[ Page 3113 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates,

(Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office –– 3113

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Davis

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Howard

Mr. Reid

Ms. Brown

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1984

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, leading us in prayer this morning was the Rev. Father Keith Young of the Anglican faith. Father Young was in Kitimat for a number of years. I am pleased to see him here and hope the House will extend to him a gracious welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $200,936.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't quite finished my presentation last evening at adjournment, and I thought that I could finish my presentation before the minister rises to respond, all in one shot, to some of the questions that I have posed.

Yesterday I attempted to make the case against the increase in ferry fares, based on the fact that those increases are counterproductive in my view and in the view of the majority of my constituents — people living on the Gulf Islands and Bowen Island. I know that the board of directors and the minister met with a delegation from Bowen Island yesterday, and they presented a very well documented brief to the Ferry Corporation and to the minister regarding the horrendous increases in ferry fares to that island, which is right next door to my constituency. I am sure I don't have to make the argument again, but I probably will.

There are about 3,500 people living on the island. The board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and the minister, have agreed to reduce a bit the original increase in fares to Bowen Island through the use of commuter cards. I am told that about 300 people a day — more or less — commute daily from Bowen Island to work somewhere on the lower mainland, and the increased fares will amount to some $2,000 per year more to those people if they take their vehicle, or $160 if they are foot passengers. The proposal put forward by the people and the committee on Bowen Island suggests that if the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and the minister — I suppose cabinet in this case, because it appears to many of us that cabinet is actually controlling that and giving direction directly to that corporation — would accept the proposal as put forward by the committee yesterday in their meetings, it would cost the corporation an extra $82,000 a year, and that is not very much in the whole scheme of things, Mr. Chairman.

I was asked to put forward one question to the minister, wherever he is: when will the board of directors and the minister be prepared to respond to this proposal as put forward by the Bowen Island ferry committee? If the minister could answer that question, I am sure they'd be very pleased to hear from him regarding that.

While I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, I want to switch very briefly to a couple of local topics relating to highways in my constituency. I know that we're going to get into debate on the estimates again within a few months, so I don't want to be too lengthy and expand on all the numerous highway and road problems in my riding. The minister is familiar with them anyway; I correspond with either the minister or people within the ministry, almost weekly if you will, regarding these matters. But there's one major highway problem that I want at least recorded in Hansard, because I have been in correspondence with the minister, and that's Highway 101 up the Sunshine Coast to Powell River — a main highway in this province. There has been no reconstruction work — some band-aid work but no reconstruction work — on that particular highway since 1977. The last of the reconstruction of that particular major highway was in 1976. If the minister would be good enough to get up and tell me that we are going to.... I don't want the whole highway in one year but let's do some reconstruction on that major highway, which serves about 40,000 people. Let's do a bit of reconstruction work on that highway every year. It would provide local employment in the contracting, and we have a very high unemployment rate in that part of the riding — about 26 percent I am told. That's the real unemployment rate, not the Canada Manpower figures. It is much-needed work. That highway is in terrible condition. The minister has travelled the highway and I know he is personally familiar with it. It's really a snake trail, so some major reconstruction work is required.

I might also say that we had a very serious flooding problem this fall in an area called Roberts Creek — a number of homes damaged, a lot of property washed out and lost and these kinds of things. I want this on record, because the Ministry of Transportation and Highways did come through in that case, Mr. Minister. They provided approximately $50,000 to put in roads, driveways, culverts where bridges to private properties were washed out, and that was very much appreciated. I appreciated that work. There was no compensation — certainly not as yet — to some of the victims in terms of personal belongings, homes, things that were damaged during that flood. It was a pretty severe flood. It didn't get the same media attention as some of the other flooded areas of the province, but it was a pretty severe flood and damaged a lot of property in an area that had never before flooded; it was not a floodplain. I won't go into the causes of and reasons for the flood. I don't think that's necessary here. It is more appropriate under the debate of the estimates of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Hopefully there will be compensation.

But I did want to say that that $50,000 in extra funds put forward by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to rebuild the roads and put in culverts so people had access to their properties was very much appreciated by the residents. I just wanted that on record. I'll wait for the response from the minister, Mr. Chairman.

[10:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I really didn't have the opportunity yesterday to introduce the staff that I have on the floor. On my right are Mr. Al Rhodes, acting Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways, Mr. Tom Johnson, assistant deputy minister in charge of highway operations, and Mr. Keith Jackman, the acting superintendent of motor vehicles. There are also representatives from B.C. Ferries: Mr. Frank Ramsay, assistant general manager

[ Page 3114 ]

of operations, and Mr. Ken Stratford of planning analysis. These are the senior people in the ministry and in B.C. Ferries, and I just want to say how much I, and I'm sure everybody in this House, appreciate the work they do for the public of British Columbia.

I want to go now to the remarks of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). I have made notes here. First of all, I believe he mentioned something about not knowing where the money for the stepped-up highway program in 1983-84 went. It was under the vote for employment development and was $189 million. So it led to a very active highway program in 1983-84, and along with the capital side gave us $400-odd million. We directly employed around 8,000 people — that is, contractors and so on — and the side effect, as I mentioned yesterday, probably meant twice that. So we did get a lot of work achieved and provided some employment as well in the tough 1983 year.

Now dealing with fare increases of B.C. Ferries, I gather the member said there was interference by the government. I want to make it quite clear that it is the obligation of the government not to interfere. But right in the act — and I want to read it to you.... I'm dealing now with fares and the general operation of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, wholly owned by the public of British Columbia. Regarding operations, it's under section 11 of the act.

"(1) The corporation, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or such board, commission or other body as he may designate, shall fix the fares, tolls and other charges for the use of the ferry, shipping and other related services under its jurisdiction.

"(2) The corporation, in fixing fares, tolls and other charges, shall give consideration to the costs of operating and maintaining ferries, terminals and its other properties and assets and the amount required annually to meet depreciation and interest charges."

I want to say to the House that I gathered from a few statements the member made that we were interfering. We — the cabinet — don't interfere, but we have a legal obligation and, yes, we approve all fare changes and all route changes. I might say that in reality the board of directors, who are appointed by the government, make recommendations to the cabinet from time to time. In practically all instances the cabinet agree to them, but there have been changes made by cabinet as well. I think that's their prerogative. I want to clear that matter up. Any fares or any runs that are ceased or expanded are also approved by the executive council, which has a statutory obligation to do so under the Ferry Corporation Act.

There is always a lot of comment regarding fares, their increases and justification. I would say that it appears that this latest fare increase is very debatable, but it's my information that by the change in the commuter rates and the books and so on, we might find ourselves with a decrease in rates, instead of an increase. You mentioned that theSun shine Coast was up 26 percent. I think, Mr. Member, that you should check, because it is my information that the commuter rates have decreased their rates; it's not an increase in percentage at all. That was because of the change that was made in the commuter rates: the books were cut in half and left open-ended instead of being used in a specific period. It has had different effects throughout the system.

