[ Page 5075 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization of ICBC. Mr. Sihota –– 5075

Social assistance rates. Mr. Cashore –– 5076

Boundary-Similkameen by-election. Mr. Williams –– 5076

Late government payments on daycare centre billings. Ms, Marzari –– 5077

User fees in elderly-care facilities. Mrs. Boone –– 5077

Forest Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 28). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 5077

Mr. Miller –– 5078

Mr. Jacobsen –– 5082

Ms. Edwards –– 5082

Mr. Williams –– 5084

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 5087

Committee of Supply: Office of the Premier estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 5089

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 5107

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Miller

Mrs. Boone

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members and colleagues, I've been asked, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, to introduce two guests from West Vancouver. Would you please welcome Glen Pirie and Jeff Devins.

MR. G. HANSON: I'd like to report to the House the result of an epic battle that took place last evening on a softball diamond over in Esquimalt: the New Democrat Indefatigables were edged out by a nose by the Scrum of the Earth. The score was 24 to 18.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to report that ICBC has been watching these sporting events occurring around Victoria and has indicated that the premiums on nose-insurance for journalists has jumped by 300 percent.

The Premier, I know, sees himself as the No. 1 media basher of the province, but, Mr. Speaker, we're the real alternative.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have two very distinguished gentlemen with us: Mayor Lou Sekora of Coquitlam and the municipal manager, Jim Tonn. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: I, too, would like to welcome the mayor, manager and engineer of Coquitlam, Lou Sekora, Jim Tonn and Neil Nyberg. They are over here on important business with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I am sure they made an offer she can't refuse. I would like the House to join with me in welcoming and congratulating the mayor, who, I am told, has recently been made the chairman of the Lower Mainland Municipal Association. They are up in the gallery. Please welcome them.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not into one-upmanship but I too want to welcome Mayor Sekora and Jim Tonn and Neil Nyberg. We're glad to have you with us today.

Also, with regard to the announcement that was made by the first member for Victoria, I just wanted to announce that I was never very good at sports, but I think the game was broken wide open with my single in the last inning. I just want that to be acknowledged.

I would like to introduce today some people who are single parents and trying to raise their children on welfare. They're seeking the ear of government here in Victoria today. The first person is Pat Chauncey, who is spokesperson for the Child Poverty Action Committee. I would also like to introduce Monica.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, it's a distinct honour for me to introduce to this House a gallant lady who resides in Langley. She's been a member of the Social Credit Party since 1952. I don't think she would mind me announcing that this month she'll be.... How could I word it? Let me see; I've got to be tactful about this because she may chide me. Let's say that this month she is going to be 90 years young. May the House please join me in welcoming Mrs. Matilda Mayo.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my voice to welcome His Worship Mayor Louis Sekora and also the municipal manager.

I'd also make reference to the Seniors' Games in relation to the sports announcement that was just made. The Seniors' Games were unveiled last night in Vernon. Probably those competitors that were competing last night would qualify, but I saw those people 55 and older last night in Vernon — one 94-year-old — and you'd probably get whipped, But to the delegation from Coquitlam, I may refer them to a request for the Seniors' Games in the years to come.

MR. BARNES: Further to the introductory remarks by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam with respect to the Child Poverty Action Committee, I would like as well to introduce some of those people who are here this afternoon: Diane, Irene and Wayne, Mania, Lorraine and Katherine. Would the House join with me in making them welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: In the gallery today we have a great constituent from Saanich and the Islands, where the sun always shines, as you will all recognize today. I'd like the House to welcome Marino Schicchi.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like the House to welcome Linda and her son from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, part of the single-parent delegation, and also Michele from the riding of New Westminster.

MRS. GRAN: In the House this afternoon is Mrs. Matilda Mayo, and accompanying her from Langley are Jim and Edith Greenwood. Edith was Bob McClelland's constituency secretary for six years and is a good Social Credit supporter. Would the House please welcome her.

MR. WILLIAMS: I too would like to welcome representatives of the Child Poverty Action Committee from Vancouver East — Pedro and Melanie, Colleen and children, and Cora.

MS. MARZARI: Point Grey also has its delegate here with the Child Poverty Action Committee, and her name is Bev. I'd like the House to welcome her and to repeat the welcome to all those people here with the Child Poverty Action Committee.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF ICBC

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. The sale of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was considered by cabinet some time ago and rejected. Now it appears that the government is reconsidering the sale of ICBC. Will the Premier assure the people of British Columbia that ICBC will not be sold under any circumstances?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've made it very clear — and it has certainly been said a number of times — that ICBC is not on the list of items to be privatized. What the member is asking me to comment on otherwise is future policy.

[ Page 5076 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Surely the Premier must have learned something from the Boundary-Similkameen by-election. The Premier should not be listening to the interests of big insurance companies. He should be listening to the common sense of ordinary British Columbians, and that common sense says that ICBC should not be sold. The question to the Premier is: will he give an absolute, uncategorical, unequivocal answer to the people of British Columbia today and assure us that under no circumstances, at any time — future or current — will ICBC be sold?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can only assure the people of British Columbia that we will consider all matters carefully and that the decisions made will be in their best interest.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATES

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Premier. We are all familiar with the fiasco of the $50 the government tried to take away from welfare families, but the fact remains that the government will still cut the income of welfare families when children become six years old. Given your public support to strengthen families, will the Premier now change his government's policy and restore the $50 to those families?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Therefore I'll defer to the Minister of Social Services, the minister responsible for these programs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The only change we made in the status of single parents was regarding when they become employable as opposed to unemployable. It was felt that when one child becomes school age, the parent at that point reverts to employable status from unemployable status. If a single parent has two children under the age of six, he or she is still regarded as unemployable. Once one of the children starts to attend school, we felt it was fair that they revert to the same status as someone who has one child over the age of six months.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary to the Premier. We all know where the Minister of Social Services stands on this unfair policy, but we want to know where the Premier stands. In the precincts today are 12 single parents who have come seeking justice. They don't want their children to become latchkey children, Mr. Premier. In the name of strengthening the family, are you now prepared to direct your minister to take a second look at this unfair policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, all policy decisions are made by cabinet in cabinet as a group.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to congratulate the government for raising the foster care rates and for recognizing that it costs more to care for older children. Given his support to strengthen families, will the Premier now give his commitment to ensure that welfare rates reflect the same reality?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am very grateful for the recognition by members of the opposition that we have a program for strengthening families and that the program is being well received and recognized as a good thrust for the province. With respect to any matter that relates to rates of welfare or other benefits that might be provided to people in need, it is a question of policy and will be determined by government in due course as part of the process. Certainly that is a matter that is addressed as and when required by cabinet.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Premier must be aware that the rates for foster children range from $262 to $387 a month, while the rates for welfare children are as low as $61 per month for maintenance. In the name of strengthening the family, what is the Premier prepared to do to ensure fair treatment of these families?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if the member has a specific question for the Minister of Social Services with respect to these matters, I would recommend that he direct his questions to the minister.

BOUNDARY-SIMILKAMEEN BY-ELECTION

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to welcome the Premier back after Boundary-Similkameen. After the by-election you said you felt sorry for the voters of Boundary-Similkameen. Was that a reverse bitterness about the results, and could you explain why you would say that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It may be a personal observation, but I feel sorry for any group represented by the NDP.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's that level of arrogance that ended in the results in Boundary-Similkameen. It betrays a misunderstanding of what the democratic process is all about. After that defeat the Premier said that when a member of the opposition serves a constituency, he's not going to work too hard to get projects approved that make the government look good. Most members on both sides of this House work hard for their communities. Will the Premier reconsider his comments, which were an affront to all members of this Legislature?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can only speak from experience, but I've certainly received many petitions and requests from members on our side of the House with respect to particular matters in their constituencies. I would certainly urge the opposition to do likewise, and present these needs in an intelligent manner. Frankly, I believe that those I've dealt with on this side of the House do a more effective job in that regard.

MR. WILLIAMS: In view of statements by the Minister of Tourism and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) — with a capital K — to the effect that it's a reality that the government would do nothing for opposition members.... Have you reprimanded that minister?

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier suggested that it was his own moral views — and probably, in his perception, more righteous views — that may have hurt in the Boundary Similkameen by-election, and in a sense that reflects on the people that voted in Boundary-Similkameen. Is the Premier

[ Page 5077 ]

prepared to apologize to the good people of Boundary-Similkameen for suggesting that they were less righteous than he?

LATE GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS
ON DAYCARE BILLINGS

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. The minister wrote to the Nanaimo Family Day Care Association in March and advised them that child care centres invoicing the government would be paid within two weeks of billing. As you know, day care centres don't have a line of credit, although they do have a $10,000 budget every month. Can the minister tell the House exactly how many weeks after billing it's now taking for his ministry to meet its financial obligations to day care centres?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Rather than make a guess which might be inaccurate, I'll take that question as notice. I'll have to find out for you, but I'll bring the information back to you.

MS. MARZARI: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister, that it's taking up to eight weeks — two months — for those payments to be made after the coupons are received by the ministry. Every child care centre is waiting on these receipts. I want the minister to tell the House why the government is unacceptably late paying its bills, and why it's asking child care workers, children and parents to carry that burden while the government sits on its billings from the centres.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I did offer to bring back accurate information to the House regarding the length of time it takes to pay bills. But it's interesting to note that I haven't had a complaint similar to what the member mentions. I am sure that if day care centres were waiting up to eight weeks, as I think the member said, I would have heard by now. If she has a specific complaint, please forward it to me, and I'll look into it. If she has had a specific complaint from a specific day care centre, then I can only urge that day care centre to write to the minister responsible rather than the member opposite. I will bring back the information to the House.

USER FEES IN ELDERLY-CARE FACILITIES

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. During the Boundary-Similkameen by-election, ordinary men and women spoke out against the unfair fee increases in longterm care for seniors. Last night the Premier was told by seniors in his own community that fee increases take unfair advantage of those least able to defend themselves. Is the Premier prepared to start listening to British Columbians and tell his Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) to immediately roll back these unfair fee increases on seniors?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yesterday I met with a total of in excess of a thousand people in my constituency. I think we had a turnout of around 300-plus at a chamber meeting; we had something like 600 people at the seniors' meeting; in the evening we had 100-plus people at another meeting; and in the course of the day I had meetings in between. Perhaps I could provide the hon. member with a lesson in listening to people, in communicating with people and meeting with people, and yesterday was one of those days again when the Premier of the province met with people, listened to people and received their thoughts on a variety of subjects.

I might say as well that I was tremendously impressed, and the seniors were very helpful and courteous, and certainly, I think, very supportive in their stance. As a matter of fact, I was impressed with the reception I received upon arrival and again as I left that particular meeting.

Generally, the citizens and the seniors of our province are good thinking people and are well aware that we're very fortunate to have some of the very best programs of any place in the country, the continent or for that matter the world and that we are leaders in that particular field. They are not only aware, but they are appreciative of the programs and the assists provided them through these various initiatives that have been introduced by this government over the years.

MRS. BOONE: Well, that was a long non-answer, Mr. Premier. You may have been there and you may have heard people speaking to you, but we want to see that you have listened and that you have heard and that you are going to act on their message. That message that they are giving you, Mr. Premier, is that the fee increases for long-term care for seniors are unacceptable. Will the Premier today tell his Minister of Health to immediately roll back these unfair fees on seniors? Will the Premier do that today?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would highly recommend to the member opposite that she obtain a copy of a brochure entitled "Government of British Columbia: Services Supporting the Independence of Seniors." It lists a number of services. The income-related services are GAIN, the old-age exemption, the land tax deferment, the pension income deduction, many health-related matters — which the member was asking about — such as Pharmacare, extended hospital care, community care services and intermediate care facilities, and home support such as homemaker services, home nursing services, adult day care, home care nursing, physiotherapy and preventive services. Under the area of housing, if you'd like me to go on, there's shelter aid for elderly citizens, homeowner grants, the rent subsidy program, seniors' housing referral and information programs and the wheelchair-modified housing registry. Under recreation there are various programs. Under transportation there are a number of programs. There are many information services.

[2:30]

I would highly recommend this particular information brochure to the hon. members opposite. I think it would be a tremendous help to them as they try and inform their senior citizens about the many services that are available in this province — made available by the resources of the people in this province.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 28, printed in the name of the Minister of Forests and Lands.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. MR. PARKER: I rise to speak in support of Bill 28, the Forest Amendment Act, 1988.

[ Page 5078 ]

The amendments to the Forest Act reflect the major changes we have introduced in the way we manage our forests on Crown land. The bill focuses on one of the key changes. We are increasing our competitive sales of timber from an apportioned volume of just over 7 percent to an available volume of 15 percent of the provincial allowable annual cut. This is being done by expanding the allocation to the small business forest enterprise program over the next three years from 5.5 million cubic metres to 10.5 million cubic metres per year.

We will obtain this volume from various sources: (1) our existing provincial reserve of unallocated timber will be strongly directed to competitive sales; (2) we will recover 5 percent of the allowable annual cut upon sale, transfer or assignment of licence interests and a total of 5 percent from all replaceable licences; (3) we will reduce up to 10 percent of a tenure holder's allowable annual cut when the tenure is converted to a tree-farm licence status — the amount reduced will go toward competitive sales; (4) we will sell annual and five-year undercuts; (5) we will remove from a licence the five-year undercuts of more than 10 percent; (6) we may make increased incremental annual cuts available for our competitive sales program in opportunity wood.

We are broadening the eligibility to harvest timber under this program, and this will help to create a more competitive and diversified forest industry. All revenues collected under this program will flow into the small business forest enterprise account. We will draw money from this account to construct roads for future timber sales and on behalf of small business operators to reforest and protect current and past timber sale areas to ensure the establishment of a healthy new growing stock. Thus the small business forest enterprise program will become a self-financing, profitable business program.

The bill also deals with the new comparative-value timber-pricing system instituted on October 1, 1987. It clarifies ownership of forest roads where the taxpayers' moneys have been spent on access rights for roads on Crown land, and disallows improper imposition of road-use charges.

This bill reflects the major changes we are making in forest resource management, particularly in the area of more competition in timber sales and expanded opportunities for small-scale forestry and manufacturing.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. MILLER: We are disturbed by some of the provisions contained in the bill. There is a wide variety of amendments to the Forest Act, and obviously we will be getting into more detailed discussions on the impact and exactly what those amendments mean when we get into committee.

I want to address the issues raised by the bill, and particularly the one outlined in the news release issued by the minister when the bill was introduced. Quoting from that news release, the bill gives long-term licensees "greater opportunities and more responsibilities...."

"We will allow more tree-farm licences to be established: up to 67 percent of the current allowable annual cut in return for greater forest management commitments and for greater processing commitments. Through the amendments, industry will have more responsibility and accountability for the long-term planning and management of our forests, and thus the government's costs and regulations will be reduced."

It seems to me that it strikes at the heart of the policy that this government is implementing in forest policy, one that we disagree with quite strongly.

There are currently some 31 TFLs in this province, with a combined annual allowable cut of about 19 million cubic metres, covering approximately 6.5 million hectares of our forest land.

Just doing some very rough calculations in terms of what it requires to maintain a TFL, which is based on the principle of sustained yield — in other words, that the area of land set aside is capable of producing a certain volume of timber, which can change through different applications of new technology.... Nonetheless, the basic principle is that this given area of land is operated on the sustained-yield basis, or at least that's the way it is supposed to operate. Obviously, given the nature of our forest land in British Columbia and the variety and quality of forest land, all tree-farm licences are not equal. But we can draw some conclusions based on a general or across-the-board look at it.

We know that it requires a set amount of land. That would vary, but roughly, if you use the existing figures we are talking about — I guess if you divide — it's about a third of a hectare per cubic metre. That's not an absolute figure, but that's a figure produced from taking the totals and doing a little division. There are currently 171 forest licences in British Columbia, with an annual allowable cut in total of about 40 million cubic metres. Here we come to the nub of the argument, because if we use that rough calculation — that one-third-hectare figure that I mentioned — and we apply it to the volume currently produced in forest licences, you obviously would require a significant amount of land to be set aside in tree-farm licences if the rollover vision is to be enacted, which is the stated policy of this ministry. I stress that the figures I use are rough, but they are accurate in broad terms, in terms of outlining the impact that this provision would bring about.

We would see, under the policy, the increase to 67 percent of the AAC put in the hands of tree-farm licences, and that would require the setting aside of a significant part of the current Crown forest land which would be alienated within these TFLs. Possibly as much as 75 percent of the Crown forested lands would be alienated in this tenure form, a significant portion.

If you look at the ministry documents, the annual reports, although we do have listed some 26 million hectares that are described as stock with mature forests, clearly there is the fact that not all of those lands are accessible, for a variety of reasons in terms of the cost of accessibility and of the environmental impact that could follow from logging some of those lands on steep slopes, so obviously not all of that 26 million hectares is available for cut.

Really, this move represents privatization on a massive scale. It is the almost complete abdication of the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests to manage the forest lands of this province for the people of this province. Never before in the history of this province has this kind of giveaway been contemplated without the benefit of intense public discussion, normally through the royal commission route. The last royal commission that was conducted in this province back in 1975 is really the only document that we can refer to in terms of an exhaustive study of the problems in forestry. It deals with all the issues in terms of forest policy. So I am going to quote throughout my remarks today — not extensively, but three particular ones — references from Dr. Pearse's report in

[ Page 5079 ]

terms of the policy that the minister has now proposed to implement in British Columbia.

My first reference from Dr. Pearse on page 379 of his 1976 report is aptly entitled "Flexibility" and has this to say about the policy as enunciated by this government:

"While the tenure system must provide the forest industry with secure rights to timber, it must also preserve the Crown's flexibility to reallocate timber and redefine rights over time to meet changing industrial needs and public priorities. This means that the duration of contractual commitments should be no longer than necessary to provide the assurance for systematic investment planning and resource development. They should also afford regular opportunities for review, revision and reallocation, without resort to arbitrary administrative intervention or infringement on contractual undertakings."

I contend that the advice offered by DT. Pearse back in 1976 — as I said, after an exhaustive royal commission into forest policy in this province — is exactly contrary to what the government is proposing in terms of the rolling over of forest licences into tree-farm licences — exactly the contrary; and yet it is the only exhaustive study and reference source we have now in terms of forest policy in British Columbia. The policy that's being proposed now has been made somewhere in the back rooms, but it has not been made in the public arena via the vehicle that has been traditionally used in this province, and that's the royal commission.

Dr. Pearse outlined his concerns about concentration, and it was discussed briefly during the minister's estimates. Again, I'm referring to a thesis I talked about during the minister's estimates: Mr. Wagner's master's thesis on the subject of corporate concentration in the forest industry of British Columbia. I want to take some time to go through that, because I think it's of vital importance in terms of the policy announced by the minister.

Mr. Wagner basically outlined that the forest corporations of this province have become increasingly concentrated, that they control a significant volume of the timber that is harvested in this province, and that they roughly fall into four identifiable groups. The first of those groups is what Mr. Wagner refers to as the Bentley-Prentice group, with control in this province over companies like Takla Forest Products and Canfor and Canadian Forest Products. We see a company that has the control over 4.4 million cubic metres of volume per year in this province. The Mead-Scott group has 10.7 million cubic metres of annual cut, with such companies as Western Forests Products and Finlay Forest Industries. One of the giants, the Bronfmann-Reichmann-Desmarais group, which controls Northwood and MacMillan Bloedel, has 13 million cubic metres of cut in their control. And finally, the Sauder-Champion-Ketcham-Fletcher group has 16.5 million cubic metres of control of cut in this province, and companies such as Weldwood and Whonnock Industries.

[2:45]

Together, these four main corporate groups control 26 million cubic metres of cut in timber supply areas — lands managed by the Crown — and 18.5 million cubic metres of cut in tree-farm licences, for a combined total of 45 million cubic metres of volume per year coming out of the forest lands of British Columbia.

It's significant to note that the target volume of cut in this province is 75 million cubic metres per year. If we cut that, obviously these four corporate groups control well in excess of 50 percent of the timber harvested in British Columbia. The fact is that last year, 1987, we cut about 91 million cubic metres. So we're looking still at four corporate groups that really have control over about 50 percent of the timber harvested off the Crown lands of this province. As a matter of policy, the minister is proposing to more than double the volume that would be contained in tree-farm licences.

I want to again quote Dr. Pearse in terms of that question. The policy of tree-farm licences is a very old policy in British Columbia. It was developed in the mid- to late-forties. It was designed to give forest companies or corporations the stability that they thought they required in terms of long-term financing, so that they could build some of the major forest products processing facilities in this province. Primarily, they were dealing with pulp mills and the significant amounts of money required to build a pulp mill. The government and the corporations and Mr. Sloan are all agreed that in order to have security of supply, in order to go to the financiers, they had to have these vast areas of our province under their control — and we gave them that right for nothing in exchange for their commitment to build processing facilities. That was it; that was the trade-off: alienate the Crown lands in exchange for industrial development. It sounds simple, it sounds neat, but there are problems with it.

Dr. Pearse dealt with the question of tenure and licences rather extensively, and I could read a long time, in terms of the things he had to say about that. I want to offer a brief quote from page 118 of his 1976 report, dealing with the question of the expansion of the tree-farm licence system. He says:

"Moreover, new licences of this kind should not be issued if the effect will be to concentrate further timber rights in the few large corporations, a tendency that may arise from the fact that they hold much of the land that might be contributed to potential tree-farm licences. Accordingly, the government should consider sympathetically applications in these cases only if the applicant will release other rights they hold in public sustained yield units equivalent in annual volume to the allowable cut of the lands to be contributed by the Crown."

Dr. Pearse stated quite clearly that we should not repeat the policy initiatives of the 1940s in the mid-1970s, and I think his argument is just as valid in the late 1980s.

So we see that the impact of the government's policy initiative is to further alienate . . . to tie up significant amounts of Crown land in the hands of an increasingly concentrated corporate sector, and a corporate sector that is not established. . . . The home offices are not in British Columbia. They are either offshore or they are back east. The control is not in British Columbia, and we want to give them the overwhelming part of the Crown forests of this province. And we're talking about significant value.

Surely the issue of South Moresby — the question of value — is appropriate in terms of the policy of this government. Once we turn this Crown asset, these timber lands that belong to all British Columbians, over to corporations, they become, in the corporation's eyes, theirs. They see that — and the minister sees that — as the same thing as private property. We are transferring an asset owned by the people of this province to a private corporation. We don't charge them, but what are these lands worth? This is a fairly complicated question, but I want to deal quite simply, I hope, with the question of how we establish a value for these lands, because surely they have value. There is an argument, and I think a

[ Page 5080 ]

good one — and I'm not going to use it here in terms of the compensation question — that there should be no compensation because we are simply giving people the right to harvest a natural resource, not to make a profit harvesting it. They shouldn't make a profit harvesting it; they should make a profit processing it. That was the deal.

Let's look at the question of value: TFL 24 on South Moresby. The minister's views about South Moresby are well known. I won't go into that. It's a tree-farm licence awarded to a company; 112,500 hectares of land, an annual cut of about 430,000 cubic metres. We have two differing views on what the value is. We have the initial value of $31 million arrived at through some process that the federal and provincial governments seemed to identify. That's the amount we would have to compensate the owner of that TFL because it was deemed desirable by the people of Canada and the people of British Columbia to create a national park in South Moresby.

If we extrapolate that value and apply it to the existing tree-farm licensed lands in this province, using the $31 million as the low end of the value if you like — the benchmark end of the value — then by my calculations the current TFLs have a value of anywhere between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion. That's the land we've already allocated in TFLs. It's possibly as high as $2 billion using the low end. If we use the company's figures that they are entitled to $100 million — or maybe more — and apply that to the existing TFLs, we come up with a value of anywhere between $4.5 billion and $6 billion. That's the value that the forest companies put on these TFL lands.

The policy as proposed would see an increase of lands in TFLs from 29 percent to 67 percent — far more than doubling the Crown lands we've alienated.

What would be the value, using the calculations I've outlined, of the lands we're now proposing to transfer? Going through the same kinds of calculations, on the low end of the scale we're looking at anywhere between $3.4 billion and $4.4 billion. We're proposing to transfer that in the form of tree-farm licences, perpetual tenures. At the high end of the scale, we get to a staggering $11 billion to $14 billion of value that we're prepared to transfer to these concentrated corporations. I'm sure they're quite pleased at the prospect. Who wouldn't be? That's the sum and substance of the policy proposal outlined by this government.

The immense wealth, the incredible value of this province would be transferred into that intensely concentrated forest industry under a form of tenure; and tenure is really the relationship, whether it's a lease or a purchase or whatever, between the owner and the people that are using it. The minister's own words in the estimates last week when he referred to that TFL tenure. . . . I quote from Hansard: "We are getting as close as possible to providing almost the private land situation for the major licensees...."

MR. WILLIAMS: And proud of it.

MR. MILLER: And they're proud of it. The policy of this government is to transfer more than double the amount of land that the minister says is the closest thing you can get to private ownership without outright selling it, and they don't have to pay anything. They have to pay economic rent, but everybody does. They have to build processing facilities, hopefully; not everyone has performed when we've given timber out to build processing facilities. That's what we get in return.

We don't charge them for the land, yet when it comes to taking back that land, if we decide for whatever reason that the land is better under the control of the government or used for some other purpose, the forest companies say: "We want $100 million." The people of British Columbia and Canada have to pay $100 million to the forest company to get back what we own. The implications for future policy are mind-boggling in terms of turning over and alienating 75 percent of the Crown timber land in this province.

This government has a blind-faith commitment to privatization. Their belief is: "If we give it to the corporations, we know they'll do a good job. We don't really want to be in the business of government." This minister has stood up, whether it's a simple reference to the CBC or whatever, and said: "I like private enterprise."

HON. MR. PARKER: You've got'er, boy.

MR. MILLER: "I like private enterprise so much, I want to give them the forests of British Columbia. That's how much I like private enterprise." So what happens when in future we might have a saner government in this province who might make saner land use decisions, who might decide that land should be used for a different purpose? I'll tell you what happens: we can't afford to get it back, because they will have given it away.

The government of this province was never given a mandate . . . . I can't recall anybody on the government side saying in the last election: "This is our policy. We want to give away a significant portion of Crown land." Never once did I hear them say that. If they had said it, they wouldn't have been elected, because the people of this province wouldn't have stood for it, and I don't think they're going to stand for it.

The motive is privatization. The government amazes me with its . . . . They're in trouble for it, and we all know they're in trouble for it. They put their ideology ahead of common sense. They've decided what their ideology is; their ideology tells them where they should go, and to heck with anything else. "That's where we're going, boys" — and they're getting into trouble for it.

[3:00]

They're going to privatize. The reason they want to turn it over to the corporations, as stated by the minister . . . . This is the last part of the sentence. I quoted the minister a moment ago in terms of private land: " . . . so that they will undertake the same level of management" — "they" meaning the TFL holders, the corporations — "as we see in . . . countries . . . where most of the . . . lands are privately held." There it is. When something is owned, it's managed. If it's owned by the Crown, the view of this government is that they can't manage it. Quite frankly, I think they're right. I think they've done a lousy job of managing the Crown lands of this province. If they're so uninterested in government, and if they want to privatize everything, I wonder sometimes why some of them wind up sitting in these chairs over here. Are they here only to get rid of government — to privatize government? Do they think we'd be better off if a corporation ran the province?

Privatization — because only the corporations know how to manage. Surely that doesn't always happen. For example, some of us are familiar with the Nass Valley tree farm licence

[ Page 5081 ]

No. 1. It may be the biggest; I'm not exactly certain. It's not now, but it may have been the biggest. We gave vast tracts of land to an American corporation in northern British Columbia; in exchange, they built a pulp mill.

