[ Page 6789 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Trade Development Corporation Act (Bill 3). Committee stage.

(Hon. J. Jansen) –– 6789

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6790

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Gran

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Joining us on the floor of the House today is a gentleman who has held more positions in this Legislative Assembly than any other person in recent history. Our guest today has been a member of the official opposition, a back-bench government MLA, Deputy Speaker, Speaker and cabinet minister. Would you please welcome Harvey Schroeder.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would like the House to make welcome today a group of students from Salmon Arm Senior Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Wright. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 9.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'd like to table an amendment to section 9, adding subsection (9).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, Mr. Minister, perhaps it might be wise at this juncture to remind all members what happened yesterday, when we stood down section 9 of this bill. We already had an amendment from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) on this, and it would seem to me that the correct procedure is to deal with that amendment before we deal with yours, Mr. Minister.

MR. GABELMANN: If it would help matters, I would withdraw the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we really have to proceed. It was accepted by the Chair, and I think we have to defeat it. That's the only way to do it, so I will call the question on the amendment to section 9.

Amendment negatived.

HON. J. JANSEN: The point raised yesterday in terms of reporting to the Legislative Assembly is a good one. While section 9 of the bill did — as I indicated — provide for reporting to the public, I think it appropriate that a subsection should be added: "(9) The report and financial statement referred to in subsection (5) shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 90 days next following the end of the fiscal year for which the report and statement are made if the Legislative Assembly is then sitting, otherwise within 15 days after the opening of the next following session." What that would mean is that 90 days after the fiscal year-end of the corporation there would be a requirement to table the report in the House if the assembly is sitting, or 15 days after the opening of the new session if the House is not sitting.

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: I assume that was moved by the minister, and we are now debating the amendment.

First of all, let me say I appreciate the response of the minister and the government. I think the Legislature works well and has its purpose served well by a response such as the government made on this issue. I trust that it won't be the only time that this kind of event happens in the House. I hope it happens more often whenever the opposition members, or other members for that matter, make a good point.

I want to ask the minister why he needs 90 days from the time a report is tabled with him, as referred to in this section. Why does it require a 90-day period between his receipt of the report and the tabling in the House?

HON. J. JANSEN: The 90 days are referenced in terms of the end of the fiscal year. If the fiscal year-end was March 31 in any particular year, the report would be due 90 days after that. That's my understanding of the bill.

MR. GABELMANN: As I read it, that's not what it says. What it says is that the report has to be delivered to the minister at the end of the fiscal year — that's in 9(5): "The corporation shall prepare for the minister, after the end of the fiscal year" the report and the financial statement. Presumably that can't be done the day after the fiscal year ends, particularly for the financial report. It takes some time for the accounting procedures to be completed, prepared and given to the minister. But the minister, as this reads, gets the report and then has another 90 days before it's necessary to report to the House. It says in the amendment: "The report and financial statement referred to in subsection (5) shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 90 days "

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry. You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong, having seen this only a few minutes ago for the first time and having had a chance to think it through.

Let me see, then, if this is what will happen. If the fiscal year ends on March 31, then it's not possible for that report to be delivered to the House any time other than within 90 days of that date. By June 30,

[ Page 6790 ]

approximately, the report must be delivered to the House. Is that the minister's understanding?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes. The section, as I'm led to believe, is meant to say that by the end of June the report must be filed in the Legislative Assembly if the House is sitting, and if it's not sitting, 15 days into the new session.

[10:15]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

HON. J. JANSEN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Trade Development Corporation Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. J. JANSEN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 3, Trade Development Corporation Act, read a third time and passed.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I want to start this morning with a rather different line of questioning. I want to pose questions specifically to do with the process whereby the privatized contractors were given those contracts. I want to ask the minister what steps were taken to keep government members of the Legislature informed of the progress of negotiations Was there any consultation or discussion with government members?

HON. MR. VANT: To the best of my knowledge, the process was done by the privatization group, and there was very little and very — at the greatest — infrequent consultation. There were information updates, but they certainly weren't very frequent. It was just a general progress report. Of course, over the summer, in terms of the government members, when the House was adjourned, there was very little opportunity to keep them fully informed as to what was happening.

MR. LOVICK: I understand that, to judge from the auditor-general's report and the description of contract area 1, a certain stipulated amount in each contract area was required to be subcontracted. That amount, I further understand, was to be based on the historical record of what amount in the additional contract area was in fact subcontracted. Is that the case? For example, in region 1 the auditor-general points to a figure of 20 percent. Was that across the board, or did that tend to vary from region to region?

HON. MR. VANT: That varied from region to region, but the 20 percent figure would be close to an average figure. Historically there was a certain percentage of work subcontracted in each region, and for sure in every region there is a certain percentage of work. It was always that the traditional, historical level specified in the agreement with the area contractor must continue to be subcontracted. This was to ensure that the local small equipment operators always had an opportunity to do their traditional share of that work.

MR. LOVICK: I want to refer the minister to contract area 22 in North Peace River and to a particular clause in this contract. I am wondering if this is unique, or whether this is typical. Let me read the clause. It's apparently article 13, and it reads: "In addition to the amount of subcontracting specified pursuant to section 13.02, the contractor will cause all maintenance service to be provided within the Fort Nelson area, as that area is delineated by the minister to be performed by subcontractors by a competitive process satisfactory to the minister, and will subcontract all such maintenance services within 90 days of the date hereof." That sounds very specific indeed. I'm wondering if that very region-specific clause is indeed inserted in all of the 28. Can the minister answer that for me?

HON. MR. VANT: That situation is unique in all the contract areas. It's mainly because of the traditional geographic separation of the Fort Nelson contract area. That is a unique situation where there is a subcontract of a specific geographic area within the total overall contract area. You wouldn't find that in any of the rest of the 27 contract areas throughout the province.

MR. LOVICK: Looking at the map, I can understand that, given the population separation and road separation. A question, though, is: how did that come to be? Whose recommendation was it? Were there representations made by the hon. member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) ? Was there, in fact, representation made to insist that a special clause be written into the contract?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, indeed. I believe that you made an inquiry in this regard previously — area 22,

[ Page 6791 ]

the Peace River. You asked in your questioning earlier this morning about the involvement of MLAs. This particular area, as I said, is unique in its geography. During the negotiations it was requested by the hon. member for North Peace River that another contract be issued for the Fort Nelson area because of its separation from the majority of contract area 22. It is cut off from the other area because the federal government maintains a portion of the Alaska Highway, and it was felt at the time by the negotiating committee that the Fort Nelson area itself was too small to be a separate contract area. It was determined that there was validity in having a separate subcontract in that area, so the primary contractor for the whole area was requested to issue a subcontract. Certainly, at the time, the contractor had a proposal out and received bids for that subcontract area, if you will, and that was under the normal subcontracting process. The area contractor agreed that because of the unique situation it was the best way to go.

I think that answers the hon. member's questions.

