[ Page 8591 ]

CONTENTS

Private Members' Statements

Park and ride. Mrs. Johnston –– 8591

Mr. Parks

Mr. Reid

Nuclear waste shipments. Mr. Blencoe –– 8591

Mr. Davis

Mrs. Wallace

Reforming the Legislature. Mr. Davis –– 8593

Mr. Williams

Ministerial Statement

Labour violence. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8595

Mr. Stupich

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986 (Bill 28). Second reading

Mr. Lauk –– 8595

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 35). Second reading

Mr. Lank –– 8595

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 36). Second reading — 8596

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

Fraser)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 8596

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Williams

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Sanford

FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Private Members' Statements

PARK AND RIDE

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) I briefly touched on the subject of park-and-ride facilities, particularly in my constituency, but I felt it was an important enough subject that more should be said on it. With the growing transit system that we see being established on the lower mainland, particularly across the Fraser River into the constituency of Surrey, it's important that we review the present and potential usage and the very essential need for further park-and-ride systems.

I can speak with familiarity at this time regarding the establishment of the park-and-ride at Scott Road. It is very well utilized and certainly a great asset to the people of my constituency. It makes it much easier for them to cross over the Fraser River by bus, hooking up with the SkyTrain to get into Vancouver.

I think it's also important, though, that we bring to the attention of our Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A Fraser) the important need for further park-and-rides along our highway system, and I would like to mention a couple of areas that I would like to see looked at. I'd like to see another park-and-ride go in the area of Scott Road somewhere in the 72nd Street area. I'd like to see King George Highway near Crescent Road looked at a little bit more seriously, and I think it's important that we look at the Guildford area in the vicinity of Highway 401. If we truly believe that the transit system must be made to work in our communities, we must make parking available to get some of the private one-passenger vehicles off the road. If we don't provide well-lit, well-paved and well-serviced park-and-rides, the people are not going to use our transit system, because they're not going to have any place to leave their cars in order to use the transit system.

So I would like to ask the minister responsible for transit and the Minister of Transportation and Highways to look at the park-and-ride facilities that have been made available — and other areas I've mentioned that should be made available — and to report back to us. But certainly, in order to encourage use of our transit system, I would like to see more park-and-rides in our communities.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the comments of my hon. colleague and in effect reiterate the thrust of the comments. Besides serving Surrey, park-and-ride is also in existence in two Coquitlam locations. It has only been in existence for a month or so, but as those of us in Coquitlam are more than aware, it is proving extremely beneficial to our commuter traffic.

I wish to go on record as thanking the minister in charge of public transit for initiating that in time to assist us in handling the Expo traffic. Even though there might well be an immediate lessening in demand after Expo has concluded, I would expect it to show the importance and the integral aspect of having the SkyTrain extended to Coquitlam and the north side of the river. So I wish to go on record to support my colleague's comments in that regard.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support for the success of the park-and-ride locations that have been established. The current one in Surrey is almost at capacity now, and the one in Coquitlam is I guess accelerating by the day. The interest in park-and-rides in Surrey has been accelerated as a result of the current one, and the city of White Rock and the corporation of Surrey are working in conjunction with the engineering departments of both the Highways ministry and Lands, Parks and Housing to establish a further park-and-ride in south Surrey. I'm encouraged by the result of the acceptance of the car drivers in transferring into the transit system and ultimately transferring to SkyTrain. Certainly all three of those things are being serviced well and are encouraging further development of park-and-rides in the lower mainland. I support that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I think there's very little left to be said, but in conclusion I would ask that the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the Provincial Secretary, the minister responsible for transit, review the comments that were made here today with a view to the establishment of further park-and-rides in the communities being serviced by our growing transit system.

NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPMENTS

MR. BLENCOE: This morning I wish to make a statement on the proposed shipments of nuclear waste — radioactive plutonium — through Juan de Fuca Strait. In January of this year it was announced by the U.S. Department of Energy that they had plans to ship radioactive plutonium back and forth through Juan de Fuca Strait. This naturally has caught this community by total surprise. According to information provided, the current plan is to move 18 shipments of nuclear waste from Taiwan to Tacoma. A South Korean shipping firm will move the nuclear waste with no special provisions for the ship or training for the crew, according to the Department of Energy spokesman in the United States. The shipments will consist of two 25-tonne casks, each containing about 700 kg of used nuclear fuel rods.

The ports of Tacoma and Seattle thus far have declined acceptance of the nuclear waste, but it's still planned that regular commodities will be offloaded at Tacoma and Seattle and, thereby, the nuclear wastes will be going through the waters of Juan de Fuca Strait.

[10:15]

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is safety. The main concern is in the event of fire. It's reported that the casks have been tested under maximum fire conditions at a heat of approximately 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit, and tested for approximately half an hour. But many petroleum products, if transported with the nuclear waste, burn at greater heights, including diesel fuel; butane burns at 1,875 degrees Fahrenheit; propane burns at 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The average heat of a high-density accident, of a highway accident, is 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. So if highly inflammable commodities are shipped, we have a very dangerous situation. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the burning time of a ship fire is frequently more than half an hour, and because of remoteness and the difficulty of extinguishing fires at sea, ships regularly bum for six hours or more.

[ Page 8592 ]

I might add that the plan is to ship other commodities, as I stated, other than the plutonium. We don't know what will be shipped with the plutonium, but it will be unloaded at Tacoma or Seattle. If Hanford goes ahead, Mr. Chairman, it's quite conceivable we will have hundreds of shipments going through Juan de Fuca Strait.

It's estimated an extended fire of over 1,475 degrees is projected to lead to both atmospheric release of nuclear waste, leading to a nuclear cloud, and the potential release of all nuclear waste into the water if the ship sinks. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious business, a deadly business, and one that we must pay attention to.

I have corresponded with federal authorities: Mr. Joe Clark, Minister of External Affairs, and Mr. Tom McMillan, the Minister of the Environment. Both have written back to me — in my estimation, very weak responses — saying that there are agreements in place that will allow for safety precautions. But we have no assurances from the American authorities, Mr. Speaker. We have been given no dossier on safety requirements that will be in place. In our estimation, we are not being given full information, and we are totally opposed to these shipments unless we have full information.

There are a number of questions that have to be asked. Have the Canadian authorities actually been informed of the prospect of nuclear waste shipment through the Juan de Fuca Strait? Has the provincial government been informed? Will shipments enter Canadian waters? What efforts have been or should be made to inform the potentially affected public along the shorelines about the possible hazards of the shipments? What are the safety conditions of this cask for nuclear waste? What is the possible damage to Canadian waters and air space in the event of a worst-case scenario? What special safety provisions are planned for the shipment of these nuclear wastes? What provisions have been made to control the cargo transported with the nuclear waste, to ensure that highly inflammable materials will not be included? The advisability, Mr. Speaker, of transporting nuclear waste through the Juan de Fuca Strait, when the waste will not be unloaded at Tacoma or Seattle, and whether there are long-term plans to ship quantities of nuclear waste through the Strait of Juan de Fuca considering the agreements the United States government has made to return the nuclear waste to the U.S. mainland for reprocessing....

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the provincial government to take action on this. What are the transit procedures? What are the shipping procedures? What are the handling procedures? In our estimation, if we don't get full disclosure, if we don't have full public hearings, if we don't have high level meetings with all those involved, we should object; we should deny; we should put our position forward that we want no shipments at all through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Mr. Speaker, this commodity, plutonium, radioactive material, is highly dangerous, and if we sit back and just accept verbal assurances from the American authorities, we will have this stuff off our shores. The provincial government has said nothing so far. The provincial government should oppose, in my estimation, if we're not given full information by the American authorities. We should be advocating high level meetings with American and Canadian authorities. Far too much secrecy has revolved around this nuclear issue, Mr. Speaker. We have seen in the last few years and very recently what can happen with a nuclear accident. In our estimation we are sitting on a time bomb, and unless there is discussion by all sides, we are going to have serious problems.

If Hanford goes ahead, Mr. Speaker, these shipments will be regular, and the dangers to our coast and to our community will be horrendous. We ask the provincial government to take a serious look and be involved.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern. I'm sure all other members in this chamber do. He's speaking out, but he's not speaking in the right forum. Transportation, especially transportation of goods internationally — indeed, transportation of goods offshore any distance — comes under the federal Department of Transport and is a matter for national decision-making. His colleagues in the House of Commons in Ottawa, therefore, should be putting this argument forward more effectively. They at least would have someone listening who had authority to respond.

Yes, a provincial administration can make a recommendation in this area, but it is not essentially an area of provincial jurisdiction. Nuclear energy.... More precisely, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a federal agency under the federal executive. Offshore salt-water transportation is in the area of federal jurisdiction also, so I wouldn't have expected anyone on the government executive benches to rise to respond to the member. We're all listening to his submission, but it is not being made in the right place.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would expect someone on the government benches to stand up and respond. It just so happens that the member who has spoken is not a member of the federal House; he is a member of the provincial House, and he is taking a responsible stand in bringing this to the attention of the members of this House. And we get no response.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is here. Unfortunately, the Minister of Environment is not.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No response. What we have here is the single most serious problem facing the world today: nuclear power, nuclear warheads and the waste from that material.

I have a letter written some time ago to the Minister of Environment; unfortunately, I don't have an answer yet. My concern is about the inland waters, where we have subs coming into Nanoose Bay on a regular basis — nuclear subs that may or may not be armed with warheads. We can't find that out, but we have to surmise that they are. What I'm trying to find out from the Minister of Environment is whether or not he's doing regular tests to find out what the radiation level is there; also to find out what sort of preparedness he has in case of a nuclear accident. Without taking some action, we could be sitting ducks.

