[ Page 6833 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Establish an Environment and Land Use Secretariat (Bill M215).

Mr. Williams introduction and first reading –– 6833

Community Reforestation Act (Bill M216). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 6833

Oral Questions

Rental housing shortage. Mr. Blencoe –– 6833

Banning of Alar-treated fruit. Mr. Barlee –– 6834

Labelling of produce by country of origin. Mr. Barlee –– 6834

Crop losses due to severe winter conditions. Mr. Rabbitt I –– 6834

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Sihota I –– 6835

Mr. Clark

Tabling Documents –– 6836

Ministerial Statement

Euclid Mathematics Contest. Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 6836

Ms. A. Hagen

Tabling Documents –– 6837

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6837

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Jones

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Miller

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Blencoe

Home Owner Grant Increase Act, 1989 (Bill 6). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 6857

Mr. Blencoe –– 6858

Mr. Rose –– 6859

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 6859

Income Tax Amendment Act (Bill 7). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 6860

Mr. Jones –– 6860

Ms. A. Hagen –– 6861

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REE: I'd like to note that in the gallery today we have Chief Const. Andy Anderson of the Oak Bay police department. This is appropriate because this week, May 14-20, is Police Week, a week when we pause to thank and honour the 5,900 men and women who serve us as police officers in this province and also the 1,400 auxiliary reserve personnel. The police officer has a unique and an important role in our society, as the police on a day-to-day basis represent us on the streets, ensuring safety and enforcing the rules of society. The modern police officer has a difficult job to fulfil in our ever-changing, challenging and complex society, a society which does not easily accept the role of authority which our police represent. However, I know that our police continue to meet the challenge and provide all of us with a dedicated, invaluable service.

Mr. Speaker, through Chief Anderson, I would ask this House to thank the police — all of the police in this province — for the work they perform as part of their everyday duties.

MR. MILLER: Today in the gallery are two mayors from small communities on the Queen Charlotte Islands, Mayor Gerry Johnson of Port Clements and Mayor Gordon Feyer of Masset, who were introduced by the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Vant) yesterday, but were not impressed with the minister's answers on the transportation of dangerous cargo to the Queen Charlotte Islands. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MERCIER: In the gallery today are three people from Burnaby–Edmonds. They are very active, hard-working members of my association executive there: the president, Jake Koole, his wife, Tena Koole, and Percy Howard. Would we please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE SECRETARIAT

Mr. Williams presented a bill intituled An Act To Establish An Environment and Land Use Secretariat.

MR. WILLIAMS: The intent of this statute is to reinstate the multidiscipline team that could advise cabinet on various land use conflicts in the province. We face these problems currently on a scale we've never seen before, in areas such as Carmanah Valley, Stein Valley and other hot spots around the province. We need a non-partisan approach, and technical skills need to be applied. As a great supporter of the non-partisan ideal, I'm sure that there will be full consensus on both sides of the House regarding this.

Clearly there's a need to cross boundaries between the disciplines and between the ministries. A talented environment and land use secretariat could bring back the quality that has been missing for a long time in analyzing land use conflicts.

Bill M215 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.

COMMUNITY REFORESTATION ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Community Reforestation Act.

MR. MILLER: This bill requires all reforestation that is the responsibility of the Crown to be undertaken by community-based reforestation projects, unless otherwise directed by the district manager. Under the current Forest Act, this program would include areas in the province currently harvested under the small business program, areas harvested before the fall of 1987 and areas of NSR land harvested before that time.

If only the small business area is taken into consideration, it could involve over 30,000 hectares of basic silviculture work and employ hundreds of people in each district of the province.

The district manager in each forest district is required to set up a program to carry out community reforestation in the district. The overall goals guiding each program will be: reforesting harvested areas to acceptable standards, employing and training young and unemployed people, encouraging incremental silviculture, and maintaining or enhancing the quantity and quality of the forest resource of the province.

Bill M216 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.

Oral Questions

RENTAL HOUSING SHORTAGE

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing. Every day that goes by we see more housing problems in this province. Recently 45 Kitsilano tenants were served six-month eviction notices to allow for redevelopment. Has the minister finally decided to have decent tenant protection in the province by delaying evictions until all municipal approvals have been obtained and by allowing municipalities to control demolitions and conversions so that thousands of British Columbians who are in tenancies can protect their homes? We think that's essential.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I think the member should discover under which ministry the tenancy protection rights come. It's not this ministry.

[ Page 6834 ]

MR. BLENCOE: This minister purports to be the Minister of Housing. I would have thought he would be interested in the thousands of tenants in the province.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. To meet the minister's target of 4,000 rental housing units in 18 months as announced in the budget, under the Crown land rental housing program, you need to be averaging around 50 unit-starts a week. How many have started since March 30, when you announced this program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This government is indeed concerned about the rental housing market in British Columbia. Mr. Member, if you will read the budget you will note the plans that were put into place. I am pleased to tell this House and this province that we will build 4,000 housing units within the next two years. We are well on our way to putting the mechanisms in place to do just that. In fact, we will be announcing the first group of social housing built under the federal-provincial housing plan within the next two to three weeks.

MR. BLENCOE: That's strike two in terms of question two. Nothing for tenants. The 4,000 units you announced haven't even been started. We need 50 a week. You haven't even got the program off the ground and it's nearly two months later.

[2:15]

Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister confirm that the funding for this program — already the subject of extensive advertising paid for by the taxpayer — had not even passed Treasury Board as of a few days ago, and that the legislation setting up the Crown corporation to run this program is not even drawn up and ready for presentation to this House?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Legislation as complex as what the member is talking about is not drawn up overnight. It is being worked on at the moment by the staff and by legislative counsel, and it will be ready to present to this House in this session, as promised in the budget.

BANNING OF ALAR-TREATED FRUIT

MR. BARLEE: To the Minister of Agriculture. The perceived carcinogen Alar has not been used by British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association apple producers for about two years. However, our competitors from the United States are still using Alar. Is the minister prepared to ask the federal government to ban the importation of U.S. apples immediately until our tests indicate that their apples are Alar-free?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We have made representation to the federal government to ask that they ban a lot of food articles and products that enter Canada but, under Health and Welfare Canada regulations, are banned for use within our own country. We have consistently asked that the same rules and regulations apply to all products that cross the border.

In the case of Alar, the hon. member is correct. We have banned it since May 1988. It's almost a year ago now that the Fruit Growers' Association made the decision not to use that chemical. The EPA in the United States has now announced that they will follow the same guidelines and cancel the use of Alar.

LABELLING OF PRODUCE
BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

MR. BARLEE: Is the minister prepared to ask the federal government to insist upon accurate labelling of produce by the country of origin, at the retail outlet? It is not done now, although certain produce is labelled. The BCFGA labels its produce, but people don't know whether it comes from Canada, Mexico or the United States. Are you prepared to follow through on that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We have very strongly recommended that labelling be by country of origin. Whether you define it as a state — moreover, a specific state of the United States or a state of any other country.... It is very difficult to do because standard legislation on labelling indicates it is by country. As we proceed, I can tell you that we as a government are very keen on promoting and recognizing a B.C. product, for instance, which we should be very proud of. I think the point you're making is that we want to emphasize how important it is to label what we believe and know is an excellent product in this province. We are proceeding on that basis, and we are asking that the same thing be done on all products.

CROP LOSSES DUE TO
SEVERE WINTER CONDITIONS

MR. RABBITT: To the Minister of Agriculture. It's apparent now that severe conditions produced a major winterkill of interior British Columbia hayfields. Being that this is the second time in three years, what is your ministry prepared to do to assist interior ranchers and farmers in recovering from the loss and in the replanting of their alfalfa fields?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I agree with you that there was severe frost damage two years back. We were asked to participate in a joint program to help in the reseeding of that particular alfalfa area. The area from Kamloops south into the Nicola region was identified as a severe winterkill section. This year the problem is not only in alfalfa; the heavy frosts in February created havoc in several areas.

We have under discussion a tripartite negotiating process between British Columbia, the federal government and the producers. What we are striving for.... There is a difference of opinion among agriculture ministers across this country as to the share that should be borne by the farmer, the provinces and the federal government. If crop insurance becomes too expensive, the farming community is reluctant to purchase it to cover such losses. We are having an

[ Page 6835 ]

in depth look at not only hay or alfalfa field winterkills, but also those in the fruit-growing industry: soft fruits, raspberries, strawberries — the greenhouse sector. An extensive study is being undertaken as to the total loss in that winterkill.

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. SIHOTA: Yesterday, while trying to talk tough outside the House, the minister referred to "scumbag" operators on the VSE. In so doing, he of course smeared with innuendo all operators on the VSE. Who was the minister referring to? Was he referring to criminal heavyweights like Fats Robertson, who had a lifetime trading ban lifted by your ministry last year? Was he referring to notorious criminals like Gino Cicci and Bobby "The Slick" Slichter who was involved in Chopp Computer? Could he explain, after having been warned for two years that these notorious elements were operating on the VSE, why even to this day he has taken no steps to remove these criminal elements from the VSE?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm glad to have that broad-ranging question. It does give me full latitude to respond, and I'm grateful for that.

The subject is important to all citizens of the province, and indeed it's important to the future of the province in an economic development sense. Certainly there's no question that the publicity extended to the Vancouver Stock Exchange over the last two days has been unproductive and does us harm. To the extent that it is harmful, I happen to believe that every member of this Legislature must assume an obligation to right any perceived wrongs and to deal with any remedies that are required.

As I have indicated, I am not able to deal with specific names of individuals or firms in this public setting. I have statutory responsibilities to ensure that justice is done and that due process must be followed, as I've said before.

But I am struck by the ambivalence exhibited by comments from members opposite. On the one hand, we have comments about how important the Leader of the Opposition perceives the Vancouver Stock Exchange to be and how they attempt to relate to the business community. We don't have members of the opposition opposite; we have chameleons. They wear different colours, depending on the ambiance in which they're seated. We have on the one hand, from Vancouver East and maybe some other sectors, a red complexion. As you move through Vancouver you might have some dressed in white, but when you come down to Vancouver's business core they'll have a blue complexion, maybe with some pin-stripes added.

I can only say that if there is a genuine effort to relate to the business community by all members of the Legislature — and I truly hope there is; I hope it's not puffery; I hope it's a matter of substance and a genuine desire to relate — then I suspect that what's needed is more than an invitation to breakfast by a moustache in a blue suit, but, much more important than that, a genuine desire to join with us in assisting the Vancouver business community assume the higher profile it needs and wants.

We on this side of the House are determined to do all we can to ensure that there is a high degree of cooperation between members of this House in that respect. I repeat the offer I made yesterday. If there are specific suggestions which can be made by members of the opposition to assist in cleaning up the Vancouver Stock Exchange in terms of its perceived activities or improprieties, then we would be delighted to hear them.

I can tell the hon. member that as a consequence of the comments he made yesterday, both in the House and out in the hallway, we will be drafting an official response to him. If it's the wish of the House, I'll be delighted to share it with all members of the House, rather than just restrict it to a....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, that's fine; I'll do that, Mr. Speaker. I'll make this response available to all members of the House — indeed, the whole world, if that's the desire. We can deal with some of the specific erroneous, slanderous, misleading comments that were delivered yesterday in this chamber, which I truly regret.

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Premier. Following the damaging assessment of the VSE by two of the world's most prestigious business magazines, and in light of the disturbing remarks with respect to "scumbags" by the Minister of Finance, can the Premier tell us if he is convinced that investing taxpayers' money in the VSE — as the Minister of Finance said, $40 million to $80 million — is a responsible and prudent plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: May I ask the questioner to repeat the last part of the question?

MR. CLARK: It's simple, Mr. Premier. Not a nickel of public money should go into the VSE until it's cleaned up. Can the Premier tell us whether he is personally convinced that investing taxpayers' money in the VSE, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday — $40 million to $80 million — is a responsible and prudent plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, obviously there are many in this House who are of the opinion that this is a very important part of the financial community; it can certainly assist industry in all parts of the province. I realize that possibly this view is not shared by all members, and I am a little confused by what I heard yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition — the absent landlord; the one that's often gone — gave us one particular view, yet in the House earlier we heard very different views from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

[ Page 6836 ]

(Mr. Sihota). I think perhaps we need to carefully assess all of the information that has been provided to us and also where the opposition is on this particular issue. Right now it's rather confusing. We really can't tell where they stand on this issue. They appear to be a little confused among themselves, in their ranks, as to what they see as the future of the VSE. We'll take all views into consideration before any decisions are finally made.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I'm really concerned about the direction that question period is taking. Often, instead of an answer, we get self-righteous claptrap and bombast. I really regret the innuendo that some members on this side of the House have certain political colorations that perhaps may not be too acceptable in some quarters. I'm very serious about this, Mr. Speaker.

Both sides of the House, and especially this side of the House, want a clean Vancouver Stock Exchange. That's what we're trying to achieve by our efforts. When the minister just tries to buffalo the House and turn our legitimate questions...

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: It's a point of order.

...around and blame the people who are asking the question, instead of going after the people who are unsavoury and unsatisfactory.... The old trick of blaming the victim is not acceptable.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the same point of order, it's quite clear to me that the opposition is totally disorganized in question period. They are leaderless most every day in the House, and it's easy to understand why they can't get their act together.

I would remind them once again to refer to article 47A(b) of standing orders: "Questions...shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." If the questions were stated as laid down in standing orders, perhaps the answers would be a little more precise.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to help the government House Leader in his reading; obviously he has a few problems. Item 47A(b) says that questions and answers shall be brief and to the point.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: I thank both House Leaders and hope that maybe they can discuss this matter in caucus, which is probably a more appropriate place.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the B.C. Milk Board for the year ended December 31, 1988.

Ministerial Statement

EUCLID MATHEMATICS CONTEST

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It has come to my attention that once again students from the British Columbia school system have done exceptionally well in a national competition.

Some 12,000 students from across Canada wrote the Euclid Mathematics Contest examination, and British Columbia secondary students placed 20 in the top 50, which is certainly far and above — about three times — what our population proportion would be.

I am also pleased that the top student in the competition was a grade 11 student from Churchill Secondary School, who scored 95 percent on such a prestigious examination. A 12-year-old grade 9 student, Erick Wong, came seventh in the total competition. As well, Malik Kalfane of Carson Graham Secondary School placed thirteenth. B.C. students took 40 percent of the top positions in this competition.

I take considerable pride on behalf of our school system in the accomplishments of these students. I acknowledge that I didn't teach them; I may have if I weren't so busy with other duties.

I would like to commend the students for their commitment and dedication in preparing for those exams and writing them; the parents who obviously supported them; and certainly the teachers in the system who have made all of this possible. I think all of us have the right to be proud that in competition after competition, whether national or international, our students are performing very well. We can be proud of the teachers that we have in the British Columbia school system.

MS. A. HAGEN: I hope that those students learned a bit about playing the odds in their math studies.

Certainly interest and competence in math are very important aspects of a broad-based education curriculum, and I want to join with the minister, on behalf of the members of this side of the House, in congratulating the students and those who worked with them in preparing for and participating in this competition. It's obvious that they worked hard to stretch their abilities and their learning, and they have done very well indeed.

