[ Page 11021 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 66: minister's office –– 11021

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Vant

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Mowat

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. Cashore

Hon. S. Hagen

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Gabelmann

Transportation Capital Funding Act (Bill 17). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 11040

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

The House met at 9:33 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Thursday last, during question period — some of which, you'll remember, was somewhat heated — the Chair undertook to review the Blues on a question of unparliamentary language. Having reviewed the Hansard Blues for unparliamentary language, I must ask the Premier to withdraw the word "blackmail," which he used, I think, in a heated moment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in respect of you, your office and the House, I gladly withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there has been some confusion, especially among people who report on the proceedings of this House, about the process of withdrawal. Withdrawal of an unparliamentary word may only be made by the person who actually said the word, not by another member on their behalf.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the House today are five teams representing countries competing in the Pacific Rim invitational challenge yachting series, which is now being held in conjunction with the Seattle Goodwill Games. The teams represented are Japan, the Soviet Union, Australia, the United States and of course, Canada. Would the House please make those members welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 66: minister's office, $374,423 (continued).

MR. LOVICK: I had the dubious pleasure this morning of attending a Public Accounts Committee meeting at which we had some five representatives of the Minister of Transportation and Highways in attendance. Under the auspices of the Public Accounts Committee, we are discussing a number of things that the auditor-general's report pointed out with regard to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I am not therefore going to recanvass those items. That would indeed be wasting the time of this chamber, and therefore I am going to defer that discussion to another venue.

However, one of the areas that deserves just brief mention is what the auditor-general has to say about the whole area of privatization. As we know, privatization was probably undertaken in a more significant way by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways than by any other single ministry — that's where it impacted most directly — so it's interesting to note that the auditor-general's report rather seriously calls into question the advisability and the efficacy of that privatization initiative. I think that ought to be noted.

I would also like to ask the minister if she would agree with the point made by her colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) some weeks ago in this chamber, when I was asking him questions about a privatization initiative, that the motive for privatization was ideological and that privatization initiatives would be undertaken even if there were no net economic benefit to be gained.

I am wondering if the Minister of Transportation and Highways has the same view of things as does her colleague the Minister of Environment.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Prior to responding, I would like to acknowledge members of the ministry staff and the Crowns who are either on the floor or in the galleries, as we didn't acknowledge their presence yesterday.

On the floor of the House we have Vince Collins, our deputy, and Dan Doyle, ADM, highways operations. We have Bruce McKeown, ADM, planning and major projects. From B.C. Transit we have Mike O'Connor, the president and CEO, as well as Rick Krowchuk, vice-president of finance. From B.C. Ferries we have Frank Rhodes, president and CEO; Rod Morrison, general manager; and Glen Brown, assistant general manager. From B.C. Rail we have Paul McElligott, president and CEO, as well as Roger Clarke, vice-president of administration. From ministry finance we have ADM Gordon Hogg. I would like the House to please acknowledge their presence here this morning.

In response to the member's question, the answer is no.

MR. LOVICK: I'm very tempted to say that there must be dissension in the ranks, or something. I think it is a fair question. We pursued it at some length with your colleague the Minister of Environment, and he said, under some pressure and persistence, that yes, indeed, he held to that view. What can I say, except that I'm pleased to hear the minister's answer. I am glad that some are not quite as ideologically zealous as are others on that side of the House, and I'm pleased to note that. I hope that also means that there may be a possibility for review at some point, if things are as we think they are.

I want to turn to the area now, if I might....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: That's okay, Mr. Chairman. I'm a patient person. I don't mind ripples and burblings from other corners of the House, because I know that the minister and I are both prepared to have a

[ Page 11022 ]

civilized and genteel debate about some important matters, and we won't be swayed from our course by these rather foolish utterances coming from other quarters.

To the issue of the Freedom to Move initiative. Freedom to move, as we know, unfortunately tends to mean a number of different things. It's a slogan, the title of a video and apparently the title of a highways plan. It's the title of a number of different things. What I'm talking about specifically is the announcement made in the budget about a highways construction budget called Freedom to Move. Originally announced in the summer of 1989, as I recall, the figure thrown out at that time was some $11.4 billion to be spent over ten years.

Subsequently, of course, we have discovered that the same Freedom to Move account is apparently $3.5 billion over five years. It would seem, on the face of it, that what we're talking about is a regressive principle. Somehow things are getting smaller as time goes on. That is certainly not consonant and consistent with the line that Highways likes to give in terms of onward and upward and bigger and better. So I'm wondering if the minister might like to begin by explaining that discrepancy.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It has been determined that the start-up costs of the overall program will certainly be reflecting less of a burden on our financial position. Then when we get seven or eight years into the program, it's still our intention to follow through and after annual review accomplish the goals that we have set out. In our opinion, we have set aside adequate funding to carry us through for the first five years.

MR. LOVICK: It is the case then that we are talking about less money than was anticipated a year ago? Instead of $11.4 billion over ten years, it's $3.5 over five, which is a significant reduction. The minister acknowledges that that is indeed the case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It just reflects the required cash flow to start on the program. It's not a reduction in the program.

MR. LOVICK: It's hard to reconcile that when we're talking about a five-year horizon. Cash flow is something we usually talk about right now — clear and pressing and needed now, not a five-year projection. However, I think the record is dear on that. I made a statement in the Legislature, I think it was during the course of the budget debate, Mr. Chairman, about the Freedom to Move account. I haven't had any contradiction or response to that statement. I wanted to give the minister and her officials an opportunity to correct me if I'm wrong in what I said. I first made the point that what we were talking about not very long ago was the $11.4 billion which is now $3.5 million, and a ten-year horizon now a five-year horizon. Then I said that what we're looking at in terms of the Freedom To Move account, that so-called big, new, capital construction plan that is going to do all kinds of great things, is nothing new. There's no new money; in fact, there is perhaps less money.

[9:45]

I argued the case that in the 1989 estimates we had a capital construction budget of $225 million. We then had in addition a highway capital construction budget of $187 million. Also part of that budget document are: contributions to B.C. Rail, $15.3 million; to B.C. Ferries, $55.8 million; and air transport assistance, $4 million. All of last year's capital budget, then, was a total of about $487 million. This year the brand-new budget, the so-called expanded one, this new pile of money, amounts to some $576 million. On the face of it, of course, that's a new $90 million, roughly.

The problem is that what we see also buried in the Freedom to Move account is something called a grant to B.C. Transit, which of course used to belong to Municipal Affairs. In other words, if you put the B.C. Transit allocation into the Highways budget — into the capital construction part of the Ministry of Highways — what you discover is something very different. You discover that we are apparently getting less money for Highways capital construction, not more. That's why some people have suggested that the Freedom to Move document and announcements are really a little bit of financial sleight of hand. I am wondering if the minister might like to respond to that.

MR. VANT: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is working on the answer to the hon. first member for Nanaimo's question, I would like to remind the minister and this whole House that the great Cariboo constituency still boasts of having more kilometres of public road than any other constituency in the entire province. Indeed, it's over 7,000 kilometres of public road. And I think we have just slightly passed the one-third mark for the amount of those public roads now paved.

I know that the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) is very aware that there are many unpaved roads in the Cariboo. Indeed, the minister has a daughter who lives in the Cariboo; she has lived in two different locations, and in both those situations she lived on an unpaved road. So the minister knows firsthand what I am talking about.

I'd like to give the minister a bit of a bouquet. I am pleased that on Highway 20 West, the main highway from Williams Lake to Bella Coola, recently the paving has been completed from Cariboo Flats, which is east of Nimpo Lake, proceeding west, all the way to Anahim Lake. I am very pleased about that. So I'd like to see the ministry proceed with further paving between Cariboo Flats and Piper Lake. This, of course, would see paving through Tatla Lake and Kleena Kleene.

As the first member for Cariboo, I'd like to say to the minister that there are two urgent needs. First of all, I'd like to see work carried on with the new Churn Creek bridge. This bridge is west of both 100 Mile House and Clinton, and it crosses the Fraser

[ Page 11023 ]

River. It's a very vital link to connect the country west of the river to those communities. The old Churn Creek bridge was built about 1916 and is a miniature Lions Gate Bridge. It has quaint, old, rusty riveted towers, and it is a cable-suspended bridge. It looks very historic and picturesque until you see a half-loaded truck cross it. The deck rolls as the truck proceeds across. Even with a half-loaded truck, the sides of this bridge almost lean in far enough to touch the mirrors. This bridge is very vital because all the fuel and supplies necessary to keep the Blackdome gold mine going have to cross this ancient bridge. So can the minister assure me that work on this new Churn Creek bridge and approaches will proceed this year?

The second major concern I have is Highway 97. This is the main north-south link for the entire province. This is not just a constituency concern; indeed, the regional transportation plan seemed to emphasize Highway 97. I realize there are people from Prince George and further north serving on that regional advisory transportation committee, so that is not surprising. As the second member for Cariboo mentioned just yesterday, he has a concern about all the rutting in that main highway due to all of those heavy trucks going up and down that major north-south link. I see some trucks loaded with slings of lumber three high. They should really be hauled on B.C. Rail. That would save a lot of wear and tear on our public highway system. But I am pleased to hear that the minister, along with the staff, is investigating ways of preventing this rutting. I am pleased to note that you are now starting to reprofile the main highway just south of Williams Lake, between Williams Lake and 140 Mile House.

My urgent concern regarding Highway 97 this year is just north of 100 Mile House, from 100 Mile House north to Crystal Springs, which is near the north end of Lac La Hache. This is a very substandard section of Highway 97 with very narrow lane widths and very narrow shoulders.

Also, I hate to report to this House and to the minister that currently on this main Highway 97 there are potholes in that section of road and cracks which are four to five inches wide. There is just absolutely no way that this section of highway can survive another winter. This pavement has to be ground and relaid this year. Remember, this is the major north-south highway route. Can the minister assure me that this work will be done this year? Those are my urgent concerns as MLA for Cariboo.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a couple of minutes. I regret that there are only three members opposite; that's two less than what we started with this morning. Perhaps that too somehow ties into transportation. I understand — correct me if I'm wrong — that the Leader of the Opposition and many others are now travelling home at government's expense on the Helijet every night because their capital allowance has ended as of a few days ago. I'm wondering if there's a connection between transportation and the fact that the opposition no longer shows up in the House in any numbers to speak of.

I'm wondering if perhaps we shouldn't put the question to the vote and save the taxpayers the money that we're spending sitting here and all of the expense that goes with these legislative sessions when there's so little interest from the opposition, and they have only three members present. I think it certainly leaves something to be desired. Obviously they're of the view that everything must be all right, or they would be here in greater numbers, and their leader would show up once in a while.

Mr. Chairman, getting to the estimates, although it does tie into transportation I want to take this opportunity — and I'll say a few words later on as well — to commend....

MR. LOVICK: You guys have six out of 43; we've got three out of 26.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the member opposite, the critic for Transportation and Highways, had some comments to make about the lack of interest generally, which obviously, Madam Minister, indicates that you're doing such a wonderful job in your ministry that everyone is quite happy and satisfied.

I would like to talk briefly on that, because I had an opportunity to briefly go across the line a week or two ago. I've already commented on that to you, Madam Minister. I went into Washington State and came back, and I was so proud of the wonderful job that's being done by the private contractors in maintaining Highway 99 from the Peace Arch into Vancouver. It was certainly — particularly the stretch through Surrey and into Delta — well maintained, well kept, clean, and I think a credit to your ministry for the obvious supervision they provide, and a credit to the contractor who has been charged with this. I don't think it has ever been as well kept as what we saw then, and hopefully this will continue.