The government and that member for Vancouver-Seymour is prepared to stand up in the House and say: "It's a jurisdictional problem." It doesn't matter whose responsibility it is. If we have a nuclear accident we'll all suffer. It doesn't matter whether it's a federal or a provincial responsibility; the problem is a horrendous one that's facing all of the world. Local, provincial, federal and international levels of government should be dealing with this in a much more effective way than they seem to be prepared to do. It's an utter disgrace that the only answer we get is that it's a jurisdictional problem.

[ Page 8593 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I've corresponded with federal authorities, Mr. Clark and Mr. McMillan — I've indicated that already — and I've had wimpy, weak, no-leadership responses. They cite existing agreements with the Americans and say they will ensure that safety standards are in place as much as possible. That's not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

We want those ministers and this provincial government to play a role with the Americans. We want guarantees of what is going to happen with this commodity. To get into a jurisdictional battle.... The reason I bring it to this House is that this issue belongs to everybody. The provincial government should be standing up demanding information, demanding high-level discussions with the Americans. There are no guarantees of public safety with this issue; no guarantees at all. This stuff is the most dangerous substance on earth, and to rely on normal procedures for shipping normal commodities....

The weak response that I've had from federal authorities is not good enough for this community, not good enough for British Columbia. The provincial government has a role to play. It should be demanding full information, a full dossier on safety, and if we don't get that, we should say no to these shipments. This is a time bomb. Before we know it, that stuff will be plying the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and everybody will be asking, why didn't we say something? Why wasn't something done? We've had accidents at sea before with oil shipments. If we have an accident with this stuff, we all know the result, and to get into a jurisdictional battle, or quibbling as we've had from the other side today, is totally unacceptable. This is a number one issue. There is no guarantee of public safety. We want the provincial government to stand up, show leadership and demand action from the federal government to get the information we require, or otherwise we're going to have the most dangerous substance on earth just a few miles away from us on a regular basis.

REFORMING THE LEGISLATURE

MR. DAVIS: Look about you, Mr. Speaker. Look at our Legislature at work. What you see is what you get: a handful of members present, an occasional minister, a near-to-empty press gallery — today an empty one. Our attendance is thin, because little really happens here. Debate is to little effect, with acrimony out of frustration, partisan wrangling without anyone changing their mind, bills becoming law without a line, a word, or perhaps even a comma changed here or there.

This is our Legislature, but it rarely legislates. The writing of laws, rules and regulations are for another time, another place. The Premier and his executive council not only administer our laws, but write our laws. They do it behind closed doors in the confines of cabinet with advice, good or bad, and information which the rest of us may never see or hear about.

This is too bad, for several reasons. The public is ill-informed. The case for good legislation isn't made as effectively as it could be. Bad legislation isn't changed before it becomes law. Good ideas aren't debated publicly on their merits. Bad moves are out in the public arena and it may be years before they're corrected.

[10:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Why does this happen, particularly in British Columbia? There are two good reasons. Politics in this province is polarized between left and right; the NDP is so strong that there is no room for third and fourth parties in British Columbia. Also our House is small in numbers. Half of our MLAs are either members of cabinet, parliamentary secretaries or officers in this chamber, every one appointed by the Premier, part of an executive and/or owing their position to the executive. Do you know of any other organization in which the executive is so large that it can outvote the organization's entire membership" This is true here in this chamber.

Government is about governing. To govern, a party has to be in power and hold on to power. In unity there is strength. So individual MLAs count for little. Mavericks are barely tolerated on the government side of the House. We don't have a government back bench in the customary sense. It's minuscule as compared to other parliaments, provincial let alone national or international. Here the executive, complete with parliamentary secretaries, etc., outnumbers the government back bench ten to one. In Ottawa it's the reverse; the executive numbers one for every five on the back bench. In Westminster in London, England, it's one executive for every ten on the back bench. Ours, obviously, is an executive dominated chamber, Mr. Speaker; there can be no doubt about that.

What's the answer? How do we go about trimming back the executive, giving the government back bench and opposition MLAs something meaningful to do, opening up the legislative process, reducing confrontation, improving our legislation, and letting the sun shine in?

First, we increase our numbers. This is happening in a modest way after the next general election. We'll grow from 57 MLAs to 69. Still, ours will be one of the smallest legislatures in Canada, the smallest per capita in the nation.

Then we create and use House committees, small, all party reflections of the chamber, numbering perhaps five or seven. They must also be given meaningful tasks to do. Most ministerial estimates should be referred routinely to standing committees of the Legislature. Not only would that save the time of the House, but government back-bench and opposition MLAs could specialize. They could question senior civil servants, question Crown company executives and find out what is going on in B.C. Hydro, ICBC, B.C. Rail and northeast coal, for example.

Then we could have two or three select committees of the House. The government could give them tough policy tasks to do, ask them to make policy recommendations in knotty subject areas like reforestation, tax reform, Indian land claims and child abuse. The government doesn't have to implement these recommendations. It can pick and choose after the event — after the committee has made its recommendations. But the special committee, in each case traveling through the province hearing briefs, can act as a sounding board, become the Legislature's ear to the ground, add immensely to our legislative input, help the executive draft better laws, and improve debate in the chamber as well.

I personally would welcome a cut in the size of the cabinet. It shouldn't occupy more than a quarter of the seats in this House, Mr. Speaker. Parliamentary secretaries: they're pompous appointments anyway, and I'd eliminate them. In their place I would pay chairmen of committees. Elected by committee members, they would have a real job to do. They would direct staff and have a budget. They could

[ Page 8594 ]

make a reputation for themselves screening estimates, smartening up Crown corporations and coming up with policy recommendations in sensitive areas of public concern. A good committee chairman, over the years, can make a reputation for himself or herself, could have a higher profile than some cabinet ministers, do a more important job, involving more people and solving tougher policy problems than some executive council members do today or have an opportunity to do today.

These are steps in the direction of representative government, Mr. Speaker, I contend. More MLAs will be able to speak out on subjects of real concern to their constituents at the grassroots level. The Premier and cabinet will still run the show, but the pressure-cooker which we operate here in this chamber will be less of a force-fed one; more like a parliament, more like a representative chamber, as it should be.

These essentially are my recommendations, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: They're welcome words indeed from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. We frequently get thoughtful debate from that maverick back-bencher, which is a very rare breed indeed on the Social Credit benches. It is a loss to the province of British Columbia that he is not allowed to make a greater contribution to the legislative process. It is a loss to the people of British Columbia that the opposition is not allowed to play a more productive role under your system. But the reality is, under this administration for this last decade, this has essentially been a one man government, and he has taken more power unto himself and delivered that to his bureaucrats.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour referred to Dr. Spector and said we didn't need any more of that. I couldn't agree more. When you have a bureaucrat in the Premier's office who takes on more and more functions because the Premier is busy doing other things, then it's not healthy for the democratic process. It is not healthy at all. When that bureaucrat has a background in eastern Canada, without roots in British Columbia, all of British Columbia is the loser.

Indeed, we've had the Premier of this province remove deputies and put new deputies in when they didn't even know it. In the Lands department a political hack was put in as deputy minister; very upsetting for the rest of the bureaucracy. Extraordinary activities on the part of this Premier.

The committee system, of course, Mr. Member from North Vancouver. Indeed, you see what they do in Quebec. They pay their chairmen and vice-chairmen of committees, and sometimes the chairmen of committees are from the opposition; that is, there's an alternating system in terms of both government and opposition heading up legislative committees. That's most worthwhile.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: We'll debate a little later.

Quebec could give us some lessons as well. Indeed, there should be paid chairmen of committees.

There shouldn't be this one-shot, single-effort system that we have now, where a handful of bureaucrats essentially run the province of British Columbia. I would suggest, Mr. Member, that a good chunk of our unemployment could be attributed to the fact that there isn't full participation; that our Crown corporations do not have fresh air within them. They could be positive engines in driving the provincial economy; instead, it's a backroom decision-making process at every stage of the game. We see that with SkyTrain, in terms of multimillion-dollar problems in that system, but hidden. If we had a full committee system and the participation of legislators, we wouldn't get these mean, miserable surprises that we get too regularly.

But, Mr. Member, this has been your government; ten years of your government. That's the way they operate. Ten years, with a very high price indeed.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I suggest, Mr. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis), because you're not going to be here much longer, these are watershed times. The lame duck Premier knows these are watershed times; that's why he's leaving. The public, not the Social Credit administration, will make the decisions very shortly, in terms of the kind of significant change that is absolutely necessary to get B.C. on track again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour in conclusion.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to surmise what would have happened had the hon. member for Vancouver East been on this side of the House and I'd made this submission from the back bench or from the other side. Committees weren't used much in the period 1972 to 1975. They certainly weren't used to any real effect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has a limited time to speak. Will you all please allow the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to speak.

MR. DAVIS: In capsule form, Mr. Speaker, here again are my recommendations: limit the size of the executive to 25 percent of the MLAs in the House; strike numerous small select and standing committees of the Legislature; do away with parliamentary secretaries and pay chairmen of committees instead; send not all, but most, ministerial estimates to standing committees — a few could be chosen by the opposition for debate in the main chamber, but the rest would go to standing committees; assign several important policy issues at a time to select committees — say Indian land claims, that kind of thing; have a select committee of the House routinely review regulations approved by cabinet; and finally have prospective appointees of government interviewed by all-party committees of the Legislature. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think we should televise at least the question period of these proceedings and allow the media, including the TV cameras, into committee meetings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) not being in the chamber, that now concludes private members' statements under orders of the day.