In my community of Prince Rupert — I worked in that pulp mill — we gave them vast tracts of land. The level of waste and destruction in the Nass Valley has been outlined. You can read about it today in the Vancouver Sun; you can read the ombudsman's reports. The incredible level of waste and inefficiency and bad management. . . . The minister wants to give them some more to play with.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, but he was in charge of that management.

MR. MILLER: He worked there; he should be familiar with it.

MR. WILLIAMS: He's the guy who left that pile of rubbish behind.

MR. MILLER: Surely good management is not the rather simple notion that we'll give it to the private sector, and somehow they'll do a good job. Good management starts with the regulations, the legislation and the policies you develop in this chamber. It finishes with the commitment by government to go out and apply those policies on behalf of the owners of the resource, who are the people of this province. If there's been a failure in management, it really is a failure of government. It's not because the lands weren't managed by the private sector; it's because the lands were not managed well by the people who should have done the job — the government of the day.

If you want to talk about principle, there's the principle: privatization. We had a bill introduced in the House. We all recall the great experiment in privatization. The minister must recall it; he worked for the company. B.C. Resources Investment Corporation — how many took a bath on BCRIC shares? Five free shares were worth $6. I remember the Premier . . . . You can't do that under the normal rules of investment. You can't go and shill a stock without having a prospectus; that's giving false advice. The Premier of this province went on TV and told all the people of this province: "Buy those shares. They're going to go up in value." That was the experiment in privatization. We turned over corporations and companies of incredible value, which were owned by the people of this province and were providing a return for the people of this province, and we gave them to BCRIC. We privatized them because we know that the private corporations can run it better. We privatized them, and then we took a bath.

I think that was the biggest capital drain in the history of British Columbia. They took $400 million or $500 million out of the pockets of B.C. people, who rushed down to their credit unions and their banks and bought those BCRIC shares, because they saw the Premier on television telling them to buy — "it's a good buy." They rushed down. I worked with lots of people; they invested, for them, significant amounts — $2,000 or $3,000. The fellows I worked with in the mill thought about "the growing sense of confidence," and they took a bath. That money was dumped in part in the chilly waters of the North Sea in a little corporate adventurism, and now we come down to the . . . .

MR. REE: Order!

MR. MILLER: We're talking about principle, Mr. Member. We're talking about the principle of this government's policy. I'll read the minister's news release, if you want me to outline it again.

So now we're bringing in the sorry end of the first experiment in privatization — the Westar bill. We abandoned BCRIC. BCRIC doesn't exist anymore, right?

MR. SPEAKER: I would advise the member that his time is up, unless he is the designated speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: He's the designated speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The second member for Kamloops is asking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a person who is a longtime friend of mine, with whom I went to school in Clearwater, and whose family were pioneers in providing the tourism infrastructure in that community. Would the House join me in welcoming Connie Knight.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I'm looking at our rules and practice recommendation No. 9, standing order 45 (a), "Designated Speaker." I think it reads that a member who wishes to speak as designated member should advise the Chair as early as possible after the commencement of a speech, not after the conclusion of a speech.

MR. MILLER: I was speaking about the first experiment in privatization — the experiment that saw a number of valuable assets owned by the people of this province taken away and sold back to the people, culminating in the fact that we now have a bill in the House — which I'm going to enjoy talking about — that formally dissolves BCRIC. BCRIC no longer exists.

I guess we have to conclude that the privatization was a failure, that privatization doesn't always work. Even the casual observer would have to conclude that. We took an incredibly valuable pulp mill in Prince Rupert and virtually gave it away for $75 million, at a time when pulp prices were going up like that. The company that bought it immediately put a new value on it. They jacked it right up to $200 million — just like that. A nice way of making money. I wish other people had that opportunity. Two hundred million dollars, and we gave it to them for $75 million. Those are the resources of this province. A pulp mill in Castlegar: again, sold for a modest sum. So privatization doesn't always work. When you put your ideology ahead of common sense, you get into trouble. It's a message that this government has a great deal of difficulty understanding, despite ample evidence.

I believe we have a responsibility to manage the timber resources of this province in the best possible manner for the people of this province. I don't believe we've done a very good job in that regard.

MR. MICHAEL: What about Manitoba?

[ Page 5082 ]

MR. MILLER: That member always wants to talk about Manitoba, but I've never heard him say Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. MICHAEL: Boundary-Similkameen isn't in the financial mess that Manitoba's in.

MR. MILLER: Do you know where Boundary-Similkameen is, Mr. Member? That's in British Columbia. So watch your riding. You'd better spend some time there, because it'll go the same way. If you keep talking about Manitoba, they're going to wonder why you're there. You'll have to come up with some better lines than that.

To continue on privatization, not only are we moving in terms of alienating our Crown land, our resource, our heritage, to this concentrated industry; the minister has also indicated — he has obfuscated about it, but indicated — that he intends to privatize the Forest Service. All the new work that's going to flow to the small business forest enterprise program will be done by private companies, because somehow they have this ideological fixation that they can always do it better.

My last reference to Dr. Pearse in this discourse, if I can call it that, is a little longer than the previous quotes, but I think it's quite important in terms of privatization of not only the assets — the land — but the management function. What Dr. Pearse had to say about this is quite important. It's in chapter 11, and the title is a good one: "Responsibilities for Management and Development:"

"Policy relating to the division of responsibilities for forest development and management between licensees and the Forest Service has not been well articulated, except in connection with tree-farm licences, which were deliberately designed to delegate most managerial activities to the corporate holders. But over the years, in the face of its own inadequate financial resources, the Forest Service has tended to rely increasingly on licensees to carry out functions ranging from access development to cruising, planning and reforestation . . . .

"This reliance on the private sector is now very heavy relative to other important forest jurisdictions with extensive public ownership. To some observers our present dependence on licensees to not only carry out management and development functions but also to initiate their planning and determine their priorities is alarming.

"Within public sustained yield units" — which are now the timber supply areas — "the Forest Service has largely left it to the licensees to divide up their areas of influence and to identify tracts to be harvested. The Forest Service looks to licensees to do most of the cruising required for its stumpage appraisals and other purposes, and to propose and execute road building, operational plans and many forestry practices. I share the concern that the Forest Service is in danger of losing the initiative and effective control over the development of the public forests through excessive reliance on licensees."

This document, the result of a royal commission by one of the foremost British Columbians in resource management, identifies and is completely contrary to the path that this government is now proposing we follow in forest management, and the danger is clear. I don't know if at this date it is possible to have the government reconsider that policy. I think it's a dangerous one; I think it has repercussions for future policy. It ties our hands.

The concept of transferring this incredible value to licensees who at some point in the future, as we are now faced with in South Moresby.... The stalemate in South Moresby is that the corporation that eventually got control of that tree farm licence is now saying to the taxpayers of this country, "We want in excess of $100 million from the public purse for you to have it back," and we do not agree with that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not relevant.

MR. MILLER: It's quite relevant.

I'm going to conclude now. There are a number of other features of the bill that we have concerns about. Hopefully, clarification will come in committee stage, but there are a number of.... As examples, I mean the arbitrariness in the stumpage section, the questions of appeals, the contracting out of management, the deletion of references to the chief forester, what looks to be a kind of political change in direction in the way the legislation is written, and the small business forest enterprise program. We support the increase, but we think there are some problems that have to be resolved in terms of pricing and surrogate bidding.

There are some issues in terms of roads, now that the Forest Service will not be paying for roads. We are coming into a situation where roads will be private, with the attendant problems that could follow from that.

[3:15]

I've tried to outline in broad terms what I see in terms of the differences in principle we have with the direction that this government is taking. As I said, we think it's folly to proceed in this direction, but we will be debating the bill further in committee. I know that some of my colleagues also wish to make a contribution to the second reading debate.

MR. JACOBSEN: The previous speaker has spent a lot of time talking about the increase into tree-farm licences, the rollover of forest licences into tree-farm licences. As I understand it — and I've looked at the bill very closely — I don't think that Bill 28 itself provides any basis for doing that. Certainly I admit that in the discussion of the bill by the minister there was a great deal of discussion about the possibility of the rollover of this forest licence tenure into tree farm licences, but I don't see that in the bill.

I don't have any problems supporting Bill 28 as it stands, on the understanding — and I will ask the minister to provide this understanding — that it in itself does not provide for the rollover into TFLs. I have to tell the minister that I am entirely, absolutely opposed to the rollover of even one forest licence into another TFL in British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS: The main problem, I think, beyond the fact that my colleague the member for Prince Rupert has laid out — which is that we are dealing with a major giveaway of the control of provincial lands — is that we're dealing with legislation that could allow some major politicization of the decisions; I mean even more politicization of the decisions that are made vis-à-vis forest licensing and so on.

I mention this because in a number of cases in the legislation the chief forester is removed as the person who has to make decisions, and sometimes regional managers and so on are removed. In fact, this is left far more open than it was

[ Page 5083 ]

before. Just to lay it out before I go further into examples of what's happening in the bill itself, probably . . . . I have to be hopeful on this, because I'm making several assumptions in supposing it to be true. But I do suppose it to be true that the chief forester was made to be the centre of most of these activities: the activities of allocating cuts, giving licences and allowing tree-farm licences and so on to be given based on an understanding that a bureaucrat rather than a politician has a certain continuing and objective look at things.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

With this bill, the chief forester loses a number of the requirements and the duties that apply. What happens then is that the decisions made by the minister can more easily escape a continuing and strong position within the ministry. I think that that's an extremely important thing, Mr. Minister, when you put that together with your avowed interest in privatization, and also what seems to be possible under this bill, which is that the minister himself can designate people — they may not necessarily always be within the ministry — to carry out some of the functions of allocating the wealth that is owned by all British Columbians.

I think you have to look at situations where there are differences in the way that some licences are allowed to be given out, and in fact some requirements are different from one licence to the other. I'll deal with that a little more in a minute. That is not a principle that should apply when we're talking about the variations from a timber licence and a timber sale licence and whether it's a small business or whether it's another licensee.

Section 9 — oh, I'm not to talk about sections — is an example of what happens. We have no explanation at all of how the amount of timber that is reserved for sale will be directed. It is to be directed, but there is a vagueness in the legislation that allows the possibility of far more political action. It's an example of what goes on throughout the bill.

In other parts of the bill there are phrases such as "the amount directed by the minister," where there is no particular explanation of how the minister would arrive at that decision or how he will make that directive. There are parts in it where it talks about reasonable payment where there is no attempt at all to define what would be reasonable under the circumstances.

We have situations where the decisions that are to be made and the announcement of how that is to be made — for example, for stumpage. . . . It is to be set by directives which are no longer regulations. Stumpage was set under a set of regulations previously. Now we have directives which will come from the ministry. That becomes a situation where a decision can be made which can move much further beyond a centre or an understood position than if you have stumpage decided by regulations.

We have sections where, for example, the regional manager is no longer the person who is to grant an exemption of permits for unmanufactured wood.

Those kinds of things, Mr. Minister, put together with the vague parameters, create a situation where again we have politicization of the decision-making process; and in fact we could have the minister making decisions out of his office based on, shall we say, evaluations and information that have been brought to his office perhaps by people who are not even in the ministry. That creates a situation that does not create trust.

Another problem with the legislation is that there seems to be no recognition that the public needs to know what's going on. In fact, there is far too little public ability to participate in what's happening or to actually see what's going on.

There's no explanation at all of how the amount of timber that is reserved from TFLs, for example, for sale to others will be decided. This is not only another example of the kind of power that now goes without regulation into what could be a political process, but it's also an example of how the public is not going to know, because it won't be laid out exactly how decisions are made.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Previously the regulations as to how stumpage rates were arrived at had to be, within 30 days after the minister approved them, filed with the regional manager for the forest region, who was to make them available for inspection by any person. Now that no longer applies. If there are no expressed policies and procedures and no requirement for public availability even at the regional level, how is the public to know what's going on? How are the companies who want to apply for licences to know what the rules are going to be? Instead, a directive shall be filed with a registrar and it will take effect right after that with no examination process required by the legislation.

The whole business of there being no appeal, and the arrogance of setting out a situation where we assume, since September of last year, that all appeals have been correct, sets up a situation where there is nobody making decisions except the centre of the world. The minister and his office can make those decisions. If they don't make those decisions and if they are made quite correctly and on a basis of regulations that are open and they believe fair, then there is no reason in the world that there should not be within this legislation requirements that they be laid out so that everybody who will have something to do with this, who may want to be a business person in the forest industry, can take a look at them, and so that the public, who own the resource, have a good way to look at the regulations and know how things are going to be decided.

If you go further and look at what the minister says the reason for this legislation is . . . . He wants to make it easier for small businesses to get into the forest industry and have a better chance to make a living; he wants to increase their share of the annual allowable cut and therefore make it easier for them. I point out to the minister that there are some problems with that, because there are some requirements where the small business people suffer a greater loss of what they might have. In other words, they lose more than their licence, where other licensees would lose only the . . . . What I'm talking about is with cut. When a small business owner doesn't cut enough — it is undercut — he loses not only his cut but more than any other licensee would lose. He also loses his status. That seems to me to militate against small businesses rather than making them more able to compete.

There is some wondering about the small business revenue fund — I don't think I have the name right, but the fund that is set up in the legislation to cover the costs of silviculture and building roads. That fund is up for grabs. In other words, the money that's there can, by an undefined process, be raided and some of the money which is not deemed necessary

[ Page 5084 ]

will be put into the consolidated revenue fund rather than being there. There is some question whether that is the fair way to deal with how the minister is going to approach small business.

Small businesses, of course, do not have replaceable licences. That is a long time thing. It means again that they suffer from a problem that larger licensees do not suffer from.

I point out that in the legislation there are some problems and an extreme lack of clarity when we deal with roads. I think the legislation is not ready to go forward. It seems that there is no clarity about the problems of having private and public roads needing to go to the same place or about who is going to be able to use the roads. It seems that there is some suggestion, by my first reading, that the roads that are going to be built by private companies will be there only for use by foresters or other industrial users. That attitude fits in with the whole other business of "we'll decide later." It doesn't seem clear in the legislation what is going to be done. It looks like decisions will be able to go back, and they are not going to go back to a bureaucracy which, as I say, has the quality of being somewhat objective and long-term; they are going into the minister's office. There will be some questions as to whether the minister again is taking too much power unto himself in deciding the use of roads.

[3:30]

With all these things put together, I would like to say on principle that the bill in many ways does not achieve what the minister says he wants it to achieve. It sets up some situations where the small business person in the forest industry will not be able to do as well as the large companies again, and where we have more opportunity for the politicization of decisionmaking and the horrible fear that if the minister goes ahead with his strong commitment to privatization, if he has some of the functions of the ministry privatized and then, by legislation, has only his own office to decide what shall go ahead, we are set up again for the kinds of problems, of political decisions, that have plagued this province in the past and that we should not have again.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Dewdney seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know whether they're still here, but we have with us today visiting from Fraserview Elementary School in Mission about 70 grade 7 students with their teachers, Mr. Ray Jung, Mr. Russell Savage and Mr. Frank Dunham and seven escorting parents. On behalf of the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just wonder if the minister saw the cartoon in the Province on the weekend. That was the one with the scar on the forehead and a woodpecker pecking away. Good! It seemed to sum up a lot of our current problems with this minister, and it would almost be gilding the lily to proceed after the cartoon has hit the newsstands — but we will anyway.

What's going on in this bill is somewhat schizophrenic. You're moving in one direction toward greater concentration, more tree-farm licences, the rollover provisions and related features tied to the rollover game in terms of moving present licences into tree-farm licences. At the same time, there's this other direction of picking up some of the timber and reallocating it through a competitive bid process. Well, which is it, Mr. Minister? Which is the right direction for British Columbia?

You're saying, on the one hand, "Yes, we're opening up the opportunity to move to about 70 percent in the form of tree-farm licences," which is a concentration of ownership, without access, without real free enterprise at all. On the other hand you're saying: "But in this modest direction we'll actually be free enterprisers, and we'll go for 5 percent or 10 percent of the cut on a bid basis, and expand the small enterprise business program." That's what it is. It's really like Stephen Leacock's horse, running off in all directions or at least two very different, diametrically opposed directions.

I wonder if the minister has reflected on that. I wonder if he has really reflected on a lot of aspects of this bill, some of which I won't get into. I wonder if he has reflected on them. A true believer, a true ideologue like this minister — "ideologue"; it almost has a forestry ring to it, doesn't it? — might wonder how much of the true beliefs are in this bill. But I don't want to elaborate on that too much; it might confuse the minister, and that seems to be easy to do, after the meetings that have been held up in Hazelton in the last little while. He can't quite remember what he said on particular occasions, especially when they are embarrassing statements.

The nature of the bill is schizophrenic; it does go in these two very different directions. It has some incredibly discretionary clauses, particularly around the stumpage question. I find that it's very unacceptable, simply unacceptable, to see that in legislation: for legislation to define the right of the minister to discriminate between persons — just persons! — in terms of what they pay for the public's timber. Maybe the minister can provide some rationale for that — the legislation may mean "persons" in a very different way than in normal conversation — and I hope he can do that. To have open discrimination between persons with respect to the pricing of Crown timber is totally unacceptable in an honest, democratic system. But that's what this allows. That's bad news indeed.

The member for Prince Rupert has elaborated on his concern about the concentration and movement of more of our forest licences into this TFL category. The reality is, as the truck loggers' group advises us, that when you get right down to it, it's a three-price system, in a way, between the small business enterprise program, the forest licences and the TFL, so that there's already rank discrimination between forms of tenure and the players. This legislation will allow even more discrimination between the players in an arbitrary way, and that doesn't make a lot of sense.

But as you move more and more of our forest lands in British Columbia.... And we're talking about the great natural land heritage of British Columbia here — most of the province, in fact, because most of the people in this province only live in the narrow valley bottoms, the communications systems of the province. The rest of the province is locked up in various forest licences. In a sense, we are in a kind of narrow economic straitjacket in British Columbia, tied to this forest tenure question, so that we don't see a pattern of new towns or villages flowering in an open, pluralistic society. We have closed the gate to settlement in most of British Columbia by allocating forest or tree-farm licences across the board.

[ Page 5085 ]

Nothing shows it more clearly than Vancouver Island — right here on this island. You look at the pluralistic scattering of people in the southeastern part of the Island from Campbell River to Victoria. It's a rich, diverse economy. You look at the western half of Vancouver Island, and there's hardly anything there. You look at the northern half of Vancouver Island, and there's hardly anything there. There's not a dramatic transition from Campbell River to Port McNeill.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes, there is.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, he's going to be the expert again. There is not a dramatic difference in terms of three-quarters of Vancouver Island. The reality is that through your tenure system you've closed the gate to a pluralistic system of a variety of settlement. He can shake and rattle his head and invite the woodpeckers around all he likes, but that's the reality of Vancouver Island.

Look at the Nimpkish in terms of old villages there. Your predecessor, the former minister, the lobbyist for the mining industry now, closed down villages within the tree-farm licence, old villages that had been there for some time, because the company didn't want them there. So the workers commute 35 miles to Port McNeill. They're shut off, closed out of their own land. They wanted to live on the lake 30 miles south of Port McNeill. They never had the choice, because under the TFL system it was locked up, closed up — keep out.

When I became minister in 1972, there was a gate at Gold River, and they actually charged a toll to go on the public roads through these licences; they charged a fee on bread and groceries going north on Vancouver Island in 1972. Your predecessors in an earlier administration lived with that. We still have the same form of tenure — not so cruel, not so harsh, not so terribly uncompromising, but very real and harsh in terms of truly pluralistic involvement in and on those lands by the people of British Columbia.

They are allocated to a handful of corporations that handle them like banana republics. They were more like banana republics before '72, but it still leaves much to be desired. And you, through previous legislation and amendments here, are opening up the door to more and more of those licences that closed down wide economic opportunity. Our forest sector is not as sophisticated, not as diverse, not as competent as it should be, I'm sorry to say.

Beyond that, many of these forest lands have a potential for other uses — recreational, commercial, village, urban and whatever — that could be more productive economically; but they are closed, in terms of carrying on those diverse activities, by the form of the licence. We are all losers within the provincial economy as a result of your tenure system. You want to wallpaper that tight tenure system over the landscape of British Columbia, and it does not make sense economically. It does not make sense in terms of the diverse human population we have, which could do so much more on those lands than those who control the licences now.

You are really privatizing the public lands through this process. It's privatizing, but we get no scratch for it — we don't get any money. You're willing to give them these licences that are virtually private property, and they pay nothing for it. The average householder in British Columbia has to pay $50,000 at least for a little 50-foot lot to build a house on. But you're willing to allocate hundreds of thousands of acres with no fee, no charge. That's brilliant stuff for free-enterprisers. It doesn't make any sense.

Once we've allocated them, once you've signed the contract, then if we want it back, as we do in South Moresby, we pay through the nose. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) has indicated that. Western Forest Products is arguing for $100 million because we want that land for a national park. As the member for Prince Rupert said, if you stretch that across the province, then you're allocating as much as maybe $15 billion in terms of this form of forest tenure — $15 billion if we want to get it back. That really doesn't make any sense at all.

Indeed, the royal commissioner Peter Pearse made it clear that he had trouble with this form of tenure, and he could see no reason for extending it, because of the kind of tight contractual obligations and commitments it had, hamstringing the Crown. He's right: it hamstrings us in terms of the future.

You look at this legislation, and then you ask yourself whatever happened to the Forest Service of British Columbia. Where are they? I expect only shadows to be beside you in the future, when we deal with legislation, because I don't even know if we'll have a deputy minister or an assistant deputy left if you guys keep on the way you're going. You've been giving up the forests, and there's nothing left of the ministry. Everything's contracted out. Half of the old ranger stations I knew as a young person in this province have gone. You probably wouldn't even call them ranger stations anymore. What do you call them — bureaucratic outposts in regional towns?

HON. MR. PARKER: They've had a different name for eight years. Where have you been?

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't think there was anything wrong with "ranger stations," as a matter of fact.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: This clever minister changes the name and thinks that if you haven't got the new name, or the latest bureaucratic turn, you're a dinosaur. Well, fine. I think that tells us more about the minister than anything else.

The reality is we now have half of those ranger stations. There used to be 90-some; I think there are about 45 left around the province. That means that in small communities like Carmi, Beaverdell, New Denver and Rock Creek — you name them — they're not there anymore.

We paid the price in terms of forest fires just a few years ago. You didn't have anybody out there to took after the forest fires, and we lost more in timber through fires than we ever would have saved in 20 years of staff-cutting. We lost 35 percent of the Ministry of Forests staff with so-called restraint under that last loser Premier, Mr. Bennett. How many have you lost under the golden handshake routine of this spring — 10 percent? Again, more people lost. And we're talking about talented people, with a history in the ministry, who have a lot to deliver and some real background. We're talking about human capital that's been lost.

[3:45]

This legislation allows more and more contracting out of the normal work of the Ministry of Forests. It begs the question. You remove all references to the chief forester and

[ Page 5086 ]

other senior members of the staff of the Forests ministry, and the minister can simply designate people to carry out any of these functions. As I read that, that allows you to designate contractor X, Y or Z to do the normal work of the public service. That's not acceptable, at least on this side of the House.

More and more we get the monitoring and all the rest of it by the private sector instead of the Ministry of Forests. It's like Safeway allowing the customers to check out their own groceries. We can't rely on that. There have been enough studies to show that it won't do. I know this minister, as a registered professional forester, will say: "Well, they're professional foresters, so there's simply no problem. What are you complaining about?" That simply ain't so. The one professional forester in this province that blew the whistle on shoddy work by other professional foresters was harangued for three years, and they tried to drum him out of the profession. That's what happened to Mr. Herb Hammond of Silva Consultants, who works with Indian bands and comes out with reports that don't make you look very good, Mr. Minister — and rightly so. But your colleagues in the profession tried to drum him out of business.

What does that tell you about that so-called profession of yours? It tells me that there are a few more people with sawdust in their beans — just as the cartoonist in the Province suggested the other day. Then you get other professional foresters standing up, wringing their hands and saying: "Well, in recession times we really can't practise good forestry." The issue for the professional is saving money for the company and making sure there's profit for the company. I tell you, Mr. Minister, that's got nothing to do with professionalism at all. It might for you, and the kind of people like you in the forestry profession; but it makes no sense, and the people who think that way should have their licences lifted real fast, because they're carrying out no service for any profession whatsoever. I don't want those people claiming to represent us in the Legislature and the Crown provincial, managing the public lands in the name of a profession, when they are mainly concerned about the bottom line of the company instead of good forestry practice.

This legislation allows more and more of that. You can say your people will audit it — if you have any left in the Ministry of Forests. But what does that mean? One audit in 100? One in 50? One in 30? If that's the case, then it means 99 or 49 or 29 will go unchecked, and that isn't satisfactory, Mr. Minister. That's what this legislation allows more and more Of.

I see no reference in this bill to the chief forester. I don't see any reference in it. Historically, since the establishment of this ministry in this province, throughout most of this century, the chief forester has had significant roles to play in terms of seeing that the forests of the province are protected and that he had some independence. But this allows you to allocate the chief forester's function to any Tom, Dick or Harry that has a licence and is out there making a buck in the private sector.

Let's face it, these guys that are supposed to be doing the ministry's job get their paycheques from a company once or twice a month, and where is their loyalty going to be in the crunch — to the person that gives them a paycheque or to the people here in parliament? I will tell you, in most cases it's going to be with the origin of the paycheque. That's not good enough at all.

The varying rate of stumpage thing that's in this statute blows you away. It allows discrimination based on different persons, different places, different classes of timber, which is reasonable, and different circumstances.

HON. MR. PARKER: It's all reasonable. That's why it's there.

MR. WILLIAMS: All reasonable? "Trust me; I'm reasonable. I did all that wonderful messy work for Westar up in the northwest that Mr. Hammond reported on. Trust me." That's what the minister is saying. Come on!

Not only do you allow all this discrimination in terms of between persons with respect to what we charge for public timber, but then you say: "Once we've determined the price, there is no appeal." That's a pretty neat short circuit in terms of what normal process is in this sort of thing. It's carte blanche powers of discrimination that the minister is taking to himself here. There is certainly a need for a detailed explanation, because on the surface it doesn't wash. You can't justify those kinds of discriminatory powers.

You're already moving in with an arbitrary system of stumpage in terms of the program you currently have, where you have some annual goal in terms of revenue. You've walked away from the Rothery formula, which was the traditional formula applied in most of North America. You started out with an arbitrary base and now you're coming forth with an arbitrary system to discriminate between people with respect to that base in terms of what you charge for timber, and you cinch it up by saying: "And there is no appeal."

We know that there are a lot of people out there in this business who are members of your particular political party, Mr. Minister. We know a lot of them show up at your meetings in Terrace and elsewhere, and we know that a lot of them were at the leadership convention where Mr. Vander Zalm won, with the support of log exporters, for example. The idea of being able to discriminate between people, particularly some who may be your staunch party supporters, is simply not acceptable.

Then there is the undercutting provision in terms of timber coming back to the Crown where, over the five-year period, they actually haven't cut as much as they are obliged to under their permits and contracts. I suggest this is long overdue, but when we went through this last recession, all kinds of people were not living up to their cutting requirements, and nothing was done about them in terms of getting timber back and reallocating it to productive people in the economy that would have been ready to work and to use the material.

It's all pretty ironic, because when your predecessor Mr. Waterland came in with the legislation in 1977, he said the principle behind the legislation was: use it or lose it. Well, nobody ever lost it, Mr. Minister. That's the problem we have here. There doesn't seem to be any strength in terms of follow-through on the part of Social Credit ministers. Nobody ever loses it. They can abuse it, they can have waste levels of 27 percent as they currently have in the Queen Charlotte Islands. They can never, ever build the pulp mill that they were supposed to, which is the reason they got the timber in the first place, and they still don't ever lose the timber. They never, ever do.

