[ Page 8529 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Teachers' Investment and Housing Co-op. Mr. Blencoe –– 8529

Bud Smith's expenses. Mr. Stupich –– 8530

Aquaculture. Mr. Hanson –– 8530

Forest fire fighting. Mr. Howard –– 8530

Nuclear accidents. Mr. D'Arcy –– 8531

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 8531

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Barnes

Mr Cocke

Mr. Williams

Mr. Hanson

Health Improvement Appropriation Act (Bill 5). Second reading.

On the amendment

Division –– 8536

Mr. Cocke –– 8536

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8538

Division –– 8538

Education Excellence Appropriation Act (Bill 4). Second reading.

On the amendment

Division –– 8538

Mr. Nicolson –– 8538

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 8539

Mr. Cocke –– 8539

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8540

Division –– 8540

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 3). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8540

Mr. Stupich –– 8541

Mr. Rose –– 8542

Mr. Cocke –– 8544

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8544

Division –– 8545

Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 9). Committee stage –– 8545

Third reading

Insurance Premium Tax Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 10). Committee stage –– 8545

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 11). Committee stage –– 8546

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 23). Committee stage 8546

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. (Hon. A.

Fraser)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 8547

Hon. A. Fraser

Mr. Lockstead

Ms. Sanford

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PELTON: Seated in the members' gallery this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Sam and Dolly Dunn, who are visiting from Edmonton in Alberta. Sam and Dolly are the brother and sister-in-law of our Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Jack Dunn. I would like to ask the House to make them welcome here today.

MS. SANFORD: Seated in the galleries today are a group of people without whom most of us on this side of the House would not survive, Mr. Speaker. We have in the members' gallery the constituency assistants for the MLAs on this side of the House. I hope that everyone in the House will make them welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery visiting Victoria and Vancouver Island, playing some instruments and entertaining the people of Vancouver Island, are a group of students from Guildford Park Secondary School, with Mr. LaBonte. There are 48 of them. The second member and first member for Surrey would like to welcome them and have you also welcome these people to our chamber.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming some visitors to the capital city: Mr. David Midwinter of Vancouver; Mr. Dannie Santos, who is a graduate architect from the city of Vancouver; Dick Finlay-Jones, who is with the Australian pavilion, and will be enjoying our province and the city of Vancouver until the fall.

As well, I'd like to have the House welcome back Mr. James Hall and his daughter Cathy, and son-in-law Mr. Ray Mehler from Montreal. I understand they are very pleased to be back, after leaving in 1952. They're now living in Esquimalt. Just as an added note of encouragement for this side of the House, they are NDP supporters. I would like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like all hon. members to acknowledge that I am present with them today. I would ask them to take perhaps judicial notice of the fact that I am alive, and I am well and safe, except perhaps for a wretched summer cold. I am a Canadian citizen. I was born in Banff, Alberta, some 61 summers ago. But the government of Canada seems to have experienced some difficulty with these rather uncomplicated and few and salient facts, for I have not received a census form.

I made some inquiries this morning, and I would like to pass these along to hon. members who perhaps may be in the same boat, or anyone else in the province. Inquiries have disclosed that I am not the only British Columbian who has been missed. I would urge all others who are among the living and the missing to do the following. If they live in the greater Vancouver area, dial 666-6655. If they live outside of that dialing area, use the long-distance Zenith operator, Zenith 1986, and the very courteous census staff will, I am told, have the forms delivered within four days, with the hope that they do not go by the post office: we'd never receive them.

MR. D'ARCY: In a very quick response to the government House Leader, I have heard of members of this chamber being accused of being an invisible MLA. It is the very first time I have ever heard one get up and admit it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the government House Leader in fact is not here. That was a recording.

Oral Questions

TEACHERS' INVESTMENT AND HOUSING CO-OP

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A number of investors, as the minister is aware, in the Teachers' Investment and Housing Co-op, are petitioning the provincial government for an inquiry into the regulation of financial institutions in the province of British Columbia. They wish to prevent further unfortunate calamity in respect to investment by the general public.

Has the minister decided to address this serious matter through a public inquiry, thereby trying to look at returning some confidence in some of our financial institutions? The minister is aware that there have been a number of failures, and this inquiry could help to return some confidence.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I thank the hon. member for the question. What he is referring to is the Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative, and it requires under the act that 10 percent of the members of a cooperative petition the minister, and the minister may at that point ask for an inquiry. I have not yet received that written submission, hon. member. When I do, we'll look at it and consider it.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for his comments. However, the minister is aware — and maybe he can respond to this — that they have already asked for an inquiry. That's my understanding. They have on a number of occasions asked for your inquiry under the act. Would the minister, even today in this House, admit that a general inquiry of this nature would indeed be useful in terms of public confidence? Take a look in general at financial institutions, because there have been some problems in the province of British Columbia, and this way we can get to the bottom of some of these problems and thereby have people retaining some confidence and bringing back some investment to the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Unlike the hon. member, I have extreme confidence in the financial institutions of British Columbia; they are sound institutions. And we're doing everything in our power to ensure that that confidence is extended even further, hon. member. In fact, we have several initiatives underway at this point in time.

I was approached by two individuals asking for an inquiry. Unfortunately, even the hon. member, I am sure, would admit that that is not enough to instigate an inquiry or put it in place. When I receive the necessary petition, if indeed it is received, then I will look at it, and I will act accordingly at that time.

[2:15]

[ Page 8530 ]

BUD SMITH'S EXPENSES

MR. STUPICH: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. It has been widely reported that the Premier in the month of March sent Bud Smith around the province to find new members for the Social Credit Party. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that Bud Smith was being paid a salary by the government and travel expenses during the month of March?

HON. MR. CURTIS: My colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) took that question as notice on Monday, I think. The question might be posed to the Premier in his estimates or in question period. I have not had an opportunity to review the question, which was identical to that posed on Monday.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Finance is usually so quick at responding to questions that I assumed something had happened to the message-bearer. But was the second question as well put to the Minister of Finance by that message-bearer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're very well organized on the government side of this House. The acting minister's offices informed me immediately upon my return to Victoria of the questions. That's two days. Well, I think my record in taking questions as notice and responding to them is pretty good — much better than that of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who managed to go through a brief time on the government benches from 1972 to 1975 answering very few questions. The question was taken as notice earnestly and sincerely, and the answer will be brought back, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being invited by a has been to put a question to him. I don't bother with has-beens.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, better to be a has-been than a never-will-be.

AQUACULTURE

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture in his responsibility as being in charge of the aquaculture industry of the province of British Columbia. A recent trade seminar sponsored by the Norwegian trade commission in Vancouver was told that the secret of the Norwegian aquaculture industry is that it relies on a large number of locally owned enterprises. Has the minister considered implementing this approach in the development of B.C.'s aquaculture industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Norwegian group told the conference on aquaculture.

MR. HANSON: The minister is rather ill-informed, Mr. Speaker. The government here in British Columbia seems bent on attracting large amounts of foreign capital for the development of the aquaculture industry, handing out licences in a way that doesn't address the question of B.C. ownership and development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Because we have such tremendous potential in this regard, will the government look at having small and medium-sized enterprises controlling the B.C. industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member again is quite wrong about what was said at the aquaculture conference. The Norwegians who hosted the conference actually said that in their country they have restricted the size of aquacultural enterprises and that their aquaculture industry is quite successful. They did not say it is successful because of the small size.

I happen to think, Mr. Speaker, that those who want to invest in that business in British Columbia, including those from other lands, can determine through the economics of it the most appropriate size and distribution of size, rather than have it dictated by government. I've never been against investment in Canada by people from any country, as long as they play by the rules here when they invest and are good corporate citizens. I think this country needs to try to attract foreign investment into all enterprises.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister is confusing the size and number of the farms. They have a number of small and medium-sized locally owned enterprises, and in Norway they have a coastal management plan. My colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has introduced a resolution to this House, because as the licences proliferate and the size of farms is unrestricted, conflicts are developing. It's a serious problem.

Question two: as there are no restrictions on the use of chemicals and drugs with respect to the fish farms, has the minister decided to address this serious problem?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the Norwegians have a large aquaculture industry. They also have limited the size of their farms, but that is their decision in their country. Who knows how large their industry would be had they not had these restrictive measures in place.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, together with the Ministries of Health, Environment, and Lands, Parks and Housing, in cooperation with agencies of the federal government, will be looking to all aspects of the production of good-quality food through aquaculture in British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: One final supplementary on the issue of the proliferation of licences. Why don't we have a coastal management plan that avoids the conflicts developing on this coast?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My feeling about plans.... Of course, we should do what we can to make sure that various enterprises do not conflict with others, but by putting a plan in place — a well-articulated, confining plan — we may very well be inhibiting the expansion of what can be a very exciting industry in British Columbia.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTING

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could fire off a question to the Minister of Forests. I'd ask the minister whether he has had an opportunity to analyze the report of the inquiry into

[ Page 8531 ]

forest wildfire-fighting activities. If he has, can he advise the House what the additional cost will be of implementing the 310 recommendations that the inquiry committee made?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Part of the question has been asked before. The number of recommendations was something in the order of 300, but as the member fully realizes, they were compressed into about 30 because many of them were very similar. With respect to the cost of implementing those particular changes, I don't have that answer. I think it's a touch early to get that information, because many of them involve standby duties. I won't know what the cost of overall implementation will be until we're further into the season. I will make further inquiries to know what the initial costs were to make available the additional attack crews and some of the additional equipment.

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as the ministry has let out tenders for private contractors to engage in firefighting activities, doesn't he have any idea what the expected costs will be? Is this a blank cheque we're dealing with?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To my knowledge, the costs to date are probably something in the order.... I'm going back to a report which I received a week ago, a fire report which makes reference to a number of costs which have been incurred, the amount of the costs, at somewhere between $8 million and $10 million. That cost to date is being amortized over the full breadth of the possible fire season. In other words, some of those costs which were incurred were the initial outlays, for example, for aircraft. The amount in the budget is something in the order of $50 million, as I recall. Let's just hope that we don't have to use it.

Interjection.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

MR. D'ARCY: To the highly visible Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Yesterday the minister reported on correspondence which he'd had with Mr. Clark regarding a concern over the operation of nuclear power plants adjacent to British Columbia borders. Today I would like to express to the minister a concern that I and my constituents have located due north of Hanford, over the tonnes and tonnes of temporarily stored nuclear wastes which are distributed throughout the United States of America, and which the American federal government proposes, for one chance in three, to permanently store on the Hanford disposal site just south of Spokane, Washington.

I would like to ask the minister to convey the concern that we have to the federal government. I would ask him, if he has done that, or if he has decided to do that, to convey the concern that we have over the establishment of a permanent nuclear waste disposal site very close to the borders of British Columbia, and in particular very close to Rossland-Trail.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a very valid question, hon. member. That aspect of the matter was not discussed between myself and Mr. Clark. I did have a discussion with Mr. Clark concerning the other item, about which I corresponded with him. I'll take the question as notice, look into it and be back to you.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano seeks leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I have pleasure today to stand here on behalf of my colleague, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who regrets he cannot be present, to ask the House to welcome 35 grade 9 students from Timothy Christian School, near Rosedale in his riding, They're under the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Vandeweg. I'd ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and to the chamber.

Orders of the Day

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

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)

On vote 65: minister's office. $194,140.

MR. D'ARCY: To the minister, yesterday we had considerable discussions in this chamber regarding transit services and cultural services. About 40 percent of my constituents, those living in greater Castlegar, do not have any transit to get to cultural services or to anything else. I would like to ask the minister this afternoon if she can give some indication as to when even a very limited transit service may well be established in greater Castlegar.

