[ Page 6471 ]

CONTENTS

Natural Gas Price Act (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 6471

Coal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 51). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 6471

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

Fraser)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 6471

Mr. Ree

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Davis

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a group of students from Stelly's Secondary School on the Saanich Peninsula is in the precinct today. I thought they would be in the House at 10 o'clock, but rather than interrupt proceedings later, I wonder if the House would welcome their arrival.

Introduction of Bills

NATURAL GAS PRICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Rogers presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Natural Gas Price Act.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The Natural Gas Price Act is the culmination of a long series of events. In 1982 my ministry directed that a study be undertaken of all the critical aspects of marketing British Columbia's natural gas. The internationally recognized authority, Dr. George Govier, was put in charge, and one year later, in September, 1983, I released his report, along with a number of policy decisions based on that report's recommendation.

After considerable consultation with the industry, further policy decisions were made and announced last July. Since then my ministry has been involved in the complex business of translating these policies into legislation. The final result, which you see before you today, is the Natural Gas Price Act. With the passage of this bill we will complete the job of restructuring the entire institutional and financial framework of the province's natural gas industry.

This new marketing of a royalty system is designed to encourage new exploration and development, establish new markets for B.C. gas, attract new gas-based industries and set a fair price for both producers and consumers. The legislation establishes the statutory authority for that marketing system. The legislation is both lengthy and complex and its objectives are easily understood: to reduce government involvement while encouraging the private sector to be more competitive and aggressive in marketing British Columbia gas; to give producers higher and more predictable netbacks, and at the same time increase the revenues to the province and decrease the financial risk to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

Under the old system, BCPC and Westcoast Transmission held a monopoly position in the buying, selling and marketing of our gas. The new system will be open and competitive. Any gas producer in B.C. will be able to enter into contracts with any buyer, either in this province or out of it. The Petroleum Corporation will also acquire a new role; for the first time, BCPC will be allowed to take an active part in developing new markets for our natural gas. Also, the people of British Columbia will get a fair return from their resource with the introduction of a direct wellhead royalty to replace the system of collecting revenues indirectly through the Petroleum Corporation. There will be a consequential amendment to section 93 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, which establishes a royalty to be paid on all gas produced in the province.

Bill 52 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.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Rogers presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coal Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, for the past year my ministry has been involved in a review of the legislation to ensure that we are providing the correct framework that will help us maintain the coal industry's momentum. This review involved extensive consultation with the industry associations and other agencies of government and identified a number of roadblocks in our existing legislation.

The Coal Amendment Act, 1985, is designed to remove these roadblocks. At the same time it will maintain all essential controls, environmental safeguards, the guideline process and reclamation requirements. and will ensure the province's economic and industrial policy objectives are protected.

The Coal Amendment Act removes unnecessary administrative requirements that are costly for both government and industry. It reduces government's intervention in areas which should be left to the marketplace. Among other things this act provides a fair process for settling disputes between property owners and holders of coal tenure. This deregulation legislation is very much in line with the government's philosophy that less government is better government. It's also a signal to the industry and the world that investment in British Columbia's coal industry is welcome.

Bill 51 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.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document arising from the committee's proceedings yesterday.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 67: minister's office, $224,728.

MR. REE: I have a few questions for the minister. Certainly in my constituency I have limited highways; I have about three and a half miles of actual major four-lane highway, commonly referred to as part of the upper levels. But in that section we have traffic of around 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles a day.

[ Page 6472 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Three and a half miles! You'll give me a heart attack, talking about three and a half miles of highway. Holy smokes!

MR. REE: I appreciate the asides from the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who probably has more miles than that in his backyard, but the number of miles travelled per day of highway in my constituency is probably about five times that travelled in Atlin, as far as actual miles travelled by cars. So there is a far greater demand in some ways on my three and a half miles of highway than the many hundreds of the member for Atlin's. But anyhow, Mr. Chairman, the highways in my constituency are a major concern. As I say, there are 40,000 to 50,000 cars a day travelling it.

There are two intersections, Lonsdale and Westview, which have traffic lights on this major thoroughfare. Since I was first elected six years ago, I have asked a number of times to have these interchanges upgraded. I notice in the minister's report — on page 55, on designs and surveys — there is a comment here about Capilano interchange to upgrade in conjunction with Lonsdale and Westview. It's got: "Capilano–Lynn Valley including Westview and Lonsdale, upgrade to freeway standards." I'm asking whether the Ministry of Highways will be upgrading to freeway standards in the not too-distant future. What is the actual status of those two interchanges? Because to upgrade them to highway standards would need overpass or separated interchanges to be installed at those locations.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the traffic from the North Shore experiences considerably difficulty at the intersection of Cassiar and Hastings Street in Vancouver, that being a bottleneck for traffic coming to or from the North Shore. There have been studies and, I understand, negotiations with the city of Vancouver with respect to upgrading this Cassiar corridor to facilitate the movement of traffic. I'd appreciate the minister advising what the status of the plans is for that intersection.

[10:15]

Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the other access from the North Shore is the Lions Gate Bridge which has had in the last number of years considerable improvement on it, expanding the north and south ramps of the bridge so that the lanes there are wider. Traffic can travel more safely and a little quicker. It's done away with quite a bit of the bottleneck experienced on the bridge in the past. The centre span of the bridge needs to be widened to fully alleviate a lot of the holdup on the bridge, and I would appreciate the minister advising us, Mr. Chairman, again, as to his plans there. Once we're past the centre span of the bridge, the causeway through Stanley Park, at the moment, is down to about bedrock. I know they have had difficulties there with the water drainage problems that the causeway experiences. That causeway requires almost a complete, I would suggest, rebuilding. Again, what are those plans?

Dealing with the Cassiar corridor, the Lions Gate Bridge centre span and the causeway through Stanley Park, I appreciate that to enter into the construction, repair or improvement of these areas at this time may conflict with Expo next year. I do realize something has to be done, but what are the plans of the ministry with respect to Lonsdale, Westview, Cassiar and the Lions Gate Bridge?

A couple of other issues I'd like some comments on, as far as the minister is concerned. Possibly he could have some of his staff check the mileage signs on the upper levels of the North Shore. Since we went to metric, I feel maybe some of the staff have the same difficulty I have: they don't know how far a kilometre is. There are number of instances where a sign says two kilometres and it's one kilometre; where it says one kilometre, it may be two kilometres to an exit from the highway. I might suggest, particularly in my colleague's constituency of West Vancouver–Howe Sound, that this is quite prevalent. But I also ask that they check all the North Shore ones from Horseshoe Bay certainly through to the Second Narrows Bridge.

Mr. Chairman, I have one other concern. I'd like to have some comment from the minister dealing with the Motor Carrier Commission. I have constituents come to me who have made appeals to commission decisions, some of them extending back over a year; and they cannot seem to get any resolution to their appeal. One of their big complaints is that while the appeal is being held up, their competitors are snipping at their business, getting extensions to their licence from the commission, while the appellant is frustrated and can't be heard on getting the same extension on licence. It is becoming a major problem, I suggest, with respect to the carriers within the province. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly welcome the minister's comments.

MR. STUPICH: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there is a group of 55 students from Harewood Elementary School in the precincts today looking after some 20 parents and. teachers. I ask the House to welcome them to the precincts.

MS. SANFORD: Yesterday when we were debating the estimated expenditures for the Ministry of Highways and Transportation, the minister made an admission: he said that he now qualified to ride on the ferries, Monday to Thursday without charge. He had reached that magic age — officially a senior citizen. I don't know if that means that the minister is tired, Mr. Chairman, but he must be tired of listening to me talk about the inland bypass route for my constituency. I have been attempting, for years and years, to convince this minister that it is high time that we have a proper, adequate highway within my constituency on Vancouver Island.

