[ Page 4041 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to regulate Smoking in Public Places (Bill M203), Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 4041

Groundwater Regulation Act (Bill M204). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 4041

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 62: minister's office –– 4042

Hon. A. Fraser

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's with a profound degree of sadness and regret that we learn of the death of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Bora Laskin. There is no question that his imprint upon the highest court of our country, and indeed the legal parameters of Canada, will be of lasting and historic significance. Chief Justice Laskin was in every sense a true gentleman, possessing in abundance every characteristic of decency, honesty and fair-mindedness. His greatest homage, in my view, was to the rule of law, due judicial process, but tempered always by the fulsome concepts of equity. His life work and passion for that was always graced with great capacity of expression, saying not only the way it was but as people could understand it to be.

I well remember some sentiments that he expressed in our province in the spring of 1976, when he stated that defiance of the law amounted to a rupture of one of the essential conditions of our social stability and that such defiance was not a form of social protest which a tolerant society could tolerate. He said: "There is a social duty to respect and uphold the law even while seeking to have it changed or amended. Otherwise, we deny the distinction between lawful social protest and illegal behaviour upon which our social stability rests." He further said, Mr. Speaker: "Are we to descend into complete anarchy by yielding to everyone the privilege of disobedience whenever the law or any law is considered objectionable? Is not the only rational rule, commanded by a representative form of government, that we yield to obedience while we continue with lawful attempts to secure desired changes?" I'd say that those thoughts, concepts and intellectual leadership are an inspiration for law-abiding citizens everywhere.

Chief Justice Laskin will be sorely missed. On behalf of the government side, and indeed I'm sure of all members of this House, I'd like to state our most heartful sorrow and sympathy to his dear wife Peggy and all members of his family, and to his court.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I join in the condolences to Peggy and the two children. I had the privilege of knowing Bora Laskin much more as a person than as the Chief Justice of Canada. He was a teacher of mine, a most stimulating teacher — he and C.A.W. Wright at Osgoode Hall many years ago. He was one who made people think; there was no right answer, but you had to think through the problems concerned.

Bora, who rose from a very lowly family in Port Arthur, Ontario, I think it was, to the chief justiceship of Canada, to support his growing family at that time would work all night on the Canadian Abridgement, abridging the cases — lawyers know what I'm talking about — for about 25 cents a summary or something of that kind. He would work long hours. He rose to the highest position in the land, or one of the highest.

So I remember him with affection as well as respect for his memory. The opposition joins in paying our tribute to both, because he was also a great chief justice, one of the outstanding legal scholars of the western world, an expert particularly in constitutional matters, and one who had a warm heart for the deserted wife or for the civil rights of ordinary human beings. He should be long remembered. He has made a great contribution to Canada.

HON. MR. SMITH: Maybe I can add a few words, Mr. Speaker, to what has been so appropriately said by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and the second member for Vancouver East. He was probably a unique jurist in the sense that he went from an academic background directly to the Ontario Court of Appeal. People who saw him as an academic forgot the fact that he was a premier Canadian labour arbitrator before he went to the bench. He participated in a number of very major developments in labour law; I think particularly of the Polymer case in Ontario, in which for the first time a union was held responsible in breach of contract. His labour arbitration decisions were well worthy of reading and quoting many years later. When he became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, he tried to elevate the highest court as a court that would rationalize decisions across the country and review important questions of law. He streamlined and modernized that court considerably.

I had the pleasure of appearing before him about five times. He was a most courteous gentleman. He was also a distinguished writer of constitutional law. His textbook was, I think, the bible for constitutional law students in this country for 20 years. His many articles in the bar reviews of Canada are still used and still quoted. He was also an extremely warm human being, and he will be greatly missed by the legal community of Canada.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the appropriate messages will be sent.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of some 50 grade 5 students who are in the precincts today. They are from Discovery School at Shawnigan Lake, and are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Bazuik.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to bid a very cordial and warm welcome to some of our neighbours from the Pacific, the Nakano Junior High School volleyball team from Tokyo. They are accompanied by their coach Mrs. Yuki, their coach, who attended our University of British Columbia. They are the number one team in that city. Our heartiest welcome to you.

[10:15]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING
IN PUBLIC PLACES

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M203, An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

GROUNDWATER REGULATION ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M204, Groundwater Regulation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

[ Page 4042 ]

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 62: minister's office, $218,797.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm happy to report the estimates for 1984-85 to the House. As members of the House are aware, an infusion of funding under the employment development account in 1983-84 provided this ministry with its largest capital construction program ever. This resulted in accelerated highway construction activity across the province. While this momentum cannot be carried into 1984-85 at the same high level, provision is made to continue or complete many of the projects initiated during the last construction season. With the completion of the two major projects — the Revelstoke-Mica section of Highway 23 and the new Chetwynd-Tumbler Ridge highway in the northeast coal development — construction activities will now be directed toward four-lane urban highways throughout the lower mainland and the improvement of other highway systems at many centres in the interior. Scheduled for completion in the 1984 construction season are such projects as the Garbitt tunnel section of the Hart Highway, the CNR overhead and approaches at Tyee, the McKenzie Avenue extension in Saanich, the Cassiar Highway 37 from Cranberry crossing to Derrick Creek, Mary Hill bypass and Halston bridge approaches in Kamloops. Construction work, including railway relocation, is progressing on access routes to the Annacis bridge crossing of the Fraser River. As disclosed in the budget speech, improvements to Highway 99, Horseshoe Bay to Squamish, including bridge replacement and installation of debris basins, are also scheduled to be undertaken in this construction season. In 1983-84 a record two million tonnes of asphalt concrete pavement was placed, being the equivalent of 1,147 kilometres of two-lane highway. Completion of all these projects is scheduled for 1984, including those on Highway 16, Highway 37 and the Kallum Lake road north of Terrace.

Dredging and construction of islands for the two mainspan piers of the Annacis crossing are virtually completed, and a contract for the main span has now been awarded to the firm of PCL-Paschen-Pike, a joint venture. The approximate value of this one contract is $45 million, for only the main span of the Annacis crossing. I might say that we hope to complete the Annacis bridge during the 1986 year. At the present time $80 million has been spent on the Annacis crossing, and by the time it's completed in 1986, it will probably advance to about $250 million for this one structure.

Other new structures or bridges to be completed for this year are the Halston bridge across the North Thompson at Kamloops, which they've been waiting 40 years for. The Greenville bridge across the Nass River will be completed this year. There never has been a bridge in this area. A replacement bridge at Enderby and a new bridge will open up new country across the Fort Nelson River north of Fort Nelson, giving us access to the north B.C. boundary and on into the Northwest Territories. The federal government is building a road to come down and meet us at the north B.C. boundary.

A new bridge is under construction from Boston Bar to North Bend on the Fraser River, to bring them the first permanent crossing they've ever had there. Work will continue on other structures, including railway overpasses of the CNR between Prince George and Prince Rupert.

In the motor vehicle department, changes have now been made that will improve service to the public in the area of motor vehicle and driver licensing. Licensed vehicles in the province are nearly two million, while drivers now number 2,200,000. Improved inspection programs for buses and other commercial vehicles are being emphasized, and efforts to eliminate drinking drivers continue as a high priority.