There has been an application in by the city for the best part of ten years, if not for ten years. I would note that the population that would be served by this transit service would be over 12,000, which is in excess of the population served by the city of Nelson's transit service. That city has had a transit system since the early years of the century. Of course, the city of Trail, which is much larger, has had a regional district operated transit service for about ten years now.

I'd like to note to the minister that Castlegar, as I am sure the minister is aware, has some unique topographical and geographical features. It has two distinct commercial areas; it has decentralized services such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, libraries, schools and recreational facilities. In other words, there is not a central core which is easy for people to locate and. If they live in apartments, to get to. I'd also point out that in the unorganized part of the valley, across the Columbia River, there is a community college and there is an airport.

All of these facilities would be greatly facilitated in terms of public access if a transit service, even a very limited one, was in effect. I would like to ask the minister how soon even a very limited service would go into effect. As I stated earlier, the duly elected municipal authorities there for some time — for a number of years, in fact — have been ready, willing and able to meet their responsibilities in terms of funding of that facility.

The other transit services which we have in the West Kootenay are not in communities which have a regional

[ Page 8532 ]

airport or a regional college facility separated from the downtown core, so I think there are a number of excellent arguments as to why transit service should have been established at some time in the past.

Perhaps the minister and her advisers can correct me, but I was at least under the impression that when the SkyTrain service was fully functional — at least functional in the New Westminster to Vancouver section — this was going to take some people out of buses who might otherwise have been in buses. I've made a layman's presumption that this would make some buses available for other parts of the province without the transit authority having to go out with a lot of new capital to provide new buses for the province. I've made a presumption that some buses somewhere are available, and with the long-standing request of the municipal authorities, perhaps the minister could let me and the people of that area know when we may expect a transit service.

One other point I want to make is that everyone in the province pays just under one cent a litre in transit tax every time they fuel up their motor vehicles. Obviously the people in Castlegar pay that transit tax too, but they're not getting the transit services. If we're being taxed for a service, we certainly would like to have the benefit of that service.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member's presumption regarding the release of buses when SkyTrain was initiated is really quite accurate. It's true that we move the buses from the service of the greater Vancouver and Victoria areas into the other areas when other buses are brought on or when they become unsuitable or are not needed. However, the success of SkyTrain and the success of Expo has precluded that opportunity for this year.

However, the decision to initiate a new small community service in any one of the seven communities that are now outstanding — having gone through their application and so on — is really not predicated on the availability of buses but on the availability of operational costs. There are six others, along with the Castlegar–Central Kootenay service that has been requested, and they have been in various stages of agreement with the B.C. Transit board to be funded when funds become available. We've not been able to act on all of them at once, and that's simply because there has been the recession and the restraint program, not just from the provincial side but also from the municipality side.

We have been able to proceed with two community systems this year. The two-bus conventional transit system will be put in place in September of this year in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area, and in addition a one-vehicle handyDART custom service for the handicapped will be in operation by mid-July in Prince Rupert.

Additional systems will be considered, such as the one that you speak of which I think has been given approval by the board already, but they will only be given as agreements are reached between the various communities and the necessary funds are made available. I believe your community and B.C. Transit are in agreement, if I recall — I'm simply going by memory. Some of the other six communities do not have agreements between the municipality and the B.C. Transit board as yet. But just as soon as moneys are available and agreements are in place, that's all that's holding some of those seven communities from getting initiated into the transit service.

It's a great service. The small community service has been very, very successful. We're very proud that we have some 26 services now throughout the province.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I had never thought of that minister as one of the city slickers that perhaps the member for Cariboo (Hon. A Fraser) was referring to, and yet I note in her reply how there was this tremendous priority to sink these hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowed money into SkyTrain. I'm not opposed to that here. What I'm suggesting to her, though, is that the people in the west Kootenay, like all the rest of the people outside of the lower mainland, pay taxes to general revenue on exactly the same basis. If the minister has ever been aware that there is occasionally some resentment from people of the interior and the north against what they see as an incredible amount of their money — their tax dollars — going into projects on the lower mainland, with no benefit to them, I think this perhaps could characterize that. People in the west Kootenay and in the Castlegar area, I repeat, have not only been paying all regular taxes; they've also been paying the one-cent-a-litre transit tax ever since it's been in effect.

I don't think there are too many other communities that have had an application as outstanding for as long as this particular community, and indeed there are smaller communities which in fact do have a transit service. I would ask the minister to do everything she can in approaching Treasury, or whatever offices she uses, to get that operating funding in place, because let's remember the sharing formula is set not by the municipality but by government, and the municipality and the regional district have for many years now said that they would pick up their share of whatever is required to be picked up by the local taxpayer which isn't generated at the fare box.

I would also like to suggest to the minister — it's only a prediction on my part — that when this service starts, I think that the B.C. Transit Authority is going to find out very quickly that the — I don't know what term would be used — occupancy rate or the ridership figures would be one of the highest in the province of British Columbia, because there are a large number of senior citizens, young people and people who don't have cars or find it convenient to use cars who would be using that transit facility, because of the airport and the community college and because of the dispersal of professional services, recreational services, hospitals, libraries, schools, etc. In that community, an even greater dispersal than you find in most communities, even those suburban areas such as you mentioned in the Fraser Valley. So I would hope that the minister would take that to heart and do everything she can to get this service started as soon as possible.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I can assure the member that I will be pleased to do that. I also want to assure the member that the government's commitment to producing services for small communities has truly been not just a commitment in words, but also in action. It has only taken six years to produce some 25 services throughout the province — that is, services that were never there in most communities before.

So the formula has worked, the partnership with the municipalities has worked well, and we are committed to making sure that communities such as the ones you mention, as well as others in other parts of the province, will have that service as well.

[ Page 8533 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, just to reflect back on a question raised yesterday to the minister, I've been advised that the meeting held with the Vancouver multicultural society was not in conjunction with other societies from the AMSSA organization. Will the minister undertake to meet with the umbrella organization? The society she met with is really just one of the 35, so the umbrella group would like to meet with the minister if possible.

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

MR. BARNES: I am very pleased to hear that. They did suggest a date. I don't suggest that the minister has to take that date, but June 21 is a time they have available just in case you're available for that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions about transit. I'm not an expert on transit, but I have ridden the ALRT. We had a good deal of warning before it happened that it was going to be expensive, and of course that's proven true. Aside from that, it's now a fact.

I would like to ask the minister whether the thought has been countenanced at all of extending the stations so that they can look after six cars. From the first day that I looked at transit, I was amazed that the present stations can only accommodate four cars. With the estimates in terms of traffic, that seems pretty restrictive. Now that the traffic has proven to be just exactly what people suggested it might be, with lineups three blocks long in New Westminster and elsewhere, I just wonder what the minister has in mind in terms of improving access to that transit service.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the SkyTrain has been such a success that we are suffering from all of that great success. It has been so embraced by the people in the lower mainland and the visitors to Expo, and is so much of a tourist attraction beyond the regular transportation — meeting the transportation needs of the lower mainland — that we have had pressures put on us.

There's a plan which will, I hope, be in place by this weekend for the Expo crowds so that there will be designated cars for Expo which will relieve those others. They will simply turn around at Expo and go back to pick up other Expo passengers. That should take some of the Expo people off the regular designated line which carries people to work and to the other appointments that they need to go to. That's being undertaken at the present time. My staff tells me that that will really meet the biggest part of the concern right now. That is not to say, and certainly not to make any commitment that when the height of the Expo crowd comes.... We know we haven't seen it all yet because the youngsters are not out of school; the bulk of our tourists are not in British Columbia as yet and will not be until after the school date. I do believe that we will have some problems with SkyTrain's capacity.

[2:45]

The possibility of putting on more trains at the present time.... They're running four trains now, and I'm told that putting more trains on the system is not possible at the present time simply because of the normal maintenance that has to be done to keep them to their safety level. Some of the trains have to be out of service. The full complement of trains is not used at all times, because they're always working on something on the trains, particularly in the run-in period.

So what I'm saying to you is that we're daily on top of the problem. The problems are those of success. I'm most appreciative of the member for New Westminster's concerns, because New Westminster station is the one that we have the very biggest problem with. That is because of the park and ride that we built over the bridge. But you can be assured that the bridge has already been tendered for and the decision is being made on the contracts for that bridge and the further extension of the line to Whalley. Also the park and ride in Coquitlam that's already in place will relieve some of the problems, I hope. But of course those aren't going to be happening during the 1986 year.

So I guess on the one hand we're very pleased it's successful; on the other hand we're working daily to overcome the problems and we'll adjust. We'll do shorter routes and do the Expo turnaround as has been suggested. We do believe that will relieve a great many problems in the present system.

MR. COCKE: The minister failed to understand the question that I originally asked: why didn't we have the forethought to build stations that would access a larger train? That strikes me as being one of the answers to the present situation, and certainly the future. We cannot accommodate a train longer than four cars. I looked at it myself. I've been in a number of stations, and a four-car train extends from one end of that station to the other. Therefore a six-car train could not be accommodated.

Now I agree that if you're going to have six-car trains, and you're going to have a lot of them. you're going to have to buy a few more cars. So what? That strikes me as being a real handicap in the future, because obviously we're stuck. We've spent a billion dollars; we'd better be able to have something that's going to provide for transportation well into the twenty-first century. I'm told that to extend those stations so that they would accommodate a longer train would be as costly as building them in the first place. Is that true? I'm just wondering what we have in mind in terms of the future.

Look, I'm not here to say that we should tear SkyTrain apart. We've got it. Frankly, it does embrace the best corridor, in terms of satisfying Burnaby's and New Westminster's needs. It does satisfy that by going down the old Central Park line, which was laid out by our forefathers lo these many years ago and is just as serviceable today as it was then. Having said that, what are we going to do in terms of the future of SkyTrain?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the first question. But let me set the record straight. The member for New Westminster has made an allegation that the stations will have to be reconstructed to take care of more than four trains. I didn't know....

MR. COCKE: Four cars.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: More than four cars, or four trains, as we call them in the system. The stations as they are built now will accommodate seven trains.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Seven, not four. The reason that we're having some difficulties with the system as it is

[ Page 8534 ]

now in terms of accommodating is exactly as I told you: the success of the SkyTrain. The shuttle service between Expo and Canada Harbour Place, with the Canadian pavilion — that designated line — does take some of our cars out of service and has been a very excellent connection between Canada Harbour Place on the waterfront and Expo site itself.

We can move more people faster with more four-car trains than with fewer six-car trains. So if the member is trying to make the....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member would please just let me finish. If the member is trying to make the point that we should have six-car trains on just so it looks as though we're moving more people.... Let me tell you that we move more people faster with four-car trains than we would if we were to put on six-car trains. We can accommodate more people on that whole system as it is built today by simply adding more cars, or as you want to call them, more trains. We can carry more people on that system in the lower mainland than can be carried on the Toronto subway, and it will be good for a very long time. It's built for the future. It's built for expansion by simply adding cars, not, as you are trying to suggest, by reconstruction; not by adding to stations, not by adding to the guideway, but by adding trains, by adding cars to the system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: There's the guy who's still pouting about not being Minister of Forests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will come to order, and the member will deal with the estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: If he'd quit his pouting, he might do something in Agriculture.

The minister advises the House that the stations were designed for seven trains. We're presently using four, and the minister tries to explain this by saying that it will really all work better with the four-train system. The question is: are there problems, when you have six or seven trains, in being able to locate them in terms of stopping precisely at the station, in terms of passenger access, facilities and ramps? Are there problems once you get beyond four cars?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer is no, it works just as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: They're absolutely precise, and you have no problem whatsoever. Is that correct?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the advice I'm given is that we have no difficulties at all; it works just as well.