We always get into discussion about the Highways ferries, both salt water and fresh water. As the Legislature knows, the ministry operates 30-odd ferries in salt water and some in fresh water. It has always been the case that on the salt-water ferries there has been a fair charge, and on the fresh-water ferries there has never been a charge in the history of the province that I know of. The argument given is that the interior fresh-water ferries lead to a continuation of a continuing highway. That is not the case with salt-water ferries because they are servicing islands and there is no highway. That has always, I believe, been the justification for that. I might point out that regarding ferry rates on the saltwater ferries of Highways talking about increases, they have been out of step, there is no question about that, with B.C. Ferries, but we are now on the advance to bring them more in line. Rates on Highways ferries were increased by 25 percent effective January 1.

Just to clear up again where we have subsidies, the provincial government gives a subsidy of $43 million to the B.C. Ferries' operation. I want to acknowledge, with thanks, that we get $11 million from the government of Canada that is tied into a cost-of-living factor and has advanced somewhat. But that goes into the treasury, and in turn the treasury pay the subsidy to B.C. Ferries. So if we want to look at net subsidy of the provincial government and the provincial taxpayer, it will be $32 million over and above the federal subsidy. I might say that under the federal subsidy there are certain obligations there that we serve the Pacific coast to the best of our ability. That agreement has expired. We tried to open it, but Ottawa said they were quite satisfied with the way it was and that we should just let sleeping dogs lie. So that's the current situation, but the cheques keep coming.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But they're going into general revenue.

HON. A. FRASER: That's correct, they go into general revenue, and general revenue in turn pays out to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I might say that there have been some internal administrative problems, but they have been corrected. I believe it is now paid on a monthly basis to B.C. Ferries, whereas before I believe it was paid quarterly or twice-yearly.

One thing I forgot to mention is that I am a member of the B.C. Ferries board of directors, and together with the other directors met yesterday with the fine delegation from Bowen Island and listened to their excellent brief. They weren't given any answers, but they will be, hopefully by the end of February, I would think. As is the case in so many other places, their problem is commuters — that is, people who live on Bowen Island and go to work in some part of the lower mainland. It is certainly very difficult for people who elect to live this way, but every citizen has his choice. It does cause transportation problems inasmuch as we have to staff up for peak periods in the mornings and evenings, and a lot of the time in between we have slack time, but we're still running boats and have staff on duty. However, we have those problems going on all the time and we do the best we can to make everybody happy.

Yes, I know about Highway 101, Mr. Member, and I think it's one grade above a snake trail. Some improvements have been made and there are lots to come, but I think that's best left to next year's estimates.

I would close by saying that I appreciate your passing on your appreciation for the work we did with floods. Quite frankly, as the Minister of Transportation and Highways I find

[ Page 3115 ]

that we're the front ones to start with in every flood. We're always the ones out there, and our staff should be given a lot of compliments because they get out there in the worst type of weather and are the first to organize what to do when you have a real mess on your hands so you can get transportation going again. It's appreciated by me and I think by all members of the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't want to take up too much of the House's time on debate of estimates that are essentially two years old, but the ferry thing has caused a lot of controversy on the coast of British Columbia, and I did forget to ask the minister.... I know that an internal committee of the board of directors, I believe, or senior management people of the corporation, has been struck to report to the minister and to cabinet on ways and means of further reducing costs in the operation of the ferry service, on the coast particularly. I was wondering if the minister could briefly respond: is that committee functioning, what is happening, and when are they to report? If we further reduce scheduling to certain parts of the central and northern coast and theSun shine Coast, we'll have a great economic impact on these areas, which are in many instances already quite depressed. So perhaps the minister could report on the activities of that committee to date.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that the fresh-water ferries should not be toll-free, but what I'm suggesting is the inequity in the situation. I have no idea why we should have increased tolls on our Highways-operated ferries on the coast of British Columbia when huge subsidies are paid to operate the free ferries in the interior. Those freshwater ferries, whether they are of the B.C. Ferry Corporation or the Ministry of Highways, are definitely an extension of highways, quite obviously. What are the people supposed to do, swim over to Texada Island or Quadra Island? Let's face it, they're an extension of the highways. So that reasoning really doesn't make a great deal of sense to me and certainly doesn't to my constituents. We're not suggesting that we should be putting tolls on those fresh-water ferries. What we're asking for is quality in terms of fare increases. I don't know, because the water is saltier down here in the ocean than in fresh water, they deserve tolls? It doesn't make sense to me and it doesn't make sense to my constituents.

[10:30]

I have one other topic, just for the minister's information on the commuter books. Our resident cards were taken away from us, as residents, and I am aware that the corporation introduced a system whereby you are able to purchase open-ended commuter tickets. We appreciated that — I said that yesterday — and there is no problem. Because the tickets are now open-ended — we can use them all year round, or whatever — many people are purchasing these tickets. One of the points I was attempting to make is that not everybody has the money in these very difficult economic times — and they're going to be more difficult with the current lockout in the pulp industry in areas like mine. Even without that, we still have between 24 and 26 percent real unemployment in my riding. Not everybody can afford to put out whatever a book of these tickets costs, and some people do have to travel to the lower mainland for business or other reasons — a lot of people have to travel for medical reasons — and these people are paying the horrendous increase in fares. It's as simple as that. I'm not suggesting that we don't appreciate the fact that after the visit of the board of directors — Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Baldwin and others — to our area some concessions were made. They were appreciated. We said so publicly, and I think the local papers stated this fact in various issues after that meetine. Nonetheless, we face an unfair tax increase, a fare increase in certain parts on the coast of British Columbia, and I just wanted to mention that for the minister's information.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the member asked about the committee that was set up to look into areas of the operation of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. That's correct, an ad hoc committee of the B.C. Ferries board was set up to see how we could reduce further the losses of the B.C. Ferries system in three specific areas: theSun shine Coast; what we call the north run — that's to Prince Rupert and then the Queen Charlottes — and the Gulf Islands. For the information of the Legislature, the losses in these three areas are as follows: Sunshine Coast, $13.7 million; Gulf Islands, $13.7 million; the north coast, $14.4 million. I think that adds up to an operating loss of $S41.8 million. The ad hoc committee is looking into how we can reduce those losses which, you can see, are just about absorbing all the ferry subsidy given by the taxpayers of British Columbia to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. That's the nub of the problem. We don't have too many problems with what we call route I and route 2. They're standing on their own feet more or less — the larger runs from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen and from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo. But there is that problem and they will have to report by the end of February; the committee will report to the board of directors who will in turn report to the government. They will certainly report to their own board by the end of February, and I imagine the government will get the results of that soon after. I might say on behalf of the government that we can t eliminate that, but we'd like to get a better handle on the losses. It appears to me — it's strictly speculation — that the fares are up where we can't get very much more that way, so we'll have to look at the operation itself. Reducing service could well be.... I don't know what the answer is.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we're even thinking of changing vessels for the Sunshine Coast — that is, taking what we call our truckship, or the Queen of Alberni, raising it and having it look after the Sunshine Coast in a better manner. We're also going to go right ahead immediately so that we can accommodate the larger vessels at Langdale. I think $3 million is required there so we can use the upper deck of the larger vessels — in other words, trying to get more economic s into the run than we have. On the north coast run we have a different type of operating problem because of extensive mileage. Again I can assure the House that we're not going to eliminate the service to the north coast, but maybe we should be running the vessel that goes from Tsawwassen to Port Hardy also to Bella Bella, Prince Rupert and over to Skidegate on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I can't see any reason why that vessel has to run from Tsawwassen to Port Hardy. In other words, cease the operation, and that would be a big saving in the winter months.

