[ Page 6703 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 6703

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6703

Mr. Lovick

Mr. R. Fraser

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Miller

Mr. Kempf

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me this morning to introduce a friend of yours who is in the members' gallery, Mr. Joe Houssian from West Vancouver. I'd ask the House to make him most welcome.

Hon. Mr. Vant tabled a summary of contract payments to be made to road and bridge contractors over a 36-month period.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 72: minister's office, $304,242 (continued).

MR. LOVICK: I want to begin the questioning this morning on a matter that I think I'll just give the minister's assistants time to get seated. I want to begin by talking about an area that this government usually considers to be its principal claim to fame and its principal achievement: namely, road construction and capital spending thereon. If there is a single thing that is usually held to be their principal accomplishment and achievement— at least in the minds of the members of government — it's the fact that they build roads and they spend money, and they do that very well.

I want to focus on the minister's claims at the beginning of his statement in the estimates about just what that achievement is. I would just draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the opening comments made by the minister; indeed, it was the second sentence of his opening comments, where he began to outline this great record of this great government, as he would have it. He tells us that the Highways budget is going to be in excess of $1 billion, and there is a significant increase in the capital construction fund. He talks about the huge number of person-years of employment to be generated thereby, and also says: "The commercial flow and the employment created by this labour-intensive expenditure will substantially enhance our economic and social well-being provincewide for many years to come." I think most of us listened to that and said: "Yes, so be it." We've all argued the case for a long time, as highway construction has a significant macroeconomic effect on the economy, and we're all very pleased about that.

The question, though, is whether in fact this government is doing quite as much as it says or seems to be suggesting it is. I want to argue two themes –– I want to make two claims, if you like, this morning. The main claim is that if you look closely at the record of capital spending on highway construction in this province for about the last four or five years, what you discover is that this particular minister, this particular emperor, has no clothes; in fact, lie's naked as a new-born babe. There is not, in fact, a huge increase in capital spending. Au contraire, what we are seeing here is, in fact, a regular decrease in capital spending up until this year. And suddenly this born-again capital budget arrives, and we have this awful suspicion that perhaps, indeed, this is leading up to an election. It sounds like a familiar refrain, doesn't it?

The first contention, then, I want to argue, is that the emperor has no clothes. The second claim I want to offer is that we are going to pay considerably more money because of this government's neglect of the highway infrastructure within this province. It's going to cost us a great deal more. In fact, the statement about rehabilitation, and the new classification of rehabilitation, is a direct admission of the government's guilt in just that area. Things were so bad the system had almost died, Therefore we have to rehabilitate and resuscitate, It used to be called maintenance; now it's called rehabilitation, because it was almost beyond recovery. That's the contention.

Let's start with the business of capital construction. To be sure, the funds allocated to construction are up this year over last. We grant that. They're up, by my calculations, some 84 percent. But funding for construction is nowhere near the level it was, say, in '85-86, the peak of the Coquihalla construction. In fact, the difference between then and now is about 38 percent. That translates into some $249.6 million.

If we look at capital spending from the Coquihalla peak in '85-86 to the present, a marvelously interesting situation emerges. We have here a graph, classic first-year economics stuff, on which the horizontal axis is the year and the vertical axis is the dollars spent. I'm sure you can see from there, Mr. Minister. Starting in '85-86 and plotted on the graph is this high point of some $658.6 million. Then we go to '8687, and guess what? We've got $449.5 million, rather down on the graph. But it gets better. In '87-88 we go down yet again, to $275.8 million. In '88-89 the figure drops— further, to $168.1 million.

Then we have the marvellous reprieve. Suddenly, magically, everything has turned around. We are told we have a $1 billion highways budget. Everything is well and good again. All is forgiven. Come home, etc. But when we look at the graph, what we discover is this rather tentative leap upward. We're a long way from where we were, Mr. Minister. It would seem to corroborate the case that we blew it. We blew the budget on Coquihalla, and we've been paying for it ever since. We're a long way from having that kind of money in the system. Instead, we have to spend a considerable amount of money on rehabilitation rather than capital construction,

[ Page 6704 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You don't want us to spend any money on the Island Highway?

MR. LOVICK: I hear someone across the way intoning in his usual articulate fashion — short questions. I assure that person that he will get answers to questions about the Island Highway; indeed, I want to talk about that a wee bit this morning –– I want to talk about really spending money on the Island Highway instead of reneging on a promise, which is what seems to have happened, based on what the minister had to say yesterday.

[10:15]

If the minister, the member from Peace River, wants to talk to his colleague about Island Highway spending — you bet. So do I; so do we on this side of the House. Hang on. Be patient, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You want it in your area and nowhere else.

MR. LOVICK: Be patient, Mr. Minister. I'm going to explain this in such a way that even you will understand it. Don't worry. Now....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members The member for Nanaimo will continue, please.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always nice to notice that, contrary to rumour, there are indeed heads and ears on the other side, that people do in fact pick up what one is saying.

To summarize that point about the graph, I think what we see here is as radical a drop in highway spending coincidentally over the same period of years as there has been a radical drop in Social Credit fortunes under the leadership of your Premier. Interestingly enough, we could probably put the two graphs together and they would overlay one on the other. The point, though, is that this graph is a little different ' because it shows that in 1988-89 going up to 1990, we are in fact going to spend a bit more Fortunes are improving. I suspect your fortunes on the other side are not improving. That's just a political observation, so I won't take time on that.

The other question I have about capital construction is just what you can actually build with the dollars you intend to spend — because we have to look at the costs of construction. I have some serious concerns about whether we can build anything like the highway system we are talking about in the time we are talking about with the amount of money we are hearing about. I have some very serious concerns about that.

Let me remind members of this chamber that phase 2 of the Coquihalla, the Merritt to Kamloops route, is some 70 kilometres in length, and it came in at a cost of $155.5 million. That equals $2.2 million per kilometre. Similarly, phase 3 By the way, that data is from the MacKay report. That's my source Phase 3, the Okanagan connector— much scaled down, remember, from the original — is going to be 108 kilometres in length, and it's expected to come in at a cost of $225 million, a cost per kilometre of $2.1 million. That estimate is obtained from a ministry press release dated January '89.

Let's look a little further at projected costs for other roads. Let's use the Delcan study as the source, because it's probably information directly from Highways, as we established yesterday. We discover that in the Vancouver Island-Coast region the average cost is $1,007,000, which is an average per kilometre of some $1.9 million. I won't read in all of these figures, Mr. Minister— just to make the point. In Mainland Southwest the average cost per kilometre is $1 million; Okanagan, $2.1 million; the Kootenay, $1.7 million; the Cariboo— your turf, Mr. Minister — $2.6 million; North Coast, $1.5 million; Nechako, $2.4 million; Peace River, $1.2 million per kilometre; for an average of $1.8 million.