This gives me an opportunity to introduce to the House the builder of SkyTrain. Mr. Michael O'Connor, who is with me, has been an outstanding builder in the Ministry of Highways and then in the building of our light rapid transit system.

I would like to pay tribute to his service to our province. It has really been a tremendous service to have brought the best ALRT system.... It's better than any in the world — the most cost-effective system of moving people.

MR. COCKE: I'm delighted to hear that, and I'm sure people all over the world will be interested in that news. It may be an excellent system, but it has had its problems.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Have you been on it?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have. It has its problems.

I'd like to ask you another question. Incidentally, the accommodation is really a revelation. We're going to have to go back to a lot of people who've totally misunderstood the four- and the seven-train propositions. I'm still from that place where people have difficulty believing every statement made....

MR. WILLIAMS: Missouri.

MR. COCKE: In any event, I would also like to ask the minister about the changes in bus routes. The buses now flip in and out of the SkyTrain terminals all the way along Kingsway, all the way along.... You get into New Westminster.... For instance, if you catch a bus that used to take you somewhere, it now takes you to SkyTrain whether you need to go there or not. There are people who have complained to me about, for example, having to go to work on a Sunday morning in a private hospital in Champlain Heights. Their work requires them to be there at 7 o'clock; now they can get there at 8:30. I wonder if any of that has been changed in order to accommodate these people. The buses were the only way to get there, and the buses used to go there; but then the buses were rerouted so that they would hit SkyTrain every few blocks, and that has been a bit unsatisfactory for some people. I recognize that the early part of Sunday morning is tough to accommodate, because that's the one day that transit doesn't come close to paying. I don't think it pays any day, but that day particularly.... Somehow or other, people have to be transported to work.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: All of the changes that have been made were made to integrate the total system. It's a totally integrated system with the SeaBus and the buses and even the handyDART, because the SkyTrain is fully handicapped-accessible. All of the changes are being reviewed, and where adjustments must be made, adjustments will be made. Those are all being reviewed, and they will be made where necessary to provide the best service that we can. I think this is an ever-evolving thing with transportation, at any rate, and it will be continued with the new service. I'm glad the member is so interested in the answer.

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry, you gave your answer in the first couple of words. You said it's fully integrated, and I guess I understand English, and then the preamble came after. If you expect me to listen to a preamble after you've already given the answer, I still say the integration is a bit of a problem and will continue to be a problem. I just hope that

[ Page 8535 ]

the minister and her advisers keep on top of it because there are people who can get hammered by a new system.

There is also a good deal of concern over the zone charges for SkyTrain. My understanding now is it's three zones from Surrey to Vancouver, two zones from New Westminster to Vancouver and one zone from Burnaby to Vancouver. Is that correct?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It is correct, yes. The disparity between the zonal fares I've heard a number of complaints on. My last complaint is vis-à-vis the addition to the hydro bill. Has there been a decrease? It's been rumoured that there has been a decrease in the amount that is allocated for rapid transit to the hydro bill in recent weeks, or has it stayed up at the major increase that it was? It went to, say, $5 and so on.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It went up on April 1, and there hasn't been a subsequent change.

MR. COCKE: I had hoped that maybe there had been some thought given to that being reduced. Victoria doesn't happen to have all the senior citizens in the province; New Westminster has its share. There are a number of letters that I've had from seniors, and I bet you $50 that the minister has had a number too, and so have her colleagues. People who are beyond the age of utilizing transit, who are living on low income as a result of some of the decisions around adequate income for seniors that have occurred in this province, are paying an extraordinarily high percentage of their bill to rapid transit or to transit as a result of this new policy.

I just feel that it's most unfortunate that people who are so close to poverty — as a matter of fact, not only close; they are in poverty — are continuing to pay a disproportionate amount toward our transit. It strikes me that money can be found elsewhere. I realize that it's a very expensive system to run. I might ask the minister: is it still $16 a ride for ALRT?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member will have to make that question a little clearer. Are you asking is it still $16 a ride subsidy?

MR. COCKE: Including fare.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It never was $16, although I recall when the members of the opposition made that plain and continued to use that figure, I guess. It never was beyond $5; it was around $5, and it remains about the same. In other words, what a person pays in the fare is not what the cost of the ride is, and it never was on the buses, either. In a fully integrated system, the the SkyTrain portion of it is around $5.

MR. COCKE: If it's $5, then we must be really ripping off those seniors, because their bill went up $5 every hydro bill, just for transit. Now something seems to be wrong about this. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind; I don't use transit. Nor do I mind paying the addition to my hydro bill. But I tell you, there are an awful lot of people out there who do, who are on the borderline. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let's not let that go by without just a comment. You mentioned seniors. First of all, if the seniors qualify for the bus pass, they can go all the way from White Rock to North Vancouver. They can go on the bus; they can go on SkyTrain; they can go on SeaBus. They can go on the bus to Horseshoe Bay, and they can go to the ferry and come over to Victoria and ride the ferry free of charge three days a week. They can get all of those services and many more other trips for $28 a year for a bus pass.

Then for the seniors who do not qualify for the bus pass, the others whose income disqualifies them from GAIN for seniors, in comparison to the Vancouver charge, for instance, of $1.15, they only pay 60 cents, because they have a preferred rate by virtue of their age group. That's just one comparison. In the Richmond downtown area, that price would be comparable to the $1.55 that everybody else pays.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues over the last couple of days have canvassed a number of issues in the minister's estimates to do with multiculturalism, cultural aspects, sports and recreation, and so on.

In concluding, I would like to express, on behalf of our side of the House and the ordinary people of British Columbia, concern about the way in which this ministry has been transformed into a political artifact. If George Orwell.... If we could blow life into his bones and bring him here to Victoria and take him to the Ministry of Provincial Secretary, he would say: "You know, I'm right."

Here we have an ad agency for Social Credit polling at the taxpayers' expense, doing partisan political advertising at the taxpayers' expense; the disbursal of lottery funds not adequately disclosed, a year behind — an absolute disgrace, a year behind in terms of the disclosure of the proceeds. I see in the Vancouver Sun today the 6-49 sales are booming with a $10 million jackpot. Those people who are buying those tickets don't know that Social Credit is taking those proceeds and disbursing them on a partisan basis. They want those proceeds to be distributed fairly for the public benefit on a non-partisan basis. That doesn't happen in this province.

We have a government information service which functions as an apparatus to promote Social Credit. The taxpayers pay the bill. They do advance work; they coordinate travel. They do all kinds of activities of government that are not duly their responsibility. That is a misuse of taxpayers' money to perform those functions.

This ministry controls the most vital functions of a democratic society, and that is the apparatus of the vote. Here we have on June 4, 1986, 500,000 eligible British Columbians not on the voters' list, not registered, and today I am advised that the New Democratic Party is taking this issue into the courts to ensure that every eligible citizen can appear at the polling place in their neighbourhood whether they are on the list or not, swear an affidavit, and have their vote taken into the ballot box and counted, as a free and democratic society should ensure for all its people.

George Orwell would have found his predictions had come true here in Victoria in the Provincial Secretary's ministry of this government. It is not going to be too many months until the people of this province are going to give this government what really is long overdue, and that is the clean launch that they have coming to them. They want a government that cares for ordinary people, that isn't bent on manipulating them and their attitudes through advertising. As Mr. Kinsella so ably pointed out, that is the job: find the nerves. It's a kind

[ Page 8536 ]

of political acupuncture performed on the body politic of the people of this province.

Here we have gerrymandered electoral boundaries that are a disgrace. The United Nations should send observers here. We should have people here to examine the processes that are in place.

So I think we've indicated our displeasure. We feel that the change is long overdue. It is coming. There's a wind of change for fairness, for a government that has the people's interests at heart. And central to all of their behaviour, no longer will we have a political artifact that is bent on manipulating the public for some partisan purpose.

Vote 65 approved.

Vote 66: ministry operations, $53,928,862 — approved.

Vote 67: government information services, $15,338,028 approved.

Vote 68: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

Vote 69: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

Vote 80: transit services, $162,145,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you call them in the order we were given them?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The order given this morning from myself to my hon. Whip was 3, 5, 4.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This business is normally conducted off the floor of this chamber, but this is the piece of paper given to me by your Whip.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Please read the order.

MR. HANSON: Five, three, four.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We're satisfied with that.

I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 5.

HEALTH IMPROVEMENT APPROPRIATION ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Minister Of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) adjourned debate on the amendment. Are you ready for the question?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What is the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a reasoned amendment, Hon. House Leader, dealing with Bill 5.

[3:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 23

On the main motion.

MR. COCKE: I have spoken on the amendment. Now I will speak on the main motion, Mr. House Leader, if that will be all right with you.

He wants leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker. I'll yield for the leave.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're a great yielder. I appreciate that very much. Hon. members, I'd very much like all members to bid a special welcome to a number of students in the gallery today from Crofton House School in Vancouver.

MR. COCKE: The sense of humour is just the greatest.

I would like to say a few words about the main motion, which is that we give second reading to a bill giving the Minister of Health $720 million to distribute any way he wants at any time he wants in any geographical or any other kind of physical area in this province that he wants to. The reason for this Legislative Assembly, and the reason that from time to time we meet in committee to provide ministers with dollars, is so that they can account for the use of those dollars before the fact. Now the Minister of Finance, who authors this bill or at least presents it to this chamber, tells us that we have a right to vote for the amount that is on the estimate this year, for example. Well, that is really something, because it's not debatable. It's not debatable because that money is in the minister's hands to account for it as best he can one and a half years later.

The way we interpret this bill is that the $120 million isn't where the minister is restricted. He can blow the whole $720 million if he wants. What a slush fund! And would anybody of sound mind in this province give any minister in the Social Credit cabinet $720 million to play with? Without accountability? That's what we're talking about.

Mr. Speaker, this is an absolutely new venture. This government has circumvented the Legislature on any number of occasions. We have more legislation today that provides this government opportunity to regulate without ever coming back to the House, without ever having to debate. This

[ Page 8537 ]

government, whose leader went around this province screaming at the top of his lungs, "Not a dime without debate," now asks us not to give him a dime but to give him $720 million in one fell swoop to spend anywhere he wants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not political.

MR. COCKE: One of my colleagues says: "not political." Well I'll tell you, if you've been around British Columbia, even with blinders on, you know that practically everything that's done over there is political. I'm here to tell you that this money, this trough full of money, this truck full of money, is being provided to a minister to go out there and spend it as he will.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He could, if he were interested in the debate, get up and debate it. But he has ignored the debate both before in second reading and when we had the amendment before us — that amendment which would have restored the power of the committee to deal with this money. Oh, no, he's not here. There is no interest in all of his colleagues except the minister responsible for the bill. He just knows that when the vote is cast, he's going to have $720 million to spend any way he likes. If there were no other reason on earth to turf these people out of government, this by itself stands as enough reason to turf that gang out of office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turf them out.

MR. COCKE: My colleague says: "Turf them out." Call an election and, by George, you will turf them out. And they deserve to be turfed out.

They ride this thing like a little motherhood horse: this is money for health care. Could anything be more delightful than providing some money for health care? The average person out there feels: gee, they've got an extra few dollars to go into the health care system; $120 million announced for this year. They haven't spent any of it yet. Mr. Speaker, what the average person out there doesn't understand is that the whole precedent for our system has been set on the basis that you answer for your commitments. They're voted upon in this Legislature; they're voted upon in the Committee of the Whole House; at least then people know where that money is earmarked to go.

