[ Page 6803 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Reduce Lead Levels in Drinking Water (Bill M213). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6803

An Act to Phase Out the Use of Apartment and Commercial Incinerators

(Bill M214). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6804

Oral Questions

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Clark –– 6804

Mr. Sihota

Offshore oil drilling. Hon. Mr. Strachan replies to question –– 6806

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6807

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Loenen

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Clark

Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 6831

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With us today are some very good friends of my family. We've known them for a good number of years, and they are constituents in Vancouver South. Visiting are Mr. Emil Roder and Mrs. Margaret Roder, and with them two friends from Frankfurt, Germany: Miss Christina Hansel and Mrs. Wally Hansel. I would ask the House to bid them a big welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: In the members' gallery today is a good friend of mine and my family, Mr. John Fitterer from Victoria. Would the House please join me in bidding him welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We're fortunate today to have in our presence in the chamber visitors from Vancouver and from the securities industry. On behalf of the House I'm pleased to welcome Mr. Doug Hyndman, chairman of the B.C. Securities Commission. He has been doing a very commendable job in terms of bringing that structure into a meaningful role. With him are Mr. John Mathers, chairman of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, Mr. Marty Reynolds, one of the board of governors, and Mr. Don Hudson, president of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. ROSE: Today we have a visitor from the federal House in the person of Ian Waddell, MP, who shares a riding with me. We were going to seat Ian on the floor today, but I notice he's up near the press gallery, where he obviously prefers to be. He's one of the many fine leadership candidates that we have federally. Would you welcome Ian, please.

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two gentlemen who are very grateful for the improvements to the highways on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and both have a very keen interest on further improvements to the Masset airport. I'm pleased to introduce to the House Gordon Feyer, the mayor of Masset, and Gerry Johnson, the mayor of Port Clements.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce to the House James Mansell and his fiancée Karen Mytko, both from Delta. James, along with his brother Gerald, of Richmond, who unfortunately could not be here today, heroically rescued a Port Coquitlam woman who was trapped in her car after slipping off a bridge crossing the Pitt River. On the morning of March 10, Joan Edwards's car skidded off the bridge and sank below the murky water, trapping her inside the car. These two young men, while other people stood by, jumped into the river to rescue the lady. These two men deserve a commendation for their prompt action. Joan Edwards knows she owes her life to James and Gerald Mansell. Would this assembly, on behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, please welcome a person who thought very unselfishly of his own life, as did his brother, but more of a fellow human being's life. Would this assembly please welcome one of those heroes of this rescue, Mr. James Mansell, and his fiancée, Karen Mytko.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a longtime friend and constituent, Mrs. Hilda Kristiansen, who is here with a committee of critical-issues friends. Hilda will be meeting this afternoon with the social services committee of the NDP. Please make her welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Visiting today from Prince George is a good friend of mine, both socially and politically. Would the House please welcome John Brink.

MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to join with the member from Vancouver Centre who has mentioned Mrs. Kristiansen. I would also like to mention that the group meeting with our caucus is visiting the House. I would like to particularly mention a former school trustee from the city of Vancouver, Betsy MacDonald, as well as Helen Hale, Barbara Russell and Doreen Sutherland, who along with Hilda Kristiansen are in the House today. Will the House please make the whole committee welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Visiting the House today is the administrator of Langley city, Bob Wilson, and his son David, who is a student at Simon Fraser University. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: I have two guests visiting us today in the gallery, both from Kelowna. One of them is the best constituency assistant in British Columbia, Susan Aitken. With her is a gentleman who began as a client of mine and became a close friend and fishing partner, Mr. Michael Kumie. Would you please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REDUCE LEAD LEVELS
IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Reduce Lead Levels in Drinking Water.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this act is to ban the continued sale and use of lead solder and other plumbing repair materials containing lead.

Further, no water systems carrying potable water are to be installed using lead-based piping. Water carried in lead piping and piping made with lead solder has been found to contain lead levels in excess of levels considered to be safe. There is clear medical evidence that ingesting very small amounts of lead can be harmful to human health and physical development,

[ Page 6804 ]

especially for children whose young bodies are still developing.

There are readily available substitutes for lead solder such as tin antimony or tin silver, and this act will ensure that no lead-based materials are used in the construction or repair of water systems.

Bill M213 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO PHASE OUT
THE USE OF APARTMENT AND
COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled an Act to Phase Out the Use of Apartment and Commercial Incinerators.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this act is to phase out the use of apartment and commercial incinerators over the next two years.

These incinerators are commonly used for trash disposal, but often burn at very low efficiency, are outdated in design and lack emission control equipment. They typically produce high levels of smoke emissions, odours and fly ash, and contribute significantly to air pollution. Apartment and commercial building owners will be encouraged to recycle or compact the garbage produced by their tenants.

In addition, the elimination of these types of incinerators will reduce emissions of dangerous air pollutants such as CFCs, heavy metals and dioxins and other cancer-causing toxins. These dangerous air pollutants result from low-level and incomplete burning of consumer and commercial wastes such as batteries, aerosol cans, plastics, Styrofoam, solvents and paints.

Bill M214 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Finance. The minister has said repeatedly in this House that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is doing an excellent job and that tough action has been taken by the government to clean up the VSE. Obviously not enough has been done. What fresh steps are you now prepared to take to clean up the Vancouver Stock Exchange and to begin to repair our international reputation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I listened closely to the question. I am unaware of the event that has transpired that prompts the hon. member's curiosity. Maybe he could expand.

MR. CLARK: If the minister is unaware of what's going on in the world, I think it's quite clear that that is reflected by the wilful blindness of the Vancouver Stock Exchange with respect to these deals. I want to ask some specific questions about this minister and about specific dealings at the stock exchange which have brought a black eye to this exchange and this province.

Adnan Khashoggi had two companies listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange — Skyhigh and Tangent. Tangent went from 10 cents to $18 to 3 cents a share in a classic money-laundering operation. It is now clear, by the way, that the money-laundering was for Ferdinand Marcos. Despite the fact that an insider-trading investigation was announced, why was there never any sanction taken against Mr. Khashoggi?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I thought we'd get down to something specific sooner or later, if we had the patience, and certainly I am a patient man, Mr. Speaker. I gather from the comments of the hon. member that he, like other critics from the socialist side of the House who are critical and negative, once again is dealing with a historical situation that has been dealt with in the public arena. I gather that for some strange reason this has excited his interest today. As I have responded in the past, the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange are aggressively changing some of their procedures and practices. In addition, I'm very proud that the Securities Commission is also working closely with the VSE in changing regulations. This House will be asked to consider those regulations this sitting, as we further refine and identify areas that need addressing.

We are making significant progress, and I repeat once again my confidence in the future of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, which shows every promise of becoming a more and more influential player in the financial community, particularly as it adds a second board to its scheme of operations, which would be a senior board. I can assure the hon. members opposite that this side of the House is determined to ensure that the VSE fulfils its promise, and that we will do everything we can to further that objective. Our objective is to ensure that in western Canada we have all of the vehicles in place which will enable us to capture our share of the Pacific Rim market. The VSE is one that has that potential. We will continue to do everything we can to expand on that as the months and years progress.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. It's that side of the House that has allowed all these international criminals to do business on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It has given us this bad reputation. A few months ago — the minister talks about history — a company linked to Ferdinand Marcos purchased a seat on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Nothing happened until the Americans indicted Mr. Marcos, and then the VSE moved into a form of damage control.

[ Page 6805 ]

Mr. Speaker, a question to the minister. Why are the two individuals that arranged the deal still allowed to do business on the Vancouver Stock Exchange? Why were no sanctions ever levied against the two individuals who organized the financing from Ferdinand Marcos?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This session of the Legislature has been characterized by members from a particular Vancouver riding consistently overreaching themselves in terms of stating the facts and the truth of situations. I don't know if it's a function of neighbourhood, a function of air that is breathed or diet, but I find it passing strange that once again we have a member from the riding of Vancouver East who seems to have this desire to put his own queer interpretation on facts and truth. The hon. member will remember debates we had in the House last year over similar kinds of allegations. By virtue of the need of the government to ensure that due process is followed, by virtue of the statutory obligations of myself and the Securities Commission — and the VSE, I might add — to ensure that they follow up on these kinds of allegations in an unbiased, fair way that ensures there is due process and that justice is served, and by virtue of the constraints imposed by the legal profession and the judiciary system in that respect, we are not able to deal with specific queries of that nature in this kind of setting.

I repeat the offer that I made last year to the critic who liked to grab headlines with these kinds of allegations: if members of the opposition have any genuine desire to assist and aid us in working on the changes that may be needed in the future to deal with these kinds of situations, I challenge them to come forward and discuss it. More importantly, if they want to deal with specific individuals, I challenge the members of the opposition to come forward and let's have a privileged conversation about those individuals. I pledge the full and totally committed support of this side of the House to ensure that if there is a genuine desire to see change, and if there is a genuine piece of information that can be usefully employed in the pursuit of those objectives, we will never fail to pursue them.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Finance has to appreciate that this government has a public problem that we're not going to discuss in the privacy of his office. That public problem relates to the image of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and we've seen more revelations in that regard.

The minister says his government wants to deal with matters, wants to run due process and follow up on matters. Why has no follow-up occurred with respect to the Carter-Ward situation? That instance involved 21 brokerage houses and over $179 million, yet to date no action has been taken against the individual brokerage houses involved. Could the minister explain why he hasn't taken action against those brokerage houses?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Now we have another riding that seems to prompt these kinds of wild accusations emerging from the bulrushes. The member makes an assumption that nothing is done or is being done. I certainly can't support that contention, and for obvious reasons I'll have to let matters sit there.

But to those who say that the commission has been less than diligent, let me just point out, for the official record, the dramatic improvement in enforcement actions taken by the Securities Commission, even in the last year as we continue to add regulations. For example, in the area of cease-trading orders issued — this year 322, last year 152; the removal of trading exemptions — this year 43, last year 8; removals of directors for suitability –– 28 this year; notices of hearings –– 12 this year compared to five last year; files opened –– 1, 233 this year versus 850 last year. The record clearly shows that the Securities Commission is getting very aggressive and is doing its job effectively. I stand on that record.

MR. SIHOTA: The member is stumbling on that record.

Two years ago when I brought those statistics to the minister's attention, he suggested that they were irrelevant and weren't the best barometer. Today he relies on them as the best barometer. I will be happy to give the minister the debate in that regard. But the best barometer is action, and it's the lack of action that is causing these perceptual problems with the VSE.

Two years ago when I raised Axiom in this House, the minister said there was nothing wrong. Since then there have been all sorts of fraudulent activities exposed with respect to Axiom. Mr. Aziz, the principal of that company, has been charged with offences back east in relation to Axiom. Could the minister explain again why, in one of the biggest scandals in Ontario and in British Columbia, his regulators in British Columbia have failed to take any action on Axiom?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member opposite doesn't seem to have the wax out of his ears. I am unable to deal with specific allegations like that in this public forum, and he knows full well why. I have statutory obligations to ensure that justice is done, and that due process and fairness is given to those who might be charged with offences. I cannot deal with those in this public forum. You know that; you are a practising lawyer — at least, the last I heard you were, for pin money.

I notice that this hon. member was quoted in the press the other day with another attempt to distort the facts, wherein he alleges that the government is putting investments from the WCB into B.C. Hydro in a 2½ percent interest-bearing bond. The fact of the matter is that under the Financial Administration Act, which has been in place for some years, that kind of transaction can't occur. If this is typical of the kind of homework and cheap headline-grabbing that we are going to get from the members of the opposition, no

[ Page 6806 ]

one can expect this side of the House to take these allegations seriously.

If we are really concerned about the problem, then I challenge the members opposite to join us in working for the common good, rather than taking the cheap headline route, which seems to be so characteristic of certain members of this House. Those kinds of actions I deplore.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister wants private criticism but not public criticism. He talks about justice being done. We're talking about instances where justice just hasn't even been commenced by the government.

The biggest volume trader right now on the Vancouver Stock Exchange is a company called Macrotrends. The minister, I'm sure, is aware of it. He ought to be aware that one of the principals of it — with respect to Mr. Cooper — has quite a lengthy criminal record. Again, we're seeing these types of people being involved in the Vancouver Stock Exchange, with, as a consequence, the image problems.

The question to the minister is this: would he not agree that it is he and his Socred friends who have allowed the VSE to slip into the type of image it has now through their sheer neglect in terms of dealing with these types of problems?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There are traditional proprieties in this House that are normally honoured in the conduct of our public business. I take deep offence at the allegation that, on some basis of friendship, favours may be extended or errors or omissions overlooked. When this government and the Securities Commission itself are working so hard, to the benefit of the Vancouver financial community, to have these kinds of attacks levied by the members of the opposition, who obviously — I gather, from the last question — are referring to some recent publications in the American press.... Let me read into the record comments made by the Globe and Mail this morning in response to those articles. The name Cooper was given in an article that was described yesterday in the American press, and I've been waiting for the opposition to get it on the record. Now it's there. Let me put into the record the Globe and Mail specific response:

"...Mr. Queenan" — who is the author of that article in the New York publication — "fails to mention that the exchange introduced new rules and policies earlier this year in a bid to tighten up the listings requirements, clamp down on reverse takeovers and, in general, make it tougher for companies to go public. He also does not mention the number of regulatory sanctions handed out by the British Columbia Securities Commission."

There you have it. We have an internationally respected Canadian publication verifying exactly what I told the members of the House a good 15 minutes ago. For some strange reason, we have this mud-slinging ethic which certain members from certain ridings seem to have this propensity for. I remind them: we are here to serve the interests of all the people of British Columbia. One of those interests surely must be to promote economic activity and to ensure that the Vancouver financial community becomes strengthened and a more meaningful player in the Pacific Rim marketplace. We cannot do that if we continue to get nitpicking and sniping from mudslingers across the way. We are making dramatic progress, as evidenced by the facts I've read into the record now.

[2:30]

It is grossly unfair and a cheap shot to have this mud-slinging put forward by this restricted clique of members of the opposition who don't have the foresight or wit to understand the larger vision and the greater opportunity that lies with all British Columbians, providing that we collectively put our shoulder to the wheel. I challenge them to join us in putting our shoulder to the wheel, and what do we get? We get idiotic charges; we get cheap headline-grabbing when they know we are unable to deal with specific firms or individuals. They expect the electorate will be duped into thinking that they're serving the electorate's interest, when in fact they're serving nobody's interest but their own. They have no interest in serving the people of this province; they have an interest only in bringing forward their own arguments.

I think it's about time that elected representatives sitting in this Legislature assume the larger responsibility of providing leadership to our province. We on this side are working very hard to reach those goals. We're making significant progress, and we could make more progress if there was less negativism across the way and more willingness to join in and move ahead to progress, which we all want.

OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to respond to a question taken on notice. On Thursday, May 11, my critic the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) posed the following question: "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?" I said that I would come back with further opinion after reviewing the museum material.

Upon reviewing the museum material, I find a plaque on a 5 foot by 10 foot photograph of an offshore oil-rig platform. The plaque for the display reads:

" It is difficult, dangerous and expensive to drill for oil and gas over open waters. Special equipment and precautions aboard an offshore drilling platform reduce dangers and increase chances of success.

"Future drilling for oil and gas off the British Columbia coast will probably be conducted in the Queen Charlotte sedimentary basin. The waters over the basin, Hecate Strait, are among the world's stormiest, but modern drilling platforms operate successfully, even in these difficult conditions."

That is the end of the statement on the plaque.

It's obvious from reading the statement on the plaque and listening to the statement the member

[ Page 6807 ]

made in the House that he didn't read it right. He must have misread the last sentence. It says: "... platforms operate successfully, even in these difficult conditions." It does not say: "...rigs can operate safely in Hecate Strait." I would commend the member.... Maybe the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) can give him some lessons in remedial reading or understanding. The quote was misquoted in the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply.

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).

HON. MR. VANT: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the hon. member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards). She again raised the question of who was liable. As I have indicated, it's pretty well exactly as it was before in terms of the liability.

If there is an unfortunate incident on any of our public highways, and if it's cut and dried, the maintenance contractor would be liable if it was due to his lack of performance. If there is any litigation in the end, of course the courts would ultimately determine any liability. If there was an incident involving a school bus and the accident was a result of mechanical failure — perhaps the brakes not in operating order or something — then on due investigation perhaps those seeking liability would look at the operator of the bus.

MS. EDWARDS: I am reluctant to press the minister, but it seems to me that the minister is not yet saying where he is taking the responsibility. You are saying that if there is a problem, you may go to a contractor, and if you want to, you can go to a school bus driver. Maybe if the court decides and maybe this or that....

What is the minister's position about the ministry's liability and responsibility for the safety of the roads under the circumstances?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, the Minister of Advanced Education has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. S. HAGEN: It is a real pleasure for me today to have in the House from G.P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay — my hometown — the grade 11 honours social studies class, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Rick Rodriguez. I had the great pleasure of speaking to this class and explaining to them all the things that an MLA does to represent his constituency. I would be very pleased if the House would help me bid them welcome to Victoria.

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, any citizen who has concerns about the road conditions can go to his district Highways office. They are in every area of the province. That channel is open to people to express their concerns.

Many of the area contractors have gone to great lengths to advertise in the media how they can be reached. The particular contract area in which I live has no less than five telephone numbers listed. It covers a vast area.

A citizen does not have to make a long-distance phone call to bring road conditions to the attention of the area contractor. There is the traditional channel of directly approaching my ministry, and some of the area contractors have phones in their equipment. You can definitely communicate your concern in a very convenient manner.

MS. EDWARDS: Whether or not one can phone the Minister of Highways is not the question, and whether or not one can then get shifted off to the contractor.... If the minister doesn't have any horror stories in that regard, I can certainly provide him with some — people trying to get hold of whoever is responsible for a certain condition or find someone who will accept responsibility for a certain situation on a particular day.

The point is not necessarily how an individual can get hold of someone. The question is: what does the minister perceive as the responsibility of his ministry for the condition of the roads?

HON. MR. VANT: That is very clearly specified. Our very extensive maintenance standards are in the written agreements between my ministry and the area contractor. It's all very clearly spelled out. For example, within a certain time-frame, if certain events happen, certain procedures must take place.

Also I remind the hon. member for Kootenay that besides the $10 million liability insurance which must be in place and gives real substance to this area of responsibility, there is also a performance bond at stake if the area contractor does not perform his duties adequately. We, as government, take very seriously our responsibility for managing the road and bridge maintenance, even though we are no longer directly doing it.

MR. LOVICK: Still on this larger subject of privatization, I want to put some direct questions to the minister and then perhaps move away from that to some other areas.

Let me start by simply picking up on some questions I began yesterday, which we weren't able to pursue very far at the time. I want to talk about the quantities, the schedules of quantities, the amount of material actually used by the private maintenance contractors. As you recall, Mr. Minister, when the ministry privatized the highways maintenance function,

[ Page 6808 ]

the private sector was invited to make proposals based on that schedule of quantities. It has repeatedly been the advice of ministry officials that the final contract signed reflected very closely the schedule of quantities outlined in the proposal call. Would the minister please confirm that the quantities the contractor signed for those final contracts reflect closely the schedule contained in the proposal call?

HON. MR. VANT: The answer is yes.

MR. LOVICK: I'm pleased to hear that that's the case. Taking contract area 1, for example — just to make our task somewhat easier — the schedule of quantities in the proposal call shows dramatic reductions in the amount of crack sealing asked for by the ministry. The ministry asked for 52,300 lineal metres over the three years, while the average activity for the period 1982-87 was 89,308 lineal metres. That's a cut, apparently, of some 41 percent. Similarly, dust control stabilization is down to 94 kilometres for three years, compared to a three-year average during the 1982-87 period of 793 kilometres. That is a drop of 88 percent under privatization. Similar reductions show up for shoulder gravelling, major ditching and roadside brushing.

How then can the minister say that his ministry bought the same quantity of service that the old highways crews used to perform? On the face of the evidence we are looking at a pretty clear reduction. Therefore I would like the minister to explain how he can continue to say we got the same or even better.

[2:45]

HON. MR. VANT: I guess contract area 1 has certainly had its share of new pavement, and with a lot of new pavement put in, of course, the need for crack sealing declines proportionately. Also, as we've done a lot of seal coating of some of the side roads, it reduces the need for dust control. I'm very envious of many constituencies here on the island where there are not a heck of a lot of unpaved roads. The quantity of roads may not be as great as in some of our constituencies on the mainland, but a fairly high proportion of the roads are paved or seal coated.

I like to think my ministry is progressing over the years so that there is more hot-mix pavement in place and some of the other roads are at least seal coated.

MR. LOVICK: I understand the minister is therefore telling me that the quantity of service may be reduced but the standard is maintained. In other words, we're coming at it a different way. Is that the case?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, that is correct.

MR. LOVICK: I hope the minister will understand the difficulty I have here. If in fact the quantity of service has not been reduced anywhere, why is it that we have a couple of stories coming to our attention, suggestions that the contractor is apparently being asked to do things that weren't put in the contract and that we are being told were done previously by the Ministry of Highways?

I refer to a couple of examples. One is the matter of avalanche control. What apparently used to happen is that the snow would be put into some kind of ditch at the bottom of a slope which would then be used as a barrier for future reference. That was done, I gather, as a matter of course. I would refer you to an article on this particular subject — and the basis of my information, I must confess, because I haven't traveled in the area — in the Vancouver Sun dated February 20, 1989, concerning the Terrace area and attributing various statements to a gentlemen on Highway 37A, Jon Buckle, highways department director for the northwest region. He made the point that past practice of government highway crews was to clear the ditches in avalanche areas, which would then serve as a kind of catchment area for further snow discharges or avalanches.

But the contractor is saying: "We can't do that, because that's not in the contract." The obvious question is: how did that one get lost in the contract? If in fact we're providing the same quantity and quality of service, why was that particular job left out?

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that the member opposite is focusing on an area of the province other than right here on the Island. It indicates to me that my hon. critic does have some concern beyond his own constituency or beyond this Island.

Avalanche control, particularly in the northwest corner of the province, varies in degrees. I was up in that corner of the province when we had a number of avalanches, and I took Highway 37A between Meziadin junction and Stewart. At the time, no less than about 25 avalanches had come down through Bear Pass. For the most part, these avalanches are routine, and it is routine road maintenance to clear them.

For sure this past winter there were some points of contention between my ministry and the area contractor regarding some of the specific details. But it is clearly understood that the avalanches in that area are fairly routine. Occasionally we get what we call a major event, which is far from routine. Naturally these area contractors would feel very vulnerable if, for example, they were forced to consider a major avalanche as routine maintenance.

There was one in Ningunsaw Pass that left a deposit on Highway 37; this is between Meziadin junction and Dease Lake. That deposit was 1,000 feet long and no less than 50 feet deep, and within the deposit was not only snow but big boulders and some trees. Indeed the concussion of that deposit hitting the valley floor even broke some trees off on the other side of the valley. To emphasize the magnitude of that event, our avalanche technicians measure avalanches on a scale of 1 to 5. This one in Ningunsaw Pass rated 4.5 on that scale, and indeed it was the largest avalanche that our avalanche technicians had ever seen.

[ Page 6809 ]

So when you talk about avalanche control, the ones that are just routine we expect the area road and bridge maintenance contractor to remove from the road as a matter of routine. Then there are the ones which we would assess as a major event.

I am confident that my regional director of Highways in that area, Jon Buckle, will iron out any wrinkles which may exist regarding clarification of the expectations of the contractor in that area.

MR. LOVICK: First of all, I'd like to remind the minister that my focus has certainly not been Vancouver Island-based — far from it. You may recall the morning's discussion was about the Kootenays. As you shall have occasion to discover, I am going to be touching on a number of different areas.

When you talk about a major event as opposed to routine maintenance, are we talking about something analogous to the emergency service provisions written into contracts, whereby if there is something aberrant, unusual and atypical, then a contractor may make application for some special compensation? Is that what you mean by a major event? Is that the case?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should know that we have a way of measuring something like that. If it's in excess in magnitude of costing $20,000, then that comes into force and effect.

MR. LOVICK: The case in Terrace I refer to at Bear Pass on Highway 37A between Meziadin junction and Stewart.... Are you suggesting, Mr. Minister, that the particular case I referred to in which Buckle was saying that this was past practice, that this was indeed a major event...? You were talking, I gather, about another one.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK Okay. I see the minister nodding, Mr. Chairman, rather than us leaping up and down all the time. The question posed by the regional Highways manager was: "We have done that in the past; therefore we" — i.e. Highways — "assume that the contractor will do it." The contractor, however, is quoted as saying: "Well, that may have been past practice, but it isn't specified in the contract, and it may involve thousands of dollars."

How can we not conclude then that there appears to have been a reduction in service?

HON. MR. VANT: In our opinion, that matter is covered in the contract. There may currently be a few wrinkles to iron out between us and that area contractor. Jon Buckle is working on it as my regional director of highways. The magnitude of any single avalanche in Bear Pass was such that in our opinion none of them rated as a major event.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

We're maintaining that the contractor should perform what we deem to be routine maintenance, and indeed the work was done, even though currently there is some dispute between the ministry and the contractor. I can assure you that the work was done, and in very short order under very difficult conditions, Highway 37A was open to traffic. When I was in that area, I saw firsthand some of those smaller avalanches in Bear Pass, which are fairly routine; they occur every winter. In an average year — because the hon. member opposite seems to really like going in for averages — Highway 37A is closed owing to avalanches for about five days.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, I understand there's a 15 kilometre stretch that's apparently very susceptible along 37A and all that. I won't belabour the point, but how about another case. Let's pick another contract area. Let's pick contract area 9. Let's talk about Highway 3. Let's talk in the area of Grand Forks.

The suggestion is that though the ministry has repeatedly claimed that the service would be maintained after privatization, there are people in isolated areas of the province who are now telling us that they are no longer getting the service they used to have done on a fee-for-service basis; it is now no longer being performed at any price by the local contractor. Can the minister confirm that? Are you familiar with that one? The case I have is 12 miles west of Grand Forks town centre.

HON. MR. VANT: If I recall correctly, during question period the hon. second member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) asked me exactly the same question. The information I have is that all the area contractors, after they have completed their priority plowing of the main arterial highways, the school bus routes and all those very important functions, do welcome within a certain radius.... In the past, in order to give private owner-operators of equipment the opportunity to plow driveways, often within a certain radius of a community, years ago we got out of the business of plowing driveways. But in the more remote areas where there's no other equipment available, we were happy to entertain plowing through what we call the plow-board system. The ministry was compensated for services rendered. I would believe that Bel Maintenance would be interested in having the business once they fulfil their primary obligations to us to plow driveways in the Grand Forks area, That is similar to the response I gave to Mr. Barlee quite some time ago. I will certainly have my staff....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the minister not to refer to members by their names. You must refer to the member by the jurisdiction which he represents. He is the second member for Boundary-Similkameen.

HON. MR. VANT: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I will take your advice to heart and will do so in the future.

[ Page 6810 ]

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the fact that the minister ended his answer by saying he would indeed take it under advisement and see whether there was anything amounting to a cutback in service provided. I'm glad to hear that.

I want to turn now to another question that I've had considerable difficulty getting information on, and perhaps the minister can edify and enlighten us. I'm referring specifically to staff — the numbers of people now working on that maintenance function. I've heard various stories and various people have suggested to me that there are no longer as many people working on highway maintenance as there used to be. I'm wondering if the minister has any numbers or any information that he can share with this House to clarify those matters.

[3:00]

HON. MR. VANT: I'd be very happy to get into how many employees were privatized. As of April 28, with all contract areas now privatized and operational, offers of employment were made to 2,607 ministry employees. As you well know, it was a condition of each and every contract that an offer of employment be made. The number of employees that accepted the offer from the contractor was 2,339; 271 employees opted to stay with the government. As of this date, approximately as of May 1, 128 of the 271 employees who chose to stay with the government have been placed in other employment. If I haven't answered the member's question, perhaps I will allow him to seek further clarification.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer given, and I detected fairly early in its delivery that some communication had not taken place. I wasn't asking for that information. I apologize if my question wasn't clear enough.

What I wanted to get at was, of those persons who have decided to work with the privatized contractors.... We started, let's assume, with a certain number of people. The question is: now, after all those contracts are signed, in place and in operation, what is the total complement? How many people have departed or otherwise been let go from those privatized operations? What was the original complement in highways maintenance and what is it today?

HON. MR. VANT: Our interest is primarily in how these area contractors are performing, not in how many people they are employing.

MR. LOVICK: I can appreciate that answer, but I would remind the minister that the justification, defence and explanation for the privatization initiative from the beginning has been that it will not amount to a decrease in employment; rather, greater opportunities will be available. It seems to me that it is not good enough to say that our concern is just whether the service is being provided. I think as a government and as a ministry that talks about its capacity to make social and economic things happen for the betterment of this province, we do have an obligation to keep track of that. I would put the question again then: can the minister advise us of how many fewer people are now working on highways maintenance compared to when that responsibility belonged directly to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?