[ Page 8595 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wonder if I may request the House for leave to introduce a number of guests on behalf of my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey, who is unavoidably absent this morning.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We have joining us in the Legislature — and I'm not too sure if they're in here at the present time — a number of distinguished visitors from the United Kingdom: Mr. R.E. Blair of Abitibi; Mr. R. Bowes, the managing director of the Daily Express in London; Mr. D. Graham of Midland News; Mr. R. Harrison of the Observer; Mr. W. Heeps of Thomson Regional Newspapers; Mr. G. Holbrook of the Yorkshire Post; Mr. R Johnston of Johnston Newspapers in Edinburgh; Mr. J. Marwick of the Guardian; Mr. R. Sheldon, the managing director of News International; Mr. J.D. McCullough, the publisher of the Times-Colonist in Victoria; and Mr. Michael Castling, investment counsellor for MITSI.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

LABOUR VIOLENCE

HON. MR. GARDOM: I know that all members will agree that this is the most beautiful province in Canada, and B.C. people want to keep it that way. There's absolutely no place for the kind of ugly violence our citizens saw yesterday on television. B.C. people believe in abiding by the law. They are law-abiding, and they say, as do we, to those who may be contrary minded, whatever their colour, creed, calling, race, religion or whatever, that violence or criminal acts or terrorism of any form will not be tolerated.

John Q. Public, Jane Q. Public, employers, employees, the police, the total justice system and all elected representatives have that commitment and are all saddled with the responsibility to see that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and will not occasion. If such behaviour does occasion, it will be dealt with according to law, as one would expect in a free and democratic society. Any transgressors or contemplative transgressors have to be told, and they should know, that if they transgress, which is the contrary to the dictate of all law-abiding British Columbians, and if they choose to think that British Columbia is going to become fertile ground for any type of anarchy, they're going to have another think coming.

Lawful dissent, Mr. Speaker, is one thing. Criminal behaviour or any form of anarchy is another, and I am referring specifically to the violence that we saw portrayed on television last night in an incident in the Fraser Valley and also the ones seen on television in Alberta. We don't want to have that happen in our province.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think we all share the minister's concern about violence and about what we saw on television. But there are two sides to the coin. The violence we saw was a reaction to something that government had done. While the minister talks about law-abiding citizens, in passing laws we have to be careful that the laws we pass are acceptable to the community or those laws themselves will provoke the kind of reaction that we saw on television.

Even with speeding laws, unless the public as a whole is prepared to accept the speed limits, then they will simply disobey them totally. If they are at a figure that is generally acceptable, then they will be obeyed in general. The same thing applies with respect to laws governing the conduct of citizens in other ways, including picket lines and reaction to government legislation that a substantial part of the community feels is unfair to a large group of people.

If that happens, then it is on the government's head for having passed the kind of legislation that results in the reaction that we saw on television. It is distressing. None of us want to see that happen here, and if it happens here, it is on the heads of the government that insists on passing the kind of legislation that provokes the kind of reaction we saw on television. It won't happen. It must....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Nobody condones criminal behavior.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, no one condones it, and I started my statement by saying that I agree with that. But I say also that if that happens in the province of British Columbia, it is as a reaction to something the government has done which the government in its wisdom should not have done. I hope it never happens here. It is less likely to happen if this particular party loses the next general election in B.C.

[10:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1986

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), this is an omnibus bill, and according to the custom and practice of the House, is best dealt with in committee.

MR. LAUK: Oh, okay. This is the usual Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and we will be allowed a wider range on each section in committee.

Bill 28, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 35.

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again, this is an omnibus statute. On behalf of my colleague the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch), I move second reading. It is a miscellaneous.

MR. LAUK: I may have something to say about the Cemetery Act, the way I am feeling this morning.

Bill 35, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1986, read a second time and referred to a

[ Page 8596 ]

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1986

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again on behalf of my colleague the Attorney-General, this is once again a miscellaneous bill, with the same latitude to be extended.

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 72: minister's office, $226,849.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As the minister will know, I started my presentation on these estimates yesterday, and a number of my colleagues have spoken. There are a few more left to speak and take part in this debate. I have a few matters to bring to the minister's attention that fall under his jurisdiction, within his portfolio.

First of all, I think I'll start.... I have some other matters as well, but I think I'll start this morning — and I'll try to be as brief as I can, Mr. Chairman — on a very serious issue. Most members of this House, I think, will be aware that the federal government some time ago convened a committee regarding national transportation policy, now called "Freedom To Move." Subsequently that federal committee did in fact bring in a report to the House of Commons in Ottawa. During the course of those committee hearings every province in Canada was asked to submit their views on a revised national transportation policy and deregulation, in the transportation industry. The federal Liberal and New Democratic Parties walked out of that committee, would not accept that federal government majority report, and subsequently issued their own report to the House of Commons in Ottawa, a copy of which I have here. I will not bore you with it. I have a copy of the government report, the opposition minority report and many other statements.

The reason I mention this — and I would like the minister to confirm.... Well, he will — the minister knows because he and I have had correspondence on this matter. The only provincial government in all of Canada that did not participate in those committee hearings was the government of British Columbia. In all fairness to the minister, when I did write to the minister in January of this year, asking why the British Columbia government did not take part, through that ministry, in these very important discussions regarding deregulation of the transportation industry — and I'm going to talk about deregulation in a few minutes — he did respond. In fact, his response was on January 10. He said in his correspondence that the provincial government, through his ministry, did in fact submit a brief to that committee. The minister was good enough to send me a copy of this government's position regarding the "Freedom To Move" hearings and deregulation.

Since that time, of course, I've had the opportunity.... I appreciate, by the way, receiving that report. I guess the point I'm making is that no representatives from the provincial government, as far as I am aware, were sent to that meeting; only, eventually, a provincial government brief — which I don't believe was ever made public, but I'm not quite sure about that. Nonetheless, it was sent through the mails to that committee.

The provincial government's position on this very important matter.... This will eventually, when the legislation is duly brought down by the federal government, affect most citizens right across Canada. I very carefully read the provincial government's position on this very important matter as forwarded to the federal government, and the conclusion I came to — I'm sure the minister will tell me if I'm wrong or if he disagrees — is that this provincial government pretty well agreed with the position of the federal government in terms of the recommendations that were put forward, with four exceptions that I could find. I'm not going to read the document into the record of this House, believe me; nonetheless, if I'm wrong I'm sure the minister will tell me that as well. This is in spite of the fact that a number of provincial governments, the federal Liberal Party and the federal New Democratic Party disagreed quite strenuously with the federal Conservative government position. As I've said, I have a copy of those documents as well.

Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, one of the.... This is primarily for the record, because I'm sure the minister will be aware of some of these items. I should point out, before I continue with this presentation, that the federal government was going to bring in legislation some time in May — there was a date but I don't recall it — which is now past. They have not yet brought in this legislation. I do believe the provincial government still has an opportunity for input into so-called deregulation in the transportation industry.

Mr. Chairman, I want to outline very briefly some of the consequences of deregulation in the transportation industry. Theoretically, deregulation means more freedom, more competition and a better deal for everyone. There is, however, strong evidence that deregulation tends to concentrate an industry after a time, rather than to open it up to more balanced competition. I think I can support this particular position, which is based on research done by the committee in Ottawa particularly and by research done here in Victoria. Since deregulation in the United States, more than 110 towns have lost all or part of their scheduled airline service. We're talking about the total deregulation industry; I want to talk about trucking in a minute. Several U. S. senators have admitted that although they voted for deregulation, they now regret their action.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons the federal Liberal Party and federal NDP opposed the recommendations to the federal government is that the committee did not in any way look at the situation that has occurred in the United States, which was disastrous for many industries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one caution to the member. This debate is quite intriguing, but all that could be allowed during

[ Page 8597 ]

this debate is the provincial minister's actions with respect to this. I know the member is aware of that. Delving into other jurisdictions would not be appropriate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's what we're leading up to. What I'm attempting to do here is put on record and warn this government, through the minister responsible for transportation, that before this province takes part in this type of action, the government should review and re-examine its position, which I have in front of me.

Let's talk about the trucking industry for a second. Since deregulation set in, more than 60 percent of trucking traffic in the United States has been dominated by six major carriers. So much for competition. What happens in that industry is that the large firms will move into an area where small local operators employ people, they will undercut the prices and the rates — this is concrete evidence from the United States experience — as a result of which the small, independent trucking companies from regional carriers are forced out of business, once again assisting in the unemployment situation in an area or a province such as ours.

[11:00]

Once they have got rid of the local competition, then they of course raise their rates higher than the rates were in the first place of the local carriers. That is just one industry.

I've got three pages on airline deregulation here, which I'm not going to read into the record. But just the same, Mr. Chairman, the point I'm making is a broad, overall point. I do believe, without being nasty about it, that this province in fact has not lived up to its obligation to our people here in this province in terms of that very important committee that was established by the federal government dealing with deregulation.

If we had been filibustering these estimates, or something like that, which we're not, I could have spent the next two days just on this one item alone, there's so much material here. I understand that this document to the national transportation policy committee, to the Hon. Dan Mazankowski, is signed by the minister, so I'm sure the minister is aware of this situation. But I just want to be on record as alerting the people of this province and the members of this House to the consequences.

That hon. House Leader over there sounds like a sick seal, Mr. Chairman. You'd better have him looked at.

This is a very serious point. I would strongly suggest that the provincial government review its policy in terms of deregulation of the transportation industry of British Columbia, which also, by the way, extends to railways....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You are damned right. We'll get to the Motor Carrier Commission in due course.

I've sort of made my point on this one particular item, Mr. Chairman; and if I haven't, I'll look forward to the minister's response. If it appears from the minister's response that he doesn't understand what I'm talking about, then we can go through these documents page by page and hour by hour. But I'm quite certain the minister is quite aware of what I'm talking about.