We asked a question — where all of those areas were cut. The ambulance service was cut. Is something going to be restored to the ambulance service, the emergency service? We don't know. They're not accountable. They don't have to tell us. After the fact, we can pick up the paper. The place is adjourned or recessed. We pick up the paper, and the minister has shown some largess in the constituency of X. I won't name any particular constituency, but you can be darned sure what the flavour of the politics will be.

MS. SANFORD: SC, not X.

MR. COCKE: SC, my colleague says. No doubt.

This is not the way to run a government. Theoretically if we went this way to its practical conclusion, there would be one vote. That vote would be on the total budget from the province, handed over to the Minister of Finance, who would then divide the spoils among the ministers. And that would be the end of the session, in terms of finance.

This is an awful lot of money to be spent this way.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My colleague says it's the Queen's money. It's the taxpayers' money that we're spending: $720 million unaccounted for, and will never be accounted for. You watch: when that minister gets up to close debate, oh, he'll say there are so many ways you can make him account. A couple of years down the line, when we have Public Accounts, we can examine where that money went, after the fact.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and after the election. That's not the way to run a trim ship. This kind of thing is unknown — was unknown in this jurisdiction, and is unknown in other jurisdictions where we have democratic governments.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of money isn't just a little ministerial discretion fund. This kind of money, Mr. Speaker, makes the whole system work at odds. Everybody's short. We've had restraint in this province for the last four or five years. Everybody's trying now to position themselves in order to get at this money. They're spending time, Mr. Speaker, that they should be using on other productive acts. They're doing a lot of conniving and a lot of work just seeing how they can get around to get some of these dollars. It is counter-productive; it's a foolish way to do business. I would have hoped that the minister, having been given the time to think this whole question over, would have gone to his colleagues and said: "Colleagues, the NDP are on the right track. We don't have to have a matter of any kind of confidence here; we can amend the bill ourselves." You know what the opposition would have done? The opposition would have accepted that amendment. We would have withdrawn our amendment and provided that minister the opportunity to put some accountability into Bill 5.

[3:30]

There is no accountability now, nor will there be. Thankfully, it has an end to it. I wish the minister would instruct one of his colleagues, rather than he get up to close debate when the opposition is through, to get up and adjourn debate on this bill, providing him with the time to come forward with what this House demands, to come forward with an amendment to this bill which would put it back in the accountable ledger, so that this money would be properly accounted for, properly spent and properly voted upon.

They're asking us to give a carte blanche. They're asking us to stand up and vote aye for a bill like this? Well, colleagues, they'll never get my vote. I hope the people in British Columbia, who get such a large amount of information from the press, who are about as interested in $720 million as I would expect....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh. I'm sorry; I understand they're fooling around with the Premier out in the hallway. Well, that's very important. When $720 million is being spent in here, they're out in the hallway fooling around with the Premier.

In any event, this is a bill the opposition will not under any circumstance support, a bill which really puts a veil of

[ Page 8538 ]

shame over this assembly, a bill which establishes a new precedent, and that precedent is to hand a minister millions or multi-millions of dollars and say: "Go spend it wherever you want." I'm here to tell you that those of us who vote for this bill have to walk out of here with a great flaming red face in shame.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on introducing the bill and then on second reading and then when we debated the amendment. I'm not reflecting on that vote, but I find it unfortunate that a former Minister of Health in this province who served with distinction in that portfolio would characterize a bill which offers significant amounts of money for the improvement of health care in all its forms in this province as one which would provoke red-facedness among members who vote for it.

I think that is hyperbole of a most unfortunate kind. We've indicated it is a three-year fund; we've indicated that this is year one; we've indicated that the health community, in all its forms and facets and in all parts of the province, is welcome to come forward with a host of ideas with respect to utilizing the fund.

It is also unfortunate that in their rush to question this particular bill, members opposite have inferred that which is not correct. I don't suggest that the House has been misled, but they have neglected in this area alone, Mr. Member for Surrey (Mr. Reid).... What do we have in the city of Victoria, which is hardly, Madam Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), SC — to use the term which was used earlier by one of the members opposite interjecting? We have a new food services building announced in the city of Victoria, in a constituency that is not held by the governing party — a major facility. We also have a new cancer clinic in the city of Victoria. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) also knows that there have been significant major improvements for the health care community in his home city of New Westminster. Insofar as I have been able to determine in discussing, not only with my colleague, the present and previous Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), but also with senior officials in the Ministry of Health.... What do they do in allocation of dollars? They look at priority needs without regard to whether that is a constituency represented by a government or an opposition member.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Bill 5. I am proud of the fact that we have been able to allocate additional dollars to an extremely important activity of government in the province of British Columbia. I'm confident that the health care community — doctors and nurses and so many individuals involved in health care — will not be blind-sided, will not be misled by the comments which have been made in this chamber in opposing a bill which I believe in and which I continue to support.

Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 13

Bill 5, Health Improvement Appropriation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

EDUCATION EXCELLENCE APPROPRIATION ACT
(continued)

[3:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 21

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that anyone could say it more clearly than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada said it the other day. He said that we are going down a very dangerous course in Canada, and he made the remarks in British Columbia, where they could not have been more appropriate. He pointed out the fact that if we continue to look to the universities as a source of funds, a source of revenues to be transferred into other purposes, we will end up very shortly not with excellence in education, not even with mediocre education, but with second-class education.

We do see a brain drain from our universities, and it is a twofold brain drain, Mr. Speaker. We see that some of the brightest young students are leaving this province and undertaking their education elsewhere. We see that other parts of this country are sending out recruiters to British Columbia and into such school districts as West Vancouver to extol the virtues of such universities as Western, Queens and others back in central Canada. So not only are we losing a lot of the brightest and best young professors and academics, we are also losing some of the student body.

The Chief Justice was quite right in making those comments and sounding the alarm when perhaps those of us in the opposition who have been making these remarks, certainly for the past three years, in which we have pointed to the

[ Page 8539 ]

widening gap in terms of the participation rate of non-metropolitan students, in which we have been pointing to the fact that while other jurisdictions are spending more per capita, we are spending less, while we pointed to the fact that in spite of the fact that university enrolments have increased, the amount of money that we are spending on universities, even in inflated dollars, has dropped, and in terms of constant dollars has dropped drastically....

It is very significant and helpful, I suppose, and very responsible of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, when perhaps people have listened to the words of my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody and I, and of other members, and of our party's leader, the leader of the official opposition, and of almost every member of the NDP caucus who has made these points over and over again. It was therefore very welcome that such a leading figure in Canada did make that comment, I think, as appropriately as he did in the most appropriate province in which he could have made that remark.

This is not excellence in education. This money will not even begin to restore education to levels of funding and so on which existed three years ago. One can go to the campuses and just take a very close critical took at the maintenance of the buildings, which is suffering. Mr. Speaker, you will see moss and grass and weeds sprouting out of cracks which have not been repaired and such at the University of British Columbia in some of those old buildings. Every kind of costcutting measure has been taken. I think that Dr. George Pedersen said it very well when he left the University of British Columbia. The current president of UBC, maybe in somewhat diplomatic terms, but very clearly, has expressed the same kind of concern. For the very short-term political gain of a government that wants to retain another four or five years in power, we are jeopardizing the future. We are punishing our children for life. We are punishing British Columbia, and we are condemning the future of British Columbia by this very callous attitude.

You cannot begin to have excellence in education until we are committed financially, as well as philosophically, to at least keeping up average standards. People are working very desperately to do that. They are being spread very thin. You are not going to be able to replace the vacancies that come open. You are not going to get the best productivity out of assistant and associate professors and so on, who have taken positions at lower pay scales and been frozen there for several years now, when you continue to give them the back of the hand. It is very counterproductive.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that this government took the approach that our basic resource industry, the forest products industry, was a sunset industry. They said that. Certainly by the way they've mismanaged that industry for the past three years since the first signals went up, when people in the Premier's office didn't even know who the Governor of Oregon was, we've turned our back on the resource industry of this province. So if there is any future it is in the human capital of this province.

We have bright young people as students. We have bright young people in the academic field. These people can lead to the economic spinoffs that will assert British Columbia's place in the economic spectrum of Canada, North America and the world. These are the people who will help us to achieve our destiny. But the short-sighted political manipulation of funding that pretends that we are even beginning to maintain a mediocre standard is really a political hypocrisy.

I'm certainly glad to say that I'm not intimidated in terms of the way that I'll be voting on this particular bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite have, in their wisdom, decided to vote against this bill. Is that a correct interpretation? I intend to vote in favour of the bill, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that having $600 million dedicated to the principles of excellence in education is not bad. It is a signal from the government that priorities are of the essence in times of restraint, and that the institutions themselves should give thought to what things are more important in the future than the current list of priorities in their order of expenditure.

The members opposite say that this is an incorrect way to proceed. I take it that they are opposed to the spending of money on excellence. It's always been hard, with the New Democratic Party, to find a commitment to excellence in anything, whether it's education or industry. Competition of any kind is a no-no for the members opposite. I suppose the fact that there must be competition for scarce funds, that we must try to permit excellence to be encouraged and to emerge.... Excellence sometimes has its problems emerging in our institutions. This is a strong signal to those within our institutions who have the capacity to bring on new programs and see things flourish. It's a signal to them to be recognized by their own institutions and by the government.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill. I would be disappointed, but not surprised, if the members opposite once more sunk to their values in judging both the programs and their responses to government programs.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that for one of these bills the Minister of Finance has some support. There are strings over there. Mr. Speaker: a bunch of puppets. That's not what I mean when I'm talking about support. Somebody at least got up and said something in support of this bill. One member!

[4:00]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you support it now?

MR. COCKE: I do not support this bill. I do not support this bill and I'm ashamed of anybody who would support this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You don't mean that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade and Investment, who incidentally was the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, should know better, but anyway, he got up and said he intends to vote in favour of $600 million for excellence. By heavens, isn't that motherhoodish! He doesn't at the same time tell us that the $600 million should have been allocated in the budget where it belongs, should have been in the estimates where it belongs, so that it could have been voted upon properly by the Committee of the Whole House. Oh, no, $600 million for excellence.

I have never heard that minister from Point Grey give such a short speech in my life. Never. That's how strong his support was. He didn't even give his old historical speech, Mr. Speaker. He just got up and said it's $600 million for excellence. That $600 million was deprived of the budget,

[ Page 8540 ]

and then suddenly their largess shows. "Here we are folks; we've come to meet your demands." Well, I'll be darned.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm going to vote against it. You better tell the people of New Westminster that I voted against it and I'll tell you why you better tell them. Because they will rejoinder. They will say to you: "Thank goodness we've got an honest member who demands that we continue with the democratic process in this province. We want a member representing New Westminster who calls for votes." Remember the "not a dime without debate"?

Then that minister says that anybody voting against excellence...and that the NDP are noted for voting against excellence. What a crock of nonsense. The fact of the matter is the NDP have been voting against all of these "excellence" ideas which this government has come up with and which have got us into the terrible state that we're in today. That's what we're voting against. We're voting against it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: If I supported the lowest common denominator I would be supporting the Minister of Energy. But I don't support the lowest common denominator. All that talk about a competition for scarce funds, it's the old divide and conquer syndrome. These people are noted for that. Now they can stand up with sheafs of money and say: "Come our way, do our bidding and you get a part of it." That isn't the way it's supposed to be at all. It's supposed to be the legislators of this province charged with the responsibility of coming into this chamber and voting on expenditures that are estimated for the future. Those expenditures are allocated to certain areas and then we know what we're voting for. Right now we don't know what we're voting for, and that government doesn't know what they're voting for either.