Mr. Doman promised a pulp mill at Nanaimo some dozen years ago. He cut the timber for a dozen years and never produced a pulp mill. Instead, he exported it and made a lot of

[ Page 5087 ]

money, paid off his debts at the bank and all that sort of stuff. But we've never seen the pulp mill. Meanwhile, there is another bald valley and another bald valley in the mid-coast. We performed in terms of providing the timber, but he never performed.

You have these same kinds of clauses in this legislation again, requiring at the time of rollover that they promise they will create new jobs, etc., and so we will give them the new licence for free. And then you can change the terms. That's what you did with Mr. Doman. We have some puny $2 million sawmill instead of a multimillion-dollar pulp mill, which was the original promise. You kept changing the rules. But Mr. Doman has been a pillar of the Social Credit Party year in and year out. I'm sure that many of the people in government are familiar with him because of his nice condominium in Maui, which is very pleasurable for them. But the reality is that he's a pillar of the party; the reality is that he's a close friend of cabinet ministers; the reality is that he was able to change the contracts year in and year out over the last decade. We never got what he promised. He exported the timber, and we got zip. No pulp mill.

We go through the same exercise in this legislation. In your press release you actually say: "We want the higher returns and increased jobs that come from value-added products." Ho, ho, ho! It ain't so. When it comes to your friends, you look after them. When it comes to your friends, they don't have to perform. When it comes to your friends, you junk the contract. That's the reality in the British Columbia of today, I'm sorry to say.

You have the goal of the undercutting provision, in terms of its coming back to the Crown and reallocating it. That's good news if you ever do it. But then you say: "Well, in some cases we'll let them roll it over into the next five years." You can be sure that if Mr. Doman gets into trouble in the next recession it will get rolled over into the next five years. It's just more wonderful, discriminatory power for the minister. Chances of delivery are pretty modest.

Then you allow transfers of cutting rights from one timber supply area to another. I hate all this jargon, because the public doesn't know what it means. Timber supply areas are huge basins of river valleys, generally centred on a major community. Some of them are as big as two maritime provinces; the one in Prince George is the equivalent of a couple of maritime provinces. You're going to allow people to move their cutting rights out of that huge provincial territory and into another one.

If there are problems in the TSA and you have to cut back, Mr. Minister, you should cut back. That should be that. You shouldn't allow them to leapfrog into some other TSA with their free timber rights and go at it again. A lot of these problems are created by the people in those regions anyway, and they should have to live with them. To move from New Brunswick to Quebec with your timber rights is a pretty neat deal, and that's the equivalent of what you're doing under this legislation. That doesn't make any sense either.

The other question is: will there be consistency in terms of the 5 percent withdrawals? Will there be consistency on your part so that they are all always 5 percent and not 3 percent or less? Again, it's an opportunity for discrimination.

There's also the possibility of taking money back from these companies instead of the cutting rights at the time of the rollover of the timber rights. I don't know why we should ask for money. We have a desperate need for reallocation of resources in this province, and I can't see any case where we should take money instead of resources. This is a rich province. There are many sources of funds. There is a desperate need to reallocate timber resources and get a more pluralistic system going. Maybe you can explain that.

In the end, it's the Big Brother solution from this minister. You establish yourself a registrar of directives. Now if that doesn't sound like Big Brother, I don't know what does. This free enterprise minister is herewith establishing, Soviet style, a registrar of directives who will determine what the stumpage rates will be, based on discrimination between persons, if the registrar wants. Those directives will go out to the regions, and that will be it; that will be the order.

Presently there are at least 30 days of preliminary process and inspection and all the rest of it, but we're going to have a registrar of directives. It will be interesting to hear the minister explain why he feels this is the right approach. Maybe you can explain how establishing a registrar of directives under the ministry is a whole new free enterprise concept.

[4:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: It sounds like Tolstoy.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it does have a bit of a Tolstoy ring to it — or a tall story ring to it.

At any rate, there are a range of concerns here, and we are not reassured by what we have heard to date from the minister regarding this legislation. I look forward to his detailed explanation, his erudite comments and his sophisticated wit in support of this bill that he brings forth.

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

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll just skip over some of the points raised by members opposite. Touching on tree-farm licence rollover, all the bill provides for is an amendment to the Forest Act to allow the Forest Service, the licenser, to retract up to 10 percent of the allowable cut. It also provides, though, that the proponent for a tree-farm licence must in his proposal for the rollover consider such things as full forest renewal, full road access, full recreational development, full close utilization and very high levels of conversion of the raw materials. So it's not really a giveaway by any stretch of the imagination. There's going to be a substantial amount of commitment on the part of the licensee, because he has to carry that into a public forum, a public hearing, where he has to defend his case for rollover to a tree-farm licence. After he has gone through those hoops, should he be awarded a tree farm licence, every five years his management and working plan is subjected to public scrutiny. This is quite a public process.

The tree-farm licence program is an area-based licence, but it is not an alienation of the land. Land remains with the Crown, but the allowable cut is defined over a piece of geography rather than just a volume-based tenure such as a forest licence, and the forest licence is also a tenure, as is the timber sale licence and the timber licence — one of the old temporary tenures. They are all licences and obligations on the part of the Crown to a licensee.

What's important when we consider whether or not a licence has any value is whether the enterprise is a going concern. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) says there should be no profit made in logging; there should only be profit made in processing logs. In other words, only the

[ Page 5088 ]

millers of the world should make a profit, but the loggers aren't supposed to make a profit. In his constituency there is a substantial number of independent loggers who really rely on making a profit, to return some revenues in his constituency to support all kinds of secondary and service industry, but I can't understand why he doesn't want them to make a profit. That's amazing.

There is certainly some value to a licence when it is supporting a going concern, supporting the logging operations, the conversion plants, and the marketing, transportation and forest renewal functions and everything that goes to support that. Those are going concerns, and there is a real loss when allowable cut is taken out forever, and there is a price to be paid. I guess that in the not-too-distant future we'll have an idea of what that's worth.

I take exception to the slam on the British Columbia Forest Service and the people who work there when the member from Prince Rupert says they do a lousy job of managing their Crown lands. That isn't necessary and it's not appropriate in this House.

Privatization doesn't work, he says. It sure worked for him, because all the time he was working, he was working in a privatized concern. That pulp mill in Port Edward where he was working is a very successful operation and it's still in private hands. It's in different private hands, but it is working very well. I'm sure that the member will agree that it is doing good things for his constituency. It's certainly doing good things for my constituency and the whole of the northwest. They have just completed a brand-new sawmill in Terrace and it's in the process of just starting up. That's pretty exciting stuff for the people of the northwest, but that's, by the way, a private enterprise concern.

Concern about whether the Forest Service will be expanded, whether it is being reduced in size or whether its work is being contracted out — these are his concerns, after he slams them. I'll tell you that the small business enterprise program in the province is a new initiative. It certainly wasn't one that was promoted by the members opposite when they had the opportunity. But it has been promoted and expanded by this government, and the incremental work that that program brings in will in many cases be done by contract. Extra work that needs to be done will be by a contract arrangement, and when that's over the person is free to go somewhere else and take his opportunities where they are. The cost to the people of British Columbia is kept to a minimum, and the returns from the small business enterprise program accrue to the Crown. There is a special account set up for the small business enterprise program to make sure that access is provided and that the forests are renewed in those areas. The surpluses from the fund go into consolidated revenue.

The member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) had some concern, as did the member for Vancouver East, about the fact that the chief forester is no longer referred to in the legislation. That is incorrect, and a simple perusal of the Forest Act and Bill 28 will show ample sections where the chief forester is responsible for the things that fall within his purview. However, matters of evaluating applications for forest licences such as is laid out in section 11 of the Forest Act, and of evaluating applications from the standpoint of creating or maintaining employment opportunities and other social benefits in the province, are rightly in the hands of government. The technical issues are rightly in the hands of the chief forester.

I'd like to point out that stumpage in the past has not been set by regulations; it has been set by policy and will continue to be set by policy. But the policy directives will be registered. We'll have a record, a registrar of directives and a register of directives, so that everybody — the public and government personnel alike — will know and will have a record, speaking from exactly the same recorded directive, as to what the stumpage change has been. There's nothing secretive about it. Anybody interested in receiving copies of forest policy need only subscribe. There's a fee for the books; there are three volumes, and you get a continuing update. Those of us who have those books know that they never cease. It's a dynamic business, and there's always revision. All directives are public information, Mr. Speaker.

Tree-farm licences do not close this province to settlement. Our policies provide for reclassification of lands to higher economic use whenever that use can be identified. That is provided in the Land Act. Members opposite know that, and that is misinformation. TFLs are referred to as land alienation with no fee. There is no land alienation; the land remains with the Crown, although it is assigned as an annual allowable cut based on performance. The award of a tree farm licence will only be done on the basis of a public hearing and on the licensee's stating obligation for full forest renewal, full road access, full recreation opportunities, full integrated resource management, full close utilization, and very high levels of conversion.

I take exception to the member for Vancouver East telling the world that I was responsible for the mess in the Westar lands in the Nass Valley. I went in there in '83 as woods manager with the woods division there, in the bottom of the recession, and my first action was to set crews to cleaning up the felled and bucked in the Nass Valley. My next move was to provide for a timber supply to the local sawmill, the Canyon City band of the Nishga Tribal Council. They had not been able to obtain any timber from tree-farm licence 1, although they lived in the centre of it, until I arrived. The next thing I did was to provide for a contract under the terms of the TFL contract for a logging contracting firm established by the Canyon City band. Right after that we received a partial order of seedlings from the Forest Service for reforestation. We planted all those in TFL 1. That year the Forest Service did not have the funds to carry out the planting of the seedlings they had ordered, and the licensee in the area — Westar was the TFL 1 licensee — planted those trees at their cost. I was with them in that capacity for one year before moving into wood supply for the pulp mill that the member for Prince Rupert mentioned earlier. So at the bottom of the recession, with the team that was left that I had the opportunity to work with, we met our obligations, and we met them very well. That is a matter of record.

The member for Vancouver East has been telling the House that this legislation provides for the moving of timber rights from one TSA to another. That's not correct. What this provides for is redirecting licensees into areas of emergent cutting to make sure that salvage is taking place in areas that have been devastated by fire, insects, disease, blow down or some other natural problem. We have to be able to move to retain that value for the people of British Columbia, and we have to be able to move quickly. So we have to provide for redirecting forces in an emergency, and this legislation does that.

A further misleading statement: money for transfers, other than 5 percent recovery, of licences. The legislation

[ Page 5089 ]

deals with old temporary tenures in that issue. That's a finite cut, and it is for a finite period of time. It is a sunset on the old temporary tenures; they were first issued at the turn of the century. They will be all but gone at the turn of the next century, Mr. Speaker.

This is good legislation. I am proud of it. It has been well thought out. It is the result of much public consultation by my predecessor and me, and by the British Columbia Forest Service in carrying out their mandate as responsible forest managers of the province. I am pleased to say that Dr. Peter Pearse, so often quoted today, has been most complimentary on our initiatives.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[4:15]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 16

Bill 28, Forest Amendment Act, 1988, 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. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On vote 4: Premier's office, $6,756,134.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, it is a time-honoured tradition in this House that debates on estimates, whether of a minister or of the office of the Premier, be free-ranging and unconfined. Hansards of the past show that discussions cover a wide array of issues, including the policies of government, in addition to the specific operations of the offices themselves. As Premier of British Columbia, I welcome that tradition because of accountability and a willingness to stand up and defend a particular policy or course or action. That is what the parliamentary system is all about.

Mr. Chairman, before I continue with my remarks, I would like to inform the House that today I have presented to the Clerk of the House a resolution on the Meech Lake constitutional accord. I have further asked that the resolution be placed on the order paper for future consideration by the members of this House. Having said that and in keeping with the tradition I refer to, I'm proud to stand here today to discuss not only what our government has accomplished, but what lies ahead.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to reaffirm our government's intention to bring together and to mobilize all British Columbians in a commitment to excellence. That commitment is strong because our shared goal — whether we live in Victoria, Prince George or Cranbrook — is a stronger, more secure future for us all. The task is too essential to leave to chance, and the goal too important to do other than give it our very best effort.

Economic development — the creation of job opportunities for British Columbians and the development of a climate in which individual effort and initiative is rewarded — is a priority. It's a priority because it's a prerequisite if we are to retain and enhance the quality of life that British Columbians want and deserve. Only by developing a healthy, growing economy can we generate the revenues we need in the areas of health, education and social services. Only if we have an economy that offers opportunities for investment and new business activity can we meet the needs of our young people and our seniors. We must have a strong economy if we are to make good on our drive to ensure that all our people get their fair share of the value, quality and security that British Columbia offers. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we must continue to work towards a reduction and the eventual elimination of the deficit and its legacy of interest charges that year in and year out must be paid and met.

Mr. Chairman, our government is delivering. We are making great progress, both in building a strong and dynamic economy and in cutting the deficit. When we took office, and when the people of this province gave us their confidence and their trust, we saw that things needed changing. The change had to start with government in its style, its methods of operation and its structure. The process is continuing through privatization, regionalization or decentralization and an ongoing review and rationalization of programs and policies.

Mr. Chairman, government in British Columbia is no longer a static, immovable and bureaucratic structure. Changing conditions, changing times and changing needs dictated that government become increasingly flexible and responsive. That's happening, and it will continue. But government can't go it alone, nor would I want it too. I believe all British Columbians want the chance to share great values and great visions and to play a real part in turning these values and visions into reality. The essence of leadership of this government is to help the people of this province share that vision. Only by getting people involved and getting them to participate can we realize our goals.

Mr. Chairman, good government doesn't mean being a giveaway government. It doesn't mean doing what's politically expedient or comfortable simply in order to stay in a state of grace or favour. Rather, it means doing what is right, even though from time to time that brings criticism and unfavourable comment. That goes with the territory, and it's to be expected, although at times the degree and the intensity of that criticism goes beyond the bounds of fairness and balance. Too often the preferred focus is on the problems

[ Page 5090 ]

rather than on the potential. I believe the time has come to sound an upbeat and positive note about the future of our province and its people.

[4:30]

Our economy is doing very well, and all indicators point to it doing even better in the year ahead. More British Columbians than ever before are working. Retail sales are increasing by the month. Housing starts are up sharply over last year. Industries like forestry, mining, tourism and manufacturing are showing continued strength, and the forecasts for continued growth may well prove conservative.

The prospects are bright and will grow brighter as we expand and enhance our trading relationships. Today's world is the world of the trader, and British Columbia's potential to grow and prosper looms large because of the free trade agreement with the United States. This historic agreement and our government's drive to increase and strengthen our trade relationships in the Pacific Rim and elsewhere around the world will open new doors for British Columbia's industries. This expansion in our trade, along with the development of new value-added products, will bring new investment and new growth in our manufacturing sector and new jobs for British Columbians.

There is a degree of prosperity in our province today that has never been matched, but we can and we will do better, because as our population increases, as our senior population grows, the demand for services will increase. In a few short months, because of a steady influx of people to our province and the birth of new British Columbians, our population will reach and surpass the three million mark. While that will be a demographic landmark, it reinforces the very real need to follow a long-term game plan not just for economic growth but to ensure that we retain and enhance our quality of life. We are developing that game plan, and all British Columbians will have an opportunity to review it and make a contribution sometime in the fall. The plan will identify social and economic trends and offer avenues and ways that will allow us to take maximum advantage of the opportunities which will be laid out in this long-range strategy.

The time has come for the professional doubters, the individuals who prefer negativism to being positive, the pessimists, to honestly evaluate the state of the province. It's time for them to set aside their partisan beliefs and their dogma and help strengthen the environment for success that our government is creating and building.

The saddest thing about the professional knockers — those who deliver knee-jerk negatives to everything our government does — is that they underestimate the drive, the determination and the abilities of British Columbians. British Columbians are smart people; they work hard and they welcome both goals and challenges. If we give them the freedom and encouragement to be creative and innovative, they can accomplish the toughest tasks. Our government believes our people can only reach and attain their full potential if they are freed from the narrow confines of a detailed and restrictive program that's dictated from the top. No society can flourish . . . .

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I know this is difficult for the socialists, but I'll try it again.

No society can flourish, nor can the entrepreneurial spirit, if government imposes and intrudes its presence in the everyday affairs of individuals. I want the members opposite to really think about this. As we've listened to the debates over the many months, and as we've listened to the suggestions made by individual critics, what comes through time and time again is that you don't really have a faith in the abilities of individual British Columbians, in their ability to build an economy, regardless of where it is in the province, without all this government involvement that you believe must be a part of all that happens in our province. There are no more socialist governments in this country. The last one was defeated in Manitoba. They did have a socialist government in Manitoba — and you know what happened there. They threw them out.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm asked by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) what happened in Boundary-Similkameen. You know what happened. You know what happened in Okanagan North. Do you remember the brief presence of a certain member called MacWilliam? No, you don't. You've forgotten the name. He's gone. So please, pay attention.

Success will come from people having equity and a vested interest in goal-setting and achievement. And this government will continue to operate in a supportive and facilitative way.

Economic growth, real economic growth, can only come from the private sector. The responsibility of government must be to create the kind of environment and climate in which the private sector can flourish. Socialism doesn't attract new investment. Socialism doesn't attract people to come and establish new businesses. As a matter of fact, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) can probably tell you — and hopefully might — when last we had a socialist government in this province, businesses left. They left, one after another. They closed up. They disappeared from the province. They even left Vancouver East. Mr. Chairman, it's for this reason that our government will continue to decentralize and restore, increase decision-making to the local level.

We want economic growth, jobs and security to be the birthright of every British Columbian, in every comer and in every region of this great province. Fairness, equity and equality of opportunity must prevail for all our people, no matter where they live.

Mr. Chairman, I emphasize once more for the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) that you must convince your party that there's more to British Columbia than downtown Vancouver or downtown Victoria. I've not heard too many — and particularly, I believe, there are three — from rural ridings speak out on behalf of the rest of British Columbia, which is big. And there are lots of people there, and they deserve to have a voice, even when they elect an NDP member.

Mr. Chairman, we are making it happen. We are making this decentralization happen. We are providing the people in those outlying regions an opportunity to have a voice, through strong leadership and effective planning.

British Columbians want a government system that frees up initiative and enterprise and cuts red tape. British Columbians want and deserve a government that's prepared to make tough but correct decisions. British Columbians want a government that shows strong leadership and has the will and the

[ Page 5091 ]

drive to stand up for its principles. That's the difference, Mr. Chairman, between decisions and fence-sitting. The people of British Columbia have that kind of government: decisive government.

Mr. Chairman, I say again, we've seen great progress in this province in only 18 months. I can well recall that there was concern about the economy; I suppose it was so nationally, but definitely we saw people concerned about the economy. People were concerned about the opportunities for their children and their children's children. We have managed, through decisive, strong government, to bring about an economy in this province which is now the envy of the whole of Canada.

I met with a group of top business leaders in downtown Vancouver only two weeks ago, and the unanimous decision was that the economy of this province has never been better than it is today. It's growth not only in the forestry sector, where we're seeing new pulp mills and paper mills and an expansion of sawmills, but in the mining sector, the tourism sector, the agricultural sector and the manufacturing sector, where we're leading the country in manufacturing growth on a relative basis. And it's not only people in the Pacific Rim who are looking to our province as a model place in which to invest; it's not only people in the U.S. or Europe who are now viewing British Columbia as a safe place where they can invest and see a growth in their opportunities and in their manufacturing plants. People from other parts of Canada are looking at British Columbia as the place where growth is taking place.

[4:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think I heard the member for Prince George North say they're laughing at us.

MRS. BOONE: They're laughing at you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Frankly, I don't mind if they laugh, when we're making such great progress and having a better impact on Ottawa than what we've seen previously, when we're seeing all this growth, when we're seeing opportunities for our children and our children's children. Hon. member from Prince George, there are families and children in Prince George, and you should be concerned about their future. You should be happy about what's happening in this province. You shouldn't be knocking all the good things that are happening: you shouldn't be so socialistically negative all the time. This is a place of opportunity. This is a free enterprise province where things are happening, and we should all be happy. We should be happy for the opportunities it offers us and for the opportunities it offers the people in Prince George North.

Instead of continually professing doom and gloom to the people in Prince George North, saying, "Things are bad; you can't do it, you can't get it together; there's no hope for your children or your children's children," maybe you should go back after you've learned a lesson from the free enterprisers in this House and say: "British Columbia is a great place. It's a place of opportunity. It's a place where people should invest. It's a place where we want to raise our families. It's a place where we want people to do well, to earn money — and to earn good money." Don't be negative doom-and-gloom socialists all the time.

Our province has, fortunately, a good record of having free enterprise government. Our province has strong free enterprise government today. Our province is much a pioneering province. Our province needs diversification. Our province needs new industries in all parts of this great British Columbia, and the opportunities are there under free enterprise. We will see these opportunities developed. Our people know that we really can't afford to gamble with socialism again. They know it as they knew it in 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1969. What happened in 1972? Heaven forbid, they realized what happened, and in 1975 it was the return of free enterprise to this province. It was free enterprise in 1979, 1983, it was free enterprise in 1986, and we again have good free enterprise government. This province is going to prosper; this province is going to grow; this province is going to move in all directions all over. Will we see the growth?

It won't be simply in one area. We'll provide those opportunities in all of the regions of the province. If the member for Prince George North doesn't have that concern about the region that she is responsible for, then our government and our other members and the nearest member will take the lead. We will provide these opportunities for all of our people, wherever in this great province of British Columbia, which has good government and strong leadership.

MR. HARCOURT: I listened as carefully as I could to the words of the Premier, and I was pleased to see that he was able to mention the word "accountability" without choking, that he welcomed accountability and that he was pleased that our democracy allows him the opportunity to defend the record of the government. It is indeed an onerous task to try and defend the indefensible, to try and defend what has happened to the people of this province over the last 18 months or so.

We're not here to discuss the state of the economy; we're here to deal with the state of this government and the leadership of this government. I was pleased to see the word "excellence" used. "In search of excellence." Believe me, the people of this province are trying to search for a little flicker of excellence from this government. They would even look for just a flicker of mediocrity from this government. What they've got is a bunch of incompetents.

What we heard from the Premier was that he was proud of doing something about the Social Credit deficit of $6 billion that they built up over the last six years. He was going to finally admit that Social Credit has severely harmed this province's economy, credit rating — it's gone down under Social Credit — and that they are finally going to do something about the deficit.

He talked about the government being immovable. Believe me, they've moved the government out of existence in this province. That's why it's so easy to move around: the government services we used to have don't exist anymore. That is something that we'll be dealing with, because the people of this province are being harmed by the savagery that the Premier has exhibited towards the government services the people of this province need very badly.

He said: "The essence of democracy is getting people involved." The Premier asked the people in Boundary-Similkameen and Grand Forks and through Rock Creek and Greenwood and Midway to get involved in a plebiscite about uranium mining, as a matter of fact. He said: "Express your opinion in a plebiscite about uranium mining." They did: 85 percent of them said "no" to uranium mining. Do you know

[ Page 5092 ]

what the Premier said? "That's not a big enough majority. We have to ignore the majority because the majority have to be saved from themselves." What an appalling statement from the democratic leader of this province — supposedly. "We have to save the majority of the residents in that area from themselves, because they don't know what they're doing when they vote against uranium mining." That's after he encouraged them to vote.

The Premier then went on to say: "We're doing better in the year ahead." He mentioned things like housing starts being up. I want you to know that yes, housing starts are up. I just moved into a brand-new house that I built. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is building a fine house in Vancouver East. We're not doing it because we think you're a wonderful government; we're doing it because we're going to outlast this government. The people of British Columbia have got confidence in this province, not in you.

I heard the word: "Plan." It finally crossed the Premier's lips. That four-letter word finally escaped. We have a plan coming from that ex-member of the fourth estate who is hiding away in the Premier's office preparing a ten-year plan — Eli to the rescue; Eli and his ten-year plan. Are we in trouble! I tell you, I can hardly wait to see the plan — "the plan," the Premier said.

The Premier then said we should not have personal dogma and prejudice in this province. Well, I would never accuse the Premier of imposing his personal dogma and prejudices on the women of this province on the issue of abortion. He would never impose his decentralization scheme on the mayors and councils and regional districts of this province.

He then said that government should not be dictated from the top. That's like Billy Martin giving a course in etiquette. For the Premier to say that government should not be dictated from the top is like Brian Mulroney giving a lecture on cabinet conflict of interest. I really find that a fascinating statement.

He then said, after going for a week at Cortes Island, that government should play a facilitative and supportive role. Well, I guess that's what the Premier did when he said that women who have a child should have their welfare payments cut after 15 weeks. If that's his idea of facilitating and supporting, then God help the people of British Columbia.

The Premier then said that our economy is the envy of the rest of Canada. Tell that to the over 20 percent of the people unemployed in Kamloops. Tell that to the young people in Nelson who can't find work. Tell that to the foresters.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to know what businessmen you were talking to. I'd like to know what business people the Premier was talking to. I've been around to talk to the people who run the forest industry.

HON. MR. REID: You talked to the wrong ones.

MR. HARCOURT: I've been talking to the negative nabobs who run the forest companies. I've been talking to the negative working people — who are the majority of the people in this province — says the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid). Do you know what they say? They say to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker): "Don't come back into the industry after what you've done to our industry."

First of all, you sold us out with the Americans on the softwood lumber tariff; you cut the ground out from under the Canadian bargaining position. You then bring in a screwball act that creates uncertainty and a terrible climate in which to make investment decisions.

Friends of free enterprise? I'd hate to see its enemies. If this government thinks they're the friends of free enterprise when they increase the tax on small business and lower it for big business, I'd like to see the enemies of free enterprise helping them. Tell that to the fish-processing industry that you're trying to put out of business. You didn't go to bat for them under GATT. You didn't grandfather them in the trade deal. You didn't do anything. Then you've got a Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) over there, who catches rainbow trout and not salmon in his riding, who says we should get rid of the commercial salmon-fishing industry on the coast. Tell that to the 15,000 people on the coast who derive their livelihood from the fishing industry.

The economy is the envy of the rest of Canada. Tell that to the forest industry and the fishing industry, two of the areas the Premier mentioned.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I was going to do that. I was going to talk about agriculture next because the Premier brought it up. Our agriculture is the envy of the rest of the province. I think we should say that to the grape grower who is going to have to go out of business because of the Premier's position on the trade deal. The vintners, the grape growers and the tree-fruit growers, all people you're putting out of business, really respond to that message well.

[5:00]

As a matter of fact, Mr. Premier, the five times you went up into Boundary-Similkameen, they heard what you had to say. They didn't like it, and they sent you a message. They don't think the economy is doing well in Boundary-Similkameen. I think it's only unfortunate that you didn't go into Boundary-Similkameen ten times. Remember, I was encouraging you to go more. You were the second-best weapon we had in that election campaign, the first being the fine candidate we had and the fine party that he represents, the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Chairman, the pablum we had from the speechwriters in the Premier's office wasn't very helpful, because what we want to talk about today is this government and the lack of leadership that the people of British Columbia are having. What we're getting is a Premier whose actions are harming British Columbians — a Premier who promised a fresh start. Where is the fresh start, Mr. Chairman? Where is it now? You can't really have a fresh start with a party that's been in government for 33 of the last 36 years. The only fresh start that we've had in British Columbia is a new wave of confrontation — as a matter of fact, a tidal wave of confrontation.

Mr. Chairman, what the people of Boundary-Similkameen were telling the Premier is that he's not giving leadership to this province. He's out of touch. It's not just New Democrats who are saying that he's out of touch. British Columbians right across this province, not just in Boundary Similkameen, are saying that the Premier's not listening; he's out of step; he's taking us for granted. That message was delivered loud and clear on behalf of all British Columbians in Boundary-Similkameen last week.

