more about what's going on — the legal operations and so on — and we've just asked them to put a check on at the B.C.-Alberta boundary, going into northeast coal; they'll be putting on a temporary checkpoint there. We think there are a lot of things going on there that need looking into. There are 17 deputies, I've just been notified; 17 new staff have been authorized and hired, to give them more. In 1980 they actually had the same staff as they had in 1945, and that was part of our problem. So I think that pretty well covers what the member had asked.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, on the Motor Carrier Commission, does the minister know at this time whether applicants will still have the appeal to cabinet process available to them after reorganization?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, at the present time we're not looking at any changes there; they would still have the appeal to cabinet available.

MR. SEGARTY: I'll just spend three-quarters of an hour or so, if that's okay with the member for Mackenzie. I got his permission this morning to get up and speak.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Highways and his staff for the outstanding cooperation I've had from the ministry over the past year — in fact, over the past three years. There are just a few areas of concern in the riding that I'd like to touch on this morning, and I hope I'll be able to get some answers from the minister in this regard.

There is a particular situation in the Elk Valley where we have the major scales on the entry to British Columbia from Alberta located in Fernie. All of the industrial activity takes place, of course, east of Fernie, which means that trucks coming in from Alberta don't have to go through a checkpoint or scales or anything like that, which is really discriminatory toward local truckers. I was wondering what progress the ministry was making in moving the scales from Fernie closer to the Bryon Creek Collieries road turnoff.

We've also got a particular problem with licences in the Elk Valley for local truckers who are licensed to do business in the area, hauling gravel and things like that. Trucks are coming in and operating with Alberta licences, which again is discriminatory toward British Columbia trucks. I'd like to know what action the ministry is taking in this area. People, of course, are coming in from Alberta to work in the Elk Valley. There's a pile of them operating motor vehicles, again using Alberta licence plates. That's a really difficult situation to police in the Elk Valley. I'm wondering if there are any ideas from the ministry as to what we could do to alleviate that particular problem.

I'm also wondering if the minister could give us some update on the Sparwood north bypass, what the construction schedule for that project is, and when the remaining contract for the Wilson Creek and CPR crossings and so on will be let out to tender.

There's a particular problem with respect to the maintenance of the roads in the Elk Valley. During the wintertime the maintenance is just appalling. One morning I left my home in Cranbrook at 6 o'clock, and arrived in Elkford at about 8 o'clock. You were taking your life in your hands

[ Page 8458 ]

driving up that highway with ice on the road. It was a terrible mess. I've travelled that road many times since, and have had many complaints from residents in the area about snowclearing and maintenance, particularly within the Fernie highways district. The Ministry of Highways does an outstanding job in snow-clearing, gravelling and road maintenance. This is a particular problem, unique to the Elk Valley in my riding. It's a situation that has just got to be corrected this winter. I don't know what we can do to change it, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you could have your ministry staff check it out and see what we can do with it. It's a large highways district. Perhaps if we put a maintenance depot in the municipality of Elkford it would help alleviate that situation.

As you know, the Regional District of East Kootenay, in cooperation with the three municipalities, has been working on plans to develop an airport in the Elk Valley. They acquired the land this year. The planning process is in place. I'm wondering if there is any revenue in the airport assistance program this year, or over the next couple of years, to develop that airport. The regional district has come out with a study recommending a location. But the costs of developing the airport are quite high, in my opinion. It works out to around $4.5 million. I don't believe there's a need for an airport of that size in the Elk Valley at this particular time. I think the people of the Elk Valley would be satisfied with a 4,500-foot runway to be able to use government-type jets or air-ambulance services in the case of emergencies, so they could fly into the area and pick up people in a disaster or something like that. God forbid it should ever happen, but it would be available to use on an occasion like that. It would be close to the resource extraction area.

The Ministry of Highways has done an outstanding job in Cranbrook. I was pleased that the minister was able to come up this year and open up the new McPhee Bridge from Cranbrook to the airport to Kimberley. This road is a tremendous improvement, and is well recognized by everyone there as the best thing that's happened since sliced bread. It's just great.

The Ministry of Highways has done a widening program on the Crowsnest Highway in the last two years. The Cranbrook Chamber of Commerce and city of Cranbrook, under the highways beautification program, were looking for some revenue to clean up the side roads going into Cranbrook, which would be cost-shared, of course, by the municipality and the Ministry of Highways. The municipality has been meeting with the local Highways staff and planners, and they have now come up with a plan for the cleaning-up of that area. It's very unsightly at the present time. It is causing hardship for many small business people located along the Cranbrook strip, as it's known.

Another situation unique to the area is that we have a manufacturing plant in Cranbrook that manufactures curbing and sells quite a lot of it to the Ministry of Highways. There's a major difficulty facing this particular individual where he has to compete with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways manufacturing plant over in the West Kootenays for the same market and supplies. As you know, Mr. Minister, in keeping with our free enterprise philosophy, it doesn't seem right that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways should be in the business of manufacturing curbing, especially at this particular time in our economy.

I'm certainly pleased that the minister has been able to come into the riding many times over the past year. This has resulted in many changes being made in the Kootenays with respect to road construction, bridge replacements and so on. I certainly hope that the opposition won't be moving their traditional vote to reduce the minister's travel expenses, because this would have a very serious impact on many interior ridings. It gives the minister to opportunity to come in and have a first-hand look at some of the difficulties that the people of the interior face.

These are just a few of the areas that I'd like some answers on, Mr. Minister. You probably won't be able to give them to me right away, but I know we'll be having some word from you on it over the next few months.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the minister, through you, that if the ferry rates are increased in November, the job loss and the business bankruptcies on Vancouver Island will be accelerated beyond anything we've seen to date. The reduction in the highway equivalent subsidy occurred recently and then was enshrined in legislation by repealing the existing language whereby the people on Vancouver Island were given a proxy in the sense that because we don't have highways of land-based asphalt, but rely for a highway system on water, we were granted a highway equivalent subsidy which was developed after the Crown corporation was established.