We think we should change the mode of the north run to a daylight run. We find with experience that.... As you know, now we have an overnight run but also the odd day run, and we find that our load factor is way up if we have that vessel on a day run — that is, a day run from Port Hardy to Bella Bella and Prince Rupert. Eliminating the night run of that vessel so it runs in daylight hours will, we think, attract more passengers. So we are looking at all those things, and the Gulf Islands — looking at the operational....

[ Page 3116 ]

I might say, these figures probably sound high to the House but they include everything — depreciation and everything. Depreciation has to be considered for ships and for terminals. I don't know how many hundreds of millions of dollars we've got invested, but we account for that property. That shows up in the statements, but I hope that's added.

I'd like to say something as well about the interior ferries. We're looking at eliminating some interior ferries. We've already eliminated some and we're looking at eliminating others, but only where we have alternate roads. The other point is, where we have high operating costs we're looking at building bridges. Right now we are building a bridge — for the first time ever — to connect Boston Bar with North Bend and do away with the operation of that ferry, which has caused no end of operational troubles, costly troubles. I'm happy to tell the House that I think we'll have that bridge in use by some time in 1985. The contract for the piers is let, they're working and then those two communities will be linked up. Talking about cost, I believe that ferry is an example. It costs between $400,000 and $500,000 a year and nobody is satisfied. The bridge will probably cost us $5 million but we will have eliminated that ferry problem. So that's the approach we're taking on interior ferries. Some ferries will be shut down — some already have been. There are more that probably will be shut down where there is a road alternate; and where there isn't, as in the case I've just given, they will be eliminated by building a bridge.

I think I've more or less covered the items that the member brought up.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a few topics briefly and I'll be very interested in the minister's replies. I know he is fully briefed on most of them.

First, taxi services in the lower mainland. The Economic Council of Canada did a study on taxis in Canada and elsewhere, and concluded that the least efficient use of taxis in Canada was in Vancouver, largely because the market in the lower mainland is divided between a number of municipalities and the municipalities license the taxis. Taxis running across municipal boundaries cannot pick up in the outside or foreign municipality. If a taxi is licensed in Vancouver it cannot pick up in Burnaby or on the North Shore, Richmond, Surrey and so on, and vice versa. As a result of this fragmented market area, many taxis run empty one way. Their costs obviously are higher than in other larger areas where taxis can be loaded both ways.

It seems to me that the time has passed when the municipalities individually in the lower mainland should be licensing taxis. Licensing should be done, let's say, on a GVRD basis — on a large regional basis. Then the taxis could be used more efficiently. They'd be occupied by passengers more often, they'd use less fuel and so on. I understand that a study is underway. I hope the conclusion is that licensing should be over a larger area than simply by our single, small municipalities. I would like to see that licensing over the larger area — a more efficient taxi operation, in other words — in place by 1986. It doesn't make sense that only Vancouver-licensed taxis can pick up at Expo 86 and take people to various destinations around the lower mainland — or indeed at any event in downtown Vancouver.

It's an important subject because taxis are an efficient mode of transport. If possible, taxis should be occupied both ways, and therefore licensing on a larger basis — say the GVRD basis — makes a lot of sense from an economic point of view. I think a new arrangement might be developed whereby taxi licences aren't bid out of sight in certain areas; in other words, it would be possible to license on a basis whereby the operators had to comply in terms of excellence of their equipment, cleanliness, inspection by the ministry and so on.

That's one topic in which a growing number of people are interested. Another one is the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Some years ago, when the corporation was set up, the subsidy to the corporation was based on an admittedly arbitrary concept; nevertheless, a calculation was prepared within the then Ministry of Highways of the average cost per mile of highways in the province, and the subsidy related to the number of miles that the B.C. ferry fleet covered. I believe the federal subsidy is still geared to that concept. Two years ago the government departed from the equivalent mileage subsidy, and I'd like to ask the minister what is the basis is now of the subsidy. It's a lesser subsidy. I assume it is no longer related to highway mileage equivalents; there is some other basis. How does the B.C. Ferry Corporation board of directors anticipate the subsidy for 1985, 1986? Is there some criterion? Is there some indication of how much money will come from the treasury year by year to support the ferry corporation, which for at least some time to come will probably run in a deficit position?

Still on B.C. ferries, it seems to me that the next crossing over the Strait of Georgia will be a one-hour run from somewhere in the vicinity of the Vancouver International Airport to Gabriola Island. Increasingly I wonder why it isn't Point Grey to Gabriola. The province recently put substantial funds into a two-lane highway out to the University of B.C. The University Endowment Lands are substantially under provincial jurisdiction. Using Point Grey as a jumping-off point, the provincial government would avoid having to deal with particular municipalities and wouldn't have the problem of crossing Richmond and going across Lulu Island, which is substantially under federal jurisdiction. Why not look at Point Grey to Gabriola? It is a less than one-hour crossing. Ferries could be used much more efficiently; you could get two trips out of one of the larger ferries for one trip now. It is obviously much more economical. That would seem to be a high priority in terms of economics down the years of the ferry corporation.

[10:45]

A third topic, I know one familiar to the minister, is the so-called Cassiar connector between the Second Narrows bridge and Highway 401. Various studies have been carried out. I know that Vancouver city council has been very concerned about local neighbourhood issues and that several alternatives have been priced. The province is prepared to build an adequate connector which would serve the North Shore much more effectively — indeed, would serve anyone using the Trans-Canada Highway much better. What is the present status of those studies of negotiations with the municipality, which really isn't asked to put up a cent but whose approval is necessary before the Cassiar connector is built?

Finally, crossings over the Fraser River. I know the minister and members of the Legislature were glad to hear that the bids on the Annacis Island crossing came in substantially below the engineer's estimates. In other words, the ministry has saved tens of millions of dollars because it's proceeding with the construction of the centre span of the Annacis bridge now rather than later. The engineering construction industries

[ Page 3117 ]

are hungry. They're sharpening their pencils. They're bidding voraciously for work.

I would also like to say that now is the time to build the light rapid transit crossing over the Fraser River as well. I know some studies are underway which endeavour to lay the Annacis highway crossing and the proposed light rapid transit crossing side by side to see if they clash or compete in any way. I would contend that they do not. I would say also that if the light rapid transit crossing is not built in the next few years, it will seriously hamper the economics of the light rapid transit system in total, because for an incremental cost of between 5 and 10 percent — perhaps 7 or 8 percent — the traffic carried by light rapid transit could be up by as much as one-third. In my view, it is foolish economics to invest a lot of money in light rapid transit and not cross the Fraser River and perform a unique function such as tapping the large and growing population in Surrey, which would then have much more rapid, convenient access to New Westminster, Burnaby and Vancouver.