[ Page 5093 ]

But did the Premier listen to the people in Boundary Similkameen? I would like to read from a document that has been supplied by the Social Credit Party. This is dated March 17, and it goes as follows:

"A few weeks back I met with party president Hope Wotherspoon to discuss this year's party goals and objectives. We identified three major priorities. Our first is victory in the upcoming Boundary-Similkameen by-election" — wrote the Premier. "The outcome of that contest will be seen by many, particularly the media, as an important test of our party's record as government."

Well, indeed it was an important test of your party's record in government. Not only did that 6,500-vote majority that Jim Hewitt and the Social Credit had in the last election evaporate; it was replaced by a 5,300-and-climbing vote in favour of the New Democratic party and Bill Barlee, and against Bill Vander Zalm and the Social Credit Party.

What did the Premier have to say about the number one priority of the Social Credit Party, victory in Boundary Similkameen — the number one priority for this year? What did he have to say on election night, after that fine dinner we had with the Lieutenant-Governor? He had this to say to those negative people, as he calls them, those people who put a mirror up to his face, called the fourth estate, the media. He said yes, the people of Boundary-Similkameen had voted, and he wanted them to know his response to that.

"I can't change. I don't intend to make any changes at all. No, I don't intend to change. We'll certainly be proceeding with all those things, and proceeding very aggressively." The Premier went on to say:

"I can't somehow go back and say that all we've done in the past and all that we're setting out to do and all that we've initiated is wrong because of one by-election."

Mr. Premier, if you feel that strongly about what you've done and what you're doing, and you're not going to listen to the results of the by-election in Boundary-Similkameen, and you think that what you're doing is right for British Columbia, why don't you call a general election on it? We're ready to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Losers always want another chance.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm going to get to giving the Premier another chance, to the member from North Peace.

I'm not sure that the Premier has the courage to do that, because he says that he's misunderstood. He's been misunderstood, and what's wrong with this government is packaging. Mr. Chairman, this is the same man who promised open government, and what he's now doing is hiding behind a package. Presumably that means more of the hacks, flacks and doughnut-hole punchers that characterized the Bennett government. Don't forget, the fresh start was supposed to distinguish this Social Credit government from the Social Credit government of his predecessor, Bill Bennett. Our current Premier boasted that he didn't believe in or follow or get involved in polls, and he wasn't going to get involved in packaging, that one of his open government characteristics was: "What you see is what you get." What we see is what the people in Boundary-Similkameen and British Columbia don't want to get, and now you have to cover it up with a package. We would like to know just what is going to be involved in that package in the way of public expenditure, Mr. Premier. We're very curious about that, because you are going to have to package a very unsavoury content and substance. We are very interested in how you will package it.

Not only is the Premier out of touch; he is not listening, Mr. Chairman. On June 8 the lights were on in your office, Mr. Premier, but nobody was home. You weren't listening. You're not listening to the ordinary men and women in this province and in Boundary-Similkameen who said: "Slow down. Stop trying to do so much so recklessly and so quickly, with so much harm." You are not listening to a hundred municipal councils that don't want you to proceed with the decentralization plan. You're not listening to those who don't want to proceed with the privatization of highway maintenance, like Alex Fraser and three ex-Deputy Ministers of Highways.

You're not listening to the people of Boundary-Similkameen, and you said that on election night. You're not going to listen to them. You're not going to let the results of one insignificant — in your view — by-election have any impact on you whatsoever. You chose to — and this is what I found quite astounding — put it down to your moral convictions, as if everyone else's moral views were wrong, as if by implication the people in Boundary-Similkameen didn't have the same high moral standards. What you owe the people of Boundary-Similkameen is an apology for that statement. The Premier wasn't listening to the people of Boundary-Similkameen, who said: "Don't impose your personal agenda and your biases on the rest of us in a pluralistic, tolerant democracy." Don't do that, Mr. Premier.

You didn't get that message when the Supreme Court of Canada brought down its decision on the abortion laws. You didn't listen when your Attorney-General (Hon. B. R. Smith) and all your legal advisers said that you couldn't defy the law; that you weren't above the law; that you couldn't have one law for rich women and one for poor women. You can't refuse to listen to your legal advisers.

On the B.C. Enterprise Corporation lands, you didn't listen to the board and to some of the business leaders in this province, who said: "Mr. Premier, butt out." Eleven times you tried to do an end run around that board for your friend Peter Toigo. You can't do that, Mr. Premier.

Then through your Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), on the drug AZT, you said that there are two standards. You are prepared to make the hormone drug available to children with growth deficiencies, but you're not going to make it available to people suffering from AIDS. They are going to have to pay for that drug. You imposed your own moral standards and convictions on the people during that debate. You said that, unlike every other province in the country, they are going to have to pay $2,000 to $3,000. One hundred people in this province are going to have to pay $2,000 to $3,000 for the drug AZT, which keeps them alive for a bit longer, because of your personal prejudices.

We listened to what you had to say in your opening remarks. What we have to say back to you is that the people of British Columbia listened to you too. They sent you a message, and you haven't learned that message. You are out of touch, you are not listening, you are inflicting your personal agenda and your own biases on the people of British Columbia, and they are not going to put up with it much longer. They want an election. If you've got the courage of your convictions, go ahead and call an election. We're ready for it.

[ Page 5094 ]

I would like to engage in a dialogue with the Premier. The people of British Columbia have a number of questions that they'd like to ask the Premier, that he so far hasn't been prepared to answer very satisfactorily, as we found out in Boundary-Similkameen.

I'd like to ask the Premier about his decentralization plans. And I would like to quote the Premier, who in 1986 said in regard to decentralization: "It's time to put democracy back into the governing process." That was in a leadership leaflet of July 1986. But then, Mr. Chairman, in the Vancouver paper, April 1983, the Premier said, on democracy and consultation — he wasn't the Premier then; he was the minister of anti-municipal government — that his type of democracy would require less involvement by people. "The more people get involved, the more gets lost." Would the real Premier please stand up.

Mr. Chairman, this decentralization scam is just a recycled, repackaged, land use act county system that got tossed out by his cabinet colleagues the last time. This cabinet let it go by without a whimper. This fourth level of bureaucracy that's going to interfere with local government, that's going to take away the role of local MLAs, this United States of British Columbia that is foreign to British Columbians, is strictly a pork-barrelling exercise that is going to centralize power in the Premier's office. The Premier has prepared for it. He has increased his office number tenfold over the last year. He has transferred power from local communities to the Premier's office.

What we would like to find out from the Premier about this cabinet shuffle he's contemplating, to help speed decentralization along . . . . There's been a lot of speculation about the cabinet shuffle. Mr. Premier, I'd like you to answer this question if you can. Once again, the Premier is not listening. He's basically exhibit number one in our argument that the Premier is out of touch and not listening.

He says he's going to have a cabinet shuffle. That is like the captain of the Titanic replacing his officers and backing up the Titanic for another run at the iceberg. What we'd like you to do, Mr. Premier, is stop rearranging your officers and the deck chairs. Change course! Listen to the people of this province. Get back in touch.

We're looking forward to the infusion of fresh blood fresh start number two. We hope that it won't include the Premier as Minister of Economic Development, to bring more sausage factories to Prince George. We hope that will not happen.

I'd like to ask you, Mr. Premier: are you ready to withdraw this decentralization scheme and restore our democratic structures and institutions? Will you ensure that there will be no more transfer of power from communities into a centralized Premier's office? And I'd like to ask you if you plan on becoming the Minister of Economic Development. In particular, I'd like to ask if in this cabinet shuffle you're going to appoint a minister responsible for the status of women, so that women in this province finally have equality.

[5:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I started out to say during my comments that yesterday I met with in excess of a thousand people. Over the weekend and again last week I met with many groups of people in Vernon and other places, where we had town hall meetings or other such opportunities to talk to individuals. I've talked to mayors, municipal aldermen and regional district directors, and I've been sitting here listening to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition and have concluded that really, hon. member, you haven't been too far away from your constituency of Vancouver Centre, downtown Vancouver. You've not been getting the message, obviously, from all those people in all those regions in the province who are not only extremely supportive of decentralization and the new economic development regions but are very excited about being a part of this and see the opportunities it brings.

Already we have examples of various industrial opportunities having been developed because of the minister of state, the parliamentary secretary, the decentralization system, and its ability to respond very quickly. We owe it to the other people elsewhere in the province, the people that aren't always part of downtown Victoria or downtown Vancouver, the people that are in the outlying regions, such as Prince George and elsewhere, that really want to have a greater involvement, a greater opportunity, a better opportunity to participate as we see it through this process that has been provided them.

It's a good grassroots movement. It's catching on. It's getting support not only from the members of council and regional districts but also from the community. People like it. They can feel it. They are really enthused about it. When you have an opportunity to travel through the province and meet as many people as I've met over the last while, you'll get that same message: the people like it. They are really for it. They are in support of decentralization.

They realize that you can't always make the decisions as a big government located in Victoria, as you would have it, that knows it all; that imposes everything that happens, whether it's in the Peace, the Nechako, the Kootenays, the Okanagan or the Cariboo; that somehow, regardless of what's out there, you know best and because of the style of government that you foresee, you would deny these people the opportunity to be that involved. It's great. It really works, and it has the support of the people out there. That really matters to me. I think that's great.

MR. HARCOURT: I think it's sad that the Premier, once again, is playing that confrontational and divisive game and attacking Vancouver and Victoria — two great cities in this great province of ours. He continually attacks those two cities. I don't see any applause from the Vancouver members here when he does that. I don't think that is going to bring about a fresh start.

I certainly don't think he listened to the same mayors and council members and regional district members that I've spoken to in my visits to 130 communities in the north and the interior over the last year and a half. I don't think he listened to the 100 councils, mostly in the north and the interior, who said: "Mr. Premier, don't go ahead with the privatization of our highways function."

I don't know who you were listening to, other than your constituency association in Richmond. You're certainly not listening to the Social Credit constituency association in Kamloops, who said to the Premier: "Listen, stop voicing your biases and prejudices on us. Slow down." You're certainly not listening to the mayor of Kelowna, who doesn't want the decentralization scheme to proceed. The mayors and councils that I've been speaking to throughout this province want to carry on with the traditions that we have in this province of fine local institutions. Mr. Premier, I don't think you're listening — or, more importantly, hearing —

[ Page 5095 ]

what the local governments throughout this province are telling you.

I don't think you really care about it at all. I think that you want to believe your own words because you want to believe them, that's all. I don't think you're talking with those people. I think you're saying those things, and the louder and more enthusiastically you say them, you think they'll become believable. But they're not. The more you say them, the more people get worried about this puff-ball scheme. It's going to go the same way as that other disaster: the Partners in Enterprise program. Do we hear about that any more? It went the way of the sausage factory in Prince George.

I have spent a great deal of the time over the last year and a half speaking to thousands and thousands of British Columbians and listening to what they had to say, and not meeting in a showbiz, pizzazz, circus atmosphere but sitting down in their council chambers, in the mayor's office, meeting with the chamber of commerce, with the Rotary Club, with the farmers. We're talking about quite a different world, Mr. Premier. You're not listening.

I've been out speaking with people for a long time now, and I've listened to them. They don't understand or like your decentralization scheme. If you'd like to know why, I think it would be very useful to hear from the very able municipal affairs critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe).

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member made reference to my comments about downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria, and I'll make it clear again that I believe that the socialist party in this province tends to be too focused on downtown and doesn't really realize or appreciate that there's much more to the province than what we see it in the downtown areas only. All parts of this province are entitled to diversification and growth of industry, so that their children can be educated in their community and work in that community and not constantly be required to look for whatever might be provided in downtown Vancouver or Victoria. To suggest in some way that this government doesn't care about downtown Victoria or downtown Vancouver is obviously so far from the truth that it's laughable. As a matter of fact, hon. Leader of the Opposition, you remember that this government provided a stadium in downtown Vancouver over your objections; you didn't want it. You remember that this government provided SkyTrain, and you didn't want it. You remember that this government brought about Expo, and you didn't want it; you objected. All of those good things that happened in Vancouver and that people are proud of . . . .

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The trade and convention centre.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The trade and convention centre, and you didn't want it.

I'm sure everybody here could think of a couple of things that you've been opposed to, but they all happened despite your objections. These things happened, and Vancouver flourished and grew. People are proud of what happened there. So it's not a matter of not caring for Vancouver or Victoria. Look outside and see what's happening here. See the convention centre in Victoria. See the growth; see the development taking place right here in downtown Victoria. In spite of the second member for Victoria, it's happening. We're very concerned, and we're providing for these areas, but we're saying that the same opportunities must be provided to the people in the other regions.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to ask the Premier a question: could he tell us where the mayor of Kelowna resides?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where does the second member for Victoria reside?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who cares?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Nobody cares. That's a very important question; I appreciate that. I really can't answer as to where he resides. I guess you want the street and number. I'll take it as notice.

MR. BLENCOE: There's the arrogance, Mr. Chairman. The Premier knows exactly the point I am trying to make. The mayor of Kelowna lives in Kelowna; he doesn't live in Victoria or Vancouver. He represents his community well, and he has expressed his concern about a system that many British Columbians are concerned about which is alien to our way of governing this great province. The mayor of Kelowna doesn't live in Victoria or Vancouver.

I ask this question of the Premier: where does the mayor of Kamloops live?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've got to answer that, because I think this could go on for a long time. Perhaps I could clarify it. The mayor of Cranbrook lives in Cranbrook, the mayor of Kimberley lives in Kimberley, the mayor of Dawson Creek lives in Dawson Creek, the mayor of Fort St. John lives in Fort St. John, and the mayor of Chilliwack lives in Chilliwack. Now that I know what you're attempting to find out, I think I can give you one answer that covers all the mayors. Among all the mayors you might find a couple that perhaps don't really have a total understanding yet of the decentralization process. We'd be happy to explain it. So if you'd continue your list without having to get answers as to where they live, that would he helpful.

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier of this province has tried to give the impression that the concern of respected British Columbians about the ministers of state in the United States of British Columbia is only a Victoria-Vancouver concern. The Premier is totally wrong. British Columbians of all persuasions in all communities across this province are very concerned about the way this Premier and this government are carrying out government.

The reason I bring up the mayor of Kelowna is that some weeks ago he said that decentralization — the minister of state system — is creating "tension and confrontation," a tradition that seems to prevail with this government and a tradition that British Columbians want to see ended as quickly as possible.

The mayor of Kamloops very recently said: "With the minister of state system I think there is a hidden agenda." The reason I asked where the mayor of Kamloops lives is that indeed he doesn't live in Victoria or Vancouver.

The mayor of Castlegar, Audrey Moore, who ran for Social Credit in the last election, doesn't live in Victoria or Vancouver, and is well-known as opposing and being concerned about the minister of state system. She has said to a number of people in various meetings that if this government

[ Page 5096 ]

wanted to introduce a system that would bring this province to a standstill, the minister of state system was what should be introduced.

[5:30]

I wonder if the Premier has ever heard of a gentleman called Jim Matkin. Jim Matkin has said: "I don't know what this system is supposed to do." Is the Premier attacking such gentlemen as Jim Matkin, who, like many thousands of British Columbians, is asking you sincerely to consider your course of action? The mayor of Kelowna, the mayor of Kamloops and Jim Matkin.

Does the Premier have any respect for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is a well-respected organization not only in British Columbia but in this country and represents the interests of small business? The well-known spokesperson for that portion of British Columbia has said that the small business community is totally frustrated and confused with the minister of state system. They don't represent just Victoria or Vancouver.

We have a Premier who is not prepared to listen to such people — elected officials, spokespersons for industry and for small business — yet he continues on his course of action and has said recently that he is going to expand this minister of state system without a mandate in this Legislature. The people in local government are asking for this government to reconsider their course of action.

This Premier stands up in this Legislature and says it's Victoria or Vancouver, when all over this province our MLAs, our Leader of the Opposition and these people I have mentioned today have said that tension and confrontation are mounting in British Columbia. What they're really saying is: let's get back to the traditional principles of democracy in the province. That's what they're saying in British Columbia today. They're saying that they believe in local government. For a hundred years we have had traditions in local government of people being elected at the local level to make decisions for themselves. They don't need a minister of state created in the Premier's office, another level of bureaucracy imposed on local government to tell them what to do.

The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. What we are returning to in the province of British Columbia today is the old Land Use Act. This Premier, when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, left in a huff and called his cabinet colleagues gutless because he wanted to introduce a piece of legislation in which there were over 50 ways the decisions of local government could be overturned.

We don't like this system. We believe in real decentralization. We believe in giving real power to local government; we believe in consultation with local government. Nine months ago this Premier came to UBCM and made this grandiose announcement about the United States of British Columbia and the minister of state system, but there was not one ounce of consultation with the UBCM or local government. As the Leader of the Opposition and I left after that speech, we asked the president of UBCM of the day, Dan Cumming, if he had heard about the system the Premier just introduced. "Not a word," Mr. Cumming said.

Local government is speaking out; citizens are speaking out. We believe there are better ways to run the province. The minister of state system is alien to our way of governing. If this Premier and this government want to change the way we govern this province, then bring legislation into this Legislature so we can debate it, and the people can know where you're going. That's what's right. Otherwise, we have a continuation of a Premier who is convinced that he is automatically right and that he's going to take over the agenda of local government. As I've stated quite clearly, it's not Victoria or Vancouver that's concerned about this. It's all over the province of British Columbia.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to ask the Premier if he has spoken to the people that the second member for Victoria just mentioned. I would also like to ask him if he has spoken to Dan Campbell, who was the Minister of Municipal Affairs who put together the regional district system that we have in this province and did a review of the regional district system. He came to the conclusion that it works fine; it has some problems here and there, but it works fine. He was on a panel at the UBCM convention in September that looked at the county system and said it would be a disaster in this country. They brought in people from Alberta, Ontario and the United States who said that the county system creates far more problems than it solves.

Would the Premier tell us whether he has spoken to the people who are the real experts — the mayors and the people who run our regional districts in this province — who have been mentioned by the second member for Victoria? Have you spoken to those people, or do you just pick people who give you good news and don't give you bad news? Have you spoken to Dan Campbell? Have you spoken to the people who have reservations — at minimum — or strong criticisms about your county system coming back in a repackaged form? Have you spoken to those people?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member obviously doesn't understand the difference between municipal, regional or county government, but this particular system that we've implemented of decentralization and establishing economic development regions is in no way taking away from regional districts or municipalities. As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with someone from the UBCM yesterday, and they were very complimentary about the many deregulatory changes that we had introduced dealing with municipalities and how they were able to function more independently now than previously.

I've not spoken to all of those people. I've spoken to many, many people.

MR. SIHOTA: Why not?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Because, would-be leader for the NDP, that is a responsibility for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). The Minister of Municipal Affairs has spoken to all of these people, and certainly the Minister of Municipal Affairs meets with municipal councils and regional districts on an ongoing basis, and she is receiving support from all of those people, including people like Mayor Don Lockstead of Powell River, who, as we recall, used to be an opposition member across the way here. He was an NDP member up until he was defeated, and he was . . . . Pardon me?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mayor Rotering of Nelson. Great support.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mayor Rotering of Nelson.

[ Page 5097 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: John Backhouse of Prince George.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mayor John Backhouse of Prince George. These people are looking beyond their dogmatic political views and saying: "This is great for the people of the province. This is a wonderful thing." I would ask the Leader of the Opposition: has he spoken to Don Lockstead, John Backhouse and Mayor Rotering from Nelson? Has he spoken to these people to see why it is they could be so supportive? They are very supportive.

It's a good system, and in the final analysis, too, it's not something that ought to be of concern only to MLAs or to mayors. I realize that all you've talked about is what the mayors think about this. That's important, but you should also think of what the people generally might think about this. The province is made up of more than people in government. There are everyday people out there in all of those communities who go to regular jobs or work in regular businesses, and they think it's great.

MR. CASHORE: And they don't like it either.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You wouldn't know; you've never been beyond downtown Port Moody. But there are people who love it all over this province.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the Premier, once he starts to listen, a number of questions about his decentralization program. The Premier perhaps could answer the questions I'm about to ask.

When you announced this program — it was on September 24, if I'm not mistaken; it was in September at the UBCM convention — you allocated $8 million for it. Are you now prepared to admit that you did it in violation of the rules that allow for the allocation of this type of money? Secondly, could you tell us where that money was spent and how much of it was spent? Could you tell us what plans you had for the expenditure of that money when you announced it? Were there details in place or was it just an idea that popped into your mind as you made your way from the car door to the convention floor?

Are you prepared to admit that you misappropriated that money, given our democratic rules? Second, will you tell us what that money was intended for?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I will reword the question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I heard you use the word "misappropriated," hon. member. Would you withdraw that, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, I'll withdraw the point. Are you prepared to admit...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is one further point of order, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the $8 million, that was debated in a special warrant bill, has been canvassed well and is therefore irrelevant at this point and totally out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been dealt with and canvassed, and we are not allowed to debate items such as that during estimates, so the hon. member should....

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the Premier said we were entitled to a wide-ranging debate, so I'd like to ask the Premier: what criteria has his office established for the expenditure of the money that's now allocated for decentralization?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's in all of the estimates. That's been demonstrated through the ministries' budgets. You've seen that allocation in each of those budgets, and you've had an opportunity to debate that. It's their responsibility to ensure that there's funding for regional initiatives.

It certainly illustrates again that you obviously have a problem, and I can understand that. Maybe I'll try and explain it; I'll take another minute, and hopefully this will get through.

I think part of the problem is that you perceive that everything in government must be from the top down, that it's always big government that dictates all the way down. Your concept of regionalization is to have some sort of regional structure — as long you can dictate from the top down. You're forgiven for that. That's a typical socialist attitude, so I think we understand where you're coming from. I'll give you the book, the page and the paragraph; it's there. Our system of decentralization is truly grassroots. It's from the bottom up. It gives people an opportunity for input.

[5:45]

MR. SIHOTA: It's hypocritical for the Premier, who has his top-down style.... Let's face it, that's exactly how the government operates. I don't necessarily have to make jokes about the Poole room, but that is the way it operates. It's hypocritical for him to say that some other style is his style. It's not true.

Could the Premier tell us whether there was a detailed plan in place in September when he made the announcement with respect to his decentralization program?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've got to answer that. The member is reinforcing once more, even after. . . . I'll excuse him, because I believe he was talking to the Leader of the Opposition.

I attempted to explain in my last response that you view government from the top down. This is typically socialist, and I appreciate that. If you have regionalization, it still requires that you dictate everything from Big Brother government in Victoria. When you look at our decentralization process, our regional development regions, you say: "Is there a plan?" You would like to see it presented with some rigid plan that says: "You'll be decentralized, but here is what you must do and here is how you shall do it." There's not that sort of a plan. It's to be developed from the grassroots up. It involves local government. We've invited all the MLAs to participate in that process, and local organizations and individuals are participating and contributing.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to relate to the Premier what was happening in British Columbia vis-à-vis local government prior to September of last year, when he announced his minister of state system at the UBCM. What has been

[ Page 5098 ]

happening not only in British Columbia but in other jurisdictions is that there has been, I believe, a reappraisal of how to deliver government services, a recognition that local government is the closest to the people. There was a recognition and, I think, a start on behalf of local government and the UBCM. Prior to the Premier's announcement they were taking a look, on their own, at their own economic development initiatives. They were assessing what they did best. They were preparing economic plans for their areas, and they were waiting for support from senior government to give them the legislation or the policy to allow them to carry out real decentralized economic development programs.

Suddenly, however, after months of work and lots of money spent by local government, and plans being developed, waiting for the ear of government to make the changes necessary for those local economic development priorities and proposals to go ahead, we had a new bureaucracy — another level of bureaucracy — imposed upon local government, without consultation. All those ideas, plans and recommendations to allow local government to have a greater say in decision-making on economic development issues were put aside, scrapped — without consultation. In an undemocratic fashion, this Premier and this government came in and said to local government: "This is the system you're going to have to work with. We are going to impose upon you a minister of state system, alien to our way of doing government in British Columbia." Those ideas were shoved aside, and what we have instead of real decentralization is centralization. We have eight ministers of state who have created this bureaucracy with unelected people.

They are now heading for further confrontation, because we are going to come down to whose decision-making authority is supreme in the regions: the elected people — council members and regional directors — or these bureaucracies under the minister of state, imposed by the government of British Columbia. There was no consultation, no democratic discussion, and we have a system never seen before in this province or in this country.

What happened? Those great ideas the local governments had are now put on the shelf because the terms of reference have changed. We don't have real decentralization, but centralization into the Premier's office and his inner-sanctum government. That is the order of the day, and we will stand up over and over again to say that we need real decentralization; we need to give more power to local government; and we don't need $14 million so far in administration costs for a system that is not necessary in British Columbia.

We believe in local governments. They have the abilities to carry out economic development initiatives. We say: put it aside. You have municipal and regional associations across British Columbia that represent all municipalities and regional districts in your regions. A letter, a phone call or a discussion with those regional associations would save $14 million, and you wouldn't be imposing another bureaucracy. You wouldn't have the mayor of Kelowna upset at you, or the mayors of Kamloops and Castlegar, or Jim Matkin, or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. You would have real consultation, a respect for local government and a system that's in keeping with real decentralization. Why not use those area associations? Give them the mandate to report to line ministers and cabinet on the priorities of the region. That would serve this province much better. But we have a Premier and a government prepared to continue with the united states of the province of British Columbia at the expense of local government autonomy and traditions we have accepted in this province since Confederation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to just comment briefly on the regionalization plan. Members of the opposition asked what exactly the plan was to do; they wanted all of the details and that sort of thing. Some of us with an open mind were quite prepared to help develop a plan. As I recall, the Municipal Affairs critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), made up his mind after the first three lines of the announcement that since it came from the Social Credit government, it was evil and wrong. Since then he has attributed things to it such as another level of bureaucracy — which does not exist; there is not another level of bureaucracy imposing its will on municipal councils. It does not exist, but he made up his mind that it has to be that way, and he's been saying that so often that he is starting to believe it. Having convinced himself, he is not open to any information, because he has decided that it is another level of bureaucracy, that it is an imposition on local governments — which it is not.

I can only use the example — of course, it's easy enough to use .... By their own admission, there are some 100 or so mayors, plus the regional district chairmen of this province. They have picked out comments from a few of them and translated them into the NDP version of criticism — negativism. When a person or a mayor in this province says, "I don't fully understand this plan," that is not taken as a search for further knowledge, as many people with an open mind would. The NDP take it as an outright criticism of the program. When someone says, "I don't know what this plan is all about," he may just be searching for information. But when a person says, "I don't know," the NDP takes it as a criticism. I don't understand why, but I guess it's for their own purposes. That second member for Victoria constantly translates this into overruling municipal government — it is not; that this is another level of bureaucracy, that it doesn't involve them. He says that so often that he believes there is no involvement because he won't get involved himself.

Philosophically, he just absolutely believes that the only way that he sees as getting involved is to stand up in another forum in this House or someplace and criticize something. It is absolutely beyond his comprehension to go and find out what is going on there. Some of the people in my area, in the northeast region, also had many questions. Do you know something? They were quite different than that second member for Victoria. They were willing to come to a meeting and ask what it was all about. They were not willing to stay away from the meetings and just shoot daggers at it from another area. When they came to the meeting to find out what it was about, they learned that it was about trying to get a wide representation of people from the area onto a major committee, and then that was broken down into subcommittees in various areas not to overrule or override them but to assist them with what they had been doing.

They basically said: "If that is the case, how can we participate?" We said: "We hope that you will actively participate. We are not here putting another level of bureaucracy, as the NDP says. That's a fallacy." They said they would certainly like to be involved, so they came to the meeting. Guess what the steering committee is in our region? The steering committee is made up of each one of the mayors and the two regional district chairmen, and these are the people

[ Page 5099 ]

who advised me. These are the people who make the decisions about what study we fund, about what program we promote. These are the people that take the material from the subcommittees and put it into an action plan. That is hardly a replacement or a denigration of the democratic system. These people are involved because they have open minds. They are willing to listen.