Mr. Chairman, let me read what that subsidy formula was to be based upon and what it was to reflect. The formula specified the per-mile highway costs, which were deemed equivalent to the ferry routes, as $47,000. This was done through orders-in-council on December 16, 1976, and August 11, 1977. The sum was applied to the approved ferry system route mileage, which totals 918 miles. We have 918 miles of ferry routes. A $47,000 per mile maintenance amount was established, with a cost-of-living adjustment to keep up with inflation. In other words, that was to be the highway system for the people in the coastal communities and Vancouver Island. Victoria receives an extremely nominal sum in the Transportation and Highways budget. It is something in the order of a few thousand dollars. Oak Bay is somewhat similar. Clearly, we don't have highways in these constituencies, but what we do have and what we do need is a ferry system that meets the needs of the residents.

Last November the commercial rate for ferries was increased from $1.60 to $2 a foot. For every bit of goods and services that comes to the Island or goes from the Island from the businesses, $2 a foot is the price. If that is increased in November as a result of reducing the highway equivalent subsidy as you did, from $63 million to $47 million, you will drive a stake in the heart of small business in this constituency. We rely on that ferry system to keep our businesses alive. We have a number of specific problems, which I would like to get into in a moment, but in November we cannot tolerate an increase in the commercial rate for ferries. We simply cannot do it,

With the lifting and stretching of the vessels — granted there was an increase of approximately 10 percent in the capacity of the vessels, for four vessels versus the four plus a supplementary previously — what you're doing as of yesterday, Mr. Minister, is reducing the sailings from 22 last year, I believe it was, to 16. That is creating some problems. As the minister stated in his earlier remarks, the downturn of passenger volume has not been as anticipated, and I'm very pleased with the minister's report that there is only a 5 percent reduction. Given good weather for the rest of the summer,

[ Page 8459 ]

maybe we'll see those volumes increase to help support the economy on Vancouver Island.

The reduction to 16 sailings is creating particular problems for the commercial overheights. I understand that the ramp situation.... The Esquimalt and Saanich have even hour sailings and at present are loading only buses and non- I commercial overheights; so the commercial operation not only is going on the alternate hours, but it can't get on those Esquimalt and Saanich even-hour sailings. Probably tonight will be the acid test, because this will be the first Friday night where volumes are up on passenger and recreational vehicles. The commercial overheights will be there as well as t tomorrow morning and Monday morning, wanting to go to Vancouver, and if they're only able to sail on every second sailing....

The Victoria and Vancouver are presently unable to handle the volume of commercial overheight traffic, which is an added burden to the business transacted between Vancouver Island and the mainland. I understand that the ramps aboard the Esquimalt and Saanich could be lifted to utilize that capacity. I understand the trade-off: you have so much capacity and you want to put so many passengers on there and so on. However, bear in mind that people work on Vancouver Island, and given the jobs that we are losing as a result of bankruptcy and businesses closing, we should be doing everything possible to make sure we are not encumbering business on Vancouver Island with added costs as a result of commercial overheight vehicles waiting for long periods of time at the Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen terminals. It's unrealistic to expect the commercial overheights to go to Nanaimo and over to Horseshoe Bay. It's just too much of an added expense.

I'm asking the minister if he would consider bringing in supplementary vessels, or any other possibilities, to increase the commercial overheight capacity between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. We'll be watching that very carefully in the next few days. The trucking community is very concerned and it is a slow burning fuse at the moment. They're waiting; they are not able to get on those ferries that are running only on the odd hour sailings.

I'm saying that the change that was made, giving the minister the authority to state the amount that would be given to the corporation as a subsidy — in other words, he has the discretion now — is not any kind of a formula based on aggregate costs. It is not tied now to any kind of highway equivalent; it will simply be a figure determined by the minister and the government. If that subsidy is not sufficient to cover the costs of the ferry system, and if B.C. Ferries has to go to the farebox, both commercially and for the noncommercial traffic between Victoria and the mainland, it will have such a massive negative impact on business on Vancouver Island that we will be driving our economy down even further than we foresee at the moment. We cannot tolerate, in November, fare increases on the ferry system. The businesses can't stand it, the public can't stand it, and it will withdraw too much money from the economy. My position, and our party's position, has been that our proxy highway system is a ferry system, and that as a person journeys through the Fraser Valley or up the Yellowhead or travels on the highways of this province, they are not confronted with tolls to pay the maintenance costs, the upgrading costs; they are paid out of general revenue. We feel general revenue is where support for the ferry system should be coming from....

MR. BRUMMET: Did you say free?

MR. HANSON: I said the support for the ferry system should be coming from general revenue, and that highway equivalent subsidy is no more and no less than the Vancouver island and coastal communities portion of the Highways and Transportation budget of this province. My own constituency only gets a few thousand dollars out of a multimillion-dollar Highways budget. We don't begrudge the rest of the province our tax dollars for maintenance of highways, snow removal and new highway construction, but we want our fair share in he form of a ferry system. We feel it is unfair to double-tax he people in the coastal areas of Vancouver Island, to make them pay, in addition to their taxes, for a highway system which happens to be on water. It is a logical argument that I'm making; it is a reasonable argument. If in November the Ferry Corporation, which has no access to funds other than he farebox and the reduced subsidy you've provided....