The upgrading of airport facilities will continue, and I would like to emphasize that. I think statements have been made in the House that it has been discontinued. This very small but effective program will continue in the 1984-85 year, funded at a lower level of $2,200,000 but not eliminated.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The other responsibilities of this ministry are the B.C. Ferries Corporation, B.C. Steamships and the Motor Carrier Commission. I would just like to say that we have been at work, along with the private sector under contracts, doing some early road work and paving where we can in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island, and in the interior are working on bridge construction, gravelling of rural roads, and so on. This work was stepped up in February because of the good weather we had, and is presently employing 2,500, mostly in the private sector.

With those short remarks, I look forward to the debate on these estimates. Before I sit down I would like to introduce the people who actually do the work: Deputy Minister Al Rhodes — the junior to our ministry, starting his forty-first year, I believe, with this ministry; George Baldwin, the general manager of B.C. Ferries; and Keith Jackman, the superintendent of motor vehicles.

MR. PASSARELL: I'd also like to welcome the able staff, and before we get on to vote 62 I'd like to congratulate the minister on the cooperation he's offered to me over the last few years, and since I've been the official critic of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways the minister has been very helpful. Secondly, I am grateful for the cooperation the House Leader and the minister offered me regarding these estimates being brought up today, as I was in my riding having a nice visit with my son during spring break last week. I thank the minister for allowing the estimates to come up after I returned to Victoria.

Now on to vote 62, Mr. Chairman. I see that the overall budget is down $32 million from last year. Basically the estimate itself has two major parts. The first part is Highways operations, and the second is highway construction and improvements. On a positive note, we see that highway maintenance — the maintenance and operation of highways and roads, bridges and ferry routes, tunnels and winter maintenance — is up by $23 million. This is a good sign, particularly for us in the far north who know that winter maintenance provides an important transportation link for us, and without the winter maintenance by the able crews we would be in difficulty.

[ Page 4043 ]

Regarding winter maintenance, we've been lucky in many parts of the province in that we've had low snow tables, but compounding this have been higher than normal ice conditions across the province, which cost the ministry even more money, because instead of just ploughing they had to go out and sand. After talking with Highways personnel in the Dease Lake area, I know the icy conditions have cost more money in that area.

The second major part of Highways operations is highway construction and improvements. This is the area in which the biggest cuts have occurred; it is down $59 million. Road construction has been cut almost in half and is down to $55 million, and paving has been cut by one-third. One of the interesting subsections of this particular area is.... I quote from the budget speech: "Recoveries are received from shared programs with the federal government for railroad crossings, as well as northeast coal grade construction, in conjunction with B.C. Rail." I will be asking a series of questions, Mr. Minister, and the first one is: how much money has the province received from the federal government for railroad crossings? The second is: how much has been received from B.C. Rail? We all know that the budget itself paid approximately half a billion dollars to the debt of B.C. Rail, which means the taxpayers are paying for the public rail line.

Another major issue which I'd like to address, and on which I have a series of questions for the minister, is regarding the motor vehicle department. The minister is aware of the public outcry across this province, particularly on the mainland, over the closing of this important government service. To use Ontario as an example — and I've done this many times in the House since we've started looking at privatization of the motor vehicle inspection branches, in that we're going to be using a program similar to that used in Ontario.... There have been many problems associated with the Ontario program, where they charge a little over $50 to have your vehicle tested. One of the problems I think we should be looking at, if we're going to move in this direction, is that we have to impose some type of regulation on the private dealerships that will be doing this, particularly with respect to overcharging for maintenance work. An individual may bring his vehicle into a private garage to have the inspection done, and before the car is released with the decal, the dealership charges maintenance costs, saying that he needs a new brake line or something like that when he might just need some fluid in the brake lines.

The second problem — and this is well documented in the press and also in correspondence that I've received from Ontario — is that there is a problem in Ontario with individuals who do go into the private service stations, lay $50 across the table and get their decal, without even having the vehicle inspected. I know it's difficult for government to get into the situation of playing Big Brother, but I would rather see some type of regulation whereby individuals don't just go and lay the $50 across the table — or $35, if that's what it is — and receive the decal without even being inspected.

It appears that the government's intent with regard to motor vehicle inspection is to have it across the province. I know we're debating this in a special House committee right now. One of the problems that could be associated with having this vehicle-testing program across the province instead of, as the previous program was, only in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island is that if you have it across the province, you're going to have some problems, particularly in isolated and rural areas where the only garage in town can just pump gas and fix tires.

[10:30]

I'll give you an example. In Cassiar there is only one gas station in the immediate area. You can go 100 miles south down to Dease Lake, but you find yourself in the same situation. Or you can go up to Watson Lake in the Yukon, another 100 miles to the north. If you're going to have this vehicle-testing across the province and every owner of a vehicle is going to have to get his vehicle tested once a year to receive a safety decal, as in Ontario, how are you going to have the only gas station in town perform the service or the duty, unless the minister has grants in the future to give to the small gas stations across this province in order to buy equipment to deal in this area?

The second area in regard to the motor vehicle inspection branches and some of the controversy that arose is that if you look back to the aspect of the branches in the lower mainland, we found that people who live on the mainland, as do the majority of people in this province who own vehicles, used to pay $5 to have their vehicle tested. The government was losing money by charging $5 per vehicle inspection, and sources from the motor vehicle inspection branch stated that there could be a break-even point by raising the fee an additional 50 cents to $5.50. The suggestion I made — I think a number of people have made it — is that if $5.50 would bring a break-even point to the government on motor vehicle inspection, why didn't we raise it to $6, keep the program in existence and make a profit? That's a solution we should have looked at, instead of closing down the motor vehicle inspection branches so quickly, without looking at all the facts. There is an important service provided by the motor vehicle inspection branches in the lower mainland in keeping unsafe vehicles off the road.

I have another question. What is going to happen to the motor vehicle inspection branch buildings now that the program is gone? Are they going to be turned over? Are they owned by BCBC? Are they going to be put out for tender, or is the government going to keep these buildings vacant for a year or so and then reassess their position? They might just open up again. I guess there is a lot of equipment still in these buildings that could be used for the general motoring public. My second question in regard to this area: if we're talking restraint, a term which is often bandied around, how much will the government save in closing down the motor vehicle inspection branches? When the government was charging $5 for motor vehicle inspections, I think it was losing $2 million to $3 million. That might be a high figure, but let's say it was $2 million or $3 million. A concern that I have, and one that I think a number of people around this province have, is that once we closed down the motor vehicle inspection branches, what happened to these unsafe vehicles that are on the road? Is it the responsibility of the RCMP to be pulling unsafe vehicles off the road? And is ICBC saving money at this stage of the game, with the vehicle inspection branches closed down? I doubt it. With unsafe and untested vehicles on the road, particularly in the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island, where the majority of vehicles are owned, it looks like there could be a problem.

Another question I'd like to direct in this area is, can the minister give assurances to this House that ICBC hasn't had to pay any additional accident costs since the vehicle inspection stations closed? Is the minister aware — or does he have the information — that work at body shops has increased in

[ Page 4044 ]

the last six months, and whether there is any direct relationship to the closing of the motor vehicle inspection branches?