MR. LOVICK: Can the minister advise me how this apparently or ostensibly unique and special situation was communicated? Was it the case that the sitting member of the Legislature, given the news that maintenance was indeed to be privatized, made representation to the privatization working group, or to the Minister of Highways? How did that happen? How did that minister become apprised of this opportunity to make representation? Did any other member of this Legislature have that opportunity?

It's fine to say that there's a unique geographical situation here, but there's also something that causes me, and I'm sure some others, anguish or concern: whether what we're looking at is some inside track to getting a particular contract for a particular area. I don't know about the Fort Nelson area. I don't know if there are five contractors in that community who are quite capable of providing the contract work. I put it to you, hypothetically: what if there was only one contractor who happened to be capable of doing a job of that scale? And what if the member were to come to the privatization working group or to you and to say: "We want to carve out a piece of contract area 22 to be done by the contractor in the Fort Nelson area specifically"? What we would be dealing with there is something that on the face of it looks pretty scandalous: a member intervening on behalf of a particular contractor to get a very lucrative contract.

Would the minister please allay my fears?

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, I want to emphasize that all MLAs representing their constituents, if they had a concern in the process, certainly were free to approach the privatization working group if they so desired. To my knowledge this didn't happen at all, except in this situation. I think it was just good common sense.

I can assure you that it was a competitive bidding process. It wasn't just one particular contractor that was considered. There's a definite process of advertising for bids. There was a successful subcontractor acceptable both to the area contractor and to us as government in terms of ensuring that our standards of road and bridge maintenance would be upheld.

In every contract area a certain percentage must be subcontracted. The only unique thing about this is just a subcontract of the road and bridge maintenance for the Fort Nelson geographic area.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer. Perhaps the minister could tell me very directly how many people bid on that particular contract, which had a value, I would guess, of about $400,000 per year.

HON. MR. VANT: I would like to inform the hon. member that five bid packages for the Fort Nelson area were picked up, but in actual fact, no bids were received, So the prime area contractor is currently responsible for getting that work done. Even though this idea of a special, unique subcontracting area was entertained, the level of interest appeared.... Initially, five packages were picked up on that proposal, but no bids were received. There wasn't too high a level of interest when it came to the actual bidding.

[10:30]

MR. LOVICK: For purposes of edification, then, would the minister just tell me what happens in that case? We have a particular special clause written into a contract that obviously nobody responds to. What happens then? Does the major contractor for the area simply carry on and have an obligation to maintain some kind of operation in that distant area of Fort Nelson? Or is it a question of simply using a bunch of smaller contractors and doing it on a piecework basis? How do you deal with it?

HON. MR. VANT: In terms of the overall area, a certain amount of work still has to be subcontracted. In terms of the overall agreement between the government and the area contractor, we will be dropping the clause that specifies the Fort Nelson-Foreman area as a unique one to be subcontracted as a separate unit. We will be dropping that clause in the overall agreement in light of what has actually happened.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate those answers, and that certainly clarifies matters to my satisfaction. I thank the minister for that.

Let's take just a moment to respond in our ongoing Punch-and-Judy show regarding the real costs of privatization. You can choose for yourself, Mr. Minister, which character is which. I'll leave that to you.

I want to offer a few brief responses to the apparently detailed refutation of the case that was presented by you and your officials yesterday. I note with some delight one of the absolutely key points you make in this ringing defence of what you have done and this apparent denunciation of the information I presented, which you said was "blatantly false and totally without foundation, " if my memory serves.

[ Page 6792 ]

Let me say at the outset that I want to offer you a very sincere apology, because I made a mistake. It's absolutely true. There is a mistake in the submission that I made, and the mistake was — and I guess the batteries in the calculator were perhaps going — when we took a total figure and divided it by three, the answer we presented was indeed wrong. I want to admit the error of my ways — mea culpa. I accept that and say that you were absolutely correct in that aspect of your rebuttal.

I can't say the same about the other parts of the rebuttal, however. But that part I'm prepared to grant you. I am forever 'umble because that happened. That's a little literary allusion to Uriah Heep, as you recall, Mr. Chairman.

The minister made a great deal of the fact that I had apparently not much understanding of statistical evidence and how to use it. He said on page 28 of yesterday's Blues: "By averaging the 1982-to-1987 costs, he" — that is, me — "understated the cost of delivering the service. Anyone who has worked with figures at all will know that you cannot use an average when the costs are escalating; you can only use an average when the costs are up and down." This ringing declaration of the error of my ways I quite appreciate.

When you look at the figures, the predicament is that the figures don't support your claim, because we aren't dealing with a rising cost. We are dealing with a fluctuating cost, which is precisely when you can use an average. Let me give you some examples. Just pick an area; pick any one of the contract areas.

We happened to grab No. 14, because it was literally on top of the pile. We discovered that in 1982-83 the cost was $3,017,000; in 1983-84 the cost was $2,879,000; in 1984-85 the cost was $2,778,000; in 1985-86 the cost was $3,111,000; and in 1986-87 the cost was $4,849,000. Now if you can by any stretch of the imagination suggest to me that that's a consistently rising pattern, then clearly you are capable of reading in a way that nobody else is.

It's a fluctuating pattern. In only two districts of the 28 –– 11 and 21 — did the amount spent on highways rise from year to year. I would therefore stand by that calculus and that mode of calculus and say it's absolutely correct. Would the minister care to respond to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the minister responds, the member for Mackenzie has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. LONG: In the House today we have 19 grade 7 students from Assumption School in Powell River, their teacher, Mrs. Gomm, and three adults. I would like this House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. VANT: I notice how very carefully the member opposite likes to pick out just a part of the road and bridge maintenance system throughout the province. But I would like to point out that — in fact using the same years that he used in his press release and his table of calculations — over all the province, consistently from 1982 to 1987, the cost of road and bridge maintenance throughout the province steadily increases each year. It goes from just a little over $130 million to $153 million. This is the direct cost of road and bridge maintenance only. It doesn't go up and down. It consistently, gradually increases. So my statement stands correct, and it is very improper to take averages when, year after year, consistently throughout the province, the cost of road and bridge maintenance goes up.

As I said yesterday, if the hon. member wished to — and I notice how very often those in the socialist corner of the House like to look in that rearview mirror — he could have looked in that rearview mirror and gone back 50 years, and he would probably have come out with an average cost of around $10 million a year for road and bridge maintenance over that 50-year time span. Then he could have looked ahead, in that broad windshield to the future, just three years and compared them with 50 years back, and he would have come up with an even bigger difference in the average cost over a wider time span looking back and comparing it with a shorter time span in the future. You could have all kinds of fun with those figures, but they will just not stand up. The firm foundation of my argument is, in my opinion, that the only way to go is to have it audited by an internationally renowned firm of chartered accountants like Coopers and Lybrand, which verified the actual costs of road and bridge maintenance and the cost of the last year in which the government performed the service. They compared that with the cost of the actual contracts, which I so kindly tabled in this Legislature so that you knew exactly what the contract price was in each and every contract area throughout the province.

