[ Page 6717 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 6718

Oral Questions

Community mental health services. Mr. Perry –– 6718

At-home care for handicapped children. Ms. Smallwood –– 6718

Condoms for prisoners. Mr. Guno –– 6719

Ferry design and construction. Mr. Clark –– 6719

Offshore oil drilling. Mr. Cashore –– 6720

Tabling Documents –– 6720

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6720

Mr. Kempf

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Guno

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Clark

Mr. Bruce

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Gabelmann

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would like to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to those MLAs who yesterday celebrated their tenth anniversary as members of this chamber. They include the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree), the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) and the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson).

Ten years of continuous service is indeed a long time in this profession, particularly when the public holds politicians in as much esteem as they do the media. To those members entering their second decade of service, I would like to offer my thanks for their contribution and to wish them the very best in the future.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, time flies when you're having fun. It's hard to believe that a decade has passed. Upon reflection, I've had the opportunity and privilege of experiencing a lot of individuals who are part of the political folklore of this province, including my buddy right here.

I want to say that it's been an honour to serve my constituency for this period of time. A lot of the members here are first-time members, and I want to advise them that the metamorphosis from rookie to veteran can be just one election. So you can stand by on that.

As an avid fisherman, I've spent my time washing lures and practising. I'm looking forward to the next decade on that side of the House.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to recognize a fairly large body of professional people: the physicians and doctors of British Columbia. They are members of the BCMA, who are here today for a convention. We wish them a very warm welcome to this House. Hopefully, our relationship with them will continue to be — as it is up to this point in time — healthy and well, although we do not always see everything in the same light.

They are the people we depend on at certain times in our lives, and when that time comes, it is very necessary to have them around. Will this House please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join in welcoming the president of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Blair, and the other doctors who are here. I understand the minister will be having dinner with them tonight. I hope he has a very good meal. We enjoyed some very nice meetings with them last night and today as well. I think it's very nice that they are here, and I hope they will come often to observe the proceedings.

I'd also like, while I am up, to acknowledge Anne Topp and Paul McKivett, who are in the gallery and who are with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. I am delighted to see the Premier, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and some other members wearing carnations. This is the start of Multiple Sclerosis Week. This is a disease that I have some familiarity with from treating patients, and it's one of the most serious neurological diseases affecting Canadians, particularly young people.

I understand from the volunteers that the Premier — I am not sure if this is personal or on behalf of the government — has made a significant contribution to the MS Society, which I think is wonderful. Anyway, can the House welcome them here today.

MR. Keivilf: In the gallery with us this afternoon are two very special people to me and my wife Norma: my father-in-law Norman and sister-in-law Nancy Burke. I would ask the House to make them very welcome,

HON. MR. REE: It's a pleasure today to stand up on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Jack Davis, who regretfully is unable to attend today, to welcome 28 grade 7 students and their teachers from Plymouth Elementary School in North Vancouver. They are in the gallery, and I would ask this House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. ROSE: The New Democrat assistants are in the precinct today. They are here on their annual visit to regroup and learn from one another how they might better help and protect us, So I wonder if these men and women couldn't enjoy a round of applause on behalf of the House.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: In the gallery are two constituents of mine from beautiful Sorrento on Shuswap Lake: Mr. Rick Reading and Mr. Bob Van, the son of my ministerial assistant. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: It always gives me some pleasure to introduce to the gallery individuals who have been active as pioneers in the Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia, and in your gallery today is Mr. Ajit Dodd. Mr. Dodd came to Canada in 1954 and moved to Port Alberni in 1956, where he has resided since. He has been active in community affairs and in other matters within Port Alberni. Would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Dodd.

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the Premier and myself, I would like to ask the House to welcome two constituents who are prominent in our community. They are here today to represent the Richmond Right to Life organization. Would the House please welcome John Massot and Romy Vander Bos.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: I was sad to learn today that Mr. Kevin Brown passed away on Tuesday at the age of 39, after living with AIDS for four years. I am sure members of this House are aware of this very

[ Page 6718 ]

courageous and dedicated individual; he was the person who co-founded the Persons With AIDS Coalition in 1986. It was the attitude that he brought to this dreadful disease that made him such a wonderful human being, because he had the attitude of living with AIDS rather than dying with AIDS. So I would like the members of this House to help pass along condolences to his mother and to his very close friends.

MR. PETERSON: In the House today is a good friend from Langley, Dan Coates, who is the future son-in-law of Ida Fallowfield, the secretary in the constituency office of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and me. With him is a good friend from the University of Western Ontario, Mr. Robert Dudley. Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.

Presenting Reports

MR. PELTON: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services. I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

"May 10, 1989. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as follows:

"That the preamble to Bill PR401, intituled Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989, has been approved and the Committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. F.C.A. Pelton, Chairman."

MR. PELTON: By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. Every reputable authority agrees that $20 million is urgently needed to bring community mental health services in British Columbia back up to a minimum standard. The minister himself has recognized this in our debates here and outside the House and has been promising for months that he will bring this immediate need to the attention of cabinet.

MR. MOWAT: What's the question?

MR. PERRY: There is a question, a very important one — and a very simple one. Can the minister tell us whether he has a date on the cabinet agenda to deal with this growing mental health emergency in British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: We have spoken about this in estimates. I believe the question is really on the mental health consultation plan that has been presented to me. As I've said in estimates, that plan, which took a lot of work, will be taken to cabinet in the very near future. I have not got a date.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: It's not a laughing matter at all, Mr. Member. When we report on mental health and the people who are suffering illness, I don't think we should sit there and laugh about it. It's a very serious matter. We consider this as a serious matter.

There's a lot of work to be done. A lot of work has been done in preparation, because you cannot put this thing out to the public and have no resources available in the community. All this is being prepared. When that report is ready from my staff, we'll take it to cabinet, and you will be informed at that time what action we're going to take.

MR. PERRY: A new question to the Premier. I emphasized in my first question that every reputable authority agrees — there is absolute consensus in the health field — that $20 million is urgently needed in mental health in British Columbia. Can the Premier tell us when this need will be met?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I too have met with representatives from the Canadian Mental Health Association, and I commend them for their good works. These people certainly give freely of their time, especially those who volunteer all of their efforts and are very involved on a regular basis in visitations and other ways of assisting those who need help.

I have listened to their presentations. Certainly I can speak for those who visited me when I say they've identified some shortcomings, and obviously some of these shortcomings might best be responded to with additional dollars. I don't deny that. On the other hand, they expressed as well their feeling that we do have a pretty good system in place and that the Ministry of Health, in cooperation with them, has done a commendable job. I'm proud of the fact that they themselves stated this voluntarily, and this is how it ought to be. That's not to say we couldn't improve on things, and we must continually strive to improve on things, particularly when we're attempting to assist people in such need. I look forward to the report that the minister will be bringing forth to cabinet, and it will obviously receive very careful consideration by all members of cabinet at that time.

AT-HOME CARE FOR
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

MS. SMALLWOOD: A question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Last June the minister

[ Page 6719 ]

supported the Family Support Institute's proposal to assist parents in keeping their handicapped children at home. Why has the minister not followed through with his commitment?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This question has been well canvassed of late. We had an excellent delegation of these people come to see us in caucus and present its case. I've been dealing with them for the last couple of years. I believe I've answered this question to this member before. However, I appreciate the fact that she might have to ask it two or three times before the answer finally gets through that we feel very strongly for these people. I admire them very greatly, and I have been working with the federal minister for some two years to have this plan recognized under the Canada Assistance Plan and cost shared by the federal government.

Since last year, there has been a change in federal minister, as I informed her before, and I will be taking this proposal forward to the new minister and through the federal-provincial ministers' conference coming up soon. However, we have decided to bring forward to cabinet our paper on the subject at an earlier date for consideration, and when that occurs, we will make all that information available to this House, to that member and to all the people of British Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary. The minister's stalling tactics aren't helping the families. This government approved $90 million in vote 74 last year for such new programs as Strengthening the Family and special allowances for the disabled, yet less than 30 percent of that money was actually spent by January of this year. Why was vote 74 not used to fund his commitment to the at-home care programs for disabled children?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To repeat, Mr. Speaker: we're very cognizant of the problems that these people face. They're very serious. They require training for them to be able to look after their children in the home. We understand that, and we're moving towards that.

To repeat for the third time, we're moving to fill the gap that exists in our program, whether the federal government moves with us or not. We feel it is a responsibility at both levels of government, and we realize the need. We also realize the need for respite for these people, as we have said to them, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that families require, as much as or more than the training and the aids that go along with looking after their children, is respite.

We're looking in all of those directions, and the government will have a policy on it very soon.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister didn't understand. You made the promise, you had the money, and you decided not to spend it. When are you going to stop stalling?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that this government has been stalling at all. We've been working towards it for quite some time. These things don't fall into place automatically. We realize that some giant strides have been made in deinstitutionalizing those less fortunate than ourselves. In fact, it was this government, in 1981, that made a promise to these people that we would take them out of the large institutions and put them into group homes in communities, and make them valuable members of society. This government was fought every step of the way by that party over there and by their supporters; and I can document that for you, Mr. Speaker, and for this House, just by looking at some of the clippings from the Kamloops newspapers back in 1981, if they want documented proof.

Now that we have made these giant strides and are leading the western world in deinstitutionalizing people, all of a sudden they want to come on board and pretend that it was their idea, and that we should make the next move. We are making the next move into assisting people who wish to keep their children in their own homes. There is no question that these people do better when they're taken out of large institutions and put into group homes; and there's no question that they do even better than that when they're kept with their own parents in their own homes. This government will see that that happens.

CONDOMS FOR PRISONERS

MR. GUNO: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) refused to permit the introduction of condoms in B.C. prisons to provide protection from the deadly disease AIDS. In the view of the minister's own experts and many other health experts, the prisons could be a major spawning ground in the spread of this disease. In view of the fact that there is urgent need to start protecting the public, is the Minister of Health now prepared to recommend that his colleague — and maybe nudge him into some semblance of wakefulness — introduce this very sensible health measure?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, no,

FERRY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In a letter sent yesterday from the Ferry Corporation to the minister, the general manager states with respect to construction: "...we cannot necessarily restrict ourselves to only a B.C. build because of cost and capability."

This is a fundamental shift in a government policy which existed and originated with W.A.C. Bennett, and it is a contradiction of the minister's remarks yesterday. Has the minister responded to the Ferry Corporation by telling them that all construction of all B.C. Ferries vessels will be by B.C. workers in B.C. shipyards?

[ Page 6720 ]

HON. MR. VANT: Once again, I think the second member for Vancouver East has to realize that the allegation he made the other day about the Finnish firm He was wrong. He realized that it was a good Canadian company with British Columbians working. The general manager of the Ferry Corporation keeps me fully advised from time to time. His advice concerning whether we do business in this province or outside the province is just purely advice.

As I indicated the other day, the government policy — especially of this great Social Credit Party — has always been to build our ferries in British Columbia. That policy, I can assure you, is not going to change. People who work for the Ferry Corporation can render any kind of advice they wish, but we decide what the policy ultimately will be.

MR. CLARK: The letter goes on to state that there might not be a company in British Columbia capable of building our new superferries. Does the minister concur with the Ferry Corporation?

HON. MR. VANT: It is interesting how the members in the socialist corner of the House always seem to get into possibilities and tend to be negative Given the magnitude of some of the projects this great government starts, naturally if it couldn't be done by someone in British Columbia we would have to look elsewhere. But I'm very confident in the shipbuilding industry here in our own province. Up to this point they've always been capable of rendering a satisfactory product, even if it is a huge ferry I'm optimistic that they can provide the ferry we're seeking.

Again, we get advice from our different Crown corporations, and that's all it is: advice.

[2:30]

OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Environment. A publication and exhibit on the oil industry now on display at the Royal British Columbia Museum states: "...modern offshore drill rigs can operate safely in Hecate Strait." Does the minister agree with this assessment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know. I'll go to the museum and look at it along with other items in the museum. I'll bring back my opinion as soon as I can check out the museum item.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled a report on government severance policy.

Orders of the Day

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. KEMPF: At adjournment just before lunch, Mr. Chairman, I was canvassing with the minister expenditures on certain projects within my constituency. Given the fact that the minister has had in excess of 2½ hours to contemplate the answers, I'm going to give the minister an opportunity to do just that: I'll sit down and listen to those answers that surely he has put together during the lunch hour.

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, I want to say to the hon. member for Omineca that he should actually read the blue estimates book a little closer than he has heretofore. just before lunch he talked about the projects in his riding and asked how much money out of this year's $1,198,100,000 was going to be spent on a project in his own constituency. I appreciate the fact that he thinks there should be more and more money for Transportation and Highways, for the freedom to move, but the actual fact is that my total budget is $1,015,000,000. I appreciate his attempt to try and actually inflate my overall budget.

As I indicated to him earlier, the Engen overpass is definitely a project for this fiscal year. I will now comment on the other parts of Highway 16, such as Meanwhile Corner, Suicide Corner, and Hagman Hill.

Regarding Meanwhile Corner, my district highway staff are currently designing alignment improvements, and I'm happy to report that this will be constructed in the 1989-90 program. Suicide Corner will also be reconstructed in the 1989-90 program. This corner is also known, perhaps not quite as sensationally, as Grieder's Corner. The engineering design for improvements to Hagmans Hill is to be done this year. The whole project, including the hill, will be a candidate for the 1990-91 program. There's a corner known as Hagmans corner in there as well.

The accident statistics for the last three years are: in 1986, one accident; in 1987, three accidents; in 1988, three accidents. I'm pleased to note that none of these accidents resulted in fatalities. It does definitely appear the frequency of accidents are going up, so improvements are certainly in order.

MR. KEMPF: I thank the minister for that information. I'm a little concerned that he has a different figure than is in the 1989 budget. With respect to the expenditures for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, I guess it's a misprint. However, we won't dwell on that for any length of time.

The minister may recall that before we adjourned, I asked a question with respect to phase 2 and phase 3 of the Coquihalla as well. I wonder if the minister could provide me with that answer.

Also, with respect to the Engen overpass, I'd be interested to know how many dollars — and I think that was the original question — will be spent in this fiscal year on the Engen overpass.

[ Page 6721 ]

HON. MR. VANT: In my haste to correct the figure that was mentioned before lunch, I picked the wrong page out of the blue estimates book. Actually my total budget is $1,016,153,925.