If you reduce that subsidy any more or you fail to top up what they should have had — they were counting on $63 million; they were counting on those quarterly payments that were forthcoming from the Minister of Finance, which they invested and drew interest on to help offset their operating costs — you've denied them that revenue. They're going to have to turn to the public. They're going to have to turn to the people in my constituency, to the people of Vancouver Island and other coastal communities. It is unfair. It is unrealistic. It is bad economics. If you let it occur, you will be personally driving a stake into the heart of the business community of Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm very interested in what the member has to say about the ferries, because a Social Credit government introduced this service as an extension. Would the second member for Victoria advocate that we return to the financing formula the government had between 1972 and 1975?

MR. HANSON: I think it would be fair. We supported it out of general revenue because we believed in the concept that the ferry system was part of our highway system. The Crown corporation committee's report of 1981 states on page 51: "The subsidy received by the ferry system would seem to stand as a proxy for highway service to coastal communities in circumstances where the building of roads to these localities has been seen to be impractical." If you calculate the number of electoral districts on Vancouver Island, and you take the proportion of Highways and Transportation budget allocated to those communities, you see that that formula — approximately $63 million — is really what should be allocated to the coastal electoral districts in terms of their proportion of population and so on. I don't really mind whether it's a formula that calculates an equivalent subsidy for highways — in other words, it conceptually links it to the highway system — or whether it's straight out of general revenue. But that is our fair share of the Highways budget for this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think we're trying to establish the policy which you are advocating — whether the subsidy policy or the policy of contribution between 1972 and 1975 would be preferable to what we have now. Obviously the member has in mind his party's policy when they were government. He probably knows very well what contribution

[ Page 8460 ]

was made by taxpayers around the province, as a subsidy. Is he advocating that we return to that policy?

MR. HANSON: The money comes out of the same pot. Whether it's characterized as a subsidy or taken directly out of general revenue and not through the level of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, it is still coming out of general revenue. The term "subsidy" is a way of making the people in the coastal communities feel that they are getting a handout. That is what I object to. We are not getting a handout. We have a certain proportion of the population of this province. We pay a certain proportion of the tax base of this province. We get less than our fair share of the Transportation budget, as outlined in the Highways annual report and estimates. We get something out of general revenue called a subsidy for a ferry system. I'm saying take the name off and put it right into the estimates, out of general revenue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: From what the member has said and I have made careful note of it — I assume that he would want us to return to exactly the same sort of public funding that took place between 1972 and 1975.

HON. MR. FRASER: The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) made several observations, and I'd like to reply back to front. He is kicking out a figure that is really saying that Vancouver Island doesn't get its share from this ministry. I'd like to put his figures to rest, and show him how confused, of course, they usually are on that side. We've done a tabulation on this situation, based on the 1981 population comparing a summary of expenditures on Vancouver Island to the rest of the province for highway capital construction and B.C. Ferries. I'm going to go into all the details I have here, Mr. Chairman, but you can see what a hoax this member is putting up from these actual figures. The population of Vancouver Island is 17.9 percent of the province of British Columbia. In the 1981-82 expenditures of this ministry, this population of 17.9 percent of the province received 26.3 percent of the expenditures. You go back and get your research people to get you some factual facts, because we can support these; I have it here.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, the minister indicated that he had details, which he is citing supporting his argument of population and expenditure for Vancouver Island. I would ask him to table those, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman I will certainly consider that request. I'm not finished with the other observations that were made, though this member is saying that there were no roads, etc.... I want to remind the member that before he got here — and I think it has carried over since he got here, as he's only been a member since 1979....

Regarding highway construction in the city of Victoria, we found places where we could spend a lot of money and get things caught up that your government never did anything about. I'm referring to the Blanshard Street extension, and I'm also referring to the four-laning of the Trans-Canada. We picked that up in 1975 and got it all completed, and as far as I know a lot of that is in the city of Victoria itself. We spent $10 million just on that little item alone. I don't want you to forget those things.

The member, Mr. Chairman, is complaining about the reduction of the B.C. Ferries subsidy. We haven't got a pot of gold; neither has our treasury. But $47 million is still a lot of money, and that's what the subsidy is this year. With reorganizing and doing a lot of other things, I might say some other breaks came along. We have not increased the fares, with all the problems. We've had some breaks in the B.C. Ferries. Our fuel costs have dropped from 1981 to 1982, which helps immeasurably, so we haven't had to put on a fare increase, when the subsidy went down from, I think, $63 million to $47 million. There have been changes in routings, but we still have more capacity on the water than we've ever had.

Another observation that hasn't been made, Mr. Chairman, is that in the last five years — I'm talking about 1977 to 1981 — B.C. Ferries have expended $200 million for capital expansion. That has gone into new ships, upgrading existing ships, new terminals and docks. That program is over with, and the management feel that we've caught up with the demand, whether it be the vessels or the docks, and there's not the requirement and pressure on the corporation for the heavy capital expenditures that have been made. That is also a distinct help. We have a large, modern fleet now, including the large 400-vehicle ferries. We're sure going to work them, because of their capacity.

Dealing with the commercial rate increase, I think the policy of rate increases was announced two years ago — we would only increase fares on or about the first of November in each year, if necessary. We did that to help the economy of Vancouver Island, so they wouldn't be under the threat of fare increases, which they were before during the tourist season. It took us past the tourist season. Yes, we'll look at fare increases. We have to look at them all from a revenue standpoint, whether it be passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, overheights, or the individual that walks on.

Yes, there was an increase in the commercial rate from, I believe you said, $1.60 to $2 per foot. I know that was fairly substantial. I hope that doesn't have to happen at that percentage again. We got behind, and are still behind the commercial side. We have the CPR running over there. My information is that their rates are still higher than our rates. It's not our intention to get beyond them. I think we have to consider that if we're too far below the private sector, we're going to lose the private sector. That's a concern all Vancouver Island residents should have. It might not be a good thing for all the citizens of Vancouver Island to be dependent on just one system. Even at $2 a foot, the costs of the B.C. Ferry Corporation is still below by quite a substantial amount.