This gives us an opportunity not only to recognize those many students who participated in this competition but just to acknowledge that every day in our classrooms, students and teachers are engaging in challenging activities that broaden their understanding and learning of intellectual, social and cultural aspects of their lives. So in celebrating these students today, I hope that we also take the opportunity to celebrate all students, who at this point are engaged in learning in our classrooms, and the teachers who work with them.

[ Page 6837 ]

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave to make a couple of very brief introductions.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: I was unable, as was my colleague from Nanaimo, to make these introductions, because we were involved in meetings up until the last possible moment and therefore were late arriving. I want to ask the House to join me first in passing greetings to two very dear friends from the constituency of Nanaimo, Jack and Betty Baker, who are seated in the gallery.

Second is a group of students, along with their teacher, from the alternative school in Nanaimo, otherwise known as the Five Acre School. Mr. Martin is the teacher of students who are down here as part of their regular learning program. They are going to be visiting the chamber to see what we do, and also, of course, having the tour and we hope meeting with their local representative. Again, I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

Now to the matter of the estimates. I have some good news for the minister today. The good news is that my comments will be brief. The bad news is that they will be as insightful, provocative and profound as always. The other part of the bad news, in a more serious vein, is that some of my colleagues also intend to participate in this debate. We may not get out quite as quickly as I had planned.

The first issue I want to raise with the minister has to do with the B.C. Ferry Corporation: specifically, the problem of commercial-vehicle overloads on the Horseshoe Bay-Departure Bay route. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to the minister to learn that there have been a number of calls over the last few months — indeed, over the last couple of years, but especially in the last few months — concerning the problems that commercial vehicles are having in terms of getting on the ferry.

The stories are legion and go along these lines: every year it seems to be getting worse. The peak of the difficulty has apparently been subsequent to Expo in 1986. Truckers from places like Surrey, for example, will tell us it used to be a ten-hour day when they were hauling from one side to the other, but today it's 15 hours because of the ferry waits and all of that.

There's also the understandable complaint about increased costs and the difficulty the truckers are having meeting those costs, because clearly, unless they are prepared to jack up the rates for whatever their produce is — and in many cases they don't have that opportunity — they obviously are losing a great deal of money by having an extra three to six hours of turnaround time and, in some cases, even a problem with perishability of goods.

In any event, I don't need to bore the minister with all those details; I'm sure he's familiar with them. I simply want to ask the minister what steps are being taken to grapple with this problem. It's one that's been around for some time. It appears to be worsening in the last short while. I know, because I see the minister is now consulting with the general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, that there is a partial explanation since for the last month or so the Queen of Alberni has been down. There has been a problem, I gather, with engine repair as well as the normal fitting that the ship goes in for annually.

I'm wondering what longer-term steps the corporation is taking to address this problem, clearly a major problem and one that, sadly, seems to be growing in its intensity. I'll ask the minister if he might like to respond to that to begin.

HON. MR. VANT: Recently, as the member pointed out, the Queen of Alberni was in for a refit. I'm very pleased to announce today that that very important vessel will be back in service this Friday. It incidentally can carry twice as much heavy-truck traffic as any of the other C-class vessels in the system.

MR. LOVICK: The Alberni?

HON. MR. VANT: The Queen of Alberni. That will be back in service this Friday. We can look at extending the length of the service day. We can look at scheduling to ease some of the overload problems in that regard. I should remind the member opposite, as well, that the B.C. Ferry Corporation does not have a monopoly on moving commercial traffic from the mainland to the Island. Canadian Pacific marine services also provides movement of truck traffic to the island.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer, as far as it goes. I'm happy, of course, to learn that the Alberni is due to be back very soon. Certainly that will go some considerable distance toward solving the problem.

The minister made reference to the fact that we are looking at increasing the length of the service day and also to something about rescheduling. I know that representations have been made for at least a couple of years by organizations like the BCTA, the British Columbia Trucking Association, and, I would imagine, also by a number of smaller organizations.

I understand further that specific kinds of recommendations, specific suggestions regarding either a later sailing or an earlier sailing, perhaps even different destination points, and so forth, for truck traffic....

[ Page 6838 ]

Those kinds of suggestions have been submitted over the past while. Can the minister be a little more specific in terms of giving us some indication of what it is we're looking at and what results that looking-at process might produce? That's the first question.

Apropos of the minister's reference to alternative modes of service — i.e., CP Marine — I would just remind him that one of the legacies of deregulation has been the growth in numbers of smaller operators, the so-called live-transport traffic. Clearly we have a much greater demand on the ferry fleet now than we had before, and, I submit, it's directly because of that deregulation process, which I believe your ministry is on record as having supported. Given that, I don't think it's fair or at all consistent for the minister to suggest that another mode of transport is available. We've helped to create the problem that our system is designed to address; therefore it is surely incumbent upon us to make sure our system can address the problem.

HON. MR. VANT: Once again I want to assure the member opposite that there are ongoing discussions with the B.C. Trucking Association. We are discussing a reservation system. We're very confident that once the Alberni is back later this week it will take considerable pressure off; plus, because of summer we're now into increased frequency of service — the hourly service mode. What we have to do very responsibly is maximize the available deck service in terms of the mix of traffic between trucks and cars.

MR. LOVICK: The minister is quite right that our immediate problem may abate somewhat because of two things: one, the return of the Alberni; two, the summer schedule. But the fact remains, surely, that we are seeing a gradual increase in commercial truck traffic and a corresponding increase in the incidence of overloads and waiting times. That's certainly the contention brought to me by not just the BCTA but other trucking firms as well.

[2:45]

I tried to get some information from the Nanaimo terminal about the incidence of overloads. I'm sure the general manager of the corporation has heard of my requests. Unfortunately they don't have that system on computer yet, and I was therefore informed it would take some time. Does the minister know how significant that increase has been over, say, the last three years, and whether there has been an ongoing observable pattern of commercial vehicle overloads, and therefore waiting times, for ferries? If the minister cannot give me that information now, perhaps he could provide it for us.

HON. MR. VANT: Over the last couple of years our commercial traffic has been increasing at about 6 percent per year. We don't really keep track of the commercial overloads per se. In the course of this dialogue I think the member opposite is, in a sense, making an excellent case for the Ferry Corporation once again getting into a building expansion mode with our proposed new super ferries and our two intermediate ferries.

MR. LOVICK: I won't belabour this much further, Mr. Minister. I appreciate that you're addressing this on an ongoing basis, and I know it is indeed corporation policy. A couple of points, though. Are we still exploring the possibility of an extended day — in other words, an extra sailing late at night — or are we giving explanations as to why that can't happen specifically to do with the contract governing the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union? A couple of years ago that was the argument given. I don't think it was a good explanation at the time, and I wonder if it is still being used or if in fact we are actively exploring the possibility of expanding that schedule.

HON. MR. VANT: Actually, not right now, given that we're just going into the hourly service. Later this year, when we get back to the two-hour service, we will certainly be looking at expanding the service day of the number one and number two routes, the main routes.

MR. LOVICK: I wonder if the minister is aware that one of the problems causing additional pressure on the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay route as opposed to the southern Victoria-Tsawwassen route apparently has to do with insurance coverage. The normal insurance policy that governs trucking fleets says the company will assume liability only within a radius of something like 164 kilometres, which unfortunately puts the Tsawwassen terminal out of range for certain trucks that otherwise would use the service. This is the explanation given to me by a couple of trucking firms. I'm wondering (a) if you're aware of that, and (b) whether there is any possibility that the corporation, either working separately or in conjunction with the ministry, might be able to talk to the insurance bureau with a view to achieving some kind of compromise or accommodation whereby we could rewrite the rules.

It sounds like a very arbitrary rule. We will cover you only within a 164-kilometre radius, and if we can save it as part of our transportation system — the infrastructure we have established — certain trucks and certain routes are necessarily going to go beyond that if they go to the alternate terminal. I'm wondering whether we might explore the possibility of dealing with the insurance company. That may take off some of the pressure on that main run I've been referring to.

HON. MR. VANT: The answer to (a) is no. That's the first time we had ever heard of this problem. It has never entered into the discussions between the B.C. Trucking Association and the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

The answer to (b) is that we'd certainly be willing to look into it and explore that.

MR. LOVICK: I want to turn now to another matter also to do with the B.C. Ferry Corporation,

[ Page 6839 ]

and one that I know you've heard a great deal about over time.

This is a twofold problem. B.C. Ferry Corporation deals with, on the one hand, tax-exempt status for the corporation and its properties within particular communities, and on the other hand, the payment-for-services question.

I am sure the minister is well aware of this particular problem; it's been around for some time. In 1987 there was a brief presented by half a dozen or more municipalities, and I will just list them briefly so we know the scope of this problem: District of Delta, District of Campbell River, City of Nanaimo, District of Port Hardy, District of Powell River, City of Prince Rupert, District of West Vancouver and City of Victoria. What all of these have in common is that they also have a B.C. Ferry Corporation terminal in their boundaries.

The question, you recall, has been posed for some time: namely, whether the corporation, given it has facilities there, ought to be paying tax for the property; and in addition, the business of services.

We had this discussion in the Legislature last year. My understanding was that indeed the corporation had made a policy change. Your predecessor, the Minister of Highways at the time, told me that the policy had changed, and now the Ferry Corporation was going to pay for services. What happened subsequently, however, is that the policy has apparently been reversed.

I base that on the correspondence — I'll make sure I've got the right file here — to the solicitor for those six or seven municipalities from Mr. Long, the chairman of the corporation, informing them that yes, that was the position taken by the ministry. They would now pay for services. But what they meant by "services" was something quite different from what the minister had suggested in the House.

I must tell you — not you, Mr. Minister, but your predecessor — in an anecdotal vein, that I was feeling very good after the estimates last year, because in posing this series of questions to the minister, I thought: "Gosh, we've really accomplished something." The minister says: "Yes, you're right, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, the policy would seem to be wrong, and I have made recommendation to change that policy."

Unfortunately, as subsequent events have demonstrated, the policy has not changed. For example, my municipality is in the awkward position of providing fire protection, water and policing services and not getting paid for them, as well as incurring a fairly substantial and significant cost, to the point that the municipality is taking some measures that seem at least unusual, if not absolutely untypical.

I can show you the headline of a recent edition of my local newspaper, Mr. Minister, and you will see the headline says — I think you can read it from there — "Nanaimo Slaps Capital Costs Levy on Ferries, Harbour." You don't have to worry about the harbour; that's federal. But on the ferries.... I'll just read you a paragraph that will make the point: "Council Monday approved an amendment to its sewer and water user rate bylaw that forces both" — i.e., the Ferry Corporation and the Nanaimo Harbour Commission — "to pay for capital costs associated with the services."

The municipality has made representations to the Ferry Corporation, to the cabinet and to the minister. It has hired a rather expensive firm of lawyers to work on its behalf; they've been fighting this fight for a couple of years. Clearly they got nowhere; therefore they have to take this rather unusual step of amending their own bylaws to the effect that the Ferry Corporation — as nearly as we can make out from legal opinion — won't have any say in the matter, but will have to pay some additional money to them.

You are shaking your head, and I hope you are going to explain that motion, because I would love to be able to tell the municipality of Nanaimo that the minister says: "It's not going to work, and we aren't going to pay you any more money." I say that in jest.

Will the minister tell me whether the corporation is reviewing its policy of having that kind of tax-exempt status in the municipality, and the decision it has made, which is, I gather, to refuse grants in lieu of taxes. It's a burning issue, not only in my municipality and constituency but, I submit, probably in those five or six others. Would the minister mind explaining for me now where that matter sits, whether it's being reviewed and whether any reconsideration is being contemplated?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm delighted to address briefly this old issue which keeps coming up again and again.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation, as the member opposite well knows, is not liable to taxation by virtue of section 21 of the Ferry Corporation Act, and as the minister responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, I have no intention of bringing in an amendment to the act at this sitting of the Legislature or any one in the near future.

The grants in lieu of taxes are not paid for some very good reasons. First of all, the B.C. Ferries terminals and facilities in all those municipalities you mentioned are considered part of the highway system. Also, the corporation is subsidized — it's about $51 million this year — as it provides an essential public service. Surely the member opposite wouldn't want me to come to this Legislature seeking more funds to increase that subsidy. I'm sure that all your constituents would not want to pay increased fares if grants in lieu of taxes were paid to these various municipalities.

There are two sides to every coin, and you have certainly heard the municipality side. But the other side is that the construction of the B.C. Ferry Corporation's facilities has provided a very significant contribution to the industrial and tourist base of those various municipalities.

I'd like to say, too, just for the sake of clarification — I'm summing up this response — that certain municipal services are paid, such as water and specified sewer levies, while other services, such as

[ Page 6840 ]

garbage collection, are contracted out. Services for police and fire protection historically have not been paid.

MR. LOVICK: I want to thank the minister for putting that statement on the record. I am sure that many people will be anxious to read it.

You made reference to the fact that, historically, things such as police services have not been paid. Would you explain, then, the anomaly of the municipality of West Vancouver, where there is apparently a contract between the B.C. Ferry Corporation and some authority or other to provide policing services in the event of traffic overloads and lineups along the highway?

HON. MR. VANT: To my hon. critic, the Ferry Corporation has from time to time, through contract with my ministry, engaged certain personnel primarily for guard services and some patrol services.

MR. LOVICK: Is that a consistent policy applying to every municipality on the list I read to you, or is it done on an ad hoc basis? How can one municipality get that service and others are either unaware of it or unable to get it?

HON. MR. VANT: It is only done when needed — for example, on a long weekend. This has happened at various terminals in the system.

MR. LOVICK: Then why hasn't Nanaimo's Departure Bay terminal been successful in its application for compensation for the extra cost of policing on long weekends? We have had traffic problems as a result of ferry traffic coming into the community that have cost the city an incredible amount of money We've had to hire two extra shifts of RCMP constables to patrol the area to make sure the traffic flows smoothly.

[3:00]

My information is that the Ferry Corporation has refused to pay for any of those services. Thus we are in this long and elaborate process of making appeal to you. It is also why we have come to the point I talked about a moment ago whereby city council is now slapping a capital cost levy on ferries. They're not doing that on some whim; they're doing it because they feel they have no choice, because their request for a simple fee-for-service has apparently been peremptorily rejected. Can you explain that?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm sure that the city of Nanaimo engages the RCMP when there are problems within their municipality. We have personnel within the ferry terminal area to assist from time to time when there are problems, but the B.C. Ferry Corporation's jurisdiction is only within that terminal area. When you consider all the benefits that the city of Nanaimo has because there is that Departure Bay terminal, it pretty well balances out.

MR. LOVICK: How about the $784 bill for the cleanup of a fuel spill at the terminal last month? That's another bill that has been presented. It's something that happened specifically at the terminal, not outside. Using your argument from last time, this one would seem to be a counter example to that, where you are not even paying, apparently, for services or costs incurred at the terminal. How about that one? Can you give me assurances that there will be a cheque in the mail for $784 and however many cents? Can I get that much? Come on, Neil, make me feel....

