[ Page 4053 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Sheriffs' responsibilities. Ms. Brown –– 4053

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Blencoe

B.C. air ambulance service. Hon. A. Fraser replies –– 4055

Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Hon. A. Fraser replies –– 4055

Booths closed at ferry terminals. Hon. A. Fraser replies –– 4055

Orders of the Day

Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 4056

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

On vote 62: minister's office –– 4056

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Kempf

Mr. D'Arcy

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Ms. Brown

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Reynolds

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Lauk

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Gabelmann

Tabling Documents –– 4077

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the members' gallery Mr. Hans Steinacher, duly appointed consul-general of Switzerland, and Mrs. Steinacher. I wish the members would join me in welcoming them here today.

MR. HANSON: In the gallery today are Shirley and Linc Bodner of the great riding of Prince George South, and the wife and son of Alderman Bodner of Prince George. Young Linc reckons that in about ten years he'll be sitting in this House as an MLA. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them both.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There are four visitors in the gallery today. I'd like the House to welcome representatives from the B.C. Chiropractic Association, Drs. Grant Gainor, Don Nixdorf and Blake Alderson and their associate, Mr. Don Adams.

MR. HOWARD: Visiting today — although I'm not sure they are in the gallery — are Mayor Carman Graf of the town of Smithers and Pat Norris, the municipal manager.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a longtime friend and supporter of mine from the village of Ashcroft. Yesterday this lady took up residence in Victoria. For other reasons it was an eventful day: it was her thirty-ninth birthday yesterday, and she began her duties as my new executive assistant. Would the House please welcome Ida Makaro.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming the representatives from the National Farmers' Union who are in Victoria today to present their annual submission to cabinet and to representatives from the opposition.

Oral Questions

SHERIFFS' RESPONSIBILITIES

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General and has to do with the press statement which he released on March 26 concerning the shifting of sheriffs' responsibilities to the police force and the municipality. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether he does not accept that the courts and the justice system remain a provincial responsibility, and that accordingly the province should bear the entire cost of these services.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the administration of justice costs by the province are, as the member knows, very considerable, as are the responsibilities. There is nothing in derogation of that constitutional responsibility to request and require police departments to serve criminal documents in the areas which they police. That is the practice in many other provinces in Canada. It is not a revolutionary turn of events to have that responsibility covered by the local police forces, who on many occasions in the past have had to be involved with difficult criminal service, notwithstanding the presence of a provincial sheriff's force.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker. It is always hard to understand why we have to go backwards, when other provinces are inferior to us in the delivery of service, in order to keep up with them. However, in 1983 provincial sheriffs delivered something in the neighbourhood of 150,000 documents. Does the Attorney-General not agree that shifting this responsibility now to police officers is a gross misuse of highly trained and expensive personnel?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, many municipalities, and Burnaby in particular, were forced to cut their RCMP personnel in order to keep in line with the tax restraints imposed on them by the government. Now that this is going to be shifted on to them, they are going to have to rehire or hire some additional staff. Who is going to pick up the tab — for example, in Burnaby's case, for the $100,000 involved in hiring the two additional staff to do this job?

HON. MR. SMITH: When the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I met with the delegation from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, they raised that matter with us quite clearly, and we indicated to them that if, as a result of this change in duties with criminal documents on the part of police forces, there is a major shift in cost, that is a matter the province would be pleased to discuss with the municipalities from a standpoint of cost, and what contribution the province would make to that cost. We do not believe that in most cases in this province there is going to be a major dint in cost, because the local police forces will be able to accommodate, we believe, to this duty. In many cases patrol cars are out during the evening at the time in which the documents would be served, and also the local police are aware and knowledgeable as to where some of these persons are who need to be served. There is a chance here, not to pass costs on but to reduce costs overall. The thrust of this is to reduce costs, not to pass costs on. If there are some significant costs passed on, though, because we don't claim infallibility, we will review that with the municipalities and make an adjustment. We believe that if this system is tried in a good spirit, and if it is cooperated in, and with the control systems that we'll be able to bring to bear through the regional Crown counsel's office on the issue of criminal process, overall we will be able to reduce costs.

MS. BROWN: The municipality of Burnaby passed a motion last night in opposition to this decision. About 40 other municipalities have indicated that they are not going to participate in this new decision made by the government. What action, if any, is the Attorney-General going to take if the municipalities refuse to cooperate?

HON. MR. SMITH: I am not as pessimistic or confrontational as the member, and I believe that the municipalities and the police forces will cooperate. I understand that it is necessary for them to clearly make the point to us that they do not wish to have major shifts in cost burdens occur, but I do believe that we will have cooperation with this initiative and that there will not be a breakdown of the serving of criminal documents. There will not be criminal trials that have to be adjourned because of jurisdictional postures; I do not believe

[ Page 4054 ]

that that will occur. I hope the member shares my belief on that as well.

[2:15]

MS. BROWN: The mayor of Burnaby and a number of other mayors have been desperately trying to meet with the Attorney-General to discuss the fact that aside from using the additional services of very expensive personnel, the increase in crimes in the municipality may bring about the shifting of officers to the delivery of documents, an irrational kind of thing for the government to expect from them. However, neither the mayor of Burnaby nor any of the other mayors has been able to get an appointment with the Attorney-General or even a response to his letters or his phone calls. Will the Attorney-General give us an idea as to when he's prepared to meet with the mayors from the Greater Vancouver Regional District to discuss this matter?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thought I said right at the outset that last week — on Friday, I believe — the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) and I met with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, representing the municipalities across the entire province. That was the first step we took. We had that meeting, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I made a statement yesterday as to our willingness to adopt the course recommended to us by Mayor Couvelier of Saanich, who represented the UBCM at that meeting, which was that we agreed to sit down and negotiate any major shift in cost if one did occur. We made that statement jointly, and that's the statement we stand by. Having had that meeting with the UBCM, if there are other mayors now who wish to discuss the matter with me, they're most welcome to. I have not heard from the mayor of Burnaby, and the mayor of Burnaby has not called me.

MR. COCKE: Have you heard from the mayor of North Vancouver?

MR. SKELLY: He keeps phoning, and you won't answer his phone calls.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, he doesn't keep phoning. Certainly we will meet, Mr. Speaker, with a group of mayors in Vancouver — or individual mayors now, if that's their wish.

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General. The sheriff's service was established in 1974, and there is great concern out there that the police officers who investigate and testify in court should not be the people who are serving summonses. There is also concern that the Attorney-General is downgrading safety in the streets by taking police officers off to perform these rather civilian duties of serving documents. My'question to the Attorney-General is: has he consulted with the Police Commission? If so, what was their recommendation?

HON. MR. SMITH: The alarmist comments opposite that were just made in relation to safety in the streets would really be amusing if they were not so inappropriate. That member knows — he having been Attorney-General — that the serving of criminal documents is a routine matter of business that is carried out by policemen across this land. It is not a retrograde step to try to be more efficient in the serving of documents and to have the serving of documents more tied in with the justice system, nor is it necessary to separate the server of a document from somebody giving evidence because of some policy that they had when they were in government, ten years ago, when they saw justice bogeymen everywhere.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplemental to the Attorney-General. Is it not clear that if you take police officers away from the prevention and detection of crime, and make them into process-servers for part of their time, you're downgrading safety? I ask you again: was this matter taken up with the Police Commission? There is such a body. What was their recommendation?

Another question. I would like to ask the Attorney-General about the status of prisoner escort. Is this going to be privatized too? Are you going to have private individuals, without the training that the sheriffs' officers were getting, licensed to carry firearms out in the community — a sort of special police force? Are you going to privatize the prisoner escort service too?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SEGARTY: A supplementary to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General not agree that this will make for a far more effective police role, inasmuch as serving these notices will get the police out into the neighbourhoods and the communities in which they serve?

MR. BARRETT: What do you think they are — waiters?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think that will prove to be the case in many communities where there are community police forces. Unlike some of you, for six years I was chairman of a local police board where there was a community police force. I just don't agree that serving documents in the community is demeaning for a police officer.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the same topic. The government has not denied that the costs of these new services will be borne by the municipalities. The minister will recall that I attempted during estimates to get him to discuss this particular issue. What has the minister done to protect the fundamental principle that provincial responsibilities require provincial support?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: One of the major things done by this government is the program known as revenue-sharing.

MR. BLENCOE: You cut it by 17 percent.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As Minister of Municipal Affairs I will endeavour to keep that intact, to make sure that the people of the province will indeed benefit from the resource revenue of this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Are you all finished?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, question period time is brief. Please proceed.

[ Page 4055 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, to the second member for Victoria, I did take a great deal of interest in this decision to transfer this particular duty, recognizing, however, that while there are many benefits to it, it is also another opportunity for municipalities to demonstrate their desire and ability to work with this government in attempting to find more efficient and less costly ways of doing things. In order to assure them that they wouldn't be seriously hurt financially, there was a meeting, and I and the Attorney-General agreed to monitor the costs of this particular activity over the next year, after which, should they find that it would require some adjustments, we would meet and discuss them.

B.C. AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HON. A. FRASER: I want to change the subject. I want to reply to questions I took as notice, and it's going to take me quite a while. I hope you'll bear with me.

First of all, there was a question from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) last Thursday or Friday, regarding government aircraft and their licensing. There has been a complaint by the private sector that government air services is charging and that therefore we should have a commercial licence. In response to a petition made by AeroControl Air Ltd., Delta, the province, through the provincial dispatch office of the emergency health service, outlined to the Air Transport Commission the use of government aircraft in the ambulance role. On February 24, 1984, Mr. A. Wilson, president of Aero-Control Air Ltd., responded to the government's submission and he reiterated that it was his opinion that the province must apply for and obtain a licence to operate a commercial air service, which he deemed the ambulance service to be. On February 24, Mr. Wilson also wrote to the licensing division of the Air Transport Commission, outlining his objection to the government's use of aircraft without a licence. As matters now stand, a decision must be made by the Air Transport Commission of the government of Canada, and we are awaiting further word from that authority.

PACIFIC COACH LINES LTD.

On Thursday or Friday members were asking about the disposition of the routes that would take place following March 31 and the sale of Pacific Coach Lines. I don't want to read it all, but I will cover some of these routes. I have received this information from the Motor Carrier Commission, who license all vehicles. Pacific Coach Lines (1984) Ltd., Victoria, has been licensed to operate in Victoria and Vancouver. Maverick Coach Lines, Vancouver, between Vancouver and Nanaimo. Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. — Victoria, B.C. is their address — between Victoria and Port Hardy and also Nanaimo and Port Alberni. In each instance these carriers have filed time schedules, route schedules and tariffs that are not inconsistent with the services set out in the individual agreement of sale with Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Cascade Charter Service Ltd., Chilliwack, between Vancouver and Harrison Hot Springs, is servicing routes on both sides of the Fraser River. Route schedules and tariffs are consistent with those previously offered by Pacific Coach Lines. Time schedules are reduced in comparison to that which was offered by Pacific Coach Lines, but schedules have been submitted to meet commuter and popular demands for service. The proposed service has already been published in some Fraser Valley community newspapers. Information with respect to the disposition of terminals is not complete; however, some information is available but may be subject to future change. Greyhound Lines of Canada has entered into a similar agreement for the use of Larwell Park terminal. However, there will be a role reversal, as they will now provide accommodation for depot facilities, sales and parcel express service to Pacific Coach Lines (1984) Ltd., Maverick Coach Lines Ltd., Cascade Charter Service Ltd. and others. In Victoria, Canadian Pacific Hotels has agreed to an assignment of the earlier agreement to Gray Line of Victoria Ltd., who will operate the depot and in turn sell tickets and handle express for Pacific Coach Lines (1984) Ltd. The Victoria garage facility is included in the agreement of sale to Pacific Coach Lines (1984) Ltd., who will operate, and by agreement service, those vehicles of Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. I think the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked about Nanaimo. At this point the depot in Nanaimo is owned by Cameron Island Development Ltd. Agreements for terminal space for both Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. and Maverick Coach Lines may still be outstanding. Duncan, Courtenay, Campbell River and Port Alberni are owned by Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. — I'm referring to depots — and tentatively will be leased to Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. Haney, Abbotsford, Langley and Chilliwack are operated by B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Greyhound Lines of Canada is negotiating with Hydro and has bid on all of the related office furnishings.

All carriers involved have entered into agreements for continued service, joint tariffs, use of terminal facilities and other matters so that interlining services will not be unduly disruptive to the public. Fleet disposition seems to be as earlier reported in the House, but generally it's 33 to Pacific Coach Lines (1984) Ltd., 26 to Gray Line of Victoria Ltd., 14 to Maverick Coach Lines Ltd. and 9 to Cascade Charter Service Ltd. I think that pretty well covers that operation.

BOOTHS CLOSED AT FERRY TERMINALS

I have one more item that I took as notice, regarding B.C. Ferries and the summer handicraft sales. I believe this question was asked by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). In response to many suggestions from the travelling public, B.C. Ferries is embarking on a program of converting their news-stands to gift shops on all major vessels. In addition, B.C. Ferries will progressively introduce gift shops at some major terminals. Plans are underway to enlarge and possibly relocate the news-stand gift shop on major vessels next fall when the vessels undergo their annual refit. Many passengers have complained that news-stands on board ships are simply too small and inadequate, and that B.C. Ferries should merchandise a suitable line of quality locally crafted gifts and souvenirs depicting various areas of British Columbia and Canada. The first terminal gift shop will be introduced at Tsawwassen this summer.

Over the years space has been made available to local arts and crafts groups for the purpose of selling their wares. This program will continue at Swartz Bay and Departure Bay. At Tsawwassen the corporation intended to offer artisans the opportunity to sell their products through the B.C. Ferries gift shop. For those not wishing to take advantage of this opportunity, I have asked the corporation to review the available space at the Tsawwassen terminal to ensure that an area will continue to be made available for these local artisans. As

[ Page 4056 ]

in previous years, the program will continue at Swartz Bay and Departure Bay. This program was never in effect at Horseshoe Bay due to the lack of space.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Introduction of Bills

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 9 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.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to get up for a few minutes in support of the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). I want to briefly say that there has been more work done in the East Kootenays under this minister than under any other Minister of Transportation and Highways or any other government in the history of our province. The minister is to be complimented for doing an outstanding job, and the people of the East Kootenays really appreciate all the work he has been able to do in that constituency over the past number of years.

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: You're right. He's been shaking gold all over the place; there's black gold on the highways. Leprechauns can't steal it.

Mr. Chairman, some of the improvements that have been made in the Kootenays in the past few years include the Sparwood north bypass, and the people of Sparwood truly appreciate that, along with the paving of Crowsnest Highway 3 from Fort Steele to Wardner. This couldn't have been done without the hard work and effort of the district Highways managers and staff within the Fernie and Cranbrook Highways district. I'd like to note that Joe Wrobel, the new district Highways engineer in Fernie, has done an outstanding job. He is a breath of fresh air in that Highways district, and we look to further great improvements over the next few years, along with Harvey Popoff and his secretary in the district office in Cranbrook, Diane Graham, a really great person who works hard.