I'd like to move to the topic of transit. We're all aware of the selling of PCL. We're also aware that basically this falls under the auspices of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). The reason I'm directing transit to the Minister of Highways and Transportation is that the questions I'll be raising deal with safety on the roads. The overriding question is: what steps has your ministry taken — or does it intend to take — to provide more safety on our highways? One suggestion that I just jotted down, which I think we should be discussing under this estimate for regulation and/or act, is mandatory car seats for infants. I think that's long overdue in this province. It's something we should have been dealing with. My colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has raised this issue a number of times, and will continue to raise this issue until the government brings in regulations to protect infants on our highways.

Secondly, airbags. A lot of studies have been done in the United States regarding airbags in vehicles as safety precautions.

A third suggestion, which the minister touched on in his opening statements, is for tougher regulations in regard to drunk drivers who kill people in killer accidents in this province. I think there should be stronger laws and regulations coming in to protect the public from drunks who go around and drive into and kill people.

Another issue I think we should be discussing is road safety. "60 Minutes" did a report on airbags, not in vehicles but on highways, particularly coming up to bridge approaches and tunnel embankments, instead of cars crashing into concrete. I've noticed that over the last few years the ministry has been replacing the garbage cans — I think they're like garbage cans — that you see filled with water or sand or whatever, so that a vehicle that goes off the road will crash into the garbage cans first before crashing into concrete embankments.

Another suggestion for safety on our highways is night-glow paint on all the roads. I've noticed that we use some of that night-glow paint down here in Victoria and in some areas of the mainland because of the foggy conditions to replace the orange or white lines that have dotted our highways for years. The night-glow paint on the center line and the lines on the right side of the road allows the driver some type of safety when it comes to foggy and rainy conditions. I would like to see a continuing program of night-glow paints put on our highways.

The last issue is single-lane Bailey bridge approaches, which we'll get into in a little more detail when we get into constituency problems.

The next issue I'd like to discuss under vote 62 is the air services branch. I'm pleased to see increases, Mr. Minister, for this worthwhile operation. I've been the air services critic since 1979, and I think that any of us who look at this worthwhile program should congratulate the ground crews, the pilots and the dispatchers. They continue to show expertise in this area, and I think they probably lead North America, if not the world, in the services they provide, particularly for us who don't live in the lower mainland and who need the air services branch, the government aircraft and the air ambulance service when it comes to medical evacuation of children or families from the far north. The entire program surrounding this is worthwhile and deserves my highest congratulations in this regard. The medics and doctors associated with the air ambulance service should also be congratulated for a job well done.

One of the negative aspects of the air services branch is the continuing overuse of the government aircraft by cabinet ministers. I don't know if we're ever going to get away from it. I've studied the logs, and I would hope that the minister will be tabling the last year's logs in the near future. It's an ongoing problem, of cabinet ministers using the government aircraft between Vancouver and Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), I would like to go home up to Atlin sometimes for dinner, too, and then come back here, but I'm stuck down here in Victoria, as are many of us. But there are some cabinet ministers, as you are aware, who overuse the government aircraft to go home, and you're not going to be able to defend that.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: If it's not being used.... This is a time of government restraint, which is what the minister should be talking about instead of saying: "It's already being used; let's keep it full." That's like saying the motor vehicle branches are being used by the motoring public in the lower mainland so let's keep them open. I'll rest my case on that one. I don't think that any cabinet minister is going to be able to stand up in an era of restraint and talk about government cabinet ministers who overuse the government aircraft. I think there should be some time....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to come to order.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to go on to a question here to the minister in regard to this issue: what are the costs involved in cabinet ministers using the government aircraft? Secondly, does the overabuse fall in line with the government's restraint program?

One further issue before I go into constituency problems is a recent report in the 100 Mile House Free Press, which I'm sure the minister is aware of, dated February 24. It says: "Highways Gain Full-time Positions." My question is: why is 100 Mile House, in the minister's riding, the only Highways district in B.C. not subject to cutbacks in full-time personnel? I was a little upset when I saw this article, because I know the service that the Highways personnel provide across this province. It's an excellent project, as well as the employment that they provide and the service they give to the motoring public.

Going on to constituency problems now, Mr. Chairman. This is an ongoing problem. The minister and I have spent much time talking about the specific issue of Bailey bridges on Highway 37. It's a dangerous situation because often you come up onto a hill, because they cross streams and rivers, and come onto a single-lane approach onto a Bailey bridge.

Secondly, the minister referred to it today as the Speech from the Throne, saying that the bridge at Greenville is the

[ Page 4045 ]

first crossing of the Nass. The minister didn't say that this morning. He said the first crossing at that area, which is correct: that's the first time a bridge has gone and crossed over to Greenville. But in the throne speech it said the first crossing of the Nass. There are numerous crossings of the Nass, particularly Highway 37; the road into Kitsault crosses the Nass as well as the bridge into Canyon City. Next time these southern bureaucrats are writing the throne speech, I certainly hope they talk to your able staff, who can point out where bridges are and aren't in this province.

[10:45]

Thirdly, I was pleased to see the right-of-way work being done on the Atlin road. We did last year's estimates just a month or a month and a half ago. I raised this issue, and the minister came back and said there would be a program starting. I was pleased to hear that. The particular problem that I pointed out to the minister was the big boulders that were on the right-of-way. It's a dangerous situation. I was back in the riding this week, and I could see that there has been a big change. Those are being cleared out for safety.

The fourth question on constituency problems that I'll be directing to the minister is this. A program was started last year on Highway 37. It's been done before, but this seemed a major program. It is the calcium program for dust control. Is the ministry going to continue? Is there going to be any increase in the budget for calcium for dust control on Highway 37? Basically it's a gravel road, and the calcium does cut dust down, particularly when you're driving by one of those big Arrow trucks going down south. When they pass you at 45 or 50 miles an hour, and you've got a cloud of dust that lasts for about five minutes, you have to pull over and wait for the dust to subside.

Does the government have any plans to lift the road restrictions on Highway 37 at this time? The reason I ask is that Cassiar Resources-Brinco have written to me saying that the road restrictions on Highway 37 are causing them lower cost and so on. This is a two-edged sword, because if you allow big vehicles, particularly those ore trucks, to go over the road restrictions.... What's happening is that in the spring breakup you tear the road up pretty well and it takes all summer to have it fixed. I'd like the minister's comments as to whether he has received any correspondence from Cassiar in regard to the lifting of road restrictions on Highway 37.

The next constituency issue is the government's statements regarding northwest development, particularly the statement that the government would assist in the infrastructure and in the financing of it. What plans for new roads, if any, does the ministry have in regard to the northwest development program that the government has brought out for the second or third time? Can you give any details on where these new roads will be and the construction costs, particularly in the areas of Telegraph Creek and Iskut, where the major resources are for this northwest development plan?