Specifically concerning the Engen overpass project, my staff are currently getting the amount of money to be spent this fiscal year. They've just given me that figure. It is $2 million.

MR. KEMPF: That's $2 million of the $38 million total, I take it, that's going to be spent on Yellowhead 16 West. I'm sure my constituents would be happy to hear that.

The minister, in discussions earlier, mentioned the Burrard Street bridge in Vanderhoof, a project that I'm sure the minister is aware has been promised the people of Vanderhoof for several years. In fact, I was assured two or three years ago that it would be built last year. I guess the question I want answered in these estimates today is: to what extent will the construction be carried out on Burrard Street bridge — how many dollars in this fiscal year?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm very pleased to note that the member for Omineca doesn't want me to spend all of the funds I have available this year just on Highway 16.

I can assure him that the mayor of Vanderhoof has on more than one occasion reminded me of the urgent need for replacement of that old bridge. As you can imagine, it's a fairly major project. For this year the total budget amount is $2,660,000. That's a pretty significant project. I believe we have already called for tenders. I can't answer the member regarding.... He keeps looking in the rear-view mirror about promises made in the past. Rather than just making promises, today I'm actually outlining a project which has been called for tender. That's as substantial as I can be at this time of the year regarding that project.

MR. KEMPF: I appreciate those figures from the minister. He still didn't tell me whether that's going to complete the project. However, perhaps he can tell me that at a later date. And he still hasn't answered the question with respect to phases 2 and 3 of the Coquihalla. I'm almost positive that the people of British Columbia would like to know why the downsized version of phase 3 of the Coquihalla is going to cost exactly the same per kilometre as phase 3 double-laned.

HON. MR. VANT: To answer the question about the bridge in Vanderhoof, yes, the total project should be completed this year.

It's interesting that the member for Omineca should take off on this cost per kilometre. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) got into that. Often, though, you end up comparing apples with oranges, because there are so many variables. Some projects go from one fiscal year to another. We're looking at vast differences in terrain in the various parts of this great province of ours. So really, the cost per kilometre can indeed vary considerably.

When you take a project the scope of the Coquihalla, and compare one phase with another, for sure you're going to have vast differences in cost over, say, an 80-kilometre section. It would depend on whether there's a lot of rock work. It would depend on how many lanes there are. There are just so many variables that it's indeed a very difficult question to answer. If I heard your figures correctly, it would appear that phase 3 and phase 2 came out to exactly the same cost per kilometre. My staff can perhaps come up with other figures, but that would take a little time.

MR. KEMPF: I'm really concerned about cost per kilometre, particularly when I find out that out of a $1,198,100,000 budget for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in this fiscal year, only $38 million is going to be spent on 450 miles — and you can convert this into kilometres, if you like — of Highway 16 West.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You can't, Jack. It's the terrain.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, the Premier is saying I don't know what terrain it's going through. I was born and raised in that country. I know exactly where the road is going. I know exactly what the terrain is like. You know, some people have been in this province all their life.

[2:45]

Let's get back to my constituency. The minister wrote me a letter recently suggesting that the Stella Road connection would be completed in this year's budget. I would just like to know from the minister today who set that priority. Whose suggestion was it that the Stella Road connection was a greater priority than Franqois Lake Road, which is what I wrote to him about to receive this answer? Who makes those decisions? Is it that politically appointed group that goes behind the backs of MLAs — making recommendations, I might add, that aren't the wishes of the people living in that area? I just want to know from the minister this afternoon whether it was the transportation planning committee of the so-called state of Nechako that made the recommendation that we should spend money on the Stella Road connection before Franqois Lake Road.

MR. LOENEN: How do they vote there?

MR. KEMPF: They all vote my way there, Mr. Member. It doesn't matter who the Premier chooses for his candidate in the next election, they'll vote that way as well. We can discuss that in the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What will we discuss, Mr. Member?

MR. KEMPF: A whole lot of things, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 6722 ]

I just want to know who made the decision that you are going to proceed with the Stella Road connection in this fiscal year. The minister is going to answer. Fine.

HON. MR. VANT: Before I forget, I want to correct the member's assumptions about the cost per kilometre. On phase 2 of the Coquihalla, it worked out to exactly $2 million per kilometre. On phase 3, from Merritt to Aspen Grove, it worked out to $1.4 million per kilometre. Aspen Grove to Peachland.... Of course, when you get down through Trépanier Creek and that tough section at the other end, over that 84-kilometre section, it averages out to $2.5 million per kilometre.

MR. SIHOTA: The average is $2.1 million, right?

HON. MR. VANT: For the whole phase 3, that could be.

MR. LOVICK: Just what I quoted you, right?

HON. MR. VANT: It's not exactly the same as phase 2, as the member for Omineca alleged. I guess we could play with the numbers indefinitely.

I would like to remind the member for Omineca that I did write to him on April 14 of this year, and said that beginning this fiscal year, the road improvements in his constituency would include replacement of Nechako Bridge in Vanderhoof, replacement of the Engen overhead west at Vanderhoof, completion of the Stella Road connection, replacement of the Stellako River bridge and improvements to Stones Bay Road on the north shore of Stuart Lake. Quite frankly, I'm wondering why the member insists on revisiting these things that have already been communicated to him. Why is he wasting so much valuable time in estimates?

MR. KEMPF: I'm sure that my constituents, the ones who send me here to speak for them, won't consider these questions a waste of time. I ask the minister: is this not what we're here for in estimates, to get answers for our constituents, those who democratically elected us? I know that rubs some people on that side of the floor, but it is still the situation in British Columbia. We haven't done away completely with the democratic process.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Give you time? That's what I'm afraid of, Mr. Member. The minister didn't answer my question about who made the decision to proceed with the Stella Road connection rather than the paving of François Lake Road.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The minister made it.

MR. KEMPF: On what advice, then, Mr. Premier, if the minister made the decision?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am pleased to be able to ask some questions and take my place in these very important estimates.

MR. KEMPF: If you ask any questions, you won't get any answers.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm going to try, Mr. Member.

They are very important estimates as well. As I have said — I don't know if I've ever said it in this House, but I have certainly made the point outside the House — highways spending in this province is not only an absolute transportation necessity, it is perhaps one of the most important economic tools we have for developing our communities and the infrastructure of those communities.

In addition to that — and it is something that is little, if ever, understood by the New Democratic Party — highways spending is perhaps one of the most important kinds of social services spending undertaken in the province. The reason I say that is that all of our social services in this province, particularly outside the great urban areas, are organized on a regional basis. We have regional districts; we have regional colleges; we have regional hospitals; we have regional forestry services; we have regional services through the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. In order for that system to work, we need and the people need a good transportation system. It is vital to the people who live outside the urban areas of this province.

That is why I am pleased to see this year.... I congratulate this minister for having worked hard and got the Highways budget back up over $1 billion, where it properly does belong. There is much work to be done in our highway system throughout this province: throughout the interior, on the Island, and in the lower mainland.

I think it's important for the people to know that we on this side of the House are prepared to make the decisions and take the inevitable criticism that comes to us from the opposition for putting priority on building roads. Building roads in this province is an important social service decision; it helps people. It assists people to develop their economy, and it provides them with a means by which they can benefit from the great social services systems that we have developed throughout this province.

Once again, as I have listened to this discussion, I have listened to the attitude of negativism that visits itself upon discussion of expenditures on highways. I will tell the members opposite — I ought not to, because you should let them wait to figure it out over the next decades — that the reason they ought to have more consideration for highways spending, and the reason they ought not to criticize every single highway project that has ever been undertaken in the history of British Columbia, is that if they simply look in any garage in front of any home in this province, they'll discover one or more vehicles. People in this province need to have good highways upon which they want to run those vehicles.

[ Page 6723 ]

So it is the case for all of us: if we are going to serve the needs of our communities and provide opportunity for our people, we must have a good transportation system. The way we get a good transportation system is creating public acceptance of having expenditures as high as we do in the Highways budget so that we can provide that service.

The way that you don't do that is to constantly go around and make Highways spending into a negative. That's what the socialist opposition has done in this House since 1933, every single flaming year. Since 1933, they have dumped on Highways spending. They have made it difficult for us to get the Highways estimates passed. They have gone out around the province and said that we are squandering money in blacktop government and not providing other services, and they are as wrong in 1989 as they were in 1933 and every year in between.

Having made those brief moderate introductory remarks, I want to now direct some questions to the minister with respect to some roads in my constituency.

The first one that I would like to have answered is with respect to Highway 5. Highway 5, as the member for Omineca knows, is also part of the great Yellowhead transprovincial system. While I concur with him that there is need for improvement and more spending on Highway 16, particularly through his constituency, now that there has been a good amount of money expended between Terrace and Rupert, quite frankly, some of the priority has to shift a little bit east of Terrace, particularly as we are coming to completion along the Skeena.

There are other parts of the great Yellowhead system we should be concerned about, and one of them is between Rayleigh and Heffley Creek, within the boundaries of the city of Kamloops. It is one of the most travelled highways in the province. There is a bad mix of vehicles: you've got a lot of through traffic, a lot of truck traffic and a lot of commuter traffic mixing itself on a road which, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, was laid down in 1952, when Syd Smith was the Minister of Highways in this province, and it hasn't been changed much ever since; the potholes are pretty well where they were, and all we've done is patch them up. There's a need for us to get that highway built, to get that thing four-laned, as has been promised by most Highways ministers since 1952.

I want to put to this minister that the people of Kamloops want that road. It was a commitment made through the forced amalgamation imposed upon our community, against their will, by the NDP in 1973 something that divided our community badly and that we're still recovering from. It was a commitment made at that time and since that time, and it's a commitment that we want kept. I want a clear answer from the minister as to whether or not the people of Kamloops and the people along the Yellowhead, Highway 5, can expect that bad piece of road and that bottleneck to be cleaned up and fixed up and four-laned this year, during this budgetary period.

The second question I have to the minister is about a deathtrap on Highway 1 east of Kamloops. It's a bad piece of road. It's a piece of road, again, where you have that bad mix of old road and narrow road. You've got through traffic from one province to another; you've got local truck traffic and chip trucks and logging trucks and fuel trucks; you've got commuter traffic from downtown going out to Barnhart Vale and Dallas, and on to Monte Creek. We need to have some commitment or some priority placed on that road to be four-laned beyond the Barnhart Vale turnoff, because it is a bad piece of business, and it's something that isn't going to improve by simply not getting on with it. I would like an answer from this minister, because happily he has got the budget back up over $1 billion again, and there's more money there for transportation needs on high-use highways in the interior, and Highway 1 east is one of them.

[3:00]

The third question I have for the minister is one that involves the paving of the Wells Gray Park road to the park boundary. Mr. Chairman, this year is the fiftieth anniversary of Wells Gray Park. It's an outstanding facility. It also is a tremendous opportunity for the community of Clearwater to diversify its economy after the mill shut down. The member for Omineca knows that in the interior we have mills shut down fairly frequently when they run out of wood or technology causes it. Their first response is not to run off to government and get their local Victoria MLA to try and badger the Forests ministry into doing something for them. The first response of those communities is to do something for themselves, and that's what the people of Clearwater have done through the Wells Gray consortium.

They have put together an outstanding program of diversification, through the expansion of their tourism facility. They've done it themselves, without any help from government. They've worked with their MLAs, they've worked with their regional district representatives, and they have attracted investment to that community. They are developing those tourism facilities and employing people. But they need a little bit of help from the Ministry of Highways. They need that road paved up to the Wells Gray Park entrance, and they need your colleague, Mr. Minister, in the Parks ministry to get that thing paved to Heineken Falls, because that will attract the tour buses, particularly guys like the Brewsters and so on, and develop circle tours into that community. All of that will create overnight stays in the community and will expand our employment base. It's an important and needed expenditure. I think, in total, the estimate is about $700,000. It will do wonders to change the economy of that community, which so badly needs it. It's a legitimate and proper expenditure for government. It's just one more of the many reasons why we have to have a good, healthy Highways budget in this province.

The fourth question I have for you, Mr. Minister, is this. We are blessed in the province of British Columbia with the great Coquihalla transportation system into the interior. We probably made one singular

[ Page 6724 ]

mistake with respect to building the Coquihalla Highway, and that is that we did not construct it right to the Alberta border in the east and Prince George in the north.

One of the things that has never been considered with respect to that highway is that before it was built, 22 people a year were killed on the Trans-Canada Highway between Kamloops and Hope. Since that time there have been fewer than four killed on the Coquihalla Highway. One can only comment briefly, but with some sympathy, on all the families in this province who now have their members all home safely as a consequence of that highway. I would ask those who want to get into their simplistic two-column arithmetic.... They might begin by putting a price on every one of the lives that has been saved by the construction of a safe transportation service into the interior. It is one more reason why the member for Omineca and others are on their feet today asking for advice about when transportation systems will be improved. We in the interior of this province are as entitled to safety in transportation as is the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) when he comes down to this Legislature on his bicycle, or whatever else he does, from his home.

I'd appreciate answers to those important questions for the Kamloops constituency.

HON. MR. VANT: I'm indeed very pleased to hear — it's not a surprise, mind you — that so many colleagues in the free enterprise part of this House are very keenly interested in highways.

I say shame on that member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew who thinks it's funny when lives are saved. He thought the fact that lives were being saved was just hilarious.

The Attorney-General, one of the hon. members for Kamloops, asked me some specific questions, and I'll be very happy to answer them. I took notes as he was speaking. That other important part of the Yellowhead Highway... There's not just Yellowhead 16; there's also Yellowhead 5. I expect to be going to tender by August of this year on that very important continuing four-laning between Rayleigh and Heffley.

I appreciate his concerns on Highway 1, the Trans-Canada Highway, east of Kamloops. Indeed we're not second-class citizens in British Columbia Many parts of the Trans-Canada Highway are four-laned in many of the other provinces, and although we don't seem to get too much money from Ottawa these days, I hope I can make a very important announcement concerning improvements on Highway 1 east of Kamloops very soon.

I'd like to confirm that since 1986 there have only been three or four fatalities on the Coquihalla. As I indicated earlier, they tell me in my ministry that because the Coquihalla was built, it saves an average of 18 lives per year. That, I think, is very significant and is not at all humorous.