I would like to bring to the minister's attention some of the things which the people of the East Kootenays have set out as a priority over the next few years. They include the Ministry of Transportation and Highways small airport improvement program. The minister did take a trip to Sparwood to open the Sparwood north bypass a few months ago, and had an opportunity to look at the airport that is being developed by the regional district, in cooperation with the three municipalities of Sparwood, Elkford and Fernie and the government of Canada. As the minister is aware, the cost of completing the project would be in the neighbourhood of $500,000, which would mean hardtopping the airport strip. Perhaps the minister could give me some information on where that particular project stands.

Another project that is important to the Highways district of Fernie would be the paving of Crowsnest Highway 3 from Fernie through to Sparwood and up to Elkford on Highway 43, which has been set out as a priority.

The Cranbrook Highways district has made a number of great improvements in that particular area, and I would like to thank the minister for his help and cooperation in upgrading the Highway 3 beautification project through the city of Cranbrook. We would like to see that project continued over the next few years to bring it out to the west of Cranbrook. It has really made quite a difference along the highway route.

Along with that is the Cranbrook-Kimberley cloverleaf project, which is well underway and in fact is now at the completion stage. All we need are a few dollars from the ministry's paving program to complete the paving project, which would basically see that project completed.

I would also like to thank the minister for all of the work that he has done along the whole Crowsnest Highway 3 from the coast through to Sparwood. A lot of great improvements have been made on that highway, and as the minister is aware, all of the municipalities along that highway view it as an important southern route through our province and want to develop it as a tourist route through our entire province. The minister has seen fit to see that that is a priority over the past few years, and I know that they will continue in that effort.

One of the other problems that we find in the East Kootenays is non-resident use of plates. People from Alberta come into the province of British Columbia, whether it's trucking companies or individuals who work in the coal-mines — or, in this particular case in Golden, the CPR yard construction project — with their motor vehicle licences for small trucks and cars. The people of the area feel that people come in from Alberta, they're working there, and they never take out licence plates, because they don't take up permanent residence. At the same time, if British Columbians go into Alberta they seem to be harassed from the first three weeks of their visit to Alberta to get their licence plates changed. I wonder if we could not strengthen up that particular area; it may give us some needed revenue to the province.

As well, trucking companies who come into the area to operate in British Columbia, having a contract to work on a particular project, apparently don't need licences to operate on municipal streets. Once they've come off British Columbia highways, they are no longer subject to licensing approval. That's most likely the case in the northeast comer of our province where we have massive coal-development projects underway, in southeastern British Columbia where we have coal projects underway, and in Golden, where there are major construction projects. I wonder if the minister couldn't give us some change-of-policy direction in those areas.

One of the other areas where we are having some difficulty is with the…. We're fortunate up in the East Kootenays that we have been able to find a market for our huge surplus of wood chips, and sawmill companies operating in the Columbia and Kootenay ridings have been able to keep their mills open over the past few months in difficult times in our economy because they have been able to export the

[ Page 4057 ]

surplus chips to Washington and Montana. The company that got the contract — and basically, I guess, they are limited to a couple of companies — by lowest bid is having difficulty in obtaining licences for the transportation of those chips because of some British Columbia regulation on width or whatever, stating the trucks have to come into Canada from the state of Montana, and we have differing regulations. I wonder if we couldn't be a little more flexible in our approach to the regulations in those areas.

Again, I want to compliment the minister and the ministry for all the work that they have done, and I reiterate that the East Kootenays has seen more work done under this great British Columbia Minister of Highways than we have seen under any other minister of highways in any other government in the history of our province. I want to take this opportunity to thank the minister for all of that work.

HON. A. FRASER: Thank you for the compliments, Mr. Member. I can imagine that if we hadn't done it, we'd have really heard from you, but I am pleased that we have accomplished what we've accomplished. We are never finished in this ministry, as you know. There are more things to do.

Going from back to front, the wood-chip haul that you are talking about has been brought to my attention by the industry through the economic development committee of cabinet. Once it was turned down by our ministry people, and it's now back a second time, and I think we're going to effect resolution of it. That's bringing you right up to date. Basically the problem is that the American truckers want rigs that are about 30 feet longer than we want to allow on the highway system, and we also have to watch our Canadian carriers as well. Overall for the economy, we're trying to do all we can to accommodate them so they can move these chips.

The licensing of motor vehicles is a never-ending problem, and I have asked the RCMP to find out if these people are permanent residents and check them wherever they are in British Columbia. That started last fall, but we continue to get complaints from, as you say, the southeast and the northeast sector. Now it has opened up in Golden, as I think you mentioned, because of the amount of construction going on created by the CPR railroad, with Alberta people in there working who are not getting their plates. We certainly are conscious of that.

Last but not least, on airport assistance, I said this morning that this very popular small program instituted by the government in 1977 has improved a lot of airports, has built complete airports and partial ones, and is ongoing with reduced funding this year. You're correct, I did inspect the Sparwood airport. I want to congratulate the local people — along with federal money, I guess — for bringing it up to level. It's almost ready to pave, and hopefully in that funding we'll be able to grant assistance this year to see to its completion so it can be used as an airport. It's a very successful program, and your area is entitled, certainly, to its share of that. I don't see why that can't happen in 1984.

[2:45]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Prior to the lunch hour I hadn't quite completed my presentation, and I do have a few more questions for the minister.

I want to thank the minister for his answer after question period to several questions that were posed, and I want to tell him that I appreciate the fact that he does not take up the time of question period but makes his answers to questions taken as notice after question period, which is not the habit of some of the ministers over here or his colleagues who take up most of question period with non-answers. I really do appreciate that.

I want first of all to clear up a couple of matters. Mr. Chairman, the minister seemed to misunderstand this morning when I raised the question of the federal government subsidy. I don't want to get into a long harangue about it, but I want to clarify the situation, at least from my point of view. That original federal government subsidy — and I do have correspondence from federal ministers and provincial people and the then-MP of the area, Iona Campagnolo — was to go as a subsidy to the government of British Columbia's B.C. Ferry Corporation to supplement the service being withdrawn at the time. That's mv understanding of that subsidy just for the record, Mr. Minister. On the matter of the Ferry Corporation perhaps taking over the run between Powell River and Comox, I don't know what the plans of the corporation are in that regard, if any. The misunderstanding on your part seemed to be that you thought I was suggesting the purchase of another vessel; that is absolutely not so. I understand very well the situation in the Ferry Corporation regarding the surplus vessels you have at the moment. Hopefully they will not be surplus in a year or two, and they will be required to put people to work and provide better service to the coast of British Columbia.

I've pretty well exhausted the B.C. Ferry Corporation items I wish to discuss. I have just one more item dealing with ferries, and that is what appears to some of us on the coast here as a matter of preferential treatment to certain areas of British Columbia. Some time ago the minister announced — and I won't go through the whole thing here — that he would be shutting down three interior Highways-operated ferries because there were alternate highway routes. However, there was a great fuss raised in some of these communities like Quesnel, Marguerite, Castlegar and other places, and it now appears the minister is changing his mind and is, in fact, going to continue those services. I'm not opposed to that. It's part of the government's responsibility to provide services to the people of the province, and there's nothing wrong with that. And the minister does have a right to change his mind. These are free ferries, by the way, Mr. Chairman. There are no tolls at all, and I'm not necessarily knocking that either, but the minister in this area — particularly his own electoral area — where the residents would have to travel some 60 miles around if this ferry was shut down on the other side of the river…. Well. the headline in the Province reads, "Home Turf Is Gunning For Fraser" — quite an angry meeting, I would take it from this article. But the point I'm making here is that….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As a matter of fact, yes, they threatened civil disobedience and to shoot you. I don't believe that; they wouldn't do that to you, Alex. That must have been a tough meeting, Mr. Minister. I've been to some tough meetings, but they've never threatened to shoot me at any of them — not so far.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Maybe they should have, I don't know. I don't believe this.

[ Page 4058 ]

The point I'm making is that the minister is knuckling under to pressure. When we had something like 600 residents on the Sunshine coast angry about ferry cutbacks into that area, the minister didn't knuckle under. Was it because it was an NDP riding? I don't know. The minister is knuckling under to…. He's reversing a decision he'd made in regard to these three Highways — operated ferries in the interior, which have no tolls. I'm not suggesting tolls. I'm easy on the subject. I know a lot of people on the coast who say that if we have to pay tolls down here, they should pay tolls up there. But a case can be made against that as well. But that is not the point. The point is that the minister knuckled under in that case and reconsidered a decision affecting many more thousands of people. When the late sailings were taken off Route 3 on the Sunshine Coast, people who had bought season tickets, people who were going to night school — hundreds of them who had paid their fees — were shut out. There was no way they could attend any of these many functions, because those late sailings were cancelled. The residents of the area came up with a method — they had done their homework — of maintaining those late sailings and providing better service to the coast. The minister wouldn't listen. That's water under the bridge, and we know that we have a new summer schedule coming into effect within the next month and a half or so. I'm just telling this House that the minister reversed his field when it was a matter involving a small local ferry in his own riding, but when it came to reversing his field and reconsidering a decision affecting literally thousands of people whose livelihood depends on the B.C. Ferries service, he turned a deaf ear. I'm not too happy about that and neither are my constituents, I can tell you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn for just a few minutes to a couple of local highway matters. I know that several other people want to speak in this debate. I'm going to ask the minister…. Well, I can't ask the minister. The minister did not produce his annual report this year, so I have no idea….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We don't have the annual report for the last fiscal year, do we? What I'm dealing with here are the 1982-83…. Well, it's the report for the year ending March 1982, and that's very difficult to…. We should have one for 1983, but we don't. So the point is that we don't know how much money was spent in the various parts of British Columbia and in the electoral areas. But for the year ending March 31, 1982, in the minister's riding…. The minister always enjoys this part of the debate. I understand that $30,499,576 was spent in the minister's riding. Now that's a pretty lucky riding — if you happen to live in Cariboo. But the fact of the matter is that once again the minister has spent a great deal of money in his own riding. I understand the problems. That used to be my buddy riding. I've travelled through and around his riding. I've got another one now. Nonetheless, the unfair distribution of funds….

The fact is that reconstruction of Highway 101, leading up the Sunshine Coast, stopped in 1976. Not a bit of work has been done to it. Band-aid work, yes: a few potholes have been patched, and a corner or two knocked off. It's a snake trail. I'm not asking that the whole highway be reconstructed in one year. You have to remember that that highway serves permanent residents — never mind the tourists and visitors. In terms of permanent residents, it serves some 35,000 people. All I'm asking for is that the minister allocate funding for the continued reconstruction of Highway 101 up the Sunshine Coast to Powell River. It would do more to improve that snake trail of a highway, which is in really terrible condition, quite frankly. It's deteriorating all the time. It would provide some local job opportunities for local contractors, truckers and other people in the area. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that we have a 36 percent unemployment rate in that area, so we'd be killing two birds with one stone. We'd get some highway work done and get some job creation as well, even though it might be on a short-term basis.

One other matter,, while I'm on my feet. I'm sure the deputy will remember this one here. It's kind of serious to a lot of people. I was back on the Sunshine Coast at quite a large unemployment meeting on Thursday night, and several people there asked me why the Ministry of Highways is refusing to let the local peace committee and the regional board place signs at each end of the highway — one near Langdale and one near Earls Cove — informing people that that area has been declared a nuclear-free zone by referendum. The Ministry of Highways allows signs of all kinds to be placed on the highway, aside from signs dealing with the driving task. Why? I cannot understand why these people, who are prepared to make up and erect the signs themselves…allow these signs along the highway. I would guess that this group is probably going to put those signs in place anyway and challenge the ministry to tear them down. I don't think that bodes well for the government, but we shall see.

I was going to talk about motor vehicle testing, but other people have discussed it and it will be discussed again. I'm sitting on a committee that will be discussing this matter, so I'll bypass that one.

One last matter for the minister, Mr. Chairman, while I'm on the floor. The minister referred briefly to the airport assistance program. It is an excellent program from that ministry, and has been of some benefit to a number of airports in my riding. I'm not knocking the program. I can't seem to find in my estimate book, Mr. Chairman, how much funding the ministry has allocated to the airport assistance program for fiscal year 1984-85. If the minister would give me that figure, I really would appreciate it.

Last but not least — and I've written to the minister on this matter — the regional district of Powell River recently requested a very modest sum for the Texada Island airport. It involves some clearing along the sides and things like that. The regional district itself is putting up quite a large sum of taxpayers' money, and another large portion of funds is being put up by local companies and volunteer labour on Texada Island. The sum requested by the Powell River Regional District is modest, and I hope the minister will give that matter his serious attention. The airport is operating quite well right now, but it's not officially opened yet. I understand that the minister will be receiving an invitation in the near future for a person to come and cut the ribbon, and officially open that airport.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of remarks with regard to this minister's estimates, generally with concern for the north and particularly with regard to my constituency of Omineca.

[ Page 4059 ]

[3:00]

First of all, I would like — as other members have done to congratulate this minister. I think he's doing a bang-up job. He has certainly given a lot of consideration and cooperation to my constituents over the years. I do realize that during these times of restraint he's having a very difficult time with dollars. As well, I understand that with other pressing services in the province, this ministry is probably not faring as well as most when it comes to its share of dollars. Mr. Chairman, I said "concern"; I am always concerned when I see a decrease in an overall Highways budget in British Columbia. We do in fact have a decrease this fiscal year to the tune of about $33 million. It's a significant decrease in this province when you consider the meagre size of the Highways budget, compared to the miles that this ministry has to construct and maintain in a vast and rural province such as British Columbia. I'm concerned that this budget is on the decrease.

I'm happy that the maintenance side of the budget is up. As northerners we have a great concern for the way in which our roads and highways are maintained. Having a great number of months of the year during which we experience winter conditions, it's very important that highways and secondary roads in the northern part of this province are well maintained. I am concerned, however, that the highway construction and development side of the budget is down. I can only see that that is going to hurt the citizens of north central and northern British Columbia, where it's absolutely essential that we construct and develop, on an ongoing yearly basis, new highway and road systems. For if we don't we will surely fall behind and get behind an eight ball behind which it is very difficult to get out from. Roads and highways in our part of the country are a lifeline. Maybe that's not so in the urban areas of British Columbia, where there are other means of transportation, but there certainly are not other means of transportation in the north-central and northern part of British Columbia. We rely heavily on the roads and highways built and maintained by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in our part of the province. Any decrease in road development and road construction or in any aspect of a Highways budget will surely have a detrimental effect on our citizens. We don't like to see that, Mr. Chairman, because we feel that per mile we pay more than our share of gas taxes because of the distances we must travel to gain the services that people in the urban areas of our province take for granted — hundreds of miles to drive to see doctors, to get to a hospital, to seek the services of any government ministry or department. We feel we pay more than our share of the gas tax, considering it on a per-mile basis. We also feel that we make a very large contribution to the sales tax of this province, given the fact that vehicles in our part of the country don't last five years. They don't even last four or three years. In fact, if you can get two years out of a pickup truck or a four-wheel-drive vehicle or a car on the highways that we have to travel, you're very lucky. I see my constituents replacing their vehicles almost on a yearly basis, to travel on our highways, contributing a great deal to the taxation situation in our province.