Another constituency issue is the improvement of the access corridor to Stewart. The minister is aware that Stewart is B.C.'s most northerly ice-free port, and a suggestion in which I believe strongly is that with Granduc being closed down — how long no one knows; it looks like they're selling all the assets right now — Stewart should be pushed at the federal and provincial levels as the major port. As part of the northwest development scheme, Stewart should be used as one of the terminuses of a new railway system from Stewart to the existing B.C. Rail going toward Dease Lake. I'd like to know if there are any plans by the ministry for road development into Stewart. I know the ministry has just paved that Section in the last few years, which I know many residents from all over the far north, who are able to start around Meziadin and drive almost all the way to Kitwanga on pavement, appreciate. The minister did say that this summer the section around Cranberry will be paved — the 12 miles that is left between Kitwanga and Meziadin that isn't paved yet. That should be completed this year.

As the minister is responsible for highways and transportation in this province.... We've heard a lot of talk, particularly in the press, in regard to the northwest development scheme — since the northwest is the last frontier in the province that is virtually untapped — about the rail linkage. We have the railbeds going in as far as Dease Lake, but has the ministry been approaching the territory of the Yukon and the state of Alaska in regard to putting the railway up through the Yukon, past Cassiar, up into Watson Lake, across to Whitehorse and into Alaska? We would have a rail linkage between the state of Alaska, which has had no rail line since the White Pass, which went into Skagway, closed down, through to the southern United States.

The next issue I'd like to talk about in the two minutes remaining, before I have another speaker, is in regard to tourism. Can the minister answer another question — I think I've directed about 20 or 30 questions to the minister: is there any indication of the ministry pushing Highway 37 as the gateway to Alaska? Why I talk about this is that tourism in the far north is our number one industry, and I would certainly hope that the Tourism minister, (Hon. Mr. Richmond) would endorse these suggestions, as I know he will. Highway 37 offers many opportunities to this province, and particularly to small businesses in the far north, as the gateway to Alaska. For years, since the completion of the Alaska Highway, from Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Watson Lake, Whitehorse and then on to Fairbanks, it has been the only route that government and chambers of commerce have looked upon. If you are going to Alaska, you're going to take the Alaska Highway. I think that with the amount of work that's been done on Highways 16 and 37, Highway 37 is, if not a better road than the Alaska Highway....

One last question before I run out of time how much money does the federal government give the province of British Columbia for any type of maintenance work on the Alaska Highway? Because it really isn't the Ministry of Highways personnel who are maintaining the Alaska Highway. I'd like to know if it is broken down into transfer payments from the federal government in regard to the Alaska Highway.

Another question I have is about the Nass road. The minister has received much correspondence from the Nishga people who live in the area in regard to the Nass road, particularly the section between Greenville, where the new bridge is to be located, and New Aiyansh. It is a forestry road, and when the forest company is not operating, the road isn't maintained to the level that it should be. I remember going in there last fall when a couple of culverts had been broken for a number of months, and it was quite dangerous.

Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has run out, and I would like an intervening speaker.

HON. A. FRASER: I will go from the back to the front in an attempt to answer some of the member's question. Roads, as the member probably knows, around Greenville and

[ Page 4046 ]

Aiyansh are forest access roads. This is not a satisfactory situation, but we give money to Forests, who in turn give a contract out for snow removal and so on, so they are not neglected and forgotten.

Just one more point: as you know, we are rebuilding and paving north of Terrace on what's known as the Kallum Lake road. That's in the highway system. Our ultimate aim is to get all the way, but there are a lot of problems and a long way to go. My understanding is that we could complete half of the total distance to New Aiyansh this year, and that resolves the problem once and for all.

My understanding is that the Alaska Highway is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and they contract out all their maintenance. The province of British Columbia has an agreement with the federal government that as they rebuild and pave the road, the province of British Columbia will take over that section which is in British Columbia. We have taken over about 90 miles north of mile zero because it has been rebuilt and paved. I would like to compliment the government of Canada on the tremendous amount of work they're doing from there all the way through to Whitehorse. They're spending millions. They are probably doing it to speed up the turnover to us, but they have certainly done a lot of work and should be congratulated for it. Because of the stepped-up program of the government of Canada, we will be taking over more of the highway.

I noted the member's remarks about tourism on Highway 37 to Alaska. I guess we have not really promoted tourism to Alaska, and I'm not so sure that we're in a good position to do that until we have a little better road and can promote Highway 37.

As far as I'm concerned, the Yukon has not been approached regarding rail. That is not my direct responsibility but that of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). As a member of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development I have not seen that come up.

The member mentioned access to Stewart. They've never had better access than the road which was rebuilt and paved, with bridges replaced and so on. They have an excellent harbour there, and as the member knows, the asbestos is being hauled some 300 miles from Cassiar to be loaded on barges and sent to the world market from Stewart. I have heard discussion that a sawmill might be established in the Stewart area, but there is nothing definite regarding that.

The member mentioned new roads. The only new road I've heard of is the one at Klappan Cove. There seems to be some excitement about coal deposits behind the Iskut area, and if anything happens there I believe some new road would be required to transport the anthracite coal to Stewart. As I say, the company is fairly excited, but I don't know if anything will get going. I did hear one discussion that it could start as early as this fall, and will require 18 or 20 miles of new road to connect to Highway 37 so that larger rigs can haul the coal down to Stewart.

The member also mentioned railroads. I think railroads have been built all over Atlin, as far as drawing lines is concerned. But I am not aware of any railroad construction. As you know, we shut down the extension which goes right into Dease Lake.

[11:00]

Dealing with dust control, last year we paved 47 kilometres north of Kitwancool as part of the program we have on Highway 37. As part of the answer dealing with the member's question on Bailey bridges, we built six permanent bridges, and for 1984 we contemplate completing that large contract near Cranberry, which is the grading and paving of another 18.5 kilometres. The paving that was done at Meziadin is what we call a first lift, and a second lift is to go on, as well as two permanent bridges. I'm not so sure how to answer you on dust control. We want to do some seal-coating on a section of road in the Stikine River area, as well as the Section in the B.C.-Yukon border area north of Cassiar. The total we're looking at there — and I'm emphasizing sealcoating — would be 60 kilometres. So, yes, there are plans to increase the sealcoating, which, in some cases where you get the right weather, is pretty satisfactory.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I'd like to comment on Highway 37. At the end of 1984, 440 kilometres of this 800-kilometre Highway 37 and Highway 37A will be paved or sealcoated. So we are making some progress, in other words. We're at the halfway mark of servicing that large distance of 800 kilometres. We'll have more or less 440 of the 800 kilometres under control, so it makes it a little safer and better for everyone concerned.

Air services. I appreciate your comments about air services and make the observation that on air services you're correct; we have a fine service there. Your observation was that cabinet ministers are abusing this service. I'd make the observation that that is on a scheduled run. You're specifically referring to the Vancouver-Victoria service. It is on a scheduled run.

You picked out an area in the province with no staff cutbacks. It happened to be 100 Mile House in my riding. Quite frankly, I asked the same question. But that was done by the senior management people due to their management program. That's how it affected that one specific area of the province. As I say, I asked the same question myself.

You talked about transit. I'm not responsible for transit, but you were driving at safety on the roads and so on, and you are quite correct; of course we're concerned about safety on roads. I'd point out that one thing that we've been doing for five years — and I don't know, but probably at a minimum cost now of $25 million — is guardrail. We've really gone all out on guardrail, and I think it's a conservative figure to say we've spent $25 million on the installation of guardrail all over the province, as a safety measure.