While I realize that public transportation in the sense of city buses and rapid transit doesn't come under the Minister of Transportation and Highways at the present time, I suggest that his ministry and that of the hon. Minister of Human Resources, and others such as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, take a good hard took at the two bridges and the desirability of building them concurrently. I think there is a lot of economic sense in that. I know they serve two different constituencies, so to speak, and I believe they should proceed now.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I always appreciate the observations of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. In some cases he raises really big policy issues.

First of all, dealing with taxis, for the information of the House, the Motor Carrier Commission licenses all taxis in the province, and of course they're further licensed by individual municipal jurisdictions. I have asked the Motor Carrier Commission to look into the general licensing of taxis and why we shouldn't be licensing on a regional basis. I haven't got that report yet, Mr. Member, but as an example, at the present time if you take a taxi from the North Shore to the Vancouver airport for the cost of probably $25, that taxi, if it came from North Vancouver, has to go back empty; it cannot pick up. There seems to be something wrong, in my opinion, when that condition exists. Regional licensing might be the answer, but we have to be very careful because — economics again — the taxi business generally isn't one of the more lucrative ones, and we have to take a hard look before we do any moving. I don't know the attitudes of the individual municipalities about that, but that should come out in the study.

One thing that I don't like at all is that the city of Vancouver, as an example, are selling taxi licences for $50,000 or $60,000. I guess there is no law against it and they're allowed to do it. They do it by a bid system. But I would remind the Legislature that when this is going on it impacts on the end user, the citizen who uses the taxi. This ministry has no jurisdiction over that.

So there are lots of problems. We are looking at regional licensing, but I would imagine that there would be strong opposition to that from the individual municipalities. Maybe something can be resolved, but it wouldn't look after the issuance of new licences that I've just referred to. How that would be overcome I don't know.

The member asked about how up until two years ago the basis of the subsidy was mileage in maintaining the B.C. Ferries operation. We discontinued that some two years ago because there were faults in the system and it showed up badly in some runs as against the other. As an example, the run to the north — to Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes — showed horrendous losses which were hardly fair compared to the others. Now what we do is project the subsidy given to the B.C. Ferry Corporation on their projected operating losses. That is the way they're arrived at at the present time, instead of on a mileage basis.

The member mentioned again another crossing. That comes up invariably. It has been looked at in the past at Point Grey-Gabriola and a lot of other locations, but the airport area was generally preferable to Point Grey. As far as I'm concerned, it appears that a third crossing is a long way in the future; factors change from time to time, but I think it's a long way away.

The Cassiar connector is a large project. We're dealing with a city, the city of Vancouver. It got along fairly well, although it takes time. The city and ourselves had a joint committee set up; that committee has now reported, and the city has considered the report and suggested another alternative. We're revising their suggestion now. They are after a meeting with me and senior staff which we hope we will have before the end of February, But it appears that we're finally coming down to something we can agree to. We'll finally finish Highway 401 from the end of the freeway to the Second Narrows Bridge, referred to as the Cassiar connector.

The last item brought up was the Annacis crossing. Yes, we were fortunate in calling the tenders for the centre span, and we had excellent bids. No contract has been awarded, but hopefully it will be shortly. The low bidder on the centre span came in about $20 million below the estimate. The low bidder is a firm called PCL, and their bid was $45 million-odd, and of course we're very happy with that. The senior engineers in the ministry are still analyzing it, but it won't be long until we'll be awarding it. As far as I can find out, following that the approach tenders go out, and as far as the government is concerned we'd like to have the main span of the bridge in operation sometime in 1986.

MR. GABELMANN: Normally in Highways estimates debates it's a time for a lot of us, particularly representing rural ridings, to stand up and almost be supplicants for a whole list of projects, proposals and needs in our own ridings. I've been no different over the years; I've done that as well. I was tempted this year to repeat my wish-list, and I wrote it out according to priority. But the more I think about it, the more I think I'm going to leave that particular discussion to the normal procedures of letter-writing, conversations with the minister and discussions with various of his staff, and rather than talk about my wish-list talk about what I think are some real problems in the ministry in terms of its application of available funding.

I think there has been a conspiracy by the Minister of Highways against coastal ridings represented by New Democrats. I can come to that conclusion simply by spending some time driving around and seeing the obvious allocation of funds in other parts of the province where the need is not nearly as great as it is in northern Vancouver Island especially. We have been in urgent need, for more than a decade now, of an Island Highway bypass, an inland route, particularly between Parksville and just north of Campbell River.

[ Page 3118 ]

The existing road is a cow-trail. It has been upgraded in parts, thankfully. We've saved God knows how many lives as a result of the upgrading between Campbell River and Courtenay, and that's most appreciated, but it's minimal. The few dollars that were spent there making a dreadful two-lane road into an adequate two-lane road are not nearly enough. The highway is congested and goes through numerous small communities. Most of the highway runs through what you might call rural residential subdivisions from Parksville to Campbell River, with an incredible number of driveways fronting onto what is one of the busiest roads, for its size and construction, in the province. Yet we wait year after year for some announcements as to the start of that bypass.

[11:00]

When Bob Strachan was minister, very early on in his tenure he made a decision that the Island Highway would be four-laned from Victoria to Campbell River, and that process was begun and has continued sporadically, and we have got the extension into Parksville; I give credit for that. But I think we have got to say as clearly and as loudly as we can that it must be the highest priority for new highway construction in this province. I don't have all the engineering studies nor traffic counts nor all of that kind of information with which to make judgments as to whether one road or another is more important, but all of my instincts and my subjective analyses tell me that that is a high priority and must be put up higher on the list of projects to be commenced. What better time to do it than now, when you're going to get lower bids than you would ordinarily get? If my arithmetic is correct and the Annacis Island span comes in at one-third less than your projected estimates, then what better time than now, even if you're borrowing for these capital projects, to build cheaper highways and cheaper bridges? Not only can you do it at a better cost, but you put some people back to work, which helps the economy of this province.

Without spending any more time on it, I would appeal to the minister, and through him to Treasury Board, to upgrade the priority for the continuing construction of that absolutely vital inland highway. Obviously you'll have to do bits and pieces of it at a time. You're not going to be able to do the whole stretch in one go, and we admit that. There are certain areas that need immediate attention. The crossing of the Campbell River in the community of Campbell River is an obvious one. We have Highways studies being done about an alternative crossing on the lower estuary of the Campbell River, which no one in the community supports and none wants.

At the same time no serious work appears to be going on at the present time on where to put the future inland Island roads in terms of the river and the park and all of the other serious problems that exist there. The community wants the road to go up there. If the Quinsam coal-mine goes ahead, that's where the coal-mine trucks are going to go. If that industrial park is ever going to get off the ground, that's where the industrial traffic should go, not down through the lower area of the river and not through the town, as has been suggested by some of the planning that's going on at the present time.