Mr. Chairman, I too want to talk about the airport assistance program. I too want to ask the minister where the devil it's found in this year's budget. I'm told it's there. I'd like to know where it's found and I'd like to know how much it's for. How much it's for is probably more important than where it can be found. I'm happy to hear that it's in there, but I've seen it dwindle over the years and I think that's sad. I think it's sad because, for those who might not know, the airport assistance program was brought into this province by my seatmate the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). It's probably one of the best programs in this province. It's certainly the best program in this province as far as getting dollar value for dollars paid in by the taxpayer. It doesn't have a preponderance of overhead. That dollar gets out into the hands of the people of this province and the councils of this province, who probably get $2 value for every tax dollar expended. I think it's one of the best programs that's ever come into this province. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but that program was brought into this province, for those who don't know, to just return a little bit to the north for what was taken away from them when the Dease Lake extension of the BCR was curtailed. That was one of the things that was returned to the rural part of this province. I've seen that fund go from a high of nearly S5 million a year to whatever it is this year. I suspect that it's probably less than half of that. Again I say, that's of serious concern to me, as a northerner. That's a very good program. It's a program that was put in place for the rural people of this province, and it's the last program that I'd ever want to see disappear in his province. If that program is in fact down to $2 million, that's sad, I say, as I said before. I want to know where it is and how much it is.

I have two particular situations which need to be looked at immediately in regard to the airport assistance program. One is the airport at Houston, a community of about 4,000, which has within its boundaries and adjacent to it three industrial plants in which work approximately 1,200 employees. If you add that to the number of employees that it requires to service the two sawmills regarding logging, hauling, etc., you probably have 2,000 employees within a 50-mile radius of that community. It's absolutely necessary in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that asphalt be placed on the runway of that airport to facilitate the air ambulance service of this province. If someone in that community is seriously hurt — which happens on a regular basis in all industries — the nearest airport is 42 miles away. The nearest point to which you could bring the jet air ambulance is 42 miles from that community. The airport at Houston is now ready for the asphalt. I think that asphalt should be placed on that airport runway this year. The other airport needing some consideration is at Fraser Lake. Although it is not as important as the airport at Houston, it is certainly of great importance as far as the citizens living in that area are concerned. The airports at Houston and Fraser Lake are two key projects for which we need moneys out of the airport assistance program this year.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

On the highways side of the budget, I want to talk about particular situations in my constituency. Again, as I say, I'm sorry to see one side of the budget being reduced. That side is highway construction and improvements. Two situations exist on Yellowhead 16, the northern transprovincial highway of this province, which runs through my riding from east to west for some 200 miles. One of those situations is the Hagman Hill project, which I brought to the minister's attention on many occasions. I think it has gone begging for something to be done on it for a number of years now. As the minister has said to me, I understand that we have low traffic counts along this highway — certainly in regard to some of the turnoffs off Yellowhead 16. I don't think that that should

[ Page 4060 ]

in any way mean that we should give serious, dangerous situations less of our time. Certainly the Hagman Hill situation is dangerous. I know it is. I travel it often myself. It should have been at least three lanes a long time ago. A number of deaths on the hill have been attributed to the sharp S-curve at the bottom. But the more serious aspect is that it only has two lanes. It's a very steep hill and a very long hill. A very serious situation is created every time you get something larger than the ordinary-sized automobile climbing that hill. You've got to line up before you get to the top; you get impatient drivers who create an awful passing hazard before getting to the brow of the hill. It's a serious situation. It's got to be looked at. Something must be done before many more people lose their lives on that particular hill.

The other situation that I bring to the House today is the François Lake East road at Fraser Lake, on which a number of my constituents live. For a number of years they've had promise upon promise that it would be given priority. It needs priority in regard to maintenance and upgrading, but the most serious aspect of that particular situation is the turnoff. The area where that François Lake East road leaves Yellowhead 16 just west of Fraser Lake is a deathtrap, if ever we had one along Highway 16 in the north. The situation is intolerable. It's got to be changed. Again, I fully understand the meaning of traffic counts. But just because we don't have a high enough traffic count doesn't mean we have to kill some of our citizens in a particular situation before doing something about it. Certainly we will. I viewed such a situation myself very recently in regard to that turnoff. It's not difficult to rectify. The old part of Yellowhead 16 is still in place, which takes off at the top of the hill and enters the François Lake East road 25 yards from Yellowhead 16. To re-use that old section of Highway 16 would be the route to go. Certainly it should receive some serious consideration. I'm asking the minister once again for that kind of consideration here today. For the number of people who now live in the area of François Lake East and who use that particular turnoff and road, maintenance and upgrading and a serious look at the turnoff is long overdue.

On behalf of the citizens of Fort St. James I would also like to bring to the House today the question of paving the main street of Fort St. James. Ordinarily I wouldn't bring such subjects to the floor of this House, but the council of the village of Fort St. James has, in good faith I believe, done an awful lot of work, which has cost the taxpayers of that community a bundle of money, to upgrade their main street through downtown revitalization. They had the promise that on completion of the downtown revitalization project that main street would receive new pavement. The receipt of the new pavement isn't the important thing; the important thing is that many of the dollars that have been sunk into downtown revitalization will be lost if that paving is not done this summer. Because of some of the things that were done in regard to curbs, gutters and sidewalks, etc., unless that main thoroughfare through the community is upgraded this summer and asphalt is put on that particular stretch of highway this summer, some of those dollars spent on downtown revitalization will be lost. So that's the reason I bring that particular subject to the floor today. I want to know from the minister if there's any possibility at all of that paving being done. I know it's difficult, when there's no paving being done in the general area, but unless we do it at this time when we can get paving done at a lot lower price than ordinarily, we will also lose by the fact that some of the money spent on downtown revitalization will be lost.

[3:15]

There are a couple of other subjects I want to talk about this afternoon. One of those is the government air services. I see that although the Highways budget has gone down, the budget for the government air services has gone up by some half a million dollars. It's been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. We spend a great deal of money on the government air force — the "people's air force," I like to call it — and probably rightly so, because we must get our ministers to all parts of this province. That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing about it being a branch of government. I guess I'm arguing for privatization of the government air services, as I have for many years, and I argue that point again. But I'm arguing as well for a fuller use of that government air service.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure this has happened to you on many occasions. As I gaze out the window of a PWA or CP Air's 737 as it is taxiing out to the runway in order that the taxpayer of this province can pay $134 one-way for me to travel from Prince George to Victoria, what do I see standing on the tarmac at Prince George airport but the government aircraft. That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make one iota of sense. I know this perfectly well, because I've checked the records. Why couldn't I warm a seat in that government aircraft from Prince George to Victoria and save the taxpayer of this province $134.50? And I've done it time after time.

I'm not just talking for me as a back-bencher; I'm talking for all members of this assembly. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why the taxpayers should pay $5.228 million in this fiscal year and have people travel the same airspace at the same time and spend another $134.50 of the taxpayers' money. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There are ways we could utilize that government air service to the fullest, and probably save the taxpayer of British Columbia a bundle in the process. It's wrong, and as long as I sit in this chamber I'm going to say it's wrong on every opportunity I have. I think it's wrong that it is in a ministry of government. I think it should be privatized, because I believe we could have twice the service at the same price we pay today if it were privatized. But if we don't go that far and it isn't privatized, for God's sake let the people who are elected to this chamber use those air services. Why should the taxpayer of this province pay for me to ride on CP Air or PWA at the same time as a government jet is making the same trip? If it didn't happen to me so many times I wouldn't be arguing the point today. It has happened time after time, and Mr. Chairman, I would suggest if you could stand and speak on this subject you would agree with me. You would tell of the number of times it has happened to you, because it has.

I would like to hear from the minister today if any consideration's being given to privatizing the government air services of the province of British Columbia and, secondly, allowing members of this chamber to fill empty seats as those planes fly around this province. It is an absolute waste, and if we're going to talk about restraint, that is a great area to look at. Why are we making the taxpayer of this province pay $268 for me to fly back and forth to Prince George, when the government aircraft, with probably at least two or three seats empty, is making the same trip at the same time? It doesn't make any sense from any point of view, financial or other. I would like to find out why.

[ Page 4061 ]

1 have only one other subject which I would like to approach this afternoon: metric signing of our highways. I would like to ask the minister when we are going to regain our sanity in at least this province, and go back to miles per hour. As I travel around the province and speak to a number of people, particularly in my constituency, in light of the court cases that have been held in regard to the metric system in the province of Ontario…. I want to know when we are going to return to a highway sign, firstly that I can understand, and secondly, that most of the citizens in this province have grown to understand over the years. I am sure the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is as old as I am and can relate to that. I would like answers to those questions, Mr. Chairman.

The only other question I would like to ask the minister is if he thinks he is getting shortchanged in this year's budget. I have here some figures which show quite conclusively that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is being shortchanged in the overall budget. It is taking in more money than it is getting to spend on the highways and transportation routes of this province. Exclusive of federal government transfers, which are many and are pretty sufficient for CNR overpasses, Trans-Canada Highway transfers, ferry subsidies, etc., the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, through the use of its highways and transportation systems, in this fiscal year is returning $564.7 million, and the total budget is only $569 million.

I say that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is being grossly shortchanged, and that can only lead to the deterioration of our highways systems in this province. We made a mockery of a former minister, in fact we gave him quite a nickname, because of this very thing being done under another administration. I don't want to see it done under this administration, Mr. Chairman. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways is being shortchanged. It is right here in black and white. Some $564.7 million is raised simply through motor vehicle licences, the ferry system and gasoline and diesel taxes. Those three things have raised $564.7 million in this fiscal year, with the total budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways only $569 million. If you add to that the subsidies and transfers, you'll probably find that over $600 million is returned to the coffers of this province through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and only $569 million of that is being returned to the transportation and highways systems in this fiscal year. I take exception to that. I'd like to know the minister's views on it.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, to attempt to reply to the member for Omineca, Highways revenues exceed expenditures by…. I'm rather happy you brought that out, Mr. Member. I'd like particularly the urban MLAs to remember that, because they've been constantly saying — for 100 years that I'm aware of — that they subsidize the highways system. It's not a fact at all. The Highway system pays its own way, thank you very much.

Regarding metric signs and the change, we haven't changed the total system, but what we have I suggested, and it's going on now, is dual signs wherever you enter British Columbia, from Alberta and the state of Washington. I'm not so sure, but I know the press was pretty excited about this when I mentioned it a couple or three months ago. I think the signs are up, so go for a drive. We're walking before we run, and have taken that gentle step to metric as well as miles, and they should be up in places like the Trans-Canada Highway where it enters British Columbia from Alberta, where the highway enters B.C. in the Peace River, and of course coming across the line, I would think at all border crossings wherever our good friends from the United States enter. So I believe 40 or 50 of those dual signs have been put up in the last 30 days. They were manufactured here in the sign shop. If they're not all up, they certainly will be. I really believe they are probably all up by now. That's as far as we want to go at this time.

Now government air services. First of all, the increase in the money is to accommodate further ambulance work of the government air services. That is to pay for increased air ambulance flights.

Privatizing the air services. We've looked at it some, but no decision has been made. We've looked at privatizing particularly what they call the sched run from Vancouver to Victoria, but no decisions have taken place on that. We're certainly not finished with that.

Who rides on the aircraft is really what the member for Omineca was talking about. Occasionally MLAs ride on the aircraft, but in most cases it's government employees and ministers. I'm not now talking about any ambulance flights. There is no authorization for MLAs to ride on the aircraft, and I'm not aware of any policy change taking place in that regard.

The Fort St. James paving that you mentioned, Mr. Member. I don't know whether we've promised that. It doesn't matter whether we promised or not; I appreciate that problem, and I was glad that you appreciated it. I don't know whether there's any paving there, but we'll certainly look at it. We may have to haul hot mix a long way. I don't know what the score is there, but I am also aware of the community's beautification program. Of course, this puts the final icing on the cake, as I guess you'd put it. We'll certainly look into that.

[3:30]

The next item that you brought up was François Lake east. I think we've had correspondence on that. It's such a small item; I would just say that I don't see why we can't get it fixed and cleaned up. Maybe it just needs a little more effort on our ministry's part to do that. Where it leaves Highway 16 is such a problem. The other Highway 16, Hagman Hill, I'm fully aware of. Whether we get around to doing anything on it in 1984 or not, I don't know. As you pointed out, our budget is pretty restricted.

Regarding airport assistance, Mr. Member, it's no wonder you can't find it, but it's under vote 68; in fact, it is even referred to under vote 68, if you read the fine print. You can't find the amount involved by reading the breakdown; at least I can't. I'm told the amount is $2,200,000, but I don't see that amount here. It comes under grants and contributions under the subvote, transportation policy, on page 207 of the estimates book. The verbal explanation appears on the bottom of page 206. We're aware of your request. You made the point as well that this money is reduced substantially from its highest point — I think it was $5 million or $6 million in some certain year — to $2.2 million for the total province. All I can say about that is that I appreciate that amount under restraint. There was a possibility at one time of it being eliminated entirely. So I appreciate the small sum we have. We'll get a few small things done with that amount.

I want to deal with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who has now gone and who was on the same subject of airport assistance. My answer is the same as that to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf): it appears under vote 68.

[ Page 4062 ]

The member for Mackenzie was talking about reports. I don't want to get too much confusion here. First of all, I'm sure all members have the 1982-83 fiscal year report of Transportation and Highways. We haven't got the 1983-84 annual report because the year hasn't finished. We are running ahead this time as far as administration's concerned as compared to last year.

He mentioned the three ferries that were to be suspended: Marguerite, McLure and Castlegar. It was announced that they would cease, and then it's announced that they will run on a restricted basis. I don't make any excuses for that. These ferries were picked because there were roads around them, but once you announce something like this, you find out the individual community problems. So a compromise was reached that the ferries would continue to run on a cutback basis. Their hours of operation will be cut back rather than completely eliminated.

I think the member tried to say that that didn't happen in some other area of maybe B.C. Ferries or even highways operations. I would just point out that the ferries we are talking about here are what we call the reaction ferries. They are certainly not high-class transportation compared to some that B.C. Ferries operate. There's really no comparison as far as cost of operation; they are certainly not a Cadillac service by any means, but certainly we're not eliminating them entirely.

I would tell, the committee, Mr. Chairman, that what is behind this is that during the last fiscal year 1982-83, from operating costs and revenue — and I'm now only talking about the Highways side — there was a $26 million loss. Under restraint and shortage of revenues, all we're trying to do is reduce that loss figure. That's why we have the dustups we have where we are trying to get a handle on the large discrepancy between revenues and expenditures in the Highways-ferry system.

I think that pretty well covers both members' queries.

MR. KEMPF: Just a few parting remarks. I understand the problem that the minister is having in regard to total dollars in his ministry. As I've said before, I believe that the Ministry of Highways is being shortchanged and certainly have produced evidence to that effect. It is quite clearly evident that the Transportation and Highways ministry is bringing in more money than is being allocated in its budget. This certainly shows that it is being shortchanged. I want that to be indelibly marked on the record, Mr. Chairman.