When the minister talked about Mabel Lake yesterday, he said that we have two roads going to Mabel Lake: one out of Lumby and one out of Enderby. He said: "The one out of Enderby we've just about finished; the one out of Lumby I can't say that. But after all, they're rural access roads, so we can't have both of them finished all at once."

All we're asking for is one proper access road between the communities on Vancouver Island. We don't have it now. The minister knows very well that the highway there is inadequate. He's mentioned this over the years himself. Some minor upgradings have been done; I think we now have three or four passing lanes within the constituency. He knows it is a dangerous highway. He knows of the traffic deaths that occur there. He knows that in the summertime it's nearly impossible to drive with safety and any kind of assurance that you're going to make the time that it usually would take to drive that highway between two given points, because it's not going to happen.

This is the situation without Expo. This is the situation without the work of the Islands 86 committee that's working

[ Page 6473 ]

very hard to attract as many people as it can to Vancouver Island next year in conjunction with Expo 86 –– I don't know how many people are going to come to Expo and to Vancouver Island, but I expect we're going to have more people on Vancouver Island than we otherwise do in the summertime. It's impossible now. I know the B.C. Ferry Authority have been talking about adding additional ferry sailings to bring people to Vancouver Island during the period that Expo is on. They have been talking about upgrading some of the ramps and approaches to the ferries because of the anticipated additional traffic, and they're going to funnel them all onto this totally inadequate, narrow, winding highway on Vancouver Island between Parksville and Campbell River.

A lot of the people involved in Islands 86 have been attempting to convince the minister that if they can find money for all of these other projects, whether it's the Coquihalla, the ALRT, northeast coal, the dam up at Revelstoke, whatever; they seem to be able to find money.... But for some reason this minister, in spite of the fact that he knows of the dangers, refuses to allocate the kind of funds that are necessary to put in an inland bypass route. The area has been surveyed, I don't know how many times; the municipalities have all agreed on the route that they feel would be the best one; yet we find there is no money, no desire on the part of the government to ensure that there is an adequate route on Vancouver Island, Parksville north.

What I would like today from the minister is an assurance that once this Coquihalla project is completed, the next project of any significance is an inland bypass route on Vancouver Island. I'm hoping that the minister will be able to give me that assurance today.

A couple of other things. Moneys have been tunnelled off into very expensive routes, such as the Coquihalla, as I mentioned, and I think it has been done at the expense of other projects — maintenance projects and minor projects in the various constituencies.

I just wanted to bring to the minister's attention one issue in my constituency related to a very small road called Virginia Road in Parksville which, according to the district Highways engineer in that area, has been the number one priority for a number of years. But he has not had the funds to do even the number one priority. This particular road, Mr. Chairman — you'll be interested — takes a winding detour. Unfortunately, there's a river that runs across the road in the wintertime. In the summertime it dries up pretty well and there isn't too much problem. But in the wintertime there is a river that runs across Virginia Road, and people have to drive through the river in order to get home. If they have a small car they have a lot of fears. They don't know whether they're going to be completely covered or partially have the water up the side of the car when they drive home.

The ministry does not want to try to divert the river or do anything like that. They just have a small section where they want to straighten out the road and make Virginia Road a proper road built to highway standards with ditching and everything else so that the people can drive through there without any trouble. Now I don't know whether the district Highways engineer this year is going to have the kind of money that will enable him to do the number one priority — which has been the number one priority for him for two or three years. People do not understand, if that's number one priority, why on earth it doesn't get done. It's because there are no moneys for even minor projects such as that one. I am hoping that I can get assurance from the minister this year that there will be enough money in the budget to do that.

Finally, I want to ask the minister about his interpretation.... He said he interprets the funds that come from the federal government for assistance in paying for the ferry system as being moneys for all ferries. When that agreement was initially signed — I think it was about 1977 or thereabouts — was it not to provide financial assistance to the government of B.C. to provide a decent service on the north coast? The minister says his interpretation is that it was for all ferries. But it was very clear at the time, at least to a number of us, that it was designated for north coast ferries. I am wondering if the minister could inform us today what the original contract said with respect to that subsidy money from the federal government. which today, I think. totals about $14 million a year.

[10:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. A. FRASER: I'll start by responding to the queries of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree). First of all, you are correct that we want to put in interchanges at Lonsdale and Westview. We've told you this for a long time. We'd like to start on one of them fairly soon. It is my information that each interchange will cost about $5 million on the upper levels. But the time has arrived when we have to take some action and get into detail. I understand that most of the property has been acquired, except one large apartment block. I'm not sure which interchange that is at, but we aren't far away from, hopefully, getting a start there.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano, who you no doubt are acquainted with, Mr. Chairman, also brought up the Lions Gate Bridge and the Cassiar corridor. I have a personal interest in the Cassiar corridor. I inspect it quite frequently from a good vantage point at Exhibition Park, from which you can look down on this corridor. We all say we have a lot of traffic, but as you know, the corner of Hastings and Cassiar is the heaviest traffic intersection in British Columbia. To improve that corridor is a combined city and province obligation. Just to tell you where we're at on that, a lot of money has already been spent in acquisition, and we have had no end of committee meetings with the city. I replied with our position to the mayor of Vancouver in March 1985. The mayor and city council of Vancouver acknowledged receipt but have not responded. They said they would respond in a couple of months, which could be more or less any time now. It seems that we will get our act together and then be able to proceed to design and construction. That's a massive job, and you're not going to see that resolved overnight. But as I say, the time has come to address it, with the traffic congestion and.... Of course, the freeway was built by a previous government, and it ends on Cassiar. It was never the intention that it would be left the way it is until now. But that's a fact of life, and now it has to be connected with the bridge to the North Shore from Cassiar. As I say, there have been no end of public meetings and so on. I think we're about ready now to agree on what we're going to do and when.

The Lions Gate Bridge is another massive undertaking. You're correct, the north viaduct has been done. Other work has been done, but the big job we have to do there is replacement of the centre span of the bridge. That's a mammoth engineering job. The engineering has all been done on it, and the cost of the job is $30 million. But we have not got that on a

[ Page 6474 ]

top-priority list, because of Expo and other works that affect the traffic.

Referring to the causeway, we feel the same way about that, and we'll do the causeway at the same time as the bridge work is done. I have a further comment regarding the causeway through Stanley Park. I don't know whether we'll ever get that done. The causeway is worn out now. The park people don't seem to want to touch the existing road, because of environment and so on. It has to be redone, but maybe we'll have to wait until it goes to gravel to get consensus. They're even critical of us working within the roadway we have. Once we say that we're going ahead . or maybe the strategy would be to have public meetings. But from the engineers' standpoint, the road is now worn out. So I really think it will go ahead faster than any other because of failure of the concrete there, which is almost upon us now. In other words, it's worn out, and the drainage is in bad shape. We attempted to start some work on that three or four years ago and were immediately told by the city to get lost. It's quite a problem, but one of these days it has to be faced up to.

Regarding signing, Mr. Member, we'll certainly look into metric signing on the Upper Levels. I don't know what that is, but it sounds to me like that can be corrected shortly. If the signing is wrong, why certainly we'll correct that.

You opened up a real Pandora's box when you mentioned the Motor Carrier Act. You're the first member to mention it, and I can tell you, as the minister responsible, that we are very dissatisfied with the Motor Carrier Act. By "we," I mean the government. We're now drafting legislation to make some very massive changes in the Motor Carrier Act. We've had a committee of users on it for a year. I mean that operators as well as unions have been on the committee. We have to get modern.