Concerning Wells Grey Park, part of it is on the eastern boundary of my great constituency, but the main entrance and everything is in the Kamloops constituency. Very appropriately, in conjunction with the fiftieth anniversary of that park, I'm happy to say that I expect that the work to pave the road up to the park will be undertaken in June of this year so that it can be completed, so that when we get into the height of the tourist season it will be done.

MR. SIHOTA: While the Attorney-General is here and the Minister of Highways is talking about the Coquihalla, let's just retrace some of the reasons we on this side of the House ask questions.

Now I see that the fixer's leaving. He doesn't want to hear about his role on the Coquihalla. He doesn't want to answer the question on where he was on November 27, 1985, when in this House — I see that the minister has left now — the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), after having gone up and down that route being told by people that the project was going to be over budget, said that he thought the project would be about $500 million over budget. He made that suggestion and indeed allegation in this House. The response from the government side, and I quote, was: "You ought not to be suspicious of honest people." Where was the Attorney-General on that day? Was he responsible for the fudging that was going on with the Coquihalla at that time? Documents subsequently released indicated that the government was aware at that time that the project was well over budget.

On March 11, 1986, the government in its throne speech, when talking about the pride it had in the workers on the Coquihalla, said the project had been completed" on budget and on time." Was the current Attorney-General responsible for the provision of that quote? He was responsible for all the backroom work that was going on. He was responsible....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think I raise a valid point of order pursuant to standing orders that the debate in estimates should be relevant to the vote under discussion. Vote 72 is the operation of the minister's office for 1989 to 1990.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, hon. member. I know the book well, and what the government House Leader says is absolutely correct. It has been the habit since we started doing our estimates this year and in the past that we have not provided that members could speak only to the particular vote placed before us. We have allowed fairly wide-ranging debate on all, which would cover any number of votes included within the particular ministry with which we were dealing. Thus, when we come to the end of the debate, rather than getting the vote we're working on, then proceeding to the next one and dealing with that one, they all go through in fairly rapid order.

I must say that when you are dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, a certain amount of far-ranging items can be talked about. But let me say this: the matter of the Coquihalla would seem to be.... The Chair might remind all members present that the minister responsible for the estimates we're dealing with now was

[ Page 6725 ]

certainly not the minister at the time the Coquihalla was being dealt with.

That is very important. It's an important point that comes up in our debates all the time, and in some respects, some of the actual discussions around the Coquihalla are not really pertinent to the estimates that we are dealing with. They deal with the Coquihalla, but in a different sense than the estimates of the Highways ministry.

So having said that and with all due respect, I thank the government House Leader for what he said, and perhaps the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew could continue and keep his remarks pertinent to the estimates that we are dealing with at the moment.

MR. SIHOTA: I am responding because the Attorney-General went back as far as 1933, and I just want to cover some territory in the last few years. It will become evident in a few seconds why it ties in with the minister's budget. I dare say that the government House Leader, being from the community that he resides in, probably doesn't want to hear the true facts on the Coquihalla.

On March 11, 1986, the fact is that in the government throne speech of the day — and I am sure that the government House Leader will remember this — the government said that the project had been built "on budget and on time." I am wondering again what the role was of the current Attorney-General with respect to the drafting of that speech. What was his role all along when questions were being asked in the House with respect to the cost of that project?

Documents filed later on in front of the MacKay commission of inquiry demonstrated that on March 11, 1986, the government was well aware of cost overruns.

Moving forward in time: on September 7, 1986, after the celebrated leadership convention, the then Premier and Minister of Finance — the current Premier, no longer Minister of Finance — filed what he called the "comprehensive review of the province's finances" in the financial records that the Minister of Finance was required to file. He showed that the Coquihalla, according to his numbers, was $11 million under budget. What was the role of the member for Kamloops with respect to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt, hon member, but I believe that there is nothing pertinent to these estimates in what is being said at the moment. Perhaps you could become completely relevant to the estimates that we are dealing with.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point then. As these cost overruns were occurring, money was being deprived in other regions for necessary highway projects and works, because of the cost overruns on that project. I think it is legitimate to ask some questions to seek assurances that that isn't happening now, in terms of seeing what steps the government has taken with regard to that.

[3:15]

What steps are being taken now to make sure that what occurred on March 31, 1987, when the current Minister of Finance chose to table the public accounts of the province...? Interestingly, those public accounts contained the false figures for the Coquihalla. They showed that the project had been completed within budget. During the course of the commission of inquiry — September 22 — the government, through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, made its submissions to the MacKay commission. Again, this is its own commission that it selected on its own. It appointed its own individual, MacKay, and what happened? The submission to that commission by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways contained false figures for the Coquihalla.

I would hope that there are things that the government has learned from that. I would hope that the Attorney-General will one day stand up in this House and clarify his involvement past and present with respect to those projects.

Lest I get too far with respect to the Coquihalla — and maybe it might be better for me to review what was said last year in terms of the estimates with respect to what happened on the Coquihalla — I think the member for Omineca, who has left, was raising an interesting point. That point was in relation to who makes decisions with respect to highway projects in this province.

I would prefer you answer this question first. Firstly, is it true that committees that that member has no input on made the decision he was referring to? Was it based upon his submissions? If his submissions were bypassed, could he explain why the member's submissions were bypassed? It's a question of respecting the democratic wishes of the people in the riding of Omineca with respect of who they elect as MLA.

Is it true, Mr. Minister, that those decisions were being made by regional committees and not based on the member's views and, in fact, contrary to the member's views in that instance?

MR. LOENEN: I'm delighted to take my place in the estimates to firstly make some general comments and also to ask some very specific questions, particularly because transportation, as the minister well knows, is perhaps the most important issue in my community because of our very location.

We are an island community, and because of the growth and our proximity to other communities, the transportation routes have a tremendous impact on our community. Currently we are anxiously awaiting the completion of the east-west freeway. We look forward to that completion not because it will help our commuters all that much, but at least it will do away with the disruption that is caused by endless construction projects.

As the minister knows, most of the benefits really go to the community south of us, but we do have to put up with the inconvenience and the disruption that is caused there. When you look at a community like Hamilton, a small, sometimes forgotten corner of Richmond, it was completely severed by this big

[ Page 6726 ]

freeway that is marching through that community. People had to go about getting to their school or their community park in a very difficult and roundabout way. It is great to see that there will be a completion of that and that we will see some compensation for the disruption caused by that.

I want to commend the minister for last fall deeding over to the municipality some eight acres of leftover right-of-way for $1 in order to have that kind of a park there on the east side of the freeway. I know that the people there are immensely appreciative of that initiative.

In addition to that, they keep telling me about the landscaping on the approaches. Some of the mitigating factors, such as berming and some of the trees and shrubs and buffer zones, ought to be worked on. When we compare the landscaping on the north side and the landscaping on the south side of the Alex Fraser Bridge, there is a remarkable difference. Certainly the people in my community are taxpayers just as much as on the south side, and we would like to see the standard of landscaping on the north equal to that of the south. I would like to have the minister comment on that to see whether we could get an undertaking from him that will take care of that.

Another matter that is frequently brought to my attention concerns the fact that on the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge there is no telephone. With the volume of traffic there day and night, frequently there is need for an emergency telephone. The neighbours there are often called upon in the middle of the evening or night to provide help, which really ought not to be the case.

Just switching away from that end of the community, it was great news to have the Premier announce that this province will commit $5 million towards a new or additional middle arm crossing. I can assure you that the people of our community are immensely grateful and look forward to the time when, together with the municipality, that bottleneck is taken care of.

There has been talk about making the tunnel three lanes of southbound traffic in the afternoons. My constituents have met that piece of news with a great deal of uncertainty, perhaps even unhappiness, because it will most certainly mean that those workers who commute in and out of Richmond will have a much harder time getting home in the evening. Anybody can see the volume there, and creating another counter flow lane going south in the evening will simply block the traffic coming into Richmond from the south, making it that much more difficult. It may be great news for the people in Tsawwassen and beyond in White Rock, but certainly it will be to the detriment of the people in my community. I think we have to balance those interests. So that piece of news has certainly not met with any kind of positive response in my community, Mr. Minister.

When we look at the Oak Street Bridge, we know that a tremendous amount of work needs to be done in terms of surfacing the roadway. But more importantly, a divider down the middle is badly needed. We have unfortunately had a series of fatalities on the Oak Street Bridge which could have been prevented had there been a divider. A number of head-on collisions occurred when traffic crossed the centre lane. I would urge the minister to make a commitment to the people of my community that a divider will be placed there when roadwork and service work on the bridge is contemplated. As mentioned earlier by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), who can place a dollar value on a human life? We have repeatedly seen the tragic results of fatalities on that bridge. One of the local papers has been very active in promoting this.

In addition, there's a great need for a wheelchair ramp on the north end of the Oak Street Bridge. Currently, the sidewalk does not allow the handicapped any kind of access or egress.

We have looked at perhaps some of the smaller items, but there are also long-term big items that our community needs to address. I'm glad the ministry is talking about a future crossing of the north arm at No. 8 Road and Kerr, I believe it is, or Boundary. That's certainly a project that needs to be considered very carefully. However, the long-term needs of transportation in our area cannot be met simply by ever-increasing road and bridge construction. Those roads and bridges, that concrete, seem to fill up as fast as we put them down.

In an age when we're becoming increasingly concerned about the environment, it is imperative that we address long-term transportation needs by looking at public transit systems that will move people around the airport, that very congested area of the GVRD. I would recommend to the minister and the transportation committee that he, together with the GVRD, immediately initiate a study on providing commuter-rail service through the Arbutus cut to connect downtown Vancouver and the town centre of my community of Richmond. There are more commuters going into downtown Vancouver from Richmond than from any other suburb in the lower mainland. That alone ought to be enough reason to seriously consider the Arbutus cut for commuter-rail service.

[3:30]

There are a few other small items that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. The motor vehicle branches are often cause for tremendous frustration on the part of the people who need to use them, and I think unnecessarily so. I cannot understand, for instance, why those branches aren't open on Saturdays or after hours. The Attorney-General is proposing that the courts be open Saturdays and evenings. If courts can be open Saturdays and evenings, certainly motor vehicle branches can cater to the people and become more customer-oriented than they are.

Just another small item. People stand in the lineups there for two hours or more. A small item would simply be to have a number system, where you go in, take your number and you can do something else, like go shopping or read a book, instead of standing like animals in a queue forever and a day. It is inhuman the way we treat the customers.

[ Page 6727 ]

HON. MR. VANT: I'll tell the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree).

MR. LOENEN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I mistook the ministry. I was under the impression it was under this minister. I'll have to repeat it.

I do have one further issue I'd like to raise, which in some ways is very small and insignificant and yet very important. It relates to the fact that we do not have a sign indicating how to get to Richmond for the people travelling west along the Trans-Canada Highway.

MR. MERCIER: That's on purpose.

MR. LOENEN: I wondered about that.

You can look at a map of the lower mainland, and it would be very difficult, if you're not familiar with the situation, to see where to exit the Trans-Canada Highway to find the community of Richmond.

MR. CLARK: What would they go to see?

MR. LOENEN: We have some wonderful tourist attractions, and I could name a few.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names. Fantasy what?

MR. LOENEN: It is with great pleasure that we look forward to the opening of the Richmond equivalent of the Granville Island market on May 25. I would invite the member to come out and see the opening of Bridgepoint, which will be a huge success. It will be a tourist attraction. Of course, in addition to that we have Fantasy Gardens, which is rapidly becoming Richmond's very own biggest and best tourist attraction.

I cannot believe that it is impossible for us to put a sign there. People have worked on this forever and a day. I used to be an alderman. We worked on it. The mayors have worked on it. Previous members of the Legislature have worked on it. It seems to be absolutely impossible to get your ministry to put up a sign there.

We get told it's against the policy, but why not change the policy? Why should we have a community of 115,000 people with all kinds of commercial and business interests and activities taking place and have it virtually impossible for people coming in from the Prairies, for instance, to find it? Where do people turn off? They turn off in North Surrey. They immediately get lost in the street grid there. They cross the bridge and turn off somewhere in Burnaby, New Westminster or Vancouver. I have had personal experience of friends that come in from Calgary or Edmonton, and they'd end up on the North Shore because it's impossible for them to know where to turn off. How could you tell that you had to turn off prior to Langley in order to somehow find your way through Langley, South Surrey, Cloverdale and through Delta and finally to Richmond.

I really don't understand this. I have a whole pile of letters from the ministry, and they tell me that if they gave it to Richmond, they'd have to give it to White Rock, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam. If they have as much trouble as we have, they deserve to have a sign. Then I get a letter saying that you can't have too many signs along the road because it's dangerous or because people can't read them. Why don't we take a cue from what happens in the U.S., where they have great big overhead signs.

You have had a tremendous increase in your budget. Surely you could find a few dollars to put up a sign that's big enough so that our tourists and our visitors don't get lost all over the GVRD area. They'll know where to go.

This other argument....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, but the member's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. MOWAT: I'm very pleased to hear what the second member for Richmond is saying, and I would request that he carry on with this most enlightening program so that the people in this province will finally know where Richmond is.

MR. LOENEN: I am immensely, eternally grateful to my colleague. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll carry on for a minute,

This matter of the signing. Mr. Minister, I am told by your people that it's a danger to have too many signs along the roads. I don't travel the Vancouver Island Highway very often, but recently I had occasion to go there. I am astounded at the signs they Put up. There's a forest of signs up there. You have these new blue signs, and every little commercial establishment has its own sign showing the way to its own little commercial establishment. Surely, if you can put up signs for every little establishment.... I don't think the minister is listening.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted the minister to observe this. I get told you can't have too many signs, because it's too dangerous. I find that on the Island Highway there is a forest of signs. I recently went up there, and every little commercial establishment has its own sign. I tell you, if every little greasy-spoon restaurant can have its own sign, then why is it that a community of 115,000 people can't have a sign? Surely it should be possible for the minister.

I know that the minister is a person of great common sense. He comes from the great riding of the Cariboo, where everybody has a great deal of common sense. Anybody in the Cariboo would look at that and say: let's use some common sense; let's solve that problem; let's make it possible for our visitors to feel at home, not to get lost in the back roads of Surrey or Burnaby or other communities, but to be able to travel into the lower mainland and know where they're going without getting lost.