I can't leave the government air services without a parting shot, Mr. Minister. I'm happy to hear that there is an increase in the air ambulance service. If there is a service that is needed and wanted by the people of British Columbia, certainly it is the air ambulance service. We have the best in North America and probably the best in the world.

As for the no-authorization comment in regard to MLAs utilizing the air services of this province, possibly what is needed are a few remarks in the estimates of the individual who makes that authorization. I'm seriously considering that. There must be some consideration given to utilizing those aircraft, particularly in a time of restraint. I have a blank spot in my mind when it comes to the use of commercial aircraft when, in fact, a government aircraft is making the same trip at the same time. There could be a system developed whereby an MLA, merely by making a phone call, could ascertain whether a government aircraft was going in the same direction as he wished to go on a particular day or weekend. As I've pointed out before, I see no reason why that couldn't be done, and shouldn't be done, to save the taxpayers of this province a number of dollars.

There are a couple of other things that I want to touch on. I would be remiss if I didn't respond to a news item that showed up in the Lakes District News for March 7, 1984, with regard to the François Lake ferry service; it's entitled: "François Ferry Service Hit by Restraint Program." Mr. Chairman, I want to correct that incorrection on the floor of this House today. It was suggested at that time — and the local Highways manager is quoted in this news item as saying — that the cut in service is "a result of the government's restraint program." That is not true, Mr. Chairman. I fought for that reduction in service for a number of years, because I could see absolutely no reason why the Omineca Princess should operate on a 24-hour basis. When I looked at the sheets on the ferry, I found that during that six-hour period from midnight until 6 o'clock in the morning, on many occasions there are only one, two, or no cars at all going back and forth. It was absolutely ridiculous. It wasn't a restraint program that brought about that reduction in service; it was just logic. It saved the taxpayers of this province probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year. I applaud the minister for taking the steps to reduce that service.

There's one other subject that I wish to talk about, and another question I would like to ask the minister this afternoon; that's with regard to licensing and the apparent reduction in service to some of the rural communities of this province, which I understand has started already in regard to new drivers and applications for drivers' licences. In the case of my constituency and a neighbouring constituency, apparently the service has been reduced so that a driver examiner no longer stops at the communities of Hazelton and Houston. The citizens in those communities now have to drive — of course, they can't drive without a licence — or find their way by some means to Smithers in order to write their driver's exam. I fail to see where that's a restraint move. It's the same kind of move as made by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing; they intend to take the two land managers out of Vanderhoof. I don't think there'll be a saving. In the case of Houston, that driver examiner passes right through that community to service Burns Lake. To pull that examination time out of the community of Houston does not, in my mind, constitute restraint. I would like the minister to have a look at that and to hear his feelings on it here this afternoon.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not surprised that there have been cutbacks in the motor vehicle section, unfortunately, because of restraint. We'll certainly look into that one where, as you say, people in Houston have to go to Smithers; then, of course, the inspector has to go through there to go to Burns Lake. I certainly don't see why he can't stop in Houston once in a while. I think maybe that's the answer.

MR. D'ARCY: I have a few remarks to the minister. Hopefully he can pay some attention to them and give me some reassurance. We've heard government MLAs give the minister credit for doing good things, while they're asking for more money to be spent in their riding. That's normal, Mr. Chairman. Even in times of cutback, the Highways minister is Santa Claus. Actually I do have something to thank the minister for. I want to thank him for his decision to reverse the total withdrawal of service on the Castlegar ferry last week,

[ Page 4063 ]

although it's kind of a Pyrrhic victory, since it was the minister who made the decision to close it down in the first place.

[3:45]

Perhaps not for the benefit of the minister but for the benefit of other members and the press, that service has been described as a small ferry. It may be a small ferry in terms of physical size of the vehicle, but I'd like to remind the minister and the House that this is the fourth-busiest ferry in the entire province. It hauls even more passengers and cars than the Sunshine Coast service between Departure Bay and the Sunshine Coast. Only the Albion ferry among Highways operations and the two major crossings on the Strait of Georgia exceed that particular ferry in the amount of traffic it carries. On the average it carries approximately 1,200 cars and 2,500 passengers a day, which makes it a very busy crossing indeed. So I'm glad that decision was reversed, even though at some inconvenience to shift workers with the shortened hours, whether they be in private industry, in transportation and communications or in the health care field. I think shift workers normally think they're discriminated against. I suppose this is another example of it. But a ferry operating for 14 hours a day is better than no ferry at all, particularly when we're talking about a ferry with this incredible amount of traffic annually of more than 400,000 vehicles and about 850,000 people using it.

We have some need for some capital improvements in the riding of Rossland-Trail in the Rossland highways district. We have need for major maintenance projects. In the division of work that the Highways ministry uses, some of those maintenance projects are probably called new construction or capital costs.

The minister may be aware that in 1963 Route 22, which is approximately 20 miles long between Trail and Castlegar, was a winding goat trail. In the 12 years between 1963 and 1975, 19 miles of those 20 were rebuilt into a first-class modern highway. The remaining one mile has never been rebuilt. It's usually called the west Trail approach or the last mile between downtown Trail and the city limits. It's a misnomer to call it a rebuilding; Highways never built the original existing road. The existing road was built by private industry, and control of it was assumed in the 1960s by the Ministry of Highways.

There has been agreement on plans and relocation of various services, both industrial and civic, and agreement on relocation of the Canadian Pacific Railway since late 1978, early 1979. One contract has even been let and completed. I believe that contract was close to a million dollars, the chief beneficiary of which was the Canadian Pacific Railway. A section of track was relocated and straightened out that they had been wanting to improve since the 1890s. The taxpayers of B.C. came along and did it for them. What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that the Highways ministry get on with the job. There has already been a commitment by the federal government for a grade crossing subsidy because of the potential removal of two railway crossings that involve five railway tracks. One is a three-track crossing and the other is a two track crossing.

I would also point out that with the major expansion and modernization of the zinc processing facilities in Trail, one of those crossings is considerably busier than it used to be. That particular crossing now serves the zinc plant where it didn't entirely before. It's something that we really need. There has already been substantial public investment. Quite frankly, there is some substantial private investment hinging on completion of that project as well. It could add very much to the competitive position of British Columbia industry in dealing with foreign competitors and provide a needed economic activity within the province of British Columbia, both in construction and operation. So we have a job that's roughly one-quarter done. We need it completed. It is something that has been hanging fire, as I mentioned earlier, since 1975 and definitely since 1979. We're not talking about a new project or something we're pulling out of a hat. We're also talking about something essential, in my view, for the economic wealth not only of that area but also of the mining industry in the East Kootenays and in the other areas that supply raw materials for those operations in Trail.

I want to talk about what are usually called maintenance projects, but what in fact, I suppose, as I said earlier, Highways would see as capital projects. I hope the minister and the committee are aware that our neighbours to the south are looking at a major problem with their highways and bridges on their interstate network because of lack of upkeep and maintenance over the last ten years. Because of this, the highway system down there — particularly the interstate network — has deteriorated to the point where special nationwide gasoline taxes are necessary. Many observers have indicated that even if all that money is earmarked to maintain — and I want to emphasize that it's not to expand or modernize but simply to maintain — the interstate network, it's only going to touch the worst of the areas and is not going to look after the entire system.

There is nothing wrong with the grades, but the highway between the Black Bear junction, north of Rossland, and between Highways 3B and 22, right through to Meadows junction on Highway 3B and south to Paterson on Highway 22…. Both of those routes are in desperate need of resurfacing. Municipal authorities and I asked for it last year; we were told that there were no plans and no money for that sort of thing. Believe me, if this work is not done, and not done in this paving season, we are going to have a far more expensive difficulty — apart from any inconvenience to the public; apart from the fact that the travelling public in that area deserves and pays for decent highways. In that regard I agree fully with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf): if it's not done this year, it's going to cost a whole lot more in ensuing years. I would estimate that we're looking at a total of approximately 45 kilometres — or, in plain English, 30 miles — of resurfacing. I'm not asking for grade improvements; I'm simply asking for resurfacing that has been desperately needed for about 18 months now.

Another major maintenance project — it shouldn't be major maintenance, but unfortunately it is — is the Trail bridge, which is in terrible need of repainting. I don't know exactly what happened with the technology, but this was done, I believe, in 1975 or 1976; certainly within the last ten years. There is absolutely no reason that I can see for that bridge to need painting again, but it's in desperate need of it. Once more, if it's not repainted…. We're not just talking about an aesthetic problem; we're talking about the possibility of major deterioration due to corrosion of the principal girders of that bridge. It's a very substantial four-lane bridge, and really needs to be looked after.

Quite frankly, I don't understand, in these days of modern acrylic paints, why a bridge would need repainting in less than ten years. I know of paints used by industry in atmospheres which are fraught with chlorine, sulphur and other

[ Page 4064 ]

chemicals, and radical temperature changes, but which last a lot longer than ten years — 20 or 25 years. But clearly, on this particular bridge, the girders need to be scraped or sandblasted or ground down to bare metal and properly primed and painted. I know that's going to cost a lot of money, but that bridge will seriously deteriorate if that work isn't done, and it needs to be done in fiscal '84. Also, if the minister doesn't like taking my word for it, he's going to be hearing — if he hasn't already — from municipal authorities in the area on all of the elements I've mentioned: the Trail bridge, the west Trail approach, and the desperate need for resurfacing of highways which are, I would emphasize, otherwise adequate and have been built and put in place at substantial public expense over the years.

I would like to have the minister check with his very able deputies and assistants there about what the status is of reconstruction of the Pass Creek road. Again, this is something that the region, out of Nelson, and the district, out of Rossland, have done considerable planning work on — and, I believe, some property acquisition for — over the years. There is a major safety problem as well as a public traffic problem on this road, as the population has grown: not just the ordinary public travels back and forth to work or to school, but there is a major problem on that road due to a substantial increase in the amount of logging-truck traffic, industrial traffic and, unfortunately, school bus traffic. I say "unfortunately" because there is a perfectly adequate school in the area, but due to the general loss of students and dropping of the school population in the area, more and more busing is taking place. So there is not only a road condition problem but a major road safety problem which has been recognized for several years by the district and the region. We're certainly hoping for a major start to be made on this route. I believe about 20 kilometres are slated for reconstruction.

Last week, during the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I mentioned the need for microwave landing systems in British Columbia, but as airports do come under this ministry I would like to discuss this briefly with the minister. I am not suggesting that the minister go to Treasury Board and ask for money to do something which is quite rightly and properly within the purview of the federal government. I am not asking the minister to take the feds off the hook at all. I am simply pointing out to the committee that I would hope that whenever the minister deals with his federal counterparts regarding airports — and the subject of airports has been raised in the discussions today — he would emphasize that if any money is to be spent on microwave landing systems in the province of B.C. by any level of government, discussion should take place with the provincial ministry, and a clear examination of those airports with the the greatest need are looked into, before we start seeing taxpayers' funds going into the provision of this much-needed service at airports which have virtually no service or need at the present time.

I don't know what the minister's experience is getting in and out of airports in the Cariboo during the winter. But I can assure him, if he doesn't already know, that airports in the southern interior, as well as in the north, have a severe problem due to the peculiar meteorology and geography of British Columbia. With a microwave landing system in place, weather-induced cancellations or delays could be sharply reduced. I'm thinking particularly of airports such as those at Kamloops, Castlegar, Terrace, occasionally Prince George, Penticton and even, on occasion, Cranbrook. Certainly any airport in the province of B.C. which is located in a valley, and that applies to most of the interior and northern airports, could benefit from this. I would hope that the minister is urging his federal counterparts to do that.

I have nothing against the Whistler-Pemberton area, Mr. Chairman, but the fact is that they are primarily looking at the tourist industry. I think we all should be aware that many of the airports that I've mentioned serve not only a burgeoning destination tourist industry in their areas, but also many other aspects of the B.C. economy and many other British Columbia taxpayers in a much more major way than the Whistler-Pemberton area does.

I would like to ask the minister to give us an update on the status of the reconstruction of the Castlegar interchange. This has been something near and dear to municipal authorities, the minister's regional staff and property owners in the area for a number of years. That interchange is basically the same as it was back in 1960, when it was first built. With massive commercial and residential development in the area, it is certainly overdue for something to be done. As I understand it, there has been agreement between the Highways ministry design-and-location people and the municipal authorities, as well as the property owners in the area, as to what shape that interchange should be.

I would like to concur with the request of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) that MLAs on either side of the House have access to government aircraft — only, of course, if a seat is available and if the plane is going where it should be. I would like to remind members opposite, especially the backbench members opposite, that when the air services were established in this province by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) when he was Minister of Health, that the policy that the member for Omineca desires was indeed in place. It is quite possible that if a plane happened to be going to Williams Lake, the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) might phone the hangar at Pat Bay and ask if a seat were available. The policy which is in place now and which the member for Omineca objects to was put into place by that government when it was elected in late 1975. I'm not suggesting that an MLA should be able to order up a plane or demand a seat; I'm simply suggesting that what the member for Omineca has said is indeed appropriate, would save the public purse some money and would make proper use of the availability of aircraft. Indeed it was the policy at one time in this province, until altered by the present government over there.

[4:00]

1 would like to point out, and I think I'm concurring with other members who have spoken in this committee, that when we speak of highway services, ferry services, general maintenance, and even simply the re-establishment of highways as they once were — I talked about the terrible need for resurfacing — we are really only talking about the areas getting back what they put out in tax dollars in any event. The minister talked about what he called losses on the Highways ferry system. I'd like to point out that those areas — and I'm thinking particularly of Castlegar, which was threatened with losing a ferry — pay substantial tax dollars into general revenue, some of which is used to subsidize transit services in the lower mainland, and even in other parts of the West Kootenays and in all other parts of the province. But those taxpayers do not have a transit service, yet they pay the same taxes into general revenue.