HON. MR. VANT: If in this particular instance the city wishes to submit a bill to the corporation, they would certainly carefully consider the bill.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: Come, Mr. Minister, you can do a little better than that, surely. Can't you say, "We will consider, but I can assure you that there is indeed a terrible infringement of justice here and we will take steps to make sure that a cheque for $784 will be in the mail"? Can you get us a little closer to that conclusion, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VANT: The member opposite seems to have very little respect for the integrity of the B.C. Ferry Corporation board — to actually make the critical decisions, such as this, regarding the corporation's business dealings. For sure I will take this suggestion under enthusiastic consideration, and I will discuss it. The general manager assures me right here that they will carefully consider that bill in this particular instance, where right on their terminal a service was rendered to the Ferry Corporation.

MR. LOVICK: How fascinating that this minister, who normally is perceived to be one who wants to take credit for all things that happen within the aegis of that particular ministry, in this case decides to defer to some other body who will make the decision — duly noted, Mr. Minister.

Apropos of that point, I want to turn now to the question that would seem to illustrate the confusion regarding who is making the announcements and who is making the decisions governing the operations of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I refer you to the saga of Isabella Point. Would the minister be kind enough to tell me where that matter now sits. Is it the case that the decision has been made — in other words, the first statement the minister is quoted as making — despite the fact that we have a transportation committee touring and entertaining submissions, or is it the case that it's still under review — the second statement the minister is quoted as making?

HON. MR. VANT: I would just remind the hon. member opposite that I represent the chief shareholder regarding the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Regarding the Isabella Point issue, the regional transportation advisory committee is certainly going

[ Page 6841 ]

to do a lot of consulting with the residents of Saltspring Island. Indeed, I want to remind the member that on February 8, to be exact, senior officials of the B.C. Ferry Corporation met with some very prominent citizens of Saltspring Island.

I should mention some of the key people who were there, where the possibility — and I underline possibility — of the relocation of the ferry terminal from Fulford Harbour to Isabella Point was discussed. At that particular meeting, if Isabella Point was mentioned once it was mentioned about 20 times. Some of the gentlemen at that meeting were: Nick Gilbert of the Islands Trust; also of the Islands Trust, John Stepaniuk; Syd Wigen of the South Saltspring Residents' Association; Mike Marshall of the school board; Ron McQuiggan of the Capital Regional District; Robert Andrew of the Sierra Club; the Island Watch transportation committee; Danny Evanishen, chairman of another transportation committee; and Jack Cherry of the chamber of commerce. Those are a few of the prominent citizens who were at the consultative meeting.

I am mentioning all these people for the record. Many consultations have already taken place. The regional transportation advisory committee has in its mandate hearings on Isabella Point and other transportation initiatives in that area. There are adequate opportunities for consultation and input by the local residents.

MR. LOVICK: A few moments ago the minister offered us one of his more profound observations about there being two sides to every coin. Let me give you the other side to this particular coin.

The minister makes reference to the fact that a wonderful consultative process took place on Saltspring Island. Let me just remind you how the other side perceives that. Let me quote to you from a letter — sent to you, as a matter of fact — from one of the participants, which describes that meeting:

"On February 10 corporation representatives met with about a dozen individuals in Ganges. I" — this is Nick Gilbert writing — "was left wondering why the meeting had been called. Of significance is the fact that the Saltspring guests wished to speak about a range of alternatives, but were directed by Chairman Long to limit discussion to Fulford Harbour and Isabella Point."

Parenthetically, Mr. Minister, that's why Isabella Point was mentioned so many times, I suspect.

"Rod Morrison" — the letter goes on — "informed us that the project was simply in the conceptual stage and that there wasn't a lot of detailed information available. There had been no feasibility study, only a professional guess as to costs. We were told that the Long Harbour run would not be removed at this time. Whenever information was requested, we were directed to make our request through the regional transportation task force. We were to take our transportation concerns to that committee."

There are a couple more brief paragraphs, and then I'll let you respond.

"The result of that meeting was that there was no endorsement of Isabella Point. We were left with a lot of unanswered questions. Clearly there was no information available on which to base a response. Since that meeting, the Islands Trust and community groups throughout the island have worked hard and fast to prepare submissions for the regional committee, who have their public meetings next week, some ten days after your" — the Minister of Highways' — "announcement. After all, this is the only process available to us" — the minister looks perplexed; the reference is to the transportation hearings — " and all our hopes of being heard have rested on this. You have totally undermined that process with your decision."

Two sides? You're arguing a consultative approach? These people are arguing that they have been put in the position of a mouse about to nibble the cheese and then discovering that as he or she — the mouse — gets close, the cheese is snatched away. Would you care to respond to that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VANT: Once again I have to emphasize that no announcement was made regarding Isabella Point. It was referred — not only by myself but by the Ferry Corporation — to the regional transportation advisory committee. In the meantime, due to the consultations that had already taken place, it would be reasonable for the Ferry Corporation to do a feasibility study, so that there would be a little more concrete information available to assist the people most affected in making the ultimate decision.

I can assure the member opposite that no final decision has been made. We value the consultative process; I can't overemphasize that.

MR. LOVICK: I will simply accept for the moment that the final position — you stated it very emphatically, and I appreciate that — is that no final decision has been made. Let's accept that.

I want to ask a very direct question, and I am happy to see that the member for Comox, the Minister of State for Advanced Education, is here.

HON. S. HAGEN: Minister of State for Advanced Education?

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give you a demotion. The Minister of Advanced Education, I know it's a minor role for those ministers of state. Their hopes were up for a moment there.

The question I wanted to pose has to do with sonic statements made in the House yesterday. In response to a question from my colleague the second member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Barlee), the minister began by saying that he was pleased that the member had done his homework and that his question was based on traffic volumes — as a justification for some construction work. Another comment made on your side in the Legislature yesterday, from the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), was a kind of pitch for the Parksville–Qualicum bypass. That's the question I want to pose to the minister.

If in fact you are now actively working towards constructing a Parksville-Qualicum bypass, how do we justify it, given that we have already spent a considerable amount of money putting a five-lane

[ Page 6842 ]

road through that area? Can the minister tell me what traffic volume studies and other documentation have been presented to justify the construction of the bypass? Is the bypass at the moment about to proceed — or proceeding, for all I know? What are the studies that support that proposition that that should proceed before other parts of the Island Highway that, I would submit, on the basis of traffic volume, have greater claims?

HON. MR. VANT: It's not an either-or situation, hon. member. We still need good access through the various communities. I don't want to interpret your remarks as being against a bypass per se or as being against improving access through an existing community. It's not either-or; I would prefer to think of it as both-and.

[3:15]

MR. LOVICK: How about the specific question? Let me pretend I'm the member representing Comox and ask the specific question: can you tell me what's happening with the bypass? This is for you, Stan.

HON. MR. VANT: Very simply, the bypass will be built and will be starting this year.

MR. LOVICK: Is that in keeping with the construction schedule that was announced last year at about November 1988?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, indeed, it is.

MR. LOVICK: Is that particular stretch of road going to begin, whereas the stretches of road that were enunciated and described in the southern part — namely, around my constituency, around Ladysmith — are not going to begin, but rather, we're only going to be doing some design work and property acquisition work?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, the same schedule as originally announced would apply.

MR. LOVICK: Excuse me. I want a clarification of that. You said the same schedule would apply. Does that mean that the construction on the southern end of my constituency around Ladysmith as originally described in the construction schedule for the Vancouver Island project will, in fact, begin this summer as was stated?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm amazed that the hon member asks this same question, because it seems to me that we were into this several days ago. I believe I answered the question at that time.

MR. LOVICK: Do it again for me, if you will.

HON. MR. VANT: I can just reaffirm my previous answer.

MR. LOVICK: Just say yes.

HON. MR. VANT: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: Will the minister also share with the House whether there have been some traffic volume studies that indicate why we are proceeding in area X as opposed to area Y, and so forth? Do we have that kind of study for the entire project? That's my question.

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, we do. Indeed, a good case can be made for the entire Island Highway project based on the traffic volumes.

MR. LOVICK: I'm aware of both studies. What I was asking, and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, was for specific parts. In other words, is the construction schedule based on a needs basis, on some kind of prioritization of traffic volumes and other demands? Is that the case, or are we doing it on some other basis — some other agenda, dare I say?

HON. MR. VANT: There are many variables in determining a construction schedule. Certainly the volume of traffic is one of them. We are ready and willing to proceed where we can: where the right of way has been acquired, where all the various other elements to start a project are in place. But one of the most significant variables is the volumes of traffic. Of course, there are also the environmental concerns which have to be properly addressed before construction begins. We want to do it right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: just before recognizing the member for Nanaimo, I might ask the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) to look at the nineteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 434. I'll provide him with the book if he'd like.

MR. LOVICK: That rather cryptic announcement has us all, of course, wondering. I find it intriguing that you are about to edify my colleague on the niceties of parliamentary procedure. I have no idea why that may be the case, but I'm intrigued.

I want to turn now, if I might, to another matter. Again, just a few questions, Mr. Minister. Would you explain to me please the current status of the Robson ferry in the Slocan Valley area around Castlegar? I think I'm outside the Slocan Valley in Castlegar, actually, but you know the area of the Kootenays. As you know, there is a considerable sense of hardship among members of that community. They've been fighting that fight for a long while. I understand that we have recently had the anniversary — about a week ago — of the cessation of that particular service. When I traveled in that area, I was asked specifically by a committee of people struck to fight for the retention of that ferry service to pose the question to you about whether the ministry is indeed reconsidering that decision, given the apparently well-demonstrated need and justification for that service.

[ Page 6843 ]

HON. MR. VANT: The matter is under appeal to the courts by the citizens' coalition in the Castlegar–Raspberry–Robson area. Meanwhile, of course, the whole situation is under review.

I'd like to remind the hon. member that I believe it's only eight kilometres to drive from Raspberry around into Castlegar. I can think of many situations throughout this great province of ours, where — as we heard from the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — it would be over 100 kilometres to drive around if there weren't any ferry service.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT: At François Lake, that's correct.

MR. LOVICK: Your answer, Mr. Minister, seemed to have two parts to it. You said, on the one hand, that yes, indeed, there's a process of litigation going on, with which I am certainly familiar. But you also said, I think I quote you: "Meanwhile, it's under review." Do you mean that currently, then, the ministry is examining, independent of the legal system, whether there might indeed be a retention or a resumption of that service?

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, we don't presume the outcome of the court case. Naturally, we can't just have that ferry sitting in limbo forever. But I'm not indicating in any way that we're considering reactivating the ferry.

MR. LOVICK: When you say "under review," then, do you mean you're presently searching for a buyer, in the event that you win the court case? Is that really what you meant?

HON. MR. VANT: No.

MS. EDWARDS: I hate to let the Robson ferry go past without telling the minister that I'm sure that if he made some good decisions now, the court case would disappear. I'm sure he's as well aware of that as anyone. And he's probably also well aware — although it needs to be made public fairly frequently, I think — of the number of people who use that ferry regularly, and use it to avoid owning cars and to avoid other methods of transportation which are particularly onerous to our environment, as some of the people feel.

However, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister some questions. I'm going to start off by trying to clarify just exactly the process of deciding what money is going into what budgets for highways. I don't think anyone has really given you a hard time on Highway 3 yet, Mr. Minister, so I think it's time. I want to know how you are going to make your decision as to which of the projects are going to receive funding. A certain degree of expectation has been raised by your government, and I want to put this to you, Mr. Minister: this being the case, would you agree that this is a reasonable reflection of how you see the case about highway improvement matters?

One of the councils in my area has sent a letter in response to your invitation for comments and input in highway improvement matters: "We understand that the provincial government has embarked on a study which will address each and every concern brought to its attention, with the objective being to set priorities and formulate short- and long-range programs." Is that correct, Mr. Minister, that this process — which of course does not go to your ministry, but goes for the allocation of Highways dollars — will in fact address each and every concern and then set priorities and formulate spending? Would you answer me as to how, in a word, you expect to respond to these expectations for each area in the province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is somewhat out of order, because this deals just with the administrative responsibility of this minister; yet, I gather, this task force you are referring to is really the responsibility of someone else. But the minister may wish to answer it. I realize it's a grey area, and the Chair can't be of too much assistance. But I think you're correct in that there are several people taking responsibilities for this. The minister may wish to respond.

HON. MR. VANT: I look forward to hearing from each region of the province what both the short-term and long-term priorities are regarding improvements to the road and bridge system, as well as suggestions regarding other modes of transportation. It is indeed my ministry that will be integrating and coordinating that, so that we emerge with the blueprint for action, the transportation plan.

I know that during the course of my debate we've heard from a number of MLAs who have a special wish-list for their own particular constituency. So this is kind of a both-and process; there is both the careful planning process, plus this sort of ad hoc process, where the MLA, naturally, has particular priorities.

I have heard already from the second member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) about some urgent needs on Highway 3; that, of course, would be a little way west of your situation there. But I'm always willing to listen to what improvements you suggest.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, could you tell me then which is going to take priority? Is it going to be the task force recommendations to your ministry about spending on highways, or is it going to be those recommendations with an overlay of what I myself might say as an MLA for that area? How shall you make those decisions about spending on highways and bridges?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, this may not be the responsibility of this minister, but we'll ask him to answer it anyway.

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Chairman, I would take suggestions from both.

[ Page 6844 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I guess that's probably what has created the considerable degree of disaffection among some of the members of the highways committee who made recommendations. I'm trying to be very careful in putting this to the minister, who is taking this input for his spending. I'm trying to keep it on that particular area, because there was some considerable disappointment about the response of the Minister of Transportation and Highways to the work the highways task force did in my area last year, and some considerable worry that we should have some answers from the minister about what budget will be allocated this year for new work and what budget will be allocated for maintenance. Can the minister give any answers to those two questions?

HON. MR. VANT: On the contrary, the feedback I'm getting is that the very wide variety of people serving on these committees are indeed very delighted to participate and to have the opportunity to give input to this planning process.

I would remind the member — if she wants to update herself on my budget for this year — that both the capital and rehabilitation spending are printed in the budget book.

MS. EDWARDS: Maybe the minister is misunderstanding what I'm saying. I think that any of the people from my area are very happy if they had input. It has been extensive and made with a great deal of effort. Their dissatisfaction has rested with the response and the actual spending plans that your ministry put forward.

[3:30]

It seems to me, again, that they asked rather specifically what would be the new money and what would be the maintenance money, and you have referred me to a global budget which is no help at all, as far as my area is concerned.

I would like to make very clear — and I hope this is coming through from the other methods besides the method of hearing from the MLA — that spending on Highway 3 is one of the most urgent desires and demands of the people in my riding. Every municipal body in the area has made representations to you, Mr. Minister, for that kind of spending. They have also made fairly clear that it's been a long time since there's been any serious rehabilitation or maintenance and it's been a long time since there's been any of the work that they are suggesting of straightening curves, realignment, grading, changing widths, looking at particularly sharp corners, and those kinds of things. The statements from the people in the riding are extremely clear and extremely forceful as to the need for upgrading on Highway 3. I would hate to leave without saying, in the strongest terms, that the people in my riding expect that some work will be done and recognize that no matter what other highways and highway projects the minister may approve in my riding, upgrading on Highway 3 is extremely important to the welfare of the area, to the expansion of the tourism industry, and to the continuation of the use of the highways needed by the industry that is already there.