What we were able to offer them under the minister of state operation was some extra assistance, some help from the line ministries to get information to them more quickly. We were able to get a technological system in place with computers and that sort of thing, so that they have access to that information in their municipal halls, and through our regional liaison officer who is at their disposal. They are finding it very effective and very useful to get this sort of information.

Believe me, they do not accept the second member for Victoria's version that this is another level of bureaucracy imposed on them to take away their authority and all of those things. That's a myth. I can certainly understand people objecting to this system if it's the NDP version of what it is, but that is the incorrect version. The people are being involved. It is using local government in the planning process.

It's easy enough for that member to find a few people in this province. If out of 100 people, 95 don't criticize but five do, he translates that into the public outcry that everybody's against it. I guess everybody is against the NDP version of this, but then it's not unrealistic for people to be against a myth. The only people that haven't come out in my region are the unions, and they have been invited and reinvited. Officially they won't come out, but we have several people from the unions that are on our committee and working hard in helping and deciding to do something about making recommendations for our area. Officially, they are not allowed to.

If you think about it, that Municipal Affairs critic, who is so vociferous about all of the things that we represent and don't represent, saying that we don't treat people correctly . . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: He was an alderman?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes. And I'll tell you something else. He was an alderman when I first became Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and we had planned a seniors project in the Songhees, which two consecutive councils had approved. He came to my office and said: "Don't go by the council. I want you to cancel this project, as I've got a few people who don't want it."

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, if the minister will check the record, I voted in favour of that project.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

[6:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member is absolutely correct. In council, he voted in favour of the project, then he came to my office and said: "I want you to stop it." I said: "You go back and get council to change its mind, and then I'll take some direction." Let's get the whole story out.

Then he's talking about the $14 million we've spent. Where does he get his information? He should took at the actual expenses.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Up to. But you see, he uses the information to suit himself. In my own region, we used only the money we needed to get our operation going. It was there if we needed it. The plan developed probably more slowly than we optimists would have liked, but I'll tell you something else: I would rather be an optimist and fall short than be a pessimist and be right.

I'm sorry I have digressed a bit, Mr. Chairman, but the point I was really trying to make was that what the second member for Victoria is describing as the regionalization operation is so far from the truth that it comes close to being a fairy tale. I am telling you that on our steering committee we have every mayor, every council and every regional district represented. They are participating, and they are making decisions and giving directions to the minister of state. They are getting their opinions and their views from the various subcommittees that are feeding in the information and are representing all the people in the area except those with the NDP philosophy who refuse to participate.

That member can laugh all he likes. Those are the facts. They are out there for the public to see, and we'll put it into print. We have gotten quite a bit done, and there's a lot in process for the future, but that member wouldn't understand it because he has a closed mind. All he can understand.... He never did solve the problem I gave him yesterday of how many bleeps make a beep.

MR. LOVICK: I'm delighted to be able to stand up and participate in this very rational, careful and well-modulated debate. I want to raise, under the Premier's estimates, the entire issue of the Premier's pet project and private initiative — privatization. I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to have a more serious discussion and to have some questions and answers on the floor of the chamber, simply because it seems to me that what we have had thus far and this evening is substantially rhetoric. We haven't had an opportunity to get down to specifics.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

We have argued on this side of the chamber from the beginning, ever since privatization was first mentioned in this province, that the onus must be on government to demonstrate the reasons and the grounds for launching this initiative. We still believe that that's the case; we still believe that that's a good principle for government to abide by. If the status quo is going to change, then it is the agent of change that must demonstrate the grounds for it. Sadly, however, we have not yet seen the grounds; we haven't seen the substance. We haven't seen the arguments to justify an initiative of this proportion. Instead, with all due deference to the Premier, we have rhetorical utterances that are declarations of faith.

For instance, a few moments ago, or about an hour ago now, when the Premier began by introducing his estimates and explained the two major initiatives — regionalization or decentralization, and privatization — the only gesture towards explanation was the claim that there is a need to change the way we do things. We have heard that many times, Mr.

[ Page 5100 ]

Chairman. The predicament is that by itself, that's simply a declaration. It's not a reason; it's simply a declaration. We are therefore still in search of the reasons for this initiative.

Instead we get statements of belief, such as the statement of principles document. I can quote that from memory, I am sure. All it says is that experience shows that service improves and costs fall when you transfer things from the public sector to the private. On more than half a dozen occasions, I have publicly asked for evidence to substantiate and support that claim. I'm not talking about the Reason Foundation or the Fraser Institute propaganda monographs; I'm talking about concrete evidence to demonstrate. Thus far, we haven't got any. It seems to me that it's irresponsible of government to pursue this initiative until they demonstrate those concrete arguments for it.

Instead of government providing justification, what we have is statements of faith. That, sadly, is the case. What we've had to do, because government hasn't provided us with that information, is look elsewhere for explanations. Thus I've spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the literature from Great Britain, reviewing the literature in terms of economics. The government isn't providing us with the information; therefore we have to go elsewhere. What we get there, of course, are classic, orthodox textbook explanations.

We have three standard arguments supposedly to justify privatization. The basic argument is that we will get increased efficiency through competition. Needless to say, that argument presumes we're going to have some kind of competitive model that will function and work for us. However, the reality is that when we deal with certain services, such as the privatization of highways maintenance operations, it is very difficult to recognize any possibility for any meaningful kind of competition there. We also are warned, from the British example — and somebody made reference to that from across the way a moment ago, Mr. Chairman . . . . Despite the fact that Thatcher's government began by touting the merits of competition and the free market, one of the first things that happened with British Airways is that it made so much money by getting a good deal that it eventually bought out its competition and became, in effect, a private monopoly, which, even in orthodox economic arguments, even in right-wing economic arguments, is considered to be the worst of all possible worlds.

So much then for the efficiency argument. The classic stuff we hear is about government being a drag on the economy. That's why we suddenly have to reduce the size of government. I haven't, as I say, heard that stated in so many words from this government, but all I can assume is that that's the kind of argument they are using to justify these initiatives. The predicament again, as everybody who looks at the problem will recognize, is that it's not the nature of government qua government that becomes a drag on the economy; rather, it's what kind of government spending we are talking about. From the folks who brought us northeast coal and Coquihalla overruns, it's rather difficult to see that argument as having a heck of a lot of validity.

The third argument — and this certainly was the case enunciated by people like the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) when we talked about the privatization of the labs — is that we will improve government's cash position and reduce our amount of debt outstanding because we will suddenly have assets. The problem with that argument is that it's a false economy. We're simply talking about rendering tangible physical assets into cash. It doesn't mean you've changed your asset position; all it means is that your assets take a different form.

The conclusion is that the economic justification for privatization — so-called — is at the very least suspect, if not downright wrong. It is questionable. What we conclude — and what, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must conclude — is that there is not really an economic argument there. Rather, we are talking about ideology masquerading as economics. I think that is indeed what we have. What we are looking at is neo-conservative ideology returned, neo-conservative economics coming back to us, and the agenda there, as we all know, is simply to reduce the scope and the size of government. There is nothing mysterious about that. There is also nothing very new about that. More to the point is to recognize that that view of government, that view of an economy and a society, is one that effectively flies in the face of our evolution as a society and as an economy. We got Crown corporations and big government precisely because of the limitations of a marketplace left to its own devices. That is the point I think we shouldn't forget, Mr. Chairman.

I want to be as gracious as I can in saying this: if this government had demonstrated to us that it had some longstanding demonstrated commitment to the public good rather than to private interests — if that were the track record of members on the opposite side — then we on this side would perhaps be less apprehensive. However, Mr. Premier, we must be apprehensive, given that there is a rather poor track record of privatization and neo-conservatism. We've had some experiences with those things. We have a couple of auditor-general's reports that say privatization initiatives in B.C. have not been unalloyed successes and have not enabled us to conclude that yes, indeed, there are cost savings and efficiencies to be had.

We also have the perception of the record of your government as anti-labour. Clearly, then, you have a large number of folks in the public sector wondering if what this really amounts to is simply an assault on labour and on public sector unions. That's part of the problem we have.

We also have a problem with your government's failure, Mr. Premier, to provide us with clear explanations and clear justifications beyond the rhetorical outpourings we've had thus far.

Finally, the reason we must be apprehensive about your privatization initiatives is that you have thus far refused — it seems to me, at least — to listen to the chorus of complaints and concerns. You know about them; I know about them. But I have not yet heard spokespersons from your government responding to those complaints and those concerns.

We recognize that there is a necessary place for the public sector. Sadly, we perceive that your government is committed to a kind of ideology that says we are going to effectively do away with the public sector. A la Madsen Pirie, we are talking about dismantling the state. Mr. Premier, you haven't yet given us any assurances to the contrary. Rather, what you have said — implicitly, if not explicitly — on more than one occasion is that nothing is sacred. "We are looking at everything. Nothing is not to be considered as a candidate for privatization."

Mr. Premier, it seems to me that in your quest for privatization, having bought the British model you are in danger of changing the fabric and shape of our society and our government. You have bought an alien ideology, and you are attempting to transplant it. If I can extend the gardening metaphor which you can relate to, I think you're trying to

[ Page 5101 ]

graft onto our stalk plants that don't really work in this climate and this environment. I think that's our predicament.

Mr. Premier, if you can provide us with some assurances that you have indeed demonstrated some case for it, shown us why we have the predicament we apparently do, told us what's wrong with our public sector as it's functioning and provided assurances to those individuals who are convinced that you have targeted them for negative kinds of actions, then perhaps we would be less apprehensive.

Mr. Premier, I will give you an opportunity to respond to that brief opening comment, and then I would like to present a few specific questions and give you an opportunity to respond to them.

[6:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the member knows the criteria for the privatization process. We have criteria that all of these privatization projects must meet in order to qualify. We have established the priorities, and I believe that that certainly in part covers many of the concerns that might have been expressed by people who are not familiar with the process.

Also, we have a good team, the privatization implementation committee, which looks at all these projects. They must recommend to cabinet, after some pretty intensive research, what the benefits are for privatization. These can best be identified by the team, with the help of accountants, once they determine whether there is an interest by employees or whether there might be private sector companies that have proposals which will not only give a return to the province for the asset or the program or the involvement, but also will possibly provide further economic activity. So there is a process for all that. That particular process will clearly establish the benefits.

You can't in advance say that all these benefits might apply to each and every privatization initiative. I think they've found that so in every place. As a matter of fact, I understand the Leader of the Opposition recently had dinner with a minister from New Zealand, where there's a socialist government which has started a number of privatization initiatives and done so successfully.

MR. GABELMANN: Corporatization.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Corporatization. It's not privatization, he says. You don't have to make apologies for the socialist government of New Zealand. I think they can probably speak for themselves. The minister came here to tell people about this.

I think we've also seen the example in Britain, where not so many years ago the economy was suffering miserably and Britain was being looked at as the poor cousin in the European common market. It was a place where people didn't want to invest and where there was little business growth. We've seen a complete turnaround in only a few years, and the privatization process that was introduced by Mrs. Thatcher and her government was obviously and is still being credited for being the reason for the turnaround, in large part. So it has worked in other places.

Let's look at the other. We see over the last many centuries the growth of government, particularly over the last number of decades. Governments are taking on new functions. That has been so throughout the world, and now we see governments, having realized that it's really a bit of a folly and they can't afford to keep all of these government enterprises, getting into privatization. I think the countries that best exemplified what it is you're looking at — more socialization, more government control or the maintenance of all things within government control; and we certainly recognize that they perhaps went to extremes in that — are Russia and China. Now they've gone the other way; they want to privatize and get out of those sorts of things. I think it's happening throughout the world. There is a recognition of this.

I can't understand why you fail to recognize that. What examples can you give me that government can really do a better job than the private sector? I've asked many people. I've met with business and other groups throughout the province, and I asked them: "Would you like to turn your business over to government?" The answer was no. Obviously, privatization is generally recognized by people as a very favourable approach.

We have a list of priorities

MR. SIHOTA: What about insurance?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm getting a great deal of interference from the minister of Esquimalt, who wants to be the leader of the NDP. He's got to wait his turn.

... and not all things are on this priority list.

MR. SIHOTA: Show some moxie. Answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, decorum would call for a little bit of restraint.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For example, the privatization of ambulance services is not on the list — never has been, but we've heard rumours from some suggesting it was. I think we have changed that.

MR. SIHOTA: So the public sector can do it better.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The suggestion from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is, I take it, that all things might be privatized. That has never been the proposal of government, but we will certainly be proceeding with those initiatives we've outlined. We're being successful at it, and it's being well received. If the member has examples of where government does better, I'd be pleased to hear from him.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I have tried to be dispassionate and quite careful not to engage in name-calling and all that sort of stuff, but for heaven's sake, it doesn't make any difference, because we continue to get these chippy comments from the Premier, suggesting what we socialists believe, or some such twaddle.

Let's put something on the record. When the Premier has the temerity to stand up and say to us that we must set aside dogma, and in the same breath has the gall to say that economic growth can only come from the private sector, surely to heaven everybody ought to recognize that is the most colossal irony in the world. That is a dogmatic statement. It has certainly got nothing to do with anybody's understanding of modem economics. Let's be serious.

Mr. Premier, I would just like to pose a couple of very specific questions, and I hope you will try and answer them in

[ Page 5102 ]

the same way. For instance, have you got any hard evidence, anything that you want to table for us, to demonstrate why you are doing this? Are you simply picking up on the declarations of faith of Madsen Pirie et al., or do you have some hard, documented evidence to show us why this will be good for us?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There are numerous examples in Britain, certainly. We know of examples in New Zealand and the United States, and we've had examples from Ottawa of successful privatization projects. We've also had some very successful examples right here in British Columbia. The privatization projects that we've had to date are relatively small but very successful.

MR. LOVICK: Anybody who thinks that privatization in Britain is an unalloyed success doesn't have any comprehension of what has happened in Britain in terms of there now being a two-tier society. We have a wealthy south and we have a Third World north; that's the reality of Britain now, as everybody who has been there recently has reported. That's part of the predicament — unemployment at outrageously high levels in the Midlands, for example. I'm also a little worried, Mr. Premier, when I hear you say that our examples come from these other jurisdictions, when you apparently don't even know what New Zealand's so-called privatization initiative amounts to. It certainly bears little resemblance to what you mean by privatization.

Another specific question. Yesterday in the chamber, Mr. Premier, I was asking questions of your colleague the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the minister apparently in charge of privatization programs. The question had to do with conflict of interest and was spawned by the fact that we had the new privatization review group established. I asked whether the government was looking at coming up with conflict-of-interest legislation to protect those private sector individuals who are taking on those jobs, as well as to protect the public interest.

Your record, Mr. Premier, in answers to our questions about conflict of interest, has essentially been to say that it's not a problem because people of good will won't get in trouble, etc. The evidence, however, would suggest something different. Your minister, however, suggested to us that there is indeed some consideration being given to drafting conflict-of-interest legislation, and I am wondering if the Premier will now tell us, given the unfolding of the privatization program, whether he is in fact committed to drafting conflict-of-interest legislation and bringing that to this House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The estimates don't provide for the drafting of new legislation, nor the discussion of it.

MR. LOVICK: Sadly, Mr. Chairman, it would seem that we are using procedural niceties to avoid a very serious question, one that's uppermost in the minds of many citizens in this province. If you want to provide me with some information later, that's good too.

What about the response from the Premier and other members of cabinet to that growing army of concern about privatization? Right now we are up to some 86 locally elected councils that have gone on record as opposing either highways privatization or privatization in general. Has there been any effort made by your government, Mr. Premier, to accommodate those concerns, to listen to what those people are saying, or are we simply saying that we know what's best for you and we'll carry on?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member asked me earlier about legislation and I responded to that, but I want the member to know that all members of the review team are required to sign the privatization standard-of-conduct policy acknowledging that they cannot participate in the bidding for or buying of any privatization initiative, nor use their special position to gain access to confidential information not needed in conducting the review. We've certainly recognized that, and these are, for the most part, loyal employees who have been around for a long time and do an excellent job. We are grateful for all the time they provide, many times beyond a normal day or normal working week. They contribute a great deal.

MR. LOVICK: That's absolutely correct, and we are all grateful to those people. Why, however, don't we save them the potential embarrassment of being accused of conflict of interest or being perceived to be potentially in conflict of interest by coming up with some clear rules of conduct? The description of the document you just gave us does not require a lot of imagination to recognize as one you could drive a rather good-sized truck through. What about family members? What about friends? There are all kinds of ways, it would seem to me, to beat that document you just outlined for us.

Another question, though.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: No, no, no. It has nothing to do with this silly argument about a poor opinion of people. We're talking about providing assurances to people that they are indeed being well served. That's the nature of law. That's what we use law for: to try and give those assurances. That's why we have written codes of conduct. We don't trust to the good will of people, and the minister ought to know better than to suggest that.

How about assurances, Mr. Premier, to the public sector workers of the province that the privatization program is not simply a campaign, a smokescreen, to deunionize this province? How about those kinds of assurances?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The union certification goes with the employees as they take on their new responsibilities or the same responsibilities in the private sector, so as a particular function or corporation is privatized, that certification goes with the employees. And they recognize that. They don't need to be told this again. They are aware of that, and the member should be also.

As for his suggestion that all people be subjected to stringent rules when they work within government or within this process, I suppose there will always be those who might accuse anyone of conflict-of-interest charges. There are those with suspicious minds who think everybody is out there getting something for themselves, and therefore, as you suggest, they could maybe go home and talk to family members. Or who knows? They might even have friends — heaven forbid — and therefore they ought to be disqualified

[ Page 5103 ]

somehow, or they should be subjected to very stringent rules in case they have friends.

[6:30]

You can't govern everybody to death, or you can't say that because people work in government, they must be like robots and controlled in every which way. We're not that type of people, at least not the people on this side of the House. We don't rule that way.

MR. LOVICK: I get the distinct impression, when I hear the Premier's answer, that we're living in different societies. How you can make that kind of puffery answer to suggestions of conflict of interest, given what's happened in this province in the last month, beggars the imagination. Have you forgotten what's happened to your friend Peter Toigo? Have you forgotten what's happened to his reputation because he wasn't protected by serious and straightforward conflict-of interest legislation? The poor guy has been left hanging out to dry. If he's innocent, it won't matter in terms of public perception. He could have been protected if we'd had some decent legislation in place; instead, you decide to leave it to the anarchy of morality or some such thing. I don't understand that, Mr. Premier. I can't understand how you can give that answer, given what's happened in this province in the last month or so.

One more question. Will the Premier please explain to me whether he was serious when he answered the question earlier about savings to the taxpayers through labour contractors who make a very good sum of money by giving workers a lot less money than they hitherto earned, and by government opting out of its responsibility to train and pay workers certain benefits by contract? If that's too obtuse for the Premier, what I'm referring to specifically is the use of the Kelly Girls in performing work previously performed by government workers. Is the question clear enough, or shall I repeat it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your imagination is working overtime.

MR. LOVICK: No, there's nothing imagined.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It wasn't very clear at the outset, but you've clarified it. Thank you very much.

From time to time all businesses certainly have to have available to them a place or some group that they can call upon to get assistance when there may be additional pressures. That changes from time to time. I'm sure we find it in all of our offices: one day you get a thousand letters and suddenly the next day, because of something else, you get 3,000 letters, and that could keep up for a week. Given that sort of circumstance, you don't just run out and bring in a whole new bureaucracy or add automatically to the whole bureaucracy, knowing that this sort of thing is of a temporary nature; you bring in this help. You don't leave the mail stacked about in boxes. You bring in this help as quickly as you can. So some short-term support staff may be required from time to time, and if they are hired for a limited number of days — for, say, less than 30 or 60 days — I think that's a very responsible approach, and one that I'm sure the taxpayers would be very supportive of.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, nobody would argue for a moment that we need to ensure that the work goes on, and that that may sometimes require temporary help. The issue, however, is low wages, no benefits and part-time work for people who really ought to have full-time work. The issue amounts to the exploitation of labour, preeminently women, because that's what's going on in the new Kelly Girl phenomenon. If the Premier wants to try and sidestep that issue by saying that we've got to deal with the problem of piles of mail that aren't otherwise going to be attended to . . . . It seems to me, frankly, that that is despicable, Mr. Chairman, because it ignores what the question is finally about.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, the member should really do a little more research on that, because he'll find that these are extremely qualified people. They have many options available to them. They have chosen their employer; they're not enslaved in any way. They have chosen their employer; they have chosen the conditions provided them, They obviously prefer it this way. They are very qualified, good people who provide a good service to government.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, to carry on with our discussions about the ill-advised and ill-thought-out privatization scheme before us, I recall the Premier saying that nothing was sacred, whether it's our hospitals, our health care or ICBC. Ordinary British Columbians feel that those are sacred and must be preserved. Instead of listening to those ordinary British Columbians, the Premier is listening to the big insurance companies, who want to get ICBC back. He's listening to the U.S. managers of hospitals and health care. He's not listening to the hundred municipal councils throughout this province that have said they don't want the Highways maintenance function privatized. As a matter of fact, he's not even listening to his own members. For example, the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) said that the Highways maintenance privatization is going to cost the Social Credit Party 15 seats in the north and the interior — not in Vancouver or Victoria, but in the north and the interior.

AN HON. MEMBER: One down.

MR. HARCOURT: That's one down and another 14 to go.

When we asked the Premier to present evidence of the benefits that British Columbians would get from privatization, he could present none. He ignored our request for a fair and independent tribunal to review the privatization scheme. What he finally did was appoint a review group made up of wealthy businessmen and bureaucrats, led by a real estate magnate.

We still have a number of questions for the Premier, and we hope that he listens. I'd like in particular to ask the Premier what happened to the ordinary men and women in this province. Why aren't they represented on that review group? The people of Boundary-Similkameen, for example, sent a message to the Premier that they don't want the Highways maintenance function privatized. They don't want the tests on their food privatized. Mr. Premier, are you prepared to have the ordinary men and women of this province represented, not just big business and bureaucrats?

Interjection.

[ Page 5104 ]

MR. HARCOURT: No, that's a question. I want an answer to the question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have by far the majority of members in the House, so I suppose we represent the majority of ordinary British Columbians. As representatives of ordinary British Columbians throughout the province, we take our role very seriously. We meet and discuss these things with constituents. Certainly we have a good reading for what we are doing, and we're acting in the public interest.

The review group that the Leader of the Opposition was referring to, for his information — although he should know this — is made up of three senior deputies and two private members. That is the group that reviews it after all the detailed information becomes available.

MR. HARCOURT: Yes or no?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer to your question about ordinary citizens being represented: I believe that by far the majority of these citizens are represented by the Social Credit members in this House.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to commence a line of questioning to the Premier, and hopefully the Chair will bear with me; its relevance will become apparent as I go through this.

Could the Premier tell this House which firm he employed for his advertising during the course of his bid for leadership of the Social Credit Party?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, this I don't know. I don't have this information. This was left to a group that was organizing the campaign for me, and they were a tremendous group. They did a super job during the leadership campaign; they did a super job during the election campaign, as you all can attest to, especially the NDP, which was demolished — or nearly — in the process. I think you can all agree that this particular group did an excellent job, but I left it to them for that reason. Having said all that, where do you find this in the Premier's vote?

MR. SIHOTA: The reasoning for my questions will become apparent in a few minutes.

Could the Premier advise the House whether a company by the name of Johnston Associates rings a bell?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not recall the name of the company, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the Premier tell the House whether he is aware of who attended to payment of the account with any of the advertising firms that he contracted with during his leadership bid?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what all of this has to do with the estimates, but I can assure the member that there is a rule with members on this side of the House, and it's one I follow: all of the funding and the financing for any campaigns is for the campaign committee. Unlike perhaps yourself, Mr. Member, I don't become involved with that personally. If you are seeking personal donations or union donations or company donations in your constituency, and you are aware of that, and for that reason you think everyone on this side of the House acts likewise, then I'm sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for being that involved in the moneys available to you in your campaign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, the Chair also finds a great deal of difficulty in finding the relevance of the line of questioning which seems to be coming from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew in the 1988-89 estimates insofar as they relate to the office of the Premier. So perhaps the member, in his line of questioning, could bring some more relevance to the debate.

MR. SIHOTA: In the fullness of time — and there isn't that much left — I think it will become apparent. I prefaced my comments by pointing out that it would not be apparent at the outset.

Let me say to the Premier in response to what he had to say that I'm quite prepared to make very public who donated to my campaign, and I would hope that the government would introduce legislation like we have at the federal level so that that information is made public. Nonetheless, I want to ask the Premier this question: could the Premier tell this House what, if any, financial relationships, corporate or personal, exist between him and Mr. Ilich, personal or corporate?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've had people come to me to say that the member from Esquimalt meets people in his law office and says: "If you want something done through government, you give me the law business." But I don't go and make a case out of this and say that obviously there's something. I've had people come to me and say he was involved in a bankruptcy with his family and that in the process they ripped off all sorts of people. I don't go and raise this and say there must be something here, that there's crooked business going on. I don't think that's a line to be pursued in my estimates or anyone's estimates. I don't believe that's proper or appropriate for this House. Do I go after that particular member because these people come to me with that sort of suggestion and innuendo?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, Premier. The Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order.

MR. HARCOURT: I think that those remarks were not meant as a question or a throwaway at all. I object to the tone of those questions about the integrity of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, and I would ask the Premier to withdraw those remarks.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: It's a question. He was making statements that were said to him; the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was asking a question. The Premier was making statements, and they should be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Leader of the Opposition, I think it would be appropriate at this particular time in this debate for all members to be reminded that personal comments are certainly not acceptable. Relevancy is a requirement that we must have, and I would suggest that the line of questioning that is coming out of the member for Esquimalt–

[ Page 5105 ]

Port Renfrew to this particular point . . . . Although he prefaced his remarks by saying that he would arrive at relevance, I think we're going to have to achieve relevance now, or we will have to ask the members involved to resume their seats.

[6:45]

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to say to the Premier that I have a rule of thumb. It goes a little bit like this: I won't make a statement in this House that I can't make outside the House. I think that's the way one ought to operate, and not try to utilize the privileges that come from this House for technical reasons. That's the way I've operated, and I trust that that's the way the Premier likes to operate, and I encourage him to make those comments outside the House.

My next question to the Premier is this: could the Premier answer my question with respect to the matter of any financial relationships that he may or may not, personal or corporate, enjoy with Mr. Ilich, personal or corporate. I've asked him questions like this in relation to Mr. Toigo in the past, and we're one step removed, I think — depending on the Premier's answer — from bringing this home in terms of the estimates. So that is the question to the Premier, and is he prepared now to answer this question which I have now put to him again?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't make innuendo in or outside of the House either. I simply can't do that. But the member started to make all sorts of innuendo under the estimates, and I don't know where there's anything about elections or any such thing in these estimates. I say again however, that I could list a whole lot of innuendo and rumours, if he wants to start that, about the store in Quesnel. I've got some information about the store in Prince George. All of these things. Do I want to make an issue out of that? No. I don't want to mention it again.

MR. SIHOTA: You just did.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm just following up on the line of stuff that's obviously coming out of the member for Esquimalt.

Mr. Chairman, I have no financial connections with Mr. Illich, but I won't answer any more such questions, because that's definitely not part of these estimates.

MR. SIHOTA: When the Premier said no, did he mean both personal and corporate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must again bring to the attention of hon. members that we are here this evening to deal with vote 4, which refers to the amounts of money that are required to discharge the expenses of the office of the Premier. The questions coming forward to the Chair at this particular point in time do not seem germane to this particular vote. So unless the hon. member has other questions that fall into the category of being germane to the vote, I can't accept the questions any further, and the member will have to take his seat.