On that I rest my very firm, solid case, which verifies that there is a significant direct saving in the road and bridge maintenance privatization — and besides, there are all those indirect savings as well, which total nearly $106 million.

MR. LOVICK: I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when I heard the minister stand up yesterday and read the rather elaborate and prepared statement, I thought: "Gee, maybe I am guilty of some miscalculation and overstating my case." But now, when I hear this ringing defence presented in response to a relatively straightforward case that I argue, I suddenly feel vindicated. I feel very good, because if that's the best you can do in answering the argument about escalating costs Any student of logic knows the things called a fallacy of division and a fallacy of composition. On the one hand, what is true of the part isn't necessarily true of the whole and, conversely, what is true of the whole isn't necessarily true of the part. You don't have to be a statistician to understand that basic logic, Mr. Minister, but apparently you're not prepared to accept that rather simple case.

[ Page 6793 ]

Let's turn to this business of indirect benefits. We agree that benefits were excluded in terms of what we were discussing yesterday. We assumed that the provisions of the government's superannuation plan would no longer be in effect. Granted, we also left out the district office overhead factor, since we assumed that the government would have to continue paying something like overhead for monitoring and a regular checking program of the quality of the privatized contracting. Is this not the case? In other words, it's fine to say we're saving what was formerly referred to as a district overhead cost, but surely we offset that with another cost called monitoring, or enforcement. Is that not the case, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VANT: For sure, some of those costs, like employee benefits, are now paid, naturally, by the contractor. I think the member agrees with me that within those contracts, there are embraced a lot of the costs which were formerly borne directly by the government.

I'm very pleased that the member opposite has referred to our quality assurance program, because we take our responsibility very seriously as government to carefully manage and monitor road and bridge maintenance. We want to ensure that the very precise maintenance standards, which are very clearly spelled out in the contracts, are abided by. I would like to mention, too, that there is the same quantity of work, plus we've added to the responsibility of the area contractors a certain amount of road stabilization and seal-coating, which previously was not under the maintenance budgeting. So the quantity has actually increased in terms of what we expect the area contractors to perform, and we are getting as much if not more work provided than previously in terms of that slight expansion of the scope of road and bridge maintenance.

We have, I think, 141 area managers spread throughout the province in contract areas, and they have the all-important function — I'm sure the member opposite will agree — of monitoring the performance of the contractors.

MR. LOVICK: That's 141 area managers whose duties apparently are to monitor the performance of the contractors. Has that cost been factored into your calculations? Is that not equivalent to the district cost? Should that not, in effect, be added to the cost of the privatized operation?

[10:45]

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, indeed, it has been taken out, but it is considered part and parcel of the road and bridge maintenance function per se; so we didn't include that in the cost you have before you.

MR. LOVICK: I think I missed the last part of the minister's statement. Did you give me an estimate of the total amount of money that the ministry is now bearing which is in fact the cost of privatization, the cost of monitoring, part of what used to be called the district overhead cost, which you seem to think we have somehow miraculously lost and no longer have to pay? Can you give me a figure?

HON. MR. VANT: While my staff are isolating that particular figure, I want to emphasize that there are many functions of a district highways office, such as subdivision approval and the administration of what we traditionally call the day labour program. Things like the traffic control systems and so on are still being administered by our district highways offices. Also, of course, we want to maintain a ministry presence in each and every community throughout the province so that there are appropriate officials available, in view of our ongoing responsibility, to be responsive to the concerns.

If the hon. member will refer to table H1 in the budget, he will see clearly that there are highway maintenance services which continue to be undertaken by my ministry. The ongoing ministry costs that have been isolated amount to $75.73 million.

MR. LOVICK: The minister can simply nod on this one if he wants. Would you agree with me that the $75.3 million ought properly to be considered a cost of privatization? Why not?

HON. MR. VANT: Simply because it is not comparable. Those functions that the ministry has ongoing have nothing to do with routine road and bridge maintenance. We were very careful, especially in concert with the Coopers and Lybrand audit, to be very specific about the functions that were included in the road and bridge maintenance contract.

In addition to those traditional functions, as I mentioned just a few moments ago we added road stabilization and seal-coating. So everything is very clearly spelled out.

MR. LOVICK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister has three people with him. I will lend you my newly charged calculator if you want. What percentage of the $75 million is attributable directly to privatization? Obviously not all of it, but a good chunk. If you have a privatized system, what is the necessary monitoring function costing us? Don't pretend, please, that it doesn't exist. It must exist; it's systemic. It has to be there, because you now have somebody whose interests may not be precisely the same as yours as the ministry of the Crown. What percentage of that figure are we prepared to allocate and attribute to privatization?

MR. VANT: The answer to "what percentage?" is: none. Previous to privatization, of course, there were the road foremen, who monitored such things as the day labour program. So none of that is towards the routine road and bridge maintenance.

MR. LOVICK: I am standing here in a state of shock, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has just informed this House that there is no money allocated in our calculations about what privatization costs us in the process of monitor-

[ Page 6794 ]

ing the work done by those private contractors. That's what you said, Mr. Minister. Surely you want to clarify and tell me that's not quite what you meant.

HON. MR. VANT: I'm very happy, for the sake of the first member for Nanaimo, to clarify the position of the ministry and my position in that regard. Really, there's an offsetting in terms of the area managers involved in our quality assurance program. As I said earlier, previously there were the road foremen. Of course, the ministry no longer has these road foremen; they have been offset by the appointment of the area managers under our very appropriate quality assurance program. So in that regard, as far as those personnel being on the payroll and so on, it's business as usual. We don't attribute their functioning on these ongoing ministry costs as an increased cost whatsoever. We previously had the road foremen in place; now we have these area managers monitoring the performance of the area contractors So in my mind, it's completely offset.

MR. LOVICK: I think we'll let a dispassionate reading of Hansard sort that one out, Mr. Minister I'm quite prepared to let posterity or anybody else who's interested judge on that.

Let's talk about that quality assurance program. On Friday the minister said that the same quantity of service was being purchased under Highways privatization as under the ministry crews. The minister said, in response to a question: "Absolutely; not only the same quantity but, for sure, the same quality, if not improved quality of service."

Let's deal first with that quality matter. On what are the minister's assurances based? The quality assurance program was not in place when the first contracts were let. Is it in place now, and what is it? It appears to be little more than an audit program. Indeed, to judge from what the minister is saying, the people who are charged with monitoring also have 7,200 other jobs to do, so I wonder if they will be able to spend any time at all in quality assurance monitoring. But since there is no regular on-site inspection, it appears the ministry doesn't have any kind of significant or measurable control over whether the work is actually being done.

I'll just refresh the minister's memory on this. One ministry official reported to the Roads and Transportation Association conference in Halifax in September, 1988 that there was to be no inspection but only auditing by government personnel. Would you be kind enough, Mr. Minister, to tell me what exactly the quality assurance program is, and how it is working? Does it involve on-site inspection? Does it involve auditing? What does that auditing consist of?