I would also like to ask the minister about the next project, which is Highway 43. As the minister knows, the Highway 43 proposal is not universally accepted inside the riding. There are some communities that don't want it and some that do. However, the position it's in is that an economic study was done and a former Minister of Highways made what was accepted to be a commitment to proceed with an environmental and social impact study once the local communities had done an economic cost-benefit study. We need to know whether the ministry is going to go ahead with that. If the very difficult decision is going to have to be made about whether the area itself wants the highway — divided as it is — the more information it has on which to base its decision the better off we will be.

I will first ask you whether the ministry has decided to proceed with an environmental and social impact study for the Highway 43 proposal as it now stands.

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the member that there will be considerable work on Highway 3 this fiscal year. There will be well in excess of rehabilitation work on over 100 kilometres of Highway 3.

Touching on Highway 43, I believe this is the highway that could possibly go through over to Alberta. I did have one meeting with the Hon. "Boomer" Adair, the minister of highways for the province of Alberta. Indeed, I was informing him that some of the mayors from that region who had previously met with me also wanted to meet with him so that we could get both British Columbia and Alberta involved in that proposal. We're awaiting a consensus of all the municipal leaders in that area, which doesn't really exist at this time. Some of them are very much for it, and some are against this highway link to Alberta.

MS. EDWARDS: May I ask in more specific detail what the minister of highways for Alberta said? Was he personally willing to pursue it if there were a consensus? Is he willing to look at it as a highway from the Fording Pass area rather than further north through the Kananaskis?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, he is, like myself, willing to look at it. As I recall our meeting, some of the people on the Alberta side had some environmental concerns — the sensitivity of the proposed route. Nevertheless, he is certainly willing to look at it.

MS. EDWARDS: Am I to understand as well that you will not consider doing an environmental/social impact study until such time as there is consensus among the southeastern communities?

HON. MR. VANT: If the transportation planning process identified that as a priority in the area,

[ Page 6845 ]

certainly we would take the next step, which would be an impact study.

MR. JONES: I'd like to raise with the minister a few transportation and highway items that affect my riding. As the minister might appreciate, I don't have a lot of provincial highways in my riding, so he can probably anticipate some of the concerns I might have. Actually, because Burnaby and North Burnaby are central to the lower mainland and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, decisions made in that jurisdiction strongly impact on my riding.

Although I'd like to talk about the Cassiar connector, the Hastings-Gaglardi connection and a few other areas, I'd like to back up for a minute and make a few comments on why we're facing the kind of problem that we are today. I think it's primarily because of decades of neglect, not just in highways and transportation but in the entire infrastructure of the lower mainland. If we look at a graph of highway projects in the area, we see that in recent decades there have been fewer and fewer major projects to alleviate transportation and traffic problems in the area that serves half the population of this province. Insufficient funds have been spent on highways, on spaces in post-secondary education, on keeping up with transit needs and on the basic infrastructure of other aspects such as water and bridges.

So as a province, we're trying to play catch-up as a result of those decades of neglect. I think the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) understands that. We have the Delcan study and "Freedom to Move," but I think that study is basically trying to address problems that we have perceived for these decades and to make up for the problems created by the province's lack of proper planning and investment in the area. It still goes on today, and I think there's a serious problem, partly because of a lack of cooperative regional planning and partly a result of lack of cooperation between the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and other ministries.

Let me give you an example. It's my understanding that by now there is a major purchaser for the Westwood Plateau property. This major property — I think it's something like seven times the size of the Expo lands — will be developed for some 4,000 or 5,000 housing units in that region east of my riding, on top of a 1,000-unit development in the area. There has been an ongoing process of expansion of the region. Clearly the province is interested in this kind of expansion; clearly the province has to respond to the kind of development needs that the region has; but there is a total lack of integration and cooperation to meet the infrastructure needs.

The Minister of Advanced Education is looking at spaces in the eastern part and is having Simon Fraser study that area, but at the same time we had to anticipate that these kinds of things were happening for years and years. I assume the Minister of Transportation and Highways has not been involved in this planning and has not recognized that the existing arteries connecting Port Moody and North Burnaby are already clogged to the hilt. The government, particularly the minister responsible for transit, has been looking at commuter rail and I think is now, after many years of the opposition pressing for it, serious about commuter rail.

There needs to be a coordinated approach of highways, transit and planning of major developments in the area. I think the regions have lost that opportunity for regional planning and the opportunity to really meet the livability requirements of the region. My involvement in North Burnaby has gone on for a number of years, and there have been major concerns expressed by the constituents there.

I served for five years on the traffic safety committee of the municipality of Burnaby. The one major concern that people had, because we are a connector between where people live and where people work — they live in the east and they work to the west of us — is that we are the traffic corridor for commuter transportation.

So the major thrust that I had in trying to represent North Burnaby on that committee was trying to get traffic off neighbourhood streets and onto Hastings Street. I want the minister to hear this, because central to the whole theme is getting the traffic off neighbourhood streets and onto the reasonable arterial of Hastings Street.

The history of the problems in Burnaby has been monumental in terms of upsetting local neighbourhoods whose needs for safety and a quiet neighbourhood are not being met because of the transportation lack that we have in this province, So we are looking to improvement. We are looking to commuter rail and improvement of the freeway, as the minister mentioned in his introduction. We are also looking to solve some of the other problems that are going to be impacted.

Let me raise the Cassiar connector, the intersection that the minister described as the most congested west of Toronto. I agree with that. There is one sticking point that I am sure the minister is aware of, and that is the question of the Cambridge overpass and the Skeena Tunnel.

Let me refer to a letter written by the deputy minister to a citizens' committee in North Burnaby. Keep in mind that the thrust from the constituents I am concerned with is getting commuter traffic off the neighbourhood streets. The response to this citizens' group from the ministry was suggesting that the "ministry had strong concerns that the closure of both the Cambridge overpass and the Skeena Tunnel would cause legitimate community access traffic to be concentrated on the Hastings corridor, in particular at the Hastings-Cassiar intersection."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

To me, that's the whole idea of the Cassiar connector, to make Hastings the major arterial, to get traffic onto Hastings Street, to make that traffic flow more smoothly. The deputy minister goes on to say: "I am concerned that closure of both the Cambridge and the Skeena will compromise travel along the Hastings corridor."

[ Page 6846 ]

Again, the thrust of the residents I am representing here is that we do just that: get that traffic onto Hastings Street, flowing smoothly through Cassiar and Hastings, and try to remove commuter traffic from neighbourhood streets in the area.

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. JONES: We are finding out. I believe the city has taken a position. We are concerned that, and I quote: "The Skeena Tunnel will be closed to public access." That quote comes from pages 57, 62, 84, 95, 119, 129, 147 and 236 of the Fenco-Lavalin report. I'm sure the minister is familiar with it; it was part of the terms of reference accepted by both the city and the provincial government, according to the Vancouver city manager's report of March 9, 1989.

The city manager's report accepts the idea of the closure of the Skeena Tunnel except for emergencies — and I expect the city does too, then. I think it's an appropriate compromise that in emergency situations emergency vehicles have access to the tunnel and the overpass, but that the tunnel and the overpass be closed and we not create a further east-west artery that will allow commuter traffic to travel from Vancouver through North Burnaby and neighbourhood streets and disrupt those streets as they have for many years. The tunnel and that overpass should be closed.

I assume there have been ongoing discussions between the ministry and the city of Vancouver. The minister suggests that construction will begin this winter, and that the Cassiar connector will be completed in 1991. I assume, then, that there has been a decision on the tunnel and the overpass, and I'd like to hear the minister's response to the need for closing the tunnel and overpass, and to get some appreciation of his understanding of the people living in the neighbourhoods of north Burnaby.

HON. MR. VANT: The hon. member for Burnaby North made several points. I certainly agree with the mayor of Coquitlam, Mayor Lou Sekora, regarding the Westwood Plateau developments. He, like you, is concerned that the transportation infrastructure be in place, because with that development, more and more people put more and more stress on the system. We plan to start this year, in conjunction with that, the Johnson-Mariner overhead that would connect Barnet Highway to the Dewdney Trunk Road; that is very important in that area. We also plan to start this year the connection from North Road to Gaglardi Way, along Broadway. I appreciate too that the hon. member for Burnaby North is very conscious of the other very worthwhile modes of transportation, such as commuter rail.

I'd like to say too that in terms of the regional transportation planning process, I as minister can't get to every meeting, because they are going on throughout the province, but my regional director of highways, Dave Cunliffe, and other ministry staff are usually present to render any assistance necessary.

And of course they have that firm foundation: even though it's not absolutely perfect, the Delcan study gives a pretty good base to take off from.

I appreciate that you also seem to recognize the definite need for this transportation planning process. In the lower mainland, short-term and long-term planning is critical, because we certainly have to make the right decisions at the right time and implement projects some of which take a long time to actually complete once you start construction. We have to proceed with careful planning and do things at the right time.

I understand that city council of Vancouver are on record as wanting the Skeena Tunnel closed. As I understand it, they would only want it to be opened for emergency purposes. I certainly agree with the hon. member opposite that we should keep traffic off neighbourhood streets. We should discourage commuters from taking off from commuter routes and trying to take shortcuts, because it leads to all kinds of problems and upsets quiet neighbourhoods in the city.

As you well know, we're determined to get on with the Cassiar connector, to at long last complete that last two-and-a-half-kilometre gap in the TransCanada Highway.

I thank the hon. member for Burnaby North for his concerns and comments, and they will be taken very seriously.

MR. JONES: The minister confirmed Vancouver's position as far as the Skeena Tunnel and the Cambridge overpass are concerned, but I'm still not clear on the minister's position. Before my question I read a letter from Mr. M.V. Collins, deputy minister, to the Vancouver Heights Citizens' Committee. The letter indicated that the ministry has strong concerns about the closure. The minister sounds very pleased about the Vancouver position, but the position of his own ministry, as indicated by his deputy minister, is strong concerns about the closure, for the ironic reason that it would force traffic onto Hastings. Well, that's the idea, Mr. Minister: to get the traffic off the neighbourhood streets and onto Hastings. What is your position, Mr. Minister, on the overpass and the tunnel?

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Chairman, my position is that we have very great concerns about the tunnel being closed, in regard to being able to open it up in case there is an emergency. That is our primary concern. We certainly support the city of Vancouver in.... I guess the correct terminology would be to partially close it. This would satisfy the neighbourhood. It would only be used in an emergency. As I understand it, if the tunnel was closed per se, then the only alternate route for, say, emergency vehicles would be through the PNE grounds. If there was some problem down at the docks or something, we would want to be assured of access through the tunnel.

[ Page 6847 ]

MR. JONES: I just want to ask the minister to clarify. If I hear him correctly, he's saying that he favours closure and the only problem he sees is that he wants to ensure access of emergency vehicles. If there can be a resolution to that problem of access for emergency vehicles, he would be quite satisfied with the closure.

HON. MR. VANT: No. There also has to be access out of that dock area in the event that there might have to be, say, an evacuation. We would only agree to what I guess you'd call a partial closure. We want to be assured that the tunnel could be opened if indeed there was an emergency,

MR. JONES: I think I understand the minister now. He's not opposed to closure. It's just the emergent situation he is concerned about, and he's looking for ways to resolve that situation so that it can be opened only in the case of an emergency. So there is light at the end of the tunnel.

I'd like to raise another question with the minister. It has to do with the Hastings-Gaglardi connector. I have here three letters, signed by the minister, on that question. I'm a little confused as to the minister's position, because it seems that in every letter he takes a different position.

The minister, in his letter to me last August, pointed out a little background, that the minister was aware that this was a concern of Burnaby in the seventies and that when the major street plan was drawn up which was adopted and accepted as part of Burnaby's official plan, we had a proposal to connect Gaglardi Way — named after that famous former Minister of Highways — to another provincial highway called Hastings Street. The minister points out in his letter to me of August 23: "However, that proposal to connect...did not receive provincial endorsement." I think the minister is clear on that. That was Burnaby's official plan, and although it was approved, that particular connection did not receive provincial endorsement. I appreciate the frankness and the candour of the minister in that statement.

In his next paragraph the minister goes on to point out something that was very upsetting to people in my constituency: "The ministry's position is that the traffic served by the Curtis-Parker corridor is mainly local to Burnaby." If the minister had looked at the traffic counts for Curtis-Parker, he would find something in the range of over 20,000 vehicles per day. I'm not sure of that figure, but I'm sure it's at least something like 20,000. I think the minister was clear in the first part of his letter but showed a real lack of understanding of the problem for those residents in his next statement.

He goes on to even further clarify his position as minister: "...this ministry has no intentions of building the Gaglardi-Hastings connector and will not support an application for funding assistance under the Revenue Sharing Act."

I have another letter dated roughly two weeks later, September 9, 1988, written to a constituent of mine, in which the minister takes quite a different tone. He points out to this constituent that his ministry is currently in the process of developing a long-term transportation plan which will determine and provide for the transportation needs of British Columbia into the 1990s: "...be complete by the middle of October, at which time my ministry will consult with various committees, regional districts and economic development regions with a view to establishing the priority of all proposed highway improvement programs throughout the province. The relative priority of the construction program for the Hastings-Gaglardi connector and the completion of the Barnet Highway from Port Moody westward will be determined through this process."

So two weeks earlier the minister was telling me that he will not support an application for funding assistance under the Revenue Sharing Act and has no intention of building the Hastings-Gaglardi connector, and then two weeks later he's telling a constituent that it's all part of the planning process and the priorities will be determined by that process. It seems to me that there's some confusion between those two letters two weeks apart. After sending a petition to the minister.... I'm not sure if I sent it to the minister or the Minister of State for Mainland–Southwest (Hon. Mr. Veitch). There were several hundred signatures on that petition. I got a response back just the other day, even though I sent the petition some time back.

The minister says again: "I understand that the road network currently being evaluated by the Greater Vancouver Regional District subcommittee on transportation includes the Hastings-Gaglardi link." We have three letters with three different responses; the first two being two weeks apart and diametrically opposed, and the third one a slight shade of the second.

I'd really appreciate clarification from the minister, because I think within a two-week period.... Maybe he was new to the job, and it was confusing to him, and he has had time to reflect on the Hastings-Gaglardi connector since. I'd be very interested in hearing whether he still believes that he has no intentions, or whether its priority is going to be determined by a local process.

[4:00]

HON. MR. VANT: At the time I wrote that first letter, it was not identified by myself or the ministry as an urgent priority. We have this necessary overview where we decided to go ahead with the upgrading to four lanes of North Road to Gaglardi Way along Broadway. If, however, the local transportation committee identifies the Hastings-Gaglardi connector as a priority, I would most certainly give it careful consideration.

MR. JONES: I suppose that's encouraging, given that the minister is willing to let the democratic process and the regional decision-making determine the relative priority of that small stretch of highway which would give important relief to a large number of constituents in my riding, and that he would be

[ Page 6848 ]

quite willing to back down from his earlier statement that he has no intentions of building the Gaglardi-Hastings connector.