MR. SIHOTA: I will leave it at that, then, for the time being, and maybe utilize another opportunity to pursue this, as the Premier is not prepared to answer during what he described himself as "a free-wheeling debate on matters that relate to his office." I think my learned friend the first member for Vancouver East has a comment to make, so I'll defer to him.

MR. WILLIAMS: I see that there is a release today regarding the Expo rides, and that they have been sold for $3.2 million. Mr. Pattison indicated that at the end of Expo there was an offer of $7 million for the rides. It's abundantly clear that this would have been proceeded with at an earlier stage, but there was interference through the Premier's office with respect to that equipment. In fact, we've lost $3.5 million-plus on those rides. It's also clear that Mr. Toigo wanted to use that equipment for some festival park proposal on the Expo lands.

It seems clear that there has been a loss here of about $3.5 million, and there was interference in the sale of the equipment, and we're now the losers. Can the Premier justify not having let the thing go in the first place, so that we would have had a decent price for the equipment?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sure that everyone in the House is now reminded of the questioning with respect to the Westwood lands where the same member was suggesting people were ripping off government for $50,000 a lot. But he forgot to calculate in a whole lot of other things. In fact, there was little or no profit at the end of it — or certainly not an undeserved profit. Again, it's a situation of providing just a little bit of information, creating a wrong impression and asking the question. I'll try to clarify it for the member, if he'll accept the information that I'm prepared to provide him, which hopefully will satisfy him.

There was an estimate of the value of the rides. We've never seen an offer. Certainly I have never seen an offer, nor has the government seen an offer for $7 million. There were estimates done at the end of Expo; however, the sale that was concluded today was for the last of the rides. If you recall, much of the monorail and other things were sold earlier on. When you add it all together — I don't know — it may not come too far from what the estimate was.

I will say, however, that the last of the rides that were sold now achieved about the same amount of money. As a matter of fact, I think it's identical to the amount which we had been offered once previously — I believe it was in August or September of last year — but with a number of conditions. They've now been sold without all of those conditions. We did try to keep the rides in B.C. We wanted to see if we could keep the rides in B. C., and I think we gave it a good try to see if a theme park could be established here which would use the rides. We didn't succeed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just made the point that the original complaint came from a longtime supporter of the Social Credit Party, Jimmy Pattison. He's the one who came up with the $7 million number. He says that it was real, as far as he was concerned.

I'll just pick up on the Westwood issue. I don't think you were here when the minister tried to explain that one away. But the minister on no occasion in this House provided us with any information whatsoever of competitive bidding in that regard. She was never able to deliver. I hope you keep that in mind with respect to the cabinet shuffle, and there will be other matters you keep in mind when you consider this shuffle down the road.

[ Page 5106 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There's been some discussion in the last few minutes on the sale of the Expo rides. The first member for Vancouver East is referring to a figure of $7 million. One of the things the member should remember is that that figure was quoted in the newspaper as an amount of money that was thought to be the value at the end of Expo of all the Expo rides and the monorail. At the time Expo closed, there was a proposal call, and there were no tenders for those rides. If the suggestion was that they were worth $7 million at that time, no one thought they were worth that, because they weren't bid on. That was in 1986.

After 1986 and after the responsibility for the devolution of Expo was given to the Ministry of Economic Development in late 1986.... There was a sale just prior to that of seven cars of the monorail for $2.1 million, which would have been included in the $7 million commentary — monorail and rides. So in late '86 part of the monorail was sold for $2.1 million. After that time we put the rides partially up for sale, and $3.2 million accrued from the sale, which closed on May 31 of this year. That brings it up to $5.2 million. But again, in that figure of 1986, which was quoted as being $7 million, there was about $1 million in generators, light panels and other things. These were distributed throughout the government, and the government would have had to pay for them if they were not distributed. That is noted in the press release, which says that turning this over to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways resulted in savings of more than $1 million to government — which would then bring the figure up to $6.2 million.

In addition to that there were other things in that $7 million figure quoted by Mr. Pattison: the Xerox Theatre, the computers and the lights, which, as I say, were not accounted for in that amount. It also included $1 million to move the rides if they were sold. This sale is done as is, where is, and is worth about $1 million in terms of moving.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you sending Jimmy a letter?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm not disputing Mr. Pattison's figure; I'm saying we've come very close to the figure that Mr. Pattison quoted in the paper a month or so ago.

In case some of the remarks of the first member for Vancouver East happen to get in Hansard — some of his off-to-the-side comments — I want to say that no one could have looked after, evaluated or reflected on Expo any better than Jimmy Pattison. We're very proud of what Mr. Pattison did for the people of British Columbia and for this government. I do not dispute Mr. Pattison's figure. I'm saying that we got very close to that figure, and we're very pleased that we were able to get that amount.

In the next few weeks there are a few things that will still go to tender. They don't amount to a lot of money, but they will accrue just a little bit more than that. The figure we reached of more than $6.2 million is very good value for what we have for sale, and the moneys to move it are going to be undertaken by those who have tendered for and been awarded the Expo assets.

MR. HARCOURT: I understand that the Premier has another commitment at 7 o'clock. We would be prepared to carry on with this estimate tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in order to deal with the Premier's schedule. As a courtesy to the Premier I'm giving him the opportunity to . . . .

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you want to carry on, carry on.

MR. HARCOURT: Fine.

I would like to deal with a matter that is very important to the people of British Columbia, and that's the question of conflict of interest. I have a quote from the Premier from September 10, 1986, from the Vancouver Sun — his favourite newspaper: "In an interview Tuesday, the Premier said he was sure people who helped with his campaign fully understand they cannot seek favours from him. 'I would never give favour. That is clear and understood from the start."'

Mr. Chairman, I think it's very clear that British Columbians must be able to trust public leaders. There have been too many examples of abuse of public office in this country. We just have to look back at the last federal election, when the Liberal Party was punished by the voters very severely for the arrangements that were made between the then Prime Minister and the new leader of the Liberal Party to pay off a significant number of Liberal MPs and other party supporters. Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister who said that was terrible and he was going to do something about it, but his cabinet has had a terrible track record in this whole area of not being able to separate public office from personal gain.

[7:00]

I think we have had a similar problem in this province over the last year, and this was why, a year or so ago, I brought the question of proper conflict-of-interest legislation to the Premier. I brought it up because it is important that there be proper legislation, that there be an independent arbiter. We have only to look at the problems that the ex-Minister of Highways from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) has had since then, the Peter Toigo affair and the problems around Terra Nova. We think it's important that the Premier address again the issue of proper conflict-of-interest guidelines. These guidelines exist in his office. They are interpreted by him, and we don't think that's good enough. We don't think these guidelines should be interpreted by the Premier.

I would like to ask the Premier two questions. First, is the Premier at all concerned about the public's growing distrust of the ability of his government to be open and honest and to have proper guidelines? Secondly, when will British Columbians finally see conflict-of-interest laws to protect them from politicians who abuse their public position? On top of that, when will be there be an independent referee to make those decisions, rather than the Premier himself?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would like to quote from "Relevancy in Committee of Supply": "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be discussed in Supply on a substantive motion." I interpreted your question as asking for legislative direction.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Premier about what we think is the inadequacy of the present guidelines, given the sad history of the last year. The guidelines have not worked. I'm asking the Premier about the guidelines that are in his office and that he interprets. It's not legislation; they are simply guidelines.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That part of your question is recognized.

[ Page 5107 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with the guidelines. As a matter of fact, we've used the guidelines several times with respect to individual members determining what they ought to do, given a particular circumstance. It's worked out very well.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, we have some other questions and comments we'd like to put to the Premier tomorrow morning. There are some members of our caucus who will be available at that time.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 67: minister's office, $280,361.

MR. LOVICK: As the minister knows, by previous arrangement I intend to focus primarily on the matter of privatization of highways maintenance for the major part of our discussion tonight, and then deal with much more riding or constituency or area-specific problems in the latter part of the evening.

Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the minister and I can simply make an arrangement I'm sure there won't be any problem with — namely, that I intend to finish my part of the highways estimates debate this evening, but there will still remain outstanding some discussion of the First Citizens' Fund and the ministry of state accounts and those votes. I am wondering then if we can simply end this and then hold over the vote until another time so that other people can be involved in that debate. Is that agreeable to the minister?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I would be hardly one to set rules for the committee. I would think that under the normal proceedings, the Chairman gets to conduct the affairs of this committee. When you are finished these particular matters, you may move that the committee rise and report progress. I would think that is the appropriate motion to make at the time. This being the third or fourth interruption of my estimates . . . . It makes my job a little easier if there is some consistency to it, but that's fine. I can proceed.

I did get a question yesterday from the first member for Vancouver Centre. I've got an answer for him. The technical specifications that are suggested are agreed between the Canadian Medical Association, and on a national basis the organizations interpret the rules for operation of vehicles by people with physical impairments, so it is not a local deal or a deal made by the superintendent but rather on a national scale. Nonetheless, there's a satisfactory resolution of the situation he brought forward.

MR. LOVICK: I want to begin by just trying to tie together a few very loose ends, matters that I neglected to talk about under the Coquihalla. One of the things that I have had some considerable correspondence about concerns phase 2 of the Coquihalla. Why that particular route? Indeed, some people have argued the case that that was the wrong route and the main reason they have argued that of course is because of the high ground, and they wonder then about the impact in terms of fuel consumption and also the strain and stress on vehicles. As I say, there is a considerable amount of opinion being presented that suggests that that was simply the wrong route and that there were never — so the argument goes — any good and substantial reasons to support that particular selection. Needless to say, there are also questions kicking around concerning whether that route might indeed have been chosen for reasons that didn't have much to do with engineering but rather concerned where people live, etc. — the usual kind of rumour that I know attends any major highway construction project.

I also understand — just to give this a little more point and specificity, Mr. Minister — that the Canadian Pacific Railway is now talking about spending a very large sum of money to do something about levelling the grade through Rogers Pass simply because their conclusion, I understand, is that that grade results in an increased fuel consumption that is simply not acceptable to them. Therefore their primary reason for investing considerable money is to do away with the fact of the line having been constructed over that high ground, and we are talking about them redesigning accordingly. If that's the case, and it seems to be state-of-the-art engineering wisdom that what we must do is try to avoid at all costs that high climb and high grade, what then do we say about phase 2 — Merritt to Kamloops? I'm wondering then if the minister might like to simply offer some brief comments in response to those concerns.

HON. MR. ROGERS: For the benefit of my staff who are listening, we will do the native affairs business tomorrow or at some future time, so those people can now do something constructive with the evening.

Coquihalla 2 obviously predates the time for myself and my deputy in terms of design. I do have a recollection, though, of some of the matters coming before the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet and the concern of the agricultural community as to the disruption that this particular highway would cause if it had taken the existing route, which is along the side of . . . . I'm going to miss the name of the lake; the Chairman will help me with it. Anyway, it's up through Quilchena and it had to cross that particular range. The fact that we stayed out of private land and stayed largely in Crown land was, I believe, of benefit. The comparison between the rail line and the highway system . . . . In the rail line the problem is a percentage of grade, and I believe the maximum steel-to-steel grade that you can have is 2 percent and above that it becomes a real problem, whereas in an automobile those kinds of grades aren't germane. In fact, I think 10 percent is considered the norm for the maximum automotive grade, although we try to keep it at 8 percent. The difference between 2 percent and 8 percent is not 6 percent; it's a very large quantum. But other than that, if

[ Page 5108 ]

there's some sort of skullduggery or some choice of route that was based on something, I've never heard of it.

In any event, that decision was made before my time. Not to say that I wouldn't try and answer the question if I could get the information for you, but that's the best information I have for you now.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that answer. I will make available the transcript of this debate, and if those individuals still want to pursue it, then I can perhaps write the minister a letter.

Another quick question. I think we've canvassed the Okanagan connector ad nauseam, so I won't touch that again. The question I would like to pose concerns the quality of work done and the attendant costs as a result of that. Again we're dealing with the realm of allegations more than anything else, rather than much substantive, but I think those concerns, those perceptions, ought to be addressed.

I noted, for example, that on October 29, 1987, there was some expression of concern about whether the rush to complete Coquihalla had resulted in substandard work, which in turn resulted in a need for a much-inflated repair bill. At that time, ministry officials dictated that the figures weren't at all out of line. I can indeed quote. I recognize that this is again prior to your taking over, Mr. Minister, but . . . .

The Merritt highway district manager referred to the necessary repairs as a minor item — "No big deal," in his words. Unfortunately again, I have a number of bits of correspondence, including some pictures, photographs and so forth, from engineers arguing the case that in terms of that stretch of road, we are looking at a job that however good it may look on the surface, for the short term, it will require a considerable amount of new work, repair and maintenance work that will have to occur sooner rather than later, simply because of the haste of the construction. I'm wondering if the minister can give me any specific information on whether the cost of repair for Coquihalla phases 1 and 2 represents an aberration or a departure from the normal repair costs on highway construction projects. Is it different? Is it costing us more?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, we have no information substantiating the fact that remedial work required on this particular highway is any different from any other. The allegations you brought up were discussed by the commissioner, and presumably, if there's some major underlying engineering fault that has been missed by everyone, it will show up. But quite frankly, the work we have had to do so far in normal patching and repair is not inconsistent with similar projects built elsewhere.

MR. LOVICK: Again I thank the minister for that answer. I will also go on record again as saying that I will forward to the minister some information that he may want to have a look at and respond to.

[7:15]

The third question, a holdover from before, has to do with a presentation made to the MacKay commission and some correspondence that followed therefrom which finally went to the minister. I'm referring to the work done by the Planning Institute of B.C. and — if I have my name correct — Mr. Bill Blakely, a planner resident in Vancouver who made a presentation to MacKay and subsequently wrote to the minister. The minister certainly acknowledged Mr. Blakely's submission. Following from what MacKay had recommended, he was suggesting the need for some kind of arm's-length committee, a body that would adjudicate highway projects and such, and that would be entirely removed from the political process.

The minister will probably recall the correspondence now. Blakely recommended the Washington State highways commission model. I have some correspondence from the minister to Blakely on that subject. I'm wondering if the minister would be good enough to explain the ministry's conclusion regarding that Washington State model. Is it simply impracticable? Does it not work? Is it an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy or whatever? I'm wondering if the minister would care to respond to that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Following more along the recommendations of Mr. MacKay as opposed to trying to plagiarize what's done in Washington state, I've appointed an executive director of major projects and correspondingly arranged for an outside audit of the work that is done.

In the past, sometimes our ministry supervisory staff of engineering, who are observing or monitoring the work being done by a contractor, tend to get a little too close to the contract and give a little too much advice. Of course, the minute you start giving advice and making suggestions on how the job will go a little easier, you're implicated when there are problems. We've had to make our staff clearly understand that they are there in an inspection role.

I am broadening a little bit on your question, but there has been that problem not just on the Coquihalla but on other projects as well. The number of people we had on the project — and the talent that they had, quite frankly — was enough so that the contractor would use that talent. Of course, once you start taking that opinion, then we become co-opted as part of the problem. That's not a fair system, so we have tried to define and delineate that much more clearly.

The suggestion that we go to outside people, as that was put forward, I think merits some further examination. Until we come up with a global plan, there is hardly any point in discussing with somebody else what our projects are, when we can't give a longer-term projection than that. I'm just going to read you a little observation about recommendation 5, that the ministry has reviewed its project management practices and already made a number of changes.

These include the establishment of an independent project manager for major highway projects, the reorganization of the ministry executive to more effectively evaluate and manage the project and a better information and administration system. The Treasury Board has asked that all ministries review their project management practices for major capital projects. The Treasury Board staff have already commenced the review of such practices in four ministries. Clearly, I think when the next difficulty arises with public spending, it probably won't be in this ministry, as we've become rather careful about how we do these things. I must say it probably was overdue in the ministry, and the Coquihalla project probably only brought the matter to a head.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that answer. What I am going to do, Mr. Minister, is give my colleague for Vancouver Centre an opportunity to pick up the matter that you raised a few moments ago, before I start with the substance of my next matter.

[ Page 5109 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps I could clarify the matter for the sake of the member; I've talked to the superintendent about that particular case. There is a set of standards between the Canadian Medical Association and the superintendents of motor vehicles across Canada. We have a national standard. This isn't a discriminatory thing set down by each province differently. Nonetheless, that particular case . . . . We have already got to the point of issuing them. I believe it's a learner's permit or the initial permit, and I see no reason why it shouldn't proceed.

Very clearly, the people in charge of enforcing these regulations have wisely, I think, sought the opinion of people in the medical community who can give a much more expert opinion on someone's ability to perform than someone who is regularly involved in the licensing of people who operate automobiles. I think that answer should be satisfactory to you.

MR. BARNES: It is a beginning of a satisfactory answer, but when you reflect on the ability of the superintendent of motor vehicles to deal with the applicants on a one-on-one basis, I wonder if this means that applicants will have to demonstrate by some kind of public challenge to the superintendent before they can get attention for the right to be tested to drive if they are deaf. This is since 1985, when Blaine Newman first attempted to get the right to be tested. If it's on a one-on-one basis, what is the procedure? How does a person get the leverage required if the policy is going to be determined on a one-on-one basis?

I am pleased that he is getting his opportunity, but it certainly doesn't seem to me the issue is over. There is a great deal to be done as far as a public policy on this thing is concerned. I can leave it at that. Maybe you're not in a position to shed much more light on the situation than that, but there is no assurance the matter is settled. The policy still seems to me to be a little vague.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In the case of the particular gentleman you mentioned, the matter is very clearly now in his court. He can go ahead and apply, and I don't think there will be great difficulty. We also have across the country, and even with the United States, these agreements about what our standard of licensing is. In the case of all people, we expect drivers who visit from other jurisdictions to have met some certain minimum standards. We don't alter the standards in British Columbia because of pressure, or for any other reason, without considering the fact that our licence is.... I won't say it's transferable, but you can certainly operate a vehicle in another jurisdiction with our licence without anybody questioning it. That's why there has been a national look at standards.

I suggest that as the rights of the handicapped — or physically challenged people, I think they're called; they like to be called that now — nationally and in fact internationally become more of an issue, the whole national standard will change. That's probably the way you would like to see it go and I think the way I'd like to see it go. But I think we have to defer to the people who are experts in the medical community in terms of saying to us, "You might be solving a political problem, but we recommend medically," for whatever reasons. I defer to their judgment on these issues, and on others as well.

MR. LOVICK: I want to turn now to the entire large subject of privatization; more specifically, the issue of the privatization of the Highways maintenance function. I'll give a little praise to the minister here and start by saying I find it interesting and commendable that he alone, in terms of all members on the other side of the House, has presented what I take to be some kind of substantive arguments to support the case. It doesn't mean I agree, it doesn't mean I'm persuaded by the arguments, but at least we can have some kind of debate. We can talk, I think, about important issues of public policy and about arguments for and against the policy that the minister is enunciating. The problem is that in most other areas of this government there has not been that kind of effort. There has not been what I would call a sincere, honest and open effort to document a case presenting some reasons for the initiative.

As I say, the closest we have come is in the area of Highways maintenance, which, false modesty aside, began with a statement that I presented in the Legislature on November 27. To his credit, the minister responded that day on the floor and as well provided me with a written answer to the specific points in my statement. Even though some parts of this are already in the record, I think all of us would profit from a restatement of some of the arguments on both sides. I want to take a little time to establish for the record the case against what was presented, the counterargument by the ministry, a very brief response, and then an invitation to the minister to respond if he wants to. I hasten to point out that I am not proposing to make this into two hours of covering old ground, but for the record I think it's important that we establish these things.

I offered ten specific arguments against Highways maintenance privatization. The first was simply that there is a conflict of interest between the contractors' private interest and the public interest. The minister's answer in response was that the marketplace — competition — would solve that problem. In other words, the contractor would not be able to maximize his or her returns at public expense, because if that were going on, somebody operating at a profit closer to the margin would enter the field, and the marketplace would therefore save us. In short, free enterprise would do what it's supposed to do, according to the textbooks.

Fair enough; a perfectly legitimate argument. The question I would pose, though, is whether, given what we envision for Highways privatization — the 28 particular areas — we can by any stretch of the imagination argue with confidence that there will be some kind of competition, that there will be ease of entry to competitors, We are, after all, talking about fairly major players, it seems to me. You're talking about a large number of assets. You're talking about fairly significant numbers of staff people. We're talking also about large numbers of employees being requisite. If a particular contractor is not performing the service adequately and at some kind of reasonable marginal cost above the cost of production, to use a little economic jargon, what likelihood is there that somebody else will come rushing in to take away that contract?

That would be the first question — the argument I would pose against the notion that the marketplace will save us. Would the minister care to respond to that?

[7:30]

[ Page 5110 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: The process has been very clearly and publicly stated in many cases. I guess I'm going to repeat it a little bit now.

Where a particular section of a highways district is put up for tender, where the employees . . . . We can take two instances, one where the employees have taken the option of forming an association to bid on it and one where they have not taken that option. In either case it's the same thing.

Where the employees are involved, for the average employee to do it, bank financing was something they didn't appear to have a great deal of difficulty arranging on a per employee basis — of the groups that I spoke to. That may not always have been the case, but it was certainly the case in some of the ones that I spoke to. In other cases, you're going to have people who are contractors who will bid on doing a particular job for a particular period of time. Like any contractor who, having successfully bid on a piece of work . . . . There is a finite day to it. When that work comes up for tender again, that contractor has some advantage in the fact that he has been the operator and the operator of record has some knowledge of what goes on. That's the case in almost any business. As is often the case in the private sector, someone will lowball them or come in with a cheaper bid on the next go-around and either do the job a little more efficiently or subsequently find out that they have underbid and fail to perform.

What we're interested in, though, is the quality of performance and the measure of performance. There are very detailed documents, copies of which I have made available to you, which point out the rather stringent regulations which we have. In fact, they're probably stricter regulations than we are able to enforce upon people when they work within the ministry. Nonetheless, we expect these things to be strictly adhered to, and that will be up to the staff within the ministry who will supervise it.

I'm sure the public, including members of the Legislature and anyone else who feels that the work is not being done to the standard that it was, will be very quick to point that out. We anticipate instant criticism the minute we have difficulties. We've had it, mind you, in the past when the whole matter was run by the ministry.

I expect that some of the contractors will not administer their contract areas as well as others do. We expect some of the people may have financial difficulties and go into default, and we have made arrangements in the event that that happens, to ensure that the public is well served. I think this is just the normal course of business events.

In all of the Crown corporations that I have been involved in there's always very spirited bidding on anything that's put out to tender. Sometimes one would guess that they wanted to maintain themselves on the bidders' list but didn't think too carefully about their project, as their number may be quite a lot higher, but in almost every case there are two or three bids that are close to the actual going price for it. I think that's a healthy and competitive thing to do.

Clearly the employee groups will have an advantage because they have some ideas of cost centres that the regular general contractor doesn't have. On the other hand, the general contractors will have the advantage of some overhead consolidation that they'll be able to do with their other equipment. Since the economy now seems to be in a pretty buoyant mood and most people have equipment and most of the iron is moving and we're seeing some pretty good activity out there, there are some really good economies to be made.

We'll just have to see how it goes. I don't anticipate a great deal of difficulty. In fact, I think it will be a smoother operation than we've had in the past.

MR. LOVICK: I smile as I say this: I'm wondering if the minister intends to have as lengthy a response to each of the ten points. This could be interesting — fascinating.

I'm pleased to note that the minister does indeed recognize that there is always a problem with contracting out or with getting contracts, namely that those who have the contract have a tremendous advantage over those others who want to get in. The pattern is quite well known and commonplace — except for those who do come in, as you say, as a lowball contractor who comes in and drastically underbids, and the pattern is that he can't do the job in any event.

The minister made reference to the detailed documents. Yes, I intend to look at those detailed documents and pose some questions about them. I thank the minister, by the way, for making those available to me.

The second point, though, and rather quickly to touch on these, pre-eminently for the record . . . . One of the arguments that was presented — it was one that I also presented in the Legislature — by people with expertise, those with some experience in the ministry, deputy ministers and others of that ilk, was the difficulty one had with quantifying the amount of work required in maintenance, primarily thinking, I guess, in terms of emergency services. The minister's response to that query was to say that it's a really routine practice; people as a matter of course make bids on highway maintenance and other kinds of things, and they have no difficulty doing it.

I would just point out, though, that preparing a budget within a huge ministry such as Highways, and then saying that, yes, all the various bits and pieces and chunks of Highways can somehow do what they do, fitting into that budget, is quite different from a particular contractor bidding with any certainty on a maintenance contract. It seems to me that the comparison is, quite frankly, false; that there is a scale of operation in a Highways department, in a ministry, that is very different from the scale of operation that will be found in one out of 28 highway maintenance regions in the province. So I don't think that argument is as strong as the minister would have us believe.

I see that he is occupied, so I'll list a few of these at a time.

The third case I presented against the privatization program had to do with the difficulty of servicing remote areas. Interestingly, the minister pointed to the example of Tatla Lake, in which there was contracting-out by the ministry — in effect, privatization — and that guaranteed service that would be performed in that community that might otherwise not be. Again, I would suggest that is something the ministry, with all of its resources, can do, whereas the smaller contractor is less likely to be able to do it. Again, the argument I presented about remote areas by definition being places that the marketplace doesn't always serve simply because there isn't sufficient demand to be able to maintain a particular business in operation . . . . I think that argument still holds.

A couple of others, and then I'll give my vocal cords a rest and let the minister respond.

The next point I made was the predicament — and it's always the predicament in any kind of government effort — of monitoring what private contractors do. That, of course, is simply the cost of maintaining some kind of meaningful quality control, some meaningful kind of service. Some have argued that if we are to do the sort of monitoring job that is

[ Page 5111 ]

systematically done by something being in the hands of a government contractor, if we are to try and achieve the same level of servicing and monitoring of private contractors, it becomes cost-prohibitive.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

The minister's answer to that question was that our safeguard is the fact that the ministry has the ability to discontinue the contract. Unfortunately, I think it's small comfort that you simply say: "Well, we discovered that we apparently weren't able to monitor the thing all the time it was going on, and therefore we discovered that they aren't doing the work to our satisfaction." Finally their failure to perform becomes such that we must discontinue the contract. I don't think that is much comfort to the people who no longer get the service; nor is it a cost-effective way to do things. I'm wondering if that after-the-fact enforcement might be economically inefficient.

The next argument I presented was simply that there were some difficulties expressed by those with expertise and experience in the field about the ability of the private contractors to provide the emergency service hitherto provided by the government operation. The minister's answer to that was that radio communication is somehow going to be maintained — that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways now has that and therefore can respond instantly to emergencies wherever they arise. Curiously, though, that was all that was said in response to that particular question. I'm a little surprised by it, because the other answers are somewhat more detailed.

Perhaps I'll pause there and let the minister respond to those few questions if he wishes.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We have prepared and have a computer printout available for those people who are bidding on this work: a ten-year norm of the kinds of weather conditions they can expect and the kinds of expenses associated with that. For all the regions of the province they have a ten-year running average. If we go into a disaster situation, exactly the same thing will take place as takes place in my estimates or in any other case where the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has to come back and ask for supplemental spending when there's something absolutely, completely unexpected. But for the normal course of events, they are going to be bidding against the ten-year average, which is good and accurate.

Quality control. The same problem that you propose may now happen with a contractor that needs to be inspected exists now with the foreman. Where a foreman in a foreman district has failed to do the job properly, we have to have the same thing. Exactly the same level of service will take place. I don't think we're going to be involved in extra staff there.

On the level of emergency services, I really have to remind you that, yes, we have an excellent communications system. But in the event that we have an emergency now, we largely call on the private sector to assist us because we don't have the pool of equipment you suggest we might have that would always be available to deal with matters in the event of emergencies. Having been at one time the minister responsible for the provincial government's emergency program, I can assure you that the private sector contractors' response throughout the province, including many who aren't contractors, who just happen to work in that area and have machinery, has always been excellent. I think that will be the case in the future.