MR. RABBITT: I have three areas I'd like to briefly canvass with the minister. As the minister well knows, next to his riding, my riding has the most amount of miles of any in this province. Therefore it needs the minister's attention, and I'm sure that we get it.

The first of the three items I wish to canvass is the day-labour program. I'd like to ask if the minister can confirm that we will have a fair registration system re-established throughout the province. Secondly, I would like to know if there's going to be a close audit to enforce that the percentage requirement for day labour is carried out throughout the year, rather than waiting to the end of the year to make that audit and make that correction.

The second item is that we can see that the Kettle Valley Railway.... This recent edition of the Merritt Herald mentions that that rail line is going to be closing. They're going to be stopping rail traffic between Spences Bridge and Penticton. They've already stopped it on part of the line. Later this month — within a week — the last carload of lumber will go out of there.

There are several problems that arise as a result of this. In order to do this, the CPR has established a transfer point in Kamloops, at Campbell Creek, to transfer lumber. At this particular location, they will be bringing lumber from all around the province. That's going to be putting an extra demand on Highway 5A. Is the minister going to be going after the feds to see that they pick up their fair share of what it's going to be costing this provincial government? By them allowing this rail line to shut down, it is putting an extra burden on this provincial government, specifically the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I want to know if in this instance the minister will be making serious representations to the federal government and asking that we get a fair share in order to balance this off.

In the meantime, I would like to have assurances from the minister that he is going to have his ministry oppose the abandonment of that line. Two things are happening. One is the taking of the traffic off it, which is the closing of the line; the other is the abandonment, when they'll actually be ripping the rails up. I would like the minister's assurance that his ministry will do everything possible to, see that that is not done until some of the questions surrounding this are answered, such as: the federal contribution to our highway program; the potential for tourism on that line; the potential for the development of the large-grade iron-ore body in the Coalmont area. Before we let CPR pull those rails out, what is the potential of that economic tool?

The third item, of course, is road and bridge projects within my riding. I would like to get some clarification from the minister on several projects. First of all, I know that the minister has been looking at the problem we've got with the Ashcroft bridge. He has given me assurances that something will be done. I would like to know that I can have the minister's assurance that the Ashcroft bridge problem will be looked at in the next year.

We also have a problem on the Trans-Canada at Hope, with the Fraser Bridge there. That bridge is narrow. It has a metal surface which is both noisy and dangerous. In my opinion and the opinion of many of the people who use that bridge, it has to be widened and both approaches have to be improved. I would

[ Page 6795 ]

like the minister's assurance that we are going to get something going on that as well.

[11:00]

I appreciate the efforts that the minister is also making in upgrading the Hope-Princeton, but I would like some assurance that we're going to be looking at the suggestions I've made with regard to Sunday Summit and in particular Whipsaw. We know that the Whipsaw area has taken the lives of many people who have traveled that highway over the years. I believe that the ministry, with the suggestion I've put forward to them, can in fact alleviate a safety problem on that highway and make it much safer for both the residents and the traveling public.

We also have a couple of smaller problems in the Princeton area that I'd like to just touch on for a moment. One is the Princeton-Tulameen road. That particular road is in need of some resurfacing. I would certainly like to see something happening this year. We can work it over the next couple of years, but that road definitely needs some surface work on it.

Coquihalla phase 1. I know that the design called for a second lift of pavement for a large section of the road. I would like to know if we can expect that in the near future.

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT: I have sat here and listened to this NDP drivel about the Coquihalla for the last two and a half years. That has to be one of the safest highways in Canada, and I'm proud that it runs right through the middle of my riding. I think the only thing wrong as far as the opposition is concerned, especially that member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), is that it didn't go through the middle of Prince Rupert.

Coquihalla phase 3. I know that you've given us a specific timetable to complete the project. There's a major project on Hamilton Hill. I know it has to be done before 1990, but I would like to have a specific date of when those tenders will be called and when we can expect some dust flying and some earth moving on that hill.

On the Trans-Canada Highway, I would like to know what the figures are: how many miles are we going to be resurfacing this year? We have several areas where the surface is failing. I know that we're trying some hot applications and some different approaches to solving the problems, but I would like to have assurances for those who live up and down the Fraser Canyon that the surface will be kept in good shape, and where it is deteriorating and needs major repair it will be done.

Last on my wish-list that I'll mention today.... I have many more, but not wanting to begrudge the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) his time in these hallowed halls, I'll restrict it to this.

The Duffey Lake road is another key access to the interior. I know we've been lobbying you and your predecessors now for two and a half years. I can assure you that the benefits from the road will be magnified throughout the interior of British Columbia. It will give us another circle route. It will not only give us an alternative in an emergency to get to the interior; it will also give us a valuable tourist tool.

Now what we're looking for is not a major highway. We're not looking for four lanes. We're not even looking for a high-speed two-lane. What we're looking for is a minimum standard: some hard surfacing, dust control, so that we can bring buses through. Thousands and thousands of buses visit Whistler every year. What do we do? We have to turn them around and send them home again. If we get the Duffey Lake road put through, Mr. Minister, then we can access the interior of British Columbia and let a lot of these tourists that come to visit know some of the other beauties we have. Let them get out and visit some of the other parts: the Thompson, the Okanagan, the Nicola. They can even go farther. They might even go to Prince Rupert and decide to come down on that other beautiful cruise ship back to Vancouver or down Vancouver Island.

The potential is magnificent, Mr. Minister. There's much that can be gained from it, I would like to have your assurances that we're going to be getting something done, not next year or the year after; I'd like to see something done this year.

HON. MR. VANT: As you can tell from the member for Yale-Lillooet, with the exception of my own constituency of Cariboo, Yale-Lillooet has the greatest number of public roads. Very briefly, I would like to respond to his three areas of concern.

First of all, I think he is confusing the traditional percentage that must be subcontracted to the area contractor with the day labour program. I cannot overemphasize that the day labour program is completely separate from the regular road and bridge maintenance.

But the answer is yes, we will audit the traditional amount to be subcontracted in terms of the area contractor. We will be auditing it very closely to ensure that the local owner-operators of machinery have their share of the subcontract work of regular road and bridge maintenance.

Of course, in the constituency of Yale-Lillooet the other day labour programs will be in place. For sure, as the member well knows, there's a section on phase 3 of the Coquihalla which is day labour, to ensure that the local people get their fair share of that work.

We are currently nearing a decision about whether we do a major rehabilitation of the Ashcroft bridge or decide on the expenditure of a little more money to actually completely replace it. The Hope bridge needs major rehabilitation, and we have taken note of the member's concerns. We very much want to continue improvements to Highway 3, the Crow route, the Hope-Princeton Highway, and certainly we take under advisement the hon. member's very good advice concerning improving the Whipsaw section. Hamilton Hill is quite a major project on that route heading over to the Okanagan connector. It would take about $10 million to improve Hamilton Hill out of Merritt.