Let's put priority onto that inland road, and let's not put it too far inland so that it doesn't attract local traffic. It's obviously got to be fairly close to the coast. Let's get on with that project. It's urgent. Those of us who have to drive — as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) have to do — once or twice a week up that Island highway wonder how we are still alive. It's a bloody awful, dreadful road for the most part. Parts of it now have cat's-eyes but there are still great sections of it that don't even have proper cat's-eyes. On a rainy, foggy night I wonder how we ever make it up and down alive, and I wonder why it isn't killing more people than it already does — not to talk about the obvious congestion in communities like Qualicum, Parksville, Bowser and all of the other communities along the way.

While it is not of the same magnitude of importance, I just want to say again, as I've said before to the minister, that the feeling in the communities of the entire north Island is overwhelming and completely unanimous that some time soon a start must be made on the link between Tahsis and Woss. We cannot accept that Tahsis will be connected to the rest of the world through that 44- mile logging road over two mountain ranges through to Gold River. That is just not a viable alternative. While no one is asking for a highway-standard road to be constructed from Tahsis to Woss, they are asking that the Minister of Highways cooperate with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to build a forest road of mainline standard between Tahsis and Woss. That is the unanimous view of every person I talk to in the community; it is, by resolution, the policy of the two regional boards in that area; and it is, by resolution, the policy of every municipality, village and town in the north Island. That road must be constructed. I appreciate that this is a difficult time in terms of available money. I'm not arguing that the Highways budget should be allocated immediately to it, but I am arguing that the Ministry of Highways make a commitment to that route. That would then allow forestry and the two logging companies involved to begin to develop their logging plans in a way that will allow the early construction of that route by way of a mainline logging road.

The third of the four things I want to talk about in terms of what I see as a conspiracy against areas like mine is the fact that we still have a whole list of single-lane bridges on main highways. The only time we can get bridge replacement is when there is some danger that the existing bridge is going to fall down or that it can no longer carry heavy duty transport, such as is the case with the Buttle Narrows bridge, which is now beginning to be constructed. But there are at least three or, depending on how you count, four other bridges in main traffic areas that are still single-lane Bailey bridges, and another is an old wooden structure, and those bridges aren't even on the list for being replaced in the near future. Yet I drove up to Whistler the other day, and I saw incredible amounts of money being spent on that road. I know there has been public pressure for it. But because the opinion-makers in the province who live in Vancouver and write for the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province and work at BCTV or CBC TV can exert what I consider to be undue pressure — unfair pressure, compared to what pressure people who live in rural areas can exert — we get the kind of expenditures.... I'm a skier. I used to ski at Whistler and haven't been up there for a few years, and I heard these horror stories about how bad the road was. My God, the money that has been spent! I anticipated driving over Cheakamus Canyon and taking my time again — you can go 80 miles an hour down there now. It is ridiculous.

Sure it is important. Sure it has to be done, but we have got roads like that everywhere else, too, that need to be replaced and repaired, and bridges that parents of school children are afraid to have their kids drive over, like the

[ Page 3119 ]

Marble River bridge between Port Alice and Port McNeill. And what happens? We are told they are not important, they are not going to be listed, they are not even going to be included on budget planning, because people who live up there don't have the ability to exert the influence that the people who drive BMWs to Whistler have on the government.

I say that not opposing the reconstruction of the Whistler road. Obviously that is something that needs to be done, but so too do some of these rural roads, especially on the coast where we have been neglected for so long. Why not build these bridges now, when obviously it can be done cheaper? Immense savings can be made and, as I said earlier, the cost of borrowing to build those bridges now would be more than made up by the savings and the welfare to the province it would generate from having people working. So let's get on with those bridge replacements, the Island Highway bypass and the commitment to the Tahsis-Woss road.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate some of the comments made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) about fares on Highways ferries. I have had 50 or 60 letters so far on the fare increases, and in some cases people are saying: "We understand the need for fare increases, and we are prepared to pay. We are prepared even to pay more than 5 or 6 percent, which is supposed to be the limit on increases these days." Many of them, though, are asking what justification there can be for a 25 percent fare increase, as there has been on the crossing between Campbell River and Quathiaski Cove. What really galls people are two things, and in a sense they are symbolic. The ministry now charges $2 per crossing per bicycle. So if you are a husband and wife going from Quadra Island to work in Campbell River, as many people do, and you take your bicycles, it costs you exactly the same as it costs you to take your car. So what do people do? Of course they find the first available pickup, and they throw the bikes in the back of somebody's pickup, and they cheat. They don't get charged if they are in the back of somebody's pickup, but if you ride on, of course they do. What does that do? I t just engenders a contempt for process, a contempt for law.

But the idea that you are going to charge people to bring their bicycles onto a Highways ferry, thus encouraging more cars, is absolutely absurd. For the life of me, I don't understand it. The amount of revenue that is going to be collected at $2 a shot for bicycles on Highways ferries, whether it is to Cortez, to Alert Bay or to Quadra.... My God, you might collect a couple of hundred dollars a year — not very much — and much less, as people get used to throwing them into the closest pickup. It is not the $2 that bothers people; it is the symbol. It is the demonstration that you don't care about trying to reduce the number of vehicles on the ferries, you are just trying to extract every single dollar that you can, which is just an absurd, ridiculous decision. I don't expect you to give me a definitive answer at the moment, but I would urge very strongly that you take some time to think about having that particular aspect of the recent fare increase rescinded.

The other thing is the continuing anger that is being exacerbated by increased ferry fares on the salt-water ferries and still no ferry fares on the interior runs, and the justification that they are somehow part of the Highways system in the interior but they just serve islands on the coast. You smiled when you made that argument, and you didn't make it very seriously, Mr. Minister, because it is such an absurd answer. The alternative to get to Cortes Island is to build a couple of bridges. One of them would require a couple of links and be very, very costly. The only other way is to get there by ferry. It's obviously part of the highway system, just as much and more so than the Balfour ferry is, because if you're in Nelson or up the arm you can drive around — it's a long way, but you could — and there are other routes in the interior where the same thing applies. If my memory is correct about my geography, you can get around Francois Lake, maybe not all year, depending on whether they keep the road open, but you can get around. You can't get around on most, if not all, of these routes on the coast. It's the only way you can get to Sointula, Alert Bay, Cortes or Quadra.

No person I know who thinks and is reasonable about it objects to there being fares. But when there are no fares on other comparable ferries in other parts of the province, then people say, as I said at the beginning of my comments, it's clear that there is some conspiracy against people on the coast. Is it because for the most part they vote NDP?

[11:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for North Island, there is no conspiracy. When you are elected government, as I understand it, you're elected government for all the people.

Dealing now with the specifics you're talking about, I really can’t agree with you at all. There have been millions and millions of dollars spent on the road system on Vancouver Island, and I'll boil it down to that. Since we have been government, from 1975, a lot of four-laning has been done. As you — of all the members in the House — know, it was our government that completed the first road right through to the north end of Vancouver Island, to Port Hardy.

MR. GABELMANN: We started it, and you wouldn't have done it.

HON. A. FRASER: No, come on now, face the facts of life! Certainly you as government started it; we finished it. The difference was about $90 million or whatever; anyway, for one dollar your government spent we spent nine to put the first road — and a dandy road — from Campbell River to Port Hardy.