I think it's important that we keep our highways clean and orderly. Obviously they must be in good condition, as we heard from the member for Cariboo. I'm sure that after a winter there are many repairs to be done in all parts of the province, and that must be a priority. But it's equally important that we keep things neat and tidy and clean and orderly, because unless we see that example being set by the ministry or those who work for the ministry, then unfortunately it sort of carries on and people tend to ignore cleanliness and the environment, and they begin to add to the pollution by throwing things out of the window or leaving them at the side of the road. It's important that we keep our highways clean. Certainly these private contractors have done a commendable job. They must be reminded each and every time, if they fall down or fail in any way, shape or form, by the people in the ministry who are supervising this to ensure that they carry out that function and carry it out well.

I also want to talk for a moment about the Deas Tunnel. Highway 99 through my constituency carries

[ Page 11024 ]

traffic from all over the lower mainland into Vancouver, and certainly a great deal of traffic from the Langleys, Surrey and White Rock, and North Delta and South Delta particularly. While obviously we recognize that the traffic coming through my constituency is by and large from the outside, we certainly want to see these commuters provided with the best facility and the best opportunity. I would hope that one day we may find exactly what information your ministry has about what we can do to improve on the tunnel. I realize the tunnel has changed, with the traffic being changed, depending on morning or night, in order to allow greater access for commuters travelling in a particular direction during the day. That change has helped considerably. However, there are some problems. When the tunnel was built, I suppose it was built a little narrower than it might have been. The little markers that are now down the middle are, I think, tending to slow down traffic some, which is too bad because we have a lot of people approaching the tunnel at whatever is the posted speed. The moment they get into the tunnel they tend to go to about half of that speed, which, if they feel so inclined for safety reasons, I can appreciate or understand. But at the same time, it's causing a bit of havoc, because there's soon a backup.

I don't know what we can do about that. The tunnel was unfortunately constructed a little narrower than it should have been; there should have been more room in it when they initially designed it. I was hopeful that perhaps some work might have been done to determine the options. Can another tube be put alongside so that one of the tubes could be left for morning or night traffic in order to alternate that way? Another tube could be built, hopefully a little bit wider and a little bit better than the two already there, so that we would have a little more capacity.

I realize that that too presents a problem when we get to the Oak Street Bridge. We're finding more and more traffic now getting onto the Richmond East freeway. We thank your ministry for the excellent job that was done there. That particular stretch of freeway has relieved traffic considerably in my constituency and provided an opportunity for people to commute more easily from other parts of the lower mainland into Vancouver as well.

I realize there are some bottlenecks in Vancouver, and how it is we overcome those bottlenecks I'm not sure. But I believe that improving the tunnel and perhaps providing some widening to some of the stretches of Highway 99 would be a help. I'm not convinced yet that the barrier that was placed down the middle of Highway 99 near the Oak Street Bridge, as an alternative to the grass strip down the middle, has really served the highway or traffic in any particular way. I'd like to hear what your findings are in that respect. I suppose it could eventually provide for extra laning. It doesn't do so now. It simply has replaced grass with blacktop. Oftentimes it tends to become a bit of a collector for paper, and hopefully we can keep on top of that too.

[10:00]

I am concerned as well about the signage at the end of the Oak Street Bridge. I've already mentioned this to you, Madam Minister, and to your deputy, but I'd like to raise it again. I find it very confusing, and I think a tourist must find it totally confusing when you get to the Oak Street Bridge, and you're put onto Marine Drive to go into downtown Vancouver. The signage is very confusing, and I'm sure tourists must get totally confused and lost by it all. So I think the signage to go to Vancouver and how to get to downtown Vancouver should be looked at and considered. Once they get off the Oak Street Bridge and onto Marine Drive, it's even more confusing. Unless you're really looking for the signs You don't expect to see these signs that far away from the Oak Street Bridge; you've got to go clear to Cambie; they're often too small anyway with the print too small, particularly for people my age wearing glasses. You might end up in New Westminster or someplace. Something needs to be done about the signage.

Finally, by the tunnel there is some confusion for people trying to get off onto Steveston Highway. If we have people visiting from anywhere beyond Ladner, and they're looking to get into Richmond to go to Steveston or any place in Richmond, and they're in the wrong lane, which often happens, because already the lanes leading up to the tunnel are a bit confusing, to say the least, then once they get through that tunnel they're either going to cause an accident cutting over, and it could well cause a fatal accident, or they're going to have to go by and head all the way to Westminster Highway. Once they're there, I don't know how they'd ever find their way back to Steveston. So it's a very confusing situation at the south end of the tunnel.

There's considerable confusion at the north end of the tunnel that adds to the confusion at the south end of the tunnel, and frankly, I think it's an accident waiting to happen — and a very serious accident perhaps. While I realize there are great difficulties because of the lane configuration and the fact that it all funnels into the tunnel, some skookum — I underline skookum — signage needs to be considered for the south end of the tunnel, some really good signage.

It seems to me that we could really take a lesson from the Americans in getting some signs that you can actually read from a safe distance. Our signs are always such that you're either under them or past them before you realize there was a sign or what it might have said. The signs are too small, and the print is too small; they're too close to where you are supposed to turn off. I really have a problem with signage.

There are many other places in the world — and to the south of us is a good example — where we could learn a whole lot more about signage. It's a pet peeve of mine. It has been one for many years. I think signage is extremely important. It's important to the tourist who comes to visit that they know where they're going, and that they're able to turn off safely. And it's important for the safety of our people here,

[ Page 11025 ]

because if suddenly they're upon the sign before they can read the sign, they tend to cut over too quickly. There could be cars coming in the lane to which they're cutting over, and that only leads to further accidents and fatalities. So I would urge the ministry to again consider signs. It has been talked about a great many times already in the House, but it doesn't seem to change very quickly.

The Alex Fraser Bridge, the Annacis Island cut-offs and all that lead to it are very recent. But the signs at the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge are terrible. If you're trying to find your way to New Westminster, even if you've lived in Richmond most, if not all, of your life, chances are that you won't get to New Westminster without first going to Annacis Island and trying to turn around on Annacis Island, because the sign that says "New Westminster" is about the size of this desk top — maybe that's an exaggeration, but it's not a whole lot bigger — and you're there before you see it. So how can you be expected to read it, even if you're a Richmond resident, a person in my wonderful constituency, let alone a tourist? I would urge you to look at this whole question of signage.

I was in the Okanagan yesterday, and I must say that there's a lot of highway construction going on in the Okanagan. It's a wonderful highway. It certainly serves the Okanagan well. It's nearly complete. There is a stretch remaining between the Kelowna airport and Vernon that hopefully will be done fairly soon. But certainly a good job has been done on the Okanagan highway.

I noticed through Winfield a number of properties were acquired, and there's a lot of construction taking place there. I couldn't quite figure why so many buildings to the side were boarded up, even though they were oftentimes 50, 60 or 70 feet away from the highway. I assumed that these properties were expropriated, purchased or whatever and the buildings were on the land, and you had to take all of the land. I don't think you simply expropriated or purchased those — or whatever was done — and then boarded them up. They must have been part of the property required for the highways. But I couldn't quite figure it out. I suppose we purchased a strip for the widening, but we obviously took all of the land.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Premier, but your time has expired. I hate to cut you off.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was only going to talk for a few minutes. My time has expired? I'll get back to the minister later.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I really wanted to hear more about Steveston. Don't go yet. So I will act as an intervening speaker and discuss the Prince George highways later, but in the meantime I will act as an intervening speaker so the Premier can continue with his very interesting dialogue with respect to the minister's estimates.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that opportunity. Actually, I have a meeting in my office ten minutes ago; I'd forgotten. I had forgotten about the time, I got so carried away.

I want to speak a little further. I don't mind if you save up all of the answers in the interest of time. You can save up the answers and take whatever questions might be remaining from the opposition There are probably few, if any, because they've obviously all been answered, and they don't want to filibuster things and cost the taxpayers a whole lot of unnecessary funds. I'm sure there might be some questions remaining on our side. But what you could do, Madam Minister, is collect all of those questions, mine included, so you don't have to answer the same question 50 times. I'll be back for the answer.

The only thing remaining that I wanted to mention has to do with, again, this whole idea of keeping our highways attractive. We have in this province some areas that are obviously suffering from some fairly critical growth. I think it's important that we maintain those highways as somewhat scenic corridors wherever possible. It would be a pity if ever we saw in our province — and I guess perhaps I could already show you some places where it has happened in the past, and I regret that — the highways and freeways ending up such as we see them in San Jose or places outside San Francisco, where they have the factories, the billboards, the signs and the storage yards right up to the edge of those freeways.

I think it would be environmentally wonderful, ecologically the right thing and certainly good for mind and body if we could leave some trees, some landscaping and beautification along those highways. That to me is such a good investment in so many ways. I don't want to see a San Jose — or a Seattle for that matter, where we see much of the same thing. I hope we can really work aggressively to avoid that and keep our highways pleasant, clean and green. Thank you, Madam Minister.

MR. MOWAT: I am very pleased to follow the Premier. It seems I've been following the Premier for about three and a half years.

I want to speak on the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Coming from a riding that has no provincial highways, I'll skip the highways. But I do say, as the Premier did, that our highways are in excellent shape. I drove on a number of them last weekend and on a number of them this morning coming from Vancouver.

I want to talk about SkyTrain and say to the minister how much we appreciate the accessibility of SkyTrain to so many of our citizens, particularly our senior and mobility-impaired citizens. There are a couple of areas I know we need to continue to work on. One is the Granville Street station, where we need an elevator. In the original plans, a building was to be constructed that would give us access. I understand that building is almost ready to go ahead now. This would give us an elevator for street access.

The real congratulations, though, go to the transit system in the Greater Vancouver Regional District for purchasing new buses that will be equipped with wheelchair lifts. So the buses will now have access for

[ Page 11026 ]

those persons with wheelchairs. This will take care of not only persons with wheelchairs but also over 400,000 senior citizens in Vancouver. They will have access to SkyTrain and now to the transit buses with the elevating lift devices, should they require them.

We also have an ever-expanding handyDART system. It's interesting to note that even in the critic's riding of Nanaimo we now have handyDART. I think that shows the minister is not political at all. She has expanded the handyDART system to the urban centres, and now it's going throughout the province.

MR. LOVICK: Long haul. Major struggle.

MR. MOWAT: Well, maybe the critic was not strong enough. I know a lot of other ridings have handyDART because the people got behind the member and asked for it.

I notice in the House today Mike O'Connor and his chief financial officer from B.C. Transit. I just want to acknowledge their presence and thank the president and chief executive officer for always having an open door for so many people.

I want to talk about the ferries. Some of us don't ride jets; some of us ride ferries. I want to say what an amazing job the ferries do. I'm sure you're aware — and we've discussed this — of how busy the ferries are and how stretched they are in so many areas. The number of passengers and vehicles that they carry continues to increase each year. I know that you, your ministry and the Ferry Corporation have done a lot of planning.

[10:15]

I have a number of friends on Bowen Island, and they continually present their plans on how we need to expand services. Bowen Island is becoming a very large community that's going to be another bedroom community for Vancouver, and the need to expand our ferry system is there.

I want to thank the minister also for taking time recently to meet with the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. It was really appreciated, and a great dialogue went on about disabled parking passes and a number of other items that the council brought to the minister's attention. She stated that she would look into those.

I think what I'd like to leave with the minister is that we need to expand and continue to look at the expansion of the transit system, with more elevating lifts on the buses and the continued expansion of handyDART. To the minister who always has time to discuss these concerns that I and my disabled colleagues have, and the prompt replies....