MR. LOVICK: As I said to the minister before, my intention here is not to engage in an elaborate debate, but rather to make sure that we have those kinds of statements on the record. I think that's important, and we are well served by it.

I am pleased, by the way, to hear about the ten-year running average. I think that makes good sense. If I were in the contracting business, I would be absolutely horrified at the prospect of bidding on a contract if I didn't have precisely that kind of data. The question that comes to mind, though, is whether the kind of work performed by the ministry staff — the kind of expertise used to provide that sort of data, which conceivably makes possible the privatization of that service — will be rewarded in terms of the sale price. I can't resist saying that that strikes me as part of the problem with privatization. We are selling things at present value, probably a kind of market value, and it seems to me there is an accumulated value of human capital, expertise and resources that we are perhaps undercharging for. That's a concern that obviously just illustrates a disagreement that the minister and I have about the overall process and practice of privatization.

I also note that the minister says we have the same kind of problem with a Highways foreman as we would with a contractor. I don't think that is an analogy at all. It seems to me that if we had that potential problem, then clearly something would very definitely have broken down in our personnel policies. It would seem to me that we would know within a very short space of time whether a good Highways foreman in fact knew what the job was about. However, let that pass.

Let me go on to the other five or six points. I made this point some time ago and the minister responded to it: namely, that many people expressed concern about whether the privatization program would have the effect of eliminating various small contractors, who would effectively be gobbled up by some bigger ones. Currently, as we know, the system functions on the basis of a rather good working relationship between ministry and private sector contractors for maintenance. I believe some 30 percent of the total highways maintenance work in the current system is in fact done by private sector contractors. That question has been posed, and I note that the minister's letter to me said: "Letters of interest to date by interested parties expressed their willingness to use local contractors, and that is a condition of some of our current contracts." I'm going to ask the minister if he would explain that in somewhat more detail for me in a moment.

[7:45]

I believe my seventh point, about adverse impacts on local communities, was answered in the same way. The minister's answer to that is his answer to point six — the one I just quoted — so I needn't say more.

The eighth claim that I made, Mr. Chairman, was that the government, with a privatized maintenance system, would have more difficulty controlling costs. Its ability to control costs would be significantly reduced. The answer to that from the ministry is that they have prepared these elaborate performance statements. There was also some discussion of performance bonds and so forth. I wonder if the minister might like to again deal briefly with that question.

The ninth question I would pose is the whole business of what we do about failures to perform. The answer the minister gave on that point is also worth noting. The answer was

[ Page 5112 ]

that privatized maintenance will mean increased accountability, with contracts which clearly specify the rights and responsibilities of each party. The argument, again, is that the ministry will use the very fact of contract language as its protection, rather like the reference to caveat emptor the minister made the other day. He seems to have more faith in that than I. Second, though, we would be able to assign the work to somebody else if it wasn't done properly by the first contractor. That seems to me to amount to a kind of after-the fact enforcement. I'll give the minister an opportunity to respond to that.

I think I've just jumped ahead to number ten, but nine and ten are indeed the same answer provided by the ministry. Number nine, of course, was the business about failure for work to be done. Number ten was my suggestion of less accountability. Both of those were just answered by the minister. I'm wondering, then, if he would care to elaborate on that and also respond to the brief suggestion of counterargument I gave.

HON. MR. ROGERS: As you said earlier, if a foreman had failed to perform, we would know about it very soon. We feel we'll know exactly the same thing in the situation of a contractor. In fact, perhaps we'll know sooner because people will be more diligent and will be observing.

In terms of local contractors and what percentage of local work will be done by the so-called day-labour contractors to the small contractors, it's specified in every area that whatever the percentage of work that was previously done by non-ministry personnel — that is, done by outside local contractors — will remain as the minimum. In some cases, it will be greater than that. So the local contractors will be no worse off, and, in some cases, much better off than they were previously as we go to that particular thing. I guess that's your number six which leads into number seven.

Number eight. Yes, performance bonds are still there. You ask whether it's after the fact or the failing to do the job. They are aware of their investment in this program, where they have failed to meet the work requirements. You can't prejudge work requirements; you can only judge them after the work has been done. Then we're going to have someone else move in and do the work for them. The existing employees have written the standards that the private contractors will have to meet.

They're more stringent than our current practices, so levels will probably improve. We did not have total provincewide consistency, so the people who do the work now or who are in charge of supervising it have laid down the standards very strictly. I expect to see an improvement in the work we see done.

In the past this has been somewhat up to the local area. There was a standard manual that existed, but the language that we had used was never contract-style language. We have now gone to that.

MR. LOVICK: I just want to push a little harder on those points. I still have some difficulty understanding how it is, Mr. Minister, that if a particular contractor — let's say, in the North Peace, or some such thing — fails to perform, the arguments we have from your ministry, namely that we can indeed find out quickly and assign the work to somebody else. . . . How difficult might it be, though, to get somebody else who can come in and assume that contract? We're not talking exactly about some rather small-scale operation; we're talking about something fairly large — one twenty-eighth of the maintenance budget of the province.

Again, as I say, it's not only after the fact but there is also the difficulty in terms of time constraints. How do we find out what other contractor will get that particular contract? Do we throw that open to tender? Do the other 27 contractors in the province suddenly start the bidding? How elaborate is that process going to be? It sounds like it's potentially very cumbersome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We'll know the value of that particular work based on the other bids we've received, so we'll have a pretty good idea what's involved.

You picked an interesting example in the North Peace River, because if a contractor in that particular area failed to perform, we probably wouldn't have difficulty getting a private sector contractor to fill in. Most of the Alaska Highway is currently maintained by private sector contractors anyway, and they're in the North Peace River. In fact, the North Peace River country would probably be the easiest place to get contractors because it's a little slow in the patch right now, although we'd like to see that change too.

MR. LOVICK: So I take it that the minister is telling me in a sort of facetious way, "Well, we don't mind getting them from Alaska or even from Alberta."

HON. MR. ROGERS: I didn't say that.

MR. LOVICK: Well, I was just wondering. If all those people are up there working, I'm suggesting that they aren't all local B.C. contractors working in that area. Perhaps we're going outside, and that opens the door, of course, to another set of questions. Namely, are there some guarantees built in that we are going to give preference to B.C. contractors, or will this be the kind of work that tends to be a gold-mine for non-residents?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd remind you that there are a lot of B.C. contractors currently at work in Alaska and in Alberta....

MR. LOVICK: Guess why.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Because they're good.

The B.C. contractors have a natural advantage of being here, having their equipment here, having their personnel here. This isn't an earth-moving job. This is a very different kind of deal. We're not moving on bidding particular yardage. But I think under the Canadian constitution, we have the freedom to do and move from other places. I don't anticipate that there will be a great number of people planning to do this. This isn't a common build-a-project-and-go; this is a live-and-stay-in-the-community project. So I don't think you'll see a great exodus of people from other jurisdictions. I don't think there'll be any contractors not based in British Columbia, just by the very natural advantage they have.

On the Peace River question, the price of oil, I think, being $15 or $16 U.S. a barrel, there's a little equipment up there that could be used, if that's the case. But we'd like to see that moving on patch roads rather than on the Highways roads.

[ Page 5113 ]

MR. LOVICK: I want to turn now to that very detailed information provided by the ministry, that set of nine volumes talking about the rules governing the privatization maintenance program, the proposal call documents and all of that. I want to look, just for convenience's sake, specifically at one of those contract areas, use that as a model indicative of all of those proposal calls and simply review it a little bit — certainly not in extensive detail but in some detail — and pose a series of questions about it, just to establish that we are indeed going to be providing good and fair and reasonable service in the name of this new proposal. I am looking, by the way, at contract area No. 22. I think that's to do with the Fort St. John area. Is that right? The objectives of this proposal call are outlined to be some four in number: first, to decrease maintenance costs over the term of the contract; second, to ensure quality control through the establishment and enforcement of maintenance standards; third, to encourage employee ownership and retain employment opportunities for current Ministry of Transportation and Highways maintenance staff; and fourth, to encourage regional development. I think that those objectives may be reasonable and admirable, but I'm wondering, as I look at the details in the proposal call, whether those objectives are indeed going to be met.

Let's take first the critique — or the first objective; I'm already getting tongue-tied and it's early, Mr. Chairman — which is to decrease maintenance costs over the term of the contract. The details of the proposal call state that the contractor will be required to achieve annual cost reductions on regular maintenance costs over the term of the contract. That sounds interesting enough, but it obviously suggests a question: whether this particular method of contracting out means that we are in fact not presently getting value for our money from the very first contract. Or does this statement mean that British Columbians are supposed to be looking forward or can reasonably look forward to a steady decline in the level of services that they are receiving? Would the minister care to respond to that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In my conversations not only with contractors but with ministry employees, they have all made it abundantly clear to me that they think they can do the job more efficiently and at less cost than it's currently being done. As they gain experience in doing this in the private sector they will become more efficient, and therefore we anticipate that the costs will be passed on to the taxpayer.

MR. LOVICK: That is a glib answer. However, I'm wondering whether it is the case, assumed in that answer, that we are not currently getting full and maximum value for our dollars. Is that the case? Are we saying, then, that presently the operation is not efficient?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I won't be glib. I couldn't have said it better myself.

MR. LOVICK: I think the very fact that the first question has been answered in the way it has demonstrates that once again, when we scratch the surface a little bit, we are working as much on faith as we are on anything else.

The second objective of the proposal call is to ensure quality control through the establishment and enforcement of maintenance standards. According to the proposal call, volume 2, chapter 9, page 1, highway contractors are in charge of highway inspections to "(a) identify needed maintenance and establish priorities for maintenance work assignment; (b) ensure full highway maintenance services are being provided effectively; and (c) attend to emergency requirements."

Are we to gather from this that the contractors will be monitoring themselves for quality control? It sounds like it.

[8:00]

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, not for quality control. They will have to ensure that the work done by their own people is done to the standard that the ministry would find acceptable. We can't have a situation where they say, "We've done the work acceptably," and there is no quality control within their own organization. All of the work will be done under the direct supervision of the ministry as it is today — or at least under that inspection.

MR. LOVICK: Fair enough. The obvious next question is whether the resources required for adequate enforcement of the maintenance standards won't counter any alleged or anticipated savings from contracting out the highways maintenance. We're back to the old question: how much are we going to pay for monitoring? If we give the contractors the job of taking care of the quality, who is protecting us against that interest of theirs? Who is looking out for us? Who is doing the monitoring, and who is paying for it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The same people who are doing it today. That function is not being privatized. We have the very staff that you suggest are involved in this project at the present time.

MR. LOVICK: However, is it not the case that the staff has already been reduced quite significantly? Is it not the case that we are talking about a rather significant reduction in Highways staff, and therefore we will have less ability and capacity to do that kind of monitoring?

HON. MR. ROGERS: While there have been reductions, we still have many people who have more capacity in their day for the work that's available. We have had some reductions in staff, but there won't be any shortage of people to be involved in this. In fact, we are at the present time under somewhat of a surplus.

MR. LOVICK: Let me be a little more specific in direct questions, because I see you have the deputy with you. What about cost? Have we any idea yet? Do we know what this monitoring infrastructure will cost? Can you give us any information?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's slightly reduced from today, in terms of what we currently spend on inspection. No. We have the system in place now. That has been the status quo before, in terms of inspection.

MR. LOVICK: I must confess, Mr. Minister, that the answer is a little hard to follow, because we're talking about getting rid of significant numbers of Highways employees. We're talking about privatizing their functions. We are talking about giving monitoring and quality control functions to the private sector. I am wondering how we can suddenly still have the same numbers of people — or perhaps even more

[ Page 5114 ]

people — to do this work. We've decreased the size of the ministry, and we've given over this job to. . . .

Actually, I am trying to argue two things at once, so I will change that. We have given over large numbers of jobs to the private sector, and we've reduced the size of the ministry complement, yet we're still being told that we have a monitoring capacity in excess of what we have. Does that mean that all of those employees who are now being absorbed by private sector contractors didn't have anything to do with it? Does that mean that the monitoring function and the supervisory function are only in Victoria or in the district offices, and those individuals are not going to be part of what we lose in the process of privatizing highway maintenance? Is that the case?

HON. MR. ROGERS: They are district office staff; they will stay as part of district office staff. Some people in other jurisdictions have gone through job transfers, but this isn't an area where we have had a substantial reduction or change in our existing operations. So just as it exists now, this function will be run by district office personnel.

MR. LOVICK: Let me turn to the third stated objective, which is to encourage employee ownership and retain employment opportunities for current Ministry of Transportation and Highways staff. If that is indeed the objective, then the obvious question is: why is there a trend to position reductions evident in the proposal call? My reading of the proposal call is that there is indeed that trend — for example, in volume 1, chapter 2, page 6. I'm going to have to quote a little chunk of this in order for this question to make much sense.

Quoting from volume 1, chapter 2, page 6:

"The total number of regular affected employees in contract area 22 as of March 31, 1988, is 89. This includes road, bridge, mechanical and administrative...staff. The total salary cost for the 1987-88 fiscal year is estimated to be $3,255,432 in contract area 22."

Volume 3, chapter 1, page 1:

"As of March 31, 1988, the total number of employees identified for privatization is 105. The total salary cost of all programs for 1987-88 will be approximately $3,255,431.61. The staff employed in 1987-88 was higher in number than the figure noted above due to recent resignations and retirements, many of which will not be replaced."

It appears that the government is not participating in this objective of retaining employment opportunities for its maintenance staff, since the same government is eliminating many positions before privatization.

Are the contractors being given the appropriate information as to how many employees are in fact required to deliver the present level of service?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The simple answer to that is yes. In that particular region, as in other regions of the province, we had people take advantage of early retirement; and there are some fiscal savings to do with that. No, the contractor will know what expenses in terms of employees he will have to look forward to.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Minister, you recall the discussion and the questions of some weeks ago now about contract area 1 and what was happening to those employees in the process of the privatization: that employees, first of all, had been reduced in numbers by the early retirement, and so forth, and also that apparently they were no longer doing productive work. I'm wondering, then, about arguments that suggest that the contractor knows precisely what he or she is buying. I'm wondering if we can really accept that argument entirely at face value.

Another, larger question. I realize it's a little more rhetorical in nature than the ones I've been asking thus far. I'm wondering whether the policy of contracting out, given the apparent reduction of service or a reduction of staff that has certainly occurred prior to the privatization.... As we know, a very large number of people have left government service, which of course opens the door to another large question about the irreparable loss to the ministry, it seems to me — the loss of human capital, the loss of experience, the loss of expertise and such like. I'm wondering whether the policy of contracting out might be fairly construed as a means to — what will I call it? — a coverup, a means to hide the fact that we are reducing the level of services that will be provided to British Columbians, simply because we have reduced the size of those who perform the service.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I tend to think that the early retirement program has given an advantage to many of the middle-aged people who were sort of logjammed in with somebody ahead of them. We were losing valuable people who were getting bored because of the slowness in promotions. In many cases it's been a real bonus for us, because people who could not see a promotion coming elsewhere have done that. I think the program of early retirement has been beneficial to all levels of government. In some cases people who had lost that keen edge of interest as they were getting close to the end took advantage of the situation. I don't think it's a problem at all.

One of the answers I was going to make to an earlier statement was about the reduction in staff. Some of the people in various contract areas will stay with the ministry in other capacities, partly due to early retirement and other vacancies within the ministry. Some of them choose to transfer across.

MR. LOVICK: Madam Chair, I'm intrigued to hear the minister state that what this really amounts to is some kind of incentive to the ambitious, and that those individuals who have been hiding there, waiting, somehow being restrained and held back from fulfilling their true destiny will now have an opportunity because we got rid of all that deadwood or those people that are, after all, approaching the retirement age and therefore no longer have the same critical edge. I wonder, Mr. Minister, if that isn't just a little insensitive.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Well, the minister didn't say that specifically, but look what underlies the comment. Hansard will show it. I'm not making up anything, contrary to what the member back there is saying.

Given that I hear that little outpouring, let me extend the point for just a moment and remind the minister that there are indeed two schools of thought; there are indeed two sets of perceptions about what has happened with the retirement initiative. The government would have us believe that this cast of thousands said: "Isn't this wonderful! Thank you,

[ Page 5115 ]

government, for giving me the opportunity to retire with dignity. It's wonderful. I love it. I will regard government forever after as my benefactor." That's one view, but there's another equally powerful, equally pervasive view that says: "I am fed up with being treated as I have been by this government. I have been made to believe that being a public servant is somehow inferior; somehow doesn't have status; somehow is to be regarded as less efficient, probably almost corrupt, because I don't really work as hard as I should. If I did, I'd be in the private sector."

The member in the corner there can harrumph all he wants, but that's precisely the message I am getting from numbers of disgruntled Highways ministry employees, many of whom are no longer in government service.

We have lost some very important human capital in the process. For the government to suggest for a moment that this has been the great morale-booster or some such thing because the aspiring and the ambitious suddenly see their way clear to the top in the Ministry of Highways, I think, is stretching the point beyond all bounds.

Notice that brief flight, only done, of course, because of fulminations from the comers of the House.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: As my colleague says, I was provoked, after all.

Let me return to those objectives in the proposal call. No. 4 is to encourage regional development. Again, it sounds reasonable; it sounds admirable. The criteria, however, surrounding the bid process are that the company be registered in British Columbia and, everything else being equal, that the employee groups will be given a 5 percent bidding advantage — good on the face of it. The provisions in the proposal call stipulate that lands, buildings and equipment leased from the government cannot be used for any other purpose than highway maintenance contracts with the government.

The question, then, is: how is it that the privatization of highway maintenance contracts will encourage regional development beyond that which has already been accomplished? We already have regions. We already have equipment centres. We already have presences in the communities in all the regions. How, then, do we support the case that the privatization program will, in and of itself, encourage regional development?

[8:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS: I want to talk a little bit about the voluntary early retirement program, because you missed the boat on this entirely. I'm actually on a leave of absence from my employer. About two years ago they sent around an early retirement notice, and they were perhaps a little bit shocked to find out how many people took it. People take early retirement for a host of reasons. Some people had a family early in life and want to take some time off to travel. Others have a small, embryonic business that they want to work on. It was entirely a voluntary program. I think it should be offered in that way more often by other agencies, because I know it's offered in the corporate world quite often.

MR. ROSE: Did you take it, Stephen?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I didn't take it. I was actually too young to qualify, but I'm so delighted that about 45 or 50 other people senior to me in the corporation have taken it. If I leave this business now, I can be guaranteed a job with four stripes, which is very nice. I don't have to move back to Toronto; I can be based in Vancouver and fly something with at least three engines, which always makes me feel a little better.

I think some of these employees are disgruntled. In any major corporation you're going to find disgruntled employees. Maybe those who were disgruntled working for government will be happier working in the private sector, but the vast majority of the people who work in our ministries are happy with the work they're doing and with the kind of operation they have.

Regional development and what that's going to do. We will see an expansion of it. We will see local work being done in fabrication. This is an expanding business opportunity regionally. It won't be all bought out of central casting, and all the goods and services will not be provided by a central purchasing commission located, I believe, in Burnaby or Victoria — wherever the Purchasing Commission is located. You will see some local, regional work and expansion of regional activities on that basis.

I guess we're going to argue a bit over semantics. That's fine, but on the issue of early retirement, it's a good thing they don't offer it around this building, or we might have to have some more by-elections. But we're not going to do a thing like that — except that your former leader took advantage of the situation, having reached some magic date that made it all worthwhile. I don't think it's a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a good thing; I think it's a healthy thing.

You impugn some disrespect from my opinion of those people who take early retirement, and I don't think that's the case at all. I think each individual who has the option examines and considers it on its own merit. Some of them choose to go and garden, others choose to go into other activities, and others choose to just go off into early retirement.

MR. LOVICK: I impugn some disrespect, says the minister. Just to remind you, Mr. Minister, of your words about having lost the critical edge as they get close to the age of retirement. . . . Your words, not mine.

Regional development. One of the predicaments with highways privatization that I am amazed I have never heard enunciated or even recognized by members opposite is that we are perhaps going to crowd out other local contractors in those regions. We both know that what happened with Highways equipment was that the old orange and white vehicles weren't allowed to do work above and beyond Highways work and so were never able to crowd out the other contractors. They weren't allowed to bid on other jobs. Therefore a whole bunch of capital equipment was resident in towns throughout the province, because there was work for all those small contractors.

I wonder what happens now when we take existing Highways capital stock and say that no longer does it work only within the hours of business of the ministry and purely on Highways ministry business, but now it joins the competitive fray and throws out of kilter the normal supply of equipment to do that sort of work. I wonder what's going to happen to those local contractors. I suspect that some of them are going to disappear.

I imagine you've probably had representations from a few of those folks who might have drawn precisely that conclusion. I chatted with a few of them when I traveled in

[ Page 5116 ]

the northwest of the province, who suggested: "Gee, I wonder what happens when you take that whole Highways yard of equipment and you turn it loose on the local community. Because we don't need that many D8 or D9 Cats, that many earth-movers or that many shovels, etc." I'm wondering if the so-called regional development argument of the proposal call might be entirely misplaced, and if this will discourage regional development at least by the smaller regional contractors.

Let me just end this session on early retirement by telling the minister one little story. I don't think it's going to change his perception of events or anything like that, because even though he is certainly more reasonable than some of his colleagues, I think he is also a believer in a particular ideology, etc.

Let me tell him a little story about Highways workers, about somebody in contract area 1 who was anxious to be an entrepreneur, to be part of this brave new world that your government is creating. As we all know, contract area 1 didn't succeed. This individual concluded from it all that the one thing he wanted to do, by heaven, was make sure he got out of government service. Interesting. You can argue just as strongly, of course, that it ought to be the other way around, that this is my experience with the so-called private world and therefore I'll stay in government.

What the whole exercise demonstrated to him was a contempt for public sector workers. That was the conclusion he came to, and I suspect he wasn't alone. You may say — and I have no reason to doubt your claim — that you are not by any means wanting to denigrate or deprecate the work done by public sector workers, but I can tell you that the widely held perception is that that's what your government is doing. It is demonstrating that it does not have much love or admiration or respect for public sector workers.

I have a couple of other short questions also arising from the proposal call document, if I might. One of them, which I will simply put under the heading of "Loophole," is as follows. In the proposal call, volume 1, chapter 2, page 5, it says: "The province may modify the scope of services... during the contract term." Short question: does the government plan to modify or reduce services required of contractors to achieve its goals of annual contract or cost reductions?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll get an answer on that one in a minute, but on the statements you were making earlier about equipment currently working in Highways yards, which will now all of a sudden be free to displace all the local equipment that happens to be in the community, I have a hard time believing that. We have the equipment because we need it to do the job we have. It's hardly that they're going to be able to do the job in a four-hour day and spend the next four hours of the day out competing with the private sector because suddenly they've done the job twice as efficiently. There may be some competition for the local contractors, that's true, but there may also be some expansion of work done by the local contractors if they're more efficient. The cost of equipment being what it is, I expect the thing will find its own level.

MR. LOVICK: I'm not sure if you answered my last question, Mr. Minister. I think you answered the one preceding.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Could you go over it again? You want to talk about the modification of the scope of the contract, and that's a clause in our documentation?

MR. LOVICK: Yes.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm going to have to find an answer for you on that from the technical people. It'll just take a minute or two. If you don't mind going on to something else, we'll get back to that.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that.

The whole of insurance and indemnity. The maintenance agreement in the proposal call, volume 1, appendix (A), page 15, requires "a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance...in form and content, and with an insurer or insurers acceptable to the minister providing coverage of not less than $10 million inclusive per occurrence for bodily injury, death and property damage...which may arise directly or indirectly out of the acts or omissions of the contractor...." Obviously, it's fair to conclude that a $10 million liability may be inadequate. In the case of snow removal on the Hope-Princeton, we can all come up with a worst-case scenario such as unsafe snow removal causing a severe accident and a bus going over a bank or some such thing. The question then is whether that $10 million is adequate. Insurance is a whole new ball game when private contractors are involved.

Of course, we all know that the Crown cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be sued. The very direct question is, what criteria were used to establish an insurance coverage minimum? I'd just like to hear that answer.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The industry and the insurance industry got together to compare losses and compare the scope of the magnitude of the disasters that may take place, and they came up with that limit.

You bring up a good point about the ability to sue the Crown and now the ability to sue the contractor, which, I presume, at least for the legal beagles, would be an improvement over the existing situation where we don't allow people to sue the Crown. I hadn't even credited that as being one of the positive aspects of privatization, and I don't like to think of it as that, because I doubt very much we'll be seeing much action in that area.

MR. LOVICK: Again, I will make sure that I take the minister's words and pass them on to the contractors and say: "Guess what, you guys can be sued, whereas the government couldn't, and isn't that something that's nice to buy into."

HON. MR. ROGERS: They already know that.

MR. LOVICK: Okay, they already know that.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I ask the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) to restrain himself. I notice that a few moments ago he was struck by the phrase "the magnitude of the scope of." But hold back.

Another large set of questions concerns simply where the savings will come from. That, needless to say, is a major

[ Page 5117 ]

question in the minds of most people who have looked at this whole area.

[8:30]

We're moving to — if I can put it this way — a more serious and sinister tone. In the proposal call, all references to labour costs exclude the mention of benefits. I'll give you an example. Here's one statement:

"The direct cost of maintaining roads and bridges in 1986-87 fiscal year by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for contract area 22 is approximately $5,108,148. These costs include direct labour, materials and equipment only. They do not include employee benefits, administrative costs, land and building rent or any district or regional costs." In one separate section of the proposal call the costs of benefits are outlined. As of June 1, 1987, benefits accounted for 19.67 percent of the average employee's salary. If all but the mandatory contributions by employers were eliminated, benefits would only comprise 4.6 percent of the employee's salary. The biggest savings would come from the exclusion of pensions, of which the employer's contribution is approximately 9.5 percent of salary.

Does the government intend to effect or achieve its savings by the elimination of employee benefits that will or may happen through the privatization process?

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's not the case. The case is that the contractor should know and be able to project what the costs are that he or she will incur in terms of employees. It gives the breakdown in terms of hard dollars for certain things and for soft dollars and others where you have to build in an allowance for inflation and an increase. The contractors are all aware of that now.

MR. LOVICK: Am I to understand from the minister's answer that it is very much a matter of the contractors dealing with their own employees to determine what the benefits will be? Are we simply saying, if they can achieve a good agreement, so be it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think you'd find that the benefits are virtually standard in the industry whether it's in the private sector or in the public sector.

MR. LOVICK: I will simply take the minister's word for that. I have no way of knowing otherwise.

Can the minister advise me whether there is any analysis that has been completed to suggest precisely how much, if anything, we might be saving the taxpayers of this province by the privatization of road maintenance?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We have a number of estimates that have come forward, but obviously it would be inappropriate to disclose them at this time, as these various areas are out for tender. Suggestions have been put forward by employees and contractors; it is almost universal that they feel there are many areas where savings can be effected.

MR. LOVICK: Once again the paramountcy of faith, it seems.

Another whole large area of question or concern to me and various others who have examined privatization initiatives, both in B.C. and in other jurisdictions, is the incredible costs that seem to be incurred for legal and administrative fees: fees for contracts, for leases and for monitoring — all of that stuff. I am wondering if the minister can give me any indication at all in specific terms of how much the privatization process itself will cost as far as highway maintenance is concerned.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I can't give you that answer at this time. I couldn't do that. Is it in terms of disclosing the information to the private contractors, or do you mean just the mechanical aspects of what we have gone through to get to the process that we are at now?