Mr. Minister, I'm not asking for much. I'm not asking for four-laning of highways like some of my colleagues. I'm simply asking for a sign. I know that this has been asked for for years and years. I think it would be a great thing, if I did nothing else in my career, if at least I got a sign saying where they can

[ Page 6728 ]

find my community. I know that a lot of visitors and a lot of residents would be immensely grateful if you would give an undertaking to accomplish that. I look forward to your response.

HON. MR. VANT: I appreciate that very enthusiastic speech by the second member for Richmond, although I regret that he's decided to leave the chamber.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was making some comments. Obviously he didn't listen to my opening speech, or he didn't take the time to read Hansard, but I did report on how my ministry was faring in light of the MacKay commission. I don't want to dwell on what happened in the terms of the commission of inquiry back in July '87, but the auditor-general, in his annual audit process, did a follow-up to the Coquihalla inquiry to determine if my ministry had taken into consideration and had implemented the recommendations of the Coquihalla inquiry. The auditor-general was satisfied that management appreciated the need for improvement and that the general thrust of the proposed changes was adequate and appropriate. Indeed, when the auditor-general tabled his report on his follow-up, his overall comment — I repeat this especially for the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, and I hope he is listening in his office — was this:

"We found that the ministry has taken action on all of the major recommendations made in the commissioner's report. As well, it has implemented status- and cost-reporting procedures for its major projects. We reviewed these procedures as they relate to the Okanagan connector project and concluded that they could be relied upon to provide proper accounting for the costs on the project."

To sum it up, the auditor-general is indeed satisfied that the ministry has taken the initiative to implement the recommendations of the Coquihalla inquiry

To respond directly to the second member for Richmond, I am happy to say that the long-awaited east-west freeway should be opened this July. We're also working this current fiscal year to expand the Alex Fraser Bridge. As you know, it was designed for six lanes, so we're doing the necessary work to open that up. It should, by the way, relieve an awful lot of pressure and concern you have concerning the situation with the Massey Tunnel.

Also, I'm happy to report that once the interchange is finished — that would be at the south side of the Alex Fraser Bridge — we will do the landscaping and it will be of a quality similar to the Boundary Road interchange, which I believe the same hon member requested and which I'm happy to report has now been completed.

For quite some time, of course, for both members for Richmond, the Dinsmore Bridge situation has been a problem. With that proposal towards a bridge lining up with the No. 2 Road, and with our concrete substantial offering of $5 million towards that project.... Of course, it has to be in cooperation with the municipality of Richmond as well as the federal government. That is seen to be a very necessary transportation link.

I think, too, I would like to say to the member that in the context of our new sign policy we can consider his request. Certainly the policy of this government is to allow all travellers to find their destination, whether it be Richmond or any other municipality in this great province of ours. For sure, we want to remove a clutter of signs that would just tend to confuse people. Also, when it comes to signing of services, we have certain standards. For example, a restaurant must serve at least three meals a day or it wouldn't qualify to be included in our new sign policy.

I think I've addressed most of the concerns of the second member for Richmond, and I certainly appreciate his remarks.

MR. GUNO: I'm happy to rise today to take part in this debate on the Highways estimates. I just want to say that I listened with great interest to the rather impassioned plea from the member for Richmond for more signs on Highway 99. I think the question is rather appropriate to the minister, in that he is an expert on highway signs.

I'll be brief. I've been trying to get on here just to make a pitch for some consideration of the road system throughout Atlin, which includes Highway 37 and, of course, the road into the Nass. Listening to some of my colleagues from the north, both from this side of the House and the government side, I support their view that.... They all express the concern that a disproportionate amount of the highway resources has been allocated for areas other than the north. I think it's high time we really took a look at and considered the very valid concern that some of the highway needs in the north are continuing to be ignored.

I listened last night to a CBC reporter who was interviewing the late first member for Cariboo, who was Highways minister for some years. It was a story about his travels throughout some of the highway systems in my area. It seemed that he wanted to take along with him many of his senior staff in order to have the experience firsthand, or at least to take a look and see what the highway systems were like, and have this hands-on experience. I thought that was rather intriguing. One of the stories that interested me was when the former executive assistant to that Highways minister was asked: "What happened during your trip through Highway 37?" He said: "We spent a lot of time changing flat tires." That was some years ago, but I dare say that very little has changed since then, except that the volume of traffic has increased tremendously. It has become, I think, a fairly significant alternative route for many people travelling from the northwest into the Alaska Highway system. While there have been little improvements made to Highway 37, except maybe some improvements to some of the bridges over some of the major creeks, it remains what it was about 20 years ago.

[3:45]

I think it was the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) who said that British Columbians, no matter

[ Page 6729 ]

where they are, are entitled to safe and modern highways. I subscribe to that principle, and I think we have to be concerned about how we allocate highway funds throughout this province. Unfortunately, the biggest factor is politics: you reward your friends and punish your foe. I don't know what we in Atlin have done to this government, but it seems to me that we've been punished long enough. We're quite willing to be friendly. We're quite willing to sit down and talk to the government about some of the things we may have done that have offended them and made them neglect us for so long.

I just want to zero in on the road to Kincolith. Again, I want to refer to the former Minister of Highways, who has passed on. I would just like to have this opportunity to pay tribute to him, because I know that when he travelled to Greenville to open up the new bridge that crossed the Nass, he was quite taken by the people, and I think the people of the Nass were quite taken by him. They recognized his integrity and his commitment to fighting for a better infrastructure throughout the north. At that time there were discussions about the extension of the Nass road down to Kincolith from Greenville. I understand that the minister made a commitment that the provincial government would enter into a kind of one-to-one sharing formula with the federal government if the federal government were to come forward with funds.

My first question is whether or not that commitment is still at hand. I think it's essential that that road be extended, not only for the people of Kincolith, who have to contend with boat and air travel and a scenario of severe winter conditions that often leaves the folks isolated during some of the more severe winter months, but also from a purely economic point of view. It would open up that area and diversify the economy.

I think the same applies to Highway 37. Right now the road system throughout that whole region is geared for single-use resource extraction. It is not consistent with any kind of planning for economic diversity. I think that if the government were serious about meeting the economic challenges throughout B.C., including the far north, then I would urge them to consider expending more than just a trickle in that particular area. In light of that, and more specifically, I'm wondering what is planned for Highway 37. Are there any significant renovations to be done on some of the bridge systems?

In the Nass, for instance, in the summertime.... I recently travelled through there. I'm not exaggerating when I say that you literally take your life in your hands when you're travelling there and those logging trucks are rolling, and it's dusty and hot. You can't see anything for a few seconds; you're blinded Because of the conditions, many of the travellers through that area are extremely careful; that's why we haven't had more accidents. But I think that is waiting to happen. Even as a short-term measure, I think that just oiling the road would be helpful. But in the long term, extending the pavement from the Rosswood area right into the Nass would be a tremendous improvement.

The stretch between the junction at the Nass and Greenville is another big concern. During runoff and heavy rainfall in the fall, vast stretches of that particular road are often under water. That road is travelled every day during the school week by buses full of school children. It presents a very real danger to the children travelling this road. I have heard very little about any funds being allocated by your department to improve this situation. Again, I want to canvass the minister as to whether there are any plans to address that serious problem, because it has been brought to your ministry's attention time and time again. It has been years and years since this has been brought to the attention of your ministry. So I want to know whether there are any concrete plans to deal with these situations in the Nass Valley.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANT: It's good to hear from the hon. member for Atlin. He gave a little bit of history. I know that the executive assistant that he referred to who accompanied Alex Fraser up there was probably Jess Ketchum. Since that visit, the actual amount of pavement on Highway 37 and Highway 37A has gone from about 10 percent up to over 50 percent.

I'd like to thank the member too for acknowledging the construction of that new bridge at Aiyansh. I can fully understand when he talks about logging trucks and dry, dusty roads. Like Atlin, my own constituency of Cariboo has a vast amount of dry, dusty roads as well. It does take time, of course, and a lot of money to get roads paved. It can't all happen in one year. But certainly we could look at some form of dust control where there are heavy volumes of traffic.

He specifically mentioned a question regarding the road to Kincolith. I think this is the road which goes from Greenville to Kincolith. Like some of my predecessors, we had agreed to 50 percent funding for that road. But at this point in time, we haven't received any funds from the federal government in regard to that specific project.

I would like to say that this year near Bob Quinn Lake, we are going ahead with the building of the Bob Quinn Airport. It is also a vital project for ensuring that people and the necessary supplies can get into that country. The people mining out in the Iskut Valley — from Skyline Explorations and Cominco and so on — assure me that they would make adequate use of that airport. Of course, that will be right alongside Highway 37. As the hon. member no doubt knows, for quite some time the aircraft were actually landing on Highway 37. With the increase in traffic volume, it's not a good mix to have aircraft landing on one of our highways.

This summer I'll be coming into Atlin, and I want to see firsthand the road situation there. I have, of course, been up there since becoming the minister. I made a trip to Meziadin junction and as far as I could get through Bear Pass. I was actually going to go all

[ Page 6730 ]

the way over to Stewart, but that's when we had all those avalanches. Indeed, there were no less than 23 avalanches on Highway 37A between Meziadin junction and Stewart. On Highway 37 north up near Ningunsaw Pass we had a major avalanche, one of the largest my avalanche technicians had ever seen. They measure an avalanche on a scale of one to five, and that one came in at 4.5. It left a deposit on Highway 37 about 50 feet deep and 1,000 feet long. This indicates the ruggedness of the terrain and the difficulties in some months of the year to keep those roads open.

So in the summer I plan to visit that area and further pursue some of the concerns which the member for Atlin has shared with me.

[4:00]

MR. GUNO: I'm happy to hear the minister say he'll be in the area to see the situation firsthand. I just hope it doesn't take more time even to deal with some of the more immediate problems that I outlined, such as the tremendous dust, which presents not only a hazardous driving condition but also, I would submit, an unhealthy situation in the Nass. It permeates the whole valley and into the communities. We're talking about rock dust, which can, as I understand it, cause silicosis, a serious disease of the lungs. I think we have to be far quicker in terms of time-scale in dealing with that particular problem.

I understand that some study is being undertaken to see the viability of extending the road from Iskut through the Iskut Valley, the Stikine and down into Wrangell to service some of the mining activities. Is the minister aware of that study, and what are the ramifications of such a road system?

HON. MR. VANT: I believe the study that the hon member is alluding to is to be completed by, I think, the end of June of this year. The road into the Iskut Valley would be a.... I guess you could call it a road to resources. Certain interests, both mining and forestry, would like a road built in there. I'm advised that it would be impossible for that road to really get to tidewater because of the rock bluffs and sheer cliffs at that end. It would be impossible, actually, to build a road right to Wrangell, because Wrangell, Alaska, is on an island.

Currently, some of those mining companies have their supplies come to Wrangell by marine transportation, and then they take them in by helicopter to their sites. So various interests want to build an industrial road and have very limited public access. If the Ministry of Transportation and Highways were going to get involved in that road, of course, it would have to be built to a certain standard. And once I spend public funds, it has to be a very accessible public road that would not be restricted in any way.

I would like to add a little more about some of our plans, because I know the member is interested in improvements to Highway 37. We plan to continue work north of the Meziadin junction. We want to construct two or three new permanent bridges; we're planning to do the Blue River bridge and the French Creek bridge. We would like to extend the grading and sealing on Highway 37. Currently we're doing some survey work about six kilometres out and up as far as Bell-Irving bridge No. 2. We would like to do more work, right up to the Hopegood logging access. So we are continuing to make improvements on Highway 37 a priority.

MR. LOVICK: I have been waiting for a long time to get back into this debate. It seems a curious phenomenon, but somehow members on the other side are resolved to take up all the time. I'm intrigued by that. However, let that happen. I want to pose a very direct question to the minister just to clarify, and then I am going to yield the floor to another hon. member who wishes to speak.

First, though, an observation. Mr. Minister, we are indeed having a rather protracted debate. Some of the observations made on both sides are lengthy. Some of your answers are rather lengthy too, and that's good; I'm sure we all appreciate your effort to provide us with information. But I'm wondering if we could perhaps jack up the enthusiasm somewhat, because I'd like to suggest to you that you might try giving the same amount of gusto and drive to your presentations as you would say if you were doing an interpretation of the Book of Revelation from the pulpit or something. It's getting a little dull, and a number of us are having difficulty paying attention. So I'm wondering if you could just jack it up ever so slightly. I offer you that free, gratis and for nothing — and with no attempt, of course, to criticize.

I don't want to belabour the point, but the question is this. Is it true that the construction work on the so-called Vancouver Island Highway project that I referred to earlier today will not begin in the summer of 1989, though that was indeed laid out in the schedule published in November 1988? Should I tell people that there will be no construction this summer despite what they were told before?

HON. MR. VANT: The answer to the hon. member's question is no.

MR. DAVIDSON: I have just a few points I'd like to raise with the minister. Firstly, dealing with the Massey Tunnel, I would like to know if the minister's staff has reached any determination as to the three lanes southbound in the evening. As the minister knows, there are virtually thousands of motorists lined up at night to go through the Massey Tunnel, and while the staff has indicated for many years that it would cause an inordinate delay for northbound cars, I still feel that the vast majority of motorists must be accommodated. I'm sure that with a little bit of ingenuity and imagination, a method can be devised whereby even for a period of one hour the tunnel could be opened for southbound traffic.

The three lanes also in the morning for northbound traffic — it seems that there's almost a fixed timetable in place. The tunnel opens at a certain time and it closes at a certain time, notwithstanding anything that might happen to the contrary. For

[ Page 6731 ]

example, if there's a tie-up in the tunnel or something, the other lane is still closed at approximately 8:30 in the morning. There's no reason that I'm aware of that the people on site at that time can't be instructed to use just a little bit of common sense and leave the tunnel open for an extra 15, 20 or 30 minutes. The majority of the motorists must be accommodated even though it inconveniences a few people on the other side going the other way. In addition, of course, with the Alex Fraser Bridge we can now divert traffic with simple sign programs to get them into that area as well.