I see the green light is on. I have several more points to make, but perhaps the minister, on this one very important issue that affects almost every person and thousands of small businesses in British Columbia, and carriers, could perhaps respond to this one important question.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I was really enthralled by what the member for Mackenzie was saying, and I would like him to carry on and finish off what he had to say. I was really hoping that the minister would stand up and participate in this very important debate. I was kind of shocked that my senior member of the cabinet over there just sat in his seat.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew for intervening. I'm surprised the minister did not respond. I did say I had other points to make, and perhaps the minister will respond. But I can guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, that these estimates will not go through this House this week, next week or next month until there is a response to this most important question.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Garde, if you would go out and have another cigarette or something, we'd get through the business here much quicker.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, that member for Point Grey used to be such a gentleman.

I want to change the topic and discuss with the minister, while I have this opportunity, the airport assistance program, which falls under that minister's jurisdiction. I notice in the estimate book that the airport transportation assistance vote has gone up approximately $500,000 this year over last. That is fair enough. It's not enough, actually, because I know the minister will be aware of many communities all over the province that require or at least are asking for airport assistance.

Mr. Minister, I know when you get up you are going to tell me about certain projects in my own riding where assistance has been given, and I appreciate that assistance. But this is not what I am talking about. What I am on about is one very specific item which I promised the people of Campbell Island at Bella Bella, a primarily native Indian village of some 1,500 people who feel that they have been dealt with unfairly.

Mr. Chairman, just to give you a bit of background, approximately a mile away from Campbell Island is another island called Denny Island. The approximately 80 to 85 residents on that island started construction of their own airport. Fair enough; I have no quarrel with that. However, that society has received, as far as I am aware — it may be more by now — approximately $800,000 over the last several years under the airport assistance program.

However, in the meantime, the people on Campbell Island, about 1,500 people, decided to construct their own airport as well. They have applied and reapplied; I have made personal representation to the minister and his ministry in regards to giving equal consideration for airport assistance to the people on Campbell Island as he has given to Denny Island. The answer has been not a dime so far. The people on Campbell Island have constructed and are currently using the airport on their side. The airport where the population are

[ Page 8598 ]

located is now being generally used by the commercial airlines without one single dime of assistance from this government that I am aware of, unless they have been given a grant within the last two or three months. I doubt it, because the response I have received from the minister tells me that no moneys are available for that. Here is the correspondence from the minister, dated February 14, 1986. The financial assistance is not available for the people on the Campbell Island side, while the Denny Island side had a further grant of some $380,000.

So I wonder if the minister could respond and tell us why the favouritism for one small group of people.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am not opposed to that; that's fine. But I am opposed to the favouritism. Why not one single dime for the 1,500 people on the Campbell Island side?

Mr. Chairman, these estimates would not be complete unless we at least briefly discussed the B.C. Ferry Corporation, which comes under that ministry's jurisdiction. I find it very difficult to discuss scheduling, at least for this summer while Expo is on. I will try to be a little balanced and fair — not all the time. The fact is that we have an excellent summer schedule this year for the coast of British Columbia.

My question is, if the B.C. Ferry Corporation can put on this kind of schedule while Expo is on, and the outlying areas generally have so far not received any benefit at all from Expo.... They may eventually, but they haven't. I know what the figures are. The Ferry Corporation people are quite good; if I ask for the traffic figures, I usually receive them. So I know what the traffic is. It is up a bit in some areas, down a little bit in others. But what I am suggesting to the minister is that if we can have a schedule like this for Expo year, particularly the spring-summer-fall schedule, then why can't we have that type of schedule every year?

Perhaps it's not quite so noticeable on routes 1 and 2, but we certainly need improvements in route 2 — the overloads there will hopefully be alleviated with the extra scheduling this summer, But once we start getting up the coast, these smaller communities — not really small, but I'm talking about places like Campbell River, Courtenay, Port Hardy, and on and on — rely very heavily all year around.... Their economies rely very heavily on the ferry and transportation services into those communities. They are in effect rather isolated without that transportation service. So what I'm suggesting to you is that if we can have this kind of scheduling for one summer — spring-summer-fall — for Expo year, then let's look at keeping that type of schedule in place every year.

I'd like to, as well, suggest to the minister something that I know the general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be very much aware of, and the minister too, in all likelihood, because this idea has been kicking around for some years. But now that the saltwater fleet of the Highways ferries has in fact become part of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, I see no reason why the Ferry Corporation could not initiate a circle tour from, say.... Let's start with the lower mainland, up the Sunshine Coast, across Powell River to Courtenay, Little River, down the Island to Departure Bay or Victoria, and then back to Vancouver, which is usually the starting point for most tourists and most people.

And reduce the fares. When you consider it's approximately $20 — $19.50 — for a car and driver.... You get on the ferry at Horseshoe Bay to Langdale; further, the same costs from Powell River to Little River; the same costs from Departure Bay again. You're looking at $60 for a car and driver fare. Three separate fares have to be paid.

So what I'm suggesting to you, to facilitate particularly the tourist trade for those areas — Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast, Powell River and even the lower mainland — is: why not give people the opportunity to buy one ticket at half price, or two-thirds the fare, at Langdale, for example, or at Horseshoe Bay, and allow them to make that circle tour, with their destination ultimately being back to the lower mainland? I use the lower mainland because, as I said, that's the starting point for most people.

So I would appreciate it if the minister would look at that, I know the idea has been kicking around for some years. I remember Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Baldwin of the B.C. Ferry Corporation discussing this matter some time ago with people on the Sunshine Coast, but it was never initiated. Now would be a good time, now that the B.C. Ferry Corporation has taken charge of the 15 saltwater ferries here on the coast which now fall under your jurisdiction. There's no reason why such a plan could not be implemented.

Before I take my place, I have one last item, which I discussed in my presentation. It's not a small matter, but I'm going to keep my remarks short on this because I spoke about it already. The problem was that at that time I didn't have my file with me. I still seem not to have it here. No, I do — somewhere. I'll find it here in a sec.

I want to forward to the minister some photographs that I took regarding the nuclear free-zone area on the Sunshine Coast. I don't want to go through the whole story again, but I pointed out to the minister two days ago when these estimates started that every other type of sign that you could possibly imagine appears along the highways and byways of the area. Yet by referendum the people of that area voted by an overwhelming majority that the Sunshine Coast become a nuclear-free zone....

[11:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: Like you advertise pubs.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right. And when the regional board put up a sign, just as you leave the ferry at Langdale — a small sign, which said: "Welcome to the Sunshine Coast; this is a Nuclear-Free Zone" — the Ministry of Highways ordered that that sign be torn down. That happened on three separate occasions. They finally found a piece of private property, and the sign is in place anyway. But just for the benefit of the minister, one of the local regional board directors sent me these photographs — which the ministry can keep — which substantiate my argument. In photograph No. 1 — this is as you leave the ferry at Langdale — you will see a huge sign advertising anything you can possibly imagine: hotels, motels, restaurants and shopping centres. That's fair enough. But the nuclear-free-zone sign, which was just to the left of this huge Sunshine Coast business advertising sign, was torn down by the Ministry of Highways. What this sign has to do with the driving task is beyond me. Here's the picture. There are some more — you can have the rest.

I see the green light is on again, Mr. Chairman, so I will take my place and hopefully receive a response from the minister.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 8599 ]

MR. MITCHELL: I'm standing here in a bit of shock, you know. We have the senior member of the cabinet, who has been asked a number of serious questions.... The Denny Island airstrip does stink of political patronage, and the minister will not get up and make some honest, open statements on that particular situation. I've had people come into my constituency office and tell me of the problem of Denny Island, of some of the background to what took place up there, and of the money this government poured into that particular area for political favouritism. The minister won't get up here and give some kind of an explanation of why he is treating 85 people one way and 1,500 people another. I think the minister owes this House and the member for that riding an answer of some type — not only that member but also all the people of British Columbia.

HON. A. FRASER: The reason I didn't get up is to allow other members of this Legislature to make their points, and then I'll answer them all.

With reference to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talking about Denny Island airport, you amaze me — you don't even know where Denny Island is, let alone the airport.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hope the minister doesn't lose his cool. I do have a few more questions I want on the record. Now that the minister has explained that he is keeping track of these questions and will answer in due course, I feet a lot better. I would have hated to have had to spend the next week on these estimates. I do have a few more questions for the minister and I will put them forward now.

HON. A. FRASER: Hurry up — it'll be '87 pretty soon.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What's the rush? I know that that minister is anxious to get out and take part in the leadership race for the Social Credit Party, to keep those city slickers out of office, as he stated publicly the other day. But every member of this House has a duty, not only to their constituents but also to the people of this province, to bring forward the concerns of the people of this province, and that's exactly what we intend to do on this side of the House, whether it takes a month, a day or whatever.

A few brief questions to the minister — unrelated, but I want these matters on record. I raised this in question period the other day, and no answer was given. The question went to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), and he didn't seem to know the answer. I'm presuming, since this program comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transportation as well, that he can tell us, once and for all, if the Counterattack program in this province has been temporarily suspended or not. That's a simple, straightforward question. My information is that for reasons outlined — which we've gone through in this House before — it has in fact been temporarily suspended. So perhaps the minister could answer that question as well.

I received a call from the constituency of Atlin, from an area in that huge riding that I am unfamiliar with — I'm not unfamiliar with the constituency but with this particular area. I promised this person who was concerned about this item that I would pose this question to you as late as late yesterday afternoon. So I'll pose this question to you, and perhaps the minister or his people will know the answer. Is the minister aware that the people of Alice Arm, Atlin district, are virtually cut off from the outside world? For eight months out of the year there is no road in or out of Alice Arm. That's the information I received by telephone. Before the Amax mine closed down in 1983, Amax and the provincial government kept the road open year round. Now it is open just in the summer. So I'm wondering if the minister is familiar with that particular situation. The remaining residents in the area are extremely concerned about that matter, and I'd like to be able to phone those people back with your response.