What's the Minister of Finance going to do with these funds? He's going to turn over these funds to two people: one a neophyte minister who hasn't even been around long enough to know where the universities are, let alone have very much to do with them; and the other minister, a minister who has been recently appointed to the education portfolio. And what was one of his first contentions? That a teacher doesn't work. He asked one of our members who was a former teacher: "Why don't you get a real job?" That's the kind of.... These are the people who are going to be distributing that money.

Mr. Speaker, need I say more? How could anybody in their right mind in a democratic body say yes to this kind of largess, this unprecedented way of distributing money to a starved system? We can't say yes. How could we? It would be abdicating our responsibility. I contend that anybody on any bench in this House who votes for this bill is abdicating their responsibility. They had a chance; they still have a chance to amend this bill and put it back where it belongs in the budget. Without reflecting upon a vote, seeing what they did with the past one I doubt if it will be any different with this. I say that sadly, and probably there will be great regret over this system of handling taxpayers' money in the province of B.C.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Having spoken at length in introducing second reading, it's with pleasure that I call the question.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 12

Bill 4, Education Excellence Appropriation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[4:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 3.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move second reading of Bill 3, and I have a few remarks to make.

This bill contains a number of what we might call technical amendments to the Compensation Stabilization Act. The purpose of these changes is to clarify certain provisions and to make the day-to-day operation of the CSP more efficient.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There are really four main areas in the amending legislation. First, the Compensation Stabilization Commission Act's definition of compensation plan is amended to make clear that a compensation plan may include the terms and conditions of an award established by an arbitrator or by an arbitration board.

Secondly, three sections of the act — that is, the main act which is being amended — are amended here to clarify that if the CSP commissioner finds a compensation plan consisting of an arbitration award to be outside the compensation stabilization guidelines or regulations, he has the option of returning the plan either to the arbitrator or to the parties for revision. This then codifies the commissioner's long-standing practice and ensures that the parties have every opportunity to bargain successfully together, whether under the guidelines or under the regulations.

In this regard, the House will recall that the CSP program has a two-track system for considering compensation plans. If the commissioner determines that a plan is outside the guidelines, and if the necessary changes are not made, then the commissioner can place the plan under the binding CSP

[ Page 8541 ]

regulations. I'd like to point out that it is an important — I think a very satisfying — point that with more than 2,800 settlements approved by the CSP, now in its fifth year, not once has there been a need for the commissioner to resort to compulsory regulations. I note this in passing as a clear indication of the success of the program.

The third main amendment adds a provision to the section of the act which currently states that no compensation plan can be implemented until the commissioner has reviewed and approved it. The additional subsection allows the commissioner, on application by the employer, to permit an increase in compensation prior to final approval of a plan. This authority gives the commissioner the latitude, for example, to approve provisionally a multi-year compensation plan where the first year is set but the second year is subject to some proviso, perhaps a wage reopener. This provisional approval feature is of course still subject to the employer's ability to pay.

Finally, the fourth amendment brings two more public sector employers under the program. They are the British Columbia Rapid Transit Company Ltd. and the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Taken together, these amendments represent minor adjustments to a program which, as I indicated earlier, has been in place since February 1982.

I move second reading of Bill 3.

MR. STUPICH: I don't intend at this point in time to deal with the details of the sections. I appreciate the minister's explanation. Rather, my concern is with the process.

You will recall that Bill 3, when it was first introduced and debated in the House, was one of the contributing factors to what was a very hot fall in the province, the fall of 1983, when it was apparent that the government had introduced a budget and some 26 pieces of legislation not to achieve restraint but rather to develop confrontation and to show that cooperation was not going to be the route in the province of British Columbia. That seemed apparent during the four or five months that we debated the package of bills and the budget. There was further evidence of the fact that the government was seeking confrontation in a presentation by Norman Spector, when he said that the purpose was not to achieve restraint but rather to prove to everyone within hearing that the Premier was a tough man. That was the message that people were supposed to get from it, and it's the message people did get. So to that degree at least the program, including the compensation stabilization program, including Bill 3.... It's Bill 3 now; I think it might have been then, but I'm not sure what the number was. In any case, it was successful in proving to people that the Premier, the leader of this Social Credit administration, was a tough person and was leading a tough administration, rather than in achieving restraint.

There was evidence introduced, and there has been evidence since then, that restraint indeed was not achieved. The budgets have gone up every year. In one year it was 18 percent; I recall using that figure during a budget debate to show that the government has been spending money at rapidly increasing rates, very large projects, very large amounts of money. Without any reflection on legislation currently before the House, we've gone so far from the idea of restraint that we are now debating in this House allowing two ministers to spend $1.3 billion between them without coming to the House with any explanation. Restraint has been abandoned totally. It's still preserving the image of the leader of the government as a tough person, although he talks cooperation and consultation.

Mr. Speaker, you'll recall that the first mention of these amendments — not specifically but the proposal that there would be amendments — was made public in a speech by the Premier when he said in a television address on February 5, 1986, that the Minister of Finance would be announcing some changes in the compensation stabilization program in the coming days. This was at a time when tough negotiations were going on, serious negotiations between representatives of the BCGEU and representatives from the government side. They were negotiating in good faith, only to be told in a television address by the Premier that the legislation that was hanging over all of their heads in their negotiations, the legislation that the minister talked about, permits parties to bargain.... I don't think he used the words "in good faith," but we've heard many times that it's supposed to allow parties to bargain in good faith. While they're at the bargaining table, the legislation hanging over all of their heads, they're told by the Premier that it's going to be changed. Is that bargaining in good faith?

It came at a very critical point in negotiations between the union and the government. Of course that set back the bargaining process, set back the meetings. The whole process was damaged terribly by that statement by the Premier. Negotiations were suspended. While one of the parties at least.... I'm not sure about the government negotiators, but certainly the people on the other side of the table sought some clarification from the Premier. Just what was he talking about? Were there going to be minor changes of the kind that we see today, important in some areas but nevertheless relatively minor compared with the total program? Was the program going to be thrown out totally, as we had been promised at one time? What was going to be done?

The Premier was asked publicly a few days later, on February 9, on the CHEK-TV program "For The Record." The Premier said that communications were going on regarding CSP changes, but he wouldn't give any details. In response to the Premier's address after that, the Leader of the Opposition said that in presenting that program originally the Premier promised that new jobs and improved services are dependent upon wage freezes in the public sector and that's why the program was brought in. But there's been no evidence of new jobs, no evidence of improved services. Indeed, quite the opposite; there are more people unemployed and on social assistance, and education and health services have deteriorated terribly. So from that point of view the program has been a total failure — not just that program, but everything else that the government embarked upon attendant upon that July budget in 1983. Thousands of jobs were eliminated. New jobs were not created.

In the province of Manitoba a deal was made. The government did bargain with government employees, and they agreed not to ask for a wage increase on the condition that their jobs be protected, that there not be massive layoffs as there were in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, that government kept that promise. The government in the province of British Columbia did not keep the many promises that were made during the fall of 1983.

The money that the Premier did save by firing people in the public service — by the so-called restraint program, the program that admittedly since then has been described as a program simply to give the Premier a tough image — was not saved to the taxpayers, because deficits have increased and

[ Page 8542 ]

our borrowing has increased year after year. All it has done is that the money instead of being saved was redirected into massive public works projects which have provided some employment, a lot of it for people outside of the province, and provided some increase in the economy, again benefiting people from outside of the province more than those within the province.

With that budget in July, the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the government promoted confrontation and have done nothing to change that since. The Premier talked about consultation. To this day there has been no consultation between the trade union side of the table and the government about the amendments until the amendments were tabled in the House. That was the first knowledge they had of the details of those amendments, from everything I have been able to find out. When the Premier offered consultation, the BCGEU tried to approach the Premier to ask what was happening. He was not able to see them. They tried to see the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance suggested that they talk it over with the deputy minister of Finance, who was instructed publicly that he could attend the meetings if he kept his mouth shut and his ears open. That is not consultation; yet that was what they were offered, consultation. There has been no attempt to get any meaningful level of cooperation from government employees or from any of the public agency employees, and there never has been from the time that budget was introduced early in July of 1983.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The commissioner, by this legislation, does have some further authority, but from where does he get his advice in exerting this authority? You recall, Mr. Speaker, when a couple of appointments raised eyebrows so much that one of the members for Victoria asked that the commissioner review these two appointments and the salaries that were offered. One of them was a person by the name of Doug Heal; the commissioner did review that. Another one that he was asked to review was a Michael A. Bailey. The increases or the salaries that were being set for these two people were very high compared to other salaries that were being offered at the same time. But wonder upon wonders, the commissioner found that in one case it was quite reasonable and in the other case a few dollars knocked off it would make it very reasonable. I can only suggest that when the Premier said that he felt these were reasonable figures the commissioner found it in his interests to accept the Premier's advice. There are other examples of increases that have been awarded, and in some cases not awarded, where the Premier has said in advance what he thinks the answer should be, and in every instance where that has happened, to my knowledge, the commissioner has found it reasonable to agree with what the Premier suggested.

Mr. Speaker, the whole thing is a farce. The whole thing has developed confrontation rather than cooperation. If we are to recover from the sickness that we are in in the province of British Columbia — and we were brought there to a large degree because of the actions of this government, in particular the actions started with that budget of July 1983 — we have to follow the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, which is to start cooperating with people rather than browbeating them and telling them, after the decisions have been made, exactly what are going to be, their conditions of employment and their remuneration.

This is not free collective bargaining by any stretch of the imagination. There has been no attempt to do anything other than prove that the government is boss. Mr. Speaker, that is bound to create further confrontation. It is bound to build up walls of dissatisfaction that people are waiting to jump over. We're building up a lot of trouble for the future by deciding that it's in the interests of the Social Credit Party and the Social Credit government to continue showing that they are boss, that they are tough and that they will run this province to suit themselves.

I'm departing from the minor changes in the Compensation Stabilization Act that are before us now. Because it's the process itself, the way in which these amendments were first talked about when bargaining was going on. The ground was suddenly whipped out from under them, because they were told that the goal-posts were going to be moved, without being given any details, without being promised that there would be consultation, and then were given no consultation, no opportunities for consultation. It's the whole process.

[4:30]

The only way to show our dissatisfaction with the way in which the government has handled this particular program is to vote against the bill before us now. I wish there were some other way. I think there will be another way sometime. Within the next two years there will be; I'm not sure when there will be. Certainly I'll do my best to make sure that that message is brought to the voters of this province at that time. But in the meantime we can only say that we're dissatisfied. We're opposed to what the Social Credit administration has done to the people of British Columbia since July 1983 and will express it at this particular moment by voting against Bill 3 in second reading.

MR. ROSE: I'm always a little bit skeptical when a minister gets up and introduces what is so-called housekeeping legislation: it's a minor amendment; it's a minor housekeeping amendment. He belittles his own bill, which I think he should; he has a perfect right to. I'd just as soon belittle it. We'll see what you said when Hansard is printed. We'll have a look at the tapes. I wouldn't want you to condemn yourself out of your own mouth. I wouldn't want you to mislead the House, or anything like that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you suggesting I did?