[ Page 4065 ]

I'd also like to point out that when the Highways minister likes to talk about losses on certain ferry systems or services, we should all remember that apart from the general operating subsidies that go to transit from all taxpayers of this province, whether they have those services or not, there is also a substantial subsidy, in terms of interest, that will be paid for the ALRT services in the lower mainland. I'm not opposed to the establishment of that; I'm simply pointing out that that is not a charge for interest against the residents of the lower mainland; it's a specific charge against all residents of the province whether they live in greater Vancouver, the West Kootenays, the north, or wherever it is. So let's remind ourselves that when we speak of losses on a particular service in a particular part of the province, we have to think of it in the context of the total transportation scene and all of the various services and subsidies which are put out by the Treasury Board to provide public transportation — or assist in defraying the costs; that would be a better way to put it — in the various parts of the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I hope the minister can address some of the concerns that I have put forward here. I want to reiterate that we have major need not only to maintain the system that we already have, from deteriorating even further and costing the public purse much more than it otherwise would, but we also have a substantial need from an aesthetic and industrial point of view for the completion of the rebuilding of Highway 22 between Trail and Castlegar.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just a brief comment thanking, I guess, the Minister of Transportation and Highways for the job he did in putting through a bypass that was anticipated in Penticton for 25 years. The point that I raise, or the request I make to the minister, is to advise him that the B.C. Winter Games are going to take place in Oliver and Osoyoos in February 1985. Over 2,000 volunteers will be hosting, and we're looking forward to a great event. Mr. Chairman, the one problem we face in making that 100 percent successful is access to a place called Baldy Mountain, a ski hill where we can have our alpine activities. At the present time people have to drive about 40 miles out of their way to go up a back road. All that is required to make much easier access to Baldy Mountain is road construction for about 16 miles, I believe — it may be less than that — from Oliver through to Camp McKinney. I know the people in the area are prepared to work with Highways to get that road through, which would provide shorter and easier access to Baldy Mountain, helping make the 1985 Winter Games a success. It would certainly help the tourism industry in the Okanagan.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that I can probably talk to my colleague from time to time on this matter, but I just thought I'd raise it now. I know he'd want to see the 1985 Winter Games be a success and he'll take my comments to heart.

MS. BROWN: I want to raise a couple of points. First, just in passing, on the government jet, I would personally like to see the ministers, as well as everyone else, ride the commercial jets. I think it would do the ministers a lot of good to have to travel with ordinary citizens once in a while, just to see how the other half lives. The government jet should be concentrated in terms of being used as an air ambulance service rather than giving this kind of limousine service to cabinet ministers. Put them all in the commercial jets, Mr. Minister. You'll have my support for that.

I want to talk about restraints for children under the age of six riding in automobiles. I notice a smile on the face of the deputy, because I've been raising it under this minister's estimates since 1979, and you can see that my record for success is actually getting worse with each passing year. In any event, I have some heavy-duty support on my side this time. One such person is Dr. Norman Hamilton, the chairman of the B.C. Medical Association. They've now entered the fray, and he's pointed out some interesting comments. I'm quoting from an article in the Times-Colonist in March 1984. He said it's odd for police to ticket adults for non-use of seatbelts when youngsters who cannot make decisions for themselves are left unprotected. He went on to say that 91 percent of deaths and 78 percent of injuries could be eliminated by the use of child-restraint devices.

The thing is that the minister this morning, in responding to the issue when it was raised by my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), said, and I'm quoting from the Blues, so I hope that this is accurate: "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 want to address myself to the enforcement of child restraints. What we have in the province is a law that says everyone over the age of six riding in an automobile has to wear a seatbelt or some form of restraint, and what the police do — and it's happened to me on more than one occasion — is a random checking. Suddenly you're pulled over to the side, and they check to see if you're wearing your seatbelt. If you are, fine; if not, you've broken the law. You are fined on the spot, and you are handed a ticket for doing so. Why is it not possible to do that in the case of children? In the same way that when the car is pulled over to check whether the adult is wearing a seatbelt, check to see whether the child or the children in the car are also restrained — whether they are wearing a seatbelt or whether they are in a restraint.

The problem that we have is that we have two problems. One is the one mentioned by Dr. Hamilton, and that is that children cannot make these decisions for themselves, so really the responsibility is up to the parents to see to it that they wear their restraints. Because there is no law that says to a parent that when you have failed to restrain your child who is riding in a car, you will be punished. The parents don't bother, and the child is the one who suffers in the long run.

MR. R. FRASER: It's a lousy attitude on the parents' part, isn't it?

MS. BROWN: It's a very bad attitude on the part of the parents. I agree with you, but what I would like to see, though, is for the government to take the first step in terms of protection of children under the age of six in this province. If there were a law that said if a child is seen riding in your automobile, whether you are the parent or not…. Because often children ride in the automobile of their grandparents, aunts, uncles or someone else. It's not always the parents, but any child who is not restrained and is seen riding in a car driven by an adult, that adult is liable to some sanction, whatever it may be — either a fine or whatever the law is that exists right now in terms of an adult not using their seatbelt.

[ Page 4066 ]

Failure to restrain the child should be categorized in the same way that allows Human Resources to apprehend a child based on neglect. It should be seen as neglect on the part of the adult driving that automobile, because it is a form of negligence on the part of the adult. Now it is quite possible that there are still parents and adults living in this province who do not know the statistics on the dangers to children who are left to travel in an automobile unrestrained. They do not know of the large incidence of brain damage to those children — not that they are thrown outside the car, but they are thrown around inside the car in the event of either a rear-end or some other form of accident. It's possible that there are still people who don't know that.

What that means, then, is that the government should embark on an educational program, the same kind of good program that was embarked on by that government in terms of drinking and driving — the Counterattack program. There's an excellent program on television, on the radio, in posters and in ads in the newspaper. Embark on a genuine educational program to save the lives of children and to cut down on the high incidence of injury of children in automobiles. The statistics are absolutely horrendous, and in every instance it's not based on a decision made by the child herself or himself, but is really based on negligence on the part of whoever the adult is who is driving the automobile and hasn't taken the time or concern, or doesn't know or understand enough about the inherent dangers, to see that the child is in a car restraint or at least is buckled into a seatbelt.

I would really like the minister, Mr. Chairman, through you, to explain to me why it is possible to enforce the mandatory use of seatbelt laws on adults, but is not possible to enforce it in terms of children riding in an automobile. Secondly, I'd like his comment as to why it is not possible to embark on the kind of education program they did in Saskatchewan some time ago, and as the Canadian and B.C. Medical Associations have embarked on at this time.

Well, just a minute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you sat down.

MS. BROWN: I was trying to enter into a dialogue with the minister about what I consider to be a very serious program. I'm not talking about potholes, I'm talking about the lives of children, and I would appreciate it if the minister would respond or at least give some indication that he has heard what I am saying. That's all I'm asking.

[4:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have heard what the member has said, and I have two or three observations.

First of all, you referred to Dr. Norman Hamilton. I want to single him out today. I don't know when he has time to be a doctor, because he's written to every newspaper in the western world about child restraints. He's really done a great job. I sincerely mean that. I think I've seen his letters in a hundred different publications.

You quoted me from this morning, and yes, it only adds to enforcement responsibilities which we're having difficulty with now. We're not in any way stopping child restraints now. There's no law against it. What you're asking is to make it compulsory, and that's what we are not doing. I would remind you that our government removed the sales tax from child restraints in this present budget. That's a small step in the right direction. I'm amazed at the line that member has taken. In my opinion, these child restraints are expensive; we've looked at that and had a lot of observations. It impacts on the poor to make it compulsory that they have child restraints, and this is the reason that we haven't done anything about it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, no life of a child is so cheap that the cost of a restraint is too expensive. I'm not surprised at the position I take, because I've said to the minister on more than one occasion that part of my work experience has been on the ward of a hospital where children were the victims of brain damage. Most of those children were injured in automobile accidents by being thrown around inside the car, not by being thrown out of the car. It's not possible for anybody to visit the ward of a hospital dealing with brain-damaged children and come away and say that the price of a car seat is too expensive. We're talking about children who are going to be deprived of normal life for the rest of their lives, who are going to spend the rest of their lives mentally retarded and physically unable to move around.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I know this is really hilarious and funny to the member for Vancouver South. He thinks this is a very amusing topic; I can see that.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, I was not making a joke. I'm suggesting to the member and anybody else that the parents have a large responsibility in the field of child care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member.

MR. R. FRASER: She can't suggest it's a joke; it's not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, Mr. Member. You'll have your opportunity to debate this under the minister's estimates.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have never denied that parents have a responsibility. But I do not believe that when parents fail in their responsibility, and their failure results in brain damage and in many instances death, the government can walk away from it on the basis that car seats are expensive. If the member for Vancouver South can't see that, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing that I can do about it, But I think that Dr. Hamilton and a number of other concerned citizens recognize that responsibility. Children don't choose their parents; if children could choose their parents, everybody would choose the most responsible parents they could possibly find, parents who would make whatever sacrifices were necessary to be able to afford a car seat and a restraint for them. But that's not what happens. The government is saying that children should be penalized for the stupidity of their parents. I'm saying that that's not right, and that's not fair. There are far too many children who end up injured, brain damaged and confined to wheelchairs or beds for all the days of their life as a direct result of the failure of the adult who was driving the car at the time of the accident to take responsibility for placing them in a car seat or in a restraint.

I wish the minister would not stand on the floor of this House year after year after year and tell us that these seats are too expensive. They cost anywhere from $60 to $80. A parent who smokes spends that in a matter of months. Most parents

[ Page 4067 ]

who do not use a car seat don't do it not because it's expensive; they don't do it because they don't realize the importance of placing that child in a restraint. That's where the government's education program would be of value. The minister did not even respond to a recommendation. At least his ministry could spend some money on running ads in the newspaper, on television or on radio — anything at all to get that message across. How many times, Mr. Chairman, have you been driving around and seen children standing up in the front seat of a car? In this day and age I've seen adults driving with kids in their lap steering the car. I have no right as an individual to pull over and say to that parent: "What you are doing is cruelty. You are jeopardizing that child's life and you should go to jail on the spot." On more than one occasion I've actually commented, and the parent quite rightly has told me to mind my own business. It's their democratic right, they maintain, if they want their child to stand on the front seat while they're driving.

I have a dog that travels in my car; I won't let that dog sit on the front seat, because it's so unsafe. Yet there are parents and adults in this province who allow kids to climb all over the car while they're driving. The minister can't see that at least the government could do one positive thing and get the word out there that that endangers the life of that child. All we're asking is that that message get out there to parents. I don't believe that any parent or any adult would deliberately jeopardize the life of a child riding in their automobile.

MR. CAMPBELL: I was going to start off talking about highways, but I think perhaps I will start talking about child restraint in rebuttal to the previous speaker. When we talk about the responsibility of child restraint, surely that must be some of what being a parent is all about. That's what it's all about. When the government has to come in and legislate against children five years old, and the parents say they can't control them, what's the matter with the parents? They talk about restraint under five years old. I really wasn't totally upset when I heard that member speaking about restraint, because it appears to me that the breaking point on restraint must be five years old. After that, they don't want anything to do with restraint. I really think that the onus is on parents to provide guidance of the children, not only to those under five but those over five. If more guidance were provided to those children, there would be a lot less that the government would have to do in intervening in later years. They would be better off for it. The parents would be better off for it. Certainly society would be better off on the whole for it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has had her opportunity to stand in her place. Would she please give that opportunity to the member for Okanagan North.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time may come, sir, if you rise in your place.

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. When the hon. member over there heckles me, it makes me so nervous I really find it very difficult to talk. So I certainly do appreciate your intervening on my behalf, sir.

1 want to talk about highways and what a great job this minister has been doing in Okanagan North. In this past year well over a million dollars has been spent in Okanagan North on highway improvements. The entrance into Lumby was all four-laned. There were 14 kilometres on Highway 6 resurfaced. Certainly the people there….

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Unfortunately, we don't have the ALRT and all the bus lines that this member for the coast talks about, so we appreciate it when the minister comes up there and does some paving.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that my people up there appreciate that. The west side road of Okanagan Lake has also had a lot of work done on it. Presently another nine kilometres are being paved over there. This year Silver Star road was paved right to the entrance of Silver Star, upgrading Silver Star and making it a destination ski area. I'm pleased that the minister is assisting in this endeavour to make this a success. We probably have one of the best ski areas in British Columbia in my area of Silver Star.

Also at this time the government is surveying and purchasing the right-of-way for a four-lane highway coming south out of Vernon. I would certainly encourage the minister to make every effort to proceed with this project as fast as possible. During the summer months there is a tremendous influx of tourists into that area. We like all the tourists; we love them. In our area we're not prejudiced against tourists even if they block the road now and again with their campers, because they're spending great tourist dollars in there. However, sometimes there is a slowdown on the highway, and I would certainly encourage this minister to make every effort to widen that four-lane highway right to the airport south of Winfield. It is necessary and urgent because of this heavy traffic, and I would like to impress on him at this time how important that is.

MR. MACDONALD: Call an election and you'll get it.

MR. CAMPBELL: One of the great things about this minister is that he provides good services every year and some years we get better services, and then a little while later the people are all happy because that great minister's done such a great job paving the roads. So every year is election year in my area, because we get treated right.

MS. SANFORD: What's he paying you?

MR. CAMPBELL: What does he pay us? He pays us in blacktop. I want to impress on those members across there and on this minister that the people in the interior appreciate good roads. Even if some of the people on the coast don't appreciate them, we do. So I'd like to impress on him what a great job the people up there think he's doing. Okay?

There are a couple of other things I would like to speak to the minister about. One of them is our airport in Vernon, which has been operated by the city of Vernon for, I suppose, 25 years. A year ago it was taken over by the Regional District of North Okanagan, which encompasses the city of Vernon, the district of Coldstream, the city of Armstrong, the village of Lumby and the city of Enderby, as well as electoral areas A to G. When this became a regional airport, the regional airport commission again asked for assistance from

[ Page 4068 ]

the Ministry of Highways for the upgrading of this airport as a municipal airport. I want to impress on the minister that this is a municipal airport, not a major airport for PWA or Air Canada. It does have a fairly short runway. Over the years the runway has had patching, and it does need upgrading. But the problem with the existing runway is that it passes over some reserve lands, which the city of Vernon presently leases from the band there. That lease will expire in two years' time, and the city has purchased the adjoining property so that the airport can be realigned to miss this reserve land that it is presently on. All areas within the Regional District of North Okanagan are in favour of this, except electoral area A, which I might add is the area the airport is in. They think the airport should be moved to the district of Spallumcheen. Unfortunately, while the mayor of Spallumcheen agrees that the airport is necessary, he thinks it should stay in electoral area A.

So that is the quandary. I know that this great minister knows how to solve those types of problems, Mr. Chairman. I have every faith in him and his people to resolve this; he's resolved many types of problems like this before and I'm sure he will in the future.

[4:30]

There's one other thing I would like to impress on the minister. A Mr. Tarasoff from Winfield is endeavouring to establish a run for transportation of passengers and minor freight from Vernon to Nakusp approximately three days a week. Mr. Tarasoff has had his application in to the Motor Carrier Commission for approximately six weeks to two months, and he's not had a reply yet. The people of West Kootenay, which encompasses Edgewood, Fauquier, Burton and Nakusp, have very limited transportation into their area for freight and passengers. There is no more train service into there. There is a limited bus service from Nelson into there; otherwise there is no Greyhound bus. If people wish to go to Vernon or Nelson to go shopping or for medical reasons, dentistry, etc., there are no bus facilities for them; the bus service was discontinued approximately four or five years back. It would certainly be in the interests of these people if a new bus service could be established for them over there. This would be a small bus carrying approximately eight to ten passengers with parcel post express, etc. This man has made an application to the Motor Vehicle Commission. There is nobody providing the service today, and I would certainly like to impress on the minister that the more urgently he could expedite this service the better it would be for all concerned. Again, this man is one of my great people from the interior who is not asking for any subsidies. He's not asking for any government financial assistance. He simply wants to provide a service, and the people who benefit from the service will pay for the service. I would think it would be to everybody's advantage to assist this gentleman in getting going.