Last but not least, I thought we had completed talking about toll highways the other day, but research has come up with some newspaper articles. This is the Victoria Times of September 2, 1966, quoting the former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett. In this article, which the minister can have a copy of if he wishes, the former Social Credit Premier of this province, on removing the last of the tolls on a bridge, said we would never see tolls, toll highways or toll bridges in this province again. I would have raised this during our debate on the Coquihalla tolls the other day if I'd had this information. I just want to quote to you the former Social Credit Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. He made the promise to the people of this province that we would never, ever see a toll highway in this province again. And what have we got on the Coquihalla Highway? A toll. There we go.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, hopefully a few of my colleagues have a few words to add to this debate, and I look forward to the minister's response.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wouldn't want to hold the minister back, Mr. Chairman, in his response to the member for Mackenzie. Yesterday I asked the minister if he had projections for the third link of the Coquihalla route to Peachland. I wonder if he could advise the House whether there are projections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 72 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: No? The minister doesn't have projections for the road? How do you carry out cost-benefit studies and...? I mean if nobody was going to use the road.... Who would want to go to Kelowna anyway? But I guess there are a few. There might be many who would want to leave. But maybe the minister could tell us roughly the projections for the numbers in terms of that link from Merritt to Peachland and Kelowna.

HON. A. FRASER: I don't know where to start, but I'll deal with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). Of course, Mr. Chairman, he's insulted the committee. I'm going to give him the answer and he insults the committee. However, someday he'll read it.

Dealing with "The Freedom to Move, " or the national transportation policy, which he talked about, we've had all kinds of input, meeting of the officials, statement of positions.... I was actually chairman of the ministers across Canada to deal with it, so don't give us the guff or imply that we haven't had something to do with it. I was the chairman of all the provincial ministers who dealt with the federal ministers, and there are two of them — the Minister of Transport himself and the Minister of State for Transport. Although the Minister of State for Transport changes occasionally in Ottawa, we've dealt with them all at the ministerial level and

[ Page 8600 ]

everything — meetings in Ottawa. I'm aware that their legislation is supposed to come in in July '86. That's Ottawa's promise. I expect to actually see it in about July 1988 and then it will be debated for five years before it's ever resolved. So don't get all stampeded about Ottawa policies. They haven't instituted laws they passed down there seven years ago.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's like conflict of interest here in B.C.

HON. A. FRASER: Right.

The last meeting I had on the national level was with the federal Minister of Transport on May 3, 1986, in Vancouver. I'd like to know this: our governments say we're in favour of deregulation to a point, but the member for Mackenzie never said what your party is in favour of. He waffled all over the barn. I'd like to know where that party stands on deregulation; instead of rolling up and down and around on a greased pole on everything, why don't you take a position? He's all upset about the nuclear-free zone signs that we knocked down three times. I say here to the committee that if they put them up five more times they'll be knocked down eight times, not three. It has nothing to do with helping the driver, and we've got enough proliferation of signs as it is.

He asked about the Counterattack program, and my answer is that it has nothing to do with this ministry; it's under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. But I can say, on behalf of the government, that it's a good program. I assume it's carrying on.

He asked about the Alice Arm road to Kitsault. I've been there. There are very few people at Alice Arm and Kitsault. We have an arrangement with the company. If they want help, we'll plough their road, and we haven't had any requests. That's where that stands. We've had no requests, as a matter of fact, from that company for two years now.

[11:30]

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: That's a company road; it's not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways.

Now I want that great, informed member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to listen with bated breath, because I'm going to talk about Denny Island. You don't even know where the island is, let alone anything to do with the airport. A decision was made years ago by professional people that we would build an airport at Denny Island. A study was made by Transport Canada as well as by our people. For the information of the committee, we made the first grant in 1981 under the finest little program that we have in this ministry, the airport assistance program. We have already completed about 35 airports in British Columbia under this program, instituted by this government in 1977, and I'm very happy to see commercial air service coming to places which have never had it, like Salmon Arm in the last ten days. They were able to do it because they've got a place to land.

Regarding Denny Island and the decision to build the airport there, if you asked any people in the air business, they all wanted some location on the central coast because they didn't have one. They were concerned about mechanical failure of aircraft and that there was no place to come down between the Queen Charlotte Islands and Port Hardy. They were all pushing and that decision was made. Yes, we gave the Denny Island Airport Society money.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of money.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, I think we're in there $700,000 or $800,000, and we're going in a lot more, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Campbell Island?

HON. A. FRASER: Just a minute; let's explain one side of it. All we have on Denny Island with the money we spent is a gravel strip. We've got to finish it, we've got to pave it, and we're going to do that this year or next to complete it so that we have a safe strip.

Dealing with Campbell Island, they came along later and wanted help. A policy matter was that we're not building two airports within 20 miles of each other. We can't afford that kind of nonsense. So what they did — and more power to them — was go ahead on their own with a real pile, a real bundle, of federal money. That's the whole issue right there. There isn't any, as the member over there.... I'm not ashamed. We've nothing to cover up whatsoever. Some day, Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, leave that little postage-stamp riding and get out and see all of British Columbia; you might be better informed when you get in here.

They wanted answers. I'm giving them answers. I believe in the democratic process. I think that answers most of the questions. I wish you'd now get up some more.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I won't take up much time of the committee, but I just wanted to very quickly make two or three major points.

In terms of the nuclear-free zone question, I was shocked and dismayed at the minister's answer that if that regional board puts it up five times they'll tear it down eight times. It's shocking. Obviously that government is in favour of nuclear weapons and nuclear storage and nuclear whatever. I'm shocked.

Campbell Island. Yes, I admit, and I'm aware, and I can give you a figure of how much federal money went into that airport. But I want the minister to know, in spite of what he said about the airlines wanting the airport on the Denny Island side, that most of the commercial airlines are currently utilizing the airport on the Campbell Island side, not the Denny Island side, in spite of the fact.... Due to the unfairness of the way these funds are allocated, they haven't received a single dime of provincial money for that particular facility.

However, why I really got up to speak again was that I heard the minister's remarks, although I was busy outside of these doors for a couple of minutes.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no. I heard you very clearly. You made a very serious allegation. On opening my remarks in regard to deregulation, I have all the documents, I think, that were ever produced on this extremely important topic. I told you that I had these documents and that there wasn't a New Democratic Party position; you said there was not. I purposely refrained from reading that position into the record — this document, our position and our party, some 42 pages long. If you'll accept the fact that this is the New Democratic Party position, under a New Democratic Party heading, I will give you this complimentary copy. I'll send it to you.

[ Page 8601 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it out!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I could read it out in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it out!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll send it over to you. It's a very clear position and argument produced by our party, with provincial and federal consultation. This is our party's position. If the minister wants me to read it out — 42 pages of our position — I'll be pleased to do so, but in the interests of time and other factors in this House I will present the minister with this complimentary copy.

MR. WILLIAMS: Forty-two pages. The minister in his response didn't give us the projected numbers for Merritt-Peachland, Merritt-Kelowna. Are there numbers? Oh, sorry.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), I think his question is that he wants projections of traffic on what we call phase 3, which is Peachland-Merritt. We project 4,000 vehicles per day. It will reduce the travel distance Vancouver to Peachland by 62 kilometres and save an hour and a half in travel. When it's all in place, it will be about a four-hour trip from Vancouver to Peachland.

While I'm on my feet, I want to share with the committee some information that the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked about B.C. Ferries and their schedules and so on. Thank you for your compliments on the increased service. You should have it in the future. But I would like the committee to know that B.C. Ferries have 400 extra people at work on the ferries at an extra cost of operation of about $7 million a year.

But believe me, Mr. Chairman, it is really paying off. I am happy to tell the committee that in the month of May, 1986 traffic was up 10 percent on vehicles and, get this, 20 percent on passengers. We attribute that to Expo.

The last comment I have is that when you mention circle tours, Mr. Member, as far as I can analyze the schedule and so on, Highways and B.C. Ferries, that is exactly what they are doing all the time — going in a circle. That is, there is a circular tour really in effect — Vancouver Island, Sunshine Coast. It's always there. It's in our scheduling now.

MR. WILLIAMS: I guess what intrigues me is what we are doing with this highway system of ours now. What intrigues me is what it is doing in fostering growth in urban areas and the growth of cities in British Columbia. It does strike me that clearly what is happening now in terms of the decisions that have been made in regard to timing of highway improvements is that we basically will have a Trans-Canada Highway going via Kelowna, not Kamloops. That's what we are really ending up with in British Columbia; we basically have a Trans-Canada Highway that bypasses Kamloops.

So we should rename this route the Kamloops bypass. Maybe we could rename it the Penticton bypass, and I will be happy to go and give speeches in Kamloops naming this Peachland-Merritt route as the Kamloops bypass highway in the name of the former Premier, William Bennett.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, but the bloodbath next Tuesday in Kamloops sure will. The bloodbath that is coming up will take care of Kamloops for us.

This highway is freeway standard highway. Where are the improvements taking place now? You get improvements in that Malakwa area; you’ve let contracts there. You've got the other political way, Don Campbell out of Vernon. You've got a significant upgrading there. Is that four lanes in the Vernon area coming up? I saw that, I guess, just a few months ago, and the improvements continue. But they don't continue between Kamloops and Salmon Arm, the missing link indeed.

The member from Shuswap should be concerned. We have found the missing link. There is no four-lane road being built between Salmon Arm and Kamloops. So our new Trans-Canada Highway system is bypassing Salmon Arm. It is bypassing Kamloops. It is bypassing Penticton. All of this just to save the Premier's home riding with two seats. I don't understand that arithmetic very well. I don't understand that Social Credit arithmetic. The member for Cariboo certainly gets troubled with that kind of arithmetic.