I'd remind the Legislature that the Motor Carrier Act was put into law in our province in the hungry Thirties, and has never been dealt with since. As you know, transportation generally has all changed, and we're still dealing with the antiquated Motor Carrier Act. We are going to make very substantial changes when we can get the bill in the Legislature. By substantial changes I mean that we are going to deregulate a great deal. There's far too much red tape. I believe your observation was that the appeals at the present time are always behind. The appeals are held by members of the executive council. It's not their fault; the whole system is absolutely bound in red tape.

I haven't said this publicly before, but the other thing wrong with it is that it's become a lawyers' paradise — whether it's pro or con. We are going to try to exempt commodities that don't need any licensing at all. This is what we're looking at — the exemption of commodities. As an example, we don't see why a gravel truck needs a licence from the motor carrier branch. Therefore we're looking at the exemption of the commodity of gravel and a lot of other vehicles.

I just forget the number of vehicles that are affected by the Motor Carrier Act, but it's something like 40,000 or 50,000, and we would like to cut maybe 20,000 vehicles that are now presently requiring licences out of the licence system entirely. It spreads over. The Motor Carrier Act also has jurisdiction, as you know — I'm talking the freight side — over buses and taxis in British Columbia, and we're not satisfied with the way that's working either. We have real problems in trying to resolve those problems, not on the passenger bus side but on the taxi side. Throughout our province we have real problems there.

More specifically, we have real problems at Vancouver International Airport concerning who should or should not have jurisdiction. The Motor Carrier Commission has had hearings, looking at regional licensing regarding taxis on the lower mainland. They have recommended to me that we not proceed with regional licensing. I'm not so sure that I agree with that recommendation, but the present setup is that we have a regional service for taxis at the Vancouver International Airport. I might say that nothing is simple. In this case, we also run into the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport, who are the bosses of the airport and give the franchise for servicing of the airport. I have had discussions with the new Minister of Transport, Don Mazankowski. But wherever you look, we have difficulties. But now what we have going there is that if the taxi is located at Vancouver Airport and happens to be a Burnaby taxi, they take you or whoever their passengers are to downtown Vancouver and it's against the law for them to pick up and return with any passenger out of the city of Vancouver. I think this is wasteful, with the cost of transportation the way it is. But there's no easy solution.

The Vancouver city taxi licences are issued by the city and ourselves, and of course they don't want any further intrusion into their business because it will have that effect. The Vancouver city cabs, it appears to me, do a fair job, but what I'm saying is that they want to keep everything the way it is. We have the same thing from your area, Mr. Chairman, with the North Shore cabs: when they come into downtown Vancouver they're not licensed to pick up and take somebody back. The vehicle goes back empty. I repeat, with the high cost of vehicles and fuel and so on, it seems there's a lot of waste going on there, but we haven't really grappled with that.

What I am saying is that we are going to amend the Motor Carrier Act and we are going to deregulate. I hope this happens in 1985. I'm referring to the legislation that has to do it. I apologize to the appellants that they have to wait, but they're going to have to put up with that system until we get a new system. We're even looking in the new legislation at changing the appeal procedure; the present act requires executive council for being the appeal. I want to emphasize that one of the larger problems we have in my ministry is to get an update and more modem under the administration of the Motor Carrier Act.

Now dealing with Comox. I got your message, Madam Member, and I've been getting that for quite a while — for all of two years, maybe ten. I have some notes here to inform you.... Most of this has been in correspondence, but I'll just comment here.

Courtenay-Campbell River bypass. The Island people perceive delays to cities and several smaller communities on the highway. Residents along the highway believe that a bypass will relieve them of heavy traffic and enhance liveability. I'm inclined to agree with them. Their proposal is an inland route west of Courtenay and Campbell River, starting around Mud Bay at the north end of the Parksville-Qualicum bypass and ending at Menzies Bay north of the Campbell River pulp mill. Much of the traffic on the Island Highway consists of short trips and a smaller proportion would be attracted to a bypass route than believed by the residents. At this time the through traffic is not sufficient to justify the bypass. This is particularly true because it is not possible to build the route in usable stages. By that comment

[ Page 6475 ]

we mean if we could do sections at a time and cut it in. But it appears that it's a fair-sized project. I think we're talking $100 million. We would have to spend the entire amount before the citizen — the motorist — would get the use of it.

[10:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, Mr. Minister.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, I'd appreciate it if I could have just another two minutes.

Leave granted.

HON. A. FRASER: Nevertheless, as traffic volumes grow, the justification will increase and the desire will commence for reserving the route at this time so it can be built with minimum social disruption. Planning studies have identified a preferred corridor. This selection has not been discussed with the regional district and the municipalities. Recent improvements to the highway, including intersection channelization, passing lanes and the 17th St. Bridge in Courtenay, have enhanced the level of service. So what we're saying about this large issue is that while we're not prepared to announce that it's going to be built or when, we are trying to keep up with the existing road. I understand that around $10 million or $15 million has been spent recently on upgrading the road from Courtenay to Campbell River; by "recently" I mean in the last two or three years.

Virginia Road. I don't know anything about that one. We'll certainly look into that.

The last you have on the ferries.... Quite frankly, I don't mind tabling the agreement in the Legislature. Then we can all get lawyers to give us different interpretations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the member for Cowichan-Malahat, discussion of legislation, past or proposed or present, is not normally permissible during estimates.

MS. SANFORD: How about new roads?

MR. CHAIRMAN: New roads would be very permissible if it's not a subject matter of legislation, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I never knew before that you were psychic. Certainly I do want to refer in an indirect way to legislation. But first, I want to say to that minister, sort of following along in what my colleague has been saying about the bypass, that I thank him for the stop light at Mill Bay; I thank him for the stop light at Kilmalu; I thank him for the stop light at Cowichan Bay Road; I thank him for the overpass at Koksilah; I thank him for the left-turn slots coming south at Whippletree Junction and at Bench Road. All of those are on the Trans-Canada Highway.

I remember standing in this House ten years ago, and telling him when he was four-laning that highway that if he didn't put in a bypass road, we were going to have stop-and-go lights all the way from Malahat right through, and it's happening. And it's a necessity. All of those cost money — a lot of money. He can tell you how much the Koksilah overpass cost. Stop lights cost a lot of money too. Sooner or later, that bypass road has to be completed in my area as well. I wasn't even going to talk about that, but I couldn't resist. And I did want to thank him for all those lights and crosswalks and stop signs and overpasses and left-turn slots that I've been bugging him about all these years. They're all there now.

This minister has recently been on the hotseat with the ombudsman. I'm surprised to find out that this sort of thing has occurred, when I know of an instance right on the road that I live on.... Incidentally, it's a little embarrassing, Mr. Minister, that you've paved Chapman Road right to my gate; the rest of it's gravel. My neighbours think I must have some pull. I was dealing with Mr. Morris. I want to tell you what a great man Mr. Morris was, and I hope you appreciated Mr. Morris when he was there; he's now retired. When you ever get through with him up in the Coquihalla and he comes down, I hope that we get just as good a person down there as we had in Mr. Morris. But in the meantime we're sort of in a never-never land there, and I'm told that there's no way that the rest of Chapman is going to be paved, because there's just no money for it. As I say, it is a little embarrassing to find that here it is paved right to my gate — done under maintenance, apparently — and the rest of it is still gravel.