I think you referred to air bags, but I haven't heard any discussion about that at all.

We have another safety feature that's put into our major structures. They're not garbage barrels, Mr. Member, they're barrels filled with sand. The idea behind that is that the safety engineers say that a motorist who is out of control, rather than hit the concrete of the bridge, will hit that first and won't get as much damage.

Child restraints. I've had that up here before, and we are still discussing it in government. The opinion seems to be that parents have a big responsibility here. I've said before in the House that if we went ahead with child restraints, who's going to enforce it? I really think there's a heavy responsibility on the parent of a child who is under six years old. That is why the pause and hesitation regarding child restraints. We haven't any imminent plans for putting that in and making it mandatory. We aren't stopping anybody from using child restraints now.

[ Page 4047 ]

A few questions here, from the first part, Mr. Chairman, regarding the testing stations. I think you asked about what's going to happen to them. The landlord and owner is BCBC. They've been notified that they are surplus to our requirements, and I imagine they'll be disposing of them. Through my office there have been quite a few inquiries from people interested in purchasing them for different commercial uses.

Savings on the closing of the motor vehicle stations. This has been argued back and forth, but it appears that about $3.5 million per year is the saving, when you take all things into consideration — staff benefits and so on. I would make this other observation, regarding vehicles that you mentioned: it is illegal to operate an unsafe vehicle on the highway. That's been in the Motor Vehicle Act for years. Regarding ICBC's studies and whether we are costing or saving them money, I believe they say we cost. I don't know whether that's right or not, because these studies are all based on assumptions. I read one of their studies, and a lot of it was assuming a lot of things if certain things happened. It's certainly argumentative whether it will cost or save ICBC money.

A lot of debate has gone on regarding the $5 price we were charging for motor vehicle inspections. To the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I think you said that if we raised them 50 cents or even a dollar, then we'd be out of the woods. Again, after full analysis, the actual cost is apparently about $12. That's what I get from the senior staff, so it was a lot larger issue than raising it 50 cents, in spite, I think, of some people saying that. When you delve into all the costs, it just wasn't so.

I have a note here on the money we receive from the federal government regarding railroad crossings — we call it grade crossings. How much money is received from the federal government for grade crossings in B.C.? It's about $24 million over the past six years under the urban transportation assistance program. This program ends on March 31, 1984, and the federal government hasn't yet announced a new program. We've been pressing the federal government to get a new program in place, but I understand they haven't yet made a decision on the program. That's where that stands. Yes, we do get some help. As you can see, $24 million over six years is well appreciated.

It's my understanding that we don't get any money.... I think you mentioned B.C. Rail. When we're talking about assistance from Ottawa, the assistance applies to the mainline railroads, not to B.C. Rail. I wasn't clear about what you said.

MR. PASSARELL: It's in the budget under the vote description.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, you were referring to the northeast coal project, probably, regarding B.C. Rail. How much did the federal government contribute to B.C. Rail? Their contribution was a relatively minor one; we shared the cost of planning studies and so on. Federal funds have gone into the Ridley Island access road at Prince Rupert. The federal government covered half of this $8.6 million spent on the road. Another federal involvement includes upgrading the CN line from Prince George to Prince Rupert. They're spending more than $100 million this year alone on the north line for building the new coal terminal that is now in operation at Ridley Island. Again, that's with the involvement of the government of Canada.

I probably haven't answered them all, but I think I answered most of your questions, Mr. Member.

MR. PASSARELL: I gave the minister about 20 or 25 questions. It's just as easy if you can get back to me, once you get the information, like the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) did a week or two weeks ago, whatever. Once you get the information, I'd be appreciative of that, if it would make it a little easier for you instead of having to get the information this morning.

I have a couple of other questions before I get back in. I still have a number of constituency problems. The barrel is a barrel. To us old country boys they look like garbage cans, but I understand what they are.

I was talking about the restraint seats for the children. You made a comment, Mr. Minister, in regard to who will enforce it, saying that it's the parents' role. It's true that it's the parents' role, but by the same token it's police responsibility too if we make a law. It's just like the seatbelt legislation we have in this province. Who is going to enforce it? The police are going to have to enforce it. If a parent is driving around with a two-year-old baby sitting in the front seat without a restrainer, they would be charged the same as if you or I were driving and we didn't have our seatbelts on. We'd get a fine too. I think that's the responsibility of us as lawmakers bringing forth laws — not expecting the parents to enforce the regulation on their children.

The other thing you said in regard to the closing of the motor vehicle branches is that it's illegal to operate an unsafe vehicle under the laws of this province. Of course it is, but all you have to do is take a walk one night by a highway or any road in this province and you see more one-eyed bandits than you do in any other province. I think a lot of people driving in this province don't really realize that there are two headlights on a vehicle; they're getting away with driving with one. Of course it's illegal to operate an unsafe vehicle, but for a lot of people, unless they get pulled over by the police....

When the motor vehicle inspection branches were in existence, there used to be that little card that came through the mail telling you that you had to report. If you lived in the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island and your vehicle was registered here, you received a card through the mail with a little letter telling you to show up at the vehicle inspection. Then people would start becoming serious about their unsafe vehicles.

I was pleased to hear you say that the break-even point was $12 more or less. I would rather pay $12 to have my vehicle inspected than the figure of $50 that's been bandied around, like in Ontario. If I can get away with $12, I'd rather not pay $50. That's something we have to seriously look at as lawmakers for this province. If it's $12, then maybe we should take a second look at it.

[11:15]

In regard to some of the constituency problems that came back, I understand about the snow removal on the Nass road. You just can't let.... That's an area of high concentration of snow. But my concern is the maintenance. We know it's a forestry road, and when B.C. Timber isn't in operation, the road deteriorates because they're not using the trucks. I think it's time that we seriously looked at taking that highway into our highway grid system. It's not just a forestry road that B.C. Timber uses, but well over 1,000 people from the communities of that area — the community of Greenville with 400 or 500 people, Canyon City with a couple of

[ Page 4048 ]

hundred people, New Aiyansh with 500 or 600 people — use that road, and I think it's time that the families that live in the Nass area are entitled to a provincial highway.

I was pleased to hear your comments in regard to the Alaska Highway. That would be a nice day when it was turned over, wouldn't it? What do you think we should call it — the Phil Gaglardi road? But I'm pleased to hear that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Bobby Ball road.

MR. PASSARELL: The Bobby Ball road! Who would...? Yeah, okay. You'll be up there again, I hope, in the next election. I'd like to be re-elected, Mr. Minister of Forests.

In regard to Highway 37, I'm pleased to hear, and I'm sure the constituents of Atlin are pleased to hear, that it has been seal-coated or paved to the halfway mark. There has been a big improvement on that road in the last few years.

When I was talking about Stewart and the option of transportation access, I was talking firstly about the rail linkage. You're a member of the economic development committee. Secondly, when it comes to the road — as the minister is aware — when you drive from Bear Glacier, halfway between Meziadin and Stewart, into the community of Stewart, you're going by Bear Glacier, and that's a pretty dangerous area. Quite often in winter you have large snowslides in that area. A lot of times you can be driving in there and see a rock or boulder ten feet high that has rolled down from the top of the mountain lying on the road. That's the aspect I'm wondering about. Is the ministry looking at any other road access into Stewart?