What's the significance of all that? Why do those figures matter, one may well ask. Those figures matter because if we were to use those average-cost-per kilometre figures for the Vancouver Island Highway, we would discover that our $30 million investment there would get us about 15 kilometres of pavement. At that rate, I can see the day arriving, in about the year 2015, when the citizens of Campbell River are suddenly going to see their new highway. We're not talking about a nine-year plan; we're talking about a 19-year plan, more likely.

Even worse than that problem with the cost of capital construction is what I earlier alluded to as the minister's apparent reneging on a promise; or let me be more specific and say the ministry's apparent reneging on a promise. I'm talking about the promise to construct the Vancouver Island Highway based on a particular schedule. That schedule, let me remind everybody, was published around November 1988. It became a major news conference and a basis for this government to say: "Yes, indeed, you're going to get your Island Highway. The money's in the bag. The construction schedule has been established." As we were told in the chamber: "The design work is now completed. We are ready to go."

But you know what happened, of course, Mr. Minister. The day before yesterday in this chamber, what did we hear about the Vancouver Island Highway project? We heard that there isn't going to be anything built this year. Rather, we're carrying on with the design work and the land acquisition. We've been hearing that for a long time. The obvious question is: how do you think you're going to have any credibility whatsoever with the citizens of Vancouver Island? It wasn't just a vague promise you gave; it was a full-blown construction schedule.

Let me remind you of that construction schedule. We've got a map with the route outlined. We were told it's all there and coming at any moment. We learned that in the summer of 1989 it was going to start at Nanaimo Lakes Road extension. That was going to happen. That was the first part of the project, and I and a number of others— too credulously perhaps — took you at your word, Mr. Minister. I

[ Page 6705 ]

gave the government credit and said: "Isn't it nice to know they've finally seen the error of their ways? They're going to do something about it. Isn't this great?" I made statements in the press and wrote letters to that effect. Now I discover that my statements were not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before we proceed, the second member for Langley asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, in the galleries this morning is the first wave of students who are visiting us from Brookswood Secondary School in Langley. On behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, would you please join me in making them very welcome.

MR. LOVICK: The point I've been making is that we do indeed have a credibility problem here. We've been told it would happen. We've been given assurances for a very long time that the design work had been completed. I'm sorry I didn't have an opportunity to dig out the Hansard debates from last year, but I think I could quote from memory with relative assurance that the direct statement was that the design work was completed and therefore we could proceed I think that's the testimony we were given last year But listening to the minister's comments the day before yesterday, we discovered: well, sorry, no construction going on. I wonder whether that's going to be the case in other places too. Are we not going to build any road? It's a credibility problem. No clothes; this particular emperor has no clothes.

As I promised, the other area in highways spending that I want to touch on is the cost of neglect. You know full well, Mr. Minister— it's a truism in highway construction; everybody knows it — that if we don't carry on our maintenance activities on a regular basis, we will pay considerably more later. Just to clarify that, let me read into the record a brief statement from, again, Delcan, this lovely repository of handy quotable material. I'm quoting from the Kootenay volume, 4.10: "Emphasis should be placed on proper maintenance of the road system. Minor improvements made at the appropriate time will provide a good return. Often, when facilities are allowed to deteriorate too far, they cost considerably more to fix later."

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that this is our predicament, because we also learn from that study just what the neglect has been. The most telling observation in the Delcan study is surely the fact that our infrastructure is in bad shape. Look at some of the stuff we have. It seems we've gone from a relatively problem free highway infrastructure — at least in terms of one we could maintain — to one that is now showing signs of breaking down. Quoting Delcan: "The lower mainland experiences congestion over six hours a day." Six hours a day! My gosh, did this just happen yesterday? Did the lower mainland's population suddenly increase exponentially in a matter of weeks? Heck no, Mr. Minister; it's been happening for a long time. Why, then, are we only now apparently going to grapple with the problem?

How about this? We learn that 1,500 of the 2,650 provincial bridges are wood-constructed and over 40 years old. "Many are not able to handle the new generation of trucks carrying the heavier loads." How did we get into that predicament? Is that a brand-new one? Is this something that has suddenly caught us by surprise? Rather, was that not an observable pattern developing for a very long time indeed? Similarly, we learn that the lower mainland will require major funding in the next 12 years to make up for this neglect, this lack of spending in the past.

The study, as we know, goes on to offer particular recommendations, suggesting that unless we act, and act fast, the situation will continue to deteriorate. The term you have used to describe the predicament you find yourself in is "rehabilitation, " and I would remind you just what that means. It's not the same as maintenance. It means things are pretty far gone and that we'd better try to get them on the healthy list. It's like an acute-care ward at a hospital, I think, and that, it seems to me, is what's happening here. We could perhaps have dealt with these problems out there in the community; we didn't have to spend the whole amount on acute-care beds; but in highways that's precisely the predicament we've got. The vaunted claims about capital spending, about building so much road, are, I suggest, more claim than substance.

HON. MR. VANT: First of all this morning, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce — and I neglected to do so on Tuesday — the staff: Vince Collins, my Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways, here with me this morning; Dan Doyle, assistant deputy minister of highways operations; and Gordon Hogg, assistant deputy minister of administrative services.

The first member for Nanaimo mentioned this morning that in introducing my estimates on Tuesday, I mentioned the great benefits of person-years of employment. Once both the capital construction and the rehabilitation are underway, they will indeed have a significant economic impact, creating very significant employment opportunities for the people of our province. Indeed, as we continue the very necessary work of improving our transportation infrastructure Everywhere you look in the world where the infrastructure is in good shape, it further enhances economic development. Without the proper transportation infrastructure, not too much else can happen in society.

[10:30]

I noted with a little sense of humour your reference to an emperor with no clothes. I think you have to admit, though, that this year I have a little bit more fabric to wear in this ministry.

Yes, I thank the hon. member opposite for going to a fair amount of work to, in graphic form I would ask, though, if you are going to use graphs in the

[ Page 6706 ]

House, that you make them a little larger so that I can see. We are a little more than two sword-lengths apart here.

I am very pleased that this year my capital expenditures are just approximately $30 million shy of the peak year in 1986-87 –– I am very pleased that the hon. member opposite realized that there had been a significant increase this year. I and many members of this Legislature are very happy that we are doing that.

I notice that there are these constant references to the Coquihalla project. The hon. first member for Nanaimo recently said to this Legislature, on March 22, 1989, in the afternoon sitting: "What we did, you will recall, with the Coquihalla was suck all the money out of highways provincewide and place it in one spot. We are still paying the price for that." It seems that my hon. critic is still saying similar things today. I wouldn't want the hon. member opposite to lead us astray here. At the same time as the Coquihalla was being built He has forgotten a major project, the Alex Fraser Bridge. He's forgetting improvements to Highway 16 north of Kamloops. He's forgetting the work that was done on the Begbie summit on Highway 97 in the Cariboo. I could go on and on about other projects throughout the province. To me that statement about all the money just going to the one project is a little bit off the track, to put it as diplomatically as I can.