MR. ROSE: No, I'm suggesting it would be inappropriate for a minister of your stature to be caught misleading the House; that is, to be caught would be inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a kind of fantasy land here when we talk about free collective bargaining, and freedom in our society and in the economy. I hope that the minister doesn't suggest that somehow this particular compensation commission is enhancing our rights under free collective bargaining. When he says there are 2,800 settlements that haven't been challenged, and that somehow this ensures that we have democracy in labour and bargaining rights in this province, it's an absolute fantasy. It's an absolute fraud; I think that anybody that's had any experience with it will know that. Even the ability-to-pay question surrounding this whole thing is, I think, distorted. If you believe in free collective bargaining, then you cannot see the imposition of extra powers by the compensation commission as contributing to that. It's just a lie. It just doesn't work that way. This is not free collective bargaining at all.

[ Page 8543 ]

Under the School Act, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, teachers and their employers are required each fall to undertake negotiations which will ultimately, if not completed to the satisfaction of either or both parties, end in arbitration. Once an arbitration award is made, then it goes to our friend Mr. Peck to rule upon. What's that got to do with the employees and the employers getting together and settling some agreement, when the power is all in the hands of the government?

When the school boards, a number of them, defied the government on its total framework, who walks in but the Minister of Finance? On the last day of the teachers' convention last year he issued a directive. The myth is that school boards are free, autonomously elected bodies with certain kinds of rights. They've been stripped. Never mind the teachers' rights for the moment; the school boards' rights have been stripped.

When they did come to settlements with them that required the layoff of teachers, then the government began to feel the heat. So the Minister of Finance walks in and issues a directive to all boards: "You can't fire anybody." This was called the teacher employment saving strategy, or some other gobbledegook dreamed up by somebody like Norman Spector or some other word merchant. What happened? It was challenged in the courts, and the minister lost. He was told that he had gone beyond his powers. My God, his powers are considerable, but that even wasn't enough for him; he went beyond even those. So that's a lot of nonsense.

All right, what's happening now? First of all, we've got this three-tiered educational finance system, which again we've discussed on many occasions, and this isn't the time to do it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Tiers are not enough.

MR. ROSE: Well, three tiers are not enough anyway. Not enough for a famine in educational funding.

MR. WILLIAMS: Great line!

MR. ROSE: I know it is. I was quoted for that line.

What's happening now in many school districts is that they've gone to arbitration and they can't even agree on the third arbitrator. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), now in nine school districts that I know of, has been asked to put in the third arbitrator, and because of their Social Credit connections some of them are not acceptable to the teachers or the trustees. But what difference does that make? There's no money for education, but there's all kinds of money for lawyers, for arbitrators, for people like that. We can squander thousands of public dollars on that. For what purpose? Because when the arbitration award comes down, if Peck doesn't like it, it's out the window anyway.

All this nonsense about going through and enhancing and protecting the general public and all this is absolute tommyrot. What do you think forced the teachers into a position now? Teachers, who are normally very cooperative people, who wouldn't raise a fuss, wouldn't carry a picket sign, wouldn't do anything.... The confrontation by this minister and other ministers of this government has forced their general membership to accept the recommendation of the right to strike. They don't come under the Labour Code, so they don't have that right at the moment.

Are you up on another point of order?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Just stretching.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I see, you're having a stretch. I thought I'd aroused you sufficiently out of your somnolence that you might get up and debate with me on this subject, but you've spoken once on it anyway and you can't do that now. Or the Speaker will get.... Now he's coming over here to threaten me. He's gone.

Mr. Speaker, teachers have been forced to take what, for them, are extreme measures. Without this government there would be.... Now this isn't the so-called pinkos in the teacher executive — the BCTF. Not those irresponsible lefties. This is the rank-and-file teachers by referendum, because they have been stripped of their bargaining rights....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Convention. What difference does it make? It will be in. You'll hear about that one, too.

MR. REID: What are they doing in Cowichan-Malahat?

MR. ROSE: I'll tell you what they're doing in Cowichan-Malahat. The teachers in Cowichan-Malahat were given this option. I'm glad you brought that up. I wish you knew as much about Surrey as you do about Cowichan-Malahat. Sorry — Surrey. I'd like the members for Surrey, instead of sitting there sniping all the time, to get up and make a speech. Are you speechless?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: All you do is kibitz.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. I'll ask the member now taking his place in debate to address the Chair — that will help — and the members for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Reid) not to interrupt.

MR. ROSE: Jekyll and Hyde over there, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, Jekyll and Hyde over there seldom make speeches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no.

MR. ROSE: They hide in the weeds, and they're....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no.

MR. ROSE: And they're cheap-shot artists of the first....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. We're now on Bill 3. Please proceed.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 8544 ]

MR. ROSE: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker?

The confrontational approach of this government has forced many people who have never thought of themselves as being militant, or even being employed other than as professionals, to seek a labour solution — the right to strike, the right to free collective bargaining — because it has been stripped from them. That's what this has done, and that's what Mr. Peck's little commission has done. When the Finance minister's directive was thrown out by the courts, what did they do? They changed the direction of educational financing, stole the autonomy from local school boards and urged teachers to break contracts.

Let's talk about Cowichan-Malahat. Here was the option in Cowichan-Malahat. I believe it was 25 teachers who were given the choice of either taking a cut, not taking their increments or losing their jobs, right? What Cowichan-Malahat tried to do was to break its contract with the teachers. And this bunch over here will be breaking contracts all over the place whenever they can get away with it. What do they substitute for it? Some slush fund, some pork like Bill 4, or some other little stunt. You haven't got any credibility at all anymore with teachers or trustees. Even your friends in the trustees, even members of your own party, have had it up to here with you. You're in really bad shape in educational matters. Do your own polling. As a matter of fact, you're in bad shape all....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You know it. That's why we have this big retirement party coming up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please don't interrupt. I'll ask the member if he could return to the principle of Bill 3, compensation stabilization.

MR. ROSE: It makes a joke out of any kind of arbitration award given in school districts because it has an override power. That's a basic objection that I have to it. It makes it lunacy for us to be spending money, whether it's the teachers' own money or public money on behalf of the trustees, to pay more lawyers to come to an arbitrated settlement when it can be overridden. It makes no sense at all. That's my basic objection to it. That's why I'm voting against these so-called housekeeping amendments.

MR. COCKE: I'm utterly amazed. I thought the member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) was going to jump to his feet and defend the Minister of Finance in his hour of need.

MR. REID: When he needs me, I'm right here.

MR. COCKE: That's right. "When he needs me, I'm right here" — for the vote. Silent Sam they call him, except as a rejoinder artist.

I have very little to say about Bill 3 because it doesn't deserve very much comment. Right from day one, right from their 1981 statement vis-à-vis restraint and all the rest of it, this government has been on a number of courses which from time to time collide. They tell us there should be this stabilization, etc., etc., and Ed Peck has the last word. Then you'll notice that when a group is bargaining — the BCGEU I'm commenting on at the moment — right in the middle of that bargaining the hon. Minister of Finance gets up and tells the world through the press that there's no money, so why bargain?

Why then have compensation stabilization? If anybody is going to make a comment after the bargaining has come to a conclusion, why have them if the minister is going to do that beforehand? That's exactly what happened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not relevant to this bill, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: It's totally relevant to compensation stabilization. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, when you open up a statute with an amendment, the whole statute is there for debate. You know that as well as I do. That's really what I'm commenting on. Why do we have the statute when the minister stands as a buffer to that very statute that he authors? Really, the whole thing is a mockery.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said it all. It has created chaos, which we don't need in tough times. I'm not going to blame the government for all of the tough times. I'm going to blame you for plenty, but certainly you're not the author of all of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Fifty-fifty.

MR. COCKE: My colleague says fifty-fifty. That's really the most generous thing you've said for a long, long time. That's the most complimentary thing I've heard about the Socreds in lo, these many days.

In any event, through this kind of activity we have created a schizophrenia out there that's beyond belief. Nobody really knows where they're supposed to go, how they're supposed to get there. They do their bargaining, and if it gets by the minister, then it gets to this other level in the Compensation Stabilization Act, and it may have been all in vain.

[4:45]

I just think there should be a lot better way of organizing our whole economic outlook. Certainly there should be a better way of dealing with the valued employees of government. They have really taken it in the neck. Not only have they been drawn and quartered in terms of numbers, but they've also been drawn and quartered in terms of knowing what to expect, where to go and how to get there. It has created confusion, and at this time we should be talking in terms of something other than confusion.

I thought these were the great freedom fighters, the great free-enterprisers who believe in...

AN HON. MEMBER: Reason.

MR. COCKE: That too.

...the right to negotiate, the right of people to uphold their views. But obviously these words of mine are all in vain. The government will do what it feels it has to do, and it'll do so without my support.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I certainly accept the statement of the member for New Westminster that when a bill is amended it is open for debate. The member for Coquitlam-Moody is

[ Page 8545 ]

not here, but I did not say these were housekeeping amendments — which is an overused word, it seems to me. Rather, they're fairly narrow amendments to a bill which has been on the order paper for quite some time.

It's a program which has worked extremely well in restoring a balance between the private sector in B.C., and its ability to pay, and the public sector. It has been examined with great interest and in a very supportive fashion in a number of other jurisdictions. It has flexibility with the times, whether the treasury of the province is in good or excellent condition or rather less than we would like. That flexibility has been shown time and time again.

I cited the fact that over 2,800 plans had been settled under the guidelines rather than by the full force of the legislation and the regulations. I think that all thoughtful British Columbians should be proud of that, and I think they are. I think they recognize that it introduces an element of fairness into an area where frequently there is confrontation. You may not agree with the principle, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Admittedly some of them were for very small bargaining units — a handful of people. Others were for very large units. But not one since the program was introduced was done under the more stringent regulations. It's a record to be proud of, a program to be proud of, a program which I believe will remain in place in B.C. for quite some time to come — and so it should.

Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 3.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 13

Bill 3, Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 10.

INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: During second reading I asked the minister whether there is any evidence at all — I believe there was evidence at one time — that the companies with head offices outside of British Columbia do a better job of investing in B.C. than do the ones with headquarters in B.C. I believe the minister was interested in that enough to say that he might respond during committee stage if he had any figures.

[5:00]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it is correct that in second reading debate the member for Nanaimo commented that it might be that insurance companies with head offices in British Columbia had not done quite the same quality of job of investing their funds in the province. So we examined that. I don't know that I have numbers as such, but certainly we have some information which I think might be helpful.

The details of investment by type and by jurisdiction are not available. I think you would appreciate that. But the indications are that the nature of investment by B.C.-headquartered insurance companies is a function of company size more than any other factor. It will also be known by all members of the committee that by insurance industry standards B.C.-based companies are relatively small. They perhaps cannot afford some of the investments that might be categorized as a little more risky than others. Their investments therefore tend to be conservative. Many eastern-based companies or central Canadian companies with significant sums of money and assets can better afford risk.

That perhaps may not be the definitive answer the member seeks, but we do not sense that B.C.-headquartered companies have avoided on a pro rata basis investing in British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: I thank the minister for that. I would have thought the same thing, that the B.C.-based companies must be very small, or relatively small. Yet I notice that the revenue impact, as I recall, is $3 million a year. So it would seem to be that they must be of a fairly substantial size if the difference in revenue is $3 million a year.

[ Page 8546 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Small by what standard? Yes, the revenue number is correct. I suppose it's another indication of the size of the industry in the nation as a whole.