You've answered my question in regard to the Alaska Highway, and I have a similar question. I don't know if the minister has ever been to Mile 48. I went in there about two years ago for the first time. Have you ever been up on the Haines road?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Really? They told me they'd never seen you and didn't even know who you were. Mile 48, just for the information of the House, is probably one of the smallest communities in all of British Columbia, and probably the most isolated area of the province. It runs from the Alaska Highway west of Whitehorse down from the Yukon for a short section, maybe 50 or 60 miles, through British Columbia and then into Haines, Alaska. Who is maintaining that road right now? When I stopped into the government camp there, it looks.... There is no British Columbia emblem. When you pull into the highway camp, it appears to be done by the Yukon or the federal government, because it only has the flag of the Yukon and the federal flag. I know that it's difficult to go and put a new British Columbia Highways camp there, and I'm not asking that. But when I'm driving through my constituency I would at least like to see a British Columbia emblem or some recognition that we are in British Columbia and not in the Yukon, even though we're 50 or 60 miles into the province. If we could somehow find $10 or $20 in the ministry's budget we could take a flag up there. The next time I go on the Haines road to go fishing, we can put up a flag in the territory of British Columbia. We do have some comments regarding British Columbia's flags in the schoolrooms, and I would like to see them at least put up in camps in the province.

What type of funding does the province of British Columbia give to the Yukon or the federal government to maintain the Haines road? It's being done by the Yukon, and I'm wondering what type of transfer payments we have for keeping the B.C. section open.

Another question — I have a letter and a statement that we discussed in this House — is the problem of a local resident who was having problems with the local hire-up at Dease Lake. He had equipment, and he was wondering why Dease Lake hadn't hired his equipment. The minister sent me back a letter; I appreciated that letter. But the man said it appeared that somehow a lack of communication.... Dease Lake didn't have the right information. He has got to reapply. When you're talking about heavy equipment, as the minister said, you need scrapers to start off on the project. He had some scrapers that he could have used on this; he uses it in his gold-mining operation. The whole concept of local hiring....

Those are 27 questions that I direct to the minister. A final comment before he answers the final questions that I've asked him. Living in the far north and with the amount of time that I travel in my constituency — probably the only way to get through the Atlin constituency is to drive or hitchhike, and you spend all your time on the highways — I'm pleased with the work that has been going on on Highway 37, the Atlin road, and right through my constituency as well as the roads that are being worked on and maintained right across this province. I see much improvement. Much of that credit has to go to the minister as well as to the men and women who work in the Ministry of Highways who provide us the opportunity to travel on highways to almost every area in this province. The entire ministry of Transportation and Highways performs an excellent service to the province of British Columbia.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the member for the compliments, and I would like it to go to the staff. I think we do an excellent job. It's nice to hear it acknowledged by the member and anybody else. We do get lots of complaints; they're pretty noisy ones at times, and it becomes discouraging. But when you have compliments it lifts everybody, particularly the staff who have to do the work.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

You mention the Haines road, Mr. Member. I'm advised by my deputy that you are correct: the Haines road is British Columbia. But all money and all jurisdiction of it has been turned over to the government of Canada. They do all the spending; we don't spend any money at all. I agree with you that maybe we could spend enough to find a symbol of the province to show that it is British Columbia. Certainly we'll look into that and see if we can't do something about it.

The other item that you had is an option road to Stewart. I'm aware of the Bear Pass and, as you said, it's a difficult piece of road — well, dangerous at certain times. Maybe they have an option road they're looking at, but I haven't heard of it. If they found an option tomorrow, I don't think it would be very high in our priorities in view of.... In your area alone we'd like to replace some Bailey bridges if we've got some money, rather than an option road.

You started off with child restraints and, yes, it's enforcement. That's correct. Enforcement of seatbelts and so

[ Page 4049 ]

on.... We're getting a lot better cooperation now, but it's an additional enforcement problem that you give the enforcement officers who say now that they can't keep up with everything.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, it seems it was only last week we were up here talking about transportation and highways and ferries and debating last year's.... No, we weren't debating last year's estimates, Mr. Chairman; we were debating estimates from the year before. Now we're debating last year's estimates — I think.

I don't think we've received this year's annual report in terms of the B.C. Ferry Corporation or Highways. But as you know, I'm the one in our caucus responsible for the water transportation aspect — B.C. Ferries and so forth — of the minister's portfolio. So I'd like to start with that in view and ask the minister a few questions. I'm going to try as hard as possible to avoid repeating what's already in Hansard from when we debated this portfolio on February 6 and 7 earlier this year, but I might go back a bit on some of it.

Having said that, I'm going to repeat what I said to the minister at that time. The effect of the increased ferry fares on people on the Sunshine Coast, the Gulf Islands, Bowen Island and Vancouver Island.... I must say that we in the opposition didn't get that much flak on the 6 percent fare increases to Vancouver Island. In these times of inflation and recession and increased costs, people will accept a 6 percent increase in those kinds of services from time to time. However, the fare increases, coupled with the reduction in service to other parts of coastal British Columbia particularly — I'll talk about the interior after a bit — has had and will have a severe effect in these areas.

I'll talk about the Sunshine Coast in particular, where at the moment we have 36 percent unemployment, where the number of people receiving assistance from Human Resources has doubled in less than two years and these kinds of things. I mention that because the ferries into these areas — to the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast, Powell River, Texada and all of those islands — are our highways. We have no other means, except air transportation — if you can afford it. A large portion of our economy in these areas depends on the type of service and the fares charged on those vessels.

I've often said that horrendous fare increases of that nature are counterproductive. Less people are going to use those vessels. Therefore the whole economy of these areas suffer. I'm thinking particularly of areas like Gibsons, Sechelt and Powell River. As the number of people using the ferry service is reduced and fares are increased, obviously fewer people will use the ferry services. What you get as a result of that is.... When I go to senior people within the corporation to discuss these situations — and I would like to put on record that they've been very good in supplying me with facts and information; I've never been refused a meeting or a request for information by the senior people within the corporation; that is not my problem or my quarrel here this morning.... What I'm saying is that as the number of passengers using the vessels, because of fare increases, is reduced, we have a situation.... When I go to the corporation to complain on behalf of my constituents that service is being reduced — and I want to talk about that a bit later as well, Mr. Chairman — the people at the corporation can easily — and I have many of the statistics here, by month, by year, by day and the whole thing.... I'm not going to go through all that, but the overview is that as the number of people using the vessels is reduced, that justifies the corporation — from the corporation's point of view at least, and the minister's — in cutting back on service. So it is counterproductive.