I'm pleased to hear that. We await the work of the regional transportation committee, and hopefully they will recognize the priority of that project.

[Mr. Crandall in the chair.]

I have one further question to the minister, and then I'll pass on to a number of colleagues who also wish to ask questions of the minister. That has to do with the freeway, which the minister announced in his opening remarks would be upgraded, I assume, to three lanes each way between the Cassiar connector and the Port Mann Bridge. It seems to me that when that highway was constructed 20 to 25 years ago, it was planned to allow for that kind of expansion. The land has been purchased and graded. It certainly — although not necessarily a short stretch of highway — could be accomplished in reasonable time. The minister calls the Cassiar and Hastings corner the most congested corner west of Toronto. I call the freeway the longest parking-lot west of Toronto.

The minister indicated in his opening remarks that there would be preliminary engineering studies done on that highway within the next year. My guess is that — if I wanted to be completely political — I could just take the minister's statement verbatim, make a big sign and stick it in front of all those commuters stuck on the freeway morning and evening and get a very strong political response to that minister.

I'm wondering if the minister can elaborate a little bit at this point. My hope is that in that elaboration, I'll hear that the minister is interested in proceeding with a little more alacrity than he indicated in his opening remarks.

HON. MR. VANT: We are proceeding this year on conceptual design of the improvements necessary to the Burnaby freeway. That's a very valuable corridor. The hon. member is quite right. It was quite a number of years ago that the Social Credit government built the Burnaby freeway. We have to proceed to this conceptual design stage, because we have to make a very critical decision as to whether we would just add two more lanes — make it a six-lane — or if we would go a step further and make it an eight-lane freeway.

There are advantages to going to eight lanes, where we could have the centre two lanes for high utilization vehicles only during the rush hours. That's a very valuable transportation corridor. We want to make the very best decision and get the very best design possible for upgrading. We are working very hard on that this fiscal year. You are correct that in some sections you could easily add just one more lane. There are some bridges along that system even before you get to the Port Mann Bridge — some overpasses and so on. Once we get to the Port Mann Bridge we have to decide if we could tack a couple more lanes onto it, or whether it be better to twin the Port Mann, go the full eight lanes and have two four-lane bridges.

We have to make some very careful decisions. We have to be fully informed from an engineering and conceptual point of view to make that important decision. We will be stuck with whatever decision we do make for a long time to come.

MR. JONES: Certainly the decision is an important one. As the minister pointed out, his government has had 20 years to make that decision. Clearly the engineering studies have been done. My guess is that all the data is in to make that decision. What the minister is doing, by saying that it's a very complicated decision that has to be made, is stalling. I appreciate that the government has limited funds, and it can only do so much in one year. I would have appreciated a much more candid answer of that kind than your saying that we have complicated decisions to make.

What's going to happen on that freeway is that there's going to be one lane added each way. That's been in people's minds in Burnaby for a long time; it's been a long time coming. Whatever government does that — whether it's this government prior to the next election or an NDP government after the election — it is going to reflect very well on whoever puts forward those added lanes and resolves that tremendous bottleneck of traffic on the freeway.

MR. G. JANSSEN: First of all, I would like to apprise the minister of the progress of the proposed inland Island Highway: the link connector. That's one of the various names given to the proposed highway that is being undertaken and spearheaded by the economic and transportation committee of Alberni.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I believe the member for Cowichan–Malahat (Mr. Bruce) spoke on this issue last week and mentioned that we were going to have a cavalcade from Cumberland to Alberni and from Cowichan Lake to Alberni. In fact, that took place last Sunday, and 88 cars made the trip from Cumberland. I am sorry to say — I am sure he had reasons for not being there — that the member for Comox was unable to make that trip.

HON. S. HAGEN: I did it last year.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I did it last year also, Mr. Member.

The member for Cowichan–Malahat, however, did make the trip. There were 88 cars going from Cumberland to Port Alberni on that route, and I think 53 from Cowichan Lake to Alberni. We met at the Harbour Quay in Alberni. It shows support by the communities in those three valleys: the Cowichan Valley, the Alberni Valley and the Comox Valley. I am sure the minister is aware that it also had the support of every Vancouver Island municipality, regional

[ Page 6849 ]

district, labour council, and of everybody it was presented to.

The road was sought after as early as the 1920s, and nothing has been done. I know that four-laning the Island Highway is a priority with the Ministry of Highways. So it should be; we have no qualms about that. However, when the transportation hearings were held on Vancouver Island, there was interest expressed in making that a priority. Seeing as it has the support of many of the communities on Vancouver Island, I hope the minister does make it a priority.

When the groups met on Sunday in Alberni, there was a contest to name that road — to give it a name so that we knew, and the ministry would be aware, that a road with a name had a better chance of being referred to by the ministry than one without. The name chosen was the Three Valley Link road. I want to make sure that the minister is aware that that is the name of the road, and I would also like to present him at this time with a hat that was specially made up — "Valley Link" - that he can wear, so he doesn't become the missing link when we talk about this road.

Mr. Minister, I hope you wear this. When you get up in the morning and look in the mirror — and have this hat on, hopefully — it will remind you of the priority that the Port Alberni region — and I'm sure the other two regions, Cowichan and Comox — have placed on this road, and you do not become the missing link.

I'd also like to ask the minister just a few short questions about areas of concern to Alberni and to the Island. I think that at the time the report was issued to the ministry, an engineer was appointed to help study the feasibility of this road. Could he advise me of the progress that that person is making?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes. Both Neville Hope, my regional director, and Mr. Richard James have been instructed to have a look at what you refer to as the three-valley link. I'm awaiting the results of their assessment and their work. They still have not reported back to me. But I am certainly aware of the annual cavalcades now, and indeed I have looked over the route between Alberni and Cowichan Lake. Currently, of course, a big part of both those roads and the one over to Cumberland is under the Forest Service; they are forest development resource-use industrial roads.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I hope that when the next cavalcade takes place, you will be able to join us on that trip.

As the minister is undoubtedly aware, I live in the member for Comox's (Hon. S. Hagen's) riding, and I see a lot of progress happening on the roadwork in that member's riding. I wonder if he could advise me as to what the costs are of four-laning, or perhaps five-laning, the section through Parksville and the work that's being done on the entrance to Courtenay.

HON. MR. VANT: That is a very specific question. In just a few seconds my staff will have the cost of those two particular projects.

I've been informed that for the two of them it's approximately $8 million.

[4:15]

MR. G. JANSSEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The reason for the question is that we, of course, saw announced in the budget a $30 million project for four-laning of the Island Highway, and I wanted to relate that to the $8 million being spent in the Comox riding for the much-needed work and the bottleneck faced in the Parksville and Courtenay areas. I congratulate the minister from Comox for securing those contracts. I wish I had the same influence in the Alberni riding. I am sure it would ensure my re-election.

I would like to ask the minister: is the $8 million part of the $30 million that was promised for four-laning the Island Highway over the next period of time? If it is not, could he apprise me as to what sections of the highway will be receiving that $30 million?

HON. MR. VANT: I can assure the hon. member for Alberni that none of that $8 million was part of the $30 million allotment for the Island Highway. Actually, a good portion of that $30 million is for every portion of the Island Highway. A lot of it is for right-of-way acquisition, engineering, acquiring proper alignment, soil testing, and doing environmental and social impact studies, as we very carefully reach the stage later this year where we actually commence construction.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Will there be any four-laning of the Island Highway this year, and at what part will that take place?

HON. MR. VANT: We've actually already released the construction schedule for the Island Highway. I'm not too sure, though, of the hon. member's question; whether he's talking about the new highway or the existing highway. We're doing work on various parts of the old highway and, as well, we'll be commencing with sections of the new.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Which part of the Island Highway, new or old, will go from two-lane to four-lane this year?

HON. MR. VANT: Those portions where we start construction will be four-laned.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister obviously has trouble with his answers.

The Island Highway is condoned by everybody on the Island, and the four-laning is in fact a priority item. Highway 4 into Alberni passes through part of the Comox constituency, and where it enters the Alberni constituency it goes over an area of highway known as the hump, some of which is two-lane and

[ Page 6850 ]

some three-lane. In the summertime, some 500,000 or 600,000 tourists drive over that highway to Pacific Rim National Park, and a great number of bottlenecks occur on that hump section. Motor homes, campers and vehicles pulling boats come to take advantage of the excellent fishing in the Alberni Canal.

Counting in both directions, there are only 6.1 kilometres of three-laning left to be done to make that entire hump section over the mountain into a three-lane highway. I've been driving that highway for 20 years, and I know that a number of surveys have been done — I think there's been one every year — on making that hump section three-lane. Is there any proposal to actually complete the very short distance of 6.1 kilometres and make the entire mountain area three lanes from one side to the other?

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, I thank the hon. member for the lovely red and white "Valley Link" hat. Also, I would be very happy to make this Vancouver Island Highway construction schedule available to the member if he doesn't already have it; I thought it was widely circulated. For sure I'll send one to his office.

Naturally he is concerned about Highway 4 which runs from Parksville over this hump down to Alberni. It will be very interesting if the transportation committee under the very able chairmanship of Mayor Gillian Trumper identifies the addition of a lane to that hump as indeed a priority for the area. Certainly the MLA seems to indicate that it's a priority, so I'll carefully consider it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm surprised that the minister is calling it a highway, because given the condition it's in and the amount of lanes on it, it hardly deserves that designation. Most people prefer to call it a road. A highway, I thought, was something that you drove on safely and at a consistent rate of speed. Even if that road from Port Alberni to Long Beach can't be called a highway, as I just mentioned, 500,000 or 600,000 visitors per year take it to visit the wonderful Long Beach area, and I hope that number will be the same this year despite the disastrous oil spill that took place there.

There are still a number of very narrow two-lane areas on that road. Most of it is two-lane except for a very short four-lane portion in the centre. Logging trucks, motor homes, boats, trailers and so forth use that road, and the original wooden logging bridges are still in place there. Last year the Canoe Creek bridge, which in fact had nails sticking out of it and pieces of plywood nailed over the holes, was replaced with yet another wooden bridge. Could the minister and his ministry consider making that highway a little safer for the travelling public by making the road a bit wider and replacing the wooden bridges with concrete bridges?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm surprised somebody from the Alberni Valley is against the construction of things out of wood. He talks about this hump as though.... I've actually driven over that highway, and it's nothing. It's a mouse hill compared to the hill in my constituency down to the Bella Coola Valley, for example. I'm envious too of the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) because about 75 percent of the public roads in his constituency are paved. Wow!

Anyway, certainly his observations and suggestions will be considered in due course in the context of our transportation planning process.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Minister. However, even if you call it a molehill, I apprised you earlier of the 500,000 or 600,000 visitors per year who drive over that hump, and I doubt if that many people actually go to Bella Coola. If they did, I am sure you would have paved the road by now.

However, a final question to the minister regarding the inspection stations for motor vehicles that have been promised for so long. I wonder if his ministry is making any efforts to see, either through private or public inspections, that vehicles travelling on the highways in British Columbia do meet a standard.

HON. MR. VANT: I realize that the hon. member for Alberni is fairly new to the House. I would just inform him that motor vehicle inspections come under the Ministry of Solicitor-General.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I know I am new, and hopefully I bring some new ideas to a tired old side of the House opposite.

I think the Ministry of Transportation and Highways should be making every effort to see that the other ministries involved do comply and to make sure that safe vehicles use the highways that he is responsible for.

HON. MR. VANT: I am in frequent contact with my colleague the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) in that regard.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I thought my turn would never come.

I want to canvass briefly with the minister some critical transportation issues in my constituency. I promised my colleagues no more than ten minutes, and if the minister would respond with one-word answers that begin with "y," we can get this out of here pretty quickly.

First of all, I want to tell the minister I appreciate the funding that has come from ATAP, $75,000 for the study of helipads in the remote communities in my constituency. It's a natural move in terms of the establishment in Prince Rupert of the Medivac helicopter by your colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). It really makes sense, and I hope the study will show that we can establish helipads. That is an ongoing project.

I guess almost every community in British Columbia at one time or another gets into the question of a bypass. Prince Rupert is unique in the sense that it is the end of the road, but we do have a very dangerous

[ Page 6851 ]

condition in the community: the increasing traffic going to the port. And it is increasing; the port is currently spending $40 million on expansion, and we expect that it will lead to much more traffic. We have trucks carrying lumber, ore and sulphur going down through the middle of Prince Rupert because the highway goes down and takes a sharp turn at the end of McBride, which is the Yellowhead Highway, then down 2nd and on to Park Avenue.

I personally witnessed a lumber truck spilling its load just over the McBride Street bridge. I don't want to be alarmist, but it was, I believe.... I was coming home from work, so it would have been about a quarter to five. Had that load been spilled at a time when the high school students were getting out — they all come across that corner — students would have been killed; there is no question in my mind. That is not the only incident. We have had loads spilled at the Five Corners intersection, which is a very tough intersection farther down through the community.

Would the minister please comment on what specific plans the ministry has for a bypass. I know much of the design work was done many years ago. Possibly it needs updating. I would appreciate it if the minister could indicate if there is any tentative schedule to commence work on the bypass.

Secondly, we have now had an offer, after years and years of trying to improve transportation to the airport.... Believe me, that is a bottleneck. With that bottleneck removed somewhat, economically we could do a heck of a lot better. Just as an illustration, there have been discussions with the airport in Bellingham about the shipment of fresh-caught seafood directly from Prince Rupert into markets in the United States. It's the kind of initiative I believe the government has said they are interested in promoting.

[4:30]

We have a tremendous bottleneck in terms of the airport. The city is required to run the ferry. That was an old agreement that they entered into in order to get an airport in Prince Rupert. There is a letter — and I can give a copy to the minister if he likes — from the federal Minister of Transport authorizing the expenditure of up to $2 million for relocation of the ferry dock and the road on Digby Island. I believe we are looking at possibly about a $5 million bill to do the complete move. It would allow the ferry to be run on probably a five-minute run. I am sure that it would open up portions of Digby Island to residential development, thereby increasing the use of the ferry and thus lowering the operating costs. I would ask the minister to give consideration to the provincial government's coming in on a cost-sharing basis to solve that transportation bottleneck problem in my community.

I canvassed with the minister previously the ice fall where a Rupert resident was killed by a huge chunk of ice coming off a very dangerous, treacherous corner. I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to view it personally. Perhaps his officials have. They can certainly describe accurately the dangers of that corner. The rock bluff comes out in a big curve and overhangs the highway. Water is constantly dripping down, and of course, during the winter months there's the danger of ice. I see that a coroner's inquest has just recommended that the bluff be removed. I would ask the minister to give consideration to giving that priority, for the safety of the travelling public on that highway.

Finally, I just wanted to canvass the minister about the issues that now will go through the regional transportation committee. I have confidence that the committee will make intelligent decisions about transportation needs in the region and will forward them on. At the same time, would the minister advise us what the procedure is for urgent matters, speaking particularly of Five Corners? Perhaps some agreement has been reached on doing some work on that section. If an emergent situation arises, is it still required to go through this transportation committee and wait for meetings and all that, or is the minister prepared to operate independently to meet the needs, particularly where safety of the residents is concerned, not just in my constituency but right around the province?