HON. MR. VANT: I can say that I know that in the central Cariboo region, the area contractor, Caribou Road Services Ltd., currently employs more people than when it first took over the contract. Indeed, I have reports.... I don't have specifics at this time, primarily because it's really not any of the government's business how many people are employed. Our main concern, as I said, is their performance. As long as they're doing the job adequately, to our satisfaction, that's our main concern. I have a number of other reports throughout the province showing that because the area contractor is able to work for other than the government, there has been a net increase of employment. I've heard on an informal but very firm basis — very authentic information — that a lot of area contractors are employing more people than when they started. I haven't heard any reports whatsoever that there was actually a decline in employment from those initial levels.

MR. LOVICK: We have different information coming to us then. Certainly I get quite different stories, both in my own area, central Vancouver Island, contract area 2, as well as in other parts of the province. When I was in Castlegar a couple of weeks ago, I met with some individuals who told me that, as they understood it, a number of people had indeed left. People had been laid off as well as having decided that the new regime did not suit them and therefore they left. I am wondering whether the minister would be good enough to give us some assurances that we can get some answers to those questions.

I think it is a legitimate question, because when the minister says, "It's not our business to think about the impact of this program in terms of employment levels within those communities, " I submit that is quite wrong. That is indeed the business of a ministry of the Crown.

I will give an example of that. I met with a couple of people when I was in the Kootenays about two weeks ago, and the line I got was that people were still staying with the privatized maintenance operation but were now moving down into the regional area to achieve efficiencies. The concerns that I got from local school board members there had to do with whether that smaller community could handle the depopulation of even one or two taxpaying, contributing families to that small community.

The reason I ask this question is that if that is happening in that one small community, I wonder whether the phenomenon might be provincewide, because obviously we have a large number of communities throughout the province — your own constituency, Mr. Minister, comes to mind instantly — whose population base is precarious, to put it mildly,

[ Page 6811 ]

and if we do something to significantly impact on that population and economic base, then we threaten the continued livelihood of that particular community.

Will you instruct your staff to perhaps do some digging and do an audit or an evaluation of the impact of the privatization of maintenance operations in terms of employment and impacts on local communities? I think that would be important information. I think we owe it to the people to come up with that kind of information, and I am wondering if the minister would give me those assurances.

HON. MR. VANT: In a free country employees always have the option to decide to quit their job and move to some other occupation. There is always a certain amount of turnover in any operation. Also, traditionally the ministry hired auxiliaries to help out over the winter, and so people are hired on a temporary basis as they are needed, and then they are laid off.

I just want to emphasize that the employment level of some of these contractors is not necessarily related to the work that the government is requiring of these contractors. Yes, I am very much aware of the impact of the Highways works yard on some of our smaller communities. Anahim Lake in the far west Chilcotin immediately comes to mind, where the contractor currently employs more people now than the ministry ever did in that very remote community. There is a certified mechanic there who can do heavy-duty mechanics, and he can also work for some of the local machine owner-operators who at one time had to take their equipment all the way in to Williams Lake to get it worked on. So in that particular instance, privatization has had a very positive impact on that small, remote community without unduly giving any kind of what could be deemed to be unfair competition with an already existing business.

MR. LOENEN: Just briefly last week during the estimates, I had an opportunity to talk about the George Massey Tunnel and the effect it would have on my municipality. There were rumours about creating a third lane for traffic to move south, and I said it would severely affect my community. It's something we have talked about for years and years.

I was informed about 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon that by September 15 such a system will be implemented. I am sorry to hear that. There was no consultation. Certainly this member had no opportunity to make representation on behalf of what is the largest riding by population in this province. There are some very deep, longstanding concerns that my community wishes to express in relation to that.

We all know that the tunnel presents a bottleneck for traffic. What we are afraid of is that this move will simply move the problem from one side of the river to the next. For years and years your ministry has said that there is simply too much volume going north in the afternoon to entertain the idea that all of that traffic could be accommodated within one lane. I wonder why it is that the ministry now has decided otherwise, when we see that today there is more traffic there than ever before. The concerns have to do with the fact that we need to resolve that problem, not simply move the problem from one side to the next. We've been told that this measure would be temporary. Well, when income tax was introduced in 1917 it too was to be temporary, and the fears are that once that is put in place, it will be there for a long time to come.

I would very much like to have the minister explain to my constituents how he sees this system work. I would be very interested in knowing whether this will be put in place during a particular time of the day and for how long, what the parameters are and what the conditions are. What are the criteria under which a decision will be made as to whether or not one lane of traffic through the George Massey Tunnel ought to be opened up or not? Will there be some mechanism for balancing that volume coming south as it relates to the volume heading north, or are we going to see the people who try to head north in the afternoon lined up right back to the border?

There are severe problems related to the question of safety, and I would like to hear the minister reassure, if he can, the people in my riding that safety is something that can be controlled. We know that we have counter flow traffic on the causeway through Stanley Park over the Lions Gate Bridge, and other situations, but I think that most of us would readily concede that should there be a head-on collision in the George Massey Tunnel, the tragic results of that would be far in excess of anything that would possibly happen on the causeway or even on a bridge, simply because of the nature of a tunnel.

In short, although we hear a great deal about "Freedom to Move," my constituents certainly don't see that move as a freedom-to-move initiative. In fact, they're very fearful that this is going to turn into freedom to park. It would add 20 minutes or 30 minutes each day to their traveling time as they're coming home after a long day of work. They're trying to reach home, they're trying to get back into their community, and certainly this is going to add 20 or 30 or more minutes to their travel time.

[3:15]

It may well be that someone would say: "It's about time there is a balancing of justice here. For years and years the residents in Delta, Tsawwassen and White Rock have had to put up with this. Perhaps it's time that now the people of Richmond put up with this inconvenience." I would just like the minister to consider that what we need is solutions to the problem, not simply moving that problem around.

In the same press release, we hear about improvements to the east-west freeway. What we do not hear is an early completion of that massive interchange that is planned for the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. If we are to address the problems of the George Massey Tunnel, the only way to do that is to ensure that the third lane on the Alex Fraser Bridge can be made fully operational as soon as possible, and that makes absolutely no sense unless we have a

[ Page 6812 ]

completion of that massive interchange that is planned at the north end of the bridge.

We have a $450 million structure, and I was a member of council way back in '84 when council pointed out to the ministry time and again that it makes no sense to build this structure unless you have the approaches in place to handle the traffic. Currently we have a situation where all of that traffic ends up at a signalized intersection. What I would dearly love to have the minister comment on is why he has not put money into an early completion of that $25 million interchange at the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. Certainly that is a way to resolve the problem, rather than creating more problems at the tunnel end.

Last week I was asking for a sign to point the way to Richmond. I'm just afraid that if we're going to have tourists come to Richmond, they won't be able to get in, because there will be traffic backed up all the way to the border.

I would like to have the minister comment on why we don't have an early commitment to complete that interchange on the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. I would like to have the minister give us some indication as to when he thinks we can look forward to the completion of it. I know they're making some improvements, but improvements aren't what are needed, Mr. Minister. What is needed is a firm commitment to have that interchange in place so that then indeed we can have three lanes on the Alex Fraser Bridge and can look forward to a resolution of the problem rather than simply moving the problem.

HON. MR. VANT: I trust my hon. critic opposite will be patient for a minute or two while I address these urgent concerns of the second member for Richmond. He doesn't seem to be too interested in my response.

Anyway, currently they use a very crude manpower-intensive method of allowing the extra lane to proceed northbound in the morning. The idea of this new electronic lighting system to control the traffic flow through the Massey Tunnel is a very progressive, worthwhile step. I want to remind the hon. second member for Richmond that this counter flow signal lighting control system will not be in place until later this fall.

Indeed, we want to open up the Alex Fraser Bridge. We want to have the east-west freeway open in July. This combination of improvements in other parts of the transportation system in and around Richmond should pick up a lot of the slack. I can assure the hon. member that we're working on proceeding with the very important interchange at the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge.

I want to say too that this new electronic lighting system is very important for the Massey Tunnel. It gives us flexibility. The control of the lanes will be determined very carefully according to traffic volumes. The idea would be to operate that tunnel for the traveling public so there's the least amount of pain, you might say, for the majority of people.

HON. MR. REID: The smartest move you've made in ten years.

HON. MR. VANT: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale certainly supports this initiative.

We will also have new electronic signing to advise the travelling public in advance to divert them to other routes before they get too close to the tunnel. This signing will be on Highway 10, the link over to Highway 1. I know the hon. second member for Richmond doesn't want me to cancel that direction sign to Richmond, but we will give adequate warning to the travelling public so that if at a particular time of day the tunnel is congested, we will be diverting them to the other routes which will be opened up. Those new electronic warning signs will be on Highway 10 and also on Highway 99 at Highway 91.

We are very concerned about the safety of the travelling public through the tunnel, and believe me, we have great reservations about the current rather crude and very manpower-intensive method of diverting traffic in one of the lanes in the tunnel system.

MR. LOENEN: I appreciate the response and am glad to hear that there will be signs all around the lower mainland indicating what the situation is at the tunnel. I was also immensely pleased to hear the minister say that the sign I asked for last week will be put in place. Last week we had a commitment that the minister would consider it; this week he said he's going to make sure that it will be put in place. I know my community will welcome it, because in August we're welcoming all of Canada to come and participate in the summer games for the disabled. There will be all kinds of families traveling west along the Trans-Canada Highway, and it would be a shame if they got lost in the streets of Surrey and were unable to find Richmond.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) please restrain himself.

MR. LOENEN: Secondly, I would like to ask the minister whether or not it is possible for him to give this House and the people of the province an idea, if not a firm commitment, as to when we can expect the massive interchange planned for the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge to be ready. All we have in the news release is that by the end of June he expects improvements to be made. We just heard the minister say that he is very anxious to work towards a completion of the system, but I would ask him: does it not make more sense to get on with that immediately, before even thinking of opening up a third lane on the Alex Fraser Bridge? I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us what his time-line is on the interchange.

[ Page 6813 ]

HON. MR. VANT: I want to assure the member that we are taking immediate steps to facilitate a right turn onto the bridge going east to south. Also we are going to have traffic coming the other way — east to north — proceeding underneath the bridge to ease traffic flow. But the magnitude of the full interchange — I can guarantee the hon. member that it would all be completed within about three years. It's a major undertaking. Meanwhile, we're going ahead with these interim steps to ease the flow of traffic at the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. Also, this current fiscal year, we're going to open up the Alex Fraser Bridge to the full six lanes.

MRS. BOONE: I always find these exchanges interesting. I notice that although there's no sign for Richmond along the highway, there's certainly a sign for Fantasy Gardens. That points it out quite clearly.

I also notice that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is not here complaining about the money that's being spent. He always stands up in this House during Health estimates and complains about members who ask for more money to be spent, and how that increases the budget, but he never complains when people demand that more money be spent for highways. Interesting priorities here.

I would like to ask the minister some questions. We've got a strange situation, one that we suggested might occur during the privatization of the highways in terms of unfair competition for some of the private sector. I've received complaints from contractors in our area about the employees group that was privatized because of some of the advantages they received in terms of fire sale prices for equipment.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: The minister says: "Prove it." The information I have is that some of the equipment was sold.... For example, a crane worth $20,000 was sold for $600, and some other equipment for $700. My contractors are saying to me that this is creating unfair competition; that they are having to compete with people who were able to purchase equipment for much less than they've been able to do. These people are now bidding on jobs that the private sector and contractors normally did, and they are not able to compete fairly. In fact, they're extending way beyond highways maintenance into areas that other contractors have been working in for many years.

Could the minister please explain to me how he can justify this type of action to the contractors in our communities? Does he feel this is fair? Is any unfair advantage occurring or unfair competition taking place?

HON. MR. VANT: I certainly appreciate the interest of the member in my ministry. In terms of trying to make a case that there is unfair competition because somehow the area contractors got equipment at fire sale prices, I guess she couldn't hear me. She kept mentioning about hearing about a crane that went for so much, and this other piece of equipment.

Actually, the equipment was sold based on average auction prices. I notice that she was very careful not to mention the year of a particular piece of equipment. I saw a computer printout of some of the equipment that was sold, and most of it was smaller stuff. One piece that I spotted on this list was over 30 years old, and naturally it had depreciated considerably. It might have had antique value if it had been kept a few more years.

[3:30]

We have received a draft report from Coopers and Lybrand to verify the methodology used by the ministry in valuing the assets which were sold or leased. In the report they indicate that in their opinion, "the methods utilized by the ministry to value, as at March 1988, the mobile/rolling-stock assets sold or leased to contractors, while not absolutely accurate, are reasonable and fair." They took 80 units as a sample. The original price of these 80 units was $3,591,122; replacement value was deemed to be $6,941,000; present value, according to my ministry's calculation, was $2,215,263. From the Coopers and Lybrand report, they estimate the value to have been $2,179,500. As they scanned this sample of 80 units, the sales-lease price amounted to $2,183,449, which was in fact higher than the estimated value placed on it by Coopers and Lybrand. This seems to confirm that we are leasing equipment at commercial rates and that a fair value was realized on the sale of equipment.

MRS. BOONE: Would the minister then make the prices, costs and terms of the contract for all the different areas — and my particular area, the Prince George region — available to us so that we could look at the contracts and find out the terms for the sale or lease of all the equipment and the terms on the contracts given to the various companies around?

HON. MR. VANT: Briefly, no, I couldn't make all that available. I just want to emphasize that the area contractors are competing on a fair basis, Indeed, if it's the day-labour program, they would be at the bottom of the seniority list. Given that they are leasing equipment at commercial rates, it's a fairly level playing-field with anyone else bidding on particular contracts in the area.

Based on the draft report of Coopers and Lybrand... . Certainly when the final report is received, I would be happy to share that with the member. It gives a fair sample of the methodology used in this very proper process. All reports I have received indicate that various ways were looked at in determining the fair value of this used equipment. I maintain very definitely that it is a level playing-field in terms of doing work for the ministry.

MRS. BOONE: The minister claims that it's a level playing-field. He accuses me of not having any information, yet he won't give us any information. How do you expect me to get information when you won't release this stuff to us? If you have nothing to fear, if you say this is a level playing-field and

[ Page 6814 ]

everything has been on the up and up and on the even field, why won't you release that information to us?

Why won't you give it to us, so that we can say to our contractors: "It is fair. You are being treated fairly." We can't do that, because you are giving us no information at all. If you are not afraid, if it is truly a level playing-field, if you have been receiving fair prices for the equipment that is sold — a lot of it has been sold and leased — then give us the information, Mr. Minister. What are you afraid of? There is nothing for you to be afraid of here, if in fact we have received fair value for what we as citizens have a right to receive for our equipment. Give us that information, Mr. Minister, now, today, in this House.