[11:30]

I admit that I did appreciate it when the chairman of the board and the general manager, sitting on the floor of the House here today, met with our people in Powell River. A major concession was made. Resident commuter cards were removed from all the residents — all forty-some-odd thousand people living in the Sunshine Coast-Powell River area. We lost that — gone forever. I'm not sure about forever, but gone anyway. That was something introduced by a former Social Credit government. I guess the government giveth and the government taketh away. A concession was made which is proving beneficial to at least some of the residents; I'll tell you in a minute whom it is not helping. The senior people and the corporation went back to the board of directors and on the commuter-type ticket, which was only good.... At the time, if you bought a block of ten tickets for $148, or something like that — I'm just going from memory here; I don't have the figure in front of me — you got a reduced fare, but you had to use those tickets within that month or they were useless to you. Consequently, prior to the meeting in the spring of this year, I think the corporation had sold only four sets of tickets to people living in Powell River. Because the tickets are now good all year round, people are taking advantage of that. We still don't have preferred loading on routes 3 and 7. Nonetheless, the tickets are good all year round, and people are purchasing them. Those who can't and won't purchase those tickets, and who consequently have to pay the higher fares, are the many people on unemployment in the area at the time. These people simply cannot afford to put out the money up front to take advantage of the reduced fares, so those who have the least are paying the most.

This brings me to subsidies. I notice that the subsidy from the government to the corporation this year has not increased by $1. It’s exactly the same this year as it was last year. We know that costs have gone up. Fuel costs are up, and labour costs marginally. I don't think labour costs have really gone up that much in terms of overall payroll because of the cutbacks in the number of personnel on many of the vessels. You may not know this, Mr. Chairman, but some of the vessels have been reclassified in line with the Canadian Steamship Act and the Canadian Coast Guard. Many of the vessels have been recertified, resulting in fewer people employed on those vessels, so there must have been some savings to the corporation in that regard. There have been complaints because of the reduced number of people. I know that the minister and the corporation have received a letter from the masters of some of the vessels; certainly there's one that I'm personally aware of. I've seen the letter, although I don't have a copy, complaining about the potential danger — this is route 7, Mr. Chairman — on that particular vessel because of the cutback in number of employees. Should there be some kind of problem or catastrophe on that vessel, they feel that they don't have enough crew members to handle a situation of that sort.

These are some of the things that are happening. As I said, I know it's easy for people to say: "Well, we're subsidizing that ferry service at taxpayers' expense. They don't require a bigger subsidy or shouldn't receive it. If people choose to live on Texada Island or wherever, that's their problem." But that's not the right approach. We don't say that

[ Page 4050 ]

about highway construction up in the interior. We don't put toll gates on the highway to Prince George or Kamloops or Kelowna or anywhere else. In fact, not only do those people depend on water transportation for travel of any kind, but certainly our whole economy in many areas is practically based on the service we receive from the B.C. Ferry Corporation. We're paying a toll. It's as simple as that. I know that the corporation does receive a subsidy of $47 million a year, which I don't think is enough. It forced the board of directors and senior management people of the Ferry Corporation into a situation where they have had to reduce services and personnel. I don't think that's been good for the economy of most of the coast of British Columbia or for government revenues. I think that whole move has been counterproductive. That is not only the language that I use in this House but is a position that has been put forward by many groups serviced by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I'd like to think I understand some of the problems that the corporation faces. As I said, I've received good cooperation and a great deal of information, and I understand their problem. In my view, the problem is not the management or the board of directors of the corporation; it is government policy which emits from cabinet and Treasury Board. Because it is so vital to the economy of these areas, these matters and problems will hopefully be looked at.

I know the answer to this question, because I ask it every year, but I am again going to raise the matter of the federal contribution to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. In 1977 the federal contribution was $5 million, after Northland Navigation withdrew its services on the coast and the B.C. Ferry Corporation took up the slack by going into Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands, with stops at Bella Bella, Port Hardy and so on. There was rather complicated formula, which I understand is no longer in existence, but the fact is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be getting nearly $12 million in subsidies from the federal government this year.

You are not going to believe this, Mr. Chairman, but this $12 million doesn't go into the coffers of the B.C. Ferry Corporation; it goes into general revenue. Although the subsidy was reduced by 25.1 percent two years ago, I maintain that on top of the subsidy being paid to the B.C. Ferry Corporation that $12 million should go directly into the B.C. Ferries account, not into general revenue, which I suspect is subsidizing northeast coal, or whatever. The minister has answered this question before when I've raised it, and I know the answer, but I want it on record again this year, just to remind the minister.

I've got some highway problems too, but we'll get to that in a few minutes. Everybody's got highway problems, except perhaps Vancouver Centre; I'm not sure.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I'm going to get to the Cariboo. I've got some beautiful stuff on the Cariboo. First of all I've got to do my stuff here.

I want to ask the minister, because the general manager is on the floor of the House.... The general manager will remember that he and Mr. Hodgson did agree, probably with one or two members of the board of directors — I'm talking to the minister, just relax — to consult with. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, you are pretty quick to call me to order. I'm a little suspicious of you; you get me twitchy.

Prior to the new summer schedule going into effect for the Sunshine Coast, Powell River and Texada Island, that consultation would take place. I am asking at this time and reminding the minister and the corporation.... I pose the question at this time because I was asked this weekend by a group of people from Texada Island if I had heard from the corporation and whether the general manager, the chairman of the board and whoever would keep that promise — I think they will; they haven't broken a promise to us yet, so I don't see why they should now — to consult with the people of Texada Island, the municipal council and the concerned citizens of Powell River, and very particularly, the municipality and the concerned citizens' group of the Sunshine Coast area at Gibsons. It has to be soon, because it is getting to that time of year when these schedules are going to have to be drawn up fairly quickly. We would very much like to avoid the dislocation that we've had at every schedule change. Every summer, every spring and every fall we get a ferry schedule that is totally out of whack, unconnected; in fact, this spring it almost cut off any reasonable access to Vancouver for people living on Texada Island. There was no consultation at all. That situation has improved tremendously over the past year, and I hope it will continue.

The next question I have relates to a matter which I know the minister and the general manager of the board of the corporation are familiar with, because I corresponded with them very recently on this matter. Ocean Falls has been pretty well isolated. There are not too many people living there, I'll grant you that, but they deserve some service. Up to December of last year a subsidy was paid to various private firms to supplement the service to Ocean Falls when the ferry was withdrawn — the Queen of the North or the Queen of Prince Rupert. About two or three weeks ago I met with some people from Ocean Falls who have requested — and they can guarantee a payload — to have one more trip of the Queen of the North call in to that community to get people and vehicles in or out before the summer schedule goes into effect. I approached the ferry corporation, I spoke with Mr. Hodgson and was informed by him that because of tariff changes, which I don't quite understand, the board of directors could not make the decision and that the decision would have to be made at the ministerial level. I wonder if the minister would have an answer for me on that today. Will they take one more sailing into that community? As I said, the representatives I met with from Ocean Falls can guarantee a no-loss trip to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I hope the government will undertake to assist the people still living in that community.

While I'm on the subject of Ocean Falls, I would like to ask if the government is currently subsidizing any carrier — air or sea — to assist in serving the people in that community.