The second point I'd like to raise is that of the bus lane. In other jurisdictions, motorcycles are allowed to use the bus lane. We've already allowed ambulances to use it, but the difficulty with motorcyclists.... The member will be aware that there's a growing number of motorcycles in British Columbia. You have a situation where the traffic is totally tied up for miles. You have people on motorcycles, and motorcycles don't have fans to cool the engines, so what is happening is that the motorcyclists are now going between the lanes of traffic or off to the side. I guess all of us who ride motorcycles have done this on occasion, because the bike just gets too hot to operate, particularly when you're forced to wear a helmet. On a hot day it's an impossible situation, and it begs for correction. All that is required is to allow motorcycles to use the bus lane. This is not uncommon. Seattle, for example, with their bus lanes, and other jurisdictions, allow motorcycles to use that lane. It requires simply a minor amendment to the regulations to allow that to happen.

The final point I'd like to make is regarding the Oak Street Bridge. I know there are plans and the ministry is now looking at possibly putting another lane on the Oak Street Bridge. In the meantime, would there be anything to prevent three-laning the Oak Street Bridge in the morning and allowing traffic to go up, say, to Park Drive and then turn off?

The real problem developing now in the mornings is that the traffic is able to get through the Massey Tunnel but is being bottlenecked at the Oak Street Bridge. By making Oak Street a three-lane going northbound in the morning, you can accomplish a great deal in removing that bottleneck. Some of the traffic will turn off for Marine Drive east and west, in any case; the rest can carry on to Park Drive, where you can do the same thing as on Georgia Street in downtown Vancouver.

In the evening, there's no need to change the traffic patterns on Oak Street, but by three-laning the southbound traffic on Oak Street Bridge, a great deal could be accomplished in that area as well.

These are three areas that I hope the minister can shed some light on and help alleviate what is, I think, one of the greatest bottlenecks anywhere in the lower mainland.

We all recognize the tremendous growth that's taken place south of the Fraser; we recognize the fact that the Alex Fraser Bridge is going to be used more and more. But still it is not going to help significantly reduce the traffic tie-ups through the Massey Tunnel, which are now at a stage equal to the situation before the Alex Fraser Bridge came into being. I would appreciate if the minister could share a few thoughts with us on that and maybe provide some reply.

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, the second member for Delta raises three excellent points. First of all, I can understand his concern about the Massey Tunnel. I'm very pleased to inform him that by September 15, we hope to have a very sophisticated electronic counterflow system installed, so that we can indeed have at the appropriate times three lanes of traffic flowing southbound. Currently we manually direct traffic and put those dividers down and everything, but if we have this sophisticated electronic system in place, it can give us some flexibility. We can see how the traffic is flowing and which volumes are heading in which direction, and we can change it and get the most use out of that tunnel.

I will certainly take under advisement his suggestion regarding motorcycles being allowed to use that bus lane.

The third part: the Oak Street Bridge is a very aging structure. Part of it is in the Chairman's constituency. The member for Delta suggests a possible counter flow on that bridge, but I'm advised that because places like Richmond are net employment areas in the morning — a lot of people drive to Richmond to go to work — there is even flow of traffic both ways.

Actually, in conjunction with the need for major rehabilitation of the Oak Street Bridge, and as the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) pointed out a few minutes ago, there's a safety need to have a divider down the centre of that bridge, and currently there isn't room for that. In a major rehabilitation program, we could add extra lanes, and that would solve the problem. I don't think the installation of a counter flow at this time would assist that much on the Oak Street Bridge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to see who talks about motorcycles. No, let's go to Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: I want to talk about the B.C. Ferry Corporation and follow up some of the stuff we've been talking about in question period. Before I do that, I would like to ask just one question, if I could, arising from the previous discussion about the Coquihalla.

[4:15]

The minister stated that the auditor-general gave a clean bill of health to Highways with respect to implementing recommendations flowing from the MacKay commission. But the auditor-general also talks about a critical problem — in fact, the critical problem in terms of financial accountability with respect to the Coquihalla — which was the shifting of money between sub votes. In another part of the auditor-general's report, he suggests that it is still going on in government today in a generic sense. I want to ask the minister whether he's saying that while the auditor-general has said this has not been

[ Page 6732 ]

addressed by government in a general sense, it has been addressed by the Ministry of Highways and, therefore, can he assure the House that within the Ministry of Highways, there is no transferring or shuffling of money between sub votes, which was one of the problems that arose as a result of the MacKay commission of inquiry?

I see that the staff is reviewing that question, so I'll keep talking very briefly until the minister is prepared to answer. It is the important question, it seems to me, because that's where the members of this House, the Legislature, have fundamental accountability. It's fine for us to approve global budgets, but if the ministry has the ability to shuffle money between sub votes, it confounds political accountability. It's vitally important, in my view and in the auditor-general's view, that that practice be stopped. I want to see whether, in fact, this ministry has stopped that practice.

HON. MR. VANT: Very briefly, I just want to assure the second member for Vancouver East that in my time there has been no shifting of money by sub votes that I'm aware of. I intend, along with my staff, of course, to work diligently to abide by the wishes of the auditor-general and to fulfil the recommendations of the MacKay commission.

MR. KEMPF: I've got to take the minister back to the north and back to Omineca for a while, because I really didn't get an answer to my question with respect to priorities.

I heard the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). I couldn't agree more with the Attorney-General with respect to the expenditure of Highways funds in British Columbia. If I had my way, the Highways budget would be twice that billion dollars that it is today — no doubt about it — but we'd see a little more of it spent in the north. Never have I ever gotten up in this House to speak against expenditures of taxpayers' money for highways and roads in British Columbia, and never will I.

I am concerned at this point about priorities and who sets the priorities. I think we've got to revisit that question, because I am going to stay here until I find out who it was that advised the minister that he should go ahead with the Stella Road connection prior to expending money on other projects in my constituency. Who was it, Mr. Minister? Was it the regional economic development liaison officer for the state of Nechako who made that priority decision? Was it the three Social Credit hopefuls who sit on the Omineca constituency association who made that decision? Who was it, Mr. Minister, that suggested to you that this project take precedence over others? It's very important to the people — the public — of my constituency.

This great minister of state program isn't working very well for the people when you see such priorities as this take place. I've got to know who made that decision. Was it the transport planning committee for the state of Nechako? Was it the political hack who runs around with the $45,000 salary, an open expense account and a vehicle in my constituency? Was it him? Was it Barrie Carter? Who was it who made that decision?

It certainly wasn't the MLA, and the decision wasn't made on the priorities held by the people in that area. So who made that decision? Who suggested to you, Mr. Minister, that you go ahead with this project over others?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before you go ahead, Mr. Minister, maybe we could ask the members who aren't wishing to speak to sit or be quiet, one or the other. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANT: Who sets the priorities is the question. I think, historically, that there have always been a number of players in this priority-setting. There are all kinds of people who lobby me as the minister, because I make the ultimate decision on the advice of many people, including my staff because, hey, certain projects or possible projects are identified by maybe a local mayor or an MLA. I might initially think that that's really a good idea, and then I find out that, gee, there's no right-of-way acquired, or engineering work has to be done, or there's some kind of technical problem so that particular project can't proceed immediately.

But I want to assure the member for Omineca that the local regional transportation advisory committee only recommends certain short-term and long-term priorities. They are not the decision-making body.

Also, as was alluded to earlier in the question about allocating funds from one vote to another, when a minister does decide to move funds from one subvote to another, it isn't done at the whim of the minister; it's done using the appropriate method through Treasury Board, where it's well documented. I think the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) knows that all ministries of government from time to time occasionally do — and I have been advised by my staff they actually do — through the proper method, through Treasury Board, make a good issue paper, having a good argument for why the funds are needed for a particular project or whatever.

Occasionally this does happen in my ministry. As I said earlier, sometimes some projects in a particular fiscal year cannot proceed for technical reasons, or because, as I said, the right-of-way hasn't been acquired. Rather than just leave certain funds in limbo, why not use those funds for another worthwhile project that perhaps an MLA like the member for Omineca has as a priority?

MR. KEMPF: We haven't answered the question. We went around and around it, but we haven't answered the question. It's a very simple question. Why was it the decision of the minister to go ahead with this project rather than others?

If it's the minister — and I heard the Premier say earlier that it was the minister who makes the decisions on advice from the hinterland — then who in the hinterland suggested to the minister that this

[ Page 6733 ]

project was a priority over others? In that very immediate area the minister need only go back to his files and he'll find letter after letter from the member for Omineca in the past few years . . .

MR. SERWA: Who's that?

MR. KEMPF: You'll learn who that is soon enough.

...suggesting priorities for this particular area in my constituency. I ask again, Mr. Chairman — and it's a very simple question — who was it who suggested that this project be a priority in my constituency? Because I didn't. Do we live under a democratic system or don't we? Or has democracy gone out the window in British Columbia? You know, I've heard several times in the two days that this minister's estimates have been before this House how we politicize the dollars in Highways. Is that what you're doing here? Who suggested this project as a priority, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed with the next speaker — and there were several people standing — perhaps.... We don't normally have this many members in committee. Perhaps in view of the fact that we're well in excess of a quorum, we could try and keep it down a little bit.

HON. MR. VANT: Quite frankly, I can't personally recall anybody particularly recommending that particular project.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please wait to be recognized.

MR. KEMPF: That makes the next question quite simple. Why did the minister choose this project?

HON. MR. VANT: I think the member for Omineca is somewhat naive in his approach. He thinks that every little project throughout the province is personally picked by the minister. Actually...

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANT: No, I didn't say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's continue just listening to one at a time.

HON. MR. VANT: A lot of projects are put on stream because of advice from various sources. Naturally one of the sources is the staff within the ministry. The district highways manager identifies that there is a certain need, and that may or may not have been identified by the MLA for the area; it may or may not have been identified by a mayor in an area, or any other citizen. But for sure, I and my ministry take note of correspondence received from a certain area, from all sorts of citizens.

There are other technical reasons why a certain project should go ahead and one shouldn't. It's not just a purely political process, I'm very happy to report.

[4:30]

MR. KEMPF: I've got all the time in the world. Perhaps we could adjourn this House and have the minister go to his office and phone the district manager in Vanderhoof to find out whether in fact he finds this project to be a priority over the others in that particular area. Perhaps we could do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you putting the question?

MR. KEMPF: Is this question period?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm asking you if you're putting the question for adjournment.

MR. KEMPF: Certainly I'll be putting a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wanted to know if you wished the Chair to call the question for adjournment, as you discussed.

MR. KEMPF: I'm asking the minister if he would like that. He told this House just a few minutes ago that perhaps it was the district manager in Vanderhoof who made this decision. I've got to get to the bottom of it; it's very important that I get to the bottom of this issue. It goes to the very roots of the democratic process, the very reason for the British parliamentary system. Who in a particular constituency makes suggestions to the minister as to what should be done — in this case, in highways? That's a very important question, hon. members. I'm sure you all agree. It goes to the very root of the democratic system.

The minister says all kinds of people make them; I don't doubt that. In this case I want to know who made the recommendation that this project be carried out over others, and I'll give the minister an out. How fair can you get? Is the minister prepared — because I know full well that this project hasn't started — to tell me that he's willing to take those dollars and put them into another project that is a priority in that area, a project that all of the engineering has been done on, that all of the surveying has been done on, and that in fact only needs blacktop? The surface for it has been in place for three years. Is the minister willing to take the recommendation of the duly elected representative for that area and divert the dollars from the Stella Road East project to one that is a priority of the people in that area?

MR. BRUCE: I note that there could be some concern about the spending of some dollars up in the Omineca region. I have a few thoughts on what we could do with some of the dollars there, if there's a problem. Following up some of the comments the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) made a little earlier about highway development being both social

[ Page 6734 ]

and economic, particularly sometimes on the social side of things in jobs and the expansion of the economy and the like, there is on Vancouver Island a new initiative that we've been working on in concert with a number of communities: the proposal of a link from Cowichan Lake through to Port Alberni.

I suppose if you follow the thoughts of social and economic development in the aspect of community stability, this linkage between these two communities would Indeed be a very major shot in the arm for both the Cowichan Lake area and for the Port Alberni region. As the minister is aware, there has been a tremendous amount of community support up and down the Island. This project in itself not only impacts upon the communities of Cowichan Lake and Port Alberni, but it also directly affects the economic and social viability of Cowichan-Malahat, the city of Duncan, the municipality of North Cowichan, and the communities of Chemainus, Ladysmith, Nanaimo, Parksville and Qualicum. What we would actually be doing by linking these two communities is providing a circular route for tourism development and for visitors from other parts of British Columbia and Canada and from around the world who come to our area to see much more of Vancouver Island.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: Certainly, as my colleague from Victoria knows, Vancouver Island is a very beautiful spot. It's a very beautiful part of British Columbia, and many people are coming here. To be able to provide other alternatives and other areas that people could visit would be of benefit not only to our region but certainly to the Capital Regional District as well Much of the wilderness& area that we talk about, the new role and the manner in which people are looking more and more to wilderness activities and the like.... With the linkage of these two communities and a road through this area, it would provide much greater accessibility to the Pacific Rim Park area and to the whole west coast of Vancouver Island.

Also from an economic side, the ability of traffic, trade and commerce to go to and from Alberni through Lake Cowichan, and down to the lower region of Vancouver Island and Victoria, would have a very significant economic impact. Currently, of course, as one would see with the road networking and not being able to go the way the crow flies — the region of Port Alberni, of course, having to go back out onto the highway and all the way down — there would be a sizeable reduction in time-frame of travel from Port Alberni through to this area. I think it would impact greatly on the future expansion of the whole area of Vancouver Island and the province as a whole.

As I mentioned, there is strong community support for this, and to demonstrate that community support, last year we had a cavalcade. We had two cavalcades, actually. We had one that started in Cowichan Lake that went through the existing road network that's there right now — as the minister, I believe, is aware — to Port Alberni. At the same time another cavalcade from the Cumberland area went through the Comox Valley to Port Alberni. There we met, several hundreds of people, in a strong show of support for this type of linkage.

Again there will be a cavalcade — and it's very timely that we're on the Highways estimates — that will be occurring this weekend on May 14.

MR. BLENCOE: Tell us about the cavalcade.

MR. BRUCE: I would like to tell you about the cavalcade. And perhaps the member for Victoria might like to try and venture just a little bit further north of the Malahat than I think he's had the opportunity to. He might like to come up through the Cowichan Valley — where I believe even some of his relatives live in that great constituency of Cowichan Malahat — and take the opportunity of coming up through to Cowichan Lake; drive the road and see what the outdoors is all about, see what this great province of British Columbia really is all about, and see what this linkage.... Because I too would like to hear from the member for Victoria his words of support for this particular project.