It seems odd to me that the member opposite spent a lot of time talking about the Delcan report on Tuesday. Yet I am amazed that this morning, despite all that lengthy criticism, he keeps referring to it. As I said, it certainly makes an excellent document for reference purposes. He keeps quoting it despite all that criticism.

Another thing he talks about — and I agree with him on this point — is the great need for rehabilitation. We now have in excess of 45,000 kilometres of public road throughout the province. We not only have to build new excellent highways and bridges but we have to keep all that infrastructure in the best repair possible. If nothing else, that excellent "Freedom to Move" video pointed out that our infrastructure has a certain life span. That was certainly one of the major points of that video.

Another point which I must respond to is the concern about, not the nine-year project, but the eight year Island Highway project. As I said in my remarks, this year it does appear initially that there is a fairly modest amount being spent on the Island Highway. You would think that the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) would be keenly interested in my comments on this subject, but he has just seen fit to leave the chamber. I did not say, as the member opposite seems to insist, that there would be no construction whatsoever this year on that important project. I quote from what I said Tuesday afternoon: "The first contracts for this eight-year project should be let later this year, so that construction can begin on the major segments of that project."

MR. LOVICK: Are we going to do it in the summer of '89? Can you give us that assurance?

HON. MR. VANT: On certain segments, once we acquire the proper right-of-way and complete the engineering, then yes, we can start this year. I can assure the member that once the careful planning and consultation— especially when it comes to the very environmentally sensitive areas of this beautiful island — are all properly addressed, then the actual construction can begin. I'm optimistic it will begin this year.

I would like to point out, too, that for every dollar we spend on engineering and right-of-way, it usually ends up amounting to $10 to $12 being spent subsequently on construction. Once the construction actually begins, there is a very quick acceleration of the actual funds required to keep the project going.

To get back to the amounts for capital construction, it is increasing from last year's $109,647,452 to $224,854,093 this year. Then we get to the major highway capital construction. That is a very significant increase: from over $58 million to over $186 million. I take it that the member wouldn't want all the funds to be directed to the Island Highway alone, although for the foreseeable future, undoubtedly that will be the major project. We have to carefully allocate the necessary funding in terms of the overview of the whole province, because, gee, the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and other members of this House certainly have their own projects which they would like to see come into reality. We not only have to be careful about cash flows for each and every desirable project, but we also have to make darned sure that the actual contractors and equipment are available to do the job.

Concerning the figures that the hon. member was mentioning about cost per kilometre, I found them exceedingly interesting because there are so many variables. On certain projects, funding does cross from one fiscal year to another. If you took just part of a project in one fiscal year, you could end up with an exceedingly high cost per kilometre, but that would not necessarily be the complete picture. Of course, there are the usual variables of terrain, and this is why sometimes, when there is that original estimate of a project, until you actually get into a hillside or mountainside, you don't know for sure how much rock work may be involved. When you get into drilling and blasting, and considerable cutting and filling, the cost per kilometre can indeed accelerate on certain parts of a project. Again, there are so many variables in terrain, even within an area such as mine, the Cariboo in just about every part of this province, some parts are relatively easy going and others are exceedingly difficult.

As the relatively new Minister of Transportation and Highways, I would like to see a smoother flow, if you like, of capital funding from year to year, so that we don't get those excessive peaks and valleys over a period of time. I have the figures here, going back to 1969. By the Constitution Act, we must have elections every five years. For sure, the writ will drop by Octo-

[ Page 6707 ]

ber 22, 1991. But in terms of proper short-term and long-term planning and in terms of having the contractors and suppliers ready with the necessary equipment and all the ingredients to make a project become a reality in a cost-effective manner, it is good to have a more even flow of funds for our very necessary construction activities. But I do notice considerable variances since 1969 –– I could pick out one or two examples. In 1970-71 it was a little over $61 million, and golly, in '72-73 it went up to $131 million, and then it dropped to $98 million. It seemed that during those 1,200 dark days

MR. LOVICK: What are you describing there?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm referring to 1972-73. Capital expenditures were a little over $131 million.

MR. JONES: I thought it was your estimates we were doing.

HON. MR. VANT: Well, we were talking about the peaks and valleys. I'm looking at the historical picture. It appears that there have been considerable peaks and valleys. I'm picking out a few samples just to make my point. I guess this could all be put into a nice, nifty graph form.

I think I have now addressed some of the concerns my critic has raised. He mentioned phase 3 of the Coquihalla. It is progressing exceedingly well, that 108-kilometre project.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, the minister's time has expired under standing orders.

HON. MR. REE: I found the comments by the minister most enlightening. I would love to have an opportunity to hear the conclusion of his comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we do that, the member for Burnaby North has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. JONES: Visiting us today is a young man from MY constituency who is here to do a report for his social studies class, I believe. He's watching the exciting cut and thrust of debate on the estimates He's able to observe the important check and balance provided by the opposition to prevent the potential abuse of power by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. With us today is Doug Penfold, and with him is his mother, Andrea Penfold, who does a superb job of looking after my community office in Burnaby. Would all the House make them welcome.

[10:45]

MR. R. FRASER: It would be a great pleasure for me to get up and talk about highways, having had some experience in the industry myself. I want to do a little historical review, too. I want to go back to the good old days of 1952, and come forward right from there and look at what was done by this great party over here.

Do you remember how they laughed when the Deas Island Tunnel was built? "It can't be done" were the words spoken. "Imagineering" was what was said. Yet now it's going to get bigger, because it was placed in the right spot.

Then we got to the ferry system. "Oh no, no! We can't have a ferry system. The province will go to pieces." Now look at the ferry system we've got in British Columbia: probably the best in the world.

Then we make another crossing on the great Fraser River. They said: "We can't do that." A cable-stayed bridge: "Oh no, we can't do that." But we did— the longest cable-stayed bridge in the world at the best price in the world.

Not a bad record. And what do they say over there? "You've underspent. You've overspent. You haven't spent. You did spend. Do it. Don't do it." They don't know what they want. If we do it, they're against it; if we don't do it, they're for it. They're hopelessly confused and lost. Unbelievable!

In fact, when they talk about no money being spent on the highways, we should put the transit system into the Highways ministry so it has the ferry system, the transit system, the highways system— all systems. We could combine the whole thing and make a decent-looking picture out of it.

There's no way we can build a 24-lane highway up the middle of the Fraser Valley if you want to have one blade of grass there. That's why we have a transit system. They don't understand that. We wanted to elevate it so that cars couldn't run into it. They complained about it. They wanted to have a horse-drawn wagon on a track in the ground, probably. "No, no, let's not go into the modern age." They probably wouldn't fly in airplanes— unless it was free. They have no idea of going that way. Imagine what would happen to NASA if they were running the space agency. It would be hopeless.

Cost per kilometre. What does that mean? It means absolutely nothing: four lanes, two lanes, up a hill, down a hill, unstable ground, over a river. They've got no idea. But knock, knock, knock, they do. It's just pitiful.