We have a concern in our community — particularly in Vancouver–Little Mountain and now in Quilchena and part of Kensington — as to the new SkyTrain route or what kind of a system it will be when it transfers into Richmond. I know a lot of citizens are concerned about the route, the destination and the type of equipment that will be used, I know we have assurance from the minister, and maybe the minister would just reassure the citizens that no decision will be made — whether it be the Arbutus line, Cambie, Granville, Main Street or even Fraser Street — until there is full input by the citizens whose neighbourhood the SkyTrain route will run through.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the estimates of the minister, which I strongly support.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Possibly I could start out by responding to some of the questions that were put to me by the last few speakers. The member for Nanaimo was expressing some concern as to the inclusion or lack of inclusion of the sum of money that was given to B.C. Transit last year, and somehow he was of the understanding that we did not make a proper comparison in this year's budget. If he looks on page 230 of the blue book this year, he'll see that we show the amount of money that was given to Transit in both the left-hand and right-hand columns. It was transferred over from Municipal Affairs last year, and it is accurately reflected in there.

To the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), a question was asked about the Churn Creek bridge. Work will start this year, with projected completion for next year. Highway 97 north of 100 Mile House is an area that is being looked at very seriously. We have no work scheduled for this year, but we will ensure that the contractor does a good job in keeping the road safe until we do go in and resurface it.

The comments from the Premier were quite interesting, and we do receive a lot of accolades for the way in which our private contractors are maintaining the sides of the roads and the centre islands. Highway 99 north of the border is in particular a fine example, and it must be a welcome sight for tourists coming into British Columbia. It's a strong indication, in my view, that the privatization process is certainly working. The contractors are diligently showing us that they are prepared to do what they have contracted to do in an exceptionally outstanding way. We hear a lot of good comments about the work that's being done there.

The question the Premier poses is: "What can we do to improve the traffic flow in the area of the Deas Island Tunnel?" Highway 99, from the tunnel to the Oak Street bridge, is being looked at by staff at this time. We are hoping that before the year is out we will identify the options that will be available to us to allow us to consider how to best address the congestion problems in that area. There is no question about the fact that the counterflow is bringing relief to the traffic moving north and south. We do know that those posts — or whatever they're called — which stick up in the road cause some people concern, and that they feel....

MR. JONES: Bollards.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bollards. They do make some people nervous, but it seems to me that they are working. When we have counterflow traffic, with the traffic going two ways on one side of the tunnel, I rather like the idea of those bollards being there.

The barrier on 99 near the Oak Street Bridge is an experiment. It is a new form of barrier, and the

[ Page 11027 ]

ministry looks upon this as a test site. The Premier mentioned that it was not kept as tidy around those barriers as he would like to see it be — with paper blowing up against them. We'll have our contractors look at that.

The signage has been a sore spot of not only the Premier, but of several of our members, including me, for some time now. As a result of that, we have set up a committee to review the placement and size of the lettering on those signs. We have, up until this point in time, been following the Canadian standards, and the result is not satisfactory. It just seems that for whatever reason, it may be appropriate across Canada, but it doesn't seem to be acceptable to our travelling public. So we have set up a committee made up of representatives of the automobile and tourist associations, plus some people from the community.

We have retained the services of a consultant from California who is experienced in the ways of signage that have been employed in California. It seems to almost be an ideal. When people compare our signage to other areas, they come back and say: "Why aren't you doing it the way they're doing it down in California?" We are getting input from somebody who is experienced in the way they handle their sign policy down there. Hopefully when we get through with our review — and it shouldn't take too long — we'll be able to come up with some recommendations that will be more acceptable to our travelling public.

I'll have to get the information on the Okanagan highway.

The scenic corridors: who could argue with the desire to have wider rights-of-way and more in the way of greenery? It is a goal that we have as well. It's something that we're looking at, particularly on the Island Highway, because we wouldn't want to do anything to impair the beauty of the travel that people enjoy when they come over to the Island.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

To the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), there's no question about the additional emphasis that has been placed in all of our transit systems, whether it be SkyTrain, the trolleys or the buses, on accessibility. As you know, Mr Member, that is a priority with B.C. Transit. We have determined that the number of citizens we have, particularly in the lower mainland, who require additional assistance in order to achieve mobility is growing, and we are attempting through B.C. Transit to address those needs.

I can once again assure the member that both of the rapid transit extensions — the extension to Richmond and the extension to Coquitlam — will only be brought forward and achieved after a great deal of public input. In the case of Richmond, public input is required not only for the route but for the type of system. In the case of the Coquitlam extension, it will be SkyTrain, but we have not yet determined the route.

There will be a great deal of public consultation. There's no question about the fact that it's going to happen.

MR. LOVICK: I ducked out of the House to get my bill notes, because I understand that the transportation bill is coming up directly when we finish these estimates. But I did have the opportunity to hear the minister's answer to my question earlier.

I want to clarify. I wasn't suggesting that the system of reporting information — in terms of finding out the actual budget for Freedom to Move — was misleading. I'm saying that the campaign suggesting that Freedom to Move represents a significant increase in new money is misleading. I think your answer to my question, Madam Minister, would corroborate that. In other words, the analysis I present in terms of the capital construction budget last year versus this year.... When we factor in that transfer payment and other transfer payments, what we discover is only an absolutely nominal, marginal, barely significant increase. It will be eaten up, certainly, by the factor of inflation. It is wrong to suggest that what we're looking at under the heading of Freedom to Move is an expansionary model. I would emphasize that.

Madam Minister, I've been accustomed in the debate thus far to pose fairly direct questions rather than make too long statements, then to take my place, and you have answered. What seems to be happening this morning, however, is that there are a number of others intervening if you take more than a millisecond to answer. Therefore I'm going to take a little of the time allotted to me to put a number of things on the floor and give you an opportunity to respond en bloc.

I enjoyed listening to the Premier's comments. I always enjoy him in a more mellow mood. It's interesting to see that he sounded rather more like a member of the opposition. I guess he's practising for the new role. He made a good point, and a point that I had listed as one of my questions, on signage.

I'm pleased to hear that there is a committee established. Let me just share with the minister a little information. I've been in contact with a company that has a great deal to do with the new, burgeoning movie industry in Vancouver. They bring in buses of crews and casts and so forth, and they will go and do location shots throughout the lower mainland. That will frequently involve them in taking four or five fully loaded buses of equipment and staff and everything. The report that I was given from that group is that they have lost thousands and thousands of dollars by giving what they thought were good directions to these out-of-town visitors and crews and discovering that people were hopelessly lost — primarily, it seems, because of signage. I'm very pleased to see that that is being addressed. I hope that will cover the entire lower mainland. Is that the case? It's not just....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The entire province.

[ Page 11028 ]

MR. LOVICK: Well and good. It's good to know, because I don't think it's just a case of the Premier's eyesight failing. Probably it's true that our sign standard — the Canadian one — is inadequate, as you point out. I'm pleased to hear that's happening.

The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain made reference to handyDART and to B.C. Transit's efforts to accommodate the needs of the physically disabled. I think we're all pleased to recognize that B.C. Transit has done a good job. It has taken that responsibility very seriously and is to be commended for it.

I wonder if the minister can answer a very specific question for me on this one. My understanding is that presently people on social assistance who are physically disabled are able to take B.C. Transit. They get a pass. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing, I gather, takes care of the program. I'd like to know whether it's the case that that program of subsidy may be ending, I believe in August. I wonder if we could corroborate that. Is there any truth to the rumour we've heard?

[10:30]

Back to the Freedom to Move account. One of the criticisms one has is that if it's a plan, it's a plan that is rather old hat. One looks in vain, I think, at the Freedom to Move glossy pamphlets — both the green and the blue; one is the regional one and the other is for the whole province — for anything new. I feel like I'm reading Ecclesiastes or something — is there nothing new under the sun? — when I look at this stuff. Because I think: wait a minute, all this was announced before. How then do we call this a plan?

I can be very specific, but I don't want to take up a great deal of time. I could look, for example, at my own region, Vancouver Island, and could look at the regional plan and could go down the list of the 14 items and discover that a number of those things are already done. Not only are they in process, but they are done; they are finished; they are over. It is a leap in terms of semantics to suggest that by any stretch of the imagination this is a plan. This is a report on what's done. That's one problem with the Freedom to Move document that a number of us objective and impartial critics would see.

That was meant to be a little irony, Mr. Chairman. I know that sometimes that goes by.

The other point I would make about the Freedom to Move document.... I just want to touch very briefly on the point, because I introduced it yesterday, of the nature of planning.

What I think we got in Freedom to Move was essentially a cobbled-together document that can be appropriately referred to as a wish list. What we did was set up regional task forces — we're not even sure how much of that was Highways' initiative as opposed to the former ministries of state and all of that — we went out to the regions and said to people "Give us what you want," in effect, and we got this horrendously large package of requests. We seem to have undertaken a process thereafter of a rather arbitrary selection whereby some things were accepted from the regional reports and recommendations and others got lost in the shuffle.

Interestingly, for example — take again Vancouver Island, which I'm most familiar with — the regional transportation committee recommended a number of things. Those recommendations seem to have gone the way of the dodo; we certainly see no evidence of them. Other recommendations they acted on, and other powerful recommendations were totally ignored. One has to wonder, then, about the nature of that entire so-called planning process, let alone the consultative dimension.

I guess the question I would pose directly to the minister is: does she still look at those documents as in any way constituting a comprehensive transportation plan for the province? I hope the answer is no. I think if the answer is in the affirmative, then "plan" just became a four-letter word, because those documents are not, I think, by any stretch of the imagination to be considered a comprehensive transportation plan. I suspect that a number of Highways officials with expertise and knowledge in the area would agree with that, albeit they would have to do so in private.

I also want to pose a couple of questions, turning to another area — namely, the overall state of the ministry, if I can put it that way. I will base some of this, of course, on the auditor-general's report. I think the auditor-general's report does us all good service in its analysis and its performance of the value-for money audit of the ministry. Its comments, frankly, are a little alarming in a number of instances. As I said earlier, I'm not going to bring all of that stuff into this debate, because we are having that discussion in Public Accounts. But the point I want to draw attention to is that the ministry has apparently suffered quite considerably from the combination of privatization, downsizing, reorganization and its fourth minister in three and a half years.

The result of all that seems to have been some considerable confusion. Now the minister, of course, may well want to say: "Oh no, that's much overstated." Let me just refer her to the most succinct expression of the problem from the auditor-general's perspective, on page 88 of the auditor's report under the heading "Major Capital Projects." He says:

"The ministry lacks the resources to ensure that its cost estimates are accurate enough for its needs. Furthermore, the ministry has not developed adequate systems for ensuring it gets the best price for consultant services or for making best use of the markets for contracting and for consulting services. Finally, its process for reviewing the quality of purchased services is not fully developed, especially in areas where it has only recently started to buy services" — i.e., the new regime.

That's pretty damning stuff, I think it's safe to say. I don't think one is being melodramatic in drawing your attention to that and saying that it clearly calls into question the ministry's ability to do what it ostensibly ought to be doing, and ought to be doing best.

I drew the conclusion yesterday, Madam Minister, in questions I was posing to you about the transfer to a special account of the B.C. Ferries subsidy of $51 million. You answered my question by informing us

[ Page 11029 ]

that yes, indeed, Highways' budget had been underspent by $51 million last year. That, I think, is a significant factor. The obvious question is: if indeed we can be that far out, doesn't that corroborate what the auditor is saying — that we obviously aren't very good at our estimates and our cost projection?

I am glad to see the minister shaking her head. Let me give her one more example.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Please don't accuse me of deliberately saying something that is untrue; that's not the case. I'm posing questions to you, suggesting that an independent analysis of the ministry offers certain conclusions that I am saying are damning. I am now proceeding to give you some evidence that would seem to corroborate that conclusion, so don't presume to tell me that that's not the case. What I'm saying is a matter of record.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I'll give you another example. Yesterday you informed the House that the ministry budget was underspent last year by $51 million. I'm suggesting to you that that's a pretty significant amount to mess up by — to miss by. That's a lot of money. And it obviously calls into question whether things are operating as they ought to be, whether we know what it's costing for our capital projects.