More currently, we just finished four-laning the road from Nanaimo to Parksville at a cost of millions of dollars. So don't try and give the impression to this House that we haven't spent any money on the road system of Vancouver Island. When you look at the transportation system overall, I think you could look at that: B.C. Ferries and the subsidies there: that all goes to the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. When you're talking about transportation as such, I think you should combine all these factors and find out that you're getting a pretty good shake. None of us are getting enough money for the roads that we're concerned with. I'd like to see it stepped up, but it's a question of money. The point I'm trying to make is that we certainly haven't stood still at all.

Dealing with the bypass: that, I think, will more properly be dealt with in the next estimates, but you know where we've been on the bypass of Courtenay-Campbell River — no end of public hearings, discussions and so on. I think finally everybody now is agreed on the right-of-way. Then there is the acquisition of the right-of-way, and I don't think any of that has transpired. Then we'll get on with the work. We

[ Page 3120 ]

agree in principle that that bypass has to be built, but again it's a really large undertaking financially.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we have an existing road from Gold River to Tahsis, and that's a forest access road. We fund the maintenance of that road, as the member knows, but the community of Tahsis now want us to build a road from there to Woss, which connects with the Island Highway. We have some real trouble there, Mr. Member, because our engineers don't agree with that at all. They don't think that's the answer. I've had a lot of correspondence, and I appreciate your observations about it as well as those of the community itself. This is what they want, but I think we are looking at a minimum of 25 miles through solid rock at $3 million a mile or something. That's what our engineers say. It's just not warranted. I agree that there should be a better access to Tahsis, but we can't seem to agree on how we get that. That seems to be where we're at. I think our senior engineers want to upgrade the existing route; that's their answer to getting better access.

You mentioned bridge replacements and that we should do them now. That's what I'd like to do. I think we have 60 or 70 going. In the case of the Buttle Narrows, as you know, that contract is awarded. There are millions and millions of dollars that can be spent on replacement of bridges, as the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said. I think he's got around 15 Baileys on Highway 37 alone. So we're a long way behind; it's going to be a long time until we catch up and have bridges that are more or less current. In the meantime we have to monitor everything we have.

You mentioned a 27-percent — I said a 25-percent — fare increase on highway ferries, but really the crux of the thing is why we haven't got fares on the interior ferries. I gave a reply to that before. We're looking at all those things, as I said, to get rid of some ferries entirely or to replace them with bridges. I'm going from memory now, but I think at the present time we take in about $3 million a year in revenue from the Highways ferries and they cost us around $20 million to operate. So that's basically our problem there.

Regarding bicycles, I note your remarks on that but I would just say that every major ferry system in the free world charges for bicycles.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll let the bicycle thing go; we'll deal with that in another forum, I think. I do want to go back to the Woss-Tahsis road, though, just for a moment.

First of all, I'm going by memory now too but my memory is that it's not 25 miles of rock. What you're talking about basically is 16 or 17 miles total distance, and I would guess that you've got four or five miles of tough rockwork to do. But you've got one pass as compared to the two on the existing route, which is 44 miles to get to Gold River, not to the Island Highway. There are a whole variety of reasons, not the least of which is the personal comfort of the people who live in Tahsis and their ability to get to shopping, either in Port Hardy or Campbell River. That's obviously the thing that motivates the people in Tahsis. But there are other good reasons as well why that commitment should be made.

In the first place, in the long term logging is going to be done in that area, and all but probably six or seven miles in there is eventually going to be built anyway. All we're saying is that for a small cost, much less than the cost of upgrading the existing road, which is.... I don't know whether you've driven it, but it's a hairy road, particularly in the wintertime. Often in the winter you can't get through because there's too much snow, despite a fairly good maintenance program. Often in the spring you can't get through because it's flooded in a couple of spots. It's an expensive road; rebuilding that road, if my memory is correct again, costs about the same as to build a new road. I remember the figures of a few years ago when they were talking about $35 million either way for highway standard. But we're not asking for highway standard; we're asking for mainline logging standard. People who live in those communities can handle logging road at a good standard, particularly if it's only 16 miles. The existing road isn't the best logging standard, which we're arguing for on the other route. Also, it's 44 miles, it gets you to Gold River and then you've got that tortuous 55 miles out to Campbell River.

So it's not just the question of the travel time; it's the question of there being a pretty reasonable argument about relative costs for either route. There are also some economic arguments in terms of tourism and development of the west coast, which is so dependent upon logging and, in Tahsis's case, upon sawmilling — and nothing else. We could open up the west coast in a way that it really does need to be opened up by having access roads like that one created. I'll leave it at that, except to say that relying solely on engineers' statements of fact is fair enough, but you should also remember that in a democracy what the people want should also be considered. If we lived in a technocratic state, then I would assume that what the engineers said was what we should do. I'm not denying that they have the right to tell us what they think is the best thing to do, but we might decide that despite what the engineers say, the people want something else. In a democracy we should let the people have what they want too, once in a while.

MR. HOWARD: I want to assure the minister from the outset that unlike his confrere from North Vancouver, I'm not going to ask the minister for millions and millions of dollars to be spent — that is, not in this fiscal year. However, when next fiscal year rolls around we'll have another look at it.

I just want to make a couple of points with the minister, and ask him something. I urge him to consider restructuring the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation so as to include someone from Kitimat. Earlier I wrote to the minister about that, when there was a vacancy on the board, and the minister didn't feel disposed at that time to assign a slot for somebody from Kitimat. But I would seriously urge him to take that step. It's inevitable that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going to go into Kitimat and establish Kitimat as a port of call. I think we should realize that the ferry corporation could probably steam in there now at no — if any; very little, but I submit for all practical purposes none — additional operating costs or expenditures. That's information provided to me from people in the Ferry Corporation. Because of the inevitability of that coming to pass, I think a change in the composition of the board of directors to have somebody from Kitimat on it would allow for the necessary preliminary input and the orientation necessary within the board toward what Kitimat and the area that it serves in terms of transportation is all about. It isn't just Kitimat we're talking about. We're talking about access of an easier nature for people who live all through the northern interior and who may want to take the coastal route, as distinct now from having to travel to Prince Rupert. So we would accomplish that and also give recognition to what I'm sure in his mind is a fact for the future: that

[ Page 3121 ]

Kitimat will be a port of call for the Ferry Corporation. I'd like the minister to consider that.

The other thing I'd like to ask him about is Camaby crossing on Highway 16 in the area between Hazelton and Terrace. I wouldn't be so unkind as actually to quote the words of the minister from Hansard of a couple of years ago, but I'm sure if one searched back in the official documents of this House one would find the minister saying that it would be eliminated within a year. What's happening? What's the projection now about Carnaby crossing? The minister doesn't have that? It's a detailed question. If he doesn't have it immediately available, I can perhaps get it afterward outside the House.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, I appreciate the member for Skeena's observations regarding directors from that area. As you know, we have one now from Prince Rupert. But you're suggesting one ought to come from Kitimat. There is no change anticipated, but your remarks will certainly be kept in mind if and when changes are forthcoming. I'm not so sure, because of restraint, that it is as simple as he suggests to run a ferry service into Kitimat. That's one of the runs we're looking at now overall — what we call the north run. Unfortunately, there are heavy losses there. When the next estimates come up, we'll know more of what is going to happen in that area. That committee of the board of directors reports at the end of February on these three runs, and I think its report will have some effect on the north run. I'm concerned about that as well. We can talk more in the next estimates about it. As you know, studies have been done on Kitimat as an alternative port. It will cost a fair amount of money to get us properly established in there, and by that I mean having our own proper docking facilities, rather than borrowing them from other people.