[11:45]

While we're up in the central coast area of my riding, I'd like once again to ask the minister and the B.C. Ferry Corporation to consider the construction of a ferry-docking facility at Bella Bella. The Queen of the North and the Queen of Prince Rupert do stop at that community of about 1,100 people, but it's rather a focal point of the central coast; they pick up people at Bella Bella from other communities and the immediate area as well. The problem is, there is no docking facility. A federal government wharf, which is quite old and needs replacement, provides passenger service only — not vehicles. You can't load or unload vehicles from this point. I know part of the problem is that because Bella Bella happens to be a native Indian reserve, the provincial government says:

[ Page 4051 ]

"This is a federal government responsibility, so they can put up the bucks to build a proper ferry loading ramp." And the federal government says: "The B.C. Ferry Corporation is a British Columbia Crown corporation and why should we build them a ferry ramp?" So it's catch-22. In the meantime, the type of service required there is not being provided. I think there are solutions to the problem. I might add as well that the band council stated two or three years ago that the portion of the land, although it's on the reserve, where the ferry terminal should be constructed would be turned over to provincial jurisdiction so there would be no problem of sometime down the road saying, "This is native Indian land and we're going to forbid you to cross," or whatever. I don't think that would happen anyway, but it's a concern that has been expressed by some people in government. So they've made that offer.

Last but not least, some years ago the ministry undertook a study to see if we could provide some kind of water transportation service — a feeder service, if you will — to Bella Coola. A lot of studies were done, soundings were done, and in fact the provincial government at one point — when the wharf burned down there, about two years ago, and prior to the federal government constructing the new wharf in the area — had the opportunity of participating in that construction by contributing some funds. The contractor at that time, while they were there and construction was taking place, would have constructed a roll on, roll off ferry ramp at Bella Coola. Of course the offer, I guess because of restraint or whatever, was rejected. Consequently, the federal government constructed their wharf, and if and when the provincial government now ever decides to put in a ferry ramp in that community, it's going to cost a great deal more money. The residents up there in that community have been asking for this service for many years. So perhaps the minister would care to comment on that.

Just one or two more items, very quickly — it's quite obvious we're not going to get through this before lunch. It's my view that, particularly during the week and particularly during the months from September or October to March or April, many of these sailings — in fact the majority, except perhaps on busy weekends — are not fully utilized. Sometimes it's 25 percent or 30 percent capacity, and this kind of thing. I know there are group rates in existence. For many of the Gulf Islands and areas where your only means of communication are by B.C. Ferries or Highways-operated ferries.... Quite frankly, I'm suggesting to the minister and the corporation at this time that school groups, school bands, sports groups, minor-league hockey teams, Guides, Brownies, Scouts, Cubs, church groups and so on should at that time, with prior notice, be able to travel free on those ferries. I don't see why they should not. The ferries are underused during those hours of the day anyway. I see no reason why those kinds of groups should not be able to travel free during the week to attend those sports and school functions. It wouldn't cost the Ferry Corporation a dime — with prior notice.

I have one or two more questions. I wonder if the minister is still considering the possibility of the Ferry Corporation acquiring the Princess of Vancouver for the Powell River-Comox and Texada routes. I know this has been under consideration for some time; it's no secret. The Ferry Corporation has an idea of a one-fare, circle tour from Vancouver, up the Sunshine Coast to Courtenay, down Vancouver Island and back to Vancouver on one ticket at a reduced rate. It's a good idea, as a matter of fact. It would probably assist tourism in the area, which is badly depressed at the present time. But I wonder if this is still under consideration. Where is that particular proposal at this time?

I have a few more questions here, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps the minister would have time to answer one or two of my questions before the noon-hour break.

HON. A. FRASER: To the member, I'll start with that last question and go back. I didn't get that quite straight, but I think you were talking about acquisition of vessels. I can assure you that we're not acquiring any vessels, because we've got non-working vessels running out of our ears. Maybe I got the wrong version of that.

Regarding the wharf at Bella Coola, I'm not sure what discussion took place, but whatever it was, the lack of interest would be shown because we aren't prepared to run a service in there even if we did have a wharf. It's as simple as that. We can't afford to.

The Bella Bella dock: that goes on all the time. We stop there all the time. You're correct — we can't get vehicles on or off. It's a federal dock located on Indian land, and I don't know whether we'll ever get that resolved. We would like to see that happen — a roll on, roll off — so that we could freight and the whole bit. But I'm afraid we're in a three-way discussion with the band, the federal government and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, or the government of British Columbia. I don't know where that discussion is at the moment.

Regarding Ocean Falls service, we recently got a letter asking for a call into Ocean Falls. We withdrew service from there last fall. We don't call there anymore on the trip from Port Hardy to Rupert, for several reasons. At the present time I think there are 80 citizens left in Ocean Falls. The other thing was that our captains were telling us that we're going to get into trouble getting in and out of Ocean Falls because of the sedimenting up of the dock area. Those were all, I guess, excuses, but the business wasn't there. We're out of there now, and they've asked for one more trip for the spring. Possibly that can be accommodated. We'll be making a decision on that shortly. We've just received that request, really. I might add that in the central coast, which Ocean Falls is a part of, we have an agreement with coastal ferries. They haul freight and passengers for the areas in the central coast area. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways is subsidizing them for, I believe, $145,000 or $150,000; otherwise, they wouldn't be in there at all. It would not be economical for them to operate, and they were going to fold up. We haven't deserted the central coast. When B.C. Ferries went out of Ocean Falls, this would be one of the ports of call for coastal ferries.

I understand from Mr. Baldwin that he or his senior people are going to Powell River and Texada Island in April to discuss summer schedules. I am advised that passenger utilization is very low during the winter months on route 7, and for this reason the crew has been reduced from nine to seven for the winter service.

I loved the comments of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) on the subsidy. I don't think he should be discussing those sorts of things, because he is not an accountant — and neither am I — and so whatever we contribute will only mix it up further. My version of it is that due to the arrangement made with the government of Canada in 1977 the subsidy started out at about $8 million, and is up to $12 million, or almost $13 million now, I think, and is tied into

[ Page 4052 ]

the Vancouver cost of living. One thing that I want to emphasize, Mr. Member, which is something that bothers you, is that the agreement was made between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. It had nothing to do with the B.C. Ferry Corporation. So I don't know why you want to sidetrack the money directly into the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The subsidy money properly comes into the provincial treasury from the treasury of the government of Canada, and then the provincial government, as you know, takes that money and puts another $30 million of provincial tax money with it to subsidize the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've got a copy of the agreement, Alex.

HON. A. FRASER: I've got a copy of the agreement too, and I can have my interpretation of the agreement just as well as you can. What I am emphasizing is that B.C. Ferries aren't in the agreement at all. The agreement is with the government of the province of British Columbia. They receive the money, and we're quite happy about that. We made the agreement, it's been escalating and that's fine. Under that, and this is where another discussion takes place, we the government of British Columbia agree that we will serve the Pacific coast. We don't serve entirely with B.C. Ferries. I guess you could say that the $150,000 which goes to coastal ferries in the private sector could be debited to that as well, because they are helping serve the central coast.

I noted your remarks regarding the ferry fares. I think that has generally settled down now. There were no real increases in B.C. Ferry fares when, as you pointed out, the commuter tickets were expanded from 30 days to.... I think the B.C. Ferries do get a little additional income, but not a great deal. They'll get by in 1984.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.