I started to talk about Chapman Road in relation to a person who lives on that road. That road was put through his property long years ago. There was a court case about it, and it was agreed that it was a road; yet that man got some compensation just recently. Fm sure you're aware of that, Mr. Minister. It seems like an uneven-handed management.

That's all I want to say about this business of expropriation. Certainly we did have a White Paper on an expropriation bill floating around here a few years ago. I think it's high time that we had an overall expropriation act, so you wouldn't have Highways acting in one way and other departments acting in another way. What we need is overall legislation — the only time I'm going to use the word — that would bring that under control.

I've got a couple of other general things here, and then I've got three short snappers for the minister. I'll give you these two general things first, and then we'll do the three short snappers.

On January 22 of this year there was a news release put out by.... Actually it was public information of ICBC. It has to do with radar detectors. They're trying to ban the sale of these, through getting merchants to ban the sale of these things. There are some interesting statistics here. During the past ten years 7,383 have been killed and close to 329,000 injured on B.C. roads. Speed is the major cause of traffic accidents; in crashes resulting in serious injuries that's frequently the cause. Police report that radar detectors are found in 80 percent of vehicles caught speeding by aerial patrol. When — maybe I am going to infringe again — we were amending the legislation under which this ministry operates, there was strong pressure put on that government to put in some mandatory regulations relative to radar control devices in vehicles. I think that this kind of action, which the minister was involved in as well, certainly indicates to me that the time has come to take some action. Leaving it voluntary.... Even if you get all the merchants agreeing — and you're not going to get all the little ones to agree — as long as it's legal to have those things in your car, they're going to be sold. If it gets difficult to get them over the counter, it’s going to become a black market item, and I don't think the minister really wants to get involved in fostering a black market in this province.

The other general thing that I wanted to talk about is regulations regarding driving with lights on. I drive that Malahat every day, and sometimes it's foggy and often it's

[ Page 6476 ]

raining. The biggest hazard on the road is cars that don't have their lights on. There have been statistics in some areas that you can reduce the accident rate 22 percent by having your lights on. There was a time when buses and trucks.... It was a company regulation that those vehicles ran with their lights on. Then individual drivers started picking it up.

I wonder whether or not the minister has looked at all at some kind of regulation to ensure that people drive with their lights on when visibility is poor, or generally. What's wrong with driving with your lights on all the time? I don't see anything wrong with that, except that my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) might forget to turn them off. Even I have done that on occasion. But I do think it's something the minister should consider. I wonder if he's looked at it, and if he has any statistics that, like mine, would indicate that cutting the accident rate by 22 percent by driving with your lights on would be helpful.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, regarding your district manager, that's correct. Our good district manager, Mr. Morris, has retired, and your new district manager is D'Arcy Byers; he should be there any day. My deputy says he will be in the area June 10. He's being transferred from Merritt.

Dealing with radar detectors, I would just like to point out clearly that it is not government policy to ban radar detectors. They are quite legal in British Columbia under the Motor Vehicle Act. I want to make it abundantly clear that that's government policy, and also in the regulations of the Motor Vehicle Act. I guess some people were out trying to discourage merchants from selling them.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: I don't think so. I think you'll probably find it was ICBC, but I'm not sure.

MRS. WALLACE: They represented the ministry. He said Transportation and Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the member for Cowichan-Malahat has knowledge to give to the committee, the member can be recognized in the normal manner.

HON. A. FRASER: At this time there is nothing illegal at all about selling radar detectors in British Columbia. They are legal under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Regarding daylight lights, yes, we're looking at that, but so is Transport Canada. I think where we're headed is that yes, they're looking at them to improve safety. My information is that Transport Canada has been doing studies for two or three years. The position of British Columbia I think is to help and encourage. I think there will probably be something coming, but they want to do it on a national basis and our government is glad to support it. That's where we are on that issue.

MRS. WALLACE: What about expropriation? You didn't answer that one.

[11:00]

HON. A. FRASER: I'm not so sure, Mr. Chairman, that that's my direct responsibility, but following your comment, I can comment now that expropriation powers are given to certain Crown corporations. They certainly are given to Highways. You're right, there has been a white paper on it. As far as government policy is concerned, they haven't come forward with a bill. That's where it's at.

MRS. WALLACE: Now for my three short snappers. I have in my hand here order-in-council 801 relative to the Mill Bay–Brentwood ferry. It reads: "On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, orders that approval be given to the British Columbia Ferry Corporation to delete service between Brentwood Bay and Mill Bay." Is the minister going to delete that service?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would inform the House and the member that this order-in-council was passed to facilitate changing the route of the Brentwood–Mill Bay ferry. The Brentwood–Mill Bay ferry.... Both docks are gone; they're shot, and we have to do something. In the wisdom of B.C. Ferries they suggest that this ferry service be replaced, running from Swartz Bay, using that terminal, and building a new terminal, as the order says, at Garnett Creek rather than eliminating the service. Why they looked to this was because they could replace the service by building one dock, not two. In other words, Swartz Bay already exists.

I just would announce to the House today that there've been second looks taken at the area spelled out in the order, and tell you that an order will be coming shortly to rescind order 801. We'll take another look at that whole issue.

MRS. WALLACE: My second short snapper was going to be: are you going to implement service between Swartz Bay and Garnett Creek? You've now said no to that one. My third one was going to be whether you would rescind the order, and you've already answered that. I would like an opportunity to have some input into your final decision as to where that terminal is to go in my constituency. The minister nods, and I'm sure that we can get together and discuss that.

HON. A. FRASER: As clarification to the member, we're rescinding the order but we're going to took at other options. I might say that what we're looking at is Hatch Point instead of Garnett Creek.

MRS. WALLACE: Inasmuch as the minister has added that, I would like to point out to them that when Chevron went into Hatch Point, there was a commitment given to the residents of Hutchinson Road — which is thickly settled suburbia — that that road would not be used as a haul road for the Chevron trucks. That road is now being used as a haul road for the Chevron trucks. This is the difficulty with Hatch Point; it's the ideal spot otherwise. But we must took very carefully at the access, and I would like an opportunity to discuss that with the minister when that point comes.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, we certainly do seem to be spending a lot of money on roads this year; there's no question about it. When we look at an article in the Province on Wednesday, March 13, of this year, the headline says, "B.C. Will Spend $500 Million on Roads, " and to the best of my estimates most of that money looks like it will be borrowed. It's interesting that in the 1983 election when New Democrats suggested borrowing $500 million for a number of job creation projects throughout the province, there was a lot of criticism from the government benches in terms of doing

[ Page 6477 ]

that. Now it seems that they're having to swallow their own criticism, as they're spending virtually the same amount on job creation projects through road construction.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mind you, we are creating some economic spinoff as a result of it, and it is doing some good. I do question as to whether or not the number of jobs created with a capital intensive work project such as highway construction is perhaps the best bang for the buck, so to speak. However, there definitely will be some economic impact as a result of those programs.

I want to — and I'll point this out to the Chair at this point — talk about a section of a particular highway that is now being constructed, and the reason I don't mention that highway is that there's a bill presently in place dealing with phase 1 and phase 2 of that construction program. But I want to talk about a section of that highway construction which is not covered by the bill, and with leave from the Chair, because the bill does not cover this portion of the highway, I would request that it be opened for discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair can't make that decision. I'm sure if there is a.... If the debate is in order with respect to the administration of the department, then that would be in order. I guess it would be up to the minister to advise the committee as to whether we are anticipating other debate or we are dealing with the administrative actions of that ministry. I'll really leave it to the committee and to the minister. Please proceed.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Okay, I guess we'll just fly by the seat of our pants here. There is a section of highway that is planned to be constructed. I believe the takeoff is at Merritt, down to Peachland, and then up from Peachland along the west side of Okanagan Lake, terminating at the north side of Okanagan Lake just around the city of Vernon. I must admit that there will be certain positive benefits for those interior communities as a result of this phase 3 construction, as it's called. But I did notice that in the original announcements of this overall highway construction the original announcement of this phase 3 proposal seems to have been left out by the minister. I would ask the minister, as I have done earlier in the House, whether he has reconsidered the construction of this phase 3 link and Westside link along Okanagan Lake, because there has been virtually no discussion of that last section of the highway other than the possible link from Merritt to Peachland.