HON. MR. VANT: I certainly have nothing whatsoever to be afraid of. I do know that the hon. member for Prince George North would not take my word or that of my ministry. Any information we would release that wasn't properly audited by an independent, reputable firm would not be recognized. I can assure the member that when the final report of Coopers and Lybrand is available concerning the sale and lease of equipment, I will be very happy to give it to you, which will verify everything that I am saying to this House.

MRS. BOONE: Not the reports, the contracts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. G. HANSON: I want to defer to our House Leader who has a very quick little item he wants to deal with.

MR. ROSE: What happened?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've been recognized by the Chair.

MR. ROSE: I didn't think the Chair would recognize me anymore. I know what I was going to say, because I've said the same thing for the last five years. This is my fifth or sixth Bedwell Bay secondary-highway speech. It's one of my favourite speeches. Each time I give it, I get better and madder.

Belcarra is a little municipality in my riding bordering on Indian Arm and Burrard Inlet. It has been a municipality now for something like ten years. They've been trying to get their road, which dead-ends at Belcarra Park, classified so that it meets the criteria for certain kinds of funding and upgrading. They have been turned down repeatedly on a technicality. The technicality is that the road ends at Belcarra, and because it's not a through road, they don't qualify.

However, there are a number of other roads that end too. I can think of the Island Highway which ends, too, at the water. The Tofino one ends as well at a dead end. Ucluelet Road, Mackenzie: there is no pass-through traffic. I want to know why we are singling out Belcarra. There may be other places. But certainly Belcarra needs the extra assistance that they are — and have been — seeking, because they've got that huge regional park there, and there's very heavy use in the summertime.

Aside from adequate policing in the summertime, that's really their only main gripe. I'm sure that one of your officials there.... Mr. Doyle, the former head of the New Westminster highway district is very familiar with this problem; he's heard about it and heard about it and heard about it. I don't see why we can't get some action on it. Would the minister like to comment?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, this newly incorporated village — they were incorporated in August of 1979 — want to have the Bedwell Bay road classified to a secondary highway. We do have arterial highways that go to some of our coastal communities, and there is a difference there between arterial and secondary. We would certainly like to respond to the request, but unfortunately the majority of traffic using the Bedwell Bay road is destined for the Belcarra Regional Park, which is located within the municipal limits of Belcarra.

In order to qualify for this much-sought-after secondary highway classification, a road must carry a substantial volume of traffic having both an origin and a destination outside of the municipality through which the road traverses. So that is the reason why I can't grant their request.

I've had meetings with the municipality, and they are reluctant to even suggest that somehow this park be removed from their municipality, because then they could present a case to me that would indicate that a lot of traffic using that road was going outside the municipality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Labour has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it's my privilege today to introduce to the House 30 grade 10 students from Kalamalka Junior Secondary School, which is in the riding of Okanagan North in the municipality of Coldstream. They are accompanied by a parent chaperone, Mrs. Lewis. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: The people of Belcarra face a lot of external traffic. In the last ten years, it's estimated that the traffic on that road has gone from about 70,000 to 350,000 per annum; that's a lot of cars. It comes from outside the municipality. A lot of it is going to the regional park. The village is quite a small village, and they can't afford, on the basis of their tax base — and before anybody yells "tax haven"....

What we have to recognize is that they as a village had the right to form their own corporation, which was granted through Municipal Affairs. There were

[ Page 6815 ]

certain highway and road maintenance funds available for the first five years. There was even some after that, which I asked for and received, courtesy of the former Highways minister.

But the fact is that they're now facing a torrent of traffic, because another beach has just opened up there called White Pine Beach, which is not exactly in their municipality but contiguous to it. There were times where you can hardly get down the road, it's so thick in the summer. When they opened White Pine Beach, I got as far as loco, and that was the end of it. I couldn't go any further. So it is a very popular place, and the residents cannot carry that burden any longer.

Tofino, Ucluelet and Mackenzie are classified as secondary highways. I don't see any reason why they're refused on a ground....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, arterial. They end at Tofino or Ucluelet, don't they?

This highway ends at Belcarra. It ends there, just the same as the others do. It carries probably a volume of traffic, I would guess — well, I have no way of guessing. But 350,000 cars per annum is big stuff — relatively big. I know that Mr. Doyle is very familiar with it. I was very pleased, during the last election, to get Mr. Doyle's agreement to put some dividers along....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I didn't want to startle you. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid), order, please. The committee has been doing quite nicely this afternoon. Maybe if you could just restrain yourself while we proceed.

MR. ROSE: Anyway, they can't carry it alone, and they are asked to serve traffic that is external to them. That area is well located in the lower mainland at about the centre of a million and a half people. It is an easy access to some very fine recreational land. They can't carry it alone. The villagers there, probably about a thousand in total, could do it. They can't handle it themselves. It is not a big deal, I don't think.

I was mentioning Mr. Doyle, who was very kind in getting dividers on the highway between Riverview and Coquitlam Centre to protect the pedestrians, for which I asked him in the last election. I haven't seen the dividers yet, but I know that they're coming. I am quite sure that they will be there at least by the next election. I know he can't defend himself, and I wouldn't insult him, but I want to thank him for the nice way he responded to me.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The Barnet Highway: there is another can of worms. Incidentally, could I speak over your head, Mr. Minister, to your officials and give them a little homework? It's a question that's coming up when I am finished my fulmination. How much is being spent this year in the New Westminster highway district, and on what projects? I've been told that there isn't any money at all for upgrading of many of these arteries, including the Barnet, in 1991, and I would like to know why this area has been overlooked. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing in the whole Westminster budget, but certainly I am informed the Barnet is not on the list for any upgrading.

[3:45]

Let me tell you a little Story about the Barnet Highway. It's an old, traditional highway and has been there for years. That was before we had the massive growth in Port Moody, Pleasantside, Eagle Ridge and all this stuff. Literally thousands of cars — and I used to have the figures — pass through there every day. They are not only Coquitlam traffic; they belong to the daily commuter traffic from Dewdney and elsewhere; I suppose no further up than Mission or so, but maybe up as far as what we used to call Squakum Lake. What do we call it now, up at Harrison? Lake Errock. I want to know, since there are no plans to upgrade it immediately, what consideration has been given to the fact that it could be three-laned, such as the Lions Gate Bridge or the Tsawwassen link. It might be a possibility. I am told, and your officials have the information through a constituent of mine, that it could be upgraded into three lanes as an interim measure for under a million bucks. When you think that the overrun on the Coquihalla was half a billion — that's $500 million — to serve far fewer people, maybe a little money left over from the Coquihalla and SkyTrain might trickle into the Barnet. A simple little request like that I don't think is particularly greedy.

I know everybody in every area has got highway and pothole problems, and it's a good thing to talk about. There is a man up in the gallery with a ditch problem. He has come to me for my help on the ditch. As an old alderman, I used to be very good at dogs and ditches, so I am carrying on in that.

Ask your officials what kind of squirrel cage that Port Mann interchange is. You know, it's so bad on the Port Mann interchange that if it is possible to avoid it.... Traffic does all the time by going through the hospital grounds, by getting off the Lougheed and going up through the Barnet or up through Como Lake and down Austin; anywhere to get to North Road. It's virtually impossible there. Again, more and more growth without adequate bus services or highways keeping up with it, because the money has been spent elsewhere.

So we are going to strangle — the proper phrase today is gridlock — in a gridlock of our own making. It's just as bad getting going to Vancouver in the morning through that interchange, that squirrel cage,

[ Page 6816 ]

as it is coming back at night. I've got a suggestion for coming back at night. Why don't we consider another lane to turn off for the bypass from the Maillardville interchange to the interchange just before the Port Mann interchange, so that people could make use of that bypass? They are being held up constantly by traffic trying to get on the bridge and over to Surrey. Why anybody would want to get over to Surrey is another question. I don't question their motivation; I'm telling them it is a Bad News Bears place. If you can avoid it, even if it means going up over Simon Fraser University, which I do weekly.... I do it because it's just so bad. But some people have no alternative or no other options.

If you made one extra lane between the Maillardville interchange and the bypass that is supposed to go around Port Coquitlam, then I think you could relieve a lot of traffic there at a very modest cost.

I travel the Coquihalla, and I think it's a fine highway. I am sorry you were forced to pave over snow there. I find it very useful, because I go up to Vernon a good deal for personal and family reasons. I am not going up there necessarily to support the very popular Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson). I do go up there on occasion.

Why don't we have a cutoff around Kamloops? If I want to go from Vancouver to Kamloops, it is relatively easy now with the Coquihalla — a very direct, very safe and interesting drive. We like it. Once you get to Kamloops, from there to the cutoff at Monte Lake, it is just terrible. There's that Kingsway along there — all that commercial ribbon development which was permitted around there — in a single lane, sometimes very slow. Is it possible to go from the road to Monte Lake through to Barnhartvale? Wouldn't that be a possible way? To get every place I want to go, Kamloops is in the way. Since we can't move Kamloops, maybe we can find a way around it.

Those are a few of my annual gripes that I would like to express. They are not going to get any better, unless we start doing something on the lower mainland. We continue to build houses there. We continue to add to the population, and it takes longer and longer.

Let me tell you one final story, and my hon. friend from Victoria will be given the floor after the minister stands up and gives me everything I want and have asked for. In 1962 1 moved to Coquitlam. There wasn't any improved Marine Drive or whatever it's called now. There was no improved Canada Way. There was only the Lougheed and what we now call Canada Way, which was called Grandview Highway. I had to go from there to UBC every day. It took an hour.

Since all those roads have been added and the improvements to what we used to call Marine Drive and to the Lougheed, opening the freeway.... Since 1962 we have improved Hastings, and there are perhaps other ways we can scoot if we know where they are to try to get through, but it still takes an hour. That's the frustration of Highways people, I'm sure, because they've never really been able to keep up with the growth in the lower mainland.

1 think that people in the interior, such as the minister and his friends and others who live there, are entitled to have money spent on them. I don't think that all the money we spend should necessarily end up in the lower mainland. I've lived in the interior, and I know that they need infrastructure as well. I don't think that the lower mainland traffic problems have received enough attention in the last five years. I know why, because the money that would normally have been spent there has gone into the megaproject of the Coquihalla....

HON. MR. VANT: Don't forget the Alex Fraser Bridge.

MR. ROSE: You are going to have to add extra lanes to that one now, aren't you?

HON. MR. VANT: No, we opened up those lanes.

MR. ROSE: That shows how quickly people have moved in to take advantage of that excellent and beautiful bridge.

HON. MR. VANT: I was a little surprised that the member for Coquitlam-Moody didn't bring up first and foremost the Barnet Highway. He brought up his concern for that little community of Belcarra. I've certainly been moved by his case as presented, and I want to assure him that I'm going to personally go to Belcarra and look firsthand at their situation. I'm convinced that it's an unusual situation, and it certainly warrants my full consideration to see what we can do for that small community. I hear what you're saying.

The Barnet Highway is a very important commuter route. I'm afraid that the widening of the Barnet Highway — even if I decided today to widen that to four lanes — would not in itself resolve the transportation problem along the Barnet-Hastings corridor. I realize that you presented me with that option, and certainly as a short-term possibility, I would carefully consider the option of a third lane which could be an express lane for buses, motorcycles or things like that.

I'm very concerned, as Minister of Transportation and Highways, about the congestion along Hastings. I realize that the Cassiar connector will ease the east west flow somewhat. Still along East Hastings, there is a lot of parking along the street. It is wide enough for four lanes. If we did remove those vehicles from parking, then we'd have a more complete commuter route from your constituency into the big city. As you mentioned, many years ago you used to head out to UBC. I'd say that at least we're keeping up. It still only takes an hour. We're not falling behind. That very graphic illustration, though, convinces me that we have to be very aggressive, particularly in the lower mainland, given the great increase in population and the great growth.

MR. ROSE: Highways won't do it alone.

[ Page 6817 ]

HON. MR. VANT: No. The municipalities have to cooperate as well.

MR. ROSE: Could I just clarify something, please? I didn't mean the Highways department. I meant that by themselves, highways alone are not the answer. Other forms of moving people and encouraging them to get out of their cars have to be done too.

HON. MR. VANT: Certainly. That's a reason why the all-important Delcan study was involved in every mode of transportation, because just our road and bridge system alone is not the complete picture. Indeed, the experts tell me that, for example, SkyTrain is equal to an eight-lane freeway in terms of moving people. For sure we have to look at every mode.

The information concerning the Port Mann interchange and your other concerns will certainly be handed over to my group that are working on the Burnaby freeway. I appreciate your input regarding specific things like the Port Mann interchange.

Keeping in mind the complete picture, I anticipate, perhaps, that the transportation planning committee in the lower mainland will certainly be advising me very shortly about both the short term, which may indeed be three-laning the Barnet Highway, and the long-term in connection with other improvements throughout the system, and four-laning. So your points are very well taken.

MR. ROSE: I just remind the minister that I asked for specific information about the budget and projects. I presume that will come later.

MR. G. HANSON: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I would like to talk to you about a serious need for a bikeway between Victoria and Swartz Bay and a bikeway from Tsawwassen into Vancouver. The minister is probably aware of the recent ICBC statistics on fatalities and accidents — bicycle- and motorist-related accidents — that are currently published, which indicate that B.C. leads the country in fatalities among cyclists. To make matters worse, in Victoria, Oak Bay and Sidney the percentage of traffic accidents involving cars and bicycles is more than double the national average. The average age of a bicyclist is 21 years, according to ICBC stats. In the Victoria-Oak Bay area, over 16 percent of all accidents involving motorists involve a bicycle. Clearly, in the past we haven't taken into account in our transportation network the provision for bikeways in a programmatic way in the spending.

Bicycle paths are needed throughout the province, but I want to address the needs of this particular region. I raised the other day, under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, that many bicyclists bring to my attention — and I see them firsthand driving to the ferry — that the slipstream that goes with buses and trailer trucks going by a cyclist on a very light-frame bicycle.... Even though they're wearing a hat and the necessary safety gear and have high visibility, etc., I'm amazed that more cyclists aren't pulled off their bicycles into the traffic.

[4:00]

The statistics are really quite alarming. Of Victoria's 826 injury or fatality accidents, as I mentioned, 16.2 percent involve bikes; Oak Bay, 16.9 percent; Sidney, 16.2 percent; Esquimalt, 11.9 percent; Saanich, 9.5 percent; Colwood, 7.9 percent, etc. The point made in this material is that the Highway Act really places responsibilities on a cyclist in much the same way as a motorist. They have an equal responsibility to abide by traffic regulations and the code of conduct on the road.