[ Page 6796 ]

I also want to assure the member that in terms of the Duffey Lake road we are having quite an aggressive program this year. We hope to complete that significant upgrading next year so that we have two-lane bridges and the road surfaced. But, of course, we want to do some realignment and to ensure that we have a very good, firm base prior to paving that important road.

You're correct, hon. member: tourists do like to travel in circles.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT: They don't like to backtrack, hon. member for Kamloops; they like to go on these circle routes.

Back to his third point, the member is naturally concerned about the Canadian Pacific Railway abandoning certain rail lines. I certainly agree with the member that whenever we take a lot of freight off rails and put it onto our highway system, it does give me some ammunition in dealing with the federal government, which allows a major railway like the CPR to abandon a line. That gives us some ammunition in fighting for dollars for our highway systems. He made some very good points.

I would like to get back to the hon. first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). We were talking about our quality assurance program. For sure, the hon. first member for Nanaimo and members of the public are concerned about the very important process of ensuring that the area contractor is meeting our very important, very precise road and bridge maintenance standards.

Our quality assurance program was on stream very early to audit the contractors' performance. It involves structured inspections of maintenance work in process as well as present-state inspections, to ensure that the contractors' response to and management of infrastructure maintenance needs are appropriate. The road and bridge maintenance contract standards govern work performance, what materials are used and the response times and/or frequency with which certain things are to happen. The quality assurance program fully documents each contractor's conformance or non-conformance and the degree of each, in the event that further action on the ministry's part may be necessary.

As I indicated, there are no less than 141 area managers in the province who regularly audit and inspect the contractors' work and the state of our road and bridge system. We have indeed developed a very comprehensive quality assurance program.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: Perhaps we can return to the matter of the quality assurance program. Clearly there's no such thing as consistency or pursuing an argument to its logical conclusion in this chamber. Every time we try to do that, Mr. Minister, somebody leaps up to go through the ritualistic: "How many potholes are in my riding?" Can I suggest something, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Oh! Alertness on the other side — how nice to see!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the Chair.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, just when I thought they were all moribund, I see signs of life. How nice to note!

Can I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, a way that we might save the taxpayers of this province a considerable amount of time and money? Perhaps as a normal part of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways' estimates we could provide a kind of handy-dandy quick reference case-book reporting on the work in progress in each and every region and constituency in this province and also giving us some printed version of exactly how much money is intended to be spent in those particular areas.

I know that information is available to the ministry, having sat through a few of these debates thus far. What seems to go on normally is that an individual will ask a question and the minister and his staff will quickly run through what looks to be a recipe index and come up with a quick response. I am wondering whether it might be possible to share those recipe cards with the particular individuals and the constituencies. I offer you that, Mr. Minister, free, gratis. I think you might find it helpful, and it would certainly make life in the chamber much easier.

I notice that the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is still in the House, and I appreciate that. Changing the subject ever so slightly, I want to raise a question now that directly impacts on his responsibilities as Minister of Education. I am referring specifically to a case of a near tragedy that occurred on Highway 6 near Slocan Park on January 17, 1989. Both of you, I am sure, are aware of this case. It had to do with icy road conditions and very adverse weather conditions. A school bus with children was at the bottom of a hill rendered immobile by road conditions, unable to go anywhere. Chip trucks and other vehicles were coming down the hill, not being able to navigate their way down that icy road. But for the grace of the Creator, obviously we could have had a number of deaths. There was certainly vehicle damage at the time, but happily nobody was killed or seriously injured.

[11:15]

The question arising from all of this, and the question that's been brought to the attention of both the Minister of Highways and the Minister of Education, concerns the matter of liability in the event of accident and death.

The correspondence that the two ministries have had has been shared with me by the people in the region in Nelson. The concern was brought to a meeting of the Nelson School Board pointing out just how concerned this particular parent was about what might have happened, ostensibly because of the road conditions. Therefore a motion was passed by the

[ Page 6797 ]

school board registering its opposition to highways privatization and registering concerns about what would happen if somebody were injured or killed. Where the case gets a little complicated is that we appear to be getting two different responses to the questions.

I see that my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) would like to make an introduction. I will yield so that he might do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. S.D. SMITH: With us today in the gallery are 46 students from A.E. Perry Elementary School in Kamloops. We don't often have an opportunity to introduce students from Kamloops, and we are pleased to do so. With them are their bus driver, George Beaudoin, teachers Darrel Johnson, Ernie Cordonier, Diane McCarthy, Margo Custance, and principal Brian Hitchens. Would the House please join with me and the first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) in making them welcome.

MR. LOVICK: I was making the point that the case begins to get complicated when we look at the answers to questions about liability. Let me just quote the essential question that was posed to both ministers by the letter-writer:

"What is the liability of the ministry and the government of British Columbia to the traveling public using the public right-of-way when the right of-way is not being maintained by a responsible authority such as the Ministry of Highways?" — in other words, when it is in the hands of a private contractor. "Secondly, who is liable for schoolchildren's lives if there is a loss of life on a school bus during an accident due to road conditions or lack of road maintenance?"

The answers given from the Ministry of Transportation, on the one hand, and from the Ministry of Highways on the other appear to be contradictory. As I say, this is where the question arises. That's the predicament.

Let me quote to you what G. Sutherland, the regional director of highways in the Kootenay region, has to say in his letter of March 22, 1989:

"The government of British Columbia still retains ownership of the right-of-way but has contracted the maintenance. The contractor is liable for his actions in fulfilling his contract. This situation is similar to the ministry contracting out a paving or construction project wherein the contractor assumes liability for his operations within the contract area."

Fairly straightforward. However, the response of the Minister of Education is, as I say, on the face of it, different. I will quote his letter dated April 10 in which he says: "Transportation is a discretionary service that school boards may offer to their students. As such, individual school boards must make the decision whether or not road conditions are safe for the operation of the school buses." It seems to be saying that the liability would rest with the school board if it did not invoke its own discretionary authority to say: "In our opinion, the roads are not safe today; therefore there will be no school buses on." Whereas, as I indicated earlier, it appears that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways response is that it's a clear line of responsibility that the private contractor has the obligation. Can you clarify for us?

MR. R. FRASER: That's not what it said.

MR. LOVICK: I'm asking the question. Reserve your declarations.

HON. MR. VANT: My ministry looks at every unfortunate incident that occurs on our public roads. In this particular incident the chip truck driver was charged by the RCMP.

We're working hard to ensure that road and bridge maintenance is done promptly and efficiently. For sure, there are certain times of the year where road conditions are such that it would be very wise and prudent to stay off the road until the crews complete their work. This doesn't happen very often, but occasionally it does.

I want to assure you that the area contractors have in place.... It's necessary; it's part of the agreement between us and the area contractor. They must have no less than $10 million worth of liability insurance in place, because there is much responsibility and liability in terms of their doing the road and bridge maintenance. So that is very appropriately in place.