MR. STUPICH: Again I recall from second reading that the minister said that this is the sort of program that they could watch and that if they felt that there were abuses or if they felt that the industry were not conducting itself in a manner that was in the interests of the people of British Columbia, then regulations could be changed so that they might be persuaded. I would certainly hope that the minister will recall that, and maybe one day he'll be reminding somebody else on the other side of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hope the latter doesn't occur, but obviously these regulations, as must all others, must be consistent with the legislation. But I can tell the committee that the exemption will require certification by the commissioner of income tax on the basis of guidelines which flow from the regulations. I don't expect nor did the member suggest in his comment that there would be abuses. But in the event that we find there are, or something that is not quite in tune with the intent of the legislation and the ancillary regulations, then certainly we will move to correct them.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Insurance Premium Tax Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I haven't done my homework on this. I'm just wondering, the commissioner may now make refunds. Is there a limit on that? If a person is entitled to a refund, is that it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the member, no. A refund is a refund is a refund. If it's legitimate, then the commissioner may make the refund, but it's of tax overpaid as a result of a tax rate change or of tax paid in error. We see little likelihood for that amount to be in dispute. The minister will continue to be responsible for tax refunds where there has been an appeal saying: "This is my view of it versus yours."

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to congratulate the minister on including this amendment. I think it makes eminent good sense.

Sections 16 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1986

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this tax return, is it a provincial tax return that section 5 refers to? It certainly can't, I would think, exempt a charity from filing a federal tax return. I wasn't aware that there was a provincial tax return. I know that charities have to file returns with the provincial governments and file tax returns with Revenue Canada, but I'm just not sure about this. I'm not sure what they're being exempted from in this particular section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Registered charities have been exempted from the requirement to file tax returns. The section also imposes a requirement to file on taxpayers who have been able to offset their tax liability by the application of certain income tax credits. My view of this section is, as with others, that it is designed to bring the B.C. tax law into line with federal tax law. It's not a provincial tax return. The member is correct in the negative of his question when he commenced.

Sections 5 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 8547 ]

Bill 23, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 72: minister's office, $226,849.

HON. A. FRASER: I hope you can hear me. I have the worst affliction any politician could have. I have laryngitis. But I am happy to say a few brief words in introduction of the estimates of this ministry. I have been waiting with bated breath for three months for this day to happen.

Last year was a big year for the ministry, and this year is another one. I believe the budget last year was $1 billion; and this year it is around an even billion. The main increase is in the two large projects: phase 1 and part of phase 2 of the Coquihalla, and the Annacis bridge crossing of the Fraser River. So with those two projects, plus regular construction and maintenance, the budget is certainly a fair size.

I might say it was government policy, decided in 1984, to step up the expenditures of Transportation and Highways, because we needed the additional facilities; but we also were anxious to create jobs, and it has had both effects, as you know.

Phase 1 of the Coquihalla is open and we've had.... I want to pay tribute to our engineers, our contractors and our workmen for pushing phase 1 from Hope to Merritt through in a period of 20 months over some of the toughest terrain in Canada. They are to be complimented for doing an excellent job in a very short period of time under very difficult conditions. In effect, the construction period they worked in was two winters and one summer. It would have been a lot better, I think, if it had been two summers and one winter. But they did work two winters and one summer to achieve that.

We have let all the contracts on phase 2 from Merritt to Kamloops, with the exception of the paving contracts — there might be one. I believe that a value of about $80 million has been awarded on phase 2. I believe all those contractors are now at work. It is anticipated that phase 2 from Merritt to Kamloops will be completed by freeze-up 1987. We awarded the first contract on phase 3 just recently. Work will be starting now from Peachland to Merritt.

I would just tell the committee that this ministry is responsible for B.C. Ferries. We are responsible for the motor vehicle branch, which includes motor vehicle licensing and driver licensing. We are responsible for safety only on the B.C. Railway. We are responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission, which is semi-autonomous. We have the airport assistance program.

That's a brief introduction. I would also like to introduce my deputy minister. We have a new deputy minister, Tom Johnson. He was appointed deputy minister on January 1, 1986. Before that he was the assistant deputy minister. We have other staff people here as well. So I look forward to debate on the estimates.

[5:15]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me inform the committee that we understand the minister's affliction. Hopefully it will be temporary. I must say I admire the minister for a politician, as the minister has stated, to partially lose his voice in the middle of estimates is really sad — and the leadership contest going on as well. I'm just waiting for that minister, whom I've known for many, many years, to throw his hat in the ring. You'd get a lot of support from us non–city slickers, I can tell you that.

Secondly, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Johnson for having risen through the ranks to Deputy Minister of Highways. I've had the opportunity of working with...I'm not sure about working with, but of having consulted with Mr. Johnson on many items over the years. I recall when he was totally in charge of the highways-operated ferry system. He was always available, answered my questions, answered my mail. I appreciated that, so my congratulations to Mr. Johnson.

We have something like 40 minutes left in these estimates....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Hurry up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: For today only. We possibly have several weeks, but in today's sitting we have some 40 minutes left. We have some major questions on matters such as the Coquihalla, the Annacis Bridge, B.C. Ferries, airport assistance programs, but I've decided not to get into those matters here this afternoon in the short time we have. I hate starting a major debate, if you wish to call it that. on some of these so called major items, and then having to break up the debate and continue next day. I find we usually end up doing the same debate twice if we go to two days.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I try not to be but I often am, like the other people in this House.

What I thought I would do is concentrate on.... I've never done this before: opened a debate of this nature concentrating on a few constituency items. But I'm going to get into them sooner or later, so it may as well be sooner and we'll finish off today. Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox, who is not — for very good reasons — going to be present tomorrow but is here this afternoon.... I know the member for Comox has some questions for the minister, so rather than get into the meat of the debate at this very moment, I will take my seat and give the member for Comox an opportunity to pose her questions to the minister.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, for some reason the minister doesn't look surprised — he expects me to be on my feet during these estimates. As a matter of fact, I started out last year during the estimated expenditures of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways by suggesting that the minister was probably tired of hearing from the member for Comox, because every year I approach these estimates in the same vein: I make an absolute appeal to the minister on behalf of the constituents of Comox in order to rectify what is a great injustice, in my view. We in the constituency of Comox have been neglected in terms of a highway that has needed construction for years and years, and still we have the Minister of Highways saying: "Oh, it will be some years yet before there

[ Page 8548 ]

is a highway" — an inland route built north of Parksville through to Menzies Bay just north of Campbell River.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to reiterate the words that I have used every year in this Legislature for the last 12 years on this issue. The situation is more crucial than it was then. What I would like to do is read just a couple of comments, which the minister may not have received or may not be aware of, from editorial writers in the constituency and from people who write to me from time to time. The president of Mt. Washington Ski Resort Ltd., Alex Linton, writes to me saying that he is in support of the request by the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, who recently made a request to the minister regarding this highway. Maybe I'll start again so that the quote will come out accurately in Hansard:

"Dear Mrs. Sanford:

"This letter is in full support of the request by the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities for an immediate start of actual construction of a first-class new Island Highway from Parksville to Campbell River.

"We operate by far the largest ski resort on Vancouver Island and employ more people in winter than any other business in Courtenay. Most of our customers, many from Victoria and district, are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the time and frustration involved in the trip up-Island. Some are coming less often, and others are going instead to Mt. Baker in the U.S.A., which should be unacceptable to our tourist industry principles.

"The theme of Expo 86 is alleged to be transportation and communication and yet travel from Victoria to Courtenay now takes longer than it did 20 years ago due to congestion and obsolescence on the existing route.

"It is time to modernize for the future of Vancouver Island.

Yours truly,
Alex Linton, President"

That sentiment, Mr. Chairman, represents the sentiment of most of the constituents in the constituency of Comox.

An editorial from the Record on May 14, 1986, says:

"Someone must have been asleep at the wheel in the Highways department when the Island Highway was designed. It is only May, but already more than 20 people have died this year in a series of tragic motor vehicle collisions along the highway. Three teenage girls died Thursday after their car broadsided a truck near Crofton. A 44-year-old Shawnigan Lake woman died Saturday after her car collided with a school bus at Koksilah Road. Two weeks ago, a toddler strapped into a back-seat baby carrier was the victim of a three-car collision near Black Creek.

"You have to wonder how many people have to die on the highway before the government finally agrees to reconstruct it or build a new one. The twisted two-lane highway serves a fatal combination of holiday sightseers, logging trucks, seniors heading out to the local store and impatient commuters. Add to that an unlimited number of connector roads, cars pulling on and off the highway and a scattering of small towns along a beautiful, distracting route and you have a daily horror show."

I'm not going to read the whole editorial, but those are the sentiments expressed in the constituency. The Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities in its convention in March passed unanimously a resolution calling for the immediate construction of the bypass route. The Associated Chambers of Commerce of Vancouver Island have passed a similar motion. At a more recent conference held at the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, they set up a number of workshops to discuss various issues related to the Island. There was only one workshop that the delegates attended, and that related to the inland route.

I'm going to read one other section out of a letter. This is a letter from a Ken Livingstone, who says:

"I'm neither a member of the Social Credit party nor the NDP I'm just a disgusted Island resident who would like to see some semblance of fair play in the expenditure of the Highways department's dollars on Vancouver Island.

"Mr. Fraser, we know that you have people in your department who are real wizards at highway construction. Tell me, sir, once the last cow path has been paved in the last Social Credit riding, is there a chance we Islanders, obdurate as we may be in our voting habits, can expect some consideration for the tax money we have been paying for years, and for which we have so little to show?"

Then I must make reference to a comment made by a person who is getting some publicity these days, who, during his travels throughout the province, made some comments when he was in the constituency of Comox. This person's name is Bud Smith. I see them all cringing over there at the mention of the name. "Bud Smith indicates that Sanford and the NDP leader have continually attacked provincial Highways budgets; and that such attacks have influenced government highway spending priorities. 'Your MLA has bad-mouthed Highways budgets."' Do you remember that, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I have been up here on my feet calling for the construction of that highway for 12....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: '"...has bad-mouthed Highways budgets, and the minister must assume that this negative stance on Highway spending reflects the wishes of the riding,' Smith said. Karen Sanford establishes through her speeches the priorities for her riding." Ha, ha, I wish I could. "She says that Highways expenditures are bad. If your own MLA opposes the notion of highways, then you've got to send someone to Victoria who believes in highways projects."

Mr. Chairman, if you have any doubt about the position that I have taken for 12 years, I hope you will just refer to Hansard, because it is very clear that this member has been on her feet every year trying to obtain for the constituency of Comox that inland route.

If this is the kind of information that Bud Smith has been giving the Premier over the years, it's no wonder the province is in such trouble. It's no wonder.

[ Page 8549 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: As intriguing as the topic is, hon. member, it really doesn't qualify as being relevant either in your debate or the debate that would be directed to the minister.

MS. SANFORD: No. I will just add that the comments made by that prospective leader are totally inaccurate, and I know that the people within the constituency of Comox have dismissed those comments out of hand.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to ask the minister: when does he intend to undertake the construction of that inland route from Parksville north to Menzies Bay?

[5:30]

HON. A. FRASER: I listened with interest to the member for Comox. I'd like to say a few things regarding Vancouver Island's road system and get to the specifics that the member brought up. The impression that seems to have been put out regarding Vancouver Island's highway system is that our government particularly has done nothing. The facts are that from 1975 to 1985 we have spent a lot of money on the Island Highway. I might say that everywhere — of course, it isn't enough — the impression seems to be that we haven't spent anything, but I believe it amounts to something like $700 million.