In closing — and to you, Mr. Minister — I would like to thank you on behalf of the people of Okanagan North for the great job you've done. I would ask that you look into the couple of things that I have mentioned, to assist us in that, and we will say it has been a job well done.

HON. A. FRASER: To the member for Okanagan North, I appreciate your remarks. Thank you very much.

I'll go from back to front. I'll be glad to pursue the application. I might say that the application from whoever this proposed carrier is…. As far as the Motor Carrier Commission is concerned, it usually takes about six weeks just to open the mail — without getting into the process. They have quite a detailed process. But we'll be glad to follow that up.

The next item that you brought up…. I appreciate all the compliments, but I'm not so sure you're not throwing me to the wolves when you want to get me into the controversy about the Vernon airport. It's been very controversial, and I think you spelled it out. The attitude of the government has been that when they settle their own controversy within their own community, then we would gladly help. You're right that it was to go to Spallumcheen, and they changed their….

They didn't want it there, or some didn't, and now they're back talking about the city airport in Vernon itself. I imagine that electoral area A that you are talking about is the area known locally as Okanagan Landing. I've been in Okanagan Landing and been chased out of there before this on other items. It is a local controversy. We still say that once that's resolved, we'll be glad to help.

Speaking of airports, Mr. Chairman, as far as we can see…. The answer there is certainly for the commercial planes to get better access to the Kelowna airport, where getting better access is to rebuild and four-lane Highway 97 from Vernon to the airport. We are looking at that — not only looking, but acquiring right-of-way now to start on that job. Hopefully funds will be available to get started on that job to put in a more adequate road system. The whole Okanagan valley is overtaxed with vehicles. It's not just in the tourist season; it's in the winter as well as the summer. The traffic counts are the highest in the province. We just have to get on and get more capability in the system. We're going to do that when funds are available, and get ready so that when funds are available we can get on and upgrade.

To my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), I'm glad he pointed out that Oliver-Osoyoos is going to have the B.C. Winter Games. We'll help in any way we can with access to Mount Baldy, I believe he called it.

The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) raised several riding issues. First of all, I'd like to reply to some of his queries. The Castlegar interchange. The city expressed concern over the eastbound off-ramp, and a loop was designed which would reduce the problem of overruns by runaways at Columbia Avenue. As the design neared completion, the city raised the issue of access to a proposed shopping centre east of the interchange. The city proposed an additional interchange to provide this access. The ministry could not accept that proposal. It was much too close to the present interchange — in fact, half a kilometre — to operate safely and effectively. The ministry proposed an intersection at this location, but it would only operate safely and effectively if the westbound off-ramp were closed and this traffic handled at the intersection. This did not meet the city's objectives. Negotiations to seek an acceptable solution are at hand. In other words, we don't seem to be able to agree, but we're not in total disagreement and we intend to try to resolve that interchange problem.

You raised a good issue, Mr. Member, regarding microwave landing systems. Our engineers are in close coordination with the federal transport people at all times on that. I thought you would be happy to know that we agree with your remarks. I think practically all the cases that you mentioned, except for one, are the responsibility of the federal government, but we work closely with their engineers on those items.

[ Page 4069 ]

1 don't think we've got an answer for you on Pass Creek Road other than the fact that it is just money.

The member brought up the painting of the Trail bridge, and we'll certainly look into that. We have a continual maintenance program, and neither do I know why the bridge is getting into disrepair. I don't think we need that to happen. We'll find out why and see if it can't be programmed in the maintenance program for painting this year.

The member lost me a bit on some of the items. We hadn't contemplated any research south of the border. We'll probably have to take another took at that, but it is a question of funds being available.

The biggest item of all is Highway 22. I'll just bring you up to date on the four-lane relocation of that highway to replace the Smelter Hill section of the existing road between Tadanac and Trail. It consists of the construction of a four lane roadway, a railway, a railway underpass, a utility bridge underpass, reconstruction of Cominco's utilities and reconstruction and relocating of the existing Trail Creek culvert in the area supporting the highway, plus a hydraulically inefficient section downstream that floods occasionally. The work has been split into three projects, the first of which, project C-0566 was awarded to Jacmar Construction of Surrey on April 11, 1983, for $713,313. Project C-0566 included excavation for the construction of Trail CPR underpass no. 2672, and Trail pipeline underpass no. 2673.

On phase 1, project 2, the remainder of the work is expected to cost $7.6 million, of which the ministry will be reimbursed $1.22 million by the city of Trail, and $0.25 million by Cominco for Trail culvert and Warfield Hill Road underpass respectively. Contract documents are being prepared for a second contract to relocate community facilities and reconstruct the Trail culvert. Phase 1, project 3, consists of the completion of the road itself, after contract 2 has been carried out.

For Phase 2, 1.8 kilometres, reconstruction of the existing two-lane Warfield road to improve alignment and include truck lanes along alignment of J4, the latest estimate is $1.5 million. To date on this project only preliminary design and field geotechnical surveying, including drilling, has been done. That is a bit of an overview, but I'll go back and say that there are not funds available in this budget to accommodate a tender call, and that it would be under phase 1, project 2.

1 think that answers most of the questions of the member.

MR. MACDONALD: Just a word or two to the minister about the missing link in the Trans-Canada Highway between the waterfront and the freeway along Cassiar. When I brought the subject of the missing link up with some people in the area, they thought I was referring to the minister, but I assured them that a thought like that would never enter my mind. But it entered theirs, because they're waiting for the minister's response. I must admit that the minister has been very good in talking privately about the matter, and he does have the consultant's report and the modified plan, which is now unanimously approved by the Vancouver city council. The minister shouldn't be suspicious just on that account. He should say it is meaningful, and it is meaningful. Concessions have been made. The tunnel thing always bothered me, I may say, although it was favoured by many residents. I just wondered how that final pollution product that was gathered in the tunnel would be dispersed, unless there was a high stack or something of the kind.

1 can't understand why traffic slows down as much as it does for a tunnel. I'm puzzled by the Massey Tunnel — how the very small drop in speed of the cars going through there can result sometimes in a mile-and-a-half lineup. I don't understand the mathematics of it. But anyway the tunnel has been agreed to be out, by the residents in that area, as a costly alternative. I hope the minister can go along with the mid-cost composite design, as it's called, which has been unanimously approved now by the city council of Vancouver. I hope that this period when he must look at the feasibility of the various aspects of it is rapidly drawing to an end. This is a good plan, it's certainly a desperately needed plan, and I hope it will get prompt attention.

[4:45]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Vancouver East, I do want to say a bit about this because it is a very large contemplated project. As the member says, a study has been undertaken by an independent consultant to assess the optimum engineering design having the least social community impact in four-laning Cassiar Street from the Trans-Canada Highway to the Second Narrows Bridge. The consultants have evaluated the options, their impacts and costs, The study cost was $107,000, of which 25 percent was paid by the city of Vancouver. A joint committee consisting of the planning department of Vancouver city council, representatives from the local citizens and the ministry prepared terms of reference for the consultants. Three schemes were examined to equal levels of detail: a depressed open cut, a cut-and-cover tunnel and a bored tunnel. The study was completed in September '83 and sent to the city for their comments. Public hearings held by the city in December '83 resulted in a fourth scheme being prepared by the city's planning branch, based upon modifications of the cut-and-cover scheme. This fourth or compromise scheme was favourably received by the public groups and approved by city council on January 12, 1984. The ministry has sent the proposal to the consultants for an overview report. This has now been received by the ministry. The report I have, Mr. Member, indicates some problems with the fourth scheme and recommends a study equal in depth to the other schemes be made to properly evaluate it. I only recently got that, but we just seem to go on, one study after another, and I think it's about time some decisions were made.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the minister some questions about Highway 99. Last year he made some very popular announcements with regard to some improvements in that area, and I know there have been a number of studies done on catchment basins, and I would like to congratulate his staff on the way they've handled those within the constituency. I've had so many letters from constituents in the Lions Bay area lately saying: "Congratulations to your government in the way they've handled this." He's sent his staff members to talk to people — tell them what's been going on and what the plans are for the area.

I know there are a number of people in my constituency who read Hansard and would like me to ask the minister this during his estimates: what are the plans for Highway 99 over the next 12 months or so? I know we've made announcements as to what the plans are over the next number of years, but I know there are still some concerns about the Brohm Ridge area because there was some work started there last year. Driving up to the World's Cup a couple of weeks ago I noticed

[ Page 4070 ]

the rocks are being chipped off the sides of the road in the Brohm Ridge area again, so I would assume we've started some work back in that area. I'm just wondering if the minister can take a couple of minutes to bring us up to date as to the activities we can expect in that area over the next little while.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, on Highway 99 from North Vancouver to Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton and so on, last year we announced several improvements were going to be made over a period of time. The engineering has gone on about it, and I believe we are about ready to call tenders for debris basins, which are a big item, and other road work. That hasn't been cleared as yet, but hopefully we'd want to make a major start. The priority of the engineers seems to be for the debris basins and a bridge or two. It's a question of calling tenders with funds being available. Hopefully we want to get on this year, 1984.

MR. REYNOLDS: I want to thank the minister for his comments on the highway. Any members from whatever party who drive up to that great Whistler ski resort will realize the great amount of work that has taken place on that highway. It's interesting, Mr. Minister, that when I was up there for the World's Cup a number of people from Europe were congratulating me, when they found out I was a member of the government, on the great highway we had up to Whistler. That might surprise some of those who read in the media about the killer highway. Compared to other major ski resorts in the world, that's one of the finest highways going to a ski resort close to a major city. I'm not going to stop repeating that. I think the majority of the people who live in that area believe that. It's only when there's a shortage of stories in the Province that we seem to get a lot of coverage on that highway. The department does a superb job in working on that highway. I know the minister and his staff also react to the adverse weather that you sometimes can get on that type of highway.

I would also like to make some comments about child restraints, in response to what was said by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I was quite shocked to hear her comments to the effect that all these parents are so stupid and that they deserve a jail term. To say that a parent deserves a jail term for not putting his child in a restraint is, I think, just going a little too far. Maybe I can suggest to the minister that he take all the sheriffs and start renting them out to some of these parent — put them right in the car with the parents, It sounds to me as if the member for Burnaby-Edmonds would like that. I would suggest that that member is overreacting, and that the minister is quite correct. Parents have the responsibility. I have six children, and they've all been raised to put their seatbelts on in the car. You also bought a car seat that was acceptable and put them in it when you were driving. But we can't force people to do these things. We can't have people running up and down the highway wanting to put them all in jail because some parents have a different viewpoint than the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I think we can only go so far in that area. I would encourage you to continue with your policy of not bringing in legislation in that area. I don't believe we need that kind of legislation. Let's let people be responsible. They know what is available. Any parent who has got children knows that there are seatbelts that you can buy. They don't need Big Brother telling them they must do it. If the member for Burnaby-Edmonds wants to call those people stupid and wants to put them in jail and that's the position of her party, that's fine. I would hope that through education people would do things for themselves and wouldn't need government legislation to force them to do it. That's the kind of society I want to bring my children up in, not one in which Big Brother tells them everything they should or should not be doing.

I would also like to encourage the minister…. There are going to be representations made to his department from the municipalities of Pemberton and Whistler with regard to the new airport in the Pemberton area. It has received good support from both the federal and provincial governments over the past couple of years. As most people here know, Air B.C. took a special flight up to Pemberton airport on a nice clear day during the World Cup, and it received a great response from the media people. Unfortunately, we were all working in this chamber. I know a number of us would have been invited to go up and have a look at the great view you get going from the Vancouver airport up into the Pemberton airport. Air B.C. has offered to put a full-time service into the Pemberton airport, with eight flights a day. The figures are absolutely phenomenal as to what it would mean to this province in getting tourists from the international airport in Vancouver up to the Whistler area to ski and into the Pemberton area for commercial activity. We have an industrial park in Pemberton that is empty. If we had an airport service into Pemberton on a regular basis, we would certainly get industry going into that area, because they could move in and out of the area no matter what the weather was like. It would certainly increase the tourist business. With Expo coming up in '86 and all the tourists we expect in the province, I hope the minister will encourage the government to assist with the funding. The federal government could certainly be expected to pick up the majority share of the funding to put in the necessary facilities in the airport, and the microwave system that will allow the takeoff and landing of the Dash airplanes that Air B.C. Is now using. I would encourage the minister to get support from within the cabinet to come up with our share of the money. It will employ a lot of people in that area, and I know it will certainly benefit that area and British Columbia in the long run.

MS. SANFORD: We're getting more nonsense about this issue of seatbelts for those under the age of six from the government side today than I have heard in a long time.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Nonsense!

If adults were responsible, then we wouldn't need any seatbelt legislation in this province at all. But it was this government that saw the need to ensure that people were safely belted in in their cars. They brought in the legislation that would ensure that it would happen. Education did not work, Mr. Chairman, and we had to move in order to bring in provisions to ensure that seatbelts would be used. All the information was available to them. All of the information was available to all of the people of the province before we had seatbelt legislation for adults, and we have the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell) suggesting that it's time we allowed children under the age of six in a car to accept some responsibility on their own. That's so ludicrous that I can't

[ Page 4071 ]

understand why they would even be making comments of that type.

I assume that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) would call on the minister to eliminate the legislation on the use of seatbelts that's now in place for adults. He doesn't want any government involvement telling him what to do, and I would assume that he would also call on the minister to remove all of the speed limits along the highways because he doesn't want the government telling people what to do.

We have a responsibility and an obligation in this province; and particularly where children under the age of six are concerned, we have an obligation to ensure the best possible safety conditions for them on the road. That includes a proper restraining seat for those kids in cars. I'm hoping the minister will look at that again and will finally be convinced, as he was convinced that it was necessary to have mandatory legislation for adults, that it's also necessary for children — and more so for children.

Earlier today we had the member for Okanagan North giving great praise to the minister for the fine work that was being done in his constituency with respect to all the pavement that was applied within his constituency. He didn't mention that it was an election year last year. That accounts for a large part of it, but I'm wondering whether if I praised the minister this afternoon he would build a bypass on Vancouver Island. I'm quite prepared to say that the minister is a marvellous minister, in the hopes that we would get some pavement on a bypass on Vancouver Island. I've been raising this issue for 12 years in this Legislature; we still have no bypass route between Parksville and Campbell River on the Island Highway. So I guess I haven't given him enough praise, haven't flattered him enough.

The member for Okanagan North says he gets paid with pavement; that's how he gets paid for all the complimentary remarks that he makes. I wonder if I could ask the minister if he would, in fact, begin construction on a bypass route on Vancouver Island if I praised him some more. Would he give me an indication of that? Is he prepared to start? I'm prepared to praise if he can give me that commitment. The minister is not responding. He is not nodding his head, so I guess it depends who you are before you get paid in this House, does it? The member for Okanagan North gave lots of praise, and he said he gets paid in pavement.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I don't get any pavement.

[5:00]

MS. SANFORD: You don't praise enough, I guess. You have to praise him.