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, I'm glad that the member for Prince Rupert is aware of the good work of my air transport assistance program. Not only are we willing to assist with these helipads along the coast and remote areas of the province, but we have expended considerable funds to improve the Masset airport on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and we're willing to continue with the improvement of that very vital and important airport.

We have currently identified a tentative bypass route in the Prince Rupert area. It would be very interesting to see if in the northwest region of the province that bypass is identified as a priority.

Your suggestion about cost-sharing on the new arrangements regarding Digby Island and the ferry dock and road thereon, certainly we would entertain an arrangement with the federal government. We might try to do a bit of a trade-off. If they're willing to assist with the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway — I'm thinking of the Cassiar connector — we would be willing to enter into cost-sharing on other very worthwhile projects.

We were very concerned, as I said to the hon. member — or maybe he's forgotten — the other day when he mentioned this ice fall. I understand that the person killed was personally known to the member. We will certainly consider the removal of that rock bluff, as he suggested.

I thank the member for raising his concerns; I have taken note of them. Your input is very important to me.

MR. MILLER: I was just going to remind the minister of one other issue that I brought up, which was the situation in an emergency. Is it still required that the regional transportation committee be used as the vehicle to get action on such situations, or is the ministry prepared to deal directly with municipali-

[ Page 6852 ]

ties — specifically, in my community, an area known as Five Corners, where five streets come together? It used to have one of those old-fashioned roundabouts that the British seem to handle but Canadians can't.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We used to have one here, too.

MR. MILLER: That's right. The Minister of Social Services and Housing points out that we had one in Victoria.

The biggest complicating factor, Mr. Minister, is that these transport trucks I referred to have to make a left turn at that intersection. I've had my heart in my mouth when I've seen those little kids out there. The crosswalks are extremely long, and you can imagine the difficulty of trying to get traffic from five separate streets channelled across that intersection.

In those kinds of situations — I have no idea of the cost, either — do we have to go through...? Not to suggest that everybody in the regional transportation committee is a bureaucrat, but do we have to go through the bureaucracy of a regional transportation committee, or is the ministry prepared to deal directly with municipalities?

HON. MR. VANT: I perceive that instance as a purely local issue, and certainly we're prepared as a ministry to deal directly with it. I can assure the hon member that in terms of regional transportation committees, there are very few bureaucrats on them.

MR. MILLER: I didn't say there were.

HON. MR. VANT: I had that bit of inference. They are people suggested sometimes by local or regional politicians. Some of them have a major stake in our transportation systems, and we value their advice on setting regional short-term and long-term priorities.

As I said, on any local issue the direct approach to my ministry is always most welcome.

MR. D'ARCY:. I understand that one of the objectives to come through the regional transportation discussions is a five-year plan. I'll bet the minister and his associates didn't have the idea that the five-year plan would initially be the 1989 Transportation and Highways estimates getting through the House here. I have to appreciate the fact that the minister and his people have shown a great deal of patience with members from both sides of the House in getting their concerns on the record here and passing them on to the minister.

I'm not going to go through all of the concerns we have in Rossland–Trail. I have already made those quite clear at the regional transportation hearing that was held in Castlegar. I included a number of items which are of a transportation nature but aren't actually under this particular ministry — perhaps they should be, but they're not.

However, starting with "a," I'll begin with airports. In my constituency I have two airport concerns. One is the microwave landing system and night-landing facilities at the Castlegar airport. Although aircraft reliability has improved immeasurably in recent years due to the use of sensible aircraft instead of 737 jets by the airline companies, the fact is that in difficult weather conditions we have a major problem there. It is a regional airport. The name of the airport is "Castlegar Airport," but it is in fact the regional airport for the West Kootenays. That's an issue that we are concerned about. I know there's a federal component; however, I think the provincial ministry should be concerned about it, and certainly the transportation committee has earmarked that.

The second airport matter I am concerned about is simply the paving of a runway extension at the Trail Municipal Airport at Columbia Gardens. While there are no scheduled aircraft normally using this airport, it is an alternative airport and has been used by Air B.C. and Time Air when it is open and the Castlegar Airport is not. Perhaps more importantly, that airport is closer to the Trail Regional Hospital than the Castlegar Airport is. From the point of view of air ambulance services — both for the delivery of seriously injured or ill patients, as well as the evacuation from that regional referral centre — I think it's very important that the ministry proceed with extending that runway so that both provincially operated and chartered air ambulances can use that particular strip.

By the way, the ministry has already done a cost study and an engineering estimate; this was done during the tenure of the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) when he was Minister of Highways, and we're still hoping for financial assistance for that — primarily for the safety of the public using air ambulances.

No discussion of Rossland–Trail transportation and highways would be complete without a request for immediate action on the West Trail approach. This is a project which has been promised by Highways ministers going back to the 1960s, through four different premiers and at least that many highways ministers.

I would point out that this was a promise of the current Premier, once again, during the 1986 election campaign. Since then it has been promised to the city council and some work has been done, particularly on the culvert, and the advance signs have been raised to raise public expectations that a major project will take place. There is a project manager in the area. It is tremendously important to the community, as well as to the economic health of the area, that this project be recommenced — because it's over a third done now — and carried to its completion as soon as possible.

This has been canvassed before in the House, but the fact is that of Highway 22 between Trail and Castlegar, 19 miles of it is first-class 1980s highway and the last mile, and the most heavily used, is 1920s standard. It was built in the 1920s. We are getting increasingly like the man from Missouri: you're going to have to show us, and we would very much like to be shown.

[ Page 6853 ]

I have a general comment, with a particular reference to the Pass Creek Road and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The well-known roads are the numbered highways; I guess they're the glamour roads. But some of the most heavily used and most in demand of upgrading are what I think the ministry often would call "townsite roads" or unnumbered highways.

The Pass Creek Road is in terribly substandard condition not only for the weight of traffic on it but also for the numbers of vehicles on it. I know the regional district people have raised this question, parents have raised the question and the school district has raised it with the ministry and with myself over a number of years. Property acquisition, like the West Trail approach, was done at least five or six years ago. There has been an entire secondary industry of survey parties created for doing location surveys. The ministry had intended it as a day-labour project, but it's incredibly important that it become a contract project and be carried out as soon as possible. The existing road was essentially inadequate before it was paved over. It used to be impassable in spring breakup, and it still gets nearly impassable because of the patching that is constantly needed on it. But the biggest problem is the alignment and the narrowness of it relative to the amount of traffic.

[4:45]

I hope that survey and location work will continue to be done on a proposed route that the local people are concerned about, a connection to Highway 6 at Fauquier, from the Castlegar, Syringa Creek area. It's tremendously important that the southwest Kootenays have direct access to the Monashee Highway, and ultimately through that route to the Coquihalla. Certainly with the enormous public expenditure which we have seen and are still seeing on the Coquihalla and the route by Peachland into Kelowna, it's tremendously important that people from the southeastern interior have relatively direct access to that, as well as to those major cities of Vernon and Kelowna on the north Okanagan. This connector is very important, and I know that many local people have already spoken to the ministry on it.

I can't let these estimates go by without making a quick reference to the Castlegar-Robson ferry. I'm not going to canvass all the issues; the minister and his deputies are very familiar with them. However, the government has taken the position that as long as there's some question of its operation being before the courts, it will take no action. I'm not going to bicker about that in the chamber here, even though I think it's a somewhat specious position. But I would like a reassurance from the minister that when and if that aspect is resolved, he will be prepared to re-establish that ferry on some basis. I'm not going to ask him to pin himself down as to what basis, but it's my understanding from a number of local people that they have submitted bids to operate that ferry, and I would like an assurance from the minister, on behalf of the general public, the school district and industry in my area, that the ferry will at some point be re-established on some basis. We'll get down to the details of what basis, if we can get a commitment that it will at some point be operated.

I've got to put in a quick plea. This goes back to something that you were talking about, Mr. Chairman, a hundred years ago when we first started these estimates: the question of railways. I am really concerned about the tendency of both the railways and industry to take loads off the railways and put them on highways. Once they're off the railways — I think you referred to this — it's very difficult to get them back; but the wear and tear is on the highway. We have seen a deliberate depletion, in my view, of the loading on the Midway-to-Castlegar route of the CPR with the abandonment of the chip haul by the Canadian Pacific Railway. We are continually concerned about the health of the car loadings on the Burlington Northern through Salmo and Fruitvale. It's tremendously important that the enormous number of loadings — nowadays, 100 to 150 tonnes each — now on the railways be kept there, because once they move off the railway, the impact on the highway is going to be absolutely enormous, and in some cases it already is.

This leads me to the general condition of the highways. I alluded to this during the budget debate. The condition of highway surfacing in the southern interior is absolutely atrocious; it's outrageous. I know the ministry considers this as capital work; the public considers it normal maintenance. Whether you call it capital projects or maintenance projects, it's enormously important that Highway 3, particularly, but also many of the other highways have their surfaces renewed, because they're in terrible condition. This is not just in the southeastern part of the province but also on the Anarchist Mountain section — Rock Creek, Osoyoos and particularly the eastern section of the Hope-Princeton Highway, which is still in its 1948 condition, or worse, both in terms of alignment and paving. It certainly needs to be looked at.

Those are only the worst examples. The surface of the highways — the whole highway plant — in the southern part of the province is in terrible condition, except for those that have been resurfaced in the last few years.

With those items put before the minister, I'm wondering if he would give me at least an update on them. I thank you for allowing me to share my concerns with you.

HON. MR. VANT: I appreciate the detailed list of concerns of the member for Rossland–Trail. I can assure him that they've been duly noted. I would be very happy if the Castlegar airport had runway lights so that at least you could take off at dusk. I recall visiting that area once, and the aircraft left without me because he had to stick to the visual flight rules. You can't even take off in the dark there without lights. You've also suggested a microwave system. I don't know if the ministry currently has an application from Trail Municipal Airport, but certainly we would consider it if they did want some funding to

[ Page 6854 ]

add to their runway as an alternate airport in case Castlegar is closed.

I can assure the hon. member that we have budgeted funds both this year and next year — a total of somewhere around $9 million — towards the West Trail approach. The project is very complex in that they have to move some of the utility lines for Cominco, but I understand it is progressing. You may be from Missouri but you will see some real substance in terms of that project going ahead. It makes a lot of sense to consider connections to that great Coquihalla Highway so that more and more people in the province can benefit.

I cannot commit myself to restoring the ferry operation at Castlegar on some basis at this time.

I share your concern about movement from rail to road, hon. member. You certainly gave some very good reasons for continued opposition to that trend.

I want to assure you, as I have two other members who are concerned about Highway 3, that considerable work will be done on Highway 3 this year. We intend to do major rehabilitation to in excess of 100 kilometres of that highway. You mentioned that parts of the highway are in 1948 condition. Does that mean some sections of Highway 3 have no pavement whatsoever? As I understand it, it wasn't until 1952 that any roads were paved beyond Hope towards the interior in this great province of ours.

MR. D'ARCY: I was making specific reference to the Hope-Princeton Highway and those sections which have not been upgraded, particularly the section between Similkameen Falls and Whipsaw Creek, which, apart from the hill by the Newmont mine and some three-laning, are essentially in the same condition as when that highway opened over 40 years ago.

In any event, I really want to be more specific with my riding. I thank the minister for his answers. I'm very disappointed to hear his noncommittal remarks relative to the ferry, and I remind him once again that when it was arbitrarily shut down by the government, nearly one million people and half a million vehicles were using this ferry per year, even though its operation was only 16 hours a day - when it ran It had operational problems due to mechanics as well as to low water in the river. In any event, we won't carry on with that.

I wonder if the minister could give me a quick answer on the question of the regional highways concern about the Pass Creek Road. I think this is tremendously important, whether it's done through the regional budget on a day-labour basis or whether it's a contract. I want to emphasize that the preparatory work was done years ago. Bits and pieces get done: $100,000 here, a little bit there, half a mile here. At the rate we're going, it will take another generation at least to get rid of just the most dangerous sections. It is necessary, from the point of view of use and population growth in the area, that the road be brought up to proper safety standards.

HON. MR. VANT: I did take a note here of the Pass Creek Road. I want to assure the member for Rossland–Trail that currently there is our regular upgrading program. But the hon. member seems to want to identify this as a priority in that area, and I've certainly taken note of it.

MR. BARLEE: Yesterday I alluded to several things about the general condition of the Hope Princeton and Highway 3, and I would like to go from the general to the specific. First of all, I think this side of the House has generally conceded that the minister has answered most questions rather completely and been very patient. I congratulate you and your staff, which is rather rare from this side of the House. But I am concerned about a few things.

The Delcan study does mention that some sections of the Hope-Princeton are very accident prone. The member for Rossland–Trail alluded to two of these sections: certainly Similkameen Falls or the Similkameen Canyon; Whipsaw Creek, which has been potentially an extremely dangerous section of that highway for many years, as you're quite aware; the Bluffs, of course — and I noticed, by the way, that some cosmetic work was being done on the Bluffs when I came by a couple of days ago; and the last section is Copper Creek. I would like to ask the minister whether in that 100 kilometres of work one of those four obstacles is going to be made into a reasonable highway section. They should be done one at a time. I do not expect — nor do people in the area expect — all four of those obstacles to be eradicated. Is the ministry contemplating fixing up either Whipsaw, the Similkameen Canyon, the Bluffs or Copper Creek in the next year or two?

HON. MR. VANT: I want to emphasize that major rehabilitation of Highway 3 is largely repaving. Any major or minor capital construction work that we would do on those four areas of particular concern would be in addition to that rehabilitation work.

The hon. member for Yale–Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), currently the Chairman, certainly has offered a lot of advice, particularly regarding Whipsaw Creek. We welcome local input regarding the best solution to solving some of those longstanding problems.

I have taken note of those four areas that you have mentioned, and I would be very surprised if those weren't identified by the regional transportation committee as well. I know that you have attended some of those meetings. They probably will end up being fairly short-term priorities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The opposition House Leader. I'm sorry; the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you for the promotion, and I'll be in line to collect my pay tomorrow. I guess I won't be now. Actually I'll forgo the pay and just take the office.

[ Page 6855 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member can proceed on vote 72.

[5:00]

MR. SIHOTA: These are important matters of state, Mr. Chairman.

I want to raise again the matter of ferry construction. I heard the debate yesterday between the minister and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). I want to clarify a couple of matters. I want an ironclad assurance from the government with respect to ferry construction. This is very important in my riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, where we have the largest shipbuilding facility on the west coast, and a lot of jobs that depend on shipbuilding.

With the announcement by the federal government of the deferral of the Polar 8 contract, there is a fair bit of anguish in terms of making sure there is going to be ongoing work. Ideally the provincial government should have expressed forthwith its concern to the federal government about deferral of the project. It's my understanding that even to this date, no communication has been sent by the province to the federal government saying that the project should proceed now.