You mentioned that the number of reduced sailings is 16. I assume you're right; I wanted to get some more from the staff on that. But I don't think we're going to have the problems that you outlined. You mentioned the lifted vessels, Esquimalt and Saanich. I'm still waiting for a reply on that. We still feel we're going to be okay.

I mentioned earlier that the overheights are up. This does give an operational problem to the Ferry Corporation. One thing we never know in the operation of B.C. Ferries is what type of vehicle is coming and when. It does change the loading, and so on. But so far our ferry systems in 1982 are, I guess, one of the bright spots in our economy: they're not very far behind 1981.

There's still a large amount of money going into that system. We don't begrudge that at all. On a point of principle, I have a note here — what the government is now saying regarding the subsidy is that we'll subsidize the operating

[ Page 8461 ]

loss. Instead of the highway equivalent subsidy, we'll subsidize the operating loss of B.C. Ferries. The operating deficit is estimated to be $43 million this year. The other $4 million is for debt retirement. The total estimated loss this year is $47 million.

While I'm on my feet, I thought I'd thank the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who has left, and tell him that we have no plans at the moment to relocate the scales in the Elk Valley. I appreciate his pointing it out.

This member brought up another good point about Alberta licence plates in British Columbia. While we love their money and love to see them, once they become residents here and are employed here, I don't think we're doing a good enough job of supervising the change of their plates. I believe they're supposed to change their plates within six months. I'm going to ask our ministry to do more than they're doing to get Alberta people who have finally moved here to change their Alberta plates over to B.C. plates. I know that this is a problem in the Kootenays, Peace River and the Okanagan. I even see quite a few Alberta plates going back and forth to work in the capital city of Victoria. I think these people should abide by the laws of our province, particularly once they have full employment here. The member for Kootenay brought up a point there that I think should be pursued a little more than it is by our ministry.

Regarding the observation he made about the inadequacy of maintenance, particularly snow removal in the Fernie district, I was told about it last winter. Yes, we're aware of the problem. We had a shifting problem there. We're only about two years away from having to put a maintenance establishment in at Elkford.

Regarding the airport, we'll gladly cooperate with the MLA and others in the location of an airport in the Elk Valley; in fact we're already doing so.

On the Cranbrook Highway 3 beautification project, we'll take a look at that. We've spent a lot of money there rebuilding the curb and gutter and we can get on with that, but I'm not so sure that funds are available immediately.

On the last point that was brought up, I've issued instructions, Mr. Chairman, that our ministry is not to compete with the private sector in the construction of guardrails and to phase out of it as soon as they can. That has been substantially reduced in the last couple of years. I think that answers most of the questions.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be brief. I'm going to start with a few comments about the highway requirements of my own particular riding, and then I'll swing over to matters which are more general in nature — policy oriented, in other words. Perhaps I'll be moving from the sublime to the ridiculous or, if I focus down on the one issue in my own riding, from the ridiculous to the sublime.

I've sometimes described my riding in a lighter vein as the only riding or constituency which is connected to the rest of the province by a Bailey bridge. We still have a Bailey bridge across the Seymour River, one that came within a few inches of being taken out by the flood late last year. So my constituents are vulnerable from a transportation point of view and would dearly like to see a four-lane bridge across the Seymour River. The Seymour River, incidentally, flows into Burrard Inlet on the North Shore in the greater Vancouver area.

The problem really has been one of jurisdictions, and derives essentially from the fact that one side of the Seymour River is an Indian reserve. The difficulty has been one of the district municipality of North Vancouver reaching a workable agreement with the Squamish Indian band. Until that agreement was reached between the district municipality and the Squamish Indian band — and it took half a dozen years of negotiations for that agreement to be reached, using the best offices of the province, particularly the Highways ministry — there was no possibility of this particular crossing over the Seymour River being built. The Squamish Indian band wanted certain services from the municipality in return for a continued right to cross the reserve. An agreement has now been reached. It has required an amendment to the Municipal Act in order to allow the municipality to make this agreement. That particular change to provincial legislation has only now been made, and assuming that the federal government will approve the agreement made by the Squamish Indian band in this connection, we'll get a crossing.

I gather from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that the engineering of a four-lane crossing has been completed. The design is complete, all we need now is the money. We need several millions of dollars in next year's vote in Transportation and Highways to have this vital link between my riding and the rest of the province built. I hope the minister will be prepared to make a few comments in that connection later on this morning.

I've dwelt at some length on this particular topic, because earlier in the minister's estimates there was some discussion about the location of a mid-coast airport. It would be a very important airstrip for wheeled aircraft, a strip which has not existed. An emergency airstrip at the very least has been needed in the mid-coast for many years. I'm glad to note that a private group did build a rough 1,500 foot strip a couple of years back. I'm glad to know that the province has invested a small amount of money in an access road to that strip, and I'm now very pleased to know that the province is, in fact, going to pave the strip and hopefully extend it some and make it a really safe and effective airstrip for third-level aircraft — for example, deHavilland Twin Otters on wheels can land there on a regular basis. That's badly needed.