The incident in the Slocan Valley in the Nelson region was unfortunate, and as I stated, the driver of the truck was charged.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER: It's a pleasure to rise and talk about the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, because last time I said a few words, I neglected to mention that among the many other things the Social Credit governments of British Columbia have done is build the Rogers Pass highway — another great highway project by great governments going on and on and back so that British Columbia has an infrastructure second to none and built in some of the most difficult terrain in the world.

I want to talk about that highways maintenance work too. I've been listening to this debate for some time and have been fascinated by the thrust of the first member for Nanaimo, who talked about the contracts as if they were some kind of nightmare. I assure you, there are lots of responsible contractors in the province, many of whom are now working for the government, as they should be, and all of whom are probably doing a good job. If they aren't, the ministry will deal with them as they should.

I listen to his argument about rolling averages: you take this year, add up the next five years, divide by two, times it by three. By the time he got through, I thought rolling averages was the name of a new

[ Page 6798 ]

musical group. It didn't make any more sense than that. The Rolling Stones are ahead of you there, Mr. Member. Rolling averages aren't going to work; they never do. If you want to look at numbers and contracts, do it on an individual basis and then we can make it work for you.

Privatization or contracting out of work is fine, done by union contractors in the main. That makes me happy. For people to write in to suggest that the contractors in British Columbia — most of whom have British Columbians working for them — are not responsible is actually quite unbelievable. As far as I'm concerned, there are lots of good union members in this province who happen not to work for the government, who are totally responsible and doing a great job for this province.

No wonder they're doing well. If someone drives down the road on a wet or snowy day and gets into trouble, would you blame the contractor? Not after a snow storm you wouldn't. Would you blame the guy who drove the bus on the wrong day? You might Every circumstance is individual. What the opposition does again and again is raise obstacles and cause problems but never offer solutions.

I remember that the Leader of the Opposition, some time ago, when offering a solution to a problem in the city of Vancouver — an example of the kind of leadership the NDP has.... There was an invasion of gypsy moths in the city of Vancouver which was threatening to ruin all the trees in the lower mainland. As you know, this particular insect has devastated the forests of northeast North America. The Leader of the Opposition, as a solution to getting rid of the gypsy moths, suggested that we put bed sheets on the ground and hit the tree with baseball bats They would all fall on the sheets, and we'd catch them, and they would go away. This is from the man who is now the Leader of the Opposition. It really is amazing. There's science in its purest form.

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms Marzari) yesterday said to the leader of this government: "Do you condone disobeying the law?" He said no, as he's always said and as we've always said. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said: "Well, if we have a few illegal strikes, what can we do?" No wonder we have problems. No wonder the Social Credit people are governing this province.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few more things about highways I'd like to talk about. In particular I'd like to talk about the ferry system, which just happens to be one of the better ferry systems in the world.

I want to talk about a particular project of a colleague of yours who talks about putting a ferry terminal on the south end of Gabriola Island, and I happen to disagree with that idea. Those little flattop islands in the south end of Gabriola are magnificent as they are. Some of them have a lot of trees; some of them have a few. It just happens to be a particularly nice area, and if you want to build a ferry terminal on that end, you're going to run into these great storms from the southeast, which would be a great problem for the skippers of the ferry. If we're going to prevent that problem, we would have to have a great breakwater.

Mr. Minister of Highways, I don't want us to build any more terminals, and we certainly don't want one on the end of Gabriola Island. I don't even think we should build a bridge to Gabriola Island from the Vancouver Island side. I don't think we should even let someone with his own money build a bridge to Gabriola Island. It strikes me that if you want to move to an island, move. If you no longer want to live on an island, move off. There's no reason why we should overpopulate those little islands. There's not enough water for them to drink.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: I know more about that island than you do — I've got a funny feeling — and I certainly make more sense than you do. You haven't even got a decent heckling job out there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. These remarks have to be addressed to the Chair, and the Chair is going to find those kinds of remarks offensive. Please address your remarks appropriately.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I most humbly apologize to you. I certainly wouldn't want to — through you — pick on the first member for Nanaimo, because that wouldn't be right either.

MR. LOVICK: If anyone should be humble, it's you, Russ.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, in comparison, I think I'm okay.

On the Island side of things, of course, we have a partial bypass in the Parksville-Qualicum area. It is quite a magnificent opportunity to let the ocean side of the Island fall into a more peaceful retreat, which is what it ought to be. It's a beautiful area. There are a lot of summer homes there and a lot of very attractive permanent homes. I would like to see, as a first major step in the Island Highway, the bypass of Parksville go right past Qualicum to at least pick up some of the major traffic and take it off that little country highway along the waterfront. It should remain as a little country highway along the waterfront as a means of preserving our super ecology and our super views and our super lifestyle on Vancouver Island. It's nice to think that we could do something that would make it easier for people to get up-Island without totally overrunning the communities of Parksville and Qualicum with highway traffic and other traffic going to Port Hardy to take the other magnificent ferry which goes to Prince Rupert — which, of course, brings us to another point.

The other day, Mr. Chairman, somebody from the other side was complaining that the government had let some engineering work, through the Ministry of Highways, go to some firm that was not a British Columbia firm, or even not a Canadian firm. It was a little design work they were complaining about. Well,

[ Page 6799 ]

doesn't it sort of ring a bell? Didn't they buy something from some country once? They didn't buy the plans for the ship; they bought the whole ship, right from Scandinavia. These are the guys that complain about a little engineering work going out of the country — which I, of course, would agree with. Oh, no, they didn't buy just the plans; they bought the whole boat.

[11:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It was named the Queen of Surrey.

MR. R. FRASER: The Queen of Surrey. I can't quite remember where we got it, but I know that it came. I suppose in their minds it was justified at that time. But they have such an easy time justifying things.

There's one other project I want to talk about. In fact, there are lots of projects I want to talk to the Minister of Highways about. I would like to talk about the pipeline through the watershed, for example. But mainly, this is a little project I've had in my mind for a long time, and I'd really like to see something done about it. In terms of the Highways budget, it's not insignificant, but it's not totally out of order either,

On the lower mainland in a riding that's not attached to mine but very close to me is a beautiful park called Stanley Park. Through Stanley Park we have a causeway that is not up to highway spec. That doesn't worry me particularly, because I think those who drive back and forth can manage those narrower-than-usual lanes and get by. It works quite well.

What I want the Minister of Highways to do, though, is to look at some projects that came out of the Vancouver Parks Board all those many years ago. One was to clean up the entrance to Stanley Park from the Vancouver side. There is no doubt about the fact that a large piece of that park could be returned to the walking or cycling public if we could get the causeway out of the entrance to the park. It's been thought of; it's been worked on. There are actually lots of designs to draw a tunnel under Lost Lagoon that would come up somewhere in the centre of the park. It would be wonderful for the people who live in that area from a traffic noise point of view. It would return the entrance to the park to those going to the park. I haven't a hard number on what it would cost; I presume it would be in the $20 million area somewhere. It's the kind of project that would have a lasting effect on the city, a lasting benefit to the park.