So you've got two seats in trouble in Kamloops. You've got two seats in trouble in Penticton. You've got a seat in trouble in Salmon Arm: that goes without saying. I wonder why you wouldn't have just let your highways engineers do what they wanted to do in the first place. If you were just looking at the question of a good highway location in terms of the existing routing and the opportunities, then you wouldn't have built it to any of those places, would you? The engineers can just nod their heads.

The easiest route and the most direct route for a cross provincial system would have been from Merritt through Douglas Lake, Westwold, Falkland, Salmon Arm, the Salmon River access. What would that have done? That would have made....

[11:45]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ha! You tell it to your friends in Salmon Arm on the main street. Oh no, what you've done is some political work here. This isn't highway building. This is political work, and it is focusing on Kelowna. Kelowna is a town that has had a Premier representing it for many, many years, and if you check the community growth rates of Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton and Kamloops, you'll find that the highest growth rate by far in the central interior is in Kelowna. That's no accident. You check college enrolment rates — Kelowna. Now you're doing it with the highway system: you're feeding into Kelowna. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — a former native of Kamloops, if my memory serves me correctly — is, I am sure, equally concerned. Kamloops has had the naturally dominant position in the south central interior of British Columbia for decades — for the century. It has the natural advantages of the two river systems joining together. Historically it has been an important transportation distribution centre. What we're seeing now is reorientation to Kelowna in terms of the dominant central southern interior location. There's no question about that. So you're ignoring the geography, you're ignoring the history, and you're limiting the future potential of Kamloops by this decision — make no bones about it.

Salmon Arm is the loser, because they're going to get bypassed with those improvements in Malakwa, Sicamous and down through Vernon into the Okanagan. That's not

[ Page 8602 ]

going to send the tourists through your home town, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You may do that improving in the downtown area and get your four lanes in the municipality, but it isn't going to mean much compared to the whole system that's underway.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: There was a 2 percent difference last time, and that just went some time back.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

At any rate, the pattern is very clear. A freeway is being built from Vancouver to Kelowna to Rogers Pass. The focus will be on the Okanagan, not on Kamloops, the historic centre. I'd love to have this debate in Kamloops with the minister. I'd love to have the debate in Salmon Arm with him. I'd love to have the debate in Penticton. What you've built is the biggest bypass we've ever seen in British Columbia. You're bypassing all these communities. It's going to be wonderful, come the next election, to go around to those communities and talk about how Kelowna has won again and how those communities and their potential are now limited because of the decisions made by this Minister of Highways '

Kelowna is going to be the real city-slicker place of British Columbia. This minister says he's against city slickers. Well, they all come from Kelowna these days, and he should know better. I've got a lot of faith in this minister. I think he has got lots of political moxie, and it's a delight to deal with him here in the House and in private. He is one of the great pols of this province, and I think we would all like to acknowledge that. We enjoy his presence and his contribution, but I'm really surprised that an old pro like this would get taken in by them Kelowna city slickers, and that's exactly what has happened.

There has been a little bit of change here in the last month or so, Mr. Chairman. I've noticed that each of you is getting a little bit more independent. You know, when the cat's away.... I was expecting that this kind of independent spirited man from the Cariboo would be a little more independent and say: "Phase 3, no way. We're not going to build that bypass that's going to kill the town of Penticton. We don't want to build that bypass that will kill Kamloops. We don't want to build that bypass that'll kill Salmon Arm." Just be your old independent self and say: "That's it, them Kelowna city slickers don't have me on board any more."

HON. A. FRASER: That was a really good dissertation we had from the member for Vancouver East, and I don't refer to you, sir, as a city slicker.

Dealing with the highway situation, now and in the future.... But now I want to clear up a few points, because I'm afraid that somebody might listen to what the member said.

Dealing with bypassing Kamloops, you know, that's what you and the member for North Okanagan (Mr. MacWilliam) are advocating. You're advocating bypassing Kamloops, because the member for North Okanagan got up here yesterday and said it should be built from Merritt to Armstrong. We're building it from Merritt to Peachland.

MR. MacWILLIAM: No, I didn't say that,

HON. A. FRASER: Oh yes, you did. It's right in Hansard. And your colleague here from Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) fell into the trap you made for him just now, ten minutes ago. That's exactly what you advocated, and that's what I'll be saying a week today, Mr. Member for North Okanagan, in the great city of Vernon.

However, that phase 3 is no Kamloops bypass. What we have to talk about is what we're actually doing and is decided, and we're doing it, which is more than the NDP ever did, They couldn't do any roadwork when they were government because they said we were a blacktop government, so they let all the blacktop go to pot-holes. At least we are doing something.

And talking about phase 2, Merritt to Kamloops, that will be all in place by freeze-up 1987. The contracts are all awarded — I said that yesterday — except the paving. How you infer that Kamloops is being bypassed by the TransCanada is more than I can understand, because that hooks up with the Trans-Canada at Afton Mines, and then we're six-laning, not four-laning, the Trans-Canada on both sides of Kamloops. So I don't know how you ever twist it around to say we're bypassing Kamloops.

Now dealing with phase 3, Peachland to Merritt, the decision was made to service the Okanagan, yes, and Penticton, Kelowna, Vernon. And it will. It will shorten the distance from all of them to the coast, and if they don't like paying tolls, they'll have a toll-free road that they can go on, which is the Hope-Princeton. But that is a large population area.

Furthermore, yes, we are four-laning — and we're over half complete — four-laning the road in the Okanagan Valley from Vernon down to Penticton. This member has a good knowledge of the province. He's not like the member from Esquimalt. To infer that we're hurting Penticton — we're helping Penticton. It's only 20 miles from Penticton to Peachland when they can get on phase 3; and as I say, if they don't like that, they can go the Hope-Princeton, which we're keeping up to date at all times.

So I guess the government can be faulted for doing something about the highways system in British Columbia, and I like that kind of fault; but don't fault us and say that we're bypassing this community or that community, because in fact that's not taking place.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm not quite sure, Mr. Chairman, just what was said before I walked into the House, but I did catch the tail end of it, and I just want to clarify for the minister's direction, as well as for the direction of the House, that the comments that I made yesterday were based upon the assumption of a fait accompli. I think the minister well knows that my suggestion with regard to the west side corridor of phase 3 — I guess that can be considered as part of phase 3; but with the west side corridor going up from Kelowna along the west side of Okanagan Lake to just outside of Vernon — because we already have four-laning in progress on the east side of the lake.... I question the wisdom of putting another four-lane highway in. The minister has confirmed that they're having considerable trouble with the terrain

[ Page 8603 ]

along that area, and it sounds like four-laning along that area is going to be very costly.

I question the wisdom as to why we are building a four-lane section along the west side when we're already building a beautiful four-lane section along the east side, which is already in progress. The suggestions I made, as the minister knows full well.... The minister knows better than to try to twist the words that were taken so very clearly yesterday, If you're going to build that section of road, Mr. Minister, why didn't you look at the other option, which was going straight from Merritt across the Douglas Lakes, exiting in the intersection between Armstrong and Vernon? That's where the present west-side corridor comes out. All you'd have to do is take that piece of road and move it over directly from Merritt to Vernon. Why should people have to come all the way down in through Kelowna into the Premier's home town, and then all the way back up north, when it could be much shorter to come straight across?

So my comments were that if you're going to do it, why are you making it such a political highway? Why not use what is the obvious route to take, and that is the most direct route with the simplest terrain, which my colleague has already pointed out. The minister knows full well that my remarks were made in the interests of reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer, reducing the overall time spent, or finding the most adequate route, the most direct route, for the traveling public.

I know that the minister wouldn't take my remarks out of context, but I just wanted to make sure that I clarified them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there a name established yet, Mr. Chairman, for this route? I mean, you're giving names to these new chunks of highways. I suggest that it be called the Bud Smith memorial route — the new one between Merritt and the Okanagan.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The name? It's terrible. It's going to get better, though, in a few months.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point again in the House. It's something that the minister and I have corresponded on. That is the situation of some of these small cable ferries in the province, and notably two of them in my riding, that serve isolated communities to which there is no other means of transportation.

I have tried to urge upon the minister that everyone hopes there is not a work stoppage. Everyone hopes that government and the B.C. Government Employees' Union will succeed in their collective bargaining. But in the event that they don't, it has been made quite clear to me that if the government requests that those ferries.... The Glade ferry and the Harrop ferry and other ferries, I am sure, in some other parts of the province where the people are absolutely isolated.... It is like a dead-end kind of route, and there is no other option for getting out other than to take a rowboat, sometimes very dangerously at night, and run up over top of logs and high-centre on them and flip over.

[12:00]

The minister answered my letter, and I thank him for his answer. It was a little bit of a budge, but while we can talk about this on the record in the House, in the event of a work stoppage, will the government request that those ferries be considered essential, not under the Essential Service Disputes Act, but simply under the terms of the collective agreement that provide for continuance of work in hospitals, in hospital laundries, in the prisons, and so on and so forth? Would the ministry make that request in that event?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I really enjoyed listening to the minister talk about Denny Island. I have quite an interesting file on it, and I will say, as the minister said, that the particular airport is not paved yet. But I have to give the operators and the contractors in there, and especially the bulldozer operator who did the levelling on that particular field.... It is one of the nicest ways of moving the gravel and the blasted rock around to get a perfect airfield.

I won't go into Denny Island, though I would like to. But I will go into something that is really important that the minister hit on. That was the lack of input from the people who live in that area. We on this side of the House have been literally pleading with this government: instead of listening to the backroom boys and the bureaucrats, sit down with the regional people and study the particular problem you have, and listen. That's all I'm asking this minister and the government. Unless we get down to some regional input, we will not have the jobs needed in this province.