Let me give you the other example — a glaring example, it seems to me. In November 1988, the Vancouver Island Highway project was announced with great fanfare. The total amount of money was $600 million. In July 1990 we are now hearing something about $1.2 billion. Now that's not a minor error. From $600 million to $1.2 billion in less than a year, and the explanation given by the minister is environmental concerns. Good Lord, Mr. Chairman, are we supposed to believe that never before have we even thought about environment? We discovered environment between 1988 and 1990? Are we suggesting that somehow we simply couldn't estimate? We couldn't figure out what it's actually going to cost? I'm suggesting to the minister that those kinds of questions ought to be answered. I think the auditor's statement, the one I quoted to you, would be justified and corroborated by those two specific examples I gave you. I don't think that's selective use of evidence; I think that's a fair, legitimate set of questions to pose, and I'm asking for answers to those questions.

The other areas I wanted to touch on very briefly, and some very specific kinds of questions I would pose to you, are as follows. I know some of my colleagues want to get into this debate as well, so I'm going to try and pull my part together in this way, except perhaps to respond to whatever answers you give me.

Some specific questions. Has the ministry decided to revaluate and revisit its policy of burning tires as fire starters, as part of Highways' projects? That's an environmentally foolish and incredibly short-sighted policy. Surely we can find other stuff to burn as a replacement. I think that's a policy that might have been defensible 20 years ago, but certainly not with what we know today, and I would dearly hope that's been revisited.

Secondly, I would like the minister to comment about that whole area of the major-projects review process that was introduced by your colleague the Minister of Environment some time ago now. The question that seems to me to shriek out for answer is why Highways' projects aren't part of that process. They are the exception in terms of listing all the different kinds of major projects. Highways isn't there. I would like to know why that's the case. Perhaps the answer is that Highways feels it has its own system that's adequate or better or something. But it seems to be a tremendous absence and one that needs attention.

Thirdly, I'd let to get an answer, if I could....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. BLENCOE: This is an excellent line of questioning, and I'd like my colleague to continue this morning.

MR. LOVICK: I thank my colleague for that, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be brief. I don't, as I say, intend to take up a whole lot of time here.

One phenomenon that I have noticed — and it seems relatively recent — in driving around the province both in the interior and on the Island in the last three weeks or so is the greater incidence of concrete dividers in the middle of highways. Instead of a median of any kind, there are these concrete dividers. They go from about 18 inches high to almost three feet high — I'm not sure of the exact dimensions. I would like to ask the minister to explain, if she would, the policy governing the installation of those concrete dividers. I know it's clearly going to be a safety issue, but it strikes me that those dividers seem to occur in places where they appear to have no justification.

I can give some specific examples. Close to home, in the constituencies of Cowichan-Malahat and Nanaimo, there are stretches of road where there is really no reason for anybody to turn off; where the highway alignment is as straight as a die and we have approximately one kilometre of that concrete solidly down the middle of the road. It also seems to be rather high, to the point that you perhaps wouldn't have full visibility in terms of seeing other cars coming — if you were, say, sitting in a low-slung sports cars or some such thing and they were at the end of the concrete to make a left turn.

How long has that policy of using concrete dividers been in place? What are the criteria governing that? How much does that stuff cost? A retired highways manager in Nanaimo told me a while ago that he'd like to have the contract for concrete in the last couple of years, because it looks as if we're using

[ Page 11030 ]

a lot more of it. The question is: why are we? That's all. So if you could answer that for me....

Finally, the last question I would pose has to do with the relationship between your ministry and the Solicitor-General. We spoke earlier, Madam Minister, about the desirability of having all transportation issues and areas coming directly under the control of a single ministry. What we have, unfortunately, is the anomalous situation where certain things are clearly under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor-General's ministry that have a direct and very significant impact on highways.

For example, load limits. We know what excessive loads and excessively large vehicles can do to highways. So clearly a regulation coming from the Solicitor-General's ministry can have a tremendous direct budgetary impact on the Highways ministry. I'm wondering if the minister could illustrate for us just what the relationship is between those two ministries insofar as they deal with transportation matters, and also whether the ministry.... I'm sorry — as I started to formulate this question I realized it may be outside your jurisdiction.

The recent report that was produced by the provincial safety committee — the name of which escapes me.... Is that also being reviewed by Highways staff as well as Solicitor-General staff? A number of recommendations were made in that report — I think it came down about six months ago; maybe a year ago — concerning licensing, vehicles, vehicle inspection and all of that, most of which I recognize probably falls within the ambit and mandate of the Solicitor-General. But it certainly has a direct impact, and I'm wondering if your ministry is doing anything with those.

Those are some rather specific questions I have, Madam Minister, and I would appreciate answers to them.

[10:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You referred to a subsidy that is somehow paid through Social Services to people using B.C. Transit. I would suggest that the question would be more appropriately put to Social Services. B.C. Transit is not involved directly in the subsidy program.

You suggest that the Freedom to Move document does not indicate any new initiatives. I would respond by saying that close to 200 initiatives have been identified. I would like the first member for Nanaimo to specifically indicate to me when and where each of those have already been announced.

I think we should emphasize that the results shown in the booklet are in direct response to the local representatives and the priorities that were set by the task forces in each of the regions. Possibly the first member for Nanaimo doesn't agree with the priorities that were set by the members from his region, but that is the way we arrived at our priorities. It was in direct response to those set by the citizens of the community. All of the recommendations aren't shown in this booklet, because some of them are going to take us longer than the first few years of our program. But all of them are still contained in the long-range plan that is being worked on in the ministry. The brochure indicates only those that we are in a position to proceed with over the next few years.

As I mentioned yesterday, the remaining priorities will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis by people from the region to ensure that we are responding to the needs as they may change in any of the regions.

I notice that you were very selective in your reading from the auditor-generals report. You may be alarmed by the auditor-general's comments. Ministry staff and the minister are not alarmed. I would suggest that you read the very first sentence under "Overall Conclusions": "We found that the ministry has significantly improved the way it manages major highway construction projects since Commissioner MacKay reported his findings in 1987."

If one reads through the report, it is not difficult to determine that most of the weaknesses had been identified either by Mr. MacKay or by ministry staff themselves. We don't hesitate to admit that there were weaknesses in the ministry operation, but we also think we should be given credit for the fact that we have identified those weaknesses. It wasn't the auditor-general who identified them; it was the ministry and MacKay. We are taking steps to address those weaknesses.

Once again you've gone into the fact that we underspent the budget last year, and that somehow it was because we were not competent to estimate the cost of the projects. I explained to you yesterday, hon. member, that it's not a matter of inaccurate estimates; it's a matter of the required cash flow. Not every single project that had been on the drawing-boards to be started during the last fiscal year was started, and that was why we....

MR. LOVICK: It's okay; I'm listening.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Do you really want the answers to your questions?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: And the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) should be in his seat if he wants to speak.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, come on, will you?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Then don't keep nattering back at me when you're sitting in a seat other than your own.

The burning tires policy. We agree with you, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, and that policy is under review. It's not satisfactory to the ministry, as well.

You asked a question with regard to environmental assessments and why the list of projects that had been enunciated by the Ministry of Environment did not include highways. We do a very extensive environmental assessment. But could I ask the member a

[ Page 11031 ]

question: would you like us to start again and do an environmental assessment review on the Island Highway? Maybe our grandchildren will be able to build a highway, if we undertake something like that, because we certainly wouldn't be able to do it at this point in time. If you're suggesting that we should be doing more than we're already doing, I believe what we're doing is very adequate.

Your concern regarding the concrete dividers. That is strictly a safety issue.

As for the regulations to do with the use of the highways, I would suggest you put that question to the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser). But you may be interested in knowing that the Provincial Transportation Council that we have structured is made up of the senior staff members of not only the three Crown corporations and the Ministry of Highways but also the department of motor vehicles.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd just like to compliment the Minister of Transportation and Highways on the job she is doing, I want to recognize senior staff, who have been very open and accessible in questions that I have had from the point of view of concerns within my particular constituency.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to raise a couple of issues that are of major concern. I think worthy of noting is that since we have opened up Highway 10 for access to the new mid-Island express route for B.C. Ferries, we have had a fairly large increase in not only truck traffic but also automobiles. I would ask that the ministry and the minister.... I know that the commitment was made to do counts, etc., on the highway, but I would ask that we consider, at some point, having a route other than Highway 10 — a bypass of 10, if you like — that would connect possibly to the south of the municipal hall area, or maybe out as far as the Highway 17 overpass of the B.C. Rail delivery route to Roberts Bank.

It's important to recognize, too, that the interchange at 56th and Highway 17.... I hope at some point that this is moved forward, because we are seeing increasing backups in the lanes for a left turn southbound on 56th Street. It would cause a continuous flow if we could have a full interchange at 56th and 17. I hope the ministry will consider this as an extremely important issue and as something we should address as quickly as possible.

I think we would also require an interchange for the one I talked about just a moment ago. My suggestion, Madam Minister, is that it be located in the area of the 42nd alignment, and then follow the railroad track around and probably take the 72nd Street alignment over to where there may be a full interchange at Highway 99.

I just raise those as a couple of key issues of concern to people in Delta who often call my office about children crossing roads to go to school. I raise that for your awareness, Madam Minister, and for your staff's. Again I compliment you and the staff on the job you are doing.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to pick up on all of the answers to the questions. I appreciate the answers, but I don't want to just engage in some kind of debate. Instead, what I want to do is to ask for a clarification regarding the concrete dividers. If we put concrete dividers for safety purposes down straight four-lane stretches of road, where there are no apparent reasons on either side of a road for one to turn off, logically you could argue we ought to do the same with every mile of road in the province. Surely there are more substantive and specific criteria than simply "safety." I'm wondering if the minister would tell me something about those criteria.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: If you would like to give us the specific location that you have a concern with, we will get you the rationale for the installation.

MR. KEMPF: In this very tempered atmosphere of debate here this morning, I want to return for just a moment to the question of signage. It's always been a subject of great interest to me and to many of my constituents over the years, as I've intervened with a number of ministers with respect to the signage policies of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

In getting up this morning, I would caution the minister that there are two distinct areas in British Columbia — urban and rural. We can't have a signage policy that's etched in stone, because a policy that perhaps fits well in the lower mainland may not fit very well in rural British Columbia. I've certainly seen that in the area I represent.

I would caution the minister also that many small businesses depend on signs that they themselves have erected — on private property, I might add. They depend on those signs for their livelihood. They depend on those signs as directional signs for the public to know where to find their particular businesses.

I would also caution the minister, particularly with staff in attendance here this morning, about the sometimes Gestapo-like tactics of the Ministry of Highways with respect to urgings by them that individuals tear down those signs, or — as I think I read in one letter — "If you don't take them down, we'll tear them down." Again I say: we have two different areas in British Columbia.

As far as aesthetics are concerned, I agree with many of my constituents that most of those signs are far more aesthetically acceptable than the Burma Shave type of blue and white signs we now see being erected by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, which I think, in the very green atmosphere of northern British Columbia, are God-awful, frankly.

I just caution the minister about the signage policy. We've always had, as I understand it, a signage policy in British Columbia, but it has been a very soft policy as overseen by previous ministers. I would suggest very seriously that we continue that soft policy with respect to personal business signs erected on private property. It's all very well to have yet another committee made up — as I understand it

[ Page 11032 ]

and heard earlier — mostly of people from the lower mainland to decide what we shall do in rural British Columbia as far as signs on the highway are concerned. I very seriously caution the minister that it's a real bone of contention and a real sore spot among many small business people striving to make a living out there that they should be told that signs they have paid good money for and — I can't repeat this too many times — erected on private property have to be torn down by the staff of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

[11:00]

They're not tourism signs necessarily; some of them are. They really don't fall into that category of the blue and white Burma-Shave signs. But they are very valuable to those citizens out there, most of them small business people having a tough time making a living in this day and age as it is.