I know that the minister has been doing some work on this; and also through the regional development, the ministry of state process, with the hearings done in regard to transportation, this particular project has received a great deal of support. I appreciate that there is a project manager who is currently looking at it all. I would hope that perhaps the minister might be able to give me some update on this particular issue so that on Sunday, when we gather as a group after another successful cavalcade, I'm sure, we could mention to the people just what in fact is occurring.

There are a couple of other points I would like to cover in the aspect of highway development specific to Cowichan-Malahat. We have an area that's as famous as any in respect to highway and road development, the famous Mesachie corners. I'm sure that most of you here, if you haven't already heard of Mesachie, will know about Mesachie. We're having a grand opening on the Mesachie corners occurring later this month up in that community. It wasn't a long stretch of work that needed to be done in distance, but it was a long time in getting done; many years.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I like to think that perhaps it was because of the more recent representation the community has had that we were able to get the project underway; we picked the ball up and got the work underway. But I would like to commend the Ministry of Highways for the job that was done there: the straightening of those corners. Many logging trucks are working up and down that road neck, and they were tight, narrow corners. It has been straightened away now. It's greatly improved.

But there's a little twist to this whole story of the Mesachie corners. It's not just a question of blasting

[ Page 6735 ]

through, moving rock, filling gullies, laying gravel and sand and paving it all. The way these Mesachie corners were to be straightened out could have meant the elimination of some 19 or 20 historical trees. These trees were actually brought to the community, oh, I guess some 50 years or so ago from around the world as the community developed there with the forest industry. Some of the pioneers of our community saw fit to bring these trees to the area.

Although we were seeing a fairly positive development in these corners to be straightened, and it is of great benefit to the community, there was great consternation among people who live in Mesachie itself — and actually throughout the constituency — that because of the plans that were being developed we could be in the position of losing all of those trees or a goodly number of them. I think it's important to point out, because sometimes it's thought that the Ministry of Highways is only there to blast a road through with a damn-the-torpedoes, full-steam-ahead sort of approach. But with a great deal of community work and participation with the ministry staff and the minister himself, we were able to put together a design so that the corners were straightened out, which was a plus to the community, and we were also able to save these 19 or 20 historical trees.

I think that that's an important point to note. From around the province, I suppose, a lot of people would drive by those trees and might not consider them to have any historical value at all. But those trees mean a great deal to our community and to a number of the pioneers who lived in the area. As I mentioned, through cooperation and conversation and the like, we were able to come up with a design that satisfied both the straightening of the corners and the saving of the trees.

Just to have a little fun with that, next weekend on May 18 or 19, we're having our own official opening of the Coquihalla, only it's the Mesachie corners. It's also our historical days — heritage days — in the community of Cowichan Lake and Lake Cowichan, so it ties in really nicely. We're going to have a lot of fun It's a good news project; it's been good for the community.

MR. BLENCOE: No overruns.

MR. BRUCE: No overruns. It's been properly done, well constructed, environmentally sound and protective of the trees there. We're going to have a nice little commemorative event there. Again, I would certainly welcome the member for Victoria if he'd like to come up and see how the job is done and what you can do when you get the community working together — people working together — for the province of British Columbia and the communities in which they live.

You might want to come up to that, because it will be a lot of fun. We're going to have a few speeches You could come up. I'll give a nice speech; I would introduce you. There would even be some tea, coffee, crackers, cakes and the like for you. I think it's important to mention that.

When we talk about social and economic development — and I think this is important because Highways plays such an important role in all of this — the other aspect is the economic and social development in a community like Lake Cowichan. We've had some serious and difficult times in that community, but that community is alive and well. We are going to move ahead in spite of some of the difficulties that we have been faced with.

As I stand here today, let it be known that a few years from now, you will look at the Cowichan Lake area and the village of Lake Cowichan with the same appreciation as for Chemainus and for a number of other small towns throughout British Columbia. It certainly will become a destination area in the southern part of Vancouver Island for visitors coming through.

[4:45]

When we talk about Highways and the aspect of social and economic development, let me tell you what it means to a community like Lake Cowichan to have a simple little project be given the green light to get up and get running. For some years we've been attempting to get the curb and gutter program put together. It's not just a question of turning to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and saying: "Come and do the curb and gutter in that particular area." It's also part of the local budgeting process, where there are dollars available — or perhaps some years they aren't available — to be able to participate in that cost-sharing initiative.

This year — of all the years — it has come together. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has given its blessing, as I understand, so that the curb and gutter project will be underway. The community itself has the dollars necessary to do the sidewalk work and the municipal dollars necessary to participate in this program. But when you see the actual development taking place and the crews working, the improvement to the entrance of the community is really quite staggering. In total dollars, it's not very significant relative to the global budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or what you may find in some of the larger centres around the province.

To that community, the project shows that there is faith, determination and a future for the community — albeit a small project that in itself is not going to make a difference to the economic and social viability of the community. But it shows they are not alone, and that this will enhance the entrance to the community. Other works, I am sure, will begin throughout the rest of that main street to take advantage of some of the downtown revitalization programs for facade improvement.

I'd just like to express at this time how important it is. I would hope — and I am sure — that the minister would make sure that this project will be up and running as quickly as it is feasible to put together. I say that because of the psychological importance to that community. It may be that somewhere in the hopper, that project is going to happen and would perhaps be done in September or October,

[ Page 6736 ]

because it's not a big one. It would have a very strong significance to that community if we could see it occur in June or July, if the planning has been done and is in place. To give it that little nudge would mean a lot to the community.

Finally, before I sit down, I would like to speak a little about the Ferry Corporation and about our British Columbia ferry fleet. I've mentioned this before; there is no ferry service in the world that compares to what we have here in the province of British Columbia and here on Vancouver Island. The service between Vancouver Island and the mainland is exceptional. However, I think there are a couple of things we could do on the B.C. Ferries system that wouldn't necessarily be a high cost, if any cost at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret to inform the member that his time has expired.

MR. CLARK: I want to canvass with the minister some questions regarding the sub votes, as it appears the minister has got a different answer from the one he gave me earlier. It may be as a result of more consultation, but it concerns me, so I want to get it clarified. Exactly what is the status of moving between sub votes?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm very glad that the second member for Vancouver East seeks this clarification. In the context of his original question I assumed.... I guess you can't really assume anything when you're speaking to this House. When I made the comment about shifting of money by sub votes, it was in the context of your question to do with the Coquihalla. In my time there hasn't been any shifting of money by sub votes affecting the Coquihalla. I think that is the clarification you're seeking.

MR. CLARK: Then I would like to know the status of transferring funds between sub votes in your ministry as a whole — not simply the Coquihalla but all programs within your ministry.

HON. MR. VANT: If there are any which are done or contemplated, they're all done through a very proper process, which very appropriately involves Treasury Board. If the hon. second member for Vancouver East wants to get into a very detailed analysis of this process and everything, perhaps he should discuss it further with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who is ultimately responsible for those kinds of things, which affect every ministry of government, not just my own.

MR. CLARK: You can be sure that I will deal with this in the Ministry of Finance, but I want to canvass it with you a little bit, because to me it seems fundamental.

The fundamental failing identified by the MacKay commission, which delved into how there was a $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla and how that could be concealed from the Legislature, was the shifting of money between sub votes. I want the minister to understand this point. There used to be roughly 20 votes under the Ministry of Highways. I don't have the estimates with me right now, but I gather there are about four votes now and many sub votes. So what is identified as a major failing of financial accountability that contributed to the Coquihalla cover-up — if I can use that word — was the ability to shift between sub votes. In answer to questions on the Coquihalla the minister said: "We are following all the recommendations of the MacKay commission." That does not appear to be the case if the minister is saying that they are abiding by all the recommendations of the MacKay commission except for the one that says they should not be allowed to shift money between sub votes.

That is a fundamental question that hasn't been dealt with and should be dealt with. I wonder, since he's got other advice here, whether he wants to clarify the ministry's ability to shift money between sub votes.

HON. MR. VANT: I'm not too sure that all the arguments the hon. member is putting forward are actually based on the MacKay commission, but I want to assure the member that in terms of the finance and administration operations in my ministry, all reallocations must be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the vote descriptions and the government's current initiatives. In light of the MacKay commission we did reduce the number of actual votes in my ministry, which I believe Commissioner MacKay requested, so that it would be much clearer. But there is a very proper procedure to be followed, and I think it assists anyone concerned to follow what reallocations have occurred, for what good purpose and exactly how much money was involved in any particular specific reallocation.

MR. CLARK: But it's not a public process, Mr. Minister. The fact that you go behind closed doors and appeal to Treasury Board for permission to move money between sub votes I understand. That's not a proper process, in my view. The proper process is that those things are voted on in this chamber. That's what led to the non-accountability that the MacKay commission talked about. It's fundamental to what we do here in this chamber. We approve spending for specific projects. The government is in complete control of what projects are spent on, as long as they come to the House for approval. If they can then leave here and move money between sub votes, we're confounding that political accountability. That's what was at the heart of the MacKay commission. The minister went to great pains here repeatedly to say they were following the MacKay commission; it now appears that on this critical question you're not. Does the minister understand the logic that I'm trying to follow here?

HON. MR. VANT: Actually, I think the member is referring more to the auditor-general's report right now than he is to the MacKay commission report.

[ Page 6737 ]

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I've got a multitude of things to talk about with respect to my constituency, but there's no point in proceeding until we get answers to questions already asked. This is such a very important question, because if it's not answered, there's no real reason for any of us to be here, this supposedly being a democratic process. So we've got to get to the bottom of it. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be difficult. I don't want to be repetitious. I just want an answer. What I'm going to do for the minister is make it simpler....

HON. MR. VANT: Are we still on the Stella Road connection?

MR. KEMPF: We're still on the Stella Road connection, yes. I'll make it easier for you. I'll give you multiple-choice. Who was it that set the priority for that particular project? Was it the minister? Or let's start higher. Was it the Premier? Was it the minister of state? Ah! We haven't touched on him yet. Was it the minister of state who made that decision? He really should be making some decisions; he's spending three-quarters of a million dollars of the taxpayers' money to support an office in Smithers, in the state of Nechako. He should be making some decisions, for three-quarters of a million dollars a year — and that's only half of the budget he has for the minister of state; he's got another three-quarters of a million for Dawson Creek, for another politically oriented office.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: We're doing this multiple-choice.

Was it the Premier? Was it you, Mr. Minister? Was it the Minister of State for Nechako? Was it the political hack for the area, the regional economic development liaison officer? I can even give you his name, to make it easier: Barrie Carter, who is paid $45,000 a year to run around in a Bronco that the previous Minister of Highways had to get rid of. Was it him? Was it Treasury Board? We heard them mentioned a few moments ago. Who was it? Who was it, Mr. Minister, that made the decision to set that priority in my constituency? While you're thinking about that I'll give you another couple of questions.

I really am very interested in another project that you mentioned here, the Stellako River bridge. I'd like to know, Mr. Minister, how many dollars you're going to spend on the upgrading of the Stellako River bridge in this fiscal year.

[5:00]

HON. MR. VANT: The multiple-choice questions. For the first seven people he mentioned: the answer is no, none of them. I think he began with the Premier and he ended with the regional development liaison office.

If I could very simply cancel this little, tiny Stella Road connection project.... I am getting messages, as there are many other MLAs who sit in this House and represent other constituencies who would be happy to have a project in their constituency instead of in Omineca. But to get a little more direct in response to the member, the actual decision for this very modest project, to increase the Stella Road connection from a very narrow one-lane to a two-lane.... It's about 1.5 kilometres in length. It's very slight upgrading and some gravelling. It's located on the north side of Fraser Lake. It was a decision actually made by the district highways manager, so that it would be a little easier to maintain all the roads in that area of the Omineca constituency.

MR. KEMPF: Well, at least we've found out who set the priority on that particular project. I am amazed to learn that it was a single-lane road; incidentally, Mr. Minister, it was not. Of course, I wonder about where you get your information in general, and that's the reason I ask about the Stellako River bridge, which in a letter dated April 14, 1989 — that's not very long ago — you said was going to be one of the priorities and one of the projects in my constituency in this fiscal year.

I am sure you will be happy to know that you won't have to spend those dollars either, because that bridge was completed over a year ago. I wonder where you get your information and how you set your priorities. If you've taken the advice of the district manager over that of the duly elected representative for the area, that's interesting. I will have to tell the people of Omineca that there is no point in going through these elections anymore. They've already got non-elected people running around in Broncos, who make all these decisions. Some democratic process we have, Mr. Minister.

Is that what we can expect for all those other things that the people of Omineca wish to see? And not just the people of Omineca: we have a number of other duly elected representatives in this House — 69 to be exact. Are we to believe that from now on, any priorities set by the people through their duly elected representatives will be disregarded in favour of those made by others, whether it be the district manager, the minister of state or whoever?

I wonder why the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) would then get up in this House and seek something for his constituency. He need only go to another minister of state and ask for it. Interesting. We've learned a real lesson here this afternoon, Mr. Minister.

MR. CRANDALL: Who has, Jack?

MR. KEMPF: Well, somebody on the government side of the House better have; that's all I can say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the members to address their remarks through the Chair.

MR. KEMPF: Somebody had better learn a lesson, or those people aren't going to be in the rump group here; they are going to be in the opposition there.

[ Page 6738 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. CLARK: Members seem to be making noises from chairs that aren't theirs in the House; I believe that's not appropriate in this chamber. If people want to heckle, which is a time-honoured tradition here, they must do it from their own chairs. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about?

MR. CLARK: Is that your chair now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has noted the comment and is very aware of that comment.

MR. LOVICK: These long absences, Mr. Chairman, do make the heart grow fonder. I want you to recognize that.

I want to pick up on the point that my colleague from Vancouver East was making a few moments ago, because I think there is something absolutely fundamental and important that needs to be addressed. In response to that line of questioning, the minister said, essentially, that while that was really the auditor-general rather than MacKay, and used that as some kind of explanation.