The minister supported us. I don't think he intended to support us, but he supported us by saying that they listen to some operators, and they listen to some of their political friends and somebody who had a particular fishing camp and they picked a site. But they didn't do what was important: listen to the citizens who live in that general area and are going to use that airport. You talk about federal money. It's taxpayers' money whether it comes through the federal government or when $800,000 comes out of his ministry budget. All we're asking is that the total amount of taxpayers' dollars be spent in the best place with the best input from those who are going to be affected.

The trouble with this government is that it seems to have knee-jerk reactions. Yesterday the minister kind of reacted when we were discussing the loss of the motor vehicle testing stations in this province. I know when we had one of the few parliamentary committees set up by this present administration, when we had a parliamentary committee that was studying the closing down of the testing stations, because of the input coming into that committee it was going to show that the cutting down of that particular testing station program was a great mistake. Not only did it lose 120 jobs. I know the minister said at $5 a test it would not pay for itself.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. MITCHELL: All right, I don't care if it had been $10; it would have continued to keep those 100-odd jobs in the testing stations. It would have been self-supporting. That's jobs. You look not only at the jobs created within the testing station. It created a spinoff effect out in the private service stations which were required to maintain and bring up to standard the cars that failed in the testing station. And that created jobs.

When you go through it, place by place, you have to build employment. You have to create jobs within your local community. This is something this government has failed to recognize. They've failed to recognize it because it doesn't

[ Page 8604 ]

look spectacular on their TV programs. That's the problem. We run from what looks good on TV and in large figures, but we're not looking and listening to those who are involved in the local areas.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) talked about the need to return to the parliamentary committee system. This is the type of information that a parliamentary committee would have heard. This is the type of information that those who were going to present briefs to that committee were going to point out. The minister and the government knew that when the facts came out, their off-the cuff decision to wipe out testing stations would have been shown to be a bad move. It's better to have that bad move pointed out early than to let it fester and fester to the point we had yesterday — the minister's flippant remark that he was going to have policemen.... Instead of controlling traffic and ticketing speeders, they were going to be out testing cars. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, policemen are trained to do traffic control, criminal investigations, crowd control and public services. But nowhere do you find that you have to have the sophistication and training and.... It's not given in your academy or in your job description to do the sophisticated testing that the modern-day cars need. Fine, 40 years ago we had a Motor Vehicle Act and the cars were very plain and very simple. All the mechanical and electrical and hydraulic types were not there. It was very simple for a policeman to go around a car and pump the brakes and do a few tests. But that part of the Motor Vehicle Act, because they need a specialization, is why we had the involving of testing stations. Testing stations were not created at some political whim. They were created because there was a need.

The minister and the government are not listening to people. They're not listening to those who are involved in the problems. The minister says we will not have tickets given out for speeding at 6 o'clock or 6:30 in the morning; we're going to have the policemen out doing testing. I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, the one thing that kills more than anything in this province is speed. The first fatality I ever attended was at 6 o'clock in the morning, when there wasn't a lot of traffic on the road. That was in my beginning days in police work. The majority of deaths are not when traffic is heavy; it's in the early mornings or late evenings.

HON. MR. KEMPF: How many are caused by defective vehicles?

MR. MITCHELL: A lot more than show. If you say 1 percent could be saved by a self-supporting program....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: The facts of life are that the committee knows and the government knows that their program of wiping out testing stations was wrong.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) and the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) will not interrupt. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues uninterrupted.

MR. MITCHELL: The trouble is, when they have a weak case they have to shout a bunch of nonsense. This is what the member for Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) was saying earlier on: we've got to get some dignity, some input, some thoughtful discussion and facts. Until we have that attitude on Highways, Parks and all the other ministries, we will not have good government. We don't have good government in this particular government because they are working on a political basis, not on real facts and real information.

When the government decided to wipe out testing stations, they did an injustice to the working people, to the industry as a whole and to the safety of the taxis.

There's one other thing I'd like to go on to, Mr. Minister. I know my time will be running out. I'm hoping he's going to get up and give us some clear answers. We've heard all the four-lane and six-lane highways that are going to take place up in the interior, but when you read the statistics put out by both motor vehicle and the police, one of the most serious highways on Vancouver Island, because of the volume of traffic, is the narrow Trans-Canada Highway that runs from View Royal through Langford to the Malahat.

That area has to be at least four laned. There are 40,000 people living in that Western Community today. Not only is it a through highway, but it carries a lot of the traffic that goes out to the Western Community. It's nice to say we're going to build all these super highways somewhere else, but this is the entrance to the capital city of British Columbia. That highway has to be improved; it has to be widened and brought up to a standard. You can talk all you want about your super TV specials, but people are being killed because that highway is too narrow. Don't listen to the MLA for that area. Listen to the regional director; listen to the police; and listen to your own engineers, who know the facts.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: I am not on record as being opposed....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister will come to order.

MR. MITCHELL: I find that minister.... He's getting senile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! No, no, no, no. That's a mild personal reflection, but please withdraw.

MR. MITCHELL: He says I'm on record as doing something when I wasn't even here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I said please withdraw.

MR. MITCHELL: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

The minister might find it easier in debate to be recognized and use his microphone, as opposed to just yelling. The member continues.

MR. MITCHELL: I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, that the planning of that particular highway extension was put in place

[ Page 8605 ]

by the NDP government in 1975, and if you like I can show you a pamphlet that I used campaigning in 1975 for that piece of highway. I assured the people that that piece, once it got into View Royal, would go right through to the Malahat.

[12:15]

But for some unknown reason, they decided to elect the Socreds, and they got as far as the NDP had planned it and they quit. That Minister of Highways has not listened to the people who have been giving him good advice.

I see my light is green. Before I go into another subject, I would like the minister to stand up and give us some assurance of some schedule for when we are going to get that particular piece of highway four-laned or six-laned so it will take in safety the volume of traffic going through it today.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to reply to most of that member's remarks, because I replied to all of them yesterday, and I know the member wasn't here. I suggest he read Hansard and get my answers. But regarding the last issue that is in his riding, I am advised by our senior engineers that that section of road from Thetis to the Malahat has a really heavy traffic count, and I would just say we'll have them get onto engineering it. I understand that has not been done. I don't know what the problems are regarding property acquisition and right-of-way, but it sounds to me like it is a bit of a bottleneck, and I know the piece of road. We will get try to get something done about it.

MR. MITCHELL: It has taken me seven years to get....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The minister continues.

HON. A. FRASER: Excuse me, I would like to reply to the member for Nelson-Creston with his rightful concern about particularly the Glade and Harrop ferries. There is no alternate — what you said is correct — for transportation. In view of a work stoppage, it would be bad. I would just tell the committee that that's a high-priority item in our negotiations with the BCGEU at the present time. The last time we had the difficulty, basic service was provided. They were very cooperative. To be quite frank, I don't think there is going to be a problem, because the BCGEU seems to agree that this should be of high priority.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister that they are looking at it. I am glad after seven years they realize it. The interesting part, when he talks about property acquisition — I happen to be going back in 1952 when Mr. Gaglardi was the Minister of Highways — is that I sat on the committee that planned that particular highway when they bypassed the Langford-Colwood-View Royal, and at that time they brought in a policy of a green belt so there wouldn't be a strip development along it. There have been some small incursions into it; I believe the engineers on the last one at Spencer Road have taken sufficient land and required a setback for the one building that was put in there. But the land acquisition for that area is excellent. It is not quite as vacant as some of the areas up in the interior, but for a highway in the city or close to the city, land acquisition is not a really disruptive problem.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: They might need a few overpasses, as my colleague says, but as far as the strip development along that area, it is not there.

One other particular road again brings back what I was saying earlier about the need for a regional concept in regional development — I have said it under the Parks ministry, and I am going to say it under the Tourist ministry, and I am going to say it under the Highways ministry, because you are the one who is keeping your fist on it — and that is to develop the west coast road into Port Renfrew, finish paving it, instead of having what we have had for the last ten or 15 years, one of the worst little bottlenecks for seven miles of unpaved road down among the gravel. That piece of highway must be improved. It must be brought up to some kind of standard.

The second phase of that has to be to continue a public highway from Port Renfrew into the Cowichan Lake area. At the present time it's a forest road. It doesn't come under the Highways ministry and is not maintained for general highway traffic. In that particular area we have Botanical Beach Provincial Park, which is a destination point for many tourists who travel there. It's an area that was set aside under the old Social Credit government, but it's no good when it's landlocked out on the end of a dead-end road that scares people when they get halfway in. We can develop a circle route. If you sit down and listen to some of the local input, and take the region into consideration, you will develop one of the top salmon-fishing areas of this coast. You have Port Renfrew right on the end of the Juan de Fuca Strait, right below the blue line where all the salmon going up to the Fraser River and the Cowichan come in. That is a potential tourist mecca. All we need is cooperation from the Highways ministry to open that up, and then you're going to create not only small jobs, such as bed-and-breakfast ones, but also larger jobs, such as tourist charter fishing and motel development. It's all been sitting there for the last ten years. Nothing seems to come out of the ministry. They just seem to kind of look at it as some kind of NDP stronghold. You're making it one because you keep ignoring it. If you want to ever win it back, at least give the same type of input that you give to the interior seats.

One other piece of highway that I keep bringing up is the road into Willis Point. It's a subdivision. As the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) will tell you, there are millions of dollars there in homes. But we still have a bottleneck that this ministry continues to allow to take place where a piece of that highway goes through Heal's military range. It's shut off 20 minutes out of every half hour. You can drive through it for 20 minutes an hour. This is a large subdivision only four or five miles out of Victoria. We thought we were going to have a larger subdivision in there when Murray Pezim was going to build his large hotel and golf course. He assured the local people that he had a guarantee from this government that if that particular subdivision went through, they would put the highway into it. I don't know if this minister had given him that guarantee, but that was said at a public meeting. At that time I remember saying, well, it took me nine months to get a white line down the road; if he can get the guarantee to put the road in there.... It's needed. It's a subdivision.