The point of my getting up this morning is to urge the minister very strongly that perhaps a signage policy that fits very well at the Deas Tunnel doesn't fit very well in Omineca. I think you have to keep that in mind, and you have to keep in mind the damage that such a policy might do to small business in that area.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I really don't appreciate the suggestion that the ministry staff operate like a Gestapo.

We do have a committee that deals with the signage throughout the province, and we in the ministry and the committee understand very well the difference between urban and rural needs as they apply to signage. It is my understanding that signs on highway rights-of-way are being policed by this ministry but that private signs on private land are not. If the member for Omineca has a specific example of a situation where ministry staff have gone onto private land and removed signs, I would certainly like to have that example, because I'm told by ministry staff that they do not enter onto private lands. In fact, in some of the outlying areas, particularly in the north, it has been suggested that if the private entrepreneur would move his sign from the highway right-of-way onto private land, then it would be out of our realm of jurisdiction that we are attempting to clear up.

We have members serving on this signage committee, representatives of not only the tourism industry but also of businesses throughout the province. We have several members from the northern part of the province who are serving on this committee, and I have met with them. It's my understanding that they're very pleased with our new signage policy.

I'll say once again that if there's an example of a Ministry of Highways staff member going onto private land and removing the signs, I would certainly like to hear about it.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and debate on this matter. Some time ago, I think it was around the end of 1989, 1 had the opportunity to meet with the minister and ask her some questions about the plans in relation to the Western Communities —View Royal and out towards Sooke. I want to thank the minister for the opportunity to at least meet with her and discuss some of the plans, She provided me a rough sketch of where the ministry was going with respect to the improvements to highways in the Western Communities.

The minister knows full well that there has been a tremendous increase in population out in the Western Communities, and she understands, I know, that there has been a significant increase in the volume of traffic there. Of course, people are frustrated with getting caught up in the Colwood crawl, either going into work in the morning or coming home in the evening. There are a number of available options, it seems to me, to resolve the problem. I will talk about those options in a minute.

At this point I want to simply say to the minister that there was an expectation in the Western Communities that in June the ministry would unveil with some detail their plans in relation to changing the roads in the area. That didn't transpire, and it may be at least another nine months, according to what I read in the local press, before we begin to hear what the ministry's plans are and when one can expect to have public hearings to discuss those plans. In the meantime, there is a lot of concern within the Western Communities. People are worried that they may lose their homes and that there might be intrusions into parks as the ministry tries to resolve its highways problems in the area.

I don't want to get into the debate about Pat Bay Highway — it's not in my riding — but I think it's safe to say that the ministry has learned a lot from that experience. They've learned the need to make sure that there is adequate public input at the front end and sharing with the public in terms of what the plans of the ministry are. People want to know exactly what's being proposed and then to have the ability to try to influence the proposals so as to minimize any harm to the community. I'm sure that the minister will agree with me that that ought to be an objective.

My first question to the minister is this: I'm wondering if she could bring me up to date in terms of the time-line her ministry now has in place with respect to its plans for the Western Communities and to when it intends to go to public hearings. I understand what the proposed routes are that the ministry is looking at, but even as an MLA I've had some difficulty — in fact, total difficulty — in procuring from the ministry a map outlining at least what the alternatives are that you are looking at right now. I'm not too sure why that hasn't been forthcoming, but even that would be a good first step.

I'd like the minister, first, just to bring us up to date on what's happening in terms of plans for public hearings and for routing, and what timetable she's working on, so that we've got some idea of when we might be able to hear from the ministry as to its plans for resolving the Colwood crawl.

[ Page 11033 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's my understanding that there was a liaison meeting held last week which included representatives from some of the affected communities. It is expected that the consultant will have identified the options that are available and that we will probably be in a position to start public meetings after Labour Day.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that once the consultant's report is complete, the minister obviously would have no difficulty in making sure I got a copy of it — the minister just needs to nod, unless there's a problem. I take it there shouldn't be a problem with that. It would be a public document, and I don't think there would be a problem at that point. Certainly after Labour Day is a reasonable position for the minister to take.

I want to turn to another, related issue. There are options in terms of what could happen between now and then — "then" being when there are improvements in the highways. I know the ministry is looking at a number of options, which I would concur with.

One, of course, is to work with the federal government to try to see if there is any opportunity to adjust the hours at the dockyard in Esquimalt to ensure that the load of traffic is in some way alleviated during mornings and afternoons. I don't know what the status of that is, but that suggestion has been made to the minister. I think it's an appropriate suggestion, and perhaps we could be brought up to date with respect to it.

The other one is far more difficult: the provision of light rapid transit in the area. I must concede that, with mild surprise, I noted that in the last householder I did to my constituents, the majority of individuals felt that LRT was a better option than highways improvements.

I think that we all recognize that no single transportation mode is going to solve all of the problems. I don't think there's an urban design anywhere where you go that's only with LRT or only with roads. You have to have a mix of LRT, roads and special lanes for buses in connection with the transit authority, which I know the minister also has responsibility for. That is the way a plan should be developed. Accordingly, I would hope that the plan the ministry is looking at in terms of its consultant's work would be broad-based and would look at all of the options I've outlined.

I must also say that I was disappointed in the report B.C. Transit produced on May 1 wherein it rejected light rapid transit options for the Western Communities. I must confess that I think — particularly given the feedback I am getting from my constituents — a greater priority ought to be accorded by the ministry to the matter of light rapid transit in the Western Communities.

I don't think there's a demand out in the Western Communities — I think this is where's there's been some misunderstanding — for a Cadillac-like LRT service akin to Vancouver's. The report that B.C. Transit prepared looked exclusively at a Vancouver-type LRT option. As a result, the cost was fairly significant — somewhere in the neighbourhood of $335 million.

On the other hand, there is another option: the leasing of the E&N line and the utilization of that existing line to run a service through the Western Communities. Again, I know that community groups have put forward that option. When you begin to take a look at that option vis-à-vis the option in the report of B.C. Transit, the costs go down significantly from $335 million, because one would not have to spend $20 million buying the CNR right-of-way or engaging in most of the costs that are enumerated in that report. In fact, some have estimated — and I don't think it's a gross estimation — that if we were to lease the E&N line from CP, the cost of providing a light rail option to the Western Communities would be some $200 million less than what B.C. Transit estimated the cost to be in its report. There's a difference between building a Cadillac system and utilizing a line that already exists and leasing that line for the time that you need to provide that service.

Others have argued that perhaps you should only run the service in the peak hours in the morning and afternoon. Those are all options that I think ought to be considered.

I'd like to know from the minister to what extent these other options are being looked at by the ministry, how serious they are about those options and what their long-term plans are with respect to rail transit in the Western Communities — utilizing the existing line and not the CNR right-of-way that you referred to in your report.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It is unfortunate that you weren't in the House last evening when I responded to the questions from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull), because we did canvass the area of light rail transit. The importance that we place on local participation in that planning process would leave us with a response that between the CRD and the Victoria Regional Transit Commission — both of them made up of locally elected representatives — if they would like to see some type of planning done along that line, they should be doing it.

But in the meantime, the CNR corridor will be protected. You are asking for a rapid transit system, hon. member, to service a population roughly equal to the population of Surrey. You have to be a little bit realistic. If the local communities feel that they want to include in their official community plans some form of rapid transit, they should be making provision for that. But we're not going to go in and tell them what it is they should be doing or how they should be planning their communities to accommodate a form of rapid transit. Having said all of that, while we do our planning highways-wise, we will be ensuring the protection of the CNR corridor.

[11:15]

You mentioned that you sent out a householder and that you were surprised at the response you received and the support for rapid transit. I saw your

[ Page 11034 ]

householder, hon. member, and you got precisely the answer that you knew you were going to get. It was the way that you phrased your questions. You knew what your answers were going to be.

The Department of National Defence is not terribly interested in making any adjustments to their hours of operation. That was your other question.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to make the following comments to the minister. First of all, don't tell me that I put out a householder knowing what the answer was going to be. That wasn't the case; otherwise, I wouldn't suggest to you that I was surprised at the results. In fact, let me say to you that the householder you referred to is one of two surveys that I did in the area. Both provided the same result. Madam Minister, I think that kind of cheek is unnecessary.

Secondly, I think you are passing the buck, quite frankly, when you are suggesting that it's up to the local communities to make those plans. It's very clear that that ought to be part of a long-term plan.

Thirdly, quite frankly, I again think you are wrong when you suggest that.... When you deal with the CN corridor and your comments about Surrey, I don't think you have a full appreciation of the kind of system that we're talking about versus the kind of system that you're talking about. Really, we are talking about a totally different option in the Western Communities, and that is utilization of the existing E&N line. You don't have to start putting new track on the CN corridor. You don't have to talk about acquiring the land along the CN corridor. You've got the E&N line there. It sits vacant for a number of hours during the day. You can use that line. You can lease some time on that line to run a commuter service-a real option service — like they've got in Toronto, not like the one they've got in Vancouver or Surrey that you are thinking about. It's like what they've got in Toronto, a sort of GO system that takes people into town, drops them off and brings them back in during working hours. Those are the kinds of things that your ministry should be planning.

On the fourth note of planning, let me say that the one thing that surprises me throughout all of the discussions I've had with you and your officials, and what I've read in the press about Pat Bay and my end of the greater Victoria area, is the absence of planning by your ministry. Your ministry doesn't seem to have any plans in place. What you seem to be doing is building a road. That's fine. Then when the volume is such as to plug up that road, you don't know what to do next. Now you are caught in a bind of having to intrude into parks — in terms of Thetis Lake — and you know there's going to be some public frustration expressed about that, as is already the case.

You are stuck with the problem of having to build overpasses and cloverleafs that are going to wipe out a number of houses — we don't know how many yet — in the View Royal area around Helmcken Road You are going to have to make some changes to the Millstream extension. I believe you have to improve the road network out in the Western Communities. I understand some people are going to be upset about that. What I'm saying is that if your ministry starts doing now what it should have been doing during the last 30 years — engaging in some type of long-term planning — you can minimize the kind of disruption you are going to cause to those communities.

That's what I'm asking your ministry to do. I was amazed, when I met with your officials and looked at the plans you've come up with, at how little planning there was in place. There was no detailed technical work, no detailed engineering work and no real idea of what you wanted to do.

It's not surprising, therefore, that you got flak in Saanich on Pat Bay. It's not surprising that you're getting flak in the Mill Bay area about the changes you're proposing there in terms of the Trans-Canada Highway. It's not surprising that I'm standing here saying to you that I've seen what has happened in Saanich and on the Malahat and that I don't want the same stuff to happen in my riding with respect to my constituents.

When you come down with your report in terms of what you're going to do in the Western Communities, I want you to have the report look at all these options and minimize the type of disruption you're going to cause in the Western Communities. I think that you can do that. I really honestly believe that you can do that. I'm not convinced, however, that there's the will on the part of your ministry to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member direct his comments through the Chair and not directly to the minister.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not convinced that the will exists on the part of the ministry to attend to it as sensitively.... I really hope that your ministry through you, Mr. Chairman — has now learned of the errors that they've made there, and that we won't see a repeat of it.

Let me conclude by saying this. I think in terms of priorities.... I'll concede at the outset that every member who stands up in this House says that priorities in terms of highways improvements and transit options are number one in their riding versus another. Obviously everybody is going to say that, and obviously you have to make those judgments.