Be that as it may — because we are dealing with the minister's budget — it would be of benefit to people in my riding if the government were able to make some announcement with respect to the acceleration of its ferry contract work. It seems to me that the policy of government ought to be an ongoing plan of ferry renewal over a ten- or 15-year period, so that we know exactly what can be expected in terms of work in our shipyards. If there were an ongoing schedule of work and replacement — not only the ferries but things like the Polar 8, frigates, minesweepers and other vessels along those lines — you would have the continuity and stability of employment that we so sadly lack in our shipbuilding industry. It would also serve to keep us away from the boom and bust cycles that we have seen in the shipbuilding industry.

As my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned the other day, the B.C. Ferries people, I believe, dispatched a number of individuals to Europe to take a look at the operations in Scandinavian countries. The construction of the chunnel between England and France is obviously going to put a number of vessels out of commission. I want an assurance from the minister that the purpose of the trip there was not to seek the possibility of securing vessels from Scandinavian countries to come over here to fulfil our fleet requirements for ferries.

I'll bundle all my questions as one so that the minister can respond to all of them.

In terms of superferries, I would like to know from the minister whether instead of going to the large vessels, which the government is contemplating right now, would we not be better off having smaller vessels running more frequently between Vancouver and Victoria, between Nanaimo and Vancouver and in other parts of the province? It strikes me that if we were to work on the class C ferries which we have right now, build smaller and quicker ferries and run them more frequently, we would do a better job in terms of establishing the type of linkages required between Vancouver and Victoria that are lacking now. I would suggest to the government that: (1) it ought to have an ongoing schedule of ferry work; and (2) it ought to be constructing smaller vessels to serve the main lines between Vancouver and Victoria, instead of moving to larger vessels. I would like a response from the minister on that.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Next I would like an assurance from the minister — he may have given it the other day, and I may have missed it — that construction of the new vessels from beginning to end, from design to completion, will occur here in British Columbia. I notice that in the correspondence that has now become public between the minister and his officials, there's some suggestion that Versatile may not be around. I find that difficult to believe, but I'm wondering if the government has some information at its disposal in terms of Versatile which I do not have. Is there anything there that would lead you to believe that Versatile is experiencing financial difficulties?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Members opposite are worried about a child who's crying up in the gallery. The child was squealing with delight over the questions I was asking and was most desirous of knowing the answer. I'm just glad to say that it's not my daughter. However, a number of other acquaintances of mine whom I'm pleased to see are in the gallery.

With that I would like to ask the minister for the courtesy of a response to those four or five alternatives I've outlined which would serve to generate employment in our shipyard facilities on an ongoing basis, to provide for acceleration of B.C. Ferries, to assure us that no acquisitions will be made offshore, and to let us in on any information you have on Versatile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps before we do that I would ask that the member for Boundary–Similkameen take an opportunity to read Sir Erskine May's nineteenth edition, page 434.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to speak on the minister's estimates. I must say that we in Vancouver–Little Mountain have no problems with the Ministry of Highways as far as government roads are concerned. They're all smooth; there are no potholes in them.

Unfortunately, as you know, we don't have any government highways in Little Mountain, but I want to express to the minister my appreciation, and that of many of the constituents of Little Mountain, in regard to B.C. Ferries — particularly those seniors who are allowed the use of the ferries with their Pharmacare pass from Tuesday to Friday; also, in the

[ Page 6856 ]

area of the mobility-impaired passenger, those with physical disabilities. The crews of the ships and those at the ferry terminals go out of their way to ensure that those persons are adequately parked on the ferry to access the elevators. It is a very good system. It's unique, from what other disabled travelers have told me. Our system in British Columbia is excellent in that area.

When the new ships are built, will we from the disabled organizations be allowed to have input into the design of them so that the ever-increasing number of disabled travelers, particularly the tourists, will have access similar to what we have on the existing fleet, and more access on the new boats?

HON. MR. VANT: I appreciate the bouquets from the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

We are always very happy to look after the senior citizens, and we take particular care in access to our vessels and services for the disabled. We want to make sure that their concerns are adequately addressed when we finalize the design of our new ferries. We value the consultation that has taken place in the past and look forward to a very cordial relationship in the future with the disabled community in that regard.

Now to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I really wish that he was consistent in his empathy for the workers of this province. He consistently expresses genuine concern for the shipbuilders; I wish that he would also have had concern, especially in the past, for the roadbuilders of this province. During the recession many roadbuilders had work on the great Coquihalla Highway. It's very interesting, isn't it, that when he gets into his own constituency, boy, he wants us to accelerate and fast-track for the benefit of his constituents.

Also, I want to emphasize, regarding Wartsila, that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) expressed concern not only about the trip to Scandinavia but that somehow there was a connection with this foreign shipbuilding and ship-design firm. Wartsila is certainly a very well-known Finnish shipbuilding company. They've built cruise ships. They've even built nuclear icebreakers for the Soviet Union, and they've made many other world-renowned ships. They have a worldwide reputation. Their Vancouver office was established many years ago, not just for the design of the Polar 8. They were involved in designing drilling rigs, floating rigs, for the Beaufort Sea quite some time ago. They've done work for the Canadian Coast Guard and local shippers in and around the Vancouver area. They've even done work for companies that I'm very envious of, such as Marine Atlantic, located on the east coast.

Wartsila Marine has established an office in Vancouver and staffed it with British Columbians. Therefore their operation here is really only just an arm of the corporate body located in Finland.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT: Also they have partnered themselves — and I'm getting closer and closer to your constituency, Mr. Member — with SHM Marine International Inc. here in Victoria, which has been doing work for B.C. Ferries for many, many years.

When you're concerned about foreign shipbuilders or designers, it was in 1974, during that brief period the socialists were in power, that they hired that foreign American firm, Nickum and Spaulding of Seattle, to do design work on some of the ferries at that time. Even though the Versatile group of the shipbuilding firm may possibly change hands in the near future to the Shieldings group, I have every confidence that the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia will be able to fill the orders of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation.

We have to complete the design stage and then progress to the working drawings before we can call for the tenders. As that process proceeds, we will eventually get to the building stage which you so anxiously seek.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 72 pass?

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like an answer to my question. When we talked about acceleration....

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with the job.

MR. SIHOTA: If you would just settle down, we might get this finished, but if you want to sit there and heckle all the way....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) come to order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your assistance in holding those people at bay while I ask my question.

I'd like to ask the minister: is he saying that he is not prepared to accelerate the construction of these vessels in light of the difficulties caused by the Polar 8? Is he not prepared to give us an assurance that the reason for the trip overseas was to acquire vessels from over there to bring over here? Is he not prepared to comment on the matter of smaller vessels being preferable to larger vessels in terms of transporting people between Vancouver and Victoria and Nanaimo and Vancouver? Is he not prepared to give us a categorical assurance — an assurance without any hesitation — that all the work will take place here, provided that there are shipyards available to do the work, in British Columbia; with that proviso? I think that's a fair enough proviso.

I don't have any problem with the government accelerating its construction, so long as it does it within budget. Where it failed on the Coquihalla, of course, is that it failed to do it within budget and that ended up costing the taxpayer more than it should have. It's now, I'm sure, within the capability of this

[ Page 6857 ]

minister to be able to make sure these projects get built an budget. I have enough confidence in the minister that that will happen, and I am sure he does in his own skills as well. I would just like answers for those four or five questions from the minister, briefly. I don't require any lengthy response, but I want an answer.

[5:15]

HON. MR. VANT: I want to assure him that we're on a fairly tight frame right now in terms of our plans to build new ferries. We plan to start construction next year. You have to realize that within a matter of days we'll be finalizing exactly who will be doing the design work in terms of the design proposals. They'll be carefully considered, and then we can get on to the working drawing stage. It's not until those actual working drawings are completed that we can call for tenders.

For sure we want to build superferries, because we want to build efficient ships. It's much cheaper to operate one larger ship than two smaller ones. When we study the volume of traffic using our ferry system, it's steadily going up. We have reached close to 18 million people. So this is a very important part of our carefully laid plans. I can assure the member that we have no offshore purchase plans. It is this government's policy to preferably build the ships right here in British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take much time; I know the government members are anxious.

Staying on the ferry issue, I have brought up the parking problems at Swartz Bay a number of times in these estimates. I don't think my colleague has brought that.... Did you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I brought it up last year.

MR. BLENCOE: You brought it up last year. Yes, I did too.

It has been announced that there are going to be some improvements in parking at Swartz Bay for people who are not using the ferry for their automobiles. I constantly get — as I am sure other MLAs in the capital region do — letters from people who are forced to park illegally, because there is just not adequate parking there. There have been all sorts of questions about not even being able to get into the lots because there is no one in attendance. They can see empty spots and can't park.

What are we doing about long-term parking at Swartz Bay? Do we have plans to build multi-storey parking out there? We are trying to encourage people not to use their cars, to just ride and use other transportation on the other side. Can the minister tell us what the long-range plans are for Swartz Bay?

HON. MR. VANT: I should ask the second member for Victoria if he has been out to the ferry terminal recently. Through readjustment of the parking at the Swartz Bay terminal, we have already created 120 new parking spaces, and we continue to look at further improvements within the existing facility. Certainly modifications will be required to accommodate the proposed new superferry. We will be upgrading the ferry terminal, and as we do that we will certainly have additional parking in mind.

During long weekends especially, we get into an advertising campaign to encourage people to use Pacific Coach Lines or B.C. Transit, so they understand that there isn't unlimited parking at the terminals. I assure the member we are working on it, both short-term and down the road, as we get into major improvements in our ferry terminals.

Vote 72 approved.

Vote 73: ministry operations, $1,015,849,683 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 6.

HOME OWNER GRANT INCREASE ACT, 1989

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill increases the homeowner grant for 1989 for seniors, the disabled and recipients of war veterans' allowances by $70 to $700, and it increases the homeowner grant for all others by $50 to $430. This legislation will increase the homeowner grant by deeming that schedules 1 and 2 of the act shall be read at the higher rates for 1989. This increase is part of the provincial housing action plan and is intended to assist homeowners to pay their property taxes. It reflects this government's commitment to home ownership and will benefit 640,000 British Columbian homeowners.

Without the homeowner grant increase, the average of net property tax increases would likely be over 10 percent for most homeowners and over 15 percent for seniors. In some areas, the percentage increase of net property taxes would be even higher.

The provincial government feels that the first order of responsibility for controlling property taxes lies with local governments, particularly school boards and municipalities who levy these taxes. Nevertheless, the provincial government is committed to helping local taxpayers.

The homeowner grant is only one of several ways the government helps to keep property taxes at reasonable levels. Other ways include assistance to local governments in the form of revenue-sharing with the municipalities and contributions to school districts. In 1989-90, revenue-sharing to municipalities will be $288 million, an increase of 20.5 percent,

[ Page 6858 ]

and contributions to school districts will be over $1.7 billion, an increase of 9.8 percent. This is in addition to the $343 million the province will spend on homeowner grants.

Since 1979, when the homeowner grant was last increased, property taxes have been kept at reasonable levels, mainly by increased funding to municipalities and school districts. As a result, net property taxes — that is, property taxes after the application of the homeowner grant — increased from 1979 to 1988 by the same percentage as consumer prices: approximately 75 percent. The percentage increase of gross property taxes was even less, the 1988 level being roughly 50 percent over the 1979 level. This year's homeowner grant increase should keep the average increase of net property taxes paid by homeowners to below the rate of inflation.

The homeowner grant increase will help British Columbia homeowners to keep and maintain the homes they have.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. BLENCOE: We are of course pleased that the government in its wisdom has decided at long last, after ten years of neglect, to increase the homeowner grant. In the last few years municipalities and property owners have seen dramatic increases in their taxes. We have seen a government that in its wisdom — we think unwisely — has continued to transfer school costs more and more onto the property tax payer.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: My colleague from.... Where are you from? The hon. House Leader for the NDP wishes to speak about that.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I can never remember. We have so many members on this side, you see, I can't....

The evidence is in that this government in the last few years has consistently allowed the real property tax payer in the province of British Columbia to share more and more of the burden of municipal and school costs. We have consistently called for a total review of the process. Indeed, the McMath report —an excellent report in 1975, 1 believe — recommended that surely we should be moving to a system where 75 percent of school costs are borne by the province and 25 percent by the real property tax payer.

In 14 years we have gone exactly the opposite way, and more and more of the load of paying for schools is going onto the homeowner. The majority of homeowners, particularly seniors — those on fixed incomes who struggle every year to find the dollars to pay their property taxes and hang on to their homes — have been hoping this government would at long last introduce some real changes in the tax system for local government. Here we have at long last a small increment in the homeowner grant. It hasn't been increased in many years; a $50 increase.

In our estimation, this government should be indexing the homeowner grant on an annual basis. It should have been indexed right from the beginning, particularly for those on middle or low incomes, like senior citizens who want to hang on to their homes. If the homeowner grant had been dealt with properly and had been indexed, we could have seen a lot more people — what with rising property taxes and other school taxes — manage to hang on to their homes.

The issue at the heart of this and why this government has been embarrassed to some degree — finally, out of neglect — into increasing the homeowner grant is that homeowners in the province have seen this government refuse to bear their fair share of the local costs of schools and other municipal issues. We believe that the homeowner grant could be a major factor in ensuring that homes are affordable to young British Columbians who want to get into their first homes.

This government has announced — they believe — a major housing program, but upon analysis, we found there's very little there. The legislation has not been introduced, the programs are not even out of Treasury Board, the great announcements and ads for their programs saying 800,000 households are going to benefit.... We know now that it's maybe a third of that number this government is advertising to the people of British Columbia.

If this government committed itself to indexing it every year and had indexed it right from its inception, the homeowner grant could be a major way that young British Columbians who want to own homes would be able to do that. On this side of the House, we are determined to find innovative ways for people to own their own homes in the province of British Columbia.

[5:30]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, indeed, we own our own homes. We're proud to own our own homes. There's no problem with that. It would be nice if this government would try and help those young British Columbians who are coming up now to the age where they and their families want to buy a home. Indexing the homeowner grant on an annual basis would be an innovative way to help those young British Columbians get their own home.

The government has decided to add $50 this year. It's a start. We think a lot more could be done with this and other programs in the housing area that could really start to deal with home-ownership. We can't get into issues like second mortgages and those sorts of things today, because they are not part of this legislation.

We would like a commitment from this minister that he is prepared to tell the homeowners of British Columbia that we are going to index the homeowner grant annually and not let it slip dramatically, as it has in the last ten years. At the same time, we should transfer more and more of the load of paying for school taxes from the real property owner. It's time

[ Page 6859 ]

we had a real change for the local taxpayer, not just some great announcements with no substance to them. In our estimation, we could do a lot more with the homeowner grant.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to speak briefly to this item. The homeowner grant hasn't been increased in the time that I've been in the House, and that's six years. It has forced, among other things that my colleague has mentioned, some real concerns that have impacted far beyond home-ownership. It impacts on education as well. As more and more taxation is directed towards property, municipal services and schools — especially in the urban area, where we've had a lot of inflation in terms of property prices and lots of migration into these areas, and housing shortages and the rest of it, which forced up property — the greater the inequities in the homeowner grant.