The controversy up coast, however, has revolved around the fact that there was an alternative site on an Indian reserve. If the experience in North Vancouver is any indication, it would have taken years to get an agreement with the local band to guarantee perpetual access to an airstrip on an Indian reserve. I think that always has to be home in mind, and a very firm contractual agreement should be entered into before any public work funded by the taxpayers of the province can be undertaken on an Indian reserve. If the Indian band is prepared to guarantee perpetual access, that's one thing, but usually there's a quid pro quo of some considerable amount which would have to be negotiated, and finally the federal people would have to be involved because Indian affairs are federal and not provincial. That aspect of the debate — the Denny Island location of an airstrip versus the Campbell Island location — has to be brought out into the open and considered as one of the matters that would have to have been resolved had a decision been made to locate the airstrip on Campbell Island. We'll have an airstrip mid-coast on Denny Island, which is already operative and will be fully functional in another year or so. And if time is of the essence, that was the only way to go.

In respect to transportation requirements of my constituency, I've mentioned the Seymour crossing and the need to replace a Bailey bridge by a four-lane bridge that connects my

[ Page 8462 ]

riding with the Trans-Canada Highway. Even more urgent is the need to build a proper stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway through the eastern part of Vancouver, the so-called Cassiar link from the Second Narrows Bridge south to Highway 401. It is the busiest section of the Trans-Canada Highway in western Canada. The intersection between the Cassiar highway and Hastings Street is the busiest intersection in the lower mainland. It's also the section where there are the greatest number of accidents in Vancouver. So, from a local point of view and from a city of Vancouver point of view, there's an urgent need to build a proper Cassiar throughway from the Second Narrows Bridge through to the 401 or the properly built Trans-Canada Highway section beginning at Boundary Road and going east.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) have said in this House before that there are only three stop-and-go lights on the whole Trans-Canada Highway from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, and they're all in the two tidings involving Cassiar Street and North Vancouver. We could take out one of those stop-and-go fights by building a proper Cassiar connector. I gather that from the Vancouver point of view it is seen as a neighbourhood problem. The people in the neighbourhood on either side of Cassiar Street have to be satisfied that this development is in their own particular interest as well as in the general interest. But I think the government of British Columbia, particularly the Highways ministry, has to be concerned about the fact that this is a connector between municipalities and, indeed, a connector between the people of this province and the rest of Canada as well as simply a local road in a particular part of an individual municipality in this province. Something has to be done about the Cassiar connector — I hope with the agreement of the city of Vancouver. I understand that the province is prepared to pay for all of it. I believe that the province has already got a design that makes sense and it is reasonably economical; it would be a trench through much of that area with overpasses at each street.

This is badly needed, and I would say that if we have a transportation problem in the lower mainland, this is the most serious problem. It's one which the province is capable of dealing with; it's one that I understand the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is prepared to deal with; it is one which is simply being swept under the rug, in effect, by a majority of the members of council in Vancouver city itself. They should be prepared to deal with this problem on a city wide basis. Instead it's being dealt with as purely a neighbourhood matter, and there's a lack of leadership in Vancouver city council in this connection. That is where the problem rests, and I hope it can be resolved by this ministry working somehow with the present city council or with a future city council that has the larger interest of the people of Vancouver at heart.

I have several other matters, but I will be brief. On the North Shore in Vancouver, we'd like to see the Highways ministry, certainly in its responsibilities with regard to ferries, continue to look long-term, at least, at the economic, energy, environmental and other advantages of another crossing over the Strait of Georgia. The one that makes the greatest sense is from the general vicinity of the Vancouver International Airport to Gabriola Island. It's a one-hour crossing that would involve many fewer miles of travel for a great many people, and it is needed unless we're going to continue to build more vessels to run on longer routes. I'm not saying that the present routes should be discontinued. I'm really saying that a new and shorter route should be added, perhaps in the 1990s, and that the ministry should continue to plan for its construction and begin to negotiate with the local authorities at both ends in order to make sure that that comes to pass.

The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) talked about the diminished — as he put it — provincial subsidy to B.C. Ferries being a stake driven in the heart of Victoria. There are two broad aspects to improvement in transportation. One is that as you improve transportation facilities businesses go to the place where they're best conducted, as with free trade. A number of businesses have left the Victoria area and gone to the Vancouver area because of enhanced and improved transportation — easier access. I'm not at all sure that any protectionist would ever view improved transportation as an overall advantage to a particular community. As our transportation modes improve, especially if you keep the fares down, there's no guarantee it won't increasingly become a specialized community servicing government, with most of its requirements served from the greater Vancouver area. Always have regard to the fact that low-cost transportation is a double-edged sword; it's not an unlimited blessing.

The minister said something that bothered me somewhat. He said we've moved off a highway equivalent subsidy to a subsidy that picks up certain costs. He didn't say whatever those costs might be, but that was the inference, and I'd like him to comment on that. That was the old system; that was the system the NDP had — whatever the cost was it was picked up. I'd hate to think that we've moved off a subsidy which was definite, even if it's less than 100 percent highway equivalent — but I'd like to see a definite subsidy going every year to the Ferry Corporation, and that that Ferry Corporation then knew where it was going. It would know that if it ran a deficit it would have to make up that deficit somewhere in its operations in subsequent years. I hope the minister can correct my impression that the operating costs, if they are overrun, will be picked up and that that amount is not a definite amount.

There are just one or two other points and then perhaps one of the members opposite will speak in their turn. On the air side, I'm glad to see the province moving into the third level air carrier situation, building airstrips, helping to improve air guidance systems, and so on. I think this is essential, and I'd like to see more money devoted to that side of transportation. I'd like to think also that a provincial Ministry of Transportation and Highways would give some thought to the fact that policies are made — and indeed international agreements are entered into by the federal government — on the air side that have tremendous impact on the economy of this province.