There are a number of issues that I would like to raise with the minister. One relates to the hiring policies within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as it relates to local contractors. I have a copy of a letter that has gone to the minister, dated December 24, in which one of my constituents by the name of Doug Alexander raises the issue of hiring practices in terms of local trucks and equipment being used rather than having them transported from other parts 22 to 25 miles away. They feel that they should be entitled to some of the action when there is any work being done on the Ministry of Highways roads. Since then I have had a followup letter from Pearl Myhres, who is with the Lighthouse Country Business Association in the Bowser area, saying that my constituent, Doug Alexander, who wrote his letter to the minister on December 24, still has not had a response, and asking if I could please raise it with the minister. So I'm pleased to do that this afternoon.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Send him a letter.

MS. SANFORD: I have sent him a letter. Do you want to see a copy of the letter, Mr. Minister? I have it right here. I'll read it to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: I accept your word.

MS. SANFORD: You accept my word? All right. Well, I have to admit that the letter went only last week, so I can't expect that the minister would have had a chance to answer it yet.

This constituent of mine has attempted to find out what the hiring policies are. He's on the list of those trucks to be considered for work when there is work available. He has been to see Mr. Ellis over in the Port Alberni office, who is the Highways district engineer there. He's been to speak to his superiors down in Nanaimo. He has been told that the policy with respect to hiring is confidential, and he was not permitted to see the hiring policies, according to this letter addressed to the minister, a copy of which I received. He doesn't understand what the hiring policies are. He said that in years gone by the hiring policies for the Ministry of Highways was established in such a way that if a person had three or four pieces of equipment, the Highways ministry would hire one piece of equipment first, then go to the next contractor and hire another piece of equipment, and so on, giving everybody an opportunity to get some work through the expenditures of the Ministry of Highways. But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. He would like to know what the hiring policies are and why people like himself, who have gravel trucks and live right in the area where the work is being done, are not being considered at this time for work, even though they are on the list of trucks that the Highways people can turn to when they need hauling done.

Mr. Chairman. I also wanted to ask whether or not a preliminary report is forthcoming to the Minister of Highways with respect to the investigation that's taking place on the ConMac bus that was involved in that serious accident up on Mount Washington. I know that the bus was shipped to Vancouver and is undergoing a…. Well, it's being torn apart, as I've been told, in order to investigate the structure of the bus and the way it was being maintained. I'm wondering if a preliminary report has come in at this stage. There's still a good deal of concern in my constituency with respect to bus safety following that accident. It's had a major impact on the people in my area. People have formed a committee that is trying to look at bus safety in B.C. They have also sent to me, Mr. Chairman, 389 individual sheets signed by members in the area, who say: "I'm concerned about student safety; please, a seatbelt for each child." That adds to the pleas made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), because I'm sure they would apply that to cars as well as to buses. I'll make these available to the minister so he can see that people in the area are still vitally concerned about the issue.

The minister did indicate at one point that the matter of seatbelts on buses is something that his own ministry would look into. I'm wondering if that has happened. What conclusion has the minister come to as a result of that investigation? He did say it would be done internally. The whole

[ Page 4072 ]

question of bus safety is one that still has not been adequately addressed. The minister indicated at one point that the whole issue should be raised under the special transportation committee that was looking into motor vehicle testing in this province, but of course that request was turned down by that committee. Therefore the issue of bus safety is not going to be dealt with under that special committee of the Legislature looking into alternatives for the motor vehicle testing.

What about seatbelts? Is the government prepared at this stage to tell us what they have learned as a result of this internal investigation that was going to take place about seatbelts on buses?

We had a representation today, Mr. Chairman, from the National Farmers' Union, who were in Victoria to present their annual brief to government. They met with two or three members of government today. One of the issues that they raise in this particular brief is one that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister on their behalf. I would like to read a very short section from their brief that deals with this issue related to the Minister of Highways.

"The indefinite postponement of Hydro projects on the Peace River once again raises the need for a bridge across the Peace River to replace the Clayhurst ferry. We do not believe your government has given adequate consideration to the great inconvenience and loss of time the absence of a bridge creates for residents in the area."

Mr. Chairman, the reason that I'm raising this is that the MLA for the area has not raised it with the minister. It should have been raised earlier this morning. The National Farmers' Union people have been here all day. The minister for the area met with them….

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I talked with them this morning. I talked with them yesterday. I talked with them on Friday. I talked to them last Thursday. What are you talking about?

MS. SANFORD: Maybe you could give us the answer then. Could the minister advise us when…? Which minister should I ask, Mr. Chairman? Is the bridge going to be built?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly.

MS. SANFORD: Next week?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I didn't say when.

MS. SANFORD: That will certainly satisfy the National Farmers' Union up there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You'd never satisfy them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will have ample opportunity to join in the debate if he so wishes.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, that was a very rude insult to the people who are here today, bringing to government genuine concerns about the agricultural community. I don't know why the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) is not up on his feet complaining about the comments that this minister just made — "never satisfy them." They have major problems in this province, one of them being the issue that I'm raising this afternoon. For this minister to make derogatory comments of that nature….He should be slapped on the wrist. He's one of their problems; there's no doubt about that.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I'll ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development not to interrupt, and I ask all members to address the estimates currently before us.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to continue reading from this brief, Mr. Chairman.

"The Beatton River route passes through a highly unstable area that is subject to sliding." I think the minister is aware of that. "We believe it is high time the province shares a small fraction of its priorities for megaprojects with the residents of the Clayhurst area who have suffered sufficient aggravation over many years to be accorded a bridge across the Peace."

I don't know what response the minister can give on this, but I hope he can give those people some optimism that this request, which they have made for some time now, is in fact being favourably considered by government, even though their own MLA for the area thinks the whole thing is a big joke. I'd appreciate the minister's comments.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question. Perhaps the minister would take my question and answer it. I know my colleagues have quite a number, so I hope he will have an opportunity to answer very shortly. Although I have just one question at this time, it of course depends on the minister's answer. What assurance will the Minister of Highways give to citizens that unsafe cars will not be allowed on the roads of British Columbia? I await an answer.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, unsafe cars on the road is based on our citizens being responsible in obeying the law: the law says that they must have safe cars on the road. If they haven't, they have to take the repercussions that would come from not being…. The Motor Vehicle Act provides for cars being legal on the road.

I'd now like to go to the member for Comox and say that I was quite surprised to hear about the Clayhurst ferry. I hear about it every day, and have for the last four or five years, from the MLA for the area, who is my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. It's no small project, and it's being looked at. Certainly the MLA hasn't been remiss by not reminding us about it for a long, long time.

The next item that the member for Comox brought up was the unfortunate bus crash in January. As far as I understand, that's in the hands of the coroner; he's in charge of it. I believe an inquest is being scheduled for April, but I'm not sure. That's where that matter stands.

Regarding what I said about seatbelts; it was not seatbelts in commercial buses but seatbelts in school buses. It is correct that our ministry is looking into the feasibility of that and have done some work on it. The initial findings indicate that there is special construction in our school buses now, and that the special standards required on all school buses compensate for the lack of a restraining device. We have done some looking into that and that is the first observation.

[ Page 4073 ]

[5:15]

Regarding hiring policies which the member brought up, you stated that the gentleman had not had a reply, but I am advised by the ministry that his letter has been replied to. The hiring policy for equipment is that we have lists in all our foreman areas, and the policy is that they're hired by foreman areas. In other words, if they're in a foreman area and they apply in another foreman area, they're not very likely to get on, because the list of equipment from the private sector is based on each foreman area, and when work is apportioned out by the foreman area, they all register with the ministry and are called out on a seniority basis in that area. They might have 35 dump trucks registered — and that's a small number which some foreman areas have registered — that want to work. It is based on the time they've put in with the ministry in the past. In other words, if you buy a brand-new truck and get on the list, you'll probably be the last on the list. But if you work for the ministry for ten or fifteen years, off and on, you'll probably find yourself first, second or third, and that's the way they are called out.

MS. SANFORD: Is there a rotation?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes.

I might say to the member, Mr. Chairman, that all over the province the operators say they are all number one on the list. When the callouts take place, they come back and say: "We were number one on the list, why weren't we called?" Of course, they weren't number one on the list. Legal advertisements have been running in the last 30 days for people who want to work for the ministry, asking them to register with our various offices throughout the province.

I think that pretty well covers the items brought up by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

MRS. DAILLY: In reply to my question about how he can assure the public that the cars on our highways are safe, the minister answered that it was the law of the land. It is unsafe, according to the law of the province of B.C., to drive an unsafe car, so my next question to the minister is: how is that law being enforced today in British Columbia?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, according to the correspondence I'm getting, it is enforced very well, mainly by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, throughout the province.

MRS. DAILLY: I happen to have seen a recent documentary on the matter of car safety in which I recall some RCMP officers expressing great concern that they can't spend the whole day checking every car. It is humanly impossible for the RCMP to check every car in British Columbia to see if it's safe or not. That answer from the minister just shows what a stupid, callous government we have that allows this kind of non-concern about the safety of the citizens of British Columbia to go on. The testing stations have been closed, and the minister is sitting there, and there isn't one way outside of the odd chance that some RCMP or municipal policeman will have time to check on a car. Go and talk to a garage-owner today, or anyone who works there, and ask them how many more cars are coming into that garage today with unsafe brakes, just to begin with — I'm only talking about one mechanical defect — and many other serious things, which they never saw before. They saw some, but not to the degree we have now since this government arbitrarily and callously decided to close up mandatory testing. I've spoken on this many times, Mr. Chairman, and I know you've heard me. I may be boring to some members, but I want to assure you that I intend to keep bringing to the attention of the public of British Columbia that this is one of the most foolish, regressive moves this government has ever made. They have put restraint and their obsession with privatization ahead of the safety of the people of British Columbia, and I say shame on them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to very briefly say how much I appreciate what this great Minister of Highways has done in the great Peace River area. I found it just a little bit ironic that a member of the NDP would stand up and criticize the amount of money that's being spent in my riding. I want to tell you that when they were government, there was no money spent in my riding on highways. Any construction jobs that were on the go, like the great Fort Simpson–Fort Nelson highway, were brought to a shuddering halt, because they didn't believe in highways. And she stands up in this Legislature and chastises the minister for not spending money on highways in my riding. I want to personally stand up here and thank the minister today for all the millions and millions of dollars he's poured into that rural highway system so that those great farmers that the National Farmers' Union comes down here and yacks about are served better so they can get their product to market over a good highway — and some of them are paved. I want to personally stand up here and thank that great Minister of Highways.

I also want to say that we've got a problem with that Peace River–Clayhurst, because after….

MR. LAUK: Who designed your clothes?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Simpsons-Sears.

After we built that great Peace River dam, we could no longer have an ice bridge across the Peace River, because the water runs warmer after having been stored up in the dam. We've got a problem. I guess maybe I should heap a bit of criticism on the MLA who represents the area, because I should have looked down the road and seen what kind of problems we were going to have with that, and seen that the ice bridge wouldn't be there in the wintertime so that those farmers could rely on it, at least in the winter. The only time the ferry was out was in the spring, so I'm standing here in this Legislature pleading with the Minister of Highways to carry on with the design of that bridge and to get it built because we need it to serve those areas.

You know, the poor people up there in that great Peace River country pioneered this country so that the rest of the people in the lower mainland could live off the fat of the land. They drove over rough and dusty and muddy roads and they opened up that country so that all the rest of us could enjoy the benefits of all the great power potential and the lumber mills and the oil and gas and the coal. Those poor people need that bridge, and I'm pleading today with you, Mr. Minister, to reconsider your case. I'll tell you, those are the people who built this great province so we could all enjoy it, and they have a tough time getting across that river when it runs warm and there's no ice bridge and it's not reliable. So I'm pleading with the minister to reconsider my many requests for that bridge in Clayhurst. It'll be good too — maybe that's what the farmers' union had in mind — for the oil companies, because

[ Page 4074 ]

they have to travel all around. There's a lot of oil development there, sending money down to the lower mainland. So, anyway, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to put in that request.

Just one other thing. We've got that little road there between Arras and the great new town of Tumbler Ridge, and we got great value last year by having some day labour. You probably got better value for the $5 million you spent there than you did anywhere in the province. I'm pleading with you again, Mr. Minister, that we need to continue upgrading that highway, because there's heavy traffic over it. I guess I'd have to say that it might be a little bit unsafe in certain areas, and therefore we need to continue the program of upgrading that.

I want to thank you again for your tremendous cooperation. You've done a good job. You're rebuilding the Hart Highway, and you've spent millions on our farm-to-market roads, and you've built a new bridge at Kiskatinaw so the farmers would have easier access between Fort St. John…. You've done a lot for the farmers in the area and for the constituents. But we're still a developing part of the province, and we need highways, Mr. Minister. I'll take your hand and we'll go down and talk to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), because we need highways. We're still a developing area, and we're developing to the benefit of the rest of the province. We're doing something for those poor, great people up there in the Peace River area who really pioneered this province so the rest of us could live in it and enjoy it the way we do today.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: I apologize to the member for Comox. I'll just take two seconds; that's all I need.

Can you believe this afternoon? Let's mark the time: 5:25 on this great day of March 27, 1984. The member for South Peace River has taken the nickels and dimes and dollars and five-dollar bills of the ordinary working people of this province and poured them down a hole in the Peace River country so we could subsidize the sale of coal — a billion and a half dollars of taxpayers' money in his riding alone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, we are on vote 62, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, not….

MR. LAUK: He's pleading with the minister and so am I. I'm pleading with the Minister of Transportation and Highways to tell that minister — and I know he's never at cabinet meetings because he's always in Tokyo — that he's already got a billion and a half dollars for his own people up there. That's about a million dollars per constituent up there, for heaven's sake. Hasn't he benefited enough? I don't care whether it's going to cost $5 for that bridge. Don't give it to him.

MRS. WALLACE: I guess I should join the throngs and start singing the praises of the minister before I recount my tales of woe. Certainly I don't mind doing that. I will say that that minister's staff is one of the most cooperative that works around these buildings — and not only in the precincts here but also in the area with which I have to deal. I find that the cooperation is excellent. That, of course, reflects well on the minister who has that kind of staff.

I don't have too many things I want to talk to the minister about today. I've raised most of them on previous occasions. Some of them are resolved and some aren't. I'm sorry that his estimates have come up so quickly, because I would have liked to have had an opportunity for him to make the decision which I know he is going to make because he's such a great minister, but because it's now his estimates I feel obliged to raise it. I know the time has been short. On March 5, Tony Charlie, who is a member of the health committee of the Penelakut band on Kuper Island, wrote to the minister regarding the ferry service. As the minister knows, the children from Kuper Island have to use the ferry to attend school in Chemainus. They catch the 8 o'clock ferry in the morning. We've had a lot of problems with scheduling in the afternoon, but I think that's been resolved, thanks to this great minister, Mr. Chairman. The problem is that the lounging space on that ferry is not big enough. Those children, when they're going to school in the rain and the cold, in order to keep out of the wet and cold, have to wait in the toilets or in the stairwells, because there are not enough seating facilities for those children along with the other passengers. The ferry goes to Thetis Island first, the lounge fills up then these schoolchildren come on board and there's no shelter area at all. I'm sure the minister knows what that ferry is like. It's a very small lounge at one side. It is just not adequate for those children, who have to go to school cold and wet or else wait in toilets or in stairwells. It's just not proper. So I'm sure the minister is going to advise me that he's making some arrangements to provide more seating or he's going to find somewhere a ferry with more seating to put on there so those children will be able, come September…. I know it can't happen before the end of the school year, and the band is not asking for that. They recognize that. But by September I would hope that we have that facility in place. I'm sure the minister will respond favourably because he's such a great minister and has been so well praised today.