I want to see some enthusiasm for the great highways system in this great province. I've driven a lot of it, and I'm here to tell you, I couldn't have been prouder driving down that great Coquihalla. What a highway! What a system! Wow! It is just unbelievably good, and it was done by this party, by this government, for the people of British Columbia. When the Island Highway is built, it will be good and it will be done right.

When we pushed a project through, "There's not enough engineering." They want to do the engineering but they want us to push it through. Lost, confused, dazed, unhappy— and losers.

MR. LOVICK: I want to thank my friend from Vancouver South for jumping into the debate and bringing to bear a little comic relief. I think we all appreciate that move away from the high seriousness of de-

[ Page 6708 ]

bate periodically. And it's nice to see the member for Vancouver South give speech 27, which he has used every time I have heard him speak. It's the same speech but, what the heck, he's allowed to do that.

I want to get back to the alleged rebuttal of my comments from the Minister of Transportation and Highways. First of all, I find it passing strange and not a little ironic that the minister chooses to quote a statement from me on March 22, 1989, in the chamber about the Coquihalla and the impact that had on highway construction, and suggests that it was overstated; I think he said I was perhaps leading us astray.

This is the selfsame minister, remember, Mr. Chairman, the same guy that in the course of the debate about the Coquihalla overruns stood there in that corner of the chamber— this was before his elevation to the ministry — and tried to explain to us how there wasn't really an overrun at all, if you looked a little more carefully, and if you could play with the figures in a particular way. I remember saying at the time that with your accounting skills, Mr. Minister, you should go and sell yourself to the Tories, because you'd solve the deficit problem in five minutes. That's what you said at the time. Really, you dismissed the whole concept of an overrun.

So if we're going to talk about the Coquihalla, and in terms of whose leading who and in what direction, I suggest you might remember what you said on that occasion. You might want to look it up in Hansard. It was rather fascinating.

Coquihalla. Let's not try and revive the old ghost but I have a couple of points about it. I think you can look pretty clearly, and if you look at the budgets in construction over those years you can see what percentage of the total budget went to that. It had the effect of crowding out other things, and we got ourselves into the predicament of, as I suggested and illustrated, a very significant decline in capital spending over the period immediately following therefrom Nobody was suggesting for a moment that all other construction ceased— that's not the point. My point was that it had that impact and sucked out of the ministry budget all those available resources that we might have used for some other things. That's the point, and I think it's a legitimate case to present.

Before I forget, Mr. Minister, I don't think, with all due deference, you have yet understood the point that I made half a dozen times yesterday about the Delcan study. It's a valuable document. It's useful because it pulls together all kinds of bits of information The question I was posing to you was why we had to spend $315,000 on that document, which assembled information we already had. It was within our grasp already. I don't think your answer about saying, "Well, we needed somebody with skills and abilities that the ministry didn't have, " will really stand up to close scrutiny. I think we have those skills; we have those abilities. We used to have a planning function in the ministry; apparently we no longer have one, sadly.

That was my criticism of the Delcan study. I'm not suggesting that the information it presents is useless, though I am suggesting, I hasten to point out, that there are good chunks of it we probably shouldn't have paid for, because there are some immensely and amazingly vacuous utterances in that document, and it's badly, badly written. I suspect the Highways staff could have probably done a better job than could the authors that we hired to do the task. So let's establish what I was in fact saying about the Delcan study.

Now I don't think, Mr. Minister, you really addressed all of my concerns about capital construction, about my suggestion that the emperor is indeed wearing no clothes. I think you are naked, or very close to it— at least threadbare. Let me remind you what you did say about the Vancouver Island Highway two days ago in this chamber: "Design and land acquisition are continuing for the Vancouver Island Highway project. Construction cannot begin until design is further advanced." That's a pretty direct statement that says: we aren't doing any construction. Construction cannot begin until design is further advanced; and that, I submit, is exactly what we heard last year.

My colleagues, who have been in this chamber for many years more than 1, say that we have heard that song many times before. So I stand by my utterance. And I give the minister this opportunity, if he wants, to prove me wrong. Just tell me that the schedule that you published is indeed operative— to use that old Watergate word — and that we will in fact see in the summer of '89 some construction begin — coincidentally, in my constituency.

There are three projects to begin in the summer of '89. Let me just remind you of them: Nanaimo Lakes Road extension, to start summer '89; Nanaimo-Goldstream region, Ladysmith south, summer '89; Mill Bay-Bamberton, summer '89. Those are the projects we've been promised; that was the construction we expected. Are any of those, or all of those, going to commence in the summer of '89? Just answer me that. Will that happen?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I just want to be very brief and try and make a certain point. In order to build highways for greater convenience and speedier travel in the populated areas of this province, it takes money. In order for that money to be generated, it takes some effort to put good roads into the areas that produce much of the wealth and generate much of the money; I'm talking about the resource areas.

You say we don't need these studies. One thing we might need this study for is to convince some people that if they want greater convenience, it must be paid for. If we do not put roads into the resource areas, then you will not have the money to provide greater convenience, and probably you won't even have the need for those roads, because there will not be the economic development, tourism or industrial development in some of those areas.

Let me give you a couple of examples. There was a lot said about the Coquihalla Highway, because it turns out to be a nice little political tool the NDP can keep harping on indefinitely. The Coquihalla Highway might just make it possible for industries to lo-

[ Page 6709 ]

cate in the Okanagan and around the Merritt or Kamloops areas. If they do that because of the better and faster access they have to the coast, then you don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create four-lane traffic, transit and all those things in the area simply because the people are all crunched into the lower mainland or on the island.

If it were not for the Pine Pass highway, which was an expensive project, there would be a lot less resource development in the Peace River area. That development, I can assure you, puts a lot of money into the provincial coffers in order to build and pave all the highways on the islands. I fly over these islands and see the back roads down here paved. Then I go to my constituency and find out that it's difficult to get the main roads paved or even built.

Just because these members keep pushing the Island Highway.... It's okay to spend $600 million or $1 billion for greater convenience on the Island, but there seems to be something wrong with building better access to the Okanagan and the Kamloops area. Guess what a lot of those highways do for the lower mainland; they bring the tourists in. The tourist traffic on those highways has increased, so it's of benefit to the lower mainland and the Island.

For goodness' sake, let's not put everything into the lower areas and forget that you've got to pay for that convenience. It's the development of the resource roads— the access to the resource industries in this province — that makes the difference for you to have better roads, more tourists and all those things that increase things here.

I think it's high time that some recognition was given to the Minister of Highways for providing that access and trying to improve that access in those parts of the region.

HON. MR. VANT: I certainly appreciate the Minister of Education, the member for North Peace River, for reminding me of the importance of roads to resources within the wealth-generating parts of this great province of ours, so that there is a balance in every part of the province.

MR. LOVICK: Don't forget Russ.

HON. MR. VANT: Well, yes, my hon. colleague the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) with his engineering expertise, described in glowing terms the merits of the great Coquihalla Highway project.