Let me just clarify what the testimony is. In the auditor-general's report, which is complete with some recommendations, it is stated very clearly that the recommendations are based on what MacKay, the commissioner of inquiry, had to say. He states very clearly on page 220.... The heading for this is "Accounting to the Legislative Assembly and the Public," and the important statement is as follows: "The commissioner recommended that each major highway construction project have a separate subvote in the government's annual estimates, and that the project description clearly define its scope, benefits and total estimated cost." That's the crucial point.

Okay, we've got that. Now what's interesting to note is that your reference to our discussions about the Coquihalla no longer being relevant, or some such thing.... While we have indeed implemented all of MacKay's recommendations, now we are saying, in response to some other questions being asked, that it looks as if we are still able to transfer from one subvote to another. We want an assurance that that is not happening.

Let me remind you what probably the most important point made in MacKay's report was: the Legislature — I quote from memory — "lost effective control of the public purse." That's the fundamental issue the Coquihalla case was all about. What we're pursuing now is simply the matter of whether it is still possible to transfer from one subvote to another, and, as my colleague quite rightly questions, to thereby engage in a process that will no longer be public. In fact, the only time we would find that out would be at least one year later in an annual report, or by searching in the public accounts. We would not know before it happened that it had happened. That is the reason for the concern; that's why we're having the line of questioning. I'm sure you would share with me, Mr. Minister, the conclusion that it is a fair question and indeed an important one.

HON. MR. VANT: I have to answer most of the member's questions in the affirmative. For example, in this year's estimates we have a lot of very detailed classifications by subvote, especially under major highway capital construction, and I think you will have to agree that that's certainly a step in the direction the commissioner and the auditor-general desired. So we are making every attempt to abide by those very important recommendations.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the assurance and the spirit in which it is offered, but I think we need a little more specificity.

Let me remind you what the auditor-general says at the conclusion of that particular section of the report: "The Legislative Assembly should expect the ministry to provide greater public accountability by: ensuring that all major projects — i.e., those exceeding $50 million in total cost — are fully described in separate sub votes in the estimates." We have the assurance — indeed, it's acknowledged in the auditor-general's report — that the ministry has addressed these concerns. There are separate sub votes for each of the three major projects in '88-89: namely, the Okanagan connector, the Island Highway and the Cassiar connector. Fair enough; we don't question that. That's given, then, and you're quite right to take pride in the fact that that's happened. We've acted on it. What we want to know, just to pursue the question my colleague raised, is whether it is the case that transfers are still possible from one subvote to another; in other words, that what we get will not necessarily tell us the whole story. Or is that practice going to end completely, totally, forever?

HON. MR. VANT: There can't be a 100 percent assurance, because under the Financial Administration Act — and I'm sure this affects every ministry in government — there has to be some ability, within a subvote, to perhaps go ahead with one rehabilitation project instead of another, given weather conditions or various things. An administrative decision that would come back to the decision-makers to be ratified would certainly, under the appropriate regulations under the Financial Administration Act, in accordance with accepted procedures, be done. I don't think we'd want to reconvene the Legislature in September because....

MR. KEMPF: We're not going to be adjourned by that time.

HON. MR. VANT: That's not for me to predict, as the saying goes. The government starts a session and it's often the opposition that ends it. I accept that.

I just want to assure all the members of the House that we'll be abiding by the Financial Administration Act. If there are any more questions in that regard, it

[ Page 6739 ]

might be appropriate to direct them to the Minister of Finance.

MR. CLARK: The minister's putting an interpretation on the Financial Administration Act which is not shared by the auditor-general. In fact, the auditor general has said that this moving money between sub votes thwarts the very spirit and intent of the act. It seems to me that the minister is not abiding by the MacKay commission recommendations if on the one hand he goes to great pains to set up sub votes for major projects, which is laudable.... It defeats the purpose if you simply allow money to transfer between sub votes. It entirely defeats the purpose of setting up separate sub votes for major projects if you can then find a way to move money between them. That's the fundamental point.

The question is, why do you need this power? The auditor-general says it's not appropriate. The Financial Administration Act — I beg to differ with the minister — clearly states it's not appropriate. The minister says for administrative decisions it might be appropriate. Well, maybe there is an argument for administrative decisions, but what's to stop politicians from making that decision? The minister says we should take comfort from the fact that it's the Treasury Board that authorizes. Well, who are the Treasury Board? It's a committee of cabinet that makes a political decision. I understand that, and I may even agree with the politicians making that decision, but they have to have approval for spending in the House.

Simply adding more sub votes, as the MacKay commission and the auditor-general recommend, but then not dealing with the other question, which is allowing shifting between votes, is not sufficient. I wonder if the minister would undertake, if shifting between sub votes for any reason is approved by Treasury Board, to make that fact public at the time at which the approval is given.

HON. MR. VANT: I think the concerns of the second member for Vancouver East, in his careful consideration of the auditor-general's report and so on, concern all of government. His question should be directed more specifically only to my particular estimates, because the scope of this debate involves just about every ministry of government, and I don't think I should get too involved in the course of my estimates in the far-reaching recommendations of the auditor-general. All I can say is that to the best of our ability in this ministry.... It is confirmed by the latest auditor-general's report that we are making significant progress. But your concerns go much beyond my particular ministry.

[5:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The comments are very well taken and in order.

MR. CLARK: The reason we're canvassing this is twofold. First, the problem of moving money between sub votes arose as a result of the Coquihalla Highway and the subsequent commission of inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret to interrupt, but it is the Chair's opinion that we are entering into a field that is outside the jurisdiction of these estimates. It is a matter that falls within the Minister of Finance's jurisdiction.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I will canvass the Coquihalla Highway, and the minister is the minister responsible for highways. I'm asking him to indicate that there will not be shifting of money between sub votes in his ministry, in Highways, as the MacKay commission and the auditor-general recommended. I'm not asking for a policy change of the entire government of British Columbia. I'll be dealing with that with the Minister of Finance, quite correctly.

This minister has said two things repeatedly: (1) he makes the decisions in his ministry, and (2) they are following the recommendations of the MacKay commission. This minister has repeatedly answered questions on the Coquihalla inquiry by stating that they are following the recommendations of the MacKay commission. I am attempting to ascertain that in fact they're not following the major recommendation of the MacKay commission and the auditor-general, which is not to allow shifting of money between sub votes. To do that belies the very accountability that the minister claims to have.

I'm asking not for a policy decision by government but a policy decision by this minister and this ministry: at the time money is shifted between sub votes, for this minister to make public that fact and the rationale for that fact.

HON. MR. VANT: I can't really answer that question, because it's not really within my administrative scope as the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Minister of Finance is the Chairman of Treasury Board. It is only he and Treasury Board who can actually bring about the transfer of funds from one subvote to another. I can't comment beyond that.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister then assure the House that he will not go before Treasury Board and ask for permission to move money between sub votes? He claims that he is following the MacKay commission recommendations. He claims that he is following the auditor-general. That's his standard answer every time we've asked him any questions in this area. We finally deal with a specific and it's now clear that he's not following it. I want some assurance from the minister, if he can, that he will not therefore ask for permission to move money between sub votes. If he is to ask permission, then that information should be made public so that the public knows it's not nefarious. If the government says, "We want to shift money out of the subvote for the Okanagan connector and into another project," it might be quite legitimate, but that fact should be made public at the time so that people know.

[ Page 6740 ]

Can the minister give us any assurance — not deferring to Treasury Board — that his ministry will not originate any requests, and that if it does, the request will be made public at the same time and not behind closed doors with Treasury Board?

HON. MR. VANT: The answer is no. I have a ministry to run. Of course, you are always concerned about information for the public out there. We will continue to publish Public Accounts. There's a standing Public Accounts Committee of this Legislature that reviews all expenditures.

MR. LOVICK: After the fact.

HON. MR. VANT: It's sometimes hard to do it before the fact.

MR. CLARK: The minister says we can wait two years to see whether they've moved money between sub votes. The reality, therefore, is that nothing is in place to protect the public from the kind of overruns that we saw with respect to the Coquihalla Highway In other words, the minister has learned nothing from the MacKay commission, because the central finding of the MacKay commission was that the ability to move between sub votes allowed the obfuscation or hiding of the massive overrun.

All the government has done is to make it worse, and they've made it worse in this way: there are now only two global votes in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and many sub votes. There used to be 20-odd votes, which did not allow a shifting of money because the votes would take precedence Now there are only two global votes and many different sub votes. Unless there's some assurance from the minister that money won't be moving between sub votes, we've lost even more accountability than we had before the Coquihalla fiasco took place. In fact, every single assurance by the minister that the ministry is following the MacKay commission is hollow if we don't deal with that fundamental question, which is the ability of the Legislature to scrutinize and vote on the financial requirements for different projects. It seems to me that we've gone backward rather than forward on this question.

HON. MR. VANT: Probably the only thing that would satisfy the hon. second member for Vancouver East is if the decision was made by government or by the Minister of Finance to make public immediately any request to move funds from one subvote to another. I think he does acknowledge that we have progressed in my ministry to have more detailed sub votes. I guess the more we break it down, the more accountable we are and the more information each and every Member of the Legislative Assembly has. I think he should pursue his keen interest in this with the Minister of Finance.

MR. LOVICK: The problem, Mr. Minister, and why we think it's a matter here, is that we're being asked to vote on a particular breakdown of expenditures

W hat we're also being told, however, is that the breakdown of expenditures may not in fact obtain and that we won't know about that change until some two years later in most cases — i.e., when we get either Public Accounts or Highways annual reports, which seem, with depressing regularity, to come about two years after. That's the issue. Therefore it's entirely fair for us to say that if we really believe in accountability, if we really believe in showing what we're voting on, and if this entire estimates process is to have any integrity and validity, then surely the question we're posing makes sense. Surely we ought to get some assurances that these sums will not shift from one to the other without some means of making us aware that the shift is occurring.

MR. CLARK: The minister has said repeatedly that he makes the decisions, and I respect that, but I don't see why he's reluctant to say that moving any money between sub votes would be made public at that time.

Let me be completely honest with you. I don't think there's any problem moving money between sub votes; there's probably lots of good reasons for it. The problem is that we should know about it, not that they move money — I think that's appropriate. Many times there are lots of good reasons why you might want to move money between sub votes, but it should be public. Maybe the minister can tell us why he can't — forget about Treasury Board and the Ministry of Finance — issue a press release when they've decided to spend more money on one project and less on another — for very good reason, I'm sure. Why can he not tell the public at that time that the ministry has made a decision to do that?

HON. MR. VANT: It's government policy which is administered by the Minister of Finance.

MR. KEMPF: For just a bit of a change of pace, I would like to talk for a few moments about the Omineca Princess. I corresponded back and forth with the minister for the last few months, and I really didn't want to take up the time of the House with this issue. But if that's the only way we can communicate and the only way we can get things done to the satisfaction of the people out there, I guess that's the way we have to do it.

The Omineca Princess, for those in the chamber who don't know, serves about 3,000 of my constituents who, without it, would have to drive in excess of 100 miles on some of the poorest gravel road in British Columbia to obtain services such as the hospital on the north side of the lake. From 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. every day, those 3,000 people are left at the mercy of the possibility of a crew being put together in order to operate the ferry in case of an emergency.

The minister replied to my correspondence saying that the captain has full responsibility to muster that crew in case of an emergency. I tried to explain to the minister that half of the total crew of that particular ferry live on the opposite side of the lake to where an emergency would occur from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. — in

[ Page 6741 ]

other words, on an opposite side of the lake to where that ferry is moored at that time of the night.

What's going to happen? I would hope that we could be wise enough to put into place something that could stave this off. What's going to happen if we don't come to grips with the problem is we're going to have a catastrophe. We're going to have a situation where someone is badly in need of emergency service and needs to get over to the north side of the lake to gain the service of a hospital, police or whatever.

All that is required is that a standby crew be organized so that there is someone standing by during those hours. It's all very well to say: "Well, the captain has the ability to muster the crew." What if the crew is not there? They're not required to be there. What if they're on holidays? What if they stayed over on the far side of the lake on that particular night? The ferry cannot be operated by simply the captain. If there is not a standby crew organized, there's a very real possibility that that ferry cannot be moved.

[5:30]

All it would take is a simple standby situation to ensure that the captain has someone he can call in order to put that ferry in service to take someone to the north side of the lake to gain the service needed. I think that's very little to ask, and yet we've been writing letter after letter.

The minister said the day before yesterday in his estimates here in the House that he went there to meet with the people of the south side and they didn't show up. Well, Mr. Chairman, that's simply not so. If, in fact, that's what happened, there is some lack of communication in the minister's office. I spoke to the ministerial assistant and gave that individual a telephone number and a name to call to tell that group of people, who wanted dearly to tell you this story in person, when you were going to be in Burns Lake and when you could meet with them They didn't receive that call. They had no idea that you were going to be in Burns Lake when you were, so they couldn't meet with you, Mr. Minister.

But that's beside the point here today. What I want to know here today from the minister is: are you prepared to put in place a standby system to ensure that we will not have a catastrophe on the south side of Franqois Lake because of the inability of the captain to move the Omineca Princess?

HON. MR. VANT: I guess there must have been a communications breakdown, because both my assistant and I were in Burns Lake, and my assistant definitely had the impression that these people concerned about this Omineca Princess ferry service on Franqois Lake would be coming to meet with us. As I indicated before, they simply didn't turn up. He certainly expected them, as did I, based on the information given to me.

This emergency service: you are quite right. The vessel is out of service from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. It's unmanned with the exception of a watchman-oiler. Should an emergency trip be requested, this employee gets the necessary crew members to assemble

The point of assembly for the employees is Southbank, and in theory, I guess, all employees should reside in Southbank. But it is known that on completion of the last trip, some of the employees who live in Burns Lake travel back across the lake using a powerboat. This means that a full crew of six would not be available at all times for emergency trip s.

In actual fact, the full crew is only needed if you have up to a full load of 150 persons on the ferry, and in an emergency the normal number of passengers would be just the person in distress and the ambulance crew. In such a case it is not necessary for the captain to have that full crew, and he may operate the vessel with as few crew members as he considers necessary for the safe operation of the vessel. Historically, on no occasion has an emergency trip ever been refused. Sufficient crew members are resident in Southbank, and I'm told the crew, if off shift, can certainly be relied upon to respond to an emergency callout.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess the minister knows more and better than the people who live in that area and rely on the service of the Omineca Princess. The minister wasn't listening when I said a few minutes ago that there are times — and we haven't come to the crunch yet — when there aren't enough people on the south side of the lake to operate the Omineca Princess. All I'm asking is that a standby system be put in place to ensure that the captain or the watchman, or whoever has the responsibility to get a crew together in an emergency, knows who to call, knows those people are home, knows they will get there in time. It's very simple: can we have a standby system set up to assure those 3,000 people that in case of an emergency, they are going to be able to get on that ferry and go across the lake? I don't think that's too much to ask.