This matter of negotiation occurs periodically — the last time in 1974 and again in the next year or two. Air routes, for example, between Canada and the United States will be agreed upon. Who will service those air routes from the U.S. side and from the Canadian side? Which carriers get which routes? That is very important. Ottawa's bias is to give it all to Air Canada, to give it to an airline based on Montreal, to give it to an airline all of whose maintenance and most of whose construction and so on is in eastern Canada. Now whether hon. members opposite like it or not, CP Air is based in Vancouver. To the extent that CP Air does not get a route and

[ Page 8463 ]

Air Canada gets a route, there's less maintenance, less sophisticated manufacturing, etc., done here in British Columbia than would otherwise be the case. The last time round, in 1974, Air Canada got 12 routes and CP Air got 2, and the two routes into the United States that CP Air got were routes which were to be competitive with American carriers flying precisely the same routes in the other direction. So CP Air, and through CP Air, the role of Vancouver as an airline aircraft maintenance centre, etc., was diminished. I think it's a matter of real concern to British Columbians that airlines be able to fly into and out of British Columbia with a minimum of interference, and that the western carriers have a fair cut of that business. It's very important that our transportation people become involved in that kind of policy-making at the federal level and at least focus on what the pros and cons are of the alternatives and weigh in favour of British Columbian based carriers in that respect.

I'm concerned about the degree of regulation of our motor carriers and trucking in this province. British Columbia — perhaps second to Saskatchewan — is the most highly regulated province insofar as trucking and motor carrier operations are concerned. This is a result of legislation passed in the 1930s which was typically designed around the world to look after the carrier. It wasn't designed to look after the consumer, the user, the public or public convenience and necessity, but the industry and the carrier. We've made very few changes to that legislation since. We've assigned to a Motor Carrier Commission tasks which, given its limited staff, it can't possibly carry out effectively. They now are supposed to police many functions and activities, which they can't possibly police. At least, they don't have the staff to do it. It may be physically impossible to do the job anyway. I would like to see much of the detailed regulation stripped out of the Motor Carrier Act. I would like to see freedom of entry improved. It can't be complete but I'd like to see a greater ease of entry into the industry. I would like to see any regulation of rates removed from the legislation and in some areas — such as the Greater Vancouver area — I would like to see a free-marketing effect, real competition with regulations relating primarily to areas which otherwise might not receive reasonable service if we had a genuine free market in world transport in this province.

Generally speaking, in Europe you have an unregulated free market in truck transportation. You see French lorries running on the highways in the United Kingdom with drivers seemingly seated on the wrong side of the vehicle going from here to there. You see West German vehicles in Italy and so on. They move freely throughout the whole of the economic community, and the rates are essentially established by competition. If they can do that between separate national jurisdictions, surely we can do it within this province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.

MR. DAVIS: I'll finish up first, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Perhaps I'll try to answer the question afterwards.

Deregulation is taking place to some degree in the United States. It's taking place on the airline side with some considerable effect. It's taking place, in some measure, with respect to trucking and, indeed, with the railways. Canada's railways, in contrast to those in the United States, have been deregulated to a great extent since the late 1960s. So the U.S., in some ways, is catching up to us in terms of deregulation. But on the motor carrier side, and that's the side where the provinces have remained substantially supreme, we have over regulation in this province. It's a major assignment and I think we should make it an objective of the government to rewrite the Motor Carrier Act to deregulate trucking to a considerable extent to give us the benefits of competition in that area. There are some substantial economies still possible in trucking, and it does after all carry the bulk of our high value goods in this province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, those are the remarks I wanted to make.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. First of all, I'm aware that his important riding is connected to the rest of British Columbia by a Bailey bridge. There have been very difficult negotiations going on, as the member pointed out, with the Indian band. I think it's safe to say that they are resolved now and we can get on with building the bridge very shortly. Our senior people say they are building a three-span, 210-foot long, prestressed concrete I-beam bridge with a 56-foot roadway and two sidewalks. I don't think they've missed anything there. They'll get on with that. I might also say that it's not only complicated, but the settlement with the Indian band is going to be costly. We don't get the land for free. I believe there's about $1.5 million involved in the land acquisition prior to anything to do with the cost of the bridge, which is also estimated at something like that. But it looks like we can see the end of that.

A lot of Vancouver members will be interested in this. The freeway, when it was built in the sixties, stopped at Cassiar Street. It runs more or less from Chilliwack, but we've expanded it somewhat towards Hope — right into the city of Vancouver. Everything gets dumped on Cassiar Street. Cassiar goes along and junctions with Hastings. The area I'm referring to is from the end of the freeway to the Second Narrows Bridge. The corner of Hastings and Cassiar in the city of Vancouver is the busiest intersection in western Canada, as the member pointed out; certainly it's the busiest in British Columbia. We have no end of difficulties there.The province of British Columbia had a proposition, and gave it to the city of Vancouver. We'll build it, with the cost going to the province. I believe at that time it was $20 million to $25 million. The acquisition of a lot of homes along there has been made, so there will be room to work. Acquisitions have been made by our ministry, as well as by the parks branch and the city of Vancouver. Their cooperation over the years has been excellent in that regard. That probably goes back ten years.

We still aren't very far along in moving any dirt. Where we actually are on that is.... Once our ministry gave the proposition to the city of Vancouver.... I think the city of Vancouver agreed. Their citizens' groups showed up — I haven't got anything against citizens' groups — and they started to re-engineer what we wanted to do with the Cassiar corridor. They are having no end of difficulty with the traffic that is weeping off this congested area into all the residential streets and so on of the East Hastings area. But until recently, the local people over there haven't been able to make their minds up as to how to do it. Our engineers in the Highways ministry suggested a depressed freeway in this area to the west of the existing grade street. It was cooperatively designed by the ministry and the city of Vancouver staff. Then

[ Page 8464 ]

along came the community opposition to this and the desire for a tunnel instead of the depressed freeway.