But I am confused by the first member for Nanaimo. On the one hand, he seems to want me to push like the devil on these projects; on the other hand, he seems to give at least lip-service to very necessary planning. Indeed, when it comes to being cost-effective, I am informed that the more carefully the alignment is determined, the more properly the right-of-way is acquired— considering that sometimes it upsets the property owners involved — and the more carefully everything is lined up prior to construction, usually the more cost-effective it is, and we end up with a much better project.

He keeps referring to the schedule which was announced last November.

[11:00]

MR. LOVICK: With great fanfare.

HON. MR. VANT: That was the best information available at that time. Indeed, in that schedule some of the projects that were announced — like the Nicol Street improvements right in the heart of your constituency — are now nearing completion. So I say with a great deal of integrity and sincerity that the announced schedule is very sincere. I can assure you that my staff is not just waiting for directions or anything; they are working very hard and very diligently on that necessary advanced planning so that we can get on with another great highway project in this province.

I'd like to mention, too, that there was a survey concerning the Coquihalla Highway. Despite all the criticism, especially from the socialist corner of the House.... The hon. member made reference to some of my statements in the past. When you look at the history back about 1977 when the first guesstimate was made.... Until you firmly decide where the alignment of a new project is going to go, until you do the drilling and the soil sampling and all those necessary engineering things, it is very difficult to accurately get the cost of building some of these projects. All I did last year was take the original guesstimate and add to that a very modest 3 percent annual inflation factor, and it came out pretty close to what the project ended up costing.

I know that the hon. first member for Nanaimo doesn't really embrace that argument, but that's fair enough; there are always differing points of view. But a survey was made recently. I'm pleased to report that more than half, 51.7 percent, of the B.C. residents interviewed have already driven on the beautiful Coquihalla Highway between Hope and Merritt. An even greater number, 61.9 percent, back Victoria's original decision to build the Coquihalla superhighway to provide faster all-weather access between the lower mainland and the B.C. interior.

To me, when an independent survey comes up with facts like that, it is very encouraging that this government has been and is on the right track when we give priority to building good, safe highways. Indeed I have been informed that phases 1 and 2 of the Coquihalla Highway, now that they've been completed, save an average of 18 lives a year. How do you measure the value of something as significant as that? I'm sure that every member of this Legislature, regardless of which corner of the House you may sit in, is all for making our roads much safer for the traveling public.

I don't want to be boring or repetitious, but I have quoted the hon. first member for Nanaimo as saying that the Delcan study is indeed valuable and useful. I do thank him for that.

MR. MILLER: I could hardly believe what I heard from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) a

[ Page 6710 ]

short while ago in terms of the needs of the rural parts of this province and the need for a road. I agree with the minister, but I'll tell you, they certainly weren't met during the period when the Coquihalla was sucking all the money in this province that was earmarked for highway projects. What a sham! That was the most disgraceful period in the activities of a government that we've ever witnessed in this province— a highway that was planned in the back rooms.

The minister read out some projects. Why didn't the minister read out the projects that were abandoned during that period? Why doesn't he talk about the Highway 16 project that was abandoned? You talk about highway planning and engineering. You don't do all of the engineering and let the contracts and then suddenly abandon a project. You keep it going even if you have to shrink the budget somewhat. What a sham! And the answers that were received by the opposition in this Legislature when we raised, quite legitimately, the issue of cost. Is the minister saying that a $500 million overrun is acceptable? Is the minister saying that the doubling of project costs on the Coquihalla because of the political fast-track agenda is acceptable?

I want to hear what the minister has to say about that shameful period of time when the highways planning was done in the back rooms. Where was the current member for Cariboo then? He wasn't speaking out on behalf of his constituents. The Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act brought in by the former administration was a cute little political tool. It ended up hoisting you on your own petard. It was never used. It was an attempt to force the opposition to go along with the building of the Coquihalla Highway, to make it a political issue. We discovered in the MacKay commission that it was the back room of the Premier's office where the decision was being made, not in the Minister of Highways' office. The current Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) was the key player in deciding which projects around this province would be abandoned.

The Minister of Education talks about the needs of the north. Where were you when all the money was being taken by the Coquihalla? We're not opposed to highway development; quite the contrary. We're opposed to wasting the taxpayers' money on political agendas. We're opposed to paving highways in freezing weather and snow and then having to go back and do it again. I'm sure the Minister of Education would even agree with that. That's wasting the taxpayers' money. We are opposed to doubling highway costs. We are opposed to letting projects for $10 million that come in for $20 million— we don't think that's good planning.

We think that in the north, where we have one of the fastest-growing ports in British Columbia, it made a lot of sense — and it still makes a lot of sense — to put some money into a northern highway, so that we can get some goods flowing both ways, which might benefit the constituency of the Minister of Education. We think all those things are worthwhile: careful planning and prudent use of the taxpayers' money. We haven't seen that from this administration in terms of highway development.

It shakes my faith in the Minister of Education, who handles a very large budget himself. He knows the responsibilities that go with that office and the careful use of the taxpayers' money. It shakes my faith to hear him stand up and defend that blatant and disgraceful, politically motivated spending that took place on the Coquihalla Highway to the detriment of the taxpayers of this province and the people in rural areas who needed their roads upgraded. The only reason we got....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How about Highway 16? Are you political on that?

MR. MILLER: I praised the former Minister of Transportation last year when we finally got some activity on Highway 16; I publicly thanked him for that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As long as it is in your area, it's okay.

MR. MILLER: It was also in the area of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). Listen, if I can do some work for the Minister of Forests and the constituents in Skeena— because it is right next to mine — then I don't mind doing it. I see that as part of my broader responsibility.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Will you help in my area then?

MR. MILLER: I am prepared to come to the North Peace and help out the Minister of Education if he is having difficulty. He seems to be telling us he is having difficulty with the current Minister of Highways. I am quite prepared to come up there and lend him a hand.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, give up Highway 16.

MR. MILLER: We are not prepared to give up.... Don't be foolish. We have a lot of questions about Highway 16, Mr. Minister. We want to know, for example.... When the four western provinces got together at the urging of the federal Minister of Transport, who urged the four western provinces to declare Highway 16 the northern Trans-Canada, because there were some benefits flowing from that in terms of publicity, trying to encourage tourist development and perhaps the potential for some unified provincial action to get more federal dollars.... We did see some federal dollars, and that is why the project is going ahead in my constituency. It is 50 percent cost shared by the federal government. Otherwise it would take twice as long under this administration.

We want to know why, when the federal government urges the provinces, and the four western provinces sit down, one doesn't agree. We want to know why the Minister of Transportation for British Columbia won't agree to designate Highway 16 as part of

[ Page 6711 ]

the northern Trans-Canada. The northern Trans-Canada stops at the B.C.-Alberta border.