For those of us who have a parks and open space background, there is nothing more precious than open space. Every chance we have to do something good with park spaces and highways, we should think about it. It is not a frivolous expenditure to go into a project like that. It certainly would be a great advantage to people going back and forth across the bridge. It would most definitely be an advantage for the people in the Greater Vancouver Regional District who make extensive use of that most magnificent park.

If the minister could address some thought to that. There aren't a lot of highways projects in the city of Vancouver. The biggest expenditure, I guess, would be the Cassiar connector, which, of course, is a highly desirable project from my point of view, as someone who has half a mile of highway or less in a riding. Those of us in Vancouver who have that circumstance think in terms of many ridings as opposed to just one individual riding, as some Members of the Legislative Assembly do, because of the extensive networks they have to consider. The Cassiar interchange would be very beneficial to all of the North Shore and most of the south shore because it would relieve a congested corner at Hastings Street and Cassiar, where I understand we have the highest traffic flow of any corner in North America. I think that is correct; if it isn't, it's sure close.

There we have it. A little work on the entrance to Stanley Park, a fixing up and extension of the bypass in the Qualicum-Parksville area, and enough work on the investigation of private unionized contractors working on highways maintenance so that we've got a good handle on what it's actually doing.

The reason I want to have that done is that there is always the expressed concern from the opposition that the contractors will have the government at its mercy, and the government will never be able to get back into the business. I have no such fears. It strikes me that whenever the government wishes to go back into the highways maintenance business, it will simply buy some trucks and equipment and go back into the business. It won't be hard for government to do,

Wherever we can let a taxpaying citizen work for us, we should. As I said earlier, the interesting part of the argument from the opposition is that it's a philosophical program they are giving us. Everything you see from the opposition tells you that they want everybody to work for the government, they want government to do everything that can possibly be done, and they want more and more public servants.

Presumably their road to power is to have a great civil service at their disposal. I am here to tell you from my point of view that a mix is what we want: some civil servants doing the work that governments do best, and some private sector contractors or workers doing the work they do best. To keep the mix, we'll have them flow a little bit obviously. To have one massive civil service is not in the interests of the civil service or the taxpayers. So, Mr. Minister: two or three good projects, please.

HON. MR. VANT: The hon. first member for Vancouver South certainly raises some good points regarding transportation throughout the province. Yes, Rogers Pass was indeed a great accomplishment, not only for the Trans-Canada Highway to push through that tough terrain, but it reminds me also of the recent completion of the tunnel through Mt. Macdonald by the Canadian Pacific Railway — the longest railroad tunnel in North America. That was

[ Page 6800 ]

the greatest project on that railroad since the railroad itself was built back in 1885.

For sure we want to relieve the waterfront routes on Vancouver Island so that the citizens on the Island can have the best of both worlds: a bypass and that very beautiful, scenic waterfront route.

I must say that even though I have only been the minister of this portfolio for a short time, I am very much aware that there are no less than three schools of thought regarding Gabriola Island, which is in the hon. first member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Lovick's) constituency. There is the bridge club, which wants a bridge only; there is, I believe, the short-link group, which wants a bridge, a road across the island and another ferry terminal; and then there are those like the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), who feel that we shouldn't have either. Until some kind of consensus is reached, I, as Minister of Transportation and Highways, am not going to take any initiatives whatsoever in that regard.

For sure the Cassiar connector will be underway to complete at long last that last gap of two and a half kilometres in the Trans-Canada Highway. Currently we experience the worst traffic jams of anywhere in Canada west of Toronto at the intersection of Cassiar and Hastings. This government is getting on with that project, which will be of benefit to the entire lower mainland.

I want also to assure the first member for Vancouver South that we are going to have to do major rehabilitation work on Oak Street Bridge, which is in his constituency. While we are doing that, our engineers are looking at adding extra lanes so that vital transportation link will serve us well into the future.

I am sure also that the Chairman of this committee on estimates will be interested in knowing that I am pursuing the removal of that sign at the north end of Oak Street Bridge. That, to him and to many of his constituents, has been a concern for quite some time.

Regarding the area contractors, the hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned that they were private unionized contractors. For the most part, yes they are unionized. But as I said in my opening statements, no less than three of the employee groups of their own free will have successfully sought decertification from the B.C. Government Employees' Union. They are certainly now business people — owner-operators — and they have decided of their own free will that they no longer need a union to represent them.

I've taken his remarks to heart. We have to look at the Lions Gate Bridge in terms of its age and the need for rehabilitation work, but we have to be very sensitive about that very important corridor which goes through Stanley Park. I can assure all members of this House that my ministry wouldn't want to do anything to interfere with the beauty and integrity of Stanley Park.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to recognize the member for Nanaimo, just in the process of alternating across the House.

MR. LOVICK: I was expecting the minister to respond to a rather detailed question that I posed earlier about legal liability. What happened, unfortunately, was that there was an intervention of a number of important matters. That's well and good but, clearly, my question got lost in the shuffle. I'm wondering if, rather than repeat it or take up a whole bunch of time in this chamber, I could simply ask the minister to respond and then have the first opportunity to respond to whatever the minister says. Can the minister answer my question regarding legal liability and the apparent contradictory evidence from the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the Minister of Education regarding legal liability? That's the question.

HON. MR. VANT: From what I heard earlier, I think my hon. colleague the Minister of Education was referring to the responsibility of those who operate a school-bus system in the various school districts throughout the province. Certainly they have to take responsibility to a certain extent for the very important safety of those schoolchildren going to and from school. The supervisors of the bus systems have to make some very critical decisions at times. There's a certain level of liability and responsibility on their part, which I believe my hon. colleague was referring to.

On the other hand, in terms of the road and bridge maintenance contracts, part of the prequalification of a successful bidder was that they had to ensure that they would have no less than $10 million worth of liability insurance in place because they have a certain responsibility, and liability as well. So in terms of the specific situation in the Slocan Valley which you mentioned, very adequate liability is in place on both the provision of transportation by the school district and our road and bridge maintenance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to go back and forth between the official critic and the minister until this particular line of questioning is completed, and then I'll recognize other members.

MR. LOVICK: A couple of my colleagues would also like to ask some questions about just this matter, and that's probably why the confusion, Mr. Chairman. The member from Langley is indicating to me that this is a very small intervention. I've had a number of these very small interventions, and we're only beginning this process of estimates.

[11:45]

However, the question really is.... Let me make sure I don't misquote the minister. His answer to the question a few moments ago was that yes, "There is a certain level of liability." He went on to say: "a certain level of liability and responsibility." Are you telling us that in the event of accident the school district that made the judgment to send the bus out there will be responsible if in fact there is a serious accident resulting in damage to property or loss of life? That's the question. I think it's a very important question, because it probably cashes out to mean

[ Page 6801 ]

we'll have to put signs on the highway that say: "Use at your own risk."

I pose that very direct question: do you mean to say that the locally elected school board assumes a legal liability when they send that school bus out on the road?