The citizens said they wanted a tunnel. At that point the city council requested a review by a consultant of the impacts of the proposed design, and comment on the feasibility and impacts of the alternates suggested by community groups. The cost of the consultant's study was to be shared between the city and the province. The cost of the study is $130,000. I think, as usual when we deal with most municipalities, we will pay $100,000 and they will pay $30,000. That's usually the ratio that we end up with.

Considerable negotiation was involved in the establishment of the terms of reference for the study by community groups at these discussions. In other words, before we could get along with the study, we couldn't even agree on the terms of reference for the study. I think, believe it or not, six or eight months to a year was lost just hammering it out, because there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians in this deal. Our people are competent, and the city of Vancouver people are competent, but then the citizens decided to get into engineering, and it really takes a lot of extra time. I hope it's for the good. Our senior engineers say that a tunnel won't work, but they don't accept that, and that's what the terms of reference are going into. We will be getting on with that study shortly. I know that several Vancouver MLAs are interested in that, and that's where it's at. The first discussion of this took place in 1978, and we acquired right-of-way and so on, but there is still no proper action.

I note from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) that he'd like to see the Iona-to-Gabriola crossing built. I'm inclined to agree with him, but there is no necessity for that for quite some time in these tight economic times. That's what we've said recently: the option wasn't thrown out, but it's quite a way down the road as far as we can envision — by that I mean 10 to 15 years.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour also mentioned consultation when the government of Canada settles air routes. I might say that we have consultations with the government of Canada, particularly the Minister of Transport, on this subject all the time. The way we live as Canadians, they have the final say. In some cases they accept our advice, and in some cases it appears they go on their own. I'm am inclined to agree with the observation made by the member, that when these new air routes are given out we should favour where they're based. We have the fine Canadian Pacific Air Lines base in Vancouver. They have recently, through the help of this government, built a maintenance establishment to upgrade their facilities here. But that isn't always the way it works. Air Canada seems to get the breaks in competition with CP and I guess the reason for that is that Air Canada is really a Crown corporation and CP Air is in the private sector.

The other subject that was brought up was the Motor Carrier Commission. We are looking at the Motor Carrier Commission, but at the present time I'm not going to promise any legislation about it. First of all, as I said earlier this morning, we have to clean up our own act and make it work. The concern is that it's fine to say throw it all out, but I'm not so sure who would service places like Spuzzum and Yale if we threw out all the regulations. I wonder who'd haul the goods to those places and be sure they had. There is an obligation on a carrier to have a route maintain a scheduled service. I've had personal experience with this, because I've actually been the holder of a public freight licence — obligations go with it. One thing I agree with that we can do in starting to cut down is possibly eliminate the regulation of rates. I can't see that the marketplace in this day and age can't be the regulator there, and I don't think that requires legislation. It can probably be done by regulations and rules, and we can certainly look at that. There is a lot of discussion going on, and everybody seems to blame the Motor Carrier Commission. The other side of the coin is that the carriers who have licences want to go on forever. They are pretty substantial, they have large payrolls and they have some protection. An overview I have is that in a lot of cases we get into spats and rows and, as I think you mentioned it, we forget the shipper who is really an important person. I've asked the Motor Carrier Commission myself to pay a little more attention to the shipper, rather than the rows that go on over jurisdiction and who's got the licence. I think they're getting more concerned about the shipper who pays the bill.

I think that fairly well covers the observations made by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have a few matters to discuss with the minister, and I'm not going to be too lengthy on them. I had one submission — and the minister did as well — from the Tleskainlith Indian band at Chase. The minister, I think, received a letter back in February 1982, outlining the problems the band is having with access roads, acknowledging that the basic responsibility, as I understand it, is a federal one through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Affairs, but requesting of the provincial ministry that an agreement be negotiated which would provide some services from the local Highways department and pointing out that the roads were so badly serviced that school buses and ambulances for emergency health services were unable to reach the village and serve the people's needs. I would appreciate from the minister a reaction to this general proposal. I believe the minister has met with Mr. Willard Martin of that Indian band, and certainly he's had the correspondence on it. If the minister could give me a general response to their proposal, I'd appreciate that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Another matter I wanted to raise is that I have had letters from the cities of Armstrong, Enderby and Salmon Arm, all respecting the air transport assistance program and requesting to have the government air transport assistance program fully funded. The fund had assisted in the development and extension of the Salmon Arm airport, but I believe there was a cutback in the funds, and all of that interior area is particularly concerned, along with the municipal councils, to continue with that assistance fund. It means a great deal to those communities which are now not served by an airport that would support commercial flights. I would point out just for the minister's attention that the closest airport where I can obtain service is the Kelowna airport, which is a two-and-a-half-hour drive, minimum, from Revelstoke. Similarly, the Salmon Arm–Sicamous area has to be served by either Kelowna or Kamloops — Kelowna is a little bit closer. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke is one of the most awkward to obtain airport services from. Most of the other constituencies in the province have an airport within the riding.

[ Page 8465 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not so.

MR. KING: Most of them do. There may be one or two others, but even the north country, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Terrace.... Some of them, like Atlin and perhaps the Omineca riding, are very isolated. But the population between Atlin, for instance, and the Shuswap-Revelstoke area is widely variant too. There is a case to be made. I think the population is adequate to support a commercial airport in the Salmon Arm area, at least for the purposes of a feeder commercial service to either Kamloops or Kelowna. Revelstoke has an airport, but again, it's not a year round service that can accommodate a commercial feeder service. It makes it very difficult for the people of that area to obtain the kind of air services enjoyed by most of the other parts of the province. I ask the minister to respond in a positive way to the representations made by the councils of Salmon Arm, Enderby and Armstrong, and to make a full financial commitment to the development of the Salmon Arm airport.