I talked to the Yellowhead Highway Association. Why is that? It doesn't make sense. There are some benefits for British Columbia. Apparently the minister said he didn't want to do it because it would be too confusing. I don't know whether it's too confusing for the minister, but maybe he would like to explain how it would be too confusing to declare Highway 16 part of the northern Trans-Canada, as have three other western provinces. Perhaps there is some other motive; I don't know.

I recall that when the federal government initially offered in 1986 to cost-share on Highway 16, the government seemed to reject that offer. They said: "We might want to use that money on some other highways." That certainly alarmed us in northern British Columbia, Mr. Minister of Education, to have the government saying: "We want to take those funds allocated for northern highway development and use them in the south or some other .... Maybe they wanted to use them on the Coquihalla to pick up part of that half— a billion dollar cost overrun.

My constituents and those of the Minister of Forests — right along Highway 16 — are not impressed at all with the way this administration has dealt with its transportation needs. When they see continuing amounts of money poured into the Coquihalla, they become even more unimpressed.

Perhaps the minister could deal with the confusing issue of why we can't declare the northern transProvincial Highway 16 part of the northern TransCanada.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, the second member for Langley would like to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON: In the galleries is the second wave of students — yes, phase 2 — from Brookswood Secondary School in Langley. On behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, would you please give them a very warm welcome.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am interested in the definition of "northern" that the member for Prince Rupert has: that northern roads go to Prince Rupert and therefore he very highly supports the Yellowhead Highway 16 to be designated as a northern corridor highway, or whatever he calls it, so that all or most of the money should go there.

[11:15]

I would like to point out, if he is not familiar with the geography of this province, that there is another route into this province, a very interesting route. It goes from Edmonton to Dawson Creek, from Dawson Creek to Chetwynd through Pine Pass, and then comes down and connects with the Yellowhead Highway. Therefore when you say, "Let's designate that as a transProvincial highway; let's do the Yellowhead, " I believe the intent behind that is: "And forget these side roads."

They are very important to us. For instance, from Edmonton, which is a major centre, people can come two directions — through Pine Pass if it's a decent route, rather than focus all of the money on the Highway 16. It happens to suit that member, so he is very supportive of all the funding on Highway 16. I don't even object to that, but he seems to want it designated such that all the funding should go there rather than deal with the Pine Pass situation.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways to take up that member for Prince Rupert on his kind offer. He said that he would gladly come up and help me get more roads in the North Peace, and I presume that that means he is willing to forgo the money that would go into his area in order to help me. I am delighted with that, and I would ask the minister to please take him up on that offer.

HON. MR. VANT: As the members and guests this morning can see, I have a very interesting ministry that has interests from every corner of the province. But I am shocked that the member for Prince Rupert seems to have a very short memory. Again he is getting into this fallacy that all funds went to the Coquihalla project. I guess that when he was going back and forth to work at that pulp mill which I helped build, he didn't look across the inlet and see all that roadwork going out to Ridley Island. I guess at the time the member for Prince Rupert.... And I can't remember just exactly which political stripe that member was, because he changed two or three times. But along the Skeena River, at the same time as the Coquihalla was underway, there were improvements to Highway 16.

Also I want to assure the member that I am not against whatever funding we can get from the federal government. Indeed, I have had meetings with the Road and Transportation Association of Canada, which strongly advocates identifying a national road network. I have had meetings with the Yellowhead Highway Association.

We have to remember that even on sections of the Trans-Canada Highway, such as the Cassiar connector project, at this time the federal government won't cost-share, so we still have a long way to go, no matter how we happen to label a particular highway. If the Trans-Canada Highway, whether it be Highway 1 or the other one we have, called Highway 16.... Unless there are actual funds forthcoming, it really is purely academic how we label the highway.

I want to assure not only the member for Prince Rupert but also the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) that this year, in terms of capital spending, rehabilitation spending and maintenance spending, we will be spending in excess of $38 million on Highway 16 west of Prince George, between there and Prince Rupert. That is not dependent on any funds from Ottawa. I am giving you some specific funding for that very important northern transProvincial highway, Highway 16.

[ Page 6712 ]

While I am on my feet, I would like to mention.... I realize that often those in the socialist corner of the House, especially, tend to get a little parochial. It's almost like they get a quarter out of their pocket and hold it so close to their eye that they can't see that wider picture. The member for Rupert does that. He just sees the north coast and very conveniently forgets the mid-coast marine services. But for his sake, and also for the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) ' who wanted to know the exact amount of the federal subsidy towards marine transportation, last fiscal year, '88-89, it was $16,388,000; this year it's indexed, so we get slightly more. This year it is $16,984,610. As I properly indicated yesterday without having this precise figure before me, it was in the neighbourhood of $16 million. That is the precise figure for your information.

MR. MILLER: It sometimes takes a lot to explain a particular situation to the minister. First of all, we're talking about the designation, not about the allocation of moneys, unless the minister knows something I don't. He can't— or seems to be unable to — grasp the fact that by designating Highway 16 as the northern Trans-Canada, there are benefits flowing from that; it amazes me. People travel this country — tourists from all parts of Canada — and they are always looking for different routes. They don't always want to drive that southern Trans-Canada. They want to know that there are other places to go in this country, and that there are good roads available to get them there.

The Minister of Education has my full support for trying to upgrade those various routes that he described from the neighbouring province of Alberta into his constituency. I'm sure that they are vital routes in terms of transportation and the movement of goods and people. I certainly wasn't advocating that every single dime spent on northern highways goes into Highway 16. In fact, in terms of the designation, we're not talking about money; we're talking about a designation that would hopefully lead to more traffic. It seems to me that the value in that would even flow up into the Peace River.

The Minister of Education should not be so shortsighted. It's quite short-sighted to suggest that the Peace River exists all on its own. People get there by various means. The more traffic we can generate up in the north, the better off we'll all be in terms of securing additional funds for highway upgrading.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's share.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister of Education, if I shared what I had gotten so far, neither of us would have anything, because it's been pitifully inadequate I'm not hard to satisfy, I can tell you— just some reasonable level of expenditure. We in the north understand that the benefits flow to the south from the extraction of resources. We would accept just some reasonable and modest expenditure for upgrading our highway system and to know that some of these southerners know that we exist, and that we play a vital role in the economy of this province.

I mentioned the port of Prince Rupert, which is a fast-growing port. We have a $40 million expansion taking place now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Ships and ferries, too.

MR. MILLER: People go to ports. They come in from ports, and they go to ports to leave, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Trains and ships and ferries.... All we want is roads.

MR. MILLER: I know. There are no ports in the Peace River. That's unfortunate, and I can't do anything about it. I can't do anything about the lack of ports in the Peace River. I don't think we should build any there.

I do know that Highway 16 is in tough shape. Maybe the minister knows; maybe he doesn't. It's hard to know what he knows. He keeps talking about holding quarters in front of his eyes. I don't know what he's talking about when he gets into that kind of gobbledegook nonsense from the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

I'd like him to respond to the statements from the privatized contractor in the Skeena area. Once again, I'm up defending the interests of the people of Skeena along with my own constituents.