HON. MR. VANT: I know it's usual for a minister in his estimates to receive questions, but I'm just wondering if in the past, there has ever been a situation where in an emergency this ferry did not run when it was required between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. All the information given to me is that on no occasion has an emergency run ever been refused.

MR. KEMPF: The minister misses the point completely. There's a real concern. There wouldn't be a concern unless there was the possibility of not having enough people to man the ferry in the case of an emergency. You realize, Mr. Minister, that it was only recently that the ferry was taken off 24-hour service. It used to run 24 hours a day, and there wasn't a problem.

I wouldn't ask that you put it back on a 24-hour basis, because it wasn't necessary to have it run between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. But it is necessary in the case of an emergency; it's the only vehicle available. Are we going to wait, Mr. Minister, until we run into that problem, until we have that catastrophe and lose

[ Page 6742 ]

a life over there for lack of a simple on-call situation, a standby situation?

If we can't get it, we'll ask that the ferry be put on 24 hours once again. It's unfortunate to have to request that, but we're talking about the welfare of 3,000 British Columbians living in a very large rural area and depending on this ferry. I can assure you — and I've met with the people of the lakes district — they're not crazies; they can't all be written off — as you seem to like to write everybody off — as socialists who are asking for things that they really shouldn't have. We're asking for a very simple thing here: a standby system to assure those people that if there is an accident — say an automobile accident — and someone is hurt very badly, when they reach the ferry there will be someone there to take them across the lake. That's not too much to ask.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I'm going to jump in on a subject that's related, but not identical to this one. Sorry to disappoint you. I want to hand out some bouquets to the B.C. Ferries service. So often in estimates, we hear the problems, but I want to hand out some bouquets I want to speak for the users on the coast and particularly in Georgia strait, because I am one, and I use the ferries a good deal to the Gulf Islands, as well as to the mainland.

MR. GABELMANN: You were raised on them.

MR. B.R. SMITH: that's right. I can tell you that the service that we get on the main runs and the small runs is second to none. It is the best ferry system in the world. All you have to do is to start using the Washington State ferry system, or go to the Maritimes and take those ferries and get into the lineups at Borden going over to P.E.I., to see how they're run, and then to see the efficiency, cleanliness and friendliness we get from the crews of our B.C. ferries. We don't say thank you to them enough.

The ferry system maintains a whole way of life on the islands and the coast and for these small communities. It's absolutely integral that it continues to be sensitive to that way of life. I must say — even though I was in cabinet at the time — I was not happy when there was an amalgamation of the old transport ferries and B.C. Ferries, because I thought that in that merger, we might lose some of the specific island sensitivity that the Transportation and Highways people had towards the life of those islands.

But I'm happy to say that hasn't happened, and they are being sensitive. They know that on many of those islands they don't want ferries running back and forth after 6 o'clock in the evening. They don't want terminals moved; they don't want fixed links either. I think the fixed-link idea is goofy. I can say that from the back bench; I can't say it from where you are. I think it's a goofy idea, and I hope we don't do it. I hope we spend the money on improving the highway, as we're going to do, not on fixed links People who live on those islands basically don't want them linked up by bridges. Property developers and a few others do, but most people who have chosen to live on those islands don't want bridges. I'll tell you they don't; you don't have to have Marktrend do a poll to tell you that. You just have to spend a couple of days there with your ear to the ground. They don't want links. That's why they went to islands. If they were meant to be linked up, we'd have bridges everywhere. They still haven't got the causeway to P.E.I. It's a waste of money to build things like that.

I'll tell you, the ferries are everything to those islands. They're sensitively run. The crews are good, they have a close connection with the people on the islands, and it's a great service. I want you to give — at least from one member, one consumer — bouquets to that entire system, Mr. Minister.

MR. GABELMANN: I have some comments to make about B.C. Ferries, but a bit later, in a long list of issues that I want to raise with the minister. I'm going to try to get this done in the 15 minutes allocated to me. It's about three and a half hours' worth of speech material, and I really do mean to try it in 15 minutes.

The first comment I want to make is that I hope, when the regional minister's committee on transportation issues on the Island reports both to him and to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I can have a meeting with both ministers to discuss the report and the views I've picked up, over ten years of representation of North Island, about what the issues are in terms of the entire population, not just those of the few people who have showed up at the hearings of the regional transportation committee. I do think — along with most MLAs — that any MLA, from whichever party or whichever part of the province, who represents a constituency over a long period of time is far more sensitive to the priorities in their constituency than a committee based on some regional structure, so I trust that we'll have that opportunity. I refused to participate in the regional transportation committee because I was elected to make my representation here in this Legislature, and that's where I intend to make it.

[5:45]

I want very quickly to talk about the needs for your ministry, Mr. Minister, from the perspective of voters of all political stripes in the North Island constituency. The first issue is the Island Highway bypass, the inland highway. I'm not going to make a speech about it; I've done that many times in the last ten years in this House. I don't think there's anybody in the House now who disagrees about the need for the road. Where the disagreement exists at the moment is on timing. We really do need the completion prior to the Games in Victoria. That's a 1994 completion. I think it's entirely realistic and possible to do, and I would hope that we get on with it as quickly as possible. There are parts north of Parksville that could be begun very quickly. There are parts that take a bit of time, I acknowledge; but there are parts of the construction that could begin in a very short period of time.

[ Page 6743 ]

I want the minister to know that as we move with our laws in Canada more toward the American system, with the Charter of Rights and whatever, in the United States there is increasing litigation with governments being sued over bad roads when loss of life occurs on a public road. Very recently, in a $14 million settlement, Ames v. the City of New York, "the central issue was whether the city had neglected a dangerous road condition for at least eight years. The city's failure to fix the notoriously dangerous parkway had, the jury was told, ended in the physical devastation of Ames," the plaintiff. I won't go through much more of it, other than to say again that it was a $14 million settlement because the authority, the government in this case, had failed to rectify the dangerous situation.

Anybody who drives the Island Highway regularly will tell you that is sheer terror, particularly at this time of the year and through the rest of the summer. I now fly back and forth to Campbell River, even though it takes just as long because I have to go to Vancouver. I now fly because I'm scared to drive that highway. I don't expect to survive if I drive that highway every week, and I say that frankly. I know many people who now choose to fly because they are scared silly to drive that highway, particularly with the tourist vehicles and slow RVs, and people passing on double lines and blind curves. It's just atrocious.

I won't say anything more about it, other than to say let's get that done by 1994 and get on with it so that we can not only save a few lives but also help some economic development in the north end of the Island, because that's very much part of our economic development up there.

Another very dangerous road in my constituency is the road from Campbell River to Gold River, which goes along Upper Campbell Lake and crosses at the Buttle narrows. That road has taken far too many lives in the last few years. One alternative that the ministry might consider, given the immense costs of upgrading the road and given the kind of rock that exists along the lakeshore there, might well be going the logging-road route out to Gold River and then on to Tahsis. The logging-road route is shorter and far safer, even as a gravel road, than the existing paved highway.

The Port McNeill–Port Hardy section of Highway 19 is simply a 1948 logging road that's been paved. A simple solution there, rather than rebuilding that road, would be to trade roads with Western Forest Products. A very simple arrangement could be made, with very minimal dislocation to both Western and the government. Give them their old road back, the one that the ministry has taken over and paved, and take over their road, which has bridges up to standard, is straight and has an alignment that is very useful. All we would have to do is upgrade it for paving, and we would have the solution to the new road between Port McNeill and Port Hardy.

I have talked to a number of engineers in the private sector up there. They all say it makes a lot of sense, it's logical and it's doable as far as Western Forest Products is concerned. I would urge that, rather than spend the immense amount of money required to realign that road and redo it, you look at the possibility of trading with the logging company.

As I have every year for ten years, I guess, I now have to raise the issue of the Tahsis-Woss connection. It's a difficult project, and I realize it may not be on the top of the ministry's list of projects to do, but I want to reassert that this is a priority for people who live in Tahsis. It's a useful economic link. Should we care about economic development in the west coast communities of Vancouver Island and should we care about tourism development up there, a link between Woss and Tahsis would make a lot of sense. I've never argued it should be highway standards. I think main-line logging-road standards are sufficient and would meet the need, and there would be no demand for the foreseeable future to upgrade. That's what we need in that area.

We also need a connection between the two west coast communities of Tahsis and Zeballos. The minister of this region has had that brief presented very recently. This would be a link to try to assist in the isolation that these west coast communities have. It would be an excellent tourism link as well. I urge both ministers to give serious consideration to the Tahsis-Zeballos link.

The road to Port Alice, which goes off Highway 19 partway between Port Hardy and Port McNeill, is another old logging road that was paved. Dan Campbell, when he was the MLA for that area, urged residents in Port Alice not to ask for paving of that road. He said back in the sixties: "If you get that road paved, it will never be built." There has never been a road built; it's just an old logging road that's been paved. He said: "Don't ask for paving. Wait and get it built properly." Of course, the residents said: "No, we want pavement." They got pavement in the sixties, and now they've had it for 20 years or more and it's falling apart, and the road alignment is atrocious. You can't drive safely on that road. One of these days, some major work has to take place on that road. I'm not arguing for an immediate priority on that, but it certainly needs to go on the list of projects: an upgrading — not a complete rebuilding — on some of the dangerous corners and blind spots that occur even on straight stretches, where you're up and down like a roller-coaster, because the old logging roads are built that way.

The Viking Highway proposal, which has had a lot of publicity and a lot of representation to the ministry and to the other minister, is a project that I am ambivalent about for this reason: there is an existing road to Holberg from Port Hardy. Considerable money — though not enough — has been spent on upgrading that road. To construct another link, although better-sited.... It's sea level, rather than up through a couple of passes, so you don't have those winter problems. The decision we tried to get ten years ago, when the hydro line was going in, was to put the whole road in properly before money was spent along the Holberg Inlet — the Viking Highway proposal.

[ Page 6744 ]

That was denied by Highways, and we just couldn't get it. Since then, we've been trying to get the existing road upgraded. One thing or the other has to happen: either the commitment to upgrade the existing road to Holberg to serve the Cape Scott Park has to continue on an accelerated basis, or it has to be abandoned and the new road built. I don't particularly mind which decision is made, but a decision needs to be made. If it's to keep with the current road, then let's get on with the upgrading of that road. If it's to build a new one, let's quit upgrading the current road and build the new one. A decision about proper access to that Cape Scott Park area needs to be made fairly quickly — if not all the work done fairly quickly, the decision has to be made.

The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) talks about island life and whatever, and he's absolutely right about that. But Quadra Island, in terms of its road system, has a unique problem now. With all the fish-farm activity around Quadra Island and especially Hoskyn Channel, there is an incredible amount of industrial traffic now on roads which previously might have had a car or two an hour on them — very little use. Now there's heavy traffic, and the roads weren't built to handle this heavy traffic. There are really serious problems on Quadra Island. I've made this point to your district manager, and he knows about it. But I want to have it on the record here that this is among the more serious issues in the constituency. There needs to be some upgrading of the Quadra main road system.

On Cortes Island, another island where we.... I don't have any major request to make, other than.... Every year the ministry paves a mile or two of Cortes Island highway, and it's getting to the point now where it would be a much simpler and more logical process just to finish the paving program, instead of taking another five or six years at a mile or two a year. Just go in and do the whole shot and have it done properly. It's not a big expenditure item. That would really make sense and would be logical, and I think it would be the right thing to do on Cortes Island.

I want to be sure of a commitment that previous ministers — and Alex Fraser — made to Campbell River about the road to the Campbell River airport. The commitment made over the years is that the province would pay one-third. The municipality has agreed to pay one-third, and we're trying to get the federal government to pay the other third. The minister made a commitment to Mayor Bob Ostler, shortly after he was appointed, that the provincial one-third commitment is still in place for the rebuilding of that road. I want to be absolutely sure that's still the case, because that's a high priority.

There are three bridges that I need to mention to the minister. I'd like to know — not tonight, but some time before the estimates are over — if he could tell me the plans for the Sachts bridge in Sayward, where we had the bridge collapse not too long ago. We've had a temporary replacement in there. What are the plans for that?

What are the plans for the Bailey bridge going to Port Alice over the Marble River? The Bailey bridge has been in place since 1975 — 14 years of a Bailey bridge. The bridge was taken out 14 years ago, and we still have the one-lane Bailey in there.

The Keogh bridge: the same thing on the road between Port Hardy and Port McNeill. Again, that's a Bailey bridge on a main highway, and that might be part of the discussion about how to realign that road. We need some decision on that particular bridge.

I wanted to talk about signage, but I'm going to run out of time if I do that. There's a lot of consternation and dissatisfaction about the blue signs from all kinds of people: not just people who don't have their establishment represented on the signs, but people who think the eye pollution from those signs is worse than the stuff from the private sector. I think it's fifty-fifty. There's certainly a lot of public consternation about that.

Cat's eyes. I've written to the minister on several occasions but again just recently about the whole question of why we can't have cat's eyes on roads that have very little snow on them over the course of the year, but lots of rain and fog. I just draw the minister's attention to the fact that we have correspondence outstanding on that issue, and I would really like to get a resolution. It's a safety problem and a major hazard on the road north of Campbell River.

The Quadra ferry. We need two ferries on that run. They're overloaded almost every run. There's more industrial traffic now, more residential traffic. The one ferry, whichever size you have on, is not enough. The hourly service is just not enough. I will be happy to take more time later to expand on the need for a two-ferry system, which we've had in the past but now don't have.

Port Hardy–Prince Rupert. It would be really neat for B.C. Ferries to work on a daily schedule in the summer between Prince Rupert and Port Hardy. All the hotels in Port Hardy are empty every other night, overfull the other night. It's just a crazy way to run a tourist business.

I see my time is up. I also see that the time is at an end, and 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. RICHMOND: I would advise all members that tomorrow we will sit at the usual time, but the House will adjourn one hour early at 12 noon.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.