There are one or two other matters that I want to raise with the minister pertaining to correspondence that has come in. The District of Salmon Arm clerk writes regarding the transportation of hazardous materials; the city council is concerned in light of, I think, very serious rail accidents that have occurred in eastern Canada, where toxic chemicals are transported regularly through municipal boundaries. Of course, CP Rail's main line runs through the village of Salmon Arm at fairly high speed. A lot of hazardous chemicals are now transported regularly by rail. While I think this is generally a federal problem — and I note that the council has contacted their federal MP about the matter — I think the ministry of transport and communications for the province would have an interest too.

Has the minister had any discussions with federal officials about any plan to deal adequately with this, not only in Salmon Arm, but in other British Columbia communities where railways run through the heartland of heavily populated areas? Perhaps relocation, or some better system of protection against the eventuality of serious derailment which might rupture one of the tank cars containing chlorine or some other toxic material, this jeopardizing the public health of our residents.... Again, I say that I think it's basically a federal responsibility in a statutory way; nevertheless, it is the citizenry here in the province of British Columbia that is in jeopardy. And I would request some general comments from the minister in terms of any discussions he may have had with the federal authorities, and what, if I anything, we might do from a provincial standpoint.

Last year I raised with the minister a problem of highway access, one that I think he's familiar with: Lybarger Road at the east end of Malakwa, a road that services the access to Drew sawmills. While the forest industry is in a state of economic depression at the moment and truck traffic and that type of thing has accordingly been reduced, there is a very heavy flow of traffic. Undoubtedly the forest industry will return to economic health and the normal flow of traffic will resume, and it's a major problem at that particular point. It's a left turn off the Trans-Canada Highway on a curve from both directions. There is very little visibility, a bridge on the west end, pretty tight curvature on the east end, and a left turn which frequently necessitates that logging trucks with heavy loads of logs stop, building up traffic behind them while they wait for a gap in the westward flow of traffic to make their left turn. It's altogether a very serious and hazardous manoeuvre. The residents of the area who have to thread their way between the heavy commercial flow are very concerned that it's simply a matter of time until a loss of life occurs at that particular point.

The minister I think responded last year to me and to a petition he had received from the area residents, particularly Mrs. Evelyn Lamb. He was aware and concerned and said he would try to make an appropriation as soon as possible. I simply want to ask the minister if, in light of this obviously hazardous situation, he can give an indication now as to when some major changes in that particular service road can be expected.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, 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.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 52, Mr. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT

Bill 52 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 28.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

Bill 28 read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $228, 769.

MR. REE: I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

I’m very pleased to hear that agreement is almost completed with the Indian band concerning the Seymour River crossing. As I am a co-representative for the district of North Vancouver, the Seymour crossing is naturally of concern to myself because until that Seymour crossing has been in place, there is a restriction on the development of the eastern end of that district, and it is holding back considerable land available for needed housing and needed development on the North Shore, so I'm very pleased to hear that we might be starting the work to put the crossing in place — in the not too distant future.

That crossing is also important because I understand it is part of the overall development of the highway system through the North Shore with the crossing of the Burrard Inlet. The Seymour and Cassiar system are a part of the key, and although I and my constituents dislike the delay in settling the Cassiar-Hastings intersection corridor so that construction can be started there to improve that — because it

[ Page 8466 ]

is very seriously needed — I think we can support this government's position that the tunnel is most inappropriate. A tunnel would not only be a greater cost than what is proposed by the government, but also would create a serious threat in an emergency. We have a great number of trucks carrying various commodities. If there were some sort of accident with an explosion or fire in the tunnel, it could be a very serious event, far more so than any open-air event could be, and could not be attended to. Likewise, if there is any expansion required at a later date, you are very much restricted on the tunnel. I think it would be a misuse of public funds to insist on tunnel construction of that corridor.

Again I associate with my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour but in my constituency I do have the two stoplights on Highway 1. I have more stoplights on that highway per mile than any other constituency. I recognize the restrictions of dollars' availability at this time, with the difficulties within the province, but I do ask the minister that possibly the design can be completed for these two intersections — the one at Lonsdale and the one at Westview on the Upper Levels Highway — so that when we're a little bit more affluent in this province, we might be able to proceed and look after it.

One other item, Mr. Chairman, if I may: there have been some changes, I understand, in the ferry schedule from Snug Cove on Bowen Island to Horseshoe Bay, and possibly the minister could have this looked at. I'm concerned mainly with theSun day-night sailing from Snug Cove. It has been advanced from the late sailing at 9 o'clock to approximately 8 o'clock now, and this is creating considerable backup in the community and still necessitates a 9 o'clock overtime sailing. Because the scheduling is for a seven and a half hour workday, the 6:30 a.m. sailing.... I'm not sure how many patrons used that, but possibly it could be dispensed with and we could have a later morning sailing, and extend one through in the evenings.

I do note that the water taxi is held over there for the normal 8 o'clock sailing at night, because the ferry has to be berthed at Snug Cove. The water taxi is back there when the ferry gets back, but then there is usually a backup of traffic and an additional sailing, the water taxi is held for an extra hour or two, and there are additional costs there. Maybe the ferry could be berthed on the Horseshoe Bay side now, since I understand there is one ferry less on the Langdale route. There might be extra berthing space. Could the corporation, through the minister, look at some adjustment for the late-night Sunday sailing.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I gather His Honour is in the precinct.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'm advised that His Honour is in the precinct and will shortly be arriving at the chamber. I would request that hon. members retain their seats until the doors are opened, and we will stand for His Honour's entry.

Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Offence Amendment Act, 1982

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982

Special Appropriations Act

Compensation Stabilization Act

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1982

Housing and Employment Development Financing Act

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1982

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982

Waste Management Act

Land Amendment Act, 1982

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.