The point is that cyclists are very much a subordinate feature of the flow of people on the road system. I think the time has come for the people-mover, which is the muscle power of cycling, to get some protection, some expenditure of public dollars to make the necessary safety corrections so that cycling is safer in the province. We happen to have a climate in this region which is conducive to a lifestyle which.... I know there are people in this chamber who cycle frequently who adhere to the safety provisions of wearing a helmet and appropriate safety gear. But the time has come to make an allocation of a percentage of the Highways budget for bikeways: 1 percent for bikeways in the province of British Columbia, to start building.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As the minister is talking about the upgrading of the Blanshard-Swartz Bay highway, meeting the timetable of the Commonwealth Games and so on, it's time that spending be carried out to make the necessary spatial allocation for safe cycling between the core municipalities and the ferry terminal. Many people would cycle if they felt they were not at risk; that they could get on the ferry and then go through the Fraser delta, which is flat and perfect for cycling. A designated cycling corridor could be created right into Vancouver, It would be appreciated by people in the lower mainland and in the capital region. We would not be talking about an enormous amount of dollars, but certainly a percentage as a goal — something to shoot for. Highways would allocate 1 percent of all program spending to find an alternative form.... Many young people.... As I said, the average age of a cyclist is 21 years. Most of the people who are killed, by the way, are under 16 years of age. I've seen a lot of young people cycling that freeway out to Swartz Bay, and I think it really deserves attention.

We could be breaking new ground. I know in Oregon they're far advanced in this area. In Sweden they have a comprehensive network of bikeways for the public to use. I was in Edmonton last fall to attend a conference, and I was amazed at the extent of bikeways through the river basin....

AN HON. MEMBER: Those are Skidoo paths.

MR. G. HANSON: There are also asphalt bikeways designated and used extensively.

[ Page 6818 ]

The minister who just interjected.... I know in the Kamloops area.... I bet it's not much fun for cyclists attempting to go along the North Thompson or up towards the Shuswap area. I'm not saying that the interior regions don't deserve proper bikeways, because I believe they should have them. I'm just speaking for my own constituency. This region has double the B.C. average for cyclists killed on the road, which is shocking. Any effort that can be taken to reduce that, to avoid the kind of litigation and compensation and all the social and judicial infrastructure around coming to fair settlements for people injured in bicycle accidents — and liability, etc....

If we were to take some positive steps and give the bicyclist more of an equal stature.... In terms of mass and volume and speed and so on, there's no equivalency whatsoever, but in terms of the Highway Act there is. A cyclist has equal rights to be on the road, and a responsibility to adhere to the laws and perform in a safe manner, and has penalties for impeding traffic, etc.

I think it's time the minister looked seriously at a project to provide a bikeway from Victoria and the CRD that would take people safely — to ride with their families, to ride with their children, without that slipstream of a draft from a tractor-trailer truck going 80 km/h that is clearly a hazard to people. I would really appreciate the minister's responding on this matter.

HON. MR. VANT: Certainly the first member for Victoria is very interested in Participaction and people getting exercise by providing their own mode of power on a bicycle. From my ministry's point of view, however, a high-speed highway and bicycles are not really a good mix; certainly not with a freeway per se, but many of our highways now have quite a wide paved shoulder, which allows bicycles to travel on asphalt but somewhat off the regularly travelled surface. But the higher the speed limit on a particular highway.... As the member properly described, you get into this slipstream problem with the bigger, heavier vehicles going by. Indeed, my ministry discourages bicycles on freeways, although we allow them if there's no alternative route available. That does occur in certain parts of the province.

Getting into an ambitious program of providing separate bikeways might be more appropriate under the Ministry of Health, because my ministry's primary mandate is to provide road systems for motor vehicles. In this day and age it seems that everybody wants to get from one point to another as fast as they can, whereas the bicyclist wants to enjoy the exercise and go along at maybe 20 to 30 miles an hour, depending on the terrain. According to most statistics, most bicycle injuries and fatalities occur on municipal streets. A young lady whom I knew personally was going along a sidewalk beside a hedge delivering papers. She crossed a driveway at the precise moment that a motor vehicle emerged, and the young lady was killed.

We have to make provisions where we can, but we don't get into bikeways as distinct items under my ministry's mandate. Certainly the ideas of the first member for Victoria are well received. Alternative routes to freeways with their very high-speed traffic should definitely be identified for bicyclists. On this island, West Saanich Road might be a reasonable alternative route for someone to get from Victoria out to the peninsula and perhaps to the ferry terminal.

MR. G. HANSON: It should come as no surprise to the minister that I think his ministry should be into bikeways. Look at the Port Mann freeway or the road from Hope to Vancouver. Most of that is a divided freeway with a grassed-in fringe separating the two. I don't think it's beyond engineering possibilities that a bikeway could exist all the way from Hope right down to Vancouver.

Portions of the freeway from Victoria to Sidney are divided with a generous fringe. Clearly, in some areas there is space within the highway easement. I'm not saying in all areas. Sometimes there may be interchange problems. It would not be impossible to work cooperatively with the Capital Regional District if the CRD felt that the provincial government was supportive of an initiative to come up with a plan for a bikeway from, say, Sooke through to Sidney, Oak Bay through to Sidney, to Saanich. Portions would follow a particular routing.

For the minister to say he's not in the bikeway business does not, I think, fly in 1989. You are not into a land acquisition cost in many instances but are using the existing corridor more as a multi-use corridor; you've got vehicular traffic but you're allowing for a different scale of traffic. I think it would be heavily utilized. The most obvious one that comes to mind is from Hope to Vancouver. Surely it would be possible to have a modest asphalt trail through portions of that. Perhaps there are other areas that could be utilized as well. I think every major corridor in the province....

When the ministry discourages cyclists from using the freeways, clearly they are admitting that a hazard exists. I think if it had the weight of the provincial government saying: "Look, this is a priority that we're going to make in our transportation...." It's a low-cost way of moving people. The minister mentions SkyTrain as an eight-lane highway. A bikeway could move a significant volume of people, both recreational and for work. If bikeways had a bit of planning in them, they could link suburban areas with places where people tend to be commuting to work during the day. I know that many members and staff in this building commute 12 or 15 kilometres daily. They say to me privately that yes, they wear helmets; yes, they are narrowly missed on a routine basis. There are dimensions to the problem other than just bikeway access: visibility, experience in traffic, etc.

[4:15]

It was pointed out in recent articles in this region that certain.... Take Shelbourne, for example, which I know doesn't really come under your jurisdiction.

[ Page 6819 ]

It's a four-lane road without four lanes — four lanes of traffic without four lanes of asphalt. That kind of a situation has developed historically.

I think the time has come, and the first project should be to provide a solid and safe bikeway between Vancouver and Victoria — it would be a good start.

HON. MR. VANT: The points are well taken. Certainly my ministry would be prepared to provide signing to direct bicyclists onto suitable bicycle routes.

If I heard the hon. first member for Victoria correctly, he suggested the use of the median along the freeway between Hope and Vancouver. I am thinking that a lot of bicyclists don't want to cycle where there are large volumes of traffic. They are very conscious of all those exhaust fumes and everything. Apart from the high speed of a freeway, one has to think of the quality of the air that these bicyclists will be breathing.

In the province there would be suitable bicycle routes.... I know that if I were going to bicycle from Hope to Vancouver, I would take the alternative route through Bridal Falls on the other side of the Fraser River. It's not that heavily travelled and would probably be more pleasant to bicycle.

My ministry is prepared at this time to take your advice very seriously and have a look at it, and we would certainly consider signing on suitable bicycle routes.

MR. LOVICK: How nice it is to get back into the process of — I guess we'll call it "debatus interruptus" or something. This seems to be our predicament, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gross.

MR. LOVICK: Only if you don't like Latin, I would say to the member opposite who suggested that the expression is gross.

I want to take us back, albeit briefly, because we have spent a considerable amount of time in this chamber.... Not as much as I would like, because a number of others have participated — as they ought. I would like to focus on a couple of very specific concerns that I still have about the privatization initiatives, and I wonder if I might refer the minister to those directly.

You made reference earlier, Mr. Minister, to the fact that some 271 employees chose not to go with the private contractors, some 178 of whom have now been placed. My question is: what about the 90-odd who chose not to do that? What have we done with those? What is it costing us for those people? I note apropos of that question.... I'll pose a number of questions that I think are all discrete and fairly straightforward.

I note in passing, apropos of that subject, that the auditor-general makes reference to the fact that in your calculation of net benefits, one of the areas you fail to take into consideration is what he refers to as "surplus" workers. I believe the figure is 28 people in contract area 1 that we haven't yet accounted for. Those are individuals who didn't go; we apparently have them doing something else. We are not sure what jobs they've been transferred to. How large is this factor in terms of cost? What's happening there? That's one concern I have.

Another concern is the matter of facilities. For example, in my own constituency some years ago — not many years ago, by the way — we built a brand-new machine shop, a major state-of-the-art operation capable of doing repair work, machine tooling and everything imaginable for any size of equipment. I believe the cost at the time was about $5 million or $6 million.

Right now that particular facility is apparently operating at less than 10 percent capacity. The obvious question then is: how do we account for the other 90 percent capacity? Is that accounted for in some way, shape or form as a debit? Is that accounted for as a cost? It ought to be; we paid for it. We may still be paying rent. At least there is an opportunity cost, in economic terms. What about that? How many other facilities are there in the province that used to be owned and operated by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the operation of which wasn't taken over by the privatized maintenance contractors? Those are costs I am concerned about.

Perhaps I could have answers to those two very specific questions to begin with.

HON. MR. VANT: To bring the hon. member opposite up to date, throughout the whole province it averaged about 10 percent; 90 percent of the employees of their own free will opted to work for the area contractors. The number initially staying with government was 271. To the end of April, the latest information I have, 128 of those were placed. That leaves 143 still to be placed. It's not that they are not gainfully employed. Currently they are doing work for the government, so they're not just in limbo. They are gainfully employed doing work for the government. Sometimes my ministry lends these surplus employees to do functions for other ministries, be it the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Environment.

MR. LOVICK: I note the minister's answer didn't deal with the second question — namely, facilities. Are there facilities sitting idle at the moment?

HON. MR. VANT: For the most part, the area contractors decided to lease the shop facilities. There are a very few examples throughout the province where they didn't opt to use the shop facilities. They're fully utilizing them to do the work that we previously did to maintain the road and bridge maintenance vehicles. In addition to that, in some cases they are further utilizing those very well equipped shops. In some areas it has led to increased employment. I'm sure that if there are facilities not being utilized by either the area contractor or by the government for one reason or another, the B.C.

[ Page 6820 ]

Buildings Corporation would be looking for some suitable tenant to utilize those facilities. I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of those shop facilities not being utilized at this time.

MR. LOVICK: I'm going to move away from this area momentarily. I have a couple of quick questions first, though, and they are very straightforward questions, I'm sure.

I notice in the auditor-general's report it is noted just in passing that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways originally recommended the province be divided into 24 contract areas, but then cabinet recommended it be 28. Apparently the cabinet decided on the 28 areas that were eventually established. That's on page 97 of the auditor-general's report. Can the minister tell me why the advice of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was ignored and why we decided to expand the number of areas?

HON. MR. VANT: Actually, at the time there were several options available. Indeed, when the government, starting late in the fall of 1987, invited all kinds of proposals, as I recall there was one proposal which would have seen the province as one huge contract area. We didn't want to create a giant monopoly, where perhaps one corporation would have the contract to provide the maintenance. So it was decided eventually that the ideal number would be 28, although initially they had arrived at that figure of 24. Of course, at one time there were 37 highways districts, and it seemed wise to unite a couple of former districts. For example, Kelowna and Penticton were put into one contract area comprising two former districts which were fairly small in geographical area compared to some others.

In the middle of my own constituency, the central Cariboo contract area is exactly the same as the old Williams Lake highway district, because it was so huge. We ended up at what I think was an appropriate number, 28, so that there would be all these different contracts out there, and a good mix of private companies and ten employee groups. I think we ended up with a very desired result.

MR. LOVICK: Clearly you want to take advantage of that question as an opportunity to restate the case for the 28 areas and all that. But my question was really very specific, and you apparently choose not to answer it: why did you reject the expert advice you got from the ministry staff and make what appears on the face of it to be a political decision to increase it by four districts? That's all; just a simple question.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'll leave that one. I'm also going to leave the whole area of privatization, at least for the moment. I want to emphasize that the minister has had occasion a number of times during this discussion to point to the auditor-general's report as being somehow the living exemplar of the case that all is working well and good, etc. I would just draw your attention, Mr. Minister, to the conclusion by the auditor-general, in which he tells us, under the heading "Looking Ahead," to be very careful, and says that all the explanations we are given don't take us quite as far and that the Legislature indeed must be vigilant and must ask questions, even with Public Accounts and the Highways ministry annual reports that will be given to us for '88 and '89, which we do not have yet. I would just caution the minister then: when he wants to point to the successes and the fact that everything seems to be working wonderfully well, the auditor general has not given this a clean bill of health in terms of saying everything is wonderful. Rather, the auditor-general's final statement on the matter would seem to suggest to me, at least, that we ought to be watching very vigilantly indeed.

Finally, I would just remind the minister, too, of the poll conducted in his own constituency, and I'm rather surprised that he has made no reference to this yet. When the Cariboo Observer poll was undertaken, of course, and questioned how the people felt about the new privatized operation, we discovered that when it came to snow-clearing, 62 percent thought it was worse; when it came to response time, 60 percent thought it was worse; when it came to sanding and salting, 59 percent thought it was worse; and highway safety — 64 percent thought it was worse. I thought, what an interesting commentary. That's in your own constituency, Mr. Minister. I would hope that would at least teach one a little humility.

[4:30]

HON. MR. VANT: What study was that?

MR. LOVICK: This was the poll conducted in your own constituency. I wonder why the minister hasn't had occasion to respond to that.

As I said before, I want to move to some other areas. I see the minister leaping up and down, Munchkin-like. I wonder why.

You'll recall, Mr. Minister, that last week we had a great furor in this country — quite a justifiable one, in my mind — concerning the continued existence of passenger rail service in this country; specifically I'm referring, of course, to Via Rail. I was expecting that we would get some kind of ministerial statement or a press release issued by the minister, telling us what representation he was making to his counterparts in Ottawa on behalf of passenger rail service in this province. I had some correspondence with the minister a while ago, under the aegis of the transportation subcommittee's work. A group of people in my own constituency, the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway committee, presented a paper to the transportation subcommittee hearing. I forwarded a copy to the minister with a brief covering letter saying that I thought the case presented here was a good one and worthy of attention. So the minister is certainly familiar with the E&N part of it. I brought that to his attention before.

The other part of my question is passenger rail service in general. I'm wondering if the minister will

[ Page 6821 ]

inform this House what he has done by way of expressing this government's concern about the decision by the federal government to abandon passenger rail service in this province and in this country. Perhaps the minister would be willing to tell us what he has done, and what representations he has made.