But vis-à-vis the greater Victoria area, if you take a look at what exists in terms of Pat Bay and the highway, the single lanes that we've got leading into the Trans-Canada Highway and the impact of the Colwood crawl.... I've travelled on both those routes at all the appropriate times — at 7 o'clock in the morning right through to 11 o'clock at night — and the problems that I see in the Colwood crawl and that I experience there are, in my mind, significantly more acute than the problems you've got on the Pat Bay. I think if you're continuing to have some problems out that way, your ministry ought to reassess its priorities and recognize that the problems you've got in the Western Communities are far more serious than they

[ Page 11035 ]

are elsewhere. I think that your ministry has not accorded....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the member please direct his comments through the Chair.

MR. LOVICK: Your ministry, Madam Minister through you, Mr. Chairman — has not paid sufficient heed in its planning to the need for these kinds of options to be addressed first in the Western Communities.

I want to thank the minister for her comments. There are a number of other matters I wanted to raise with her, but I have corresponded with her and her staff on some issues, and I'll wait for the response that way before pursuing it further in the House, should the opportunity exist.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief this morning. All I really wanted to do was to rise in your estimates, Madam Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — and pay my compliments to your staff right from the local district staff through to your office. Over the last three years now, I've been involved — as you know from when you were the minister of state for the Kootenays — in some of the task forces that were struck then. It's very rewarding to see that some of the fruits of those task force recommendations are now coming into full being. It's really the work your ministry has done and the cooperation your people have shown to those task forces that has made it all possible. Some of the other aspects of the good cooperation we have received were the extensions of the transit service in Creston and Kaslo, two communities that certainly needed the service and that received excellent cooperation from your staff.

On the matter of planning, I totally disagree with the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) Of course, this isn't the first time we've disagreed. I'm finding that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways indeed does some careful planning. The moves that were made on the Arrow Lakes last year with the ferry service were well planned and will certainly serve that whole valley — and especially Nakusp — for years to come.

The studies you're presently conducting on the Kootenay Lake ferry.... Certainly with the increased economics and the increased tourist traffic in the area, the ferry service on Kootenay Lake does need careful attention, and your ministry is looking at that at the present time. I'm very pleased, and I look forward to the results of that study.

Madam Minister, I would like to take this opportunity, while I am talking about all of the great things happening through your ministry in my constituency, to give you a very personal invitation to come to see the Slocan Bluffs when they're reopened. I believe they'll be reopened in September. I was over there the other day and went through them, and I had a hard time distinguishing where indeed the bluffs were.

The comments I'm receiving from the various members of the communities are quite amazing. Two years ago I received a lot of complaints about the closure of the bluffs while some remedial work was being carried out. But the communities can now see very clearly the tremendous job being done and the tremendous task that was undertaken, and they're very supportive of it. I would like to extend a personal invitation to you to come. I'd love to take you through the bluffs again when you won't have to sit and hang on to the door handles with an icy grip.

So to you, Madam Minister, and to your staff, my compliments for great cooperation and for great work being done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Possibly it becomes contagious when one member does not follow the normal parliamentary procedure of addressing the Chair. The Chair would like to say to all members that when in debate, comments should be made directly through the Chair and not to another member of this House.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I'd like to put to the minister. Just to set the context, on June 19 the minister, jointly with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), issued a news release entitled "Lignosulphonates Given Green Light by British Columbia and Quebec." Given the content of that news release, I would assume that lignosulphonates are presently being applied in various places throughout the province. The announcement is based on: (1) the British Columbia study of the issue of toxicity; and (2) a review of the Quebec study. My question is: is it correct that that is the basis of the British Columbia green light for the use of lignosulphonates — basically B.C.'s own study and Quebec's study?

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I need an affirmation of that, if that is correct, in order to go on to my next question. The minister has said to me across the floor, "Yes, that is correct, " so the record will show that.

My next question is: what was the nature of the B.C. study? Was it a thorough, independent study in the sense that the minister would assume the Quebec study was? Or was it simply a review of the Quebec study?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would suggest that that question should more appropriately be put to the Minister of Environment.

MR. CASHORE: The Minister of Transportation and Highways was one of the ministers who put out the news release, and one would assume that the minister had been apprised of the circumstances. However, I think it should be pointed out that there were actually three Quebec studies. Two of those studies were done in conjunction with the Quebec government by the Ecole Polytechnique. I would say it's very clear from this news release that the Minister

[ Page 11036 ]

of Transportation and Highways and also the Minister of Environment have based their approval on the Quebec approval.

Is the minister aware that Quebec is not now using lignosulphonate and will not be using it for at least one year?

[11:30]

HON. S. HAGEN: It's a great pleasure for me to stand in the House this morning as the MLA for the great riding of Comox, which for 14 years went with unaddressed highways needs, for the years 1986 and before. I'm going to compliment the minister.

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I would like to put to the minister. I was in the process of waiting for the minister to rise and answer my question. I believe the minister was preparing to do that, and I would like the opportunity to proceed with the line of questioning that I have begun with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not think that's a responsible point of order at this time, Mr. Member, in that the Minister for Regional and Economic Development was on his feet. Nobody else was standing at the time, so the Chair has no other choice but to recognize the member who was on his feet. The minister does not have to answer a question. If the Minister of Transportation wishes to rise and answer the question, she may. The Chair was recognizing the person who was first on his feet.

The member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. BLENCOE: All morning this has happened to our critic in this area on a line of questioning and clearly waiting for a response. It continues this morning — our members in the opposition trying to acquire information broken up by members of the government. It would make a lot more sense, I think, in the interests of the public of this province, that we be allowed to proceed with some continuity instead of breaking up the line of questioning. That would be in the interest of everyone in this House.

I understand the minister may have some comments to make, but my good colleague was on a train of thought, and I think it would be appropriate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As indicated, I don't think that's a valid point of order. The Chair has no obligation but to follow the rule laid down by the members of this House, which is to recognize the first person standing at the time. Having no one else standing, the Chair recognized the Minister of Regional and Economic Development.

HON. S. HAGEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman — a very wise decision. I want to ask the minister a question, and I think it should be the right of every member in this House to question ministers. I have been recognized, and I think I have that right.

I want to compliment the minister for the highways contracts that have been completed in my riding. People in the riding have been waiting for them for many years and were very thankful when they occurred — contracts like the widening of the main highway through Parksville and through Courtenay, and the widening and passing lanes that were added on the stretch of highway north of Qualicum.

I want to put on the record that unlike the candidate for the NDP, who does not have the Island Highway as a priority and, as a matter of fact, cannot speak positively about the Island Highway.... I want to say, in representing the constituents of the Comox riding, that the Island Highway is indeed a priority.

I want to compliment the minister for putting in place the public process whereby any and every member of the public has the opportunity to find out at what stage the highway is, the planning, the route selection, the corridor selection, the engineering, the environmental concerns. I want to compliment the minister for the public meetings that have been held. I doubt that there is a highway project anywhere in the world that has the opportunity for public input that the Island Highway project has had. It is a priority for Vancouver Island, and I want to compliment the minister and her staff for the way they are handling that project.

Last, I want to say that the citizens of the Comox Valley are very thankful for the transit system that is going to be implemented on July 23, and particularly the handyDART service. I want to thank the minister for making this the first environmentally friendly handyDART system in British Columbia. I know she will carry on the work that's been done. The citizens there are very appreciative of the fact that these new handyDARTs will be powered by propane, and then when the Vancouver Island gas pipeline has gas flowing through it they will be powered by natural gas. It's a big improvement, a big step. The minister and her staff have done an exceptional and outstanding job.

MR. CASHORE: The minister hasn't risen in her place to answer my question. Is the minister aware that Quebec is not now using lignosulphonate and will not be using it for one year?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I wasn't aware of that, and we have a staff member out checking that for us right now.

I would like to respond to the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen). It's really great to be able to stand here as the Minister of Transportation and Highways, because there are a lot of really exciting projects taking place in the province right now. We have an exceptional staff, not only in the ministry but in each of the Crown corporations. While they're out there doing all this hard work, I'm getting all the accolades, so I'm pleased that they're here to share these with us, because we're hearing comments such as we have heard from the member opposite. We don't hear too many from members of the NDP publicly, but I can tell you that when I speak to members opposite privately, many of them also are delighted with what we're doing.

[ Page 11037 ]

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to say why the Quebec government is not using lignosulphonate. Firstly, the Quebec test was actually two tests done by the Éole Polytechnique in consultation with the Quebec government. Secondly, samples for testing were supplied by the company, and therefore they were not random samples. It turned out that even though they were not random samples, one sample was found to contain dioxin, thus placing into very serious criticism and question the June 19 news release.

As a result of this testing that was done by the Quebec École Polytechnique in consultation with the government, there resulted some recommendations with regard to the application. As I go through these recommendations, they make it clear that, de facto, it is not possible for Quebec — if it follows these recommendations — to use the substance during this year.

The first recommendation is that there must be an absolute, 100 percent certainty that there will be no rain for 48 hours. That in itself virtually renders it unusable — how can you have that kind of certainty? Secondly, they must test each batch prior to application; thirdly, there must be a field test during application; fourthly, this must be followed up with a report after application; and finally, they must secure a certificate of acceptance from the Quebec standards bureau.

The source of my information is a Mr. Yvan Demers, assistant deputy minister, engineering. I've spoken to him personally, and he gave me that information. He also said, when pointing out that it would be required, that the product passed the Quebec standards bureau. He said: "Do you have a product standards bureau in British Columbia?" Interesting question.

This means, given those recommendations, that there will virtually be no application for one year. It also means that the government is incorrect in saying in its news release that the commodity is not toxic. If your assistant is listening, I'd be glad to give him Mr Demers' phone number; it's 418-643-3576. Having said that, one has to wonder about the appropriateness of this news release that went out on June 19. If indeed these applications are being made throughout the province, one has to be wondering about the appropriateness of that for the health and safety of British Columbians.

Is it true that your government owns the patent for the application, which is based on the invention of a Mr. Ludvik Mazuch, who is the asphalt scientist with your ministry and the inventor of B.C. Stabilizer, a compound of asphaltic emulsion, lignosulphonate and water. Is it true that your government owns the patent on that process?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

MR. CASHORE: Is it true that your government gets a royalty every time the process is used? Is it true that Mr. Mazuch receives approximately one-half of the royalty after expenses?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't have that information. I'll get it for you, though.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, while the minister has said that she will get that information for me, I have every reason to believe that that is a fact, and that therefore this government has a major vested interest in seeing to it that this product is used within the province.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You see a bogeyman under every bush.

MR. CASHORE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have already pointed out that the information the minister has put forward vis-à-vis the Quebec study is incorrect. So if I'm being accused of trying to find something under every stone, that is simply inappropriate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Stick to the estimates.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister's assistant is now in the process, hopefully, of verifying the information that I have made available. I think that the facts are really what we're interested in here today.

I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that the news release dated June 19 is deceptive and sloppy. At the worst it's dishonest and at best....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could we ask the member to please withdraw those comments?

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, my colleague wasn't referring to any individual; he was just referring to a news release. In his opinion, the news release was as he said. No inference was drawn about any individual, Mr. Chairman, so if the minister is offended, I suspect she is a little offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is taken. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is not implying anything about any other member of this House, and accordingly the member will continue.

MR. CASHORE: Absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I said that the news release was at worst dishonest and at best sloppy. I think I've pointed out that this ministry and the Ministry of Environment are taking enormous risks with the health and safety of British Columbians when you consider that the information they put forward in this news release is that this product is non-toxic and that it is safe, when in fact the very government they cite as having studies that support their position has now taken a position that is contrary to what this government is saying about that government.

[11:45]

[ Page 11038 ]

I have cited a list of recommendations that are being used in Quebec — a list of requirements to use this product which actually therefore, according to Mr. Demers, render it de facto not to be used during this year, because these recommendations are so stringent.