MR. KEMPF: You've been doing it for years.

MR. MILLER: Yes, we can take care of the residents of Skeena.

The general manager of North coast Road Maintenance Ltd., Mike Zylicz, said the highway is in terrible shape. Perhaps I mispronounced his name. You can advise the minister what the correct one is, and he can relay that. It's the spelling we're interested in. It's Hansard we're interested in. For the edification of Hansard, it's Z-y-l-i-c-z.

He says the highway is in terrible shape, and it's breaking up. It was never engineered for the kind of traffic now using Highway 16 with the fundamental shift that took place some years ago from rail to rubber-tired transportation of all kinds of commodities: lumber, chips and ore. He mentions that the original privatization contract that this government so carefully put together with painstaking detail and all that engineering work by this ministry and this minister originally called for 8,700 square metres of pavement. This was revised to 31,000 square metres. I guess somebody didn't have a sharp enough pencil, or their calculator wasn't working properly. The highway is self-destructing, it's breaking up.

MR. ROSE: Crumbling.

MR. MILLER: Yes, crumbling; and then you talk about safety, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 6713 ]

MR. LONG: You get it for overacting.

MR. MILLER: Oh, it's the member for Mackenzie heckling me from his seat, who on Tuesday disappointed me, as a coastal member, and my constituents when I was trying to get some admission from the minister that we needed some upgrading of the highway and ferry system on the coast. The member for Mackenzie, who I think is on the B.C. Ferries board.... He's got to decide which hat he wears: whether he represents the Ferry Corporation or whether he represents the people on the coast of this province who need upgrading of their system. But I'll deal with him in another venue, Mr. Chairman. He's coming to my constituency next week and we're going to take good care of him.

To continue, the privatized contractor is saying that the ministry seriously underestimated the terrible condition of Highway 16.

While we're on privatization, perhaps the minister could advise what his ministry has discovered about the very tragic accident.... You want to talk about safety and expenditures and how you put a price on safety. Eighteen lives saved— I guess that's a statistical conclusion — because of the Coquihalla. I think on reflection you might not want to use that argument too much; it's a dangerous argument and, I suggest, a rather foolish argument. Are you suggesting that $500 million is the cost of 18 lives?

[11:30]

A resident of my constituency died in a very tragic accident on a very dangerous section of Highway 16 It's very narrow, with a rock bluff overhang. There was quite a tragic accident when a huge chunk of ice came down off that rock bluff and crushed his truck That person died. Isn't it worth some money, Mr. Minister, following from your argument of $500 million for 18 lives? Isn't it worth some money on a highway in northern British Columbia for some improvements and safety to protect people's lives?

We feel quite strongly about those things up there, and we feel quite strongly that the much-needed work on that section of highway was simply abandoned as a result of the political decision made in the backroom to accelerate the construction of the Coquihalla Highway.

I'd like the minister to respond about the general conditions, the breaking up of that vital transportation link, one with increasing traffic, one where we're hoping to start getting goods shipped into this country through the port of Prince Rupert instead of just the straight export commodities we dispose of now Perhaps the minister could comment on what his plans are over the long term to bring that highway up to some acceptable standard.

What about the safety problems we encountered last winter when a trucker unfortunately ended up in the Skeena River? Anybody who read the Province saw that. He was an experienced driver who drives that highway regularly. He ended up with a big rig loaded with lumber out in the middle of the Skeena River and only narrowly escaped death because of the fast-acting helicopter pilot who was able to get out there pretty quickly and sling a cargo net out, so this poor guy could grab on and be ferried to shore. We're not impressed with the safety on Highway 16 when that kind of activity happens.

We're not impressed with the level of maintenance that took place last year. I certainly wasn't impressed when talking with Highways officials, who said to me: "Yes, we have some problems with the private contractor." The citizens of my community ask a pretty fundamental question: why are we better off? Having disposed of the ministry and turned it over to a private contractor, who by the ministry's own admission did a less than adequate job, why are we better off?

I'd like to hear the minister respond to that, bearing in mind that your response here is not just in this chamber; it goes out to the people of this province and to the people of my constituency and the people of Skeena. Enough of this nickels-in-front-of-your-eyes nonsense that you keep spouting in this House. I'd like to hear you deal in a serious way with the issues that affect many people in this province, in terms of both their quality of life and their safety as they drive our northern highways. Get off this stupid nickel-and-dime stuff and start to deal with the issues in this province seriously.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that we're going to be here for an awfully long time, if the responses to questions are any indication of how long we might spend on these estimates.

My comments the day before yesterday were very general and far-ranging, but I'm going to be much more specific today. I just want to comment on a few things that were said this morning. We did get one particular statistic out of the minister that I too am appalled at. The minister admitted that in this fiscal year only $38 million would be spent on one of the main east-west transProvincial transportation corridors, Highway 16. For those in the chamber who don't know, Highway 16— and being of the old school, I'll use miles — stretches for 650 miles, from the Alberta border to Prince Rupert. We're going to spend $38 million on 650 miles of transProvincial highway in this fiscal year?

HON. MR. VANT: West of Prince George.

MR. KEMPF: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I stand corrected: that's 450 miles. We're going to spend all of $38 million on 450 miles of west Yellowhead 16, out of a budget of $1.198 billion in this fiscal year. I'm almost positive that 200 miles of that particular highway are in my constituency. Given the present state— and I hesitate to use that word anymore in British Columbia — of degeneration of Highway 16, that, Mr. Minister, is an absolute drop in the bucket. You are telling the people of north central British Columbia that on 450 miles of Highway 16, we're going to spend $38 million in this fiscal year. That's absolutely and totally appalling.

I agree with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) when he suggests that more money be

[ Page 6714 ]

spent on highways in the resource areas of British Columbia. It's from north central British Columbia that a great percentage of those resources come, both in mining and forestry, and in many other industries. The Minister of Education said something about forgetting Highway 16. Well, given that they were going to spend a whole $38 million on 450 miles of it in this fiscal year, we have forgotten it. It has been totally forgotten.

I'm wondering, and I'm going to ask these questions of the minister whose estimates we're discussing this morning, if that $38 million includes your promise.... We talked earlier of safety. Does that $38 million include in this fiscal year, in this memorandum that you wrote me on November 23, 1988, the total reconstruction of Meanwhile Corner? Does it include the total reconstruction of Suicide Corner? If you're not sure where these are, I'll be more specific Does that include Hagman Hill— you say it's Hagman Comer and it's not; it's Hagman Hill — on which the engineering has been done for many years. The clearing has been done on it; everything's been done on it. It has been sitting there for some five years now waiting for completion. People die on it, as they do on the other two. Does that include, Mr. Minister, the Engen overpass? That's not spelled A-n-g-e-n; it's spelled E-n-g-e-n.