HON. MR. VANT: Before I get to the hon. member's concern about passenger rail service, I cannot let go by this reference to the great Cariboo Observer poll in Quesnel. That newspaper has a circulation in excess of 5,000 people. Only 19 responded to that so-called survey, and I can imagine that out of the 19, a lot of them were very politically motivated. So I certainly don't give very much credibility to the results of that so-called poll, which is a very limited sample.

But I do give credibility to the independent agency that conducted a poll throughout this province and indicated that a very high percentage of people felt very strongly that the road and bridge maintenance was as good as or better than it was before.

This government certainly believes in rail passenger service. We certainly put our money where our responsibilities lie in regard to B.C. Rail, for example. We have upgraded and indeed increased our fleet of Budd cars. I'm very happy to report to this House that on B.C. Rail in February 1989, the passenger volume went up 2½ percent. That's in an off-season month, and that is without the ski train operating from North Vancouver to Whistler, because that ceased to operate this year. So despite not having that ski train service anymore, the actual passenger volume on B.C. Rail is increasing.

Via Rail. I have written to the Hon. Benoit Bouchard expressing the very great concern this government has, particularly about the Rocky Mountain run, because that is certainly a great revenue generator for this province in terms of the tourist industry. It seems that many of our Pacific Rim visitors like to fly to North America, and they love to travel by train.

Back in 1984, when Via Rail was not operating, these tourists would go down to the United States in order to get on a railroad. So it's very important — especially that daylight Rocky Mountain run — to the province of British Columbia and also to the province of Alberta. We are very concerned about that aspect of Via Rail's operations.

MR. LOVICK: I don't know why, Mr. Chairman, but somehow I'm not assured that we have made this powerful, passionate representation to our counterparts in Ottawa saying: "There's no way you're going to destroy Via Rail in this province." Somehow I'm not persuaded that happened. I don't know why that should be.

But just in passing, your reference to your own constituency newspaper.... It wasn't 19 responses; quite the contrary. It was 53. The editor of that particular paper informs me — as you say, it's a small community — that is the second highest ever response on a poll like this. So you can make light of that, but you have perhaps been living too long amid the bright lights in the big city of Victoria, and you've forgotten whence you came. That's big stuff in your constituency, and I suggest you ignore it at your peril.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're going to be looking for 19 votes next time, Charlie.

MR. LOVICK: I want to turn to another area.

MR. WILLIAMS: He's been attacking the Cariboo Observer. Are you going to let him off that easily?

MR. LOVICK: It appears my colleague wants to stand up for the rights and privileges of the Cariboo Observer, and I will therefore defer for a moment.

MR. WILLIAMS: Does the minister have any answers? His facts are wrong again. Where did he get the number 19?

HON. MR. VANT: I got it from reading the Cariboo Observer. But obviously your colleague the first member for Nanaimo phoned up the editor to find out if there were any subsequent replies through the mail, or perhaps there was an addition in a subsequent week of the newspaper. The edition I saw about this particular survey indicated that the response level was 19.

I'd also like to mention that Jerry MacDonald, who's the editor of the Cariboo Observer — and I don't mind quoting him publicly — stated to me around the middle of December that last fall he had had far fewer calls about the conditions of the roads in the Quesnel area than he had in any other previous fall. Usually you do as winter sets in; that's when a lot of problems occur. He stated emphatically that he had to be honest with me; that he had received, as editor of the newspaper, a lot fewer calls regarding the condition of the roads. There were far fewer complaints.

MR. LOVICK: Let's turn to another whole area now. It's something the minister spoke about on a number of occasions, apparently with some pride. This is what used to be referred to as the "signs and attractions policy," otherwise rendered as SAP. I am not sure whether it still has that name; I think it has changed. I have quite a tale here, Mr. Chairman. This I could drag out at some length if I wanted. It's a very anecdotal kind of rendition and I think worth noting.

I tried a long time ago to get some information about these blue and white signs that were appearing along the highway. I wrote to the Minister of Transportation and Highways at the time, and I was given a certain bit of information about just what this program consisted of. I was told that the ministry had been working with Tourism, Recreation and Culture, along with the Ministries of Environment and Parks to address requests from the public for creation of a clear, consistent and comprehensive

[ Page 6822 ]

policy for informational and directional signs on freeways and conventional highways.

I was also told that there were no firm decisions made yet, and none indeed would be taken until a pilot program had been conducted in the Fraser Thompson Canyon area in the spring. Curiously enough, I think at the time I got that letter there were also signs along the Island Highway, and I don't understand how that came to be.

I pursued the matter because I had some concerns expressed to me by various people writing and calling that they weren't convinced, as the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) seems to be, that these signs were beautiful and represented a new attraction. Rather, some saw them as a blight on the landscape. However, that's a judgment call.

I guess the best way to put this is to say that I couldn't get much hard information; instead I got a press release dated May 2 and learned a bit more about what was happening. I learned that there was apparently some reason for this, that the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid), the man who currently has the job, stated in his usual hyperbolic fashion that these signs had a purpose, that they would indeed be a real boon to the service industry.

I learned further from the minister at the time that we would be using this pilot project as an opportunity to assess feedback before finalizing the policy. I got that kind of information. Time passed. Bear with me, Mr. Minister. I had some other correspondence But, you know, I couldn't get very clear answers about the criteria that governed the erection of these signs and why they really existed, until such time as one of my own constituents gave me the information because I went to investigate something on his behalf and he decided to share his information with me.

I discovered, to my regret and shock, that this individual had more information than I did, despite the fact I had written to the minister, called the office and written letters. But I couldn't get this information, and I wondered whether there was indeed some problem with information flow.

In any event, what happened is that I went searching for a very long time to try and find out what the criteria were for this program. In a letter of November 8, 1988, 1 wrote to a person who had made a specific request to me for information. I told them at the time, because it was based on a phone conversation I'd had that very day, that the final statement of criteria used for erecting signs — who gets the sign and why — was still being developed. I have been promised a copy when the document is completed. And I was. I was promised that by your ministry staff. But again, unfortunately, I didn't get it. Instead, what I got was a rather flimsy little pamphlet that didn't answer the question, that gave me only the vaguest understanding of what this program was about. Finally, again pursuing the matter — and one had to, obviously — I got a statement from the senior traffic engineer in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways telling me where things stood at that point.

I discovered that at this time the guideline material has not been entirely finalized but was going to be made available to me when the policy was finalized. This is December 13, 1988. I am being told: "We are now approaching that stage" — of finalizing — and work will start shortly on production of a guideline brochure. In the meantime, I have enclosed a copy of a simple brochure which was issued for the Victoria-to-Port Hardy pilot project."

[4:45]

Mr. Minister, I don't want to belabour this unduly, but the predicament is: I went searching for a very long time; I had difficulty getting any information. What seems to have happened is that the pilot project somehow miraculously became a full-blown project without any formal or official announcement beyond the production of a pamphlet called "A New Look in Signing," which I got last week, despite the fact that I've been trying for about a year. I wonder how long that pamphlet has been around?

I'm also concerned, Mr. Minister, about whether the rules of the game have also changed somewhat. In other words, the initial reasons given for the sign project perhaps have been modified somewhat, and we are now not talking about purely directional things. Maybe we are talking about some promotional purposes, even though that was not the original intention.

I ask the minister in all sincerity to simply review for me, please, the steps in the process: where it came from; who was consulted; how you canvassed people's opinions; when you decided that the pilot projects would cover only area X; what you had to find out about pilot projects before you made it a full-scale project for the ministry, etc. In other words, will you give us now the complete overview on the project that it seems to me I ought to have had about a year ago? Will you give that to me now?

HON. MR. VANT: Actually, this process goes well back before my time as minister. Indeed, it goes back about three years, where the tourism associations throughout the province were working on my ministry to come up with a very new, attractive sign policy. This process came into place. We did decide, because it is a very sensitive program, to have the two pilot areas. A pilot area is to test the waters to get reaction to the policy. We had one on Vancouver Island and one in the Fraser Canyon.

Based on the feedback received from these pilot projects, the sign policy was finalized. In terms of that letter that the hon. member opposite had received on December 13, 1988, 1 am not surprised at the response, because the final policy was still in process based on the firsthand experience of these two pilot projects. Indeed, we advertised at length the implementation of the sign policy and the announcement of it. We had a grand announcement over here in the Victoria convention centre. We had people — tourist operators from up and down the

[ Page 6823 ]

Island — and in fact I was quite amazed at how far afield people had come from for this announcement.

MR. WILLIAMS: When was it?

HON. MR. VANT: It was in March. It was at that time when this brochure was released with a lot of fanfare. Since then, of course, there have been meetings throughout the province in terms of the implementation teams. I trust that the whole new sign policy will be fully implemented and in place by early July of this year so that at the height of the tourist season we will have these signs in place.

MR. WILLIAMS: Does Langford make the signs?

HON. MR. VANT: It's the Tran Sign company, which is using the old Langford shop.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh!

HON. MR. VANT: I don't see anything wrong with that.

MR. WILLIAMS: With stuff like that, they're going to be busy, aren't they.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It has 23 employees now. Private enterprise.

HON. MR. VANT: That's right. It's doing all kinds of work not only for the government but for the private sector. That is another privatization success story: the Langford sign shop.

MR. WILLIAMS: On this issue, I guess the government and the private sector you're talking about, Mr. Minister.... But the government is paying for the signs. Isn't that the case?

Maybe the Minister of Government Management Services needs an Alka-Seltzer and could leave for a while.

What sort of budget is there in this area, in terms of this signage program?

HON. MR. VANT: The budget for this new sign policy throughout the province of British Columbia is in the area of $4 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: Of the $4 million, how much would be for the signs, and how much would be for putting them up and that sort of thing?

HON. MR. VANT: The $4 million figure is for both the fabrication of the signs and the installation of the signs throughout the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: How would this thing compare with the average annual sign budget in the ministry? This is a special program, but what would your normal expenditures be in the sign area?

HON. MR. VANT: That very detailed question I will have to take as notice. My immediate staff here don't have the answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: But maybe we could get something in the ballpark. You don't have any idea, but $4 million for this program, in terms of what has traditionally been spent on signs in British Columbia, is a significant number. This is a significant bonus for the Langford Tran Sign company, isn't it?

HON. MR. VANT: Actually, this policy of having new signs and removing a clutter of signs along our right-of-way has been asked for for many years. It's at long last that the government is responding, working along with the Ministry of Tourism, resort owners and those who have special attractions, so that the visitors to our province, the travelling public, can get from one point to another and also find the attractions we want them to enjoy. We want them to stay in British Columbia as long as possible. I'm sure that the return to government as a result of the new sign policy and the return to the tax-paying citizens of this province will be manifold.

MR. WILLIAMS: Hallelujah! The returns will be manifold, brethren.

Look, $4 million for signs, and you sold the company just this last year. What's going on? It doesn't make a lot of sense. A big push for signs and signage programs in the province right after you sell the sign company. It isn't very smart business. The company was sold for a very modest amount. It's the typical business approach of this administration. You don't think two steps ahead. It's a matter of offloading, getting rid of assets no matter what and handing out benefits no matter what. For five years we're clearly going to have an aggressive signage program in British Columbia, and the linkage seems pretty clear.

MR. BARLEE: I have some letters in my office. The highway signs on the Hope-Princeton, according to most of the mayors along Highway 3 and in the Princeton district and in Keremeos, Penticton, Oliver and Osoyoos.... They are very unhappy with the signs in that area. They do mention Princeton, but there's no mention of Okanagan or Similkameen.

Now I travel that route twice a week, and I think if there is a $4 million sign campaign, it's certainly lacking on that part of the Hope-Princeton Highway. I don't know whether it's intentional or not, whether it's to divert the traffic up the Coquihalla, but it seems to be successfully diverting traffic away from the Hope-Princeton, which is a highway four decades old. I think the signage campaign there is very poor indeed. 1 would like to hear your comments on it.

HON. MR. VANT: I think what the second member for Boundary-Similkameen is underlining is the great impact that a good sign system has. If you don't have it, then it would appear that it's very easy to divert traffic to another route.

[ Page 6824 ]

I know that with the completion of the Coquihalla there was a lot of concern, for example, in the Fraser Canyon. So the government in its wisdom promoted what we called the Gold Rush Trail route to emphasize its historic nature. I know that this must be music to the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen. You get appropriate symbols. The Gold Rush Trail has a gold-miner followed by his pack-horse. It is a very vivid symbol. We have the crow for Highway 3. We have the Yellowhead route, which has that distinct symbol. We can't discount the great weight that these signs have.

If there's any lack of signing for the Hope Princeton highway, I will certainly look at that, and in conjunction with our new sign policy will make sure that the visiting traffic that it would be desirable to direct on that route.... Often our tourists don't like to backtrack, so they may go into the interior on one route, and they would very much like, with proper directions, to come back on another route. That way more and more areas of the province benefit.

MR. BARLEE: Another question to the minister Perhaps he hasn't been over the Hope-Princeton lately. I've been over it about 1,100 times in 40 years This year that particular route is in the worst condition it's ever been in. This is not an exaggeration.

I will say that you must have read the Blues, because there is a certain amount of work being done on specific sections of the highway. That section between Copper Creek and Whipsaw Creek is extremely bad. I can't quite believe it. I'm not counting the potholes; I'm counting the crevices that go across the highway. I travel it at all times of the day and night. That is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of people who regularly travel that route.

I also find that the Delcan report makes little reference to that route. The report states that by the year 2000 there will be 4,500 cars going over the Okanagan connector. It also admits that there will be 6,100 cars going over the Hope-Princeton, yet it seems to be downgraded. I wonder what the eventual plans are for the Hope-Princeton. Why has it been allowed to deteriorate to the condition it is presently in?

HON. MR. VANT: I am very pleased that the second member for Boundary-Similkameen is starting to use what I would term to be objective transportation planning criteria, such as volumes of traffic.

We know we are behind in rehabilitation work on existing routes, and we intend to catch up. I believe it was the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) who brought to my attention the problems in the Whipsaw Creek area. I have taken note of his concerns, and I am taking note of yours.

The Delcan study is not absolutely perfect. It does, nevertheless, deal with all modes of transportation. It took some time to put that report together. I know that from a local perspective we welcome feedback from local representatives. I know that the transportation committees in each region have pointed out certain shortcomings in that baseline study. For the most part, they have been fairly minor. I still give the baseline study full credit for getting us thinking about transportation planning in a very informed and serious way.

[5:00]

I can assure the member that we will get on with improvements to Highway 3. I am very much aware that, even with the other highway networks, in time the traffic volumes will increase on the Hope- Princeton Highway.