The residents of the interior are a little confused with the original announcement that came out, I guess it was back last fall, that indicated phase 3 would be a part of this overall project, and now in later announcements it seems to have been neglected. I would hope that with the coincidence of there being a by-election in the north Okanagan at that time, it wasn't simply a temporary promise that was made in order to attract votes. I would hope that the minister would have full intentions to proceed with this.

However, I may point out a few concerns that have been addressed, one of them by the business community in the Vernon area, that the present proposed location along the west side of Okanagan Lake, exiting I guess around the O'Keefe ranch, which is about seven miles north of Vernon, may actually cause traffic to be diverted from the business area in the city of Vernon. There is a lot of concern that Vernon may actually receive negative benefits as a result of this construction.

I believe there has been some argument that perhaps the ministry could consider, rather than the Westside link, upgrading the present Highway 97 to a four-lane capacity all the way through the interior, which would maintain traffic flow through those communities as destination points. Perhaps the minister can clarify his position in this matter.

Going back and reviewing a couple of the salient questions on that, I would like to get some clarification in terms of the commitment of the ministry in first of all constructing this phase 3 link. When will it be done? It was proposed that it would be done in the near future, and I refer to an original press release in the Vernon Daily News, Tuesday, October 2, 1984, which clearly outlines this phase 3 link to be part of the overall construction. As I said before, now it seems to have been forgotten about, and I would like to get some answers as to why.

Another point I would like to bring up with regard to this phase 3 construction is the question as to why it has to travel a rather circuitous route from the Merritt area proceeding southeast down to the Peachland area south of Kelowna and then taking a swing north up the west side of the lake. When you look at the route, it brings a lot of questions to mind as to why the route was positioned the way it is. If the minister was to consult a topographical map, he would see that a more direct route from Merritt to Vernon could be undertaken across the Douglas Lakes plateau over through that whole area down through Whiteman Creek, exiting just about where it comes out on the proposal. I have hunted through that country extensively; I know that it's reasonably calm terrain. There is already a road punched through right to the Douglas Lakes area that could be upgraded; mind you, it would take significant upgrading. But the critical issue here is that the distance involved would be almost half of that of the present route. If it is the intention of the ministry to provide a more direct route from Highway 1 down through the Okanagan, eventually emerging in Hope, then it would seem that such a route would be a heck of a lot more advantageous for the flow of traffic, rather than venting it all through Kelowna and then back up. Perhaps the minister may want to expand upon that suggestion.

The second concern I have is in regard to the present Highway 97. I do congratulate the minister for keeping his promise of last fall to the residents of the north Okanagan, a promise to upgrade Highway 97 for about 10 or 11 kilometres south of Vernon, taking out some extremely dangerous corners that have caused a number of accidents over the years. I might point out to the minister, if he hasn't been in the area recently, that work is proceeding quite well. They're really carving up the countryside, but I think the overall effect will be beneficial for everyone concerned.

That brings to mind a long-term problem in the Okanagan, and that's looking at the southern end of Highway 97, just as it exits the electoral boundaries of Okanagan North, and goes into the boundary of Okanagan South. It does bring forth some questions as to the difference in the state of the road when we pass from one constituency into another. It's been a long-standing joke, actually, in our area, because it goes from a narrow, twisty two-lane path to a very nice wide highway as it passes the airport, but it changes very radically when we get into Okanagan North — right about at the

[ Page 6478 ]

Winfield area. I'm sure the minister is aware of this section of highway.

The residents of Winfield have been pressing this matter for some time now. I've been aware of it for a number of years. They continually press their concerns that the traffic flow along the present route that goes through Winfield is causing a lot of problems. There have been needless fatalities in the area. It is unsafe. I've been through a number of times when there has been very heavy traffic in the area. We have big 18-wheelers rolling by on a two-lane highway that also has to accommodate schoolchildren walking along a very narrow shoulder. There have been people hit. There have been needless deaths. The citizens have been concerned for some time.

I would ask the minister whether he has.... In fact I know that he has plans for upgrading this, because I did receive a letter from him indicating such, as well as the upgrading of pedestrian safety and crosswalks. But I would ask him if he could give me a time for this. Does he have a date for construction of any upgrading programs? As I mentioned, it is of considerable concern. I would also suggest that upgrading for pedestrian safety is really a priority. It would really be nice if we could have that upgrading in place by the time that school rolls around again in the fall.

[11:15]

With regard to the rest of the highway, as the minister knows it is two-lane in most of the area, sometimes going into three-lane. Does the minister have any plans on the books now for four-laning of the entire route between Winfield and the Vernon area?

I think that deals with most of my concerns in terms of Highway 97. I would appreciate any response from the minister on that.

I would like to move to another problem area, Highway 6, which exits Vernon east through Lumby, over Monashee Pass and into the Arrow Lakes area. I believe it's the same highway — it is the same stretch of road, whether it's called the same highway or not — that proceeds from Fauquier on the east side of Arrow Lakes up toward Nakusp north. It is a road which has caused considerable problems. I'm sure the minister is well aware that many sections of the road have in fact caved in. Along the lake edge there have been traffic diversions for some time now because the road has been sliding down the bank.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: My colleague says it's a 1948 highway trying to deal with 1985 traffic conditions.

It has broken pavement, potholes and dangerous, blind comers. This is a road that children have to be bused on on a daily basis, back and forth through those long interior winters that can cause considerable icing problems on the road. It is an unnecessary danger. The most dangerous section of the highway is the section from Fauquier to Nakusp that edges along the lake. But I might point out that in the section proceeding over the Monashees, although there has been some upgrading, and I'll give the minister credit for that, there are many sections that remain to be looked at. We've got a real problem there in terms of safety. I would ask the minister if he could give me any time lines on upgrading, particularly that section along the Arrow Lakes.

I have a few more questions, but since my time is very limited, perhaps I'll let the minister rise in rebuttal, and then I'll proceed accordingly.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to respond to the member for Okanagan North and to the House. The member led off by saying that the NDP had promised roads in 1983. But the NDP got defeated in 1983, and the reason they did get defeated is their record on roads when they were government — they didn't do anything. So obviously the voters generally didn't buy very much of that.

That member over there seems to be wiggling around, sitting on the fence. I don't know where he stands regarding.... He says he's not sure whether he's in favour of highway work, whether we get the benefits out of it. You know, I think it's about time he made his mind up. Then he turns around and asks for $450 million worth of work in his own riding. It doesn't seem to add up to me.

However, under phase 3 — and I have to be very careful with this member, Mr. Chairman, because his version of what I said will be on Okanagan radio in about 15 minutes — his version, I repeat, of what I said.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Right. I love this place; you know that. I'm not like you, Mr. Chairman; I haven't even had a sabbatical — you have.