[11:30]

The member asked a short question on Carnaby crossing. This is a bad crossing on Highway 16 which interacts with the CN, and the CN is now getting busy with trains. I probably did say what he said I did. I don't think we have a structure to build. We've had difficulty in acquiring a right-of-way. Negotiations are apparently in the preliminary stage. We still want to get that done and get the problem eliminated. Acquiring property for the new route is the holdup.

MR. HOWARD: Has the minister got any guesstimate as to what the cost would be to build a ferry terminal in Kitimat — one that B.C. Ferry Corporation has — rather than operating on the other side of the head of the inlet? Have they done any work on what that is likely to cost? We've used figures of $3 million to $4 million for a terminal, but if we have anything that you could substantiate in a real way of having looked at it, I'd appreciate that.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Skeena, the ferry people say the studies they've had show that it would be a minimum of $5 million to a maximum of $10 million.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, first of all I want to commend your ministry for the efforts in the past year. I wanted to dwell on the subject of the Annacis crossing for a moment because as the member who represents the riding which abuts the Delta end of Annacis crossing, we have been anxiously awaiting the completion of the crossing. With the opposition of the NDP since 1975 to try to scuttle that, I commend you and your staff for proceeding under that opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're fighting against the NDP conspiracy.

MR. REID: Yes, the conspiracy of the NDP.

I want also to ask your department to continue to proceed with the accesses on the south end, because there are presently still some problems with the two municipalities agreeing to the accessibility to that crossing. As the member for Surrey I want to offer your staff whatever cooperation and assistance we can in skirting any further opposition to accesses to the Annacis crossing when they are completed on the south.

I am really heartened by the $20-million saving in the estimates relative to the tenders. That's good news because we could probably ask your department to reallocate that money, if you have it available, to the ALRT extension to Surrey, which is just up the river. If your department was to give us support for that ALRT extension, it would relieve any further pressure for improvements on the Pattullo Bridge further on down the road. So, Mr. Minister, we would ask your department to put some pressure on the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to allocate the funds you've saved with your tender on your Annacis crossing, to add it to the ALRT crossing potential just up the river.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Minister, I would like to compliment you and your department on another facet which was brought into play while you were minister: the three-laning of the Massey Tunnel northbound in the morning. As a user of that facility, might I say that it was probably the biggest and smartest move undertaken by the Highways ministry in the last 20 years. If there's one problem with it at this point that I can see, it is that they divert the traffic back a little earlier in the morning than I think it needs to be. They reallocate the south-bound traffic right at 8 o'clock in the morning, and I think there are still sufficient numbers heading north in the morning to delay that a little longer.

While I'm on my feet on that subject, I'd like the Highways ministry to give very serious consideration to reversing that trend in the evening, because the demand there now is very similar in the evening as it was when you offered that diversion of the three-laning in the morning. I think it is now a necessity for that application to be applied in the evening. Mr. Minister, I would ask you and your ministry to look seriously at that. I think it is well accepted by the users of the George Massey Tunnel, and it is such an improvement that I think you should look at the other alternatives which are now available. I don't think it's a major concession; it would be a similar application to what you presently have in use on the Lions Gate Bridge. When the traffic flow indicates, you are in a position of reversing that lane at any time — morning, afternoon and on weekends. I would ask that you would give that same application consideration for the George Massey Tunnel.

Another accolade to you, Mr. Minister, is with reference to a request that my team-mate Rita Johnston and I made to your ministry. It is relative to a very serious problem of children crossing the King George Highway in the south end of Surrey to attend a school that has been isolated by virtue of development of Johnson Road and King George Highway in that area. Consideration to applying a pedestrian overpass —

[ Page 3122 ]

if there was one available — was undertaken by your ministry. With very practical terms and means, they've agreed to apply one which has been removed from usage somewhere else in the system. Mr. Minister, that indicates to me that your ministry is certainly one of the most efficient we have. As a member for Surrey, I very much appreciate some of the things that you've been able to do within the restraint program and with the money we have available.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member very much for the compliments to my good, efficient staff. It is much appreciated, because they do get a lot of criticism as well. Pats on the back really help.

I want to comment on a good observation you made about reversing the three-laning on the Deas Tunnel. Right now the ministry is reviewing the possibility of doing it. Hopefully they can get it both ways as you said. I think there are some problems, but they are looking into it, and we certainly would like to do that if at all possible.

Regarding one more comment of yours, I appreciate your offer, but it is the intention of the government to try to have the new Annacis crossing open in 1986. I don't think we'll have all the accesses built, but any help we can get is much appreciated.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the member for Surrey, who just took his seat, was elected by people who support the Annacis crossing; I was elected by people who don't support it. He comes and fights for the Annacis crossing; I fight against it. It's no big deal: he won, I lost. I'm still opposed to the Annacis crossing, and so are the people who elected me. So I'm still going to say I'm sorry that it's going through.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I didn't hear that, but if the member is suggesting that the people in Burnaby are ever going to vote in favour of the Annacis crossing, he's wrong. The location of Burnaby-Edmonds is such that the Annacis crossing does not work in the best interests of that particular community, so they are always going to be opposed to it.

The real reason I wanted to speak to the minister today concerns an issue which, I find on rummaging through my files, I have been raising since 1978. I'm not having any luck but I'm going to keep right on raising it every year until something is done about it. I'm talking about the business of kids under the age of 6 in this province, for whom there is still no legislation insisting that when they're riding in an automobile they either have a seatbelt on or be in some form of restraining seat in the car. The statistics are as old as the hills. I'm actually going to end up quoting my own speeches given in 1979 and 1980 and 1981 and 1982.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's fine. I'll send a photocopy as well as quoting the speeches.

I don't want to get the same answer from the minister this year as I got in 1978 and 1979 and 1980 and 1981 and 1982. This time I've got some real allies. I want to read from a letter which I received from the B.C. Medical Association director of communications, Mr. Gilmore, in which he said: "It surely must be a form of child abuse that during this current year it is estimated that three young children are being killed or injured in automobile accidents in British Columbia each and every day." That letter was dated 1983, because it came out at the same time as their poster on seatbelt legislation for children.

I don't know how accurate his statistics are. They're scary, because if he is correct, then we're talking about something in the neighbourhood of over 1,000 kids a year being injured or killed in automobile accidents. I asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) yesterday for some statistics, and he very kindly got them from ICBC for me. They are scary, but they're not quite as scary as this.