I'll just review and refresh the minds of Vancouver Island people as to where that was spent. The six-laning of Blanshard Street: I recall that project quite clearly. Prior governments talked about that for 40 years. It came to a dead end. Our government completed that. The four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway from Douglas Street to Thetis Lake overpass: when we were building that, the opposition said that it wasn't necessary, and so on, and now, of course, it's full of traffic. We constructed the new Mackenzie Avenue and connected it up; the new bridge crossing at Duncan; major four-laning between Duncan and Ladysmith; major four-laning between Nanaimo and Parksville; new construction on one half of the Parksville bypass. And to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — she will remember this — the community of Courtenay got choked with traffic, and we built the 17th Street crossing at Courtenay. And so it goes all the way along. It's not correct, and it has been in print that the expenditures on the Island were not correct information; I just wanted to correct that.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

As far as our ministry is concerned, we've got lots of problems on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. But dealing with Vancouver Island, number one is Nanaimo. We've got a bottleneck in Nanaimo; we all know that. We're looking at the Nanaimo bypass. I say "looking at it" because we have to deal with the city. We don't mind dealing with the city, but they aren't too excited about what we come up with, the ideas. The estimate for that job is $60 million. We're also trying to complete the Qualicum Park bypass; that's another $80 million. Then, the other one that the member for Comox mentioned — I would call it the Courtenay–Campbell River bypass — is estimated at $150 million. Even on that one we have dissenting voices. We have done a lot of engineering on all these jobs. I would say that our biggest problem in the ministry, no matter where it is, is acquisition of the ground to build on. The actual building is more or less A-B-C, but it's the acquisition of the ground. It's now more expensive to acquire the ground than it is to build the roads, and very controversial. So things don't happen overnight, particularly when dealing in the urban areas.

You mentioned traffic accidents. All accidents, of whatever type, are most unfortunate, but I have this comment from the ministry: that the average accident rate for a two-lane highway in B.C. with direct accesses, moderate to heavy traffic similar to the section of the Island Highway, is three accidents per million vehicles driven. The review, as I understand it, of the rate for the Island Highway from Parksville to Campbell River is the same order as the B.C. average described above. So while accidents of all types are unfortunate, it doesn't seem that they are out of line with other areas of the province where we have two-lane highways.

The only thing I will say to the member for Comox, upset about comments made by a non-MLA, is that I recall very clearly going into several elections against the NDP, and we were called a blacktop government. We were called a blacktop government for a very good reason: to run us down; that our government spent all the money on that and didn't care about health and education. You bet it has been in the past. It opened up the whole province so they could have universities. You can't have it both ways, Madam Member. But now that party seems to be trying to get on the bandwagon, and they're announcing projects that the citizens of the province of course know they'll never be in a position to carry out, and if they were they wouldn't anyway, based on their record from '72 to '75. I just mention to the member for Comox that it's not many years ago that they got a great kick in a derogatory way out of calling our government a blacktop government. You can't forget that and switch right around.

However, I've said that we're looking at all these. We haven't any immediate answers for these major bottlenecks. Our people are working on it. I know that they're working at Nanaimo, but I don't know how it's working out. We've got to get the right-of-way before we can do anything.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hesitated to get to my feet. I thought the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) was going to do something.

MR. COCKE: He's too busy talking over the leadership over there.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh.

Madam Chairperson, the member for Comox has made an excellent point. I listened attentively to the minister's response. The fact is that I travel that highway a great deal — every weekend very nearly when the House is in session. The minister knows as well as I do the number of accidents. We see them on the highway all the time, particularly on that stretch from Campbell River right down to Parksville. And others between Parksville and Victoria could easily be double-laned. You still have quite a bit of single-lane highway. But the member made a good point. I understand that the chamber of commerce from Vancouver Island, or a committee of mayors from Vancouver Island, is requesting improvements to that highway, and it badly needs improvement. A most recent example: I drove down here Monday morning, and with tourism picking up — and the weather was nice — it took me something like 35 minutes longer to make that drive because of the tourists and the large recreational vehicles on the road, sometimes driven by people who look like they're pushing 100 but only driving 25 miles an hour.

[ Page 8550 ]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I've got enough penalty points to prove that I'm not that slow, believe me. But that's another topic.

Anyway, as I said before, I didn't want to get into some of the major items this afternoon. We only have 15 or 20 minutes left this afternoon. I'm going to talk about a couple of local issues. Then they'll be on the record, and they'll be out of the way.

MR. CHABOT: There must be an election coming up soon.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hope so. The sooner the better.

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Mackenzie has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Protect me from my colleagues.

I know I go through this every year, but once again I want to remind the minister about Highway 101 up the Sunshine Coast, which is in my riding. There has been no major work done on that stretch of highway north of the Jolly Roger, when that major contract was completed in 1976, right up to Powell River. Now there's been some Mickey Mouse work done, band-aid work, some repairing.

I know roughly what the regional offices' local highways budgets are. The fault doesn't lie there. We've got some good people in the ministry working in my riding, cooperative and doing the best they can. The problem does not lie there.

Just this summer might be a good example. Your ministry, through the B.C. Ferry Corporation, has put on extra sailings between, for example, Powell River and the Sunshine Coast to accommodate the expected tourist traffic. But the fact is that the condition of that highway is a total disgrace. I'm asking the minister once again.... I don't expect the whole thing to be done in one year. It started under an NDP government and continued very briefly under the Social Credit government. The Ministry of Highways did a bit of three to six miles of reconstruction every year. You don't have to do the whole thing and spend $100 million or $200 million in one budget. Three to six miles of construction every year eventually would see that highway completed, the type of highway that my constituents deserve — and the tourists. Tourism is a big thing in my riding, and it's being promoted vigorously by various groups throughout the riding.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, we're talking about highways. Any tourist in their right mind who wishes to make that so-called circle tour, driving up the Sunshine Coast, across to Vancouver Island and down — the minister knows what I'm talking about in terms of the circle tour — will make that trip once and never again, and will advise their friends, the people they know: "Don't make that trip up the Sunshine Coast. It's beautiful country. The people are pleasant. Good accommodation. Lots of things to do. But you'll get killed on that highway."

So I'm asking the minister to really consider giving.... And I might add, Madam Chairperson, that the money.... And I'm going to talk about this tomorrow. But the fact is that some of the ways that the ministry has spent its money and wasted money, in my view, at a time of so-called restraint, when the smaller projects which provide job opportunities to local contractors and local people in a time of high unemployment.... That's another major aspect of what I'm discussing here. That does not only apply to my own riding, but it applies to many other ridings throughout the province, including ridings currently held by the Social Credit Party. If you really want to do something about job creation in your ministry, I'm suggesting to you that the smaller projects — well, relatively smaller projects, as compared to the Coquihalla — are one way of reducing the high unemployment rate in this province.

Mr. Minister, that was just one item. I have quite a number of others. Remember, I'm doing doing my own parochial thing here, as he's noticed.

[5:45]

I don't want to discuss ferries overall, but I do want to discuss two possible ferry routes in my riding which don't exist at the moment, and which have been promised for some years. I do recall, Mr. Minister, that when you went to the community of Bella Coola, you didn't actually say there would be a ferry at Bella Coola, but that you'd look at it. Engineering studies were done. The people up in that area — the Bella Coola valley, Hagensborg, Firvale and what have you — were expecting, and have been requesting for years, a connecting ferry from that community to, say, Bella Bella, where the Queen of the North now stops twice a week, northbound and southbound. Nothing has been done. At that time the ministry had an opportunity, when a new wharf was constructed by that federal ministry — the old wharf burned down, as the minister well knows — to go in on a cost-sharing program with the federal government and vastly reduce the cost of a ferry ramp for that community. Of course, the government didn't take advantage of that particular opportunity. If the government should at some point decide to construct a ferry ramp for proper transportation services to that community, the cost is going to be a great deal more.

One last item. For the life of me, I will never understand this. I don't have the folder with me at the moment — I left it on my desk — but I'm going to mention this anyway. About a year and a half ago the regional board of the Sunshine Coast held a referendum, and it was overwhelmingly approved by the residents of that area that the Sunshine Coast become a nuclear-free zone. Fair enough. A lot of communities and areas did that. However, when the regional board went to put up a sign near the ferry terminal where you get off the ferry at Langdale to let people know.... The sign in fact read: "Welcome to the Sunshine Coast — A Nuclear-Free Zone." They installed the sign; next day, the Ministry of Highways took it down — tore it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Somebody over there is for nuclear bombs.

[ Page 8551 ]

Anyway, two more times that sign was installed and two more times the Ministry of Highways tore it down. I wrote to the minister about this situation, particularly in view of the fact that along that piece of highway there's every other type of sign you could possibly imagine — "Eat at Joe's Greasy Spoon," "Stay At The Old Fleabag Motel," or whatever — right on the highway; literally hundreds. I have pictures to prove what I'm saying. Yet when I wrote to the minister requesting that the regional board be allowed to place that one small sign in among all the others within that area, the minister wrote back: "This sign does not pertain to the driving task and the Ministry of Highways will not allow that sign." That was voted for by a public referendum, and it was to be placed just off the highway along with hundreds of other signs along that whole stretch of highway right through to Earl's Cove, advertising everything you can possibly imagine.

I know the minister's not going to change his mind. I have his response in writing. The peace committee up in that particular area, a very effective peace committee, I might add, found an owner of private property just off the highway. The sign is there and people can see it now. But I must tell you, Madam Chairperson, that I am extremely disappointed that that minister would not allow that type of sign to be placed on the highway. I see our time is.... I want to give the minister time to respond, so I will just sit down for a few minutes.

HON. A. FRASER: I'll go from last to first. Nuclear-free zone and nuclear signs: we have no intention of changing our policy, what we spelled out in the letter that I sent you, the reason being it distracts the drivers, and we have enough distraction as it is. It doesn't do anything to help safety. Another thing that I don't think was in the letter, but it is our opinion, for what it is worth, is that it can't be enforced in any case, and why litter our highway with something that can't be enforced?

Now your riding joins mine, and regarding the Bella Coola, Bella Bella ferry, the Mackenzie riding goes over to Bella Coola and up to Hagensborg, and the Cariboo riding comes down. I have heard as much as you have about the Bella Bella, Bella Coola ferry. But it is just not feasible, economically or whatever.

You are correct in saying that a wharf was built. We tried to get a roll-on, roll-off attachment put to it. The wharf was built by the government of Canada, and they rejected us and said: "If you want a roll-on, roll-off dock, you build it yourself, but we are not going to cooperate." Well, they defeated that government, and we tried the new government, and I just got turned down the other day by the new government. I think they got the Liberal file on it, the Conservative government.

I want to tell the committee about an experience I had. There are 1,200 people, more or less, at Bella Bella. I went there, and I brought up the subject of a ferry from Bella Bella to Bella Coola. I'll never forget the answer I got from the chief and his band. He said: "First of all, where's Bella Coola?" When he said that, I said: "Well, where do you want to travel — the 1,200 people?" He said: "We want to go to the big smoke." The big smoke is the city of Vancouver, and of course we have a fine vessel plying the waters from Bella Bella to Port Hardy where they can get to the big smoke whenever they want. So I came to the decision — and other people did — that it didn't warrant a ferry service. But then the interior people said they wanted a service for tourists, promotion and so on, and I like that idea myself, but it isn't viable any way you look at it. As a matter of fact, studies we made showed that hardly anybody would use it, so it seemed to us that if we went ahead with it, it would be a misappropriation of public funds.

Regarding the Mackenzie area Highway 101, the notes I have on it — we call it Secret Cove to Madeira Park, by the way, so we're talking about the same thing — show that the design is 60 percent complete and the distance is 10.4 kilometres. This will allow two-lane reconstruction and improve the alignment. We have the project divided into two parts: part A, 4.9 kilometres, and part B, 5.5 kilometres. It's solid rock excavation in all areas. A roughly estimated cost is $6.5 million. I guess the punch-line, Mr. Member, is that traffic on this section is very light, being in the order of 2,600 vehicles per day in the summer, and I think your member for Comox can come up with higher traffic counts than you can.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.