I don't know just where to start in dealing with phase 3, which the member asked about, but phase 3 is going ahead. We were in Merritt the other night and dealing with the exact route. The engineers have two proposals for the exact route of phase 3 — where it would go from Merritt and approximately where it would arrive at Peachland. I would like to tell the House that that's been put out in general terms. As for the specifics, we're having public gatherings at Merritt and at Peachland right away. I forget the dates, but I think it's June 10 or 11 — something like that — in Merritt. Maybe the member could doublecheck this, but I believe our senior people will be in Peachland with displays for interested citizens on June 17-18 or 18-19 — it's within that three-day period. I'd recommend to anybody who's concerned about where phase 3 is going that they go there. They'll have the particulars....

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: The alternatives will be there, as I understand it.

The member made a point under phase 3 of my not talking about the west side. Well, maybe it was missed by him, but we haven't forgotten that west side road at all. It's still within the plans. The engineers have to identify that west side corridor. We had planned on having that identified by September 1985. I'm now talking about the west side corridor, not the main leg of phase 3, Merritt to Peachland. I think you asked for the reason. The engineers say the reason for that is that the present highway goes through Kelowna and Vernon, and when they are four-laned they will still have limited capacity for through traffic because of traffic generated by the cities themselves. The west side corridor is necessary to rationalize long-term capacities of the overall system. That's why they're looking at a corridor there.

[ Page 6479 ]

I want to go back now to the Highway 97 we have. I would like to deal with it from Penticton to Vernon. We all know we have lots of capacity problems there. We have done a fair amount of work in the area, such as Channel Parkway in Penticton. They've talked about it for 60 years; it's now a fact of life. We've worked in Westbank, where, I might say, about the heaviest traffic counts in the Okanagan occur. We've worked on the Kelowna bridge because we had to get capacity. We've worked on Harvey Avenue. And as you said, we four-laned the airport.... That was done some time ago.

You're right, we have a large contract working from Vernon to Bailey Road at the present time. Overall we have made some progress, and I would just like to state in the House that it's the intention of the government to four-lane everything from Penticton to Vernon. We're moving in that direction as fast as we can. The next job, which will be called very shortly, is a four-lane contract from Penticton to Trout Creek. We're having a test fill made at the present time to see if the environmentalists will let us use the lake to put our rocks in, and also what depth we have to go to put our rocks in — whether it's 30 feet or 300 feet, or the base of the fill. When that information is available.... I think the exploratory work has started, and hopefully they'll have the answers so that we can put proper specifications out for a tender call this fall.

It would appear to me that the next tender call to go out for four-laning of the road would probably be Bailey Road to Oyama. I would remind that we've been picking away at it constantly. The way we see it, Mr. Chairman, all the work we do is forgotten, and all they emphasize is what we haven't got to. The government hasn't got a never-ending pot of gold. But in the case of the riding that you represent, we already have four lanes from north of the city of Vernon into Vernon; I imagine you are aware of that.

I would like you to check with us to get the dates for the Peachland deal, which is coming very shortly, and we'll show what we have in mind regarding phase 3. I want to get it on the record that phase 3, Merritt to Peachland, is a four-lane road; we're not building a two-lane road there.

You mentioned Highway 6, Lumby, Monashee and so on. I'm aware of that road. But I don't think that we have to take any back seat there. We've spent millions on that road since we've been government. It's been very expensive. I looked at several of the jobs they did over the years. I've asked the staff here; they haven't got the figures, but from 1977-78 up to the present time it's maybe $20 million on Highway 6. I'm not saying that we need to do more; and that will come.

In your riding we have another situation, and I know that you got...should have higher priority than Highway 6. I forget what you call it locally, but we've got a bad bridge right in the community. I think the city of Vernon would like to see that cleared up, and our ministry feel the same way.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That was in fact the bridge over the railway tracks at Polson Park in Vernon; in fact, that's one of my questions I was going to come to.

Just to back up for a moment, the minister seemed to take issue with my initial comments. I guess they do require a second rebuttal to clarify my position. Certainly I'm in favour of highway construction; there's no question about it. We need it throughout the province — the highway upgrading. But certainly my position is, and always has been, that perhaps the amount of money expended on highways does not give the number of jobs that, for example, an equivalent expenditure in the small business sector could give. All I'm saying is that highway construction, as with coalfields and other major projects, is very capital-intensive, and the number of jobs created for a million dollars of capital investment is very limited. As a matter of fact, taking the coal industry, it takes a million dollars to create one long-term job. The jobs created in highways are temporary, for that matter. So there's some, I guess, philosophical discussion that could arise as to where we best put our limited dollars. Certainly I'm in favour of the highway construction; I never questioned that. Glad to see it.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, so be it.

Also the minister raised a point which I found rather confusing. He said that the west-side construction would be identified by 1985. I don't quite know what he means by "identified." I mean, are you talking about the route being selected — is that what you're saying — or are you talking about the initiation of construction? So perhaps the minister could clarify what he means by the identification of the route.

The minister also did not answer a previous question, which I consider a significant question, as to why the ministry did not select a more direct route from Merritt to the north side of Okanagan Lake. Why have they gone on this circuitous path down through Peachland? Again I reiterate that the more direct route up over through the Douglas Lakes Plateau, down through Whiteman Creek or a number of the valleys, would be a far faster route. If, in fact, the reason for construction of this highway is to facilitate traffic by an alternative route — a quicker route to the coast — this doesn't seem to mesh with that philosophy. There seem to be some political overtones here as to servicing an area such as Kelowna, and the minister did not answer that — did not make that clear.

Also, I wonder if the minister could answer whether or not he has any plans – and l'll submit this as a request – that when the west-side route is initiated, the construction of the phase 3 link, as we call it.... I wonder if the minister could grant a request that he initiate an employment centre in the city of Vernon for the hiring of day labour and local labour input into the construction of that phase 3 link. I think a local employment centre in the communities of the Okanagan, so that we can alleviate some of that 20 percent unemployment that we're presently facing in that area, rather than pull people in from other areas of the province or even outside of the province.... So could you give me your position on the initiation of an employment centre for that phase 3 link?

[11:30]

Now moving on to the other question that the minister had preempted me with: the discussion of the Polson Park bridge, the bridge over the railway tracks. There do seem to be some confusing signals coming from the ministry, because it seems that in my discussions with one of the aldermen at one of the recent UBCM meetings, I guess a year or so ago, he was led to believe from ministry officials that this was not at the top of the priority list, and he came away from that meeting — again, this is the alderman I'm talking about — with a feeling that there wasn't a commitment from the ministry in terms of constructing this bridge. I might add that this is a dangerous bridge. It's wood-surfaced. As a rider of a motorcycle myself, especially during frosty mornings I've found this bridge to be an extremely hazardous road situation. I know there have

[ Page 6480 ]

been a number of very close calls. I really don't want to have to wait until we have a fatality on that bridge in order to press the minister into action. I would request, in the spirit of cooperation, and representing the city of Vernon and the residents of North Okanagan, that the minister please consider adjusting his priorities to make upgrading of this bridge a major priority in his itinerary.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Moving on to another problem, this, I guess, relates to highway construction and tourism — sort of related areas. A number of concerns have come to my office in regard to inadequate rest areas. I've written the minister before on this, and I'll restate the case in point. The section of road from Kelowna all the way to Vernon — which is about 50 kilometres or so, round about 30 miles — doesn't have any rest facilities. I think there is only one service station on that section. People have complained that they don't have any facilities to stop off and attend to the all too human needs that sometimes need to be attended to. The minister's reply was that he didn't consider the distances enough to warrant it. However, the chamber of commerce, as well as a number of local businessmen in the Vernon area, have voiced their concerns over the lack of these facilities. They've requested — I don't know whether the minister has received that request yet — that there be a rest facility supplied somewhere along this route, preferably just before entering the city of Vernon. Another concern that was brought to my attention was the maintenance of these facilities where they do occur.