We have, Mr. Chairman, despite all of the research that's been done, despite all of the information which the minister has been receiving over the years, in this province a situation which is getting worse, not better. We still witness people driving around in cars with kids climbing over from the front seat to the back seat, wandering around and walking around, sitting in the front seat beside the driver, sitting in the lap of the driver and helping to steer. You see some pretty scary things on the roads in this province as far as kids and automobiles are concerned. We are so concerned about our own safety and the safety of other adults that we have compulsory seatbelt legislation in this province. Anyone over the age of 6 riding in an automobile has to have their seatbelt on, so much so that there were roadblocks up over the Christmas holiday. I got stopped twice, and the only thing that the policeman asked me and my passengers when he stopped the car was: "Are you wearing your seatbelts?" That's for adults. However, if a child had been in that car, no one would have cared about it. Yet the research and statistics are there to show that the most vulnerable person in the automobile is not the adult but the child.

I want to read from an article dated February 1983 on some statistics which came out of the B.C. Research study on child-restraint use. It showed that only 16 percent of kids riding in cars in British Columbia are in any form of restraint whatsoever, whether a seatbelt or a special car seat. Compare that with the ICBC survey which shows that something in the neighbourhood of 86 percent of adults wear their seatbelts. It says:

" Pre-schoolers, children under the age of 6, are more vulnerable than older children and adults in a smash. They bounce around the car interior more readily. Their bones are easily broken. Infants, particularly, are more likely to suffer brain damage. Allowing a child to smash into a dashboard or windshield in only a 50 km/h collision is the same as dropping that child head-first from the third floor of a building. Potentially worst off are infants held in parents' arms, yet almost half of B.C. parents still hold babies under seven months old this way, according to a study done by the B.C. Research group for ICBC last year."

They're talking about 2,356 children who are in this kind of jeopardy.

[11:45]

The minister, on other occasions when I have raised this, if I can use his exact quote, talked about the cost of the restraint. He said it seems that they cost about $60 or $100 for a good car seat. Weigh the cost of that; weigh $60 or $100 against either the death of a child or a child that's brain-damaged. Despite all of the scientific research that has been done, we haven't yet reached the stage where we can put together brain cells that have been damaged. I understand that we're on our way, and it's possible that maybe ten or a

[ Page 3123 ]

hundred years from now a new technique which is being developed may be able to regenerate dead brain cells, but that's not happening yet. Despite knowing that once a child is brain-damaged we have a child who is deprived for the rest of his or her life of a lot of what society has to offer, we still quibble about the fact that a car seat may cost $60 or $100, and therefore it's not a good idea to introduce legislation to make that compulsory.

My colleague from Atlin was telling me that while he was on a research project in Maui earlier this year he tried to rent a car. He noticed that all the car-rental agencies posted a notice that a car seat had to be rented for any child under the age of 6 riding in an automobile in Hawaii, at the same time that the car was being rented; that it wasn't possible to rent a car without also renting a car seat if you had a child under the age of 4. Any child over the age of 4 had to have a seatbelt. That same minister embarked on an excellent educational program in terms of discouraging people who drink from driving, You were the person, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), so let's give credit where credit is due. The present Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs introduced an excellent program.

Maybe what I should be doing, Mr. Chairman, is suggesting to that minister that he encourage his colleague to introduce a similar kind of educational program in terms of what happens to children when they are not either belted in in a seatbelt or sitting in a restraint, and specifically the dangers involved in riding with a baby or a child in your lap. That kind of information at least should be getting out there. We should have the radio clips, TV clips, newspapers supporting the kind of thing that the B.C. Medical Association is doing. I don't believe that the parents who are this careless about their kids do it out of any malice aforethought; they really don't know — I am sure they don't know. They are not aware of the real dangers involved in allowing their children to ride unrestrained in a car.

So again, Mr. Chairman, I am raising this in 1984, and I hope I won't have to raise it again in 1985. If I do, I'm going to have to tell the story all over again of the year that I worked in the cerebral palsy ward in the children's hospital in Montreal and what it's like to work with kids and the parents of kids who were brain-damaged as a result of carelessness. That's all it is. It's a very difficult thing for a parent to live with: to know that they have deprived their child of a full life as a result of thoughtlessness and carelessness. In order to help them deal with that, if we have to introduce some compulsory legislation, I think we should do it. I'm hoping that the minister, when he stands to respond, will say that in fact the bill is drafted and we're waiting for the session to come to an end so that it can be introduced at the beginning of the next one.

Very briefly, in talking to the minister about Burnaby, I want to say that we're keeping our fingers crossed that light rapid transit does all the things that he says it's going to be able to do, because if not, we're going to be in serious trouble. Canada Way, Kingsway, Lougheed and the freeway are operating to top capacity. They are glutted. My husband has to be at the university at 8:30 in the morning. In order to get to UBC by 8:30 — a ride which under normal circumstances takes 35 minutes — he has to leave home before 7 o'clock. You can't move on Canada Way. You can't move on the freeway. Forget Kingsway and forget 49th — 49th is called Imperial in Burnaby. They're just as bad. That's not his responsibility. Lougheed, I am told, is just as bad. If light rapid transit doesn't pull those cars off the road, the Minister of Highways is going to have to start looking at doing something with Kingsway, Canada Way, the freeway and Lougheed. What's going to happen is that Burnaby is not going to be a transportation corridor for everyone going from one end to the other. They're just going to be stuck there, and that's going to be it. They're not going to be able to move. I hope the minister is going to tell us that he's got some contingency planning to deal with those problems, if in fact they continue.

HON. A. FRASER: We have lots of plans, but we have lots of congestion, as you point out. We don't always get the cooperation we want when we try to do something about it, as you are probably aware. But I hope the ALRT will be a help and give relief. Only time will tell. That's what it's supposed to do.

I want to deal with child restraints. I appreciate your sincerity, and I know that you've been after child restraints for some time. I appreciate that greatly. Government policy at the present time is that they haven't ruled for or against child restraints. In the meantime we are getting lots of observations about it from a lot of responsible people, as you've mentioned.

I have some observations, and I will be asking the government shortly about changing the regulations, which I believe is required. I'm not too sure whether it's regulations or legislation. I am not convinced — neither maybe some of my colleagues as well — that compulsion is the answer. I would point out to you that I would lean that way, but.... In 1977 this Legislature passed compulsory seatbelt legislation. I recall that the vote passed at that time 52 to 1, or whatever it was. It was almost unanimous, which is very unique for this jurisdiction. We started off with compulsory seatbelt legislation at a rate of 80 to 85 percent, and we're now down to 60 percent. What I'm saying is that compulsion doesn't clear everything up; we're dealing with enforcement. I'm not critical of the enforcement, but if it isn't enforced all the time.... They do put spot checks on, as you found out, but even with that we are at 60 percent usage under compulsory seatbelt legislation. I make another observation that I think parents have a big responsibility for children. There is the cost factor, but I think that's minor.

One of the members this morning pointed out the cost factor in a different way. Under the economic times we have it has to be considered. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) said that under commuter rates by B.C. Ferries it was hard for the people to find $30 or $40 to buy commuter tickets. I think some of our citizens will find it difficult to find the funds if child restraints were made compulsory. I understand it could vary from $40 to $60. Hopefully we can have some definite answers on that by the time my next estimates are up.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.