I would like to ask the minister if British Columbia is using the same recommendations in application of the product in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The same as what?

MR. CASHORE: The same as Quebec. I have outlined the recommendations that must be followed in Quebec. I am asking the minister if those same recommendations.... It cannot be used unless there's 100 percent certainty of no rain for 48 hours. It cannot be used unless each batch is tested through random sampling. It cannot be used unless there is a field test during application. There must be a report filed after application, and it must pass the bureau of standards in Quebec. Are those recommendations also being followed in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We follow the directive given us by the Minister of Environment. So the answer is no.

MR. CASHORE: Since the minister has pointed out that she follows the directives of the Ministry of Environment, I would ask if she would make available in the House what those regulations are.

There's a Dr. P.A. Anderson, who's an ecotoxicologist with Concordia University. He was involved in the first study that was done in Quebec — the first of the three studies. Dr. Anderson is quoted in a scholarly paper by Ludvik Mazuch as a reference that helps make his case for the safety of this product.

I would like to point out that there is an independent journalist by the name of Mr. Jim Crabtree who has been doing research on this subject. He has spoken to Dr. Anderson. I would like to quote from what Dr. Anderson said to Mr. Crabtree. Remember, Dr. Anderson's words have been used to justify the use of this product by this person who is an employee of this government, who stands to make a profit from the use of this product, as does this government. I think it's important that the Minister hear what Dr. Anderson said to Mr. Crabtree. He said:

" If any ministry has used my statements to confirm that it is permissible to use lignosulphonates on roads, that is extremely unfortunate. I have made only statements to private industry regarding solely the manner or methodology of researchers. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: lignosulphonate in any form is poisonous to all marine life, period."

I point out to the minister that in this news release it states: "The Quebec ban was in effect until further laboratory and field studies could be conducted. The results of those studies released by the Quebec Environment ministry, April 19, 1990, found lignosulphonates to be safe for the environment." Again, this news release says: "A B.C. Ministry of Environment study has also indicated that lignosulphonates are non-toxic." I believe that that is an error in fact, and that lignosulphonates are toxic. The question is to what degree they are toxic, and on that one the jury is out. Thirdly, the news release says: "The public can be assured that there is no need for concern about the use of lignosulphonates...." And here we have evidence tabled in this House today that the Quebec ministry which this government is citing is itself not using this product because they have serious questions about its safety and have put such stringent requirements on it as to render it unusable. This would certainly not appear to be the case in British Columbia.

I would like to point out that this is a subject the ombudsman is studying. It has been drawn to his attention by Mr. Bill Friedel and others from Cortes Island, who first raised this issue with the government last year. Mr. Friedel pointed out that the manager of a salmonid enhancement program noticed that when a lignosulphonate tanker truck leaked some of its contents into a lake, fish died. I think it is well known that because of biological oxygen demand, lignosulphonate kills fish.

I think I have made the case that this ministry is taking risks with the health and safety of people in British Columbia by putting out a faulty, inaccurate news release and by justifying a process that creates a potential problem which requires further study.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the member from Burnaby yawns. He doesn't seem to think that the health and safety of British Columbians is very important in this province; he doesn't care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have their opportunity to rise in debate. At the moment the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has been recognized by the Chair.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, this member can never justify taking risks with the food chain, with wildlife habitat or with our children's future. There are more cost-effective methods of dealing with dust suppression on B.C. highways. It would appear that this government has been involved in some attempt to hoodwink the public on this issue, and it's simply inappropriate.

The fact is that the vast majority of reports on lignosulphonate point out that it is toxic and deadly to marine life. It seems that this conclusion runs through virtually every paper on the subject except those of the manufacturers and of the Ministries of Highways and Environment in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to call upon this minister to stand in the House and state that she is going to conduct an immediate investigation of this issue, and that she is going to suspend the use of lignosulphonates pending a thorough review of the Quebec procedures that are taking place at this time,

[ Page 11039 ]

in the interests of protecting the health and safety of British Columbians.

MR. BLENCOE: Does the minister wish to respond to my colleague's request, or is she just going to ignore it? She's going to ignore it — okay.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to spend a couple of minutes.... I was in the House last night when my colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) was talking about the lack of regional coordination vis-à-vis light rapid transit. I must admit I was not surprised to hear the minister continuing her line of denouncing regional coordination and planning. It has been sort of a tradition for this minister to take that approach.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But I was surprised this morning when I heard the minister again talking about the lack of light rapid transit or light rapid rail, and that if the CRD is interested in such a concept, they can plan for it, but they can plan for it individually. What the minister is saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if we can get 11 municipalities to line up their little pieces of the track, we might be able to see something happen. I think that really indicates the archaic approach to planning such activities. Could the minister plan for the Pat Bay Highway if each municipality along that road was to deal with the planning individually, without having some kind of coordination on a regional basis? It really shows the kind of thinking that has to go on in this province. How can each municipality, when it comes to light rapid transit, expect 11 municipalities to line up and deal with individual pieces of track?

I think the minister's continuing defence of their position when it comes to regional planning and coordination just doesn't make sense. If that's the way she's doing the Pat Bay Highway, no wonder the government has got itself in trouble. No wonder we always seem to have to wait, when it comes to transportation problems, for chaos to emerge, and then have to try to talk on a regional basis, without legislative authority for those municipalities to have some responsibility for coordinating their activities.

I only have to take a look at some of the responses from local representatives in the peninsula. Their attitude to regional planning is from back in the Dark Ages. They won't even talk about an earthquake plan on a regional basis. They say that if there's an earthquake, they'll deal with their own problems Obviously that's totally, utterly ridiculous when it comes to coordinating activities on a regional basis.

The minister's position just doesn't make sense; you could drive a truck through it. How can you plan a highway when you expect...? You say, when it comes to light rapid rail, that if the 11 municipalities and the CRD want to do it piecemeal, they can do it. That doesn't make sense. I think its time the minister recognized that we need to have a coordinating mechanism in the capital region. This community has grown, and it is a metro. Her statement that she's protecting local autonomy is all very nice, but there are some things that need regional coordination. I would suggest that light rapid rail is one of them.

I want to put it on the record that the 12-page report mentioned by my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head quite frankly was an insult to this community. It really was a way to put the agenda off the stove, to put it on the back burner and to take away from the activities of organizations like the Greater Victoria Electric Railway Society, which has done some wonderful work in this area and is sincere in wanting to see something happen on a coordinated regional basis.

I think that 12-page report was quite frankly an insult, and I don't think it speaks well of this minister, who I think in most things approaches her responsibilities.... Certainly when she was in Municipal Affairs, I had respect for her way of dealing with things. But in this instance the minister is behind the times. They are defending the old Socred view that planning is a bad word, that it's anti-development and that it stops growth. But heaven forbid! Planning on a regional basis brings growth, but it's coordinated and planned properly.

I think the minister should go back and say to those interested parties wanting to bring light rapid rail to a growing community -before the problems become so horrendous, as we have in the lower mainland — that we can plan in advance and coordinate our activities in the Capital Regional District and that we can have a system whereby the 11 municipalities in the area have some responsibility in law that they have to talk to each other and plan ahead. Otherwise in ten years — or even five — we in this region will be facing, and we already are.... My colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) refers to the Colwood crawl. We're at that stage because we haven't done the long-range planning. You obliterated regional planning back in '83. We all know, and I won't go over that history, Mr. Chairman.

[12:00]

It's time to take our heads out of the sand and recognize that the capital region is growing, that it is time for a regional approach. It makes sense.

The minister's comments about light rapid rail — in terms of individual municipalities trying to line up their little sections of the track if they so desire — don't make sense.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to ask the minister about industrial roads and whether or not the ministry has finalized its work in terms of a policy in respect of (a) construction and (b) maintenance, in the broadest sense, of what you might call resource roads but what we refer to as industrial roads — logging and mining roads; in my constituency logging in particular.

Very briefly, there are two issues at least.

One is that whenever there is a request for a highway between communities, Highways always seems to come at this question from the point of view of building a highway, when what we really want is a mainline logging road which would be more than

[ Page 11040 ]

adequate in many cases to link communities. I wonder if the Highways ministry is now in a position to act upon a policy which would include these kinds of resource roads as part of its mandate.

Secondly, the whole question of administering these roads. We now have a bit of a patchwork quilt between communities. For example, if you are driving from Highway 19 and you want to go to either Zeballos or to Fair Harbour on your way to Kyuquot.... You have Zeballos, with village status, and you have a community with a significant Indian reserve and a non-Indian population in Kyuquot. To get there from Highway 19 you drive over logging roads and forest access roads. These are really public highways and should be categorized as public highways in every sense, with the exception of an ability on the part of the ministry to allow for off-road logging trucks; or maybe, in mining areas, off-road mine equipment.

There seems to be no reason why we can't have a joint use of these roads and continue to have the unlicensed industrial vehicles use them. We have a precedent for this on a paved road between Gold River and the pulp mill in Gold River, which is considered to be a joint-use highway. Unlicensed logging trucks use this highway with no problem whatsoever. These are 14-foot bunks; the fuel tax isn't paid; licences aren't on the trucks; they're oversized and overweight. But it's designed for that. The road is wide. It's a joint-use road, and it's maintained by the Highways ministry. That precedent, that approach, is appropriate. This is between Gold River and the pulp mill down at the head of the inlet.

It seems to me that the same principle should be applied to roads — which I think should be called highways — between these various public communities. I know these discussions have gone on for some time, but nothing seems to come of them, and I would urge that we can soon have something come of it so that we can get a proper highways policy in place in these resource communities.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the member for North Island, you're absolutely correct. This matter has been under discussion for quite some time. I'm told by ministry staff that they have identified all of the problems. They have identified the general principles that they feel should be followed, and they're in the process of forming policy which, with a little luck, should be available for public response probably in October. It was identified as a very big issue by the regional transportation committees. We know it's a problem, so I would expect that by October we'll have a good idea of precisely where we're going Then we'll allow for some public input, and of course that includes any of the MLAs who may be interested, and hopefully by the end of the year we'll have something firmly ready to go with.

MR. GABELMANN: In considering this, I hope the minister will recognize that in these areas we can actually build roads for $100,000 a kilometre or less But in many of these locations, at mainline logging standard — where even a highway at your most minimum standards is going to cost you a million dollars or so a kilometre — which from a public policy point of view meets the need and saves a heck of a lot of money, it's going to enable us to build roads where we might not otherwise build them.

For example, people talk about the Viking Highway — you've heard of this — at the north end of the island from Coal Harbour through to Holberg. To build a $1 million-a-mile road through there is in my view not required; it's not going to get on the list very easily. But $100,000 per kilometre or thereabouts then becomes a reasonable prospect. It's the same between Zeballos and Tahsis, and the same, hopefully, eventually between Tahsis and Woss. There are other instances of road construction that would then become feasible from a Highways point of view. So I just urge that it not only be the maintenance question but also the whole question of the standard of road constructed.

Vote 66 approved.

Vote 67: ministry operations, $639,842,060 — approved.

Vote 68: transportation capital, $576,661,517 — approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 17.

TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FUNDING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: In the second reading debate I made a number of statements about this account and the apprehensions we on this side of the chamber had about this particular measure. My comment was that we seemed to be dealing with what can fairly be called a "freedom to move money gesture." In the wake of Coquihalla and the MacKay commission, some of us are very concerned about that.

On the face of it, it appears that this particular measure does indeed give the minister what amounts to unfettered freedom to move money around and to do that for what could be, quite frankly, some pretty crass political purposes. I don't mean to suggest for a moment that this particular minister has that for an agenda. But given the experience we have had in this province in recent years with what can happen in

[ Page 11041 ]

highways capital construction, I am sure she can understand our concerns.