One couple, these travellers who came in to see me, were quite concerned when they tried to find a facility that was half-clean. They were most concerned that the hygiene of the roadside washroom facilities was very poorly attended to. I more or less bring this to the minister's attention so that maybe we can have a look at this and try to maintain those a little better.

I guess I still have a fair amount of time here, so I'll go into the next question. In terms of directional signs, I guess the regulations allowing signs to be placed along the highway routes are rather stringent. The present regulations do appear to restrict the ability for a city, for example, to advertise its various tourist attractions. I don't have a full appreciation of it, but from what I've received in talking with people, the signs are pretty well limited to.... They can't have any print on them; they can be sort of figurative signs, to say the least. The regulations don't allow very much information to be placed on them.

There's a lot of concern with the tourist-related businesses in Vernon that the regulations prohibit the advertising of a lot of the tourist attractions that otherwise could be more adequately advertised. The business community of Vernon will be approaching the ministry, if they haven't already done this, in terms of placement of some signs that give a little more direction on both the north and south entrances of Highway 97 into Vernon. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts in terms of possibly relaxing the regulations somewhat to allow a little more directional advertisement to take place.

I think I've pretty well covered everything unless something pops up in the minister's reply. I'll sit down at this time.

HON. A. FRASER: Just to comment on a few things that the member for North Okanagan has brought up. He questioned identification of the west side route. Our engineers are still looking the country over. What I really said is that by September they will have identified a route that possibly can go ahead — they wouldn't be at the stage of calling contracts or final decisions — and then that would be taken to the communities affected to see what they think about it. Once the engineers have identified a route, that of course creates some problems, such as watersheds that they're going through and so on. We don't mind discussing that with the public affected at all. That's what we mean by identification.

I think I missed answering you regarding actual construction. I'm now dealing with phase 3, Merritt-Peachland. It is hopeful that we can get started on that, with the actual construction in 1986. It would appear to us that if things go right, we would have that completed by 1988 — phase 3, Merritt to....

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: No, I'm talking strictly on phase 3, the Merritt-Peachland section. We still have final decisions to make on the route itself, and that's what is taking place in Merritt and in Peachland this week. They've laid out the approximate.... Really what they're showing is two routes, and we want public input on that. Then those decisions are made, the signing could go ahead, and I don't see why contracts can't be called.

HON. MEMBER: Any date on the west side?

HON. A. FRASER: No, because the only date that I've given on the west side is what I've just said: identification of route by September of 1985. I think we shouldn't be saying when we're going to call construction when we haven't actually got enough information about the route.

The member brought up employment centres. No, I don't think employment centres are our responsibility. I assume there is an employment centre in Vernon now, but I would like to point out that the contractor working on the contract, which is a $9 million to $10 million job, is View Construction Ltd. from Kamloops, and it's my information that he's hired practically all his people from Vernon. In other words, what we're saying is that with the job that's going on now, that contractor has certainly cooperated with our request. But we get involved with union jurisdiction and so on, and — I'm now talking contractors — it depends on who they have their union agreement with. It might be the teamsters, it might be the operating engineers, the labourers and so on. But we've made our point clear. All our contractors have their side of legal agreements with various unions, but we would like them to cooperate as far as possible by hiring in the local areas. That doesn't only apply to the individual — say a D8 bulldozer driver — but it also applies when they need rental equipment: that they get the list in the Highways office and rent off that from the local area. I might say we're getting a lot of cooperation from the contractors on that as well, rather than maybe Vancouver dumptrucks going up to Vernon to work, which can happen, and then the local machines not working.

You mentioned rest areas. Our rest area system is I think fairly good. I'm not so sure that we need a rest area between Vernon and Kelowna. That's not very far to go. There are

[ Page 6481 ]

pullouts. We would like to see the private sector do something as well. I don't know how many rest areas we've got in the province. We have lots of them. Some of them are real classy ones with running water and so on, and some of them are a little less. I might say that most of the servicing of those areas has now been put out to contract, and everything seems to.... We're expanding on it all the time.

Directional signs: well, you really get me on directional signs. Our office is inundated with the signing not being adequate. We do try to cooperate. Where we have been successful regarding communities is telling them to get their act together, and if they will put what they want on the signboard, we'll put the community sign up for them and build the pullouts so that people can get off in a safe way and get back on our highways. We've done that in several communities; I don't know whether we have in Vernon. We prefer that, rather than a proliferation of individual signs all over the place. Where the communities have done it, it's worked out quite well.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just a clarification, I guess, in terms of the directional signs. The way I understand it, then, the minister is quite open to erection of these signs if the community itself does the sign construction. Is that what you're saying? That you will be flexible with this? For example, if these businesses submit to your ministry a schematic diagram showing exactly what they want on the sign, could they get an okay for the sign erection? Will you proceed with erection of these signs?

HON. A. FRASER: Very definitely; sure, we're glad to. But that doesn't say they'll necessarily get it. They'll get an argument with it. If they pick a piece of highway to put the community sign on which hasn't got what our engineers call good sight distance, they'll get turned down, but they'll be provided with an alternative. Then that provides another argument if they don't like the alternative. But we can resolve the things dealing with the community at large, such as the Board of Trade and/or the city council and so on. We've done lots of those already.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In terms of the sight distance, I assume that consultation with the regional manager at that point would allow them to determine a location. What I'm trying to point out is that if the request was for signs for both the south and north sides of the city, would the site location be determined by the regional manager there? Is that who these people would contact?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we can give better service than that. Our district manager should be able to.... If he needs help from head office or the regional office, it's up to him to call for it, but he knows our rules and regulations. You've got, or will have.... The district manager in Vernon retired, and that position is vacant, but it will soon be filled. The local people go to a district manager. We have 38 of them — good ones — in British Columbia.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I do thank the minister on that. I know there is a lot of concern, and I'll take those concerns to the individuals; I'm sure they'll be quite happy to produce a schematic diagram and ask for acceptance.

In terms of the highway facilities, what we're talking about is serving people who are on the road — a travelling public. Many of those cars on the road are non-residents, from other provinces or from the States. We're talking about tourism facilities. We're talking about amenities. There is a feeling, certainly a criticism, that we haven't developed the appropriate infrastructure to serve the travelling public adequately. I would suggest that one of the means of doing this would be to upgrade our present service facilities. Travelling throughout the state of Washington was a real eye-opener for me. They not only have facilities in very close proximity to one another; they even have free coffee at some of them. I found it incredible. They're very well served. I think we're lagging quite far behind in this and would ask the minister to reconsider his position.

[11:45]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to this member, because really I think we have a fairly good system, but this member is arguing philosophy. He wants the government and the socialists to do everything. Our government want the private sector to do most of it. I think they've done a good job — the tourism side in the private sector. I don't agree with your comments at all. We will encourage them and play down the government's side of it. We're really disagreeing on philosophy.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wasn't going to stand again, but I think the comment does deserve a reply. There is no intention of mentioning anything in philosophy. It is developing the infrastructure, and if you want to contract out any services that are provided.... As a matter of fact, I think the different community groups do it in the States. Let's not get into the philosophical basis. What we're talking about here is developing the facilities — the infrastructure necessary to provide the service. Philosophy doesn't enter the issue.

HON. A. FRASER: I appreciate the member's remarks, but I've been reminded by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) that we shouldn't be talking politics in here.