I did a little bit of calculation the other day for my own riding of Coquitlam — that school district. The homeowner grant fell short of their municipal taxes by about $71 in 1984. In other words, they were given the homeowner grant, but in addition, for the purposes of schools, it cost the average homeowner $71. It's gone up in 1988; the difference they have to make up through property taxes is $301. It would wipe out that difference if we had indexed it each year by roughly $50.

It's not a simple thing, and I have some sympathy for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) when he says.... I suppose the most outstanding one is Merritt. In 1984 Merritt had a credit of $243 to add to their municipal taxes after the homeowner grant; it was down to $73 in 1988. I suppose that means that if you freeze it, you lessen the differences between the large school districts and the smaller ones in the interior. I suppose if you want to look at it from that point of view, you have evened it up.

I have tried to think about innovative ways in which we might protect the property owner in areas such as Richmond, Vancouver, New Westminster, Coquitlam and North Vancouver. Let's take Richmond: in 1984 — these are GVRD figures, not mine — a taxpayer had to pay $189 for school purposes after the homeowner grant; in 1988 it was $261. Vancouver homeowners paid $93 extra in 1984 and in 1988, $285; New Westminster paid $38 extra in 1984 and $213 in 1988. That's enough to show the difference.

I wonder if there is any way of regionalizing these things, based on assessment, or some way that we could make the extra burden be more evenly spread. It seems a bit unfair. I don't know how to do it. If I knew a way to do it that wouldn't discriminate, I would put it forward. It seems unfair as it is right now, where you have an extra burden of such magnitude falling on large districts in the lower mainland and the lower Island, and people get tremendous breaks if they happen to live in Keremeos, Princeton, Armstrong, Merritt, Agassiz and Harrison, just to name a few. Their municipal taxes are lowered by that amount; as a matter of fact, they get a credit. In the large districts, that costs the property owners extra to pay for schools, and that leads to a lot of unrest.

I see the member for Central Fraser Valley over there. He knows about these things because he was a mayor for many years, and other members who have been involved in municipal government know this. But — as my colleague called for — we've got to see what we can do about this to make the burden a little more fair and equitable. I don't think that just by cutting it off and refusing to index it for some six years.... While the figures may appear to look closer, and the advantage accruing to the people in the small districts or the rural areas and the interior is not as bad as it was, it still is not fair or equitable to all property owners in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am delighted to hear that the opposition party supports the homeowner grant. It seems to me that I can remember reading in records of the proceedings of this chamber that the homeowner grant gave them some philosophical difficulties. I understand — and I am pleased to learn — that this has their support; that's a marvellous state of progress and I applaud them for their joining the nineteenth century.

We are moving, of course, into the twenty-first century now, and I think it is important for us to look at the options that are available to government. We could well have decided to increase the homeowner grant in previous years and merely reduce the supports and grants we'd given school districts and municipalities. I gather, from the comments of the members of the opposition, that that's what they would have preferred to have done. That's an interesting piece of information to obtain, and I'm sure we can use it in future discussions.

The fact of the matter is that I also detect that the opposition members are all of a sudden having some support for the principle of property rights. I also can remember some discussions of the philosophical basis on which the members of that party had opposed the idea of property rights. Given the comments from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), I am heartened to know that, once again, they are somewhat enlightened in that respect.

Dealing with the question of regional disparities, it certainly is a problem for citizens in urbanized parts of the province, and we are well aware of that. We attempt to deal with that anomaly by looking at the grants available to school districts and local governments through our various grant programs. So it's partly addressed — at least the concern is partly addressed. I do agree with the hon. member's comments that the effect, of course, is that there still is a lack of comparability. That's right, but that's also a function of expenditure levels, and because this government is committed to local decision-making in that respect, we find ourselves on the horns of a philosophical dilemma as to how far we should intervene in these kinds of judgments. However, I'm

[ Page 6860 ]

prepared to take the hon. member's thoughts on that matter, and if he's suggesting that intervention is in order we'd be happy to consider it.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 6, Home Owner Grant Increase Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces a section into the Income Tax Act of British Columbia to provide renters who have relatively low incomes with a renter's tax reduction. This will reduce provincial income tax otherwise payable.

The legislation provides each taxpayer, or principal taxpayer in the case of a family, with a base tax reduction of $200 for each family member or 10 percent of rent paid during the year, whichever is less. The renter's tax reduction will be calculated as the base tax reduction reduced by 3 percent of family net income in excess of $10,000 per year. For example, a family of four having a family net income of $20,000 per year and paying $700 per month in rent will be eligible for a renter's tax reduction of $500.

The renter's tax reduction is one of the initiatives under the provincial housing action plan. It is intended primarily to assist renters, particularly families who rent and who are not eligible for other forms of government assistance, such as the GAIN shelter allowance or Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters.

The renter's tax reduction is well integrated with the GAIN shelter allowance, particularly for families. Families whose incomes are below the level at which they would be liable for provincial income tax can generally receive assistance under GAIN. The income levels at which a family's GAIN entitlements are significantly reduced are the income levels at which the family will likely become liable for provincial income tax. For families at these income levels paying a small amount of income tax, the burden of rising rents will be reduced by the renter's tax reduction.

The renter's tax reduction is a temporary measure. It is intended to provide assistance to renters during this period of low vacancy rates and rising rents. Since conditions in the housing market can change significantly in only a few years, and because the province has put in place programs to increase the supply of rental housing, a sunset clause has been included with the legislation. The legislation provides for a phase-out over four years. In the four years from 1990 to 1993, the tax reduction, will equal 80 percent, 60 percent, 40 percent and 20 percent of the reduction obtained from using the 1989 formula. In 1989, this legislation will provide benefits to an estimated 80,000 British Columbia households. I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. JONES: We have before us a bill which is a modest proposal that attempts to address what I consider to be a monumental problem. I rise to speak to this bill out of frustration, because I take some pride in trying to assist my constituents with problems that they raise with me. This particular problem of rental increases for renters in my constituency is something I had very little to do with until this last year.

Something happened this spring that prompted virtually hundreds of renters to contact my office. I spent time talking and writing to managers, doing title searches and writing to owners of buildings to try to persuade those people to reconsider the very large increases that those constituents experienced this year.

It has impacted very drastically on those people. It has very seriously changed the atmosphere in people's buildings. Many have been forced to move as a result of those large increases. Others had to alter their lifestyles in order to stay in the buildings they wanted to stay in — they had been there for years. In particular, it put heavy pressure on people with fixed incomes.

Most tenants, when they receive these notices of rental increase, don't deny the owner's right to a modest increase. Many would even accept some of these large increases, if the owners of those buildings had been — in my view — responsible and made the improvements that the tenants felt should be made.

Out of the hundreds of letters that I have received, I would like to raise a few points from one letter that I think epitomizes the sentiments of many. The writer, who is writing to the landlord, says:

"I appreciate your corporation must make a fair share of the available market dollar on its rental suites, However, I feel very strongly that a 22 percent increase is very unreasonable, and I ask you to review my points one more time.

"The following points are being outlined as my formal opposition to the notice of rent increase: thermostats do not control heat in this apartment; the refrigerator runs 85 percent of the time, and there is something wrong with the motor-cooling system for it to run so loudly; the bathroom shower leaks and the fixtures and the floors are deteriorating; the apartment has not been painted, and the ceiling and walls need to be redone; there were leaks that were patched but now need paint; and carpets and drapes are bleached from the sun.

"While all these things are annoying, I know management has many, many other pressing problems, and I am neither a demanding nor a complaining type of person. I will be bringing in a roommate, as I cannot afford a 22 percent increase."

[5:45]

It seems that in this particular year we have many people who are experiencing severe financial difficulty as a result of these rent increases. We have a bill before us that I think is a wholly inadequate measure to deal with this serious problem. The renters of British Columbia do not want a temporary tax reduc-

[ Page 6861 ]

tion that affects some 20 percent of those renters. What they really want is a rent reduction, or they want some assurance that there is rental fairness in this province. They would like to go back to the situation where we had a universal tax credit for all renters in the province of British Columbia.

It seems to me that this attempt for a temporary renter's tax reduction to be phased out over five years is very cynical. I think the minister alluded to why the five years, but it escapes me; I think that was an arbitrary figure. It's an attempt to have the government be able to suggest to a very frustrated number of renters in this province that we've done something as a government to assist those renters in greatest need, when the minister and the government know that this is not the kind of measure that is necessary in British Columbia. To suggest that an average of something like $187 in tax reduction for a small percentage of the 400,000 renters in this province is a serious tackling of this enormous problem is a joke. Very clearly, it's an inadequate measure. It's not even a modest proposal; I think it's a cynical proposal. It's the kind of thing we get into as we approach an election. I think the government sees a problem, and they set up a facade to give the appearance of addressing that problem.

What we need is a rent review process so that these individuals can be assured that rent increases are justified. We need to go back to a system where there is a rentalsman. We need the opportunity for a rollback of rents where they are inappropriate. We need a universal tax credit for renters. Then we might have the kind of bill that would give some assurance to those people who are, in many instances, being victimized by unscrupulous landlords.

It's very difficult to oppose this modest measure, but I think it's very easy to say that it does not go anywhere near far enough towards addressing this serious concern.

MS. A. HAGEN: My riding of New Westminster has the largest number of renters in relation to its population in the whole of this province; in fact, it has one of the largest populations of renters in Canada. The majority of those people who rent are single working people with modest incomes, single parent families with one or two children, and seniors. When I looked at this bill, I wanted to examine how it would help those people in my riding. I'm going to have to tell them that it helps them not at all, or in such a meagre way that they will hardly notice the difference.

First of all, it protects only those people who pay provincial income tax. Unlike the universal tax credit, to which my colleague from Burnaby North referred a moment ago, it is not applicable to people on social assistance, many of whom are paying 50 or 60 percent of their income for rent. It is not available for those seniors who are not covered by SAFER but who will still have difficulty with rent.

I must note, Mr. Speaker, that the improvements in the SAFER program this year will capture more of the senior population, and I'm pleased that that change has finally occurred, albeit after a long hiatus with no improvement at all. But the basic problem is that there are many people whose rent is far in excess of their ability to pay and who pay their rent at the expense of food and clothing and recreation. Particularly for those people who have families, particularly for those people who are on fixed incomes, that's the first lack of fairness. The argument may be made that these people are supported in other ways — through social assistance or through old age pension and guaranteed income supplement. But we're talking about a fundamental need, the fundamental need for housing, and we're talking about a rental housing market that is out of proportion to people's incomes.

In my riding the average rent has gone from somewhere in the $330 range — a very reasonable kind of rent that held for quite a number of years — to somewhere between $450 and $500 for a single bedroom apartment. That's an absolutely impossible increase for most of the people who rent in New Westminster to be able to afford. So let's look at what this particular program offers them. It offers them so little as to be, in fact, enough — possibly — to pay a hydro bill for a month or to pay a couple of months' phone bills. By the time you get through all of the stipulations, we're looking at people on a poverty income, an absolute poverty income, being eligible for $200 a year per person. If we're looking at rents of, let's say, between $450 and $500 a month, we're looking at people who are paying $5,000 to $6,000 a year for rent alone. They still have to pay their hydro, their phone, and very often cable, which are all part of their housing costs. These people, at the very best, are going to have $200 returned to them if they are taxpaying renters.

By the time we get through the fine print — and I have looked at a number of examples — we find that very few people are going to get that $200. They are taking off 3 percent of the $200 for every dollar a person makes over $10,000 a year. For a single person, $10,000 is not even a poverty income. If you are looking at a family, assuming that the family might have a gross income of $15,000 a year, they are taking 3 percent of $5,000 of that income. Those people are paying income tax; they are sending their children to school; they are trying to feed them; they are trying to clothe them; and they are trying to deal with rents that are taking 50 and 60 percent of their income — totally out of proportion to what we consider to be a reasonable amount for people to be paying for housing.

Then the minister has the gall to suggest that this situation is going to evaporate over five years. Rents will continue to escalate in that period of time. It's in the order of things that the cost of living will cause an escalation in those rents. I don't expect the number of housing units in my city of New Westminster to increase, because there is not very much land on which they can be built. We might have a few more, and it would be wonderful if we did, but it's certainly not going to change the situation for the 12,000 households in my riding that are renting at this time.

[ Page 6862 ]

What do we say to those people? "Next year you get 80 percent of the $200 while your rent goes up, and the year after that you get 60 percent while your rent goes up again." By the time we have finished all of this, the $200 is down to $40. What an insult to suggest that that amount is a credit of any kind! It doesn't even warrant the effort for its transaction.

Really, when I think of what the people in my riding are facing; when I think of the people who depend on the major food bank and who also rely on churches for food for their families; when I think of the rents they face and the incomes they earn — with 25 percent of the families in my riding single-parent families — this is indeed nothing but a cruel joke that this government has perpetrated on renters, the people that this government announced, with great fanfare, it was going to help in the hundreds of thousands. In my riding, hundreds of people are going to be disfranchised from this renter's tax credit by virtue of the fact that they don't have a taxable income. Those who do are going to be penalized if they have even a pittance over the most fundamental poverty level of income that one could possibly imagine.

It's a sad event to be debating a bill that offers so little when the need is so great. Given the emphasis that this government has placed on housing and housing improvements as one of the showcases of its budget, I think this particular bill and what it provides for needy people in this province really shows the hollowness of that promise. It's a hollowness that won't go unnoted next year when people apply for this rental tax credit and find what a meagre number of dollars, if any, are available to people in real need in my community and other communities in the province.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, given the time, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we adjourn, I would like to advise the House that we will sit tomorrow at the normal sitting hours. The House will not sit Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday; we will sit Tuesday at 2 p.m. and Wednesday at 2 p.m., Thursday and Friday as usual.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

Appendix

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

2   Mrs. Hagen asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

1. For each year since 1983, what was the amount paid for education: (a) by industrial and commercial property taxpayers; and (b) by residential taxpayers?

2. For each of these years, what was the percentage of education expenditures paid by: (a) industrial and commercial property taxpayers; and (b) residential taxpayers?

3. Has the Ministry obtained studies of the impact of their education funding policies on homeowners to determine whether those with the greatest ability to pay are making the greatest contribution?

4. If the answer to No. 2 is "yes", what were the results of the studies and who made them? If the answer to No. 3 is "no", why not?

The Hon. A. J. Brummet stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the Table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

10  Mr. Cashore asked the Hon. the Premier the following question:

Has the Premier made any representations or recommendations to the Government of Canada regarding amendments to the Canada Shipping Act to tighten the standards for safely transporting offshore oil? If the answer to this question is "yes": (a) what was the

[ Page 6863 ]

substance of the representations or recommendations; and (b) to whom and how were they made?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"On March 29, 1989, the Minister of State for Cariboo and Minister Responsible for Environment wrote to the Federal Ministers of Environment and Transport to ask them to review urgently the issue of oil tanker traffic along the West Coast. At the same time, the Minister asked the Federal Government to join British Columbia, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California in a co-coordinated spill prevention program. The issue of the safe transport of offshore oil will also be addressed by the B.C./Washington Oil Spill Task Force, recently set up by the Premier and Governor Gardner."