HON. MR. VANT: To put it as briefly as possible, Mr. Chairman, the situation really hasn't changed from when the government itself was doing the road and bridge maintenance. On the one hand the school district certainly has to keep their fleet of buses in good repair, and there's a certain amount of responsibility on the part of those who are transporting the children. On the other hand, it was pretty well similar before. There's a certain amount of responsibility and obligation on the part of those who are to provide on our behalf the road and bridge maintenance. It's no different, really, on both parts of this issue than it was before, for all intents and purposes.

MR. LOVICK: The correspondence that the minister wrote to the individual who raised this issue in the municipality of Nelson — I have a letter dated March 28 — states as follows, second paragraph: "Please rest assured that both my ministry and the maintenance contractor's staff are aware of your concerns, and that the mandate of this ministry is to provide safe highways for the traveling public."

What somebody has done in response to perceived conditions this winter is say that those road conditions were unsatisfactory, substandard. That's the argument. I understand that that is also corroborated by the RCMP who investigated the incident, even though there is also suggested an instance of a truck driver perhaps driving too quickly.

But the fundamental issue here is liability. I don't necessarily expect you to be able to answer this today to everybody's satisfaction, but I am flagging for your attention what I think is an absolutely fundamental question. If we are saying to school districts, "use at your peril" — in other words, go out and check those roads, because if you send them out, then you will be liable, which is certainly what I think it's fair to conclude the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) was saying in his correspondence — can we also say, as did the superintendent or the regional director, that the contractor is liable for his actions in fulfilling his contract? In other words, the two don't seem to go together, and I'm wondering if the minister can either clarify that matter or take it under advisement and give us a little more specific information regarding legal liability.

HON. MR. VANT: I think the member opposite is in a sense mixing responsibility and liability. I want again to assure the member that there's no difference from before. In the event of an accident, and if there's any question as to who is liable and there is litigation, ultimately the courts determine it. In the past there were occasions where someone felt that my ministry was liable because of some unfortunately event. It's the courts that ultimately determine who is liable and to what extent.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I got so desperate that I sent a note over to the member for Nanaimo and asked if he would ask my question for me. I wouldn't want the opposition members to think for one minute that the only members in the House who care about transportation issues sit on that side. I think it's important to recognize that the MLAs on the Social Credit side also have a right to ask questions and even say nice things to the minister.

My purpose in standing up today is to ask the minister when the widening of 200th Street will be completed to the freeway. I had a little difficulty yesterday understanding the press release that came out, which said that it would continue. On behalf of the constituents that the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) and I serve, I feel compelled to ask when the completion date will be and when we will see the road widened for the safety of the people who live in that community. As the minister well knows, Langley is a growing community, and that is the arterial road to the freeway which takes everyone into Vancouver. It's used by thousands and thousands of commuters every day. The road is a deathtrap, and it needs to be widened this year. I recognize that there may be some problems with getting it finished this year, but I would like to ask the minister, as best he can, to commit to a time-frame on the widening of 200th Street.

HON. MR. VANT: I'm not at all surprised by the keen interest on the part of the first member for Langley in the 200th Street project. Indeed, both members for Langley have been very interested in the project. I did want to get on with that project, and before the end of the fiscal year we did spend close to a million dollars.

I want to assure the member that we do intend to complete the widening to four lanes of 200th Street right through to Highway 1. The total scope of that project is in the neighbourhood of $20 million, and we want to continue very carefully with that project with a minimum of disruption because we have to maintain considerable traffic flow while that project is underway. We want to sensitively acquire right-of way through quite a built-up area, and complete that right through to Highway 1.

There is considerable funding in place to carry on with the work this year, and because of the scope of the project I don't think we can complete it all this year. We are aiming to complete it by the following year. My ministry and I are making preparations to complete it because we realize the importance of that project, and we want the route to be as safe as possible and we want the traffic to flow with much greater ease than is currently the case.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to assure the minister that there was extreme concern at this event in the Slocan area last winter over the icy roads. It brought up many questions that have not yet been addressed, as

[ Page 6802 ]

far as I'm concerned. They have somewhat to do with the discussion that went on earlier about who exactly does the supervising of the state of the highway.

In considering all of this, the parents of the children in the Slocan Valley have made the observation that the ministry staff said in January they didn't have the staff to monitor day-to-day road conditions and that because the ministry doesn't have more people, the contractor has to establish the road condition. That may be, as you say, the answer that you are going to accept — that because the contractor is there and you don't have the manpower to do that kind of monitoring.... The liability is there but it doesn't sound to me as though that is necessarily the conclusion the courts might come to. I think we need to have a very clear idea of who is going to be responsible for road conditions in the circumstances where we have the ownership of the roads and the supervision of how those roads are run resting with the ministry. Then we have the contractor who is required to have a certain degree of liability insurance, as you say. In fact, according to the courts, the contractor will ultimately be responsible in this particular division of supervisory responsibility.

I think this goes along with what the Minister of Education says about his ministry not having responsibility. Perhaps there is a responsibility then to the local school boards. Does that responsibility then devolve upon the actual bus drivers? All of this put together leaves the parents in this case with far more unanswered questions than have been recognized by the minister so far.

HON. MR. VANT: The points that the member for Kootenay makes in terms of the monitoring of road conditions.... The system is basically as it was before. It's just that the road foremen have now been replaced by the area managers, who are doing these inspections. Also we have good communication links with the RCMP. Indeed many of the school bus drivers themselves have always kept my ministry fully informed of the road conditions.

As before, we direct the area contractors to always prioritize the school bus routes, especially in terms of winter road and bridge maintenance. That is just as it was before. We have a duplication — you might say — of feedback systems, so that we are always up to date on the road conditions in each area. There is a very adequate system in place.

The transition between the government doing the road and bridge maintenance themselves and the area contractors went very smoothly for the most part in every corner of the province. In the end we had exactly the same men and the same machinery doing the road and bridge maintenance. In part, at least, this accounts for the very smooth transition.

In the case in the Slocan Valley that both the member for Kootenay and the member for Nanaimo keep bringing up, you must remember that the driver was charged. There were other factors beyond the road conditions at that time in that unfortunate incident.

MS. EDWARDS: Everything seems to be exactly the same, Mr. Minister, except the liability. Is the liability situation the same? It's come to the point where people who want to send their children to school on a school bus are beginning to wonder where the actual responsibility for the liability rests. It has not been clarified by all of the statements that have come from the various ministries and ministers. It seems to me that we still have to have an answer as to who is responsible. Does the liability remain the same, since everything else, as you say, is essentially the same, except for who employs whom?

MR. CHAIRMAN: In view of the fact that we'll have an opportunity to discuss that this afternoon, the Chair is prepared to entertain a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Is such a motion forthcoming?

HON. MR. VANT: Given the fact that we're approaching the noon hour, and we all need some form of refreshment to sustain us for the estimates continuing this afternoon, I move the committee rise, report progress and request leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Ree moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.