MR. DAVIS: First I'd like to congratulate the minister for bringing in the seatbelt regulations as they pertain to children under six. I think that this was a necessary move. It was made possible by the existence of Canada-approved child restraint devices, and I am glad to see that everyone is now covered as far as seatbelts are concerned on our highways, including our very young people.

Secondly, inspection of vehicles. I hope the minister will be able to step up his spot inspection of commercial vehicles on our highways. I would also urge him to reconsider his or the government's decision not to institute a private sector inspection system, perhaps similar to the one in Ontario or similar to a slightly different one in the United Kingdom, where private sector garages are licensed and subject to certain regulations to inspect vehicles, not necessarily on an annual basis but perhaps only when they change hands when they're sold. But nevertheless, there is a self-financing basis for inspection; also a system which could be provincewide, as opposed to the selective regional system we had in existence here a few years ago. I hope that at some point in the not too distant future the government is prepared to look again at inspection for all vehicles travelling on our highways, roads, streets, and so on.

The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) mentioned the Cassiar connector: the highway link

[ Page 6482 ]

between the Second Narrows Bridge across Burrard Inlet and Trans-Canada Highway 401, approximately a mile to the south of the southern end of the Second Narrows Bridge. I look with some envy on the expenditures which are being made in the interior on a four-lane divided highway traversing literally hundreds of kilometres, when we don't have the equivalent along, or parallel to, Cassiar Street in Vancouver. I know that the province has been prepared — at least there have been statements to this effect — to pay for a vital connector through a difficult section of streets, admittedly, in east Vancouver; that the problems essentially have been related to zoning or, perhaps more appropriately, local neighbourhood approval. But that is a very important mile. It's important not only to residents on the North Shore who work or otherwise wish to travel to the rest of the lower mainland, but to people currently following the Trans-Canada Highway route to the Horseshoe Bay ferry jumping-off point to Vancouver Island.

I hope that, one way or another, the province is able to work out an arrangement with the city of Vancouver whereby the redevelopment of that section of the Trans-Canada Highway proceeds. Give us one or two interchanges there, similar to these generous interchanges that are going to be built in the interior, and, hopefully, give us six lanes. We've got six lanes now on the Second Narrows Bridge; I gather it could be expanded to eight. Therefore, one way or another, let's work out an agreement with the city of Vancouver.

In the last analysis, if the city, given reasonable discussion, a series of meetings and so on, is still of a negative frame of mind, I think the province should at some point proceed. I certainly would suggest that action to the minister within the next year or two or three. Time is now running out. That is, as the minister said, a serious traffic bottleneck; it's hazardous. The crossing at Cassiar and Hastings, as he says, is one of the busiest in the province. It also has one of the few red lights left anywhere on the Trans-Canada Highway from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island. So hopefully we can get on with that.

For residents of the North Shore, another ferry crossing over the Strait of Georgia is certainly desirable. We have a lot of traffic originating in Vancouver, Burnaby, generally to the east — Coquitlam and so on — and headed for Vancouver Island, which goes north across one of the two bridges over Burrard Inlet, then along through North and West Vancouver, departing on a two-hour ferry crossing to Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. If there were a crossing, and I'll say nominally from Point Grey to Gabriola Island.... First, the traffic would not have to cross Burrard Inlet. It would not load up the already heavily travelled bridges — especially at peak hours — across Burrard Inlet. And it would not have to take what is really for many people a circuitous route to Vancouver Island, but a direct route. The crossing of water would occupy less than an hour; it would be possible therefore to have hourly sailings. The ferry pressure on Horseshoe Bay would be reduced. The pressure on the highway up to Squamish and the Pemberton area would be reduced. As far as North Shore citizens are concerned, that would be relief indeed. For the travelling public as well there's a considerable saving in time, perhaps as much as a couple of hours, and a substantial saving in energy, wear and tear on their vehicles, and so on.

A new crossing across the Strait of Georgia would involve two new terminals and road access. As I see it, the best road access to a new terminal on the Vancouver side would be to use one of the several generous highways now going out to the University of British Columbia, with the terminal somewhere in the general area of Wreck Beach, and this would be the least damaging insofar as the ecology of the delta of the Fraser River is concerned, and would be good for many reasons. On the Vancouver Island side, the terminal would be located in such a way that the highway would lead into what eventually would be a ring road around Nanaimo. The centre and northern part of Vancouver Island would be much better served, both in terms of time elapsed and in terms of investment.

The investment itself would not be as large as some of the other projects which the government is contemplating. It would be of the order of $100 million or $125 million. The term "modest" isn't the right one, but it would be certainly less than some of the big projects currently underway in the province. I think because of the economies inherent in a crossing of that kind, it would have a favourable benefit-cost ratio, not only as far as the government is concerned, but certainly as far as the public generally is concerned.

A bridge across the Fraser. I think the government is right in proceeding with the construction of the Annacis highway crossing. I read with some concern in one of the daily papers today that the Transportation ministry wanted to take another good hard look at a dual-purpose bridge from downtown New Westminster across to Surrey; dual-purpose meaning that light rapid transit and vehicular road traffic would also use the same structure. I'm opposed to that. I think that would be stupid. There have been various studies. Highways cooperated well with the rapid transit people in several investigations a few years back. They looked particularly at refurbishing the old Pattullo Bridge and mounting rapid transit on it. There were various ideas proposed, including a new railway crossing, which would involve the federal government and additional red tape. What came out of it all was that it would be much cheaper to build a light rapid transit-only bridge across the Fraser and fix up the Pattullo Bridge for highway purposes separately. I assume that's what will in fact happen.

I think highways generally should avoid downtown areas. To build a new highway bridge — and I assume it would be six-lane — across the Fraser in the general vicinity of downtown New Westminster would simply add to the downtown New Westminster traffic problems. It would undoubtedly add to some of the surface traffic problems in Surrey. It would delay for a matter of years, if not till a period as late as 1990, for instance, the construction across the Fraser of light rapid transit. If light rapid transit makes sense, it makes sense because it also crosses the river and taps the large population in Surrey, extends up-river on the north side and begins to tap the growing population also in the Coquitlam area.

So I personally don't see that there is any case whatsoever for a joint project bridge across the Fraser in the general area of downtown New Westminster, in close proximity to the Pattullo Bridge.

On taxis and regional taxi licensing, like the minister I think that taxis should be licensed, at least in the lower mainland area, on a GVRD or regional basis, not by the municipalities individually. Most municipalities agree with this. There's even been a committee in city hall at Vancouver that seemed to agree with the idea that regional licensing should occur. The Motor Carrier Commission has looked at the problem. It says that, generally speaking, "the current level of taxi service in the greater Vancouver area is satisfactory." However, there are certain problems which should not exist in a metropolitan area the size of Vancouver. These

[ Page 6483 ]

include: (1) the inability of charge account customers to freely use their regular taxi company; (2) the unnecessary accumulation of deadhead miles by various taxi companies and the possible effects this may have on rates and charges to the public; (3) the variation in rates charged in the greater Vancouver area is undesirable.

[12:00]

This can be managed in several ways. I think the Motor Carrier Act regulations should be amended to establish a regional zone exemption to provide for a regional licensing zone system, which would include the municipalities and cities which comprise the GVRD. That's the way to go, in my view. I think we should do this before Expo. I think we should do it in the interests of economy, lower costs, less energy usage and lower fares for the public. I think that's the only way to go.

There are numerous other topics I could get into. The Motor Carrier Act certainly needs revision. I'll get up briefly this afternoon, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and make a pitch for improvements in the Dollarton highway, which is a provincial highway in North Vancouver, before it's turned over to the district municipality there.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.