[5:30]

The other item I wanted to discuss with the minister is the continuing problem of the four-laning of the Trans-Canada south of Duncan. Yea these many years we've gone through that. Now we seem to have resolved it down to two very specific things. The first one is: eventually perhaps we will get that second bridge resurfaced. They're working on that now. We then have the very congested area of left-turn slots into Cowichan Bay, which is a heavy traffic area. I've talked to the minister about this, and I've had some correspondence. He's indicated that traffic counts don't merit a signal there. I don't understand that. My information is that there are at least 300 trucks a day making a left turn there into Cowichan Bay. In addition, we have Wilson Road or Kelly Road that comes in from the other direction, which is a very blind kind of road that feeds that little subdivision as well as the farm up on the hill. It is a very hazardous spot as to what we do with traffic there when the four lanes are completed. It would seem to me that with four lanes and 300 trucks trying to make a left turn across those two oncoming lanes we almost have to have a traffic light with an extended green for those trucks to make that left-hand turn. I'm surprised at him telling me that the statistics don't merit that kind of light.

My other concern is with what's happening with the CN overpass. As the minister is aware, at the present time there are just two lanes where the bridge is going in and two lanes under the railway tracks, under the underpass. I almost panic when I think what's going to happen when those four lanes are opened on both sides; then we just have that one little area under the underpass where we're going to have to squeeze

[ Page 4075 ]

them all into two or at the most three lanes. I know the Minister of Highways appealed at the CTC hearings that the CNR had to give him the right to abandon so they could get rid of that. I think that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I think we need that rail line down to Cowichan Bay. That's beside the point. The CTC has not brought back any decision that that line will be abandoned at this point. I know that putting in a second bridge or overpass there is going to be expensive, but it's not as expensive as the kind of congestion and hazardous situation that will be created if by this summer we have those bridges completed, and we're squeezing those four lanes in both ways under that underpass both coming and going on the Trans-Canada. So I'm wondering just what the minister's thinking is on this, and how he's proposing to deal with that situation relative to the light and the underpass.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, to the member, regarding the Kuper Island ferry, we have acknowledged their letter and we're looking into that problem and are trying to resolve the lack of seating and so on.

I have notes on some of the items you referred to. The widening of the Koksilah Bridge to permit four through-lanes will be completed shortly. You said they were working on that. The only remaining two-lane section south of Duncan will be at the CNR underpass. The CNR is currently designing the new underpass structure to accommodate four lanes on Highway 1.

There were some other areas. I don't think you brought it up, but Mill Bay community seeks a bypass to eliminate congestion. The nature of traffic in the region is such that bypassing is not warranted. Presently a signal is being installed at Deloume Road, and one is being designed for Kilmala Road. These two devices should reduce the perceived problems.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, Alex, you're in the wrong place. I didn't raise that one.

The minister is answering a question I didn't ask this time, relative to Kilmala and Sheppard Road and the light. Perhaps that's the problem. The answer I have probably relates to the stop light that's installed at Mill Bay and is not yet in service. What I'm talking about is the Cowichan Bay Road right at the Koksilah Bridge, where all the mill trucks turn off there, and all the traffic to the CNR terminals. That's the point I'm talking about. I'm really concerned about a light there.

You have dealt with the other one, Mr. Minister, and I appreciate that. I thank you very much for that. But this is the one I'm concerned about.

MR. NICOLSON: Not to change a trend, I too will congratulate the minister's department for some of the work that's been done. The bridge spans from the old Taghum Bridge have been taken, moved up and put into place in the Slocan Valley. That's very good. The work on removal of the Black Bridge, which was a real safety hazard and an obstruction that had caused several fatalities, is another very positive program. The gradual improvements on the north shore road out of Nelson, the paving of certain sections, and the repaving and realignment of others are certainly most welcome. The Nelson-Euphrates repaving, which took place last year, was also a very overdue improvement. But it leads me into the two problems that I'd like some comments on from the minister.

Number one is the abandonment of Highway 3 through the downtown of Salmo. I've written to the minister on this, and I've also written to the minister fairly recently once again on this. It has come up about three years running. The problem is that over the years the street was repaved several times. The profile is higher than the surrounding sidewalks. The provincial government has contributed a great deal of money to Salmo in terms of main street redevelopment. The facades of most of the buildings have been improved, so you have this very good appearance, save for that street. Frankly, in the wintertime it’s almost impossible. If you're going to park on the main street, you have to get out of your car into at least six inches of solid slush, because the water can't drain away. The city is anxious to get on with some storm sewers. It means that that surface has to be taken down. Last year, and I think also the year before, the story was that there wouldn't be equipment in the area. Yet last year the Nelson-Euphrates section of work was done only 15 or 20 kilometres away. The equipment that cuts up and digs up the pavement surface was in the area and obviously paving equipment was in the area as well. It didn't go ahead. I would ask the minister if there's anything to report on that.

Also, I'd like to point out to the minister that in terms of cutbacks on ferries, the Harrop and Glade ferries have been on 24-hour service since 1973. These communities have grown since that time. They're now cut back to 18-hour service, which I anticipate to mean that they operate from 6 in the morning until 12 at night. For numerous people on shift work it means that they're going to cross the river in small open boats at night, and I'm very concerned. During the recent labour dispute a gentleman with a history of three heart bypasses and medical problems insisted on rowing across in an open boat. That particular crossing was laid at the feet of the labour dispute. I'm concerned that there will be some problem, and it won't be of any benefit to the House if we pass it off by saying it was related to some previous health problem, or alcohol-related, where somebody had been at a party and had tried to cross the river in an open boat and fell out — therefore with evidence of some particular horrendous blood-alcohol reading it was a contributing factor. The Kootenay River. particularly at Harrop, is very fast-running and is fairly wide. It can get very cold; in fact, there are times when ice will cover the river, and the only way to keep parts of it open would be to have a ferry running back and forth.

The Glade situation. There are an awful lot of people who work down at Castlegar in the pulp mills and sawmills doing shift work, and also the same situation up at Harrop. I realize that a lot of people who work on the main-lake ferry, rather than take the five-mile trip down, do cross by open boat, but it is going to mean quite a change for a lot of people.

It would appear that what we're talking about in both of those cases would amount to two full-time equivalent positions. I would ask the minister to consider this, in view of the fact that this is the only access. There is no alternate road access to either of these communities. The Harrop–Sunshine Bay–Procter area is a very sizeable residential area. Glade is a much more popular residential area than it used to be and has grown considerably since 1973.

Those are the two matters I'd like to bring up: the main street in Salmo and the Harrop-Glade ferries.

HON. A. FRASER: The notes I have on the Salmo situation say that the village of Salmo has requested the minister to reconstruct, with curbs, gutters, sidewalks and

[ Page 4076 ]

drains, 0.2 kilometres of the old highway route from Railway Avenue to Sayward Avenue. The project has been added to the list for design and survey this coming summer. The new highway constructed two years ago runs outside the shopping and business areas, and the old highway, after improvement, will become the responsibility of the village.

MR. NICOLSON: Design this summer?

HON. A FRASER: Yes, the project is added to the list for design and survey this coming summer.

Regarding the Harrop and Glade ferries, my information is that there is a meeting tomorrow evening in Procter, and we would like to hear the results of that. We don't want to disrupt life with some of the stories we're hearing. We can get along with the citizens, so we can adjust…. Maybe we won't achieve quite as much, but in case this is the only access, we don't want to make it so that, for example, people can't get to work and back, when jobs are as scarce as they are. So he will possibly contact me on Thursday, because we have to make some quick decisions by the weekend.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a number of issues that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. I don't have any ferries or major bridges or airfields in my riding, but I have a number of unresolved problems in the riding that I have talked about to the minister and have written about to his bureaucracy at one level or another. I would like to run them past the minister for some kind of positive answer, so we can resolve them.

I'd like to bring one to the minister that I brought to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) in his capacity as Parks minister and as Minister of Environment, and that's the problem of Whiffin Spit. For the benefit of you, Mr. Chairman, and anyone else who was not in the House when I brought this up before, Whiffin Spit is the main protection to the Sooke Harbour, built up over hundreds of years. But in a storm in 1982-83 the high tides and, I believe, a low-pressure area moved through the district and caused the centre of the spit to be destroyed. Since then at high tides in storms the waves coming into the Sooke area cause a certain amount of wash in the harbour where over the years this area has been developed as a basin for both commercial boats and recreation boats.

[5:45]

I'm quite convinced that the minister and his ministry, without any great effort and expense, can patch the damage in Whiffin Spit. In many cases construction around the area produces a lot of blasted rock. That rock is available on different occasions. That can be put in the hole or gravel spit. That area can be plugged up, and the road going across the spit could then be reopened. The park area at the end of the spit on the east side towards East Sooke could be utilized again, not only by the community but also by the tourists who come down to that area because it affords a nice view of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I'm quite convinced that if the minister will look at it with a view to correcting it, it would create some employment in the area. It would also do the job that is needed in protecting the inner harbour. I bring that to the minister again hoping that he won't just forget it, unlike some of the people within the various ministries, especially Environment, who feel that over the next hundred years this will correct itself with the tide action and everything else.

1 would like to bring a second problem to the minister. I know his deputy is well aware of it, as are some in the administration. I was sorry that the minister was unable to attend the meeting we held in the minister's office. We made it to suit the minister. Five or six people journeyed all the way from Port Renfrew. They were very disappointed that they never got to meet the minister and that they didn't have the opportunity to bring to him the concern that the community of Port Renfrew feels about the closing down of the ministry's public works yard in Port Renfrew. For you, Mr. Chairman, and a lot of people who are not aware of where Port Renfrew is, it's 40 miles past Jordan River. It is a small community that is completely isolated from the rest of the communities and hospitals. For many years this had been a beach camp of the B.C. Forest Products operation. Over the last year the logging firm moved their main operations toward Cowichan Lake. Prior to that there was equipment in the Port Renfrew area, and in an emergency this equipment was used by the company to assist the community. But since the company has moved all their operation out of Port Renfrew the only form of emergency service provided by any level of government was provided by the Highways department — the four people who were stationed there and the four pieces of equipment.

All the efficiency charts that the various ministries use to justify their existence fail to take into consideration some of the personal commitment of the four individuals, who have changed over the years; they retire and move on or are promoted. They have all given to the community of Port Renfrew. They all live in the area; they all have a vested interest in maintaining the roads in the Port Renfrew area and from Port Renfrew to Jordan River. When I say "some of the services," it's not only maintaining a lot of the gravel road, but in getting out of Port Renfrew you have to go up some fairly steep hills. In that 40 miles of switchbacks, there are a lot of steep grades of gravel construction. When there is an early morning or late afternoon snowstorm the school bus that travels the 50-odd miles from Port Renfrew into Sooke is in jeopardy if the road has not been cleared. If it snows in the early morning or if there has been a sudden washout, as happens many times in that area, and if there's not the equipment in that area to repair the damage before the school bus or any other traffic comes through, there is going to be a serious accident. You may say that because those who have been employed there in the past are very much aware of the concern of the school bus driver, they are there to make sure that that protection is given. I know that the Sooke School District has been very much opposed to shutting down the Highways yard in Port Renfrew. I bring to the attention of the minister that this yard was opened about 12 years ago not as a frill but because it was a necessity. It's even more of a necessity today because there is no longer the equipment available from the forest company. I bring to the minister's attention that not only…. You talk about efficiency, but if you move it to Sooke, you're moving the operation 55 miles. To say that you're going to give the same type of efficient service when the operation is moved 55 miles away is not, I feel, really realistic.

If the minister would look at it before he makes any attempt to close that particular operation down…. In winter, the wind and storms are always taking out the power and telephone lines. When that happens, the only connection Port Renfrew has to the outside world is the public works radio telephone. By moving this emergency service out, there will be no connection to either Sooke or the outside

[ Page 4077 ]

areas when there is a problem and the phones are out. I bring this to the minister's attention. It's nice to took at an efficiency chart when you're sitting 100 miles away in a central Highways office, but when you look at the 200 or 300 people who live in that community and the worry they have with school buses and washouts, I think — and the community supports me — that we do need to maintain that yard in there. I know the minister would like to give me some answers on that, and I'll sit down and continue tomorrow on the rest of my program.

MR. GABELMANN: If I'm very brief, and I think I can be, we might well be able to do all of this by six o'clock. The minister will know that I have raised literally dozens of North Island issues with him and his staff, mostly by mail. I don't intend to bring those up. A number of the major concerns in North Island were raised by me in this House during our very short session prior to the commencement of this session, but I wanted to raise two issues very quickly. I think it's important for me to remind the minister of these two issues.

One relates to the silly decision, in my view, of the government to charge for bicycles on Highways ferries. Let me give you the example of people on Quadra Island who come to Campbell River, and who buy books of tickets. A foot-passenger pays 38 cents, a motorcycle $1.50, a car $3.00 and a bicycle $2.00. It doesn't make any sense at all. You can't buy books of tickets for the bicycles so you have to pay $2. 00 every time you take your bike on. But you can buy books for your motorbikes, so you pay $1.50 for your motorbike. What people are doing, of course, is to throw the bicycle in the back of the closest pickup truck in the line, so you're making lawbreakers out of these people, on top of everything else. Mr. Minister, even though earlier you rejected, by correspondence, my plea that you eliminate this charge for bicycles on Highways ferries, you might want to take another look at that to eliminate what I think is a silly and ridiculous charge.

The minister and I have had discussions about the other issue for years. Hopefully we won't for too many more years. That's the issue of the Tahsis-Woss road. The minister should know that the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, meeting last weekend, voted unanimously to endorse the request that that road be planned and built as soon as possible. The minister should know that my opponent, the Social Credit candidate in the last election, has endorsed that road. The guy who is now the mayor of Campbell River, who wanted to be the Social Credit candidate, has also endorsed that road. So it's not a partisan issue. It's not just an issue for Tahsis. I would urge the minister and his staff, despite all the objections I know his staff have to this particular route, to recognize that the public overwhelmingly and virtually unanimously is in favour of an early start on that particular project. That's all, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 62 pass?

MR. MITCHELL: No, it's not going to pass until I get some answers from the minister. I just want to know….

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. House Leader. I recognized the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. MITCHELL: I was expecting the minister to rise to give me some answers. If he doesn't want to give me some answers, looking at the clock, I would move that the committee rise and report progress.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report of the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia for the 1983 assessment year.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.