MR. LOVICK: Back to the question of signs. One of the explanations given for the signs is that they are directional: they are going to warn people of coming attractions and so forth. One of the bits of advice I got early in my canvassing of the ministry to find out why we were doing this was that there was a safety factor involved. Curiously, I only got that from one person, and I haven't seen any reference to it whatsoever in any of the promotional materials. In any event, that was one bit of information given.

I struggle, though, with the fact that we need these signs, Mr. Minister, in order to tell people about coming attractions when I see the situation in my own area. Vancouver Island, where I live, is pilot project 2. I discovered at least three or four different situations in which, when the blue and white standard sign that one sees says "gas," I can look down the highway less than a thousand yards away and see the name of the gas station. I wonder why we need to spend taxpayers' money to tell me that gas is available, when at the same time that I see this little blue sign telling me about gas, I can see a Shell sign or a Petro-Canada sign or a Texaco sign.

The obvious question is: why are we doing this? It goes back to the prospect suggested by my colleague as to whether in fact what we were going to do was to make very sure that we gave the newly privatized operation lots of business, so it would get over the hurdle of the first couple of years of its mandate. Quite frankly, I don't see what justification there is for this. In the name of standardization and consistency, I think that rather than beautifying the highways, you may have made a bit of a mess of them. For example, in the area around the municipality of Duncan, there is just a forest of those things. Quite frankly, they are ugly; I think that's the consensus of opinion in that area.

I am wondering then, Mr. Minister, if there is really a safety factor. Is that something that was offered as an observation earlier, so that we wouldn't block out views, turns off the road, and so forth? As I said, I don't see it anywhere in the promotional material. Perhaps I could ask you if you could tell me. Is there a safety reason? Is that one of the justifications for the project?

HON. MR. VANT: I am quite surprised that the hon. first member for Nanaimo goes on and on about this gas service sign ahead a thousand yards down the road. I've only been a part-time resident of this island for a very short time, but it seems to me that

[ Page 6825 ]

there are some very dark, rainy and even foggy nights where you could not see that distance down the road at all times. You might be going along a very dark, wet road here on the island, your gas gauge might show just about empty, and you might be very happy to see that "gas ahead" sign, so you could make adequate provision to decelerate and turn off to the appropriate access.

In terms of this alleged linkage between our privatization of the sign shop and the new sign policy, I want to assure the members that there is no connection whatsoever. Indeed, over three years ago, the current Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) was very actively lobbying one of my predecessors to implement this new sign policy.

By tomorrow morning, one of my staff members will have left to find out just how many square metres of sign the ministry orders each and every year, so that I can be more precise on the member's earlier question.

In terms of the safety aspect, there is a danger in having a whole clutter of signs where motorists may be gawking over trying to read all these signs and making it a very dangerous situation on our highways.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Could you give us an example?

HON. MR. VANT: Well, yes. The hon. first member for Nanaimo gave us an example, and they tend to confuse people. If you have too many signs, they could end up heading in the wrong direction or on the wrong route. We can't assume that everyone is completely familiar with our road system, so we always have to be mindful of that visitor.

We on this side of the House always have the welcome mat out. We welcome people from all over the world, and naturally in our new sign system we want to use universally accepted symbols so that they can see what services are available.

MS. EDWARDS: I am very delighted to be able to stand up and make a few comments about your sign system. I'd like to pass them on, because I take comments about the signage system in my area so consistently, and they are so negative, that it is my great pleasure to direct some of them to you, Mr. Minister. Many of them are summed up in this comment that went to the task force on highways, which is an attempt for a group of people to get together to give their ideas on highways to somebody else, so they can go the top and it can come back down to you.

Anyway, the point is that in very succinct language, this is just exactly what was said: "Directional and informational signage within the region is often unclear, and we would suggest that the government contact the Alberta and Saskatchewan highways ministries for information about their signage programs." Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you could just consult with somebody else and get some good advice.

More specific issues involve the signage at the entrances to the province. As you know, my riding sits in the corner of the province. We get many of the tourists from Saskatchewan and Alberta coming on Highway 3 through the Crow's Nest Pass, and the complaints are myriad — by not only the people who visit, but the people who would like to serve those visitors — that there is not adequate signage to indicate you are now in British Columbia, that you can now go this way to Elkford, that you will be in Sparwood in so many minutes, that Fernie is coming up ahead, that there is an airport at Cranbrook and so on.

That is only one of the entrances to the province in my riding. Another is the Eureka entrance, which comes in from the United States. Again there is no particular signage to indicate to the visitors who have come into our province that they are now here, that there are certain amenities at certain places and so on. I would like to ask whether you will be able in this budget year to answer the complaints of the people who live in my area about the signage that should be available, clear, large and very welcoming to the people who enter our province in those two border entries.

HON. MR. VANT: I am very pleased that the hon. member for Kootenay seems to affirm the very definite need in this province for a new sign policy. It is somewhat timely that she makes her suggestions, although it was several months ago that the hon. member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) brought to my attention the nature of the "Welcome to British Columbia" signs at our various points of entry. If I recall, he said that they were somewhat Mickey Mouse compared to the "Welcome to Alberta" signs as one leaves British Columbia and enters our neighbouring province. So I have been working with my ministry staff to provide much more suitable entrance signs to our great province.

MS. EDWARDS: If there was an answer there, I think I missed it, Mr. Minister. Did you say that signs will be there this year? When are they going to be there? How big and how magnificent are they going to be?

HON. MR. VANT: The hon. member for Kootenay entered this little debate about the sign policy later this afternoon, but I indicated earlier that I hope to have it all in place by around July 1 this year, so that at the height of the tourist season these new signs would indeed be in place.

MR. LOVICK: One of the points I made earlier, Mr. Minister, in giving you a brief version of the trials and tribulations I went through in trying to get some information about this policy, is that I was given assurances by ministry staff that I would be provided with a copy of the guidelines for this particular policy initiative when those were published. We now

[ Page 6826 ]

seem to have a full-blown program. We have a glossy pamphlet — spelling error notwithstanding — that doesn't look bad. But I have yet to receive the statement of the guidelines. Is this it, Mr. Minister, or is there something else, and may I find out about that something else?

HON. MR. VANT: Earlier on we were going through our files trying to find a letter that you had addressed to me concerning the sign policy, and we couldn't seem to find it. I guess you were writing to a particular staff member in the ministry, so that accounts for the fact.... You didn't make that direct approach to me. We thought that we had responded and sent you our much more detailed sign policy. This brochure is a summary of that. If you haven't got it already, we'd be very happy to send you the more detailed sign policy, which I can assure you is much more lengthy than the information pamphlet which just gives you the bare, basic details of it.

MR. LOVICK: The minister made reference to the fact that a number of people have complimented him and his colleagues on the fine work they've done. Moreover, we are told, a number of people had in fact pushed for this kind of policy. Would the minister share with this House what he's had by way of complaints and concerns expressed about this policy?

HON. MR. VANT: Actually, I think the only complaints have had to do with some basic misunderstandings about the policy, and those were very quickly cleared up when the real information about the sign policy was conveyed directly to those people.

[5:15]

MR. LOVICK: I want to ask the minister a question, because I know that he is committed to a good, fair and universally understood sign policy. It's something that appears to be a bit of an aberration, and I'm wondering if he can clarify this matter for me I'm referring to the fact that on the Island Highway, about 12 miles this side of Duncan, there is a private development — golf course, condominiums and other things — called Arbutus Ridge. Strangely, on the highway is what looks very much like a department of highways sign. It says Arbutus Ridge. No direction sign. It's not blue; it's not white. It's rather a green sign with white lettering on the standard brackets used for highway signs. It has Highways lettering. It looks, as I say, to all appearances as if it is indeed a Highways sign.

First of all, can the minister give me full assurance that it isn't a highway sign, or has somebody else stolen your design or something? Does the minister know anything about that?

HON. MR. VANT: No, I don't know anything about that.

MR. LOVICK: Will the minister give me his assurance that he will find out about that; that he is as concerned as I am that it looks as if perhaps a private development has its own special sign? Will the minister give us assurances that that simply can't happen under existing policy? Will he assure us that the Ministry of Highways will not get into the business of putting up signs for private concerns? He can give us that assurance, can he?

HON. MR. VANT: The only signs on our right-of way are put up by my ministry, under my ministry's direction or by a permit issued by my ministry. Occasionally signs suddenly appear without a permit or permission given, and they're fairly quickly removed. There was a time when we tended to be a little lax in enforcing our signage policies along our rights-of-way. But I can assure you, in light of our new sign policy — and concerns received from many citizens of this province — we are determined to remove unnecessary signs and to prevent any clutter of signs.

MR. LOVICK: I'm hoping that the minister will indeed investigate that matter. I'm sure I've given you the location and the highway, so you can locate that.

Let's turn to another whole area now, to the matter of extended truck lengths. I'm sure the minister is familiar with that matter. Some time ago now I wrote to municipalities throughout the province asking them about matters of extended truck lengths, extra vehicle widths, pilot cars and all of that. I know some of that falls within the jurisdiction of your colleague the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree). Extended truck lengths, though, I think are clearly your own.

I asked the municipal politicians around the province whether they were encountering any difficulties. Did they foresee problems in terms of added expense to their municipal infrastructure? Would they have to do something to accommodate the fact of those extended-length vehicles? I'm not for a moment suggesting that the questioning process I went through was any kind of scientific survey, but it is curious to note that there was about a three-to-one negative response from municipalities around the province, suggesting that this was in fact a retrograde step and might indeed cost those municipalities money. It's interesting to note that your predecessor in the ministry, apprised of this matter by a municipal politician in May of 1988, wrote to the mayor of Sparwood and said "it is anticipated that pavement damage will actually decrease" as a result of the policy. I assume the argument is that if we had extended lengths then there would be fewer vehicles and, therefore, not the same wear and tear on the roads.

My first question to the minister is this: do you stand by that same assertion that the decision to allow the extended vehicle lengths will not have a negative impact on the municipal infrastructure and perhaps will actually, as your colleague said, reduce pavement damage?

[ Page 6827 ]

HON. MR. VANT: To me, extended truck lengths mean longer, heavier vehicles. I'm amazed at the position taken that somehow these longer lengths would reduce wear on a road, whether it be a municipal road or a provincial road. I must say to the hon. member opposite that I'm very concerned about vehicles that are longer and probably much heavier. There are certain configurations, especially with chip trucks, which cause a considerable amount of rutting in our highway system, and that is certainly a concern of mine and my staff. I will be working closely with my colleague the Solicitor-General. Many of our concerns, of course, would be mutual regarding various truck configurations and truck lengths. So I share the concern.

I don't agree that somehow longer trucks cause less wear. In my mind — and it's the information I've been given — they definitely add to the wear and tear of our highway system.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sure the minister can understand that most of the municipal councils who expressed opinions — or at least negative opinions and, as I say, that was roughly a three to one ratio — were concerned that they might have to pick up the additional costs as a result of the extended truck lengths, to the point of widening intersections and dealing with the whole business of widening the roads, which, of course, involves them in property acquisition problems and so forth. Obviously that's their main concern. Some of the larger vehicles that are now on our roads clearly require two lanes to make a turn with that extended length. That may have a tremendous impact in terms of traffic patterns.

If a major tractor-trailer can't negotiate the turn without having to take two lanes, what will probably be required is some kind of support vehicle with that large vehicle holding back the traffic so that the two lanes can indeed be monopolized for that period. If so, when we get to things like intersection problems, what can happen is that instead of a normal flow through the intersection of so many vehicles per hour, we're going to discover we have a much reduced traffic flow, which will lead us into the predicament as government of having to spend a great deal more on new roads, new highways and new systems to service the municipalities.

Given that the minister is aware of all this and given the fact that his ministry went along with the road and truck association in terms of allowing those extended vehicle lengths, I'm wondering if you've begun to assess the implications of that in terms of what it may cost the municipalities. Is the ministry prepared to put up some money to assist the municipalities? I'm wondering if you could give some answers to those questions.

HON. MR. VANT: I think in one sense the hon. member has made a good statement for industrial routes. It's very awkward at the best of times for heavy industrial traffic to go right through parts of municipalities, and we like to identify industrial routes. Also, we like to identify dangerous goods routes, especially when out of absolute necessity they have to enter a municipality. All I can say at this point in time is that I will be discussing your concerns with my colleagues, both the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I can tell that the minister has heard from other municipalities in this regard. We have to be concerned, because my ministry is always concerned about anything that impedes the general flow of traffic. When they are turning at an intersection, if it does require those two lanes, it certainly slows everything up.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sure that the municipalities will take some comfort in knowing that the matter is being actively considered. Can the minister inform me if there is any active consideration being given to compensating municipalities for those kinds of additional costs that some are now claiming they will have to bear? Has some thought been given to that? Is any kind of position paper being actively prepared? Or is it the case that we are simply taking this matter under advisement? Can the minister clarify for me?

HON. MR. VANT: As is currently the case, under a cost-sharing formula, my ministry can approve of funding by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for a major restructuring of a municipal street which is tied in somehow with our provincial highway network. So I think that if it was deemed necessary to make a major improvement, it would be eligible under that cost-sharing program. I would certainly be willing to pursue that.

MR. LOVICK: I want to turn now to something entirely different, as the saying goes. Let's talk a little bit about a matter of special concern to my own constituency, but to a larger one, too; namely, Gabriola Island, and bridges and short links and all of that. I noted that the minister made reference to that today. I listened very carefully to an answer to a question posed by somebody else. As a matter of fact, I believe it was a member from your side of the House — I think it was a member from Vancouver South — talking about Gabriola. I want to first establish whether I heard the minister correctly when he said that he and his ministry would be taking "no initiatives whatsoever until some kind of consensus is reached." Can the minister inform me that that is the official position of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways at this point?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, at this precise time that is our position. I get letters from all of these three different parties. Some say maintain, for sure, the status quo. Others say it's costing us about $2 million a year in subsidies to operate the ferry to Gabriola Island; why not build a bridge over to the island, and in ten to 15 years the bridge would be paid for. Then there are the others who advocate not only the building of this bridge but the building of a highway across the island to a ferry terminal that would be built, and this would allow — yes, when you look at the maps — a shorter link to existing ferry terminals

[ Page 6828 ]

on the mainland, whether you go to Tsawwassen or Horseshoe Bay. There is a certain faction of people involved in Gabriola Island who are very aggressively pursuing that option.

[5:30]

I must remind the hon. member opposite that just last summer we had a very modest upgrading program for the Berry Point Road; I think it was some two kilometres in length. It was a modest repaving program. There was a little bit of ditching, cutting down perhaps half a dozen trees. It caused quite an uproar. So it seems to me that there is a lot of heavy investment in the status quo on Gabriola Island. They don't want a thing changed. I and my ministry were anxious to get on with the repaving of Berry Point Road, and we were unable to. Last season we actually cancelled that project.