To say that the original subdivision was given as a recreation area with water access is a cop-out, Mr. Minister. Subdivision permits that have been granted by the provincial government to build in there were given on the basis that you had access 24 hours a day. But in the last four or five years we have had the military and the federal government putting a

[ Page 8606 ]

clamp on that highway. The Highways ministry has drawn some nice little maps. They said, "We're going to do this and we're going to do that, " but they haven't done anything positive. I think it's important that we listen to some of the regional areas. We must listen to the commitments that we have given to citizens who have moved into various parts of this province thinking they had access.

One other thing in closing, Mr. Minister. I would like an answer on why the provincial government, after all the debate that took place in this House — and with the previous Provincial Secretary.... When the province took over the CN abandoned right-of-way, there had been commitments made that that right-of-way would be held and made as a recreation corridor for all the citizens of the greater Victoria area. It was a natural. It ran from Saanich, through part of Victoria, through View Royal, Langford, Colwood, Metchosin, Sooke. It was a natural hiking trail. It had all the possibilities of opening up wild country and allowing people to hike along there and to get off the highways.

It had the potential, because I recommended it and advocated and lobbied the horse groups to take their horses, for safety, up on to the CN right-of-way once it came into public hands. What happened? The first thing the ministry did was that they went in and took all the small trestles out of there. I mean, you're not going to have trains running over it, you're going to have people running over it. You're going to have horses. You're going to have hikers. Why did they take out all the trestles and in fact kill the potential as a hiking trail? Now I believe there are negotiations with the capital region, and they'll have to build these trestles and these bridges back into place. I mean, that was straight stupid. Is that unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not good parliamentary language for a member to use, obviously.

MR. MITCHELL: I'll say it was not needed. You had those assets there, and all the ministry had to do was sit down and negotiate with the capital regional park division — the capital region, which represents all the people in greater Victoria — and turn that narrow strip of CN land over to them in total. If there were some that were particularly dangerous, then fine, negotiate that they either be brought up to a standard or that they be replaced, but not that they tear up all the good ones and the bad ones.

Then what brought everything to a head, after we have all the people out there hiking, we have the horses.... They gave away chunks of it. I still haven't got an answer for why they gave chunks of it out on leases so people could fence it off and in fact chop it up into an area that ruined it. I mean, you wouldn't take a highway and chop a chunk out of it and allow it to revert to somebody's private property. That was public land, and everyone who bought or owned property along there knew it was a right-of-way and it was a public right-of-way. I ask the minister to assure the people of my riding and the greater Victoria area and the recreation people that that CN right-of-way will be returned as a recreation corridor, that it will be brought into a park status and will be utilized by everyone, not chopped up in little pieces.

[12:30]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the CNR right-of-way first, the provincial government acquired the abandoned railway right-of-way from the CNR for future transportation purposes, including roads and gas pipelines, etc. Persons have been using parts of the right-of-way for hiking, cycling, horse riding, etc. Adjoining owners have objected to these uses because of noise intrusion into their property from the right-of-way. Some sections have been fenced off. The ministry has also signed and blocked off access points to keep motor vehicles and motorcycles out. This was considered particularly important in view of the recent $6 million judgment against the city of Brampton, Ontario, for injuries sustained by a youth motorcycling in an underdeveloped park.

The Capital Regional District has now applied for a lease to operate a linear park on the right-of-way. This application is now being adjudicated. It is anticipated that community groups will also make presentations in the near future.

A few other comments: the provincial government, I understand, paid $1.5 million for this land. You commented regarding the trestle removal. The trestles were removed for safety reasons. If we have not done so, we will replace them with foot bridges where they are needed.

Regarding your comment on the leases — why we lease it out — all the leases we gave out are subject to 90-day cancellation.

Mr. Chairman, to the member, dealing with the west coast road to Port Renfrew and extension to Cowichan Lake, current policy is to maintain the present road consistent with the traffic demands. Traffic volumes are light. No plans for extension of a public road beyond Port Renfrew.

Durrance Lake Road presently passes through the Department of National Defence rifle range, where it has a private status only. Residents are delayed by sentries who close the road when shooting is taking place. Closure is generally of the order of ten minutes at a time. This is unacceptable to the residents. A line was developed off Hartland Road, and money was provided in the estimates in 1981. The residents objected to the line because it would have added several kilometres to trips to Brentwood. A new line was found which intrudes into the Department of National Defence ownership. An agreement in principle has been negotiated with the Department of National Defence. The design of the $2 million, five-kilometre-long road is 95 percent complete. So it looks like maybe we're going to get resolution.

MR. MITCHELL: When we get into the volume of traffic into Port Renfrew.... You missed the point: if we improve that road, and we make the total circle route, that volume will improve. Three years ago there was no traffic up the Coquihalla, but you've built a billion-dollar highway through it. To use the outdated, off-the-cuff statements that there's no volume of traffic.... There's no volume of traffic right now because it's unsafe: it's rocky and it's seven miles of twisted, unpaved road. If that road is developed properly, there will be volume, and there will be jobs, and there will be development. This is all I'm asking: that the minister look at it, instead of trying to think up an excuse like he's coming along with. You've got the volume that is needed in the Langford Road from View Royal to the Malahat, and you still haven't done anything. You will have the volume when you put in that circle route, and you'll create a lot of jobs.

I don't know if there was money in the 1981 estimates, but something has to be done with Willis Point. You can't keep going on and on. For the minister's information, it is open for 10 minutes and closed for 20 minutes. So at the

[ Page 8607 ]

present time you have 20 minutes per hour of use of that road when shooting is taking place, which is mostly from about May right through until October.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a couple of very brief issues that relate to the four-laning and the curb-and-gutter program in Parksville. The discussions have been going on for a very long time and there are some problems that maybe the minister should look at himself in terms of getting the issues there resolved so that the work can get underway.

One of the issues relates to the fact that the Ministry of Highways seems to be changing its mind on some of the areas that are to be cost-shared. I'm not quite sure why the guidelines and the posts keep changing, because what has happened in some communities is now not happening in places like Parksville — for instance, this matter of the downstream drainage of highways.nly become a cost that the city of Parksville has to pick up aThe Highways ministry is not prepared to cost-share except for the tarviaed area of the right-of-way and not the other section which includes the entire right-of-way. As I understand it, when this same project was approved in the city of Duncan, it was a cost-shared project. Now it has suddely become a cost that the ciety of Parksville has to pick up on its own. The city of Parksville is poverty-stricken, to say the least, and finds it almost impossible to come up with the kinds of extra funding they had not anticipated based on their original discussions on this curb-and-gutter program.

One other small item. Eight years ago the ministry approved the installation of a water main through part of the right-of-way. They are now insisting that the city of Parksville ensure that they would be responsible if that water main develops any leaks or turns out to be too small for the area's use.

They feel that this definitely should be a cost-shared item as well. It seems to me that the pipe will probably have to be moved off the right-of-way, and that's $150,000 that the municipality simply does not have. I think that the least the ministry could consider here is cost-sharing that, since they approved the project some eight years ago for that particular location knowing very well that the area would have to be widened and that the curb-and-gutter program would have to go in.

There's one other small problem, Mr. Chairman, that relates to this curb-and-gutter program. It's a big issue in the area because it's been going on so long. Parksville, as you know, is one of the most congested areas on Vancouver Island, and until they get that four-laning and this curb and gutter approved, then there will be problems.

The other one that I wanted to raise relates to the problem at Corfield Street, where a light was recently put in to accommodate the new post office. Mr. Chairman, what's happened here is that people coming up from the beach side of the road cannot get across the road because there is no control based on the traffic approaching that light. That's because the roads are not entirely aligned. The information that Parksville has is that if the municipality will purchase the property, then the Highways ministry would be prepared to put in the proper light. But if the curb-and-gutter approval is given and that agreement is signed, then it would be cost-shared with the Ministry of Highways. In other words, if they want to solve the problem, which is of a serious nature at this time, they're going to have to pay for it all. But if they wait long enough until we finally get this curb-and-gutter program approved — and the discussions for this have been going on forever, it seems — then it would be cost-shared. I would like to appeal to the minister to ensure the cost-sharing of the purchase of the necessary property to align the light at Corfield Street. It is something that the minister should consider, and I make that appeal on behalf of the city of Parksville.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. A. FRASER: We'll look into all these problems and try to assist, because the smaller municipalities do have difficulty putting up their share on curb-and-gutter projects. We've assisted before in other municipalities to some degree, and we'll gladly look at Parksville. I think we can give some kind of accommodation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The debate is obviously winding down. As debate leader for this portfolio — for this year at least — I want to take this opportunity, first of all, to thank the minister. In spite of laryngitis or his throat infection.... We've all had that and it probably wouldn't hurt some of us to have more of that once in a while. I wish to thank the minister for taking the time, in spite of his laryngitis or whatever, to answer the questions, most of them in some detail. In spite of the four or five sittings we've had debating the estimates of this ministry, I really appreciate the minister taking the time to answer these questions, and his staff as well.

Vote 72 approved.

Vote 73: administration and services department, $13,278,396 — approved.

Vote 74: highway operations department, $861,654,342 approved.

Vote 75: motor vehicle department, $31,870,389 approved.

Vote 76: Motor Carrier Commission and branch, $2,721,973 — approved.

Vote 77: transportation policy department, $83,035,652 — approved.

Vote 78: air services branch, $7,841,098 — approved.

[Mr. Ree in the chair ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report resolutions, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:44 p.m.