I wonder if she might start by responding to the concerns I made during second reading and also to what I've been saying now in answer to that question.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I guess the major issue would be that the funding that is provided does not lapse, as is normally the case. Therefore when we embark on multi-year projects, we don't have to be concerned with regard to whether the money is going to be available in the following budget year. If the member has a specific area of concern, I would be pleased to respond to that.

Generally speaking we are looking at a fund that is going to amount to some $3.5 billion. It is going to allow us to plan further down the road with the assurance that funding is available.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, in terms of the desirability of having the fund so it doesn't lapse at the end of the year, in terms of a planning process and in terms of ensuring continuity, we don't have difficulties. Those are legitimate and understandable objectives.

My concern, however, is that in this measure as written, what we have perhaps done is to provide the means whereby one can move money from one budgeted project to another effectively without notification. That's the concern.

Again, I would simply emphasize the principal point made by MacKay in terms of what happened with the Coquihalla. The matter was that money was, in fact, shuffled from one budgetary item to another and we in the Legislature did not know that it had happened. That's the concern we have, and I'm wondering if the minister could somehow allay it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's my understanding that MacKay identified as his concern the fact that the moving of the money was not properly identified There is no more and no less authority under this legislation than we presently have. If we're wanting to move money from one project to another, we're still required to go through Treasury Board. It's just that there's a very substantial sum of money that we know is available to us that allows us to plan further into the future than we have been able to in the past The safeguards and the checks and balances are all there.

MR. LOVICK: My concern is that we haven't done anything to respond to MacKay's recommendations — that whole area of disclosure and identifying the movement of money.

Where did this initiative come from? Does it come from anything out of MacKay's recommendations? Did it come from the auditor-general's analyses of Ministry of Highways operations?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Could I ask the member to clarify specifically what it is that he's asking?

MR. LOVICK: I guess what I'm asking, in very blunt terms, is: why this measure? You've given us these reasons, but given that we know the history and the difficulties we have associated with the transferring of money, why didn't we make some effort to implement in this legislation anything that MacKay suggested?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have responded to the recommendations of the MacKay report. This was thoroughly discussed and canvassed in last year's estimates. Why are we going for the Transportation Capital Funding Act? It's strictly planning. We're trying to plan in advance.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't know why I have a problem with that member for Victoria.

... and the funding has to be available for us to carry out those plans.

[12:15]

MR. LOVICK: It is interesting to watch how the minister does respond. It's a kind of stimulus-response model. When the member for Victoria utters even the faintest syllable, we get a reaction from the minister opposite. I suspect there is some deep affection there that defies normal explanation. That's probably what's going on.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Affliction, the Chairman points out. Perhaps affliction rather than affection.

All I can do is register the concern. I'm not trying to be provocative or any such thing. But it seems to me that when we get a measure like this, it is to have continuity and ensure it is desirable and is indeed going to be helpful in terms of longer-term planning. But given the track record, you would think we would have tried to accommodate. Accordingly then, when we get to section 4 of this particular measure, I'm going to be introducing an amendment that I think will address the kinds of concerns that we on this side have. With that said, Mr. Chairman, I think section 1 can go.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LOVICK: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, on section 2. The object of this thing is to ensure continuity of funding. I think it's worth noting that we have accomplished a great deal in this province over past years without this particular measure. We've built 47,000 kilometres of provincial roads. B.C. Rail goes all the way from North Vancouver to Fort Nelson and Tumbler Ridge. We've got 200 land-based airports. We've got the B.C. Ferries fleet of 38 vessels. In other words, we've been able to do all of that stuff with the existing model. And I guess

[ Page 11042 ]

the question I continue to pose is: why do we really need to introduce this new stuff? Again, to develop that question in just a moment, I would remind the minister of the discussion we had last night when we talked about the fact that she has currently the ability to transfer $51 million to B.C. Ferries, which is one of the things specifically named in section 4 of this particular item. We've got that ability already. What is different, then, from this measure? What does this allow us to do that we weren't able to do before?

Does the minister have any estimate of cost savings that might be achieved by this? Is that part of the dimension for it? If this system, for example, had been in place last year, would we have saved the taxpayers of the province some money? Is there an economic argument for this thing as well?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We can give you a for instance, Mr. Chairman — to the member for Nanaimo. If we were to tender a job in January and were to find that the costs came in too high, we would know the funds are still available to us. We may wait for six months and try again to bring it within line of what we are anticipating spending. It does give the ministry flexibility where, had we crossed over the end of the fiscal year, the funds might not be available.

MR. LOVICK: As I said a moment ago, the central issue of this measure that causes us concern is the matter of accounting for the transfer of money from one project to another. That is the concern we have. Thus, I would like to suggest that we let sections 2 and 3 go, and then I will move my amendment on section 4.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. LOVICK: I have a copy of this amendment for the table and also a couple of copies for the minister and her staff.

Mr. Chairman, is the procedure for me to simply read out this amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just speak to the amendment, hon. member.

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: What we propose in the amendment to section 4, Mr. Chairman, is to delete the existing section and substitute the following.... The preamble that we want to put before existing section 4 reads as follows:

"Where the minister has made available to members of the Legislature (a) descriptions of the works to be undertaken, (b) current statements of the scope of each project, (c) statements of funds already spent on each project, and (d) estimates of the amounts required to complete each project...."

Now back to the original, the rest of section 4, which reads: "On the written authorization of the minister, money may be paid out of a special account for all the purposes originally listed." The purpose of the amendment is simply to be consistent with the recommendations of MacKay. If, in fact, our fears are groundless and there is no reason to worry about shifting money from one account to another for purposes that could — let's be blunt, frankly, and rather partisan, rather political, in nature.... If indeed there is no agenda of that kind alive and well — and I'm happy to think that there probably isn't — then it would seem to me that this amendment is in order and would certainly be acceptable to the ministry.

I would ask the minister if she would respond to the amendment as proposed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As well-intended as the motion is, it does require the printing of maps and other material, which would be an impost on the Crown. Therefore, coming from a private member, it would be out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member does make a good point. Also, I think it should be pointed out that it would appear that this amendment goes beyond the scope of section 4 as well. I would suggest that the amendment is out of order.

MR. LOVICK: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, your knowledge of procedures and rules is much greater than mine, and I wouldn't attempt to argue that. I wonder, however, whether the minister would be good enough to respond to the animus for this particular amendment — the intent — and perhaps give us some formal and specific assurances that she and her staff will endeavour to ensure that the kinds of things we enunciate in our amendment will indeed become part and parcel of existing practice for the ministry.

Again, I would simply say that this amendment.... If I had to give it a name, I would call it the MacKay amendment. I think that's its intention — simply to be consistent with the recommendations arising out of the MacKay commission report. I would like, then, to ask for the minister's response to the intent of that, even though the motion itself, I recognize and accept, is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even though the amendment has been ruled out of order, there's certainly nothing wrong with the minister responding to the question if she so desires.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I mentioned earlier, the recommendations of the MacKay commission report were well canvassed last year. It has been acknowledged that the ministry has responded as requested to the recommendations of the MacKay report, so I would support seeing the bill proceed as printed.

MR. LOVICK: To be sure, Mr. Chairman, we have indeed spent a considerable time in the past year and

[ Page 11043 ]

a bit talking about MacKay. But all of those recommendations have not been implemented. What I had endeavoured to show with this particular measure was that here was an area where some of MacKay would indeed be properly placed.

Could the minister just answer this question for me: is it not the case that given this measure she could, if she so wished, divert money from one account within the Freedom to Move account to another project; and further, that it could be done obviously for some political advantage to her government and also effectively without the knowledge of members of this Legislature until Public Accounts two years later? If that's not true, then obviously my fears are overstated. But it seems to me, as I read section 4 of this document, that the minister does indeed have that power. That's why I suggested the amendment.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The ministry does have that authority now but only with Treasury Board approval. The funding available under the Transportation Capital Funding Act would be dealt with in a similar way. Yes, the money can be moved with the approval of Treasury Board, but that's presently the case; nothing has changed.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer. The predicament, however, and the point I'm trying to make is that existing policy is precisely what MacKay said was inadequate. He said that it is possible under existing policy for the members of this chamber not to know about transfers of money from one account to the next. Surely, Madam Minister, we have learned something from Coquihalla. Surely we've learned that if we want to protect ourselves from any charges of political interference or any suggestion that money will be diverted from one account to another for political purposes.... That's the reason. So with all due respect, I think it isn't sufficient to say we've already got the power. Sure we've got the power, but that's the point and that's the problem, that we do have that kind of power. I think we need safeguards to ensure that that power, which is too great, isn't abused. That's why I was intending the amendment: to ensure that we don't put ourselves in a position where somebody unscrupulous can indeed abuse that power.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: "Trust us," I hear somebody opposite saying. That's tough to listen to.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, what I believe Mr. MacKay was saying was that there should be fair and accurate reporting of all expenditures There was no concern expressed about the movement of money, but it had to be fairly and accurately reported, and that is certainly the case.

MR. LOVICK: If I can just quote a little bit of MacKay; I hadn't intended to, but just a brief reference. It makes the point I've been trying to make MacKay recommended on page xxi: "That in approval of expenditures for major capital works, votes and sub votes in the estimates be structured so as to adequately describe the work to be done and that later financial reports describe fully what has happened on a project basis."

It seems to me that the problem with this account is that in midstream we can change from the statement of account that we start with without having to tell anybody. That's the issue. I'm suggesting that that is not consonant with MacKay's recommendation.

Take the Freedom to Move account. We can very easily come up with some ideas. For example, in here we have the Okanagan connector, some $44.6 million, and the Island Highway, $100 million. Suppose we discover — and I don't want to suggest a doomsday scenario or anything — a little more political mileage to be gained in the Okanagan than there is on Vancouver Island. So we decide to divert $20 million from the Island Highway project to the Okanagan connector at the minister's discretion, which we can apparently do under the power of section 4, and that doesn't have to be reported. Isn't that true? It doesn't have to be reported, and we won't know about it until public accounts two years later. Am I right?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, that could be done, but it does have to be reported through Treasury Board. There has to be approval through Treasury Board. That's the case now; money can be moved around. We have adhered to some of the recommendations, and you'll see them outlined here.

The Freedom to Move account is very specific as to which projects will be addressed. There's no question at all that if the work proceeds more rapidly on one project than on another, there may be a desire to move some of that funding from one to the other rather than stop a project if it's going along more quickly than had been anticipated. What would be wrong with that?

For you to suggest that we're going to start doing this for political reasons.... Well, the majority of the Island Highway shouldn't be done if we did our project based on politics. Be realistic, please.

[12:30]

MR. LOVICK: How anybody on that side of the House can suggest that we're not being realistic, in the wake of what happened with Coquihalla, boggles the mind. I have tried very hard, Madam Minister, through the Chair, to be dispassionate and careful in my remarks and say that I am not for a moment calling into question your integrity or what you might do. I would remind you that you don't draw up legislation on the basis of somebody in the ministry being a nice and decent person. Each of you can decide to whom that refers. Fair enough. But you surely have to acknowledge that what we ought to be doing is protecting ourselves against tampering with highways construction projects for crass political purposes. If I haven't made that point clearly enough, I am sorry. It seems to me it's very clear.

[ Page 11044 ]

Sadly, the response I get from the minister is merely: "Thus it always was, and beyond that you'll have to trust us." I don't think that's good enough, Madam Minister. I think we need to change our approach to doing things so we protect ourselves against the abuse of power rather more than we have done, because we have the evidence of the abuse of power all too readily to hand in this province. However, clearly we have a difference of opinion. The minister and I are obviously not going to agree on this one, so with that said, Mr. Chairman, I will let section 4 pass.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Transportation Capital Funding Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:33 p.m.