MR. LOVICK: I asked what I thought was a nice, straightforward question, and gave the minister an opportunity to corroborate whether the existing policy was as sort of enunciated earlier today. But instead I got something that instantly began to set off alarm bells, and that I know will set off alarm bells in terms of Gabriola residents.

I should tell the minister that since being elected, I write an annual letter to Gabriola Islanders and give them an update of what the Ministry of Highways is presently looking at. I've had great fun, of course, digging out various stories, determining that what one minister says isn't necessarily the case. I've sent them magazine articles reputed to be quoting the Premier and Highways ministers and others, just so that they know. I wanted to know whether I had to update my letter this time around or whether I could send out the same one again. Now I'm not so sure what I need to say in this letter.

You launched on a little digression about Berry Point Road. Let me just emphasize, Mr. Minister, that I also worked very actively to try to bring that project to completion, The predicament we found ourselves in on Gabriola Island at the time was that the individuals wanted a road built to the Islands Trust standard. Your ministry officials were apparently obdurate and unwilling to compromise what they called the ministry standard. The Gabriola people who were lobbying and had been working very hard to get that road fixed for a very long time, said: "We're not asking you to build us a goat trail, but we are asking you to relax the standards just a little bit so that the road will be compatible with the rural environment on Gabriola Island."

By the way, Mr. Minister, I thought the project hadn't been scrapped yet. I thought discussion and negotiation was still going on. I hope it's still going on, because if the project has been scrapped, it will certainly, as I say, be news to the Gabriolans. I did not want to raise that, because it's a simple constituency matter I can deal with directly by letter; but given that you raised the point, I felt the need to respond.

Mr. Minister, is it the case that current Highways ministry policy, and policy for the foreseeable future, is that no consideration will be given to the construction of a bridge or short lane — no initiatives whatsoever, to use your phrase — until some kind of consensus is reached? Is it the case that a consensus is required to get this project moving? I ask that question for a very particular reason, because your predecessor also came down on the side of saying that he didn't really believe that a bridge would be constructed, and that it was not in the Highways ministry's reckonings and calculations.

As you probably know, a magazine article reported that the minister's position on highways was effectively pre-empted by the Premier of the province, who said: "This is what the policy will be. We are going to look actively and seriously into the construction of a bridge or short link." I want the minister to tell me what his position is regarding this matter. Is it the one I enunciated a few minutes ago, or has it changed? In response to that, is he prepared to stand up and fight as hard as one needs to, in order to ensure that the policy will obtain and won't be changed by some directive from above — in other words, somebody going over the head of the ministry?

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, regarding the Berry Point Road project, it had to be cancelled during the last fiscal year because the ongoing negotiations weren't successful. My ministry is still pursuing the Islands Trust, and they've had several meetings with them. Hopefully they will arrive at a compromise with the Islands Trust standard, which is a nebulous thing to me at this point in time. Perhaps it means that a paved road will go up hill, down dale and in and around every tree. Somewhere between that standard and the ministry standard, hopefully a compromise can be reached.

Of course, government policy is decided by cabinet, but at the present time I can assure the hon. member opposite that no priority project is contemplated regarding a bridge to Gabriola Island, a highway across Gabriola Island or the construction of a ferry terminal. At the present time that is not seen by this government as being a priority in any way. As in all projects that have significant impact on the local people, we like to proceed carefully on any initiatives with proper consultation and due regard for social impact and environmental concerns.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that very clear answer. Just to pursue it ever so briefly, there has been reference made to the fact that the government would look favourably — indeed, I believe the Premier said this — upon granting a sum of some $10,000 in order to conduct a survey of island residents to see whether island residents were for or against the construction of a bridge, short link, etc. Is that still the case? Or would the minister, given what he just said, try to persuade the Premier that that isn't really in our reckoning at the moment on the short horizon, and therefore that perhaps what we should do is put that money aside until such time as we are actively going to consider it? Can the minister answer that for me?

[ Page 6829 ]

HON. MR. VANT: The member opposite, I'm sure, believes in democracy. From time to time, it is important to find out just exactly what the feelings of the people who would be most directly affected by a possible project are about various options. I think there has from time to time been talk of in some way or other arriving at finding out exactly what proportion of the people on Gabriola Island favour the various options. So I don't think the conducting of a survey precludes any future government policy, which, of course, I can't speculate on.

MR. CLARK: My colleague the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and I want to canvass a little bit, if we can, the question of ferry construction, essentially, and all of the ramifications with respect to that. As the minister knows, we canvassed in question period some questions regarding Watseka. I don't want to rehash them, but I'd like to go a bit more through some of the rationale. It's quite clear that what has happened with Wartsila is that they established an operation in British Columbia — a marketing arm — to bid on the Polar 8, for which they were unsuccessful. They subsequently bid on other projects for which they were unsuccessful. This is the first British Columbia project — the small ferry — which they have been successful on.

Who is Wartsila? Wartsila is a Finnish shipbuilding company. As I understand it, they build something like 40 to 60 percent of all the cruise ships in the world. This is a major international shipbuilding company. The question is: why did they establish a little office in Vancouver? I submit that it appears likely that they would like to build B.C. ferries in Finland. Obviously that's appropriate business practice, and I commend the Finnish government, which subsidizes the shipbuilding industry, for establishing a world-class shipbuilding industry there.

But in my view — and the minister can take a different view; I'm sure he does — it's not in the interest of British Columbia, its workers and economy for any major construction of ferries to take place outside British Columbia. That has been the policy of the government since the B.C. Ferry Corporation was created in 1960. In fact, I'm not sure the minister is aware, but when W.A.C. Bennett created the Ferry Corporation, we didn't have the capability of designing new B.C. ferries. W.A.C. Bennett essentially forced the creation of a design industry in British Columbia by requiring an American company, I think it was, to establish in British Columbia using a B.C. partner. The entire ferry shipbuilding industry, the design work, was a direct government invention in the sixties. That has been quite successful in terms of gathering for British Columbia work on B.C. ferries.

I'm concerned that there is a departure from that longstanding policy, particularly in light of the design work being given to this Finnish company. As I said, this Finnish company is not here, presumably, to get design work or to have a small two-, three- or ten-person operation in Vancouver; they're here to get shipbuilding work for their head office in Finland. That's how they operate. I'm not convinced that we should be aiding in that endeavour.

I want to ask the minister a couple of questions: that is, whether he can tell me, first of all, about a junket — if I can use that word — which B.C. Ferry Corporation personnel went on to Scandinavia. Maybe the minister can tell me who went on the trip and what the purpose of the trip was.

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, the joint venture involves a well-known British Columbia marine architectural firm. The B.C. Ferry Corporation has used the firm in the past. I think you are rather jumping to conclusions when you assume that all of a sudden the ferries would be built in Scandinavia.

I would have to ask my Ferry Corporation staff if this trip you asked about was made by some of their people.

I did a little research myself. As a matter of fact, in 1974 — during those 1,200 dark days when the socialists were in power — you engaged a foreign firm to design the ferries. It was a firm in Seattle, Nickum and Spaulding. I guess at that time it didn't end up that all the ferries were built in Seattle — those modifications to some of the existing ferries. But when you were in power, Mr. Member, you engaged a foreign firm to design some ferries for this province.

MR. CLARK: The minister is not aware of the Ferry Corporation personnel going to Scandinavia. Is that what he is telling us?

[5:45]

HON. MR. VANT: At this precise point in time I'm not aware of a specific trip to Scandinavia in my time as minister. But I will certainly take that under notice and will report on any trips made by B.C. Ferry Corporation personnel.

MR. CLARK: You have a staff person there who just came here when I mentioned we were going to raise the Ferry Corporation. I wonder if the minister can't seek the advice of his staff to tell us who went on the trip and what the purpose of the trip was.

It appears that our relationship with the Scandinavian countries is getting a little tighter. We now have the Stena cruise lines operating in British Columbia. We have a Finnish shipbuilding company setting up shop here. We have the first contract awarded to a Finnish design company, albeit in concert with a Victoria company. There seem to be some ties developing here, and I am interested in exploring that. I would like the minister to give us some answers to these questions, if he can, given that he has his staff here.

HON. MR. VANT: I can recall the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) making all kinds of trips to look at forestry in Scandinavia.

It was actually before I became the Minister of Transportation and Highways, in the fall of 1987, that the general manager, along with two assistant general

[ Page 6830 ]

managers, made a trip to Scandinavia. There are more ferry operations in Scandinavia than probably any other part of the world. They looked at ships, they looked at docks and they looked at reservation systems.

MR CLARK: So they came back from Scandinavian countries, and Wartsila sort of followed them back here. They came back and Wartsila was there right behind them. I just wonder whether they had discussions with Wartsila while they were there, and whether there's any relationship. Or is it just a coincidence that B.C. sent three senior officials to tour Scandinavian ferry operations and shipbuilding operations, and then we started engaging in business with them?

HON. MR. VANT: I can assure the hon. second member for Vancouver East that this trip had nothing whatsoever to do with Wartsila.

MR. CLARK: Can he then tell us what it did have to do with? Why were they there reviewing the reservation system of their ferry corporation? Were we looking at embarking upon some new ferry operation, or was it connected in any way with the Stena proposals for cruise ship operations in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANT: Not at all.

MR. CLARK: So it had nothing to do with Stena; it had nothing to do with Wartsila; these were coincidences. What were they looking at doing? Were they looking at setting up some kind of facility in British Columbia that doesn't exist now? Were they looking at the ports or the docks, or whatever it was the minister said, because ours were inferior? Did we want to build some new ones, or did we want to have new cruise ships operating here under the auspices of the Ferry Corporation, or what?

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Chairman, one specific example of why they made the trip is that in Scandinavia they're into steel and concrete docks, whereas here in British Columbia we have primarily wooden docks. Apart from looking at a different form of reservations system, we can always learn from the experience of others; we can pick out the best of what these other countries are offering in marine transportation. So I think it was a very good trip for the senior personnel of the Ferry Corporation to make. I fail to see why you keep trying to read something sinister into their making this trip.

MR. CLARK: I'm not trying to read something sinister into it necessarily; I'm trying to ascertain why it took place.

It's an expensive proposition to go to Scandinavian countries. I don't say we shouldn't go at all. I think there's a lot we can learn from those countries, but it seems to me that one doesn't simply rush off and travel around the world to see concrete and steel docks rather than wooden docks. There must have been some major meetings set up to accomplish a certain goal, some specific purpose in mind or some travel plans. You don't just go and tour the world to see what they do and what we can learn from them. I mean, we'd all like a job like that, I'm sure, but I don't think.... Well, maybe the government does allow that, but I'd be surprised if even this administration would allow that kind of travel willy-nilly.

It seems to me that there had to have been some kind of major agenda item, whether it was building ships, establishing new operations or services in British Columbia, or making arrangements with some companies there to do business in British Columbia. There had to be some primary purpose, presumably, other than just reviewing their procedures to see what we could learn. I'm sure of that.

Now I see that the minister has some help from his staff, so maybe he's a little more filled in as to what they were trying to accomplish and what they accomplished.

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Chairman, another part of the visit was to coast guard officials in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They wanted to compare notes on manning requirements. In some of those socialist countries, believe it or not, they have 70-car ferries manned by only two personnel. They wanted to get firsthand information regarding some of their operations. There are these government-operated ferry systems over there. It's always wise to see in detail how those things are operated.

MR. CLARK: I seem to recall that the Herald of Free Enterprise sank in a Dutch port. That's maybe beside the point, but I'm sure it had something to do with manning.

MR. GABELMANN: Staffing.

MR. CLARK: Staffing. Excuse me. Corrected.

Clearly, the minister has basically said that it was a junket. We've got no explanation, except that it was to see firsthand how many people were staffing the ships that the different Crown corporations operate.... It doesn't sound like much of a.... It seems to me that you could write them a letter and ask them how it worked, rather than send somebody over there. Maybe he could tell us how long they spent in those Scandinavian countries.

HON. MR. VANT: The staff spent a total of six days in Scandinavia.

MR. CLARK: To move back from Scandinavia to British Columbia, I would like the minister — for the record — to give us an assurance again.... I know he's given it in different ways, but given that there is concern out there, certainly in the industry.... The shipbuilding industry is in a very serious way in British Columbia. The minister knows that.

I've talked to several people, including Tom Ward from Vancouver Shipyards, the unions and others.

[ Page 6831 ]

They all claim very clearly that they are capable of building the new superferries in British Columbia. Yet this letter from Mr. Rod Morrison, the general manager, who presumably went to Scandinavia, makes the argument that if Versatile Pacific falls by the wayside, there might not be a company in B.C. capable of building our new superferries.

The minister in answer in this House said that's just advice from the Ferry Corporation. I appreciate that; there's no question about that. I think the people working in the industry and the businesses in the industry should have some assurance that while the Ferry Corporation is giving advice, the minister has no intention of accepting that advice; that he can give us a categorical assurance here in the House that all the ferry vessels contemplated will be built in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANT: I can assure the member opposite once again that government policy is to continue to build additions to our 38-vessel ferry fleet right here in British Columbia. Mr. Neil Hindle of the marine boilermakers' union is naturally very concerned about long-term sustained employment for the members of his union. Considering the delay of the Polar 8, I understand that the federal government will perhaps be building some of the minesweepers they were planning. Of course, we as a provincial government want to ensure that British Columbia gets its share of that program if the project goes ahead. We naturally want to see our shipyards and our shipyard workers engaged over many years with this shipbuilding program, and that includes our own.

Given the lateness of the hour, I would like to move that the committee rise, report considerable 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.

Introduction of Bills

HOME MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ACT

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act is designed to increase assistance to British Columbians seeking to purchase modestly priced homes. The program was announced in the budget as part of the government's provincial housing action plan package. The major function of the bill is to establish the B.C. home mortgage assistance program. This program replaces the existing B.C. second mortgage program. It will be delivered by private sector financial institutions.

The provincial government will issue loan guarantees to eligible applicants for a portion of either a first mortgage or a mobile home security instrument. Guarantees for second mortgages will also be available under some circumstances. The program generally permits 95 percent financing.

The maximum qualifying home price will rise to $100,000, as compared to $85,000 under the existing program. The maximum value of provincial assistance will also rise. A $12,000 provincial loan guarantee will be made available, as compared to the existing $10,000 second mortgage program. Additionally, the application process will be both faster and easier.

This bill also authorizes the disposal of the existing second mortgage loan portfolio. A large portion of this portfolio has been sold to the Bank of Montreal for approximately $275 million. In accordance with the agreement to purchase, the completion date of this sale is June 22, 1988.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I advise the members that pursuant to standing orders, the House will sit tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.