Does that $38 million include those four very important corners on Yellowhead 16 between Prince George and Prince Rupert, on which people have been losing their lives for many years? Thirty-eight million dollars on 450 miles of transProvincial highway, and then you suggest to this House that maybe we shouldn't approach the federal government with respect to cost-sharing Yellowhead 16 west. I've driven Yellowhead 16. I've crossed the border into Alberta. I know what that highway looks like from the B.C. border to Edmonton. All we ask in the north is equal treatment, particularly for the 200 miles of that particular highway that go through my constituency.

Perhaps the minister could give me answers to those questions. I would surely hope I could get answers, because if I don't, we're going to be here day after day after week after month until we get the answers. As I said two days ago in this House, for far too long now the people of north central British Columbia have gotten the short end of the stick.

Don't get me wrong; I have absolutely nothing against the building of the Coquihalla Highway, none whatsoever. I voted for it in this House; I spoke for it in this House, in my constituency and in other areas of British Columbia, and I have no problems with that at all. I am a little puzzled, though, when talking about the Coquihalla, at the figures that were bounced around here earlier this morning which showed that phase 3 is going to cost exactly the same as phase 2 on a per-kilometre basis, even with the downscaling. That's another question I want to ask the minister: how is it that phase 3 is only going to be single-lane and phase 2 was double-lane and it's going to cost the same money? And don't tell me it's different terrain. I was born and raised in that country. I know practically every inch of the area phase 3 is going through. So I'd like to know that as well.

We'll just start with those particular questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANT: Before I forget, first of all I will respond to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) on some of his very legitimate concerns. He referred to the accident on Highway 16 regarding the icefall. I take it very seriously and am very concerned every time there is a death on any of our public highways. This block of ice that was no less than five cubic metres was released naturally from an overhanging rock face. The driver, unfortunately, was killed.

[11:45]

This section of Highway 16 has experienced periodic icefalls of a much smaller magnitude for many years. The maintenance crews, whether they be operated by government or by the contractor, just routinely plowed them to the shoulder of the road. This incident was many times larger than previously recollected on the highway. Unfortunately, there is no system for predicting an icefall of this nature. This was a freak occurrence, but I can assure you that the ministry will examine the situation with a very definite view of ascertaining if further icefalls of this nature can be prevented.

With my increased budget this year, I want to assure both the member for Prince Rupert and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and indeed other members who have a stake in Highway 16, that we will make as many improvements as we can. I would like to say that I personally have driven from one end of Highway 16 to the other. I can remember many years ago, in the mid-1960s, where I would head out of the Cariboo and west of Prince George all the way not only to Prince Rupert but out to Port Edward and on over to Watson Island. There have been many improvements since the mid-sixties. Now the members are talking about some of the road being in very rough repair. Hence we must get on with that very necessary rehabilitation.

I am sure that the hon. member for Omineca would not want me to spend every dollar on Highway 16. From what he said on Tuesday, he wants me to spend some money on worthwhile projects in the Omineca constituency— on such things as a bridge in Vanderhoof.

I want to spend as much as I can on that very important transProvincial highway, but I also have other things that I must get underway this year, such as that very important bridge project in Vanderhoof. At this time I can assure the member that the Engen overpass will be underway this fiscal year. We are concerned about Meanwhile Corner, Suicide Corner and Hagman Hill, which had my personal attention shortly after I became the minister.

I am somewhat envious — I must say — of the member for Prince Rupert. I notice that close to 80 percent of the public roads in his constituency are paved. Actually both the member for Omineca and myself are exceedingly envious because in my constituency — as in Omineca — only approximately

[ Page 6715 ]

one-third of the public roads are paved. There is a little bit more of that broader picture that I keep alluding to. I have never mentioned nickels or dimes.

MR. KEMPF: I really enjoy listening to the stories that emanate from the Minister of Transportation and Highways. But that's not what we are here for in estimates. We are here to get answers, and we are going to be here a whole long time unless we get those answers.

I will ask them again in case the minister didn't hear. Have you got a pencil, Mr. Minister? Pad? Get it out. It was suggested to this House a little earlier that $38 million would be spent on 450 miles of the Yellowhead 16 west. The question I asked was this: how much of that $38 million will be spent on Meanwhile Corner? Understand, you made a commitment not to me but to one of my young constituents by the name of Lia Strimbold, who went to a great deal of trouble to place emphasis on the very serious situation which exists on Meanwhile Corner. The undertaking wasn't to me, it was to a teenage constituent of mine, to reconstruct Meanwhile Corner on Highway 16 in this fiscal year.

Did I hear you say that out of the four very crucial projects that you promised me on November 23, 1988, only the Engen overpass is going to be proceeded with in this year, that part of that $38 million is not going to go toward Meanwhile Corner or Suicide Corner? They call it Suicide Corner for a very good reason. I don't have the statistics before me, but I am sure that your people could get those statistics very quickly to find out just how many of our citizens of British Columbia were killed on Suicide Corner.

But am I led to believe — is this what I have to go home and tell my constituents — that out of the four projects on Highway 16 west, the Yellowhead Highway, only one will be proceeded with in this year? You know, I could quite easily not even have come to these estimates. I could have probably gotten all of this information from the regional economic development liaison officer, out of his three-quarters-of-a million dollar political office in Smithers. I wouldn't have had to waste my time coming to these estimates. He's the guy who has all the answers. He's the guy who is running around my constituency telling the people what goes on in government in Victoria. Perhaps I should go to that office, seeing as that threequarters of a million dollars of taxpayers' money is going to keep it operational. Perhaps that's what I should have done, Mr. Minister of Highways.

Certainly he's paid high enough to have all the answers, and we'll talk about that a little later as well. But I need to have answers to my questions, so I can take them back to my constituents. They are sitting on the edge of their seats today, waiting for those answers that their MLA— and incidentally, they still consider the MLA as the representative for the area — is going to bring back to them. I wouldn't want to disappoint them, Mr. Minister, so I need to have answers. You know, this is only a start. You might as well get used to it; you're going to give some answers in these estimates, or you're going to stay here until you do.

We'll talk about the bridge over the Nechako River that has been promised by consecutive ministers over the years, and that the engineering is done on. So you can't use that excuse. We'll find out how much money out of this year's $1,198,100,000 is going to be spent on that project. And we've got a whole bunch of others, Mr. Minister. So you might as well start answering. We've got to have answers; that's what we're here for.

I like to hear the little stories, although I enjoyed the previous minister's more. I like to hear the little stories that the Minister of Transportation and Highways has. But this is not the place for those stories, Mr. Minister. The minister's estimates is the place to get answers, and I fully intend to do that.

Let's go over it once more before the minister gets a chance to answer. Thirty-eight million dollars is going to be spent on 450 miles of the Yellowhead transProvincial highway. Undertakings have been given for very serious problems on that highway: Meanwhile Corner, Suicide Corner, Hagman Hill and the Engen overhead. The question is, how much of that $38 million is going to be spent on those four projects?

In order to give the minister a little time to think about that, because he has a little difficulty coming up with these answers, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Ree moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.