MR. LOVICK: The latter.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps I could do that, but I think it was done globally by the privatization subcommittee working out of the Premier's office rather than out of my ministry. You would perhaps best ask him that question tomorrow during his estimates, because I would think that the costs would be global in that office.

MR. LOVICK: First of all, I'm a little concerned that apparently we don't know those answers. Second, I am wondering whether the global costs will in fact take into account the loss of labour in your ministry, given that people who would normally be working in the ministry involved in the privatization process and so forth . . . . In any event, I accept the answer, and you can rest assured that I will be more than prepared to pose a question to the Premier about just that matter.

It's worth noting, by the way, that I have had 12 questions on notice for some months now and thus far have had no encouragement or indication whatsoever from the other side that anybody is ever going to answer.

I thank you for giving me the lead that I might pose the question to the Premier. I do indeed intend to do so.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Night sittings — I just love them.

MR. LOVICK: I think we're behaving very well for night sittings.

Another area: equipment, land and building rentals. The public obviously has a substantial investment of tax dollars in Transportation and Highways ministry lands, buildings and heavy equipment. Contractors will use these facilities on a lease or rent basis which is calculated to a base rent, maintenance cost and taxes. Fair enough. Since contractors, however, are using the public facilities for the purpose of making a profit, should not the citizens of British Columbia perhaps be getting a return on the money they have invested in these facilities? In the true spirit of free enterprise, is it not the case that the contractors ought to perhaps pay some rent to the landlord — that we should get a better return on our investment in buildings, land and equipment?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We're going to do it at the market rate, and that should satisfy your concerns in that area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm glad the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) isn't in his place to jump up and. . . . Evening sittings. It would be great to be back about seven or eight years ago, when we used to have these and people

[ Page 5118 ]

would feel speeches coming on. I hope the debate continues between the two of us.

MR. LOVICK: I see the hour is advancing rapidly. I want to pose a few other specific questions under that general heading of privatization before we move on to some other areas — the larger question of highways in general — providing thereby an opportunity for other members to pose specific questions about routes and other matters of concern to the minister.

Given that there has been a track record and a brief history under the heading of privatization that, frankly, does not look very attractive, I wonder whether the minister is prepared to respond to concerns about that issue I raised earlier — namely, the business of the loss of human capital, etc. I feel it ought to be stated for the record, and ought to be emphasized, that the process of privatization has not been exactly what I would call a model of treatment of employees. I know the minister recalls some of the predicaments we have encountered — for instance, the great to-do not too many months ago about gag orders, about whether employees would be able to speak, whether they would be allowed to talk to the press, whether they would be allowed to talk to their locally elected representatives, etc.

The other large question is conflict of interest. You recall the case, I'm sure, Mr. Minister, of the district highways manager, in, I believe, the Prince George-McBride-Vanderhoof-Quesnel district, who was heading up a group that was trying to purchase the highway and bridge maintenance operations in that district. While he was the district highways manager, it seemed — and I emphasize "it seemed" because I don't know the details of the case — that he was using that position to talk to Highways employees about the advisability of those employees becoming involved in that particular privatization bid. That seems to me to amount to a conflict of interest. Pretty obviously, that individual, as a civil servant, as the employer of a group of workers, should not have been the one to put on another hat as a potential and prospective employer, and suggest to them that they might like to work for him.

Similarly in the area of questions concerning violations of privacy. You recall we had that brief discussion in the House some time ago now, Mr. Minister, to do with the fact that the ministry was apparently making available to would-be contractors, the would-be owners of contract areas throughout the province, the lists of employees within that jurisdiction, so that the contractor could make some effort to appeal to those employees and suggest to them that they might want to work for the contractor. I suggested at the time that that struck me as a violation of those individuals' right to privacy; that we did not, as government, have the right to treat those employees as somehow our personal preserve so that we could send out that kind of information.

It seems to me that this raises the whole area of how well we have treated employees. I come back to a theme I introduced, albeit briefly, a while ago — namely, whether what we are dealing with here is a crisis in morale; whether what has happened in the ministry is that employees no longer take much pride in being Highways workers. Rather, they are made to feel that their work has not been entirely satisfactory and that therefore we're looking for a better means of delivering the service.

I won't belabour the point, but I wonder if the minister might like to respond to that rather checkered history of the privatization program thus far.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have some difficulty finding a history of privatization in this province that has been unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is perhaps the case.

In terms of employee treatment, conflict of interest, the gag order and management people lobbying other employees, in many cases the employees were encouraged by the people for whom they worked to put that in place. There are very strict conflict-of-interest guidelines given to all employees. There were no gag orders, but there were requests to get the facts straight on a number of issues and, in some cases, misleading information that was not made available. I think we've done an excellent job of making the employees aware by normal correspondence of — for those who are interested — quite a lot of detail about this whole program.

We did make a list of employees available to contractors. We also made a list of contractors available to the employees, and most employees have appreciated that assistance. I suppose that any time one goes through a process like this, one can find some things to criticize. I think that at the staff level, in terms of communications and what correspondence has taken place between the staff and the employees affected, they may have actually complained about an overage of information, rather than a shortage of information.

MR. LOVICK: Clearly, the minister has a different perspective from my own in terms of what is being helpful to employees and what is effectively harassing employees. I think it depends entirely on one's perspective.

I see a look of incredulity on the face of one of your colleagues, Mr. Minister. I can only be happy to note that he is awake and paying attention. This is a good sign indeed.

I also noted in the minister's response that he made reference to the fact that there are clear guidelines regarding conflict of interest. I wonder if the minister would share with us the information concerning what happened in the case of the district highways manager who was inviting employees of the ministry in to chat with him about the process of their jobs being privatized and working for the company that he was heading up or, at least, that he was one of the major principals in. Could you tell us if that was a violation of conflict-of interest guidelines as you have established them? What happened?

[8:45]

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, the employee was not in violation of guidelines. He invited employees to meet with him on his own time, evenings and weekends. As I gather, a number of employees took up his offer, and they went so far as to form a bid.

HON. MR. REID: He's like a college instructor. He had so much time on his hands, nobody could tell really when he was working.

MR. LOVICK: I don't suspect that Hansard will have recorded that observation from your colleague, Mr. Minister, and that is a blessing of which we are all, I am sure, mindful. The suggestion was — and perhaps it bears repetition — that the district highways manager was like a college instructor in that he had so much time on his hands that nobody missed

[ Page 5119 ]

him if he were indeed doing that, as opposed to doing the work he ought to have been doing. I would suggest to you that however jovially the minister chooses to present that case, it reveals very clearly his attitude to certain workers in the workforce, and that attitude — dare I say — perhaps lies behind this entire privatization proposal. I wonder, Mr. Minister.

Let me just, as a note of levity, pose another question about the treatment of individuals, and how in the realm of the new world of post-Coquihalla and privatization initiatives unfolding, there seems also to be a kind of bizarre culture taking shape. I wonder if the minister would like to respond to the little story about the mystery of the missing sign. The mystery of the missing sign has to do with that famous and magnificent bridge called — I think I can use the member's name, even though he is a sitting member — the Alex Fraser bridge. As we know, it was named shortly before the last election by the Premier...

HON. MR. STRACHAN: After the first member for Cariboo.

MR. LOVICK:...after the first member for Cariboo. As we know, the first member for Cariboo has fallen rather out of favour with this government and with this Premier because he has taken certain positions that are not held to be quite onside or supportive of the Premier's initiatives.

MR. CASHORE: It's the government that's fallen out of favour with the first member for Cariboo.

MR. LOVICK: Well put. Indeed, the government has fallen out of favour with a large number of members, I am sure, on both sides, if the truth were known.

There is the mystery of the missing sign, however. Despite the fact that the bridge was to be named after the sitting member for Cariboo, and despite the fact that here was a break with tradition to honour the long and good service performed by that member, wonder of wonders, the Alex Fraser Bridge isn't called that; there is no sign on the bridge.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: No, there is no sign.

HON. MR. REID: Do you know where the bridge is?

MR. LOVICK: Oh, yes. I have crossed that bridge when I've come to it, I want you to know, Mr. Minister.

What is curious. . . .

HON. MR. REID: You've crossed every bridge already. As a matter of fact, you've burned every bridge.

MR. LOVICK: You were right, Mr. Minister: you can tell that night sittings are back. It's good to see the rowdies in action again. How nice it is!

Let me tell you a little bit about that, a little background to the story. I won't belabour the point, but in 1986 a particular sign company received a contract from government information services for two signs. They were sand-blasted wooden signs, some 8 feet by 10 feet by 6 inches thick; the finished products were built according to said dimensions. That was all done. The sign said, "The Alex Fraser Bridge, Linking the Communities of Delta, New Westminster, Surrey, Richmond and Burnaby. Province of British Columbia," and all of that. The signs have never been erected. They were built; they were paid for. Why aren't they up? Is it the case that somebody is being punished? Is it the case that this government — say it isn't so, Mr. Minister — is being vindictive and punitive and, dare I say, personal? Could this be the case, or is there some clear explanation as to why those signs have not yet been erected, despite the fact they've been paid for? Can the minister answer that question?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, for all those people who want to bum their bridges behind them, that is an excellent bridge, made of concrete and steel, which is probably inflammable. I have no idea whatsoever where the sign is, or if the sign was or was not ordered, but I will check into it. I certainly crossed that bridge last week, and there was a sign clearly indicating the name of the bridge.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you fly under it?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I flew under the Port Mann, but that was a long time ago. There's a power line too close to the bridge to fly underneath it; I don't recommend it.

However, we will find out where the sign is, and if you are offended by the absence of the sign or think that there's some kind of hideous plot, we will erect it. But I can assure you that all of the people who use the bridge refer to it by the name of the first member for Cariboo. So whether or not the sign is there — just like the Lions Gate Bridge, which is lacking a sign advising people of the name of the bridge — they have actually committed it to memory. But I will see where the sign is and have it put up.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Well, it is laughable, I grant the minister that. And certainly I don't fault him for not knowing. But, you know, the government paid 9,000 bucks for these signs — two signs; nice good-sized signs and probably good quality signs, but 9,000 bucks and apparently never used. One has to wonder if this is a sign — pardon the pun — or a symbol of government efficiency. Anyway, Mr. Minister, I simply offered you that brief observation.

There's more to it, by the way, because it suggests that there is at least a member in this House who may have had something to do with this particular sign contract and all of that. I'm not suggesting any kind of culpability or anything that's untoward, but I think it's going to be a good story and I'm glad that the minister has assured me he will indeed look into the matter of the mystery of the missing signs. Let us return to that chapter another time.

I think, Mr. Minister, that we will now move on to some other more traditional kinds of things about highways. To start that process, I'm going to defer to a couple of my colleagues so I can rest my voice for a moment, but I shall return.

HON. MR. ROGERS: On the question of the contracts that you brought up earlier, there is a section in there which, I gather, is standard contract language to allow us to either downsize or increase the scope of the contract. I gather it's normal legal language to give us that flexibility.

[ Page 5120 ]

If we find the signs that you refer to, we will have a sign ceremony. In fact, I will certainly invite the member, and we will have all the appropriate regalia involved, and I know the Minister of Tourism will arrange a brass band, and we'll reopen the bridge, if that's what you want. But I'm informed by the members for the constituency involved that the sign is in fact up.

MR. GABELMANN: If I may, I'd like to introduce a commercial break, a commercial on behalf of the fine people of North Island. I want to — I don't want to, actually, but I'm going to have to — make the same speech I've made now for the last eight or nine years on Highways estimates, because nothing much has changed in all of these years in terms of the problem areas in our constituency. I hope the members will bear with me while I do a brief tour of highways problems in North Island. I appreciate that this is not a great matter of state for many members of this House, but it sure is for the people who live in the northern half of Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. REID: Two lanes all the way. I like it.

MR. GABELMANN: If you're a tourist, the great thing about traveling up the Island is that you get see everything — every leaf, every branch, every needle on every tree — because you go so slowly.

I want to start my comments by saying that if Highways was a business in the traditional sense — if it were conducted in the way that most good business people conduct their business — that business would soon be in grave jeopardy of disintegrating or falling apart and declaring bankruptcy in the north end of Vancouver Island. We have lived now for a decade on depreciation, literally, if you compare the highways system to the way a business operates. If you look at a 10 percent depreciation rate per year . . . . That's an artificial figure, not an entirely accurate one in every instance, but we have not reinvested significant dollars in the highways system in that particular area. If we were to bring the plant back, not to a Cadillac level, which we all seem to want for our various constituencies, but just to a Volkswagen level, or maybe even a Chevy level, we would be looking at massive expenditures. We have not kept pace over the years, and we have a serious problem.

The best highway in North Island is one of the best highways anywhere in this province, and that's the stretch from Kelsey Bay–Sayward through to Port McNeill. It's the best highway on the Island, by a long stretch. Next spring, that highway will be ten years old. The pavement on that kind of highway lasts ten years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, much longer than that.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like to say, to the members who object, that I drive the road frequently, and the pavement is in rotten shape. I'm not suggesting that it needs a new paving job this year; I'm just suggesting that the best road, the road that people are most comfortable about and about which there are virtually no complaints, is now a decade old and soon in need of major repaving — and some realignment, too, where there's been sinking. That aside, that's the best situation we have in that particular constituency.

I'll just leave that subject, having said that. I'm not going to talk about the bypass. I spoke for 23 minutes during the budget debate on the question of the inland Island bypass. I think I demonstrated, by taking that amount of time in a budget debate, how seriously I consider that particular road.

A question for the minister specifically in terms of his budget: is the $6 million that's allocated in this year's budget for the Island Highway in fact going to be allocated towards the inland Island Highway bypass, or is that money now being spent on the projects in Courtenay, the proposed Courtenay project and the current project in Parksville to four-lane the existing road, which we're not interested at all in improving because it cannot be improved, it needs to be bypassed? That's one question.

I won't make a speech about any of these other subjects, but I want to list a series of problems that I would hope the ministry's staff would look to in terms of working out how this year's maintenance budget and future capital budgets are going to be allocated. This is the list of the more serious problems in North Island.

The highway from Campbell River to Gold River continues to kill people at an alarming rate. It's a heavy-use industrial road. It has the mine traffic from Westmin Resources. It's a dangerous road. There are not sufficient passing lanes. The solution to the far too many people who are being killed is some passing lanes where those trucks have to slow down. You can't pass them because of the slush that's being kicked up, and therefore people pass dangerously and end up going into the lake or hitting somebody else head-on. It's a dangerous situation and needs some serious attention.

The Port McNeill–Port Hardy section of Highway 19 is a logging road built in 1948, when logging trucks were underpowered. As a result, instead of going straight, it goes around the curves, so it doesn't have any grades on it. That road was paved by Highways and is now the main highway to the Bear Cove ferry terminal and to Port Hardy, and it's in desperate need of realignment. In the middle of that stretch is a Bailey bridge that has been there for ten years now, the Keogh Bailey bridge, with one lane and a traffic light, and this is on the main highway up and down Vancouver Island. It still sits as a Bailey bridge and requires replacement and has for many years.

We have another Bailey bridge on the way to Port Alice that's been there for ten years. There have been lots of survey crews in there working on that realignment for that particular project, but nothing ever seems to happen, even though I was assured for the last two or three years by ministry staff that those bridges were on the higher reaches of the list of bridges to be done in this province.

[9:00]

We have a road from Port Hardy that goes out to Holberg, and from there out to Cape Scott, which could be one of the best tourist potentials on the whole of this island. The road is very difficult and dangerous to drive; part of it is Highways' responsibility, and part of it is indirectly Western Forest Products'. There is a desperate need for upgrading that particular road.

We have the continuing problem of the people in Tahsis not having direct access out to civilization that they require. I recognize that that's a fairly big project, but I sure wish that we could take some steps in conjunction with forestry to get on with some forest mainline haul roads that would solve that problem.

In Alert Bay we have the problem that has gone on now for too many years: a main street which is a provincial arterial highway that should be turned over to the village but can't be

[ Page 5121 ]

because the Highways ministry can't get its act together to upgrade that particular street.

I say without exaggeration that there are literally dozens of other small situations throughout the riding which I have communicated with both the ministry in Victoria, and especially with the district Highways manager, frequently and consistently over the years. We just don't have the money to do this basic upgrading and maintenance of existing standards.

The final point I want to make in this brief overview is the Quadra ferry. I asked in a throwaway question in question period a month or so ago about the indications that the Ferry Corporation was talking about constructing four new vessels and whether one of those was going to be designed for the Campbell River–Quadra Island route specifically because of the unique nature of that particular run and the increasingly heavy demands on that run. Is a special ship being built for that run? Can the minister answer that?

In the meantime, we have the problem of having the larger vessels come on too late in the spring and being moved off too early in the fall. We need to extend that season. Rather from June to September, it needs to be May to October when we have the larger capacity vessels on that route.

I could say a lot more, but in the interests of time, that's all I'll say for the moment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I expect that there will be a number of members wishing to rise and speak on these estimates, so I will answer this question, and then perhaps I could take a series of them at a time.

There will be about $1 million spent in your constituency this year on road improvements. The $6 million is only for the planning of that highway, which is a separate highway — nothing to do with curb and gutter.

There are about 7,000 bridges in the province — a lot of them designed by Mr. Bailey. When I talked earlier about a five-year plan and a ten-year plan, part of it has to be the examination of maintenance of our existing plant and equipment because it all requires upgrading. You build a new highway, you put in the capital costs, and you also incur additional ongoing costs.

I just speak briefly about the ferry situation. I hope to have the numbers finalized and announced later this week, but the numbers of increased ferry loadings this year over last year are more than substantial. The statistics are almost frightening in terms of the growth loads in ferries. I'll be hoping to have those statistics completed by the end of the month. It's not just on your run. We are experiencing overloads in a number of places and we are looking at ship design not just for Quadra Island. We're trying to get a generic major-minor vessel and a generic minor-minor vessel that can fit those routes so that we have the flexibility to move them. In that particular one, the extra power that they require may mean that it's a custom-made vessel, and yet it has to go in for refit, and we go through all the usual problems that take place there. I had hoped we'd dispensed with the ferry business the other day.

Perhaps at this point, Madam Chairman, I'll just take a number of questions from members who wish to bring up issues within their own constituencies. I'm aware of most of the issues in your constituency, although not as intimately as you are, and I would concur that there are — not only in your constituency, but in virtually every other one — major funds required for this. In terms of a priority, I can only work within the funds allotted to me by Treasury Board, and we have tried to balance it out on a regional basis around the province.

MR. MILLER: I have a few relatively simple questions to ask the minister concerning some transportation issues in my constituency. I'm rather thankful that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) has left so he won't be yelling "Manitoba" at me constantly and interrupting my train of thought. But some of the members down in the corner have promised to try and heckle me, and I hope that they will do a better job than they usually do. They need the practice, so do carry on.

I was just advising the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) via a little note I sent him that they have developed a new wine in the Okanagan that's resistant to free trade. It's called Boundary-Similkameen Superior. I see the minister's laughing. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. The Minister of Agriculture is laughing heartily. I understand that he's going to do a study on it now.

I wanted to canvass three issues in my constituency. At the outset, I want to thank the minister for his agreeing to a meeting on rather short notice with the Port Simpson band council on a transportation issue. I can tell you that the band appreciated the opportunity to meet with you, Mr. Minister, and hopefully some positive things will come out of that meeting in terms of additions to the transportation network in my constituency.

I want to deal with Highway 16. I was appreciative of the efforts of the former minister in letting those two contracts on the final seven-kilometre section of Highway 16 near Prince Rupert — the last section, I believe, except for one other small area between Prince Rupert and Terrace, that really had not been reconstructed; the last of the old section of highway.

Since last year — and it's been quite some time since the authorization was there to do those two projects — one of them has really been stalemated. I have been in contact with ministry people, but have got nothing more than that they are aware of the problem and are working on it. I would think that it might create some problems in the contiguous contract in terms of their completion date and the expectation of the ministry, I presume, in letting a final paving contract and the delays that that might create because of the problem we have with this contractor — Williamson Bros., I believe.

Can the minister advise what efforts are being made to get that project going again and when he foresees that it actually will be going? I think it's quite critical. I'm sure the minister views it as a problem he would like to solve. There are fifty-cent dollars in there; it's a cost-shared project with the federal government. I don't know if that creates any minor complications, but . . .

Excuse me, Mr. Minister of Education. I was rather startled, and I think it's your tie that's done it. The colours leapt across the House and kind of dazzled me a bit. In fact, it looks amazingly like a tie worn by my colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) earlier today. With that I see the minister is taking it off.

In any event, perhaps the minister could advise me with respect to that contract and when we can get some work going on that and get it finished.

Secondly, there was the issue — and I'm sure the minister is aware now through correspondence — of the transportation subsidy that was available on the Queen Charlotte Islands, a historic subsidy, if you like, in terms of when the decision was made originally to send the B.C. Ferries to the Queen

[ Page 5122 ]

Charlotte Islands, the location in Skidegate of the ferry dock and the competition that took place between various communities. I understand that there was a 15 percent subsidy. The minister has recently received letters from the village of Masser and the mayor, Gordon Feyer, with regard to the cancellation of that. Could the minister advise me what is taking place on that?

Finally, in a larger issue in terms of a transportation policy in the north, the ministry has funded — and I presume will continue to fund — the development of a land-based strip in Masser. There was a fair amount of controversy about the location. I objected to the location, but nonetheless a decision was made and the airstrip is being built. There were good reasons for requiring or wanting to have a land-based strip on Graham Island. The weather that we have on the north coast and the fact that we are using seaplanes that have to land on water really restricted the number of days that airplanes could land on the Charlottes side. So the development of a land based strip was seen as a logical development. But I also think there's a need to complete the link to the mainland. As the minister is aware — I've talked to him at the Prince Rupert airport; I don't know if he took a helicopter over to Prince Rupert or what — those of us who fly regularly, and even irregularly, currently have to take the ferry that's in place.

Again, that's an historic relationship. When the federal government agreed to develop a major airstrip in Prince Rupert, the agreement at that time was that the city would supply the transportation. The city did that. In fact, the first ferry the city acquired was one of the old North Vancouver ferries that used to run across Burrard Inlet — I used to ride on it as a boy. Over the years the city has charged a fare that has allowed the city to cover the operating costs as well as put money into a fund for refits and the eventual purchase of new ferries. It's operated as a self-liquidating utility. It's become quite expensive to run, and the fare is now up to $8 for an adult. It's a long trip — about a 20-minute trip. The dock on either side is owned by the city, and the road from the ferry dock to the airport is maintained by Transport Canada.

The city has developed a plan — and I think it's a logical one in terms of doing some basic rerouting of the highway and the dock — that would allow the ferry to be used not just as a vehicle to take passengers to and from the airport, but as a regular vehicle to service an area that I think has a pretty good potential for further residential development, Dodge Cove on Digby Island. If it was implemented, the plan would see a greatly shortened ferry run — about five or six minutes. It would allow the ferry to run on a regular basis.

I think the problem is the overlapping jurisdiction. I know that no government is eager to volunteer to spend money. In this case, as a former alderman, I know that our previous efforts have been met with the sort of hand that went like this . . . . The federal government would say, "It's not our responsibility," the provincial government would say, "It's not our responsibility," and that was used as a convenient argument for nothing to be done.

I think there's some value in improving that transportation system — value in terms of communication with the Queen Charlotte Islands, value in terms of a better transportation system for people and goods coming in and out of Prince Rupert and for people and goods coming from the Queen Charlotte Islands to Prince Rupert. I know the minister was recently in Prince Rupert. He had a meeting with the city council, and they presented a proposal. At this point I'm not asking the minister to stand up and say we're going to spend X millions of dollars — he probably wouldn't do it anyway. But I want to canvass the minister's opinion of the proposal that was presented, because I do believe it is a rational, logical proposal for improving the transportation infrastructure in the region.

[9:15]

Finally, I want to ask the minister what activity is taking place in his ministry with respect to a bypass in Prince Rupert. This, again, is an area that almost every municipality in British Columbia has at one time or another dealt with the ministry on — and probably still is. I know from my time as executive assistant to the Minister of Highways that frequent representations were made on that subject. There were some difficulties we identified. Quite often these bypasses ended up being the main street, when in fact that wasn't the purpose for which they were intended. They really were denigrated in terms of that kind of development.

Clearly there is a history of the province agreeing to build bypasses. I guess the current example is Vancouver Island, where the government has committed itself to some major highway relocations. It really recognizes the congestion of having a major highway go through the middle of a small community and the problems that creates.

I believe there is a pressing need for that kind of bypass in Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert is somewhat unique in that it is a dead end. There are not too many coastal communities on major highway links in that position, apart from Vancouver and some of the lower mainland areas. The activities of the general cargo facility are expanding. Another $40 million is being spent to add additional space to the general cargo facility. All the truck transportation for that facility has to go through downtown Prince Rupert. As I was returning from work one day, I witnessed a fully loaded lumber truck overturned on that little dog-leg bridge right by the civic centre as you drive into town.

It was very fortunate. Again, I'm not being an alarmist, but the truck overturned and spilled its entire load of lumber right at the intersection where a good chunk of the high school kids from the east side of town come across. If that truck had spilled at a slightly different time, there would have been deaths; there's no question about it. We have heavy ore trucks and lumber trucks going through, and I think the need for a bypass . . . . Surely, in terms of the standards set within the ministry, Prince Rupert qualifies to have that kind of rerouting.

I know that there was some planning done in my time in the ministry. I can't recall whether that planning was complete in terms of the route and all the rest, but I know that some planning was done. It may be that it could require another look, that there might be an alternative in terms of coming around the back side of the island rather than trying to hug Mount Hays and go around to meet the port.

Those are four transportation issues that I think are important in my constituency. I would ask the minister whether he wants to do them following some other submissions or now. It's his choosing. But I would ask him to respond to those issues.

MRS. BOONE: I think the minister knows what I'm going to be talking about, as he made a trip from Dawson Creek or Fort St. John, I think, down to Prince George to get to a meeting in Vanderhoof. In doing so, he had to travel the Hart Highway. The Hart Highway has become a little bit of a

[ Page 5123 ]

joke, actually, because it's been under construction for a period of ten years or more a little bit at a time. We're very glad to see the construction that was completed over the last year, but there remains an extremely dangerous section of that highway that has a lot of curves and that is most dangerous, especially in the wintertime.

There has been some work done. Actually, the area has been cleared. There has actually been some preparatory work done and some gravel brought in. It looks like it's being prepared to be completed, but I understand from the information I've got, although I haven't received information on all of the things, that there is a plan to just do a very small portion of that highway.

It's interesting to note that the people in the riding, particularly in Mackenzie, joke about when they will get another stretch of that done — just before another election? That has been so in the past: we've done it a little piece at a time, each time an election comes up. I would like to ask the minister for a commitment to complete that section of the road and to make that entire area a safe highway. I'm not asking for a four-lane highway. I don't want any of those things; all we want is a safe area for a little stretch of road between MacKenzie and the Prince George area. I'd like to get the commitment that this will happen, and that it won't happen just prior to an election, Mr. Minister.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I am bringing up an issue that I believe has been mentioned to you by people throughout the province and that you have responded to: highway signage indicating radio station frequencies. As early as March of this year, I had a copy of correspondence that you sent to our radio station manager in Cranbrook saying that you're looking for "a clear, consistent and comprehensive policy for information on directional signs on freeways and conventional highways. In the course of this study all signage requirements are under review."

We asked some questions about that, and there was some discussion under the Minister of Tourism's estimates about the pilot project that he had mentioned and that you mentioned as well. I'm sure that doesn't include radio frequency signs, although if it does, I want to know how long we have to wait until you make a decision.

The radio station managers and broadcasters throughout the province have brought to you the case that it's important for travelers to know the frequencies, and that those signs continue. They needn't be big. They need to be there so that when travelers enter an area, they know where to tune in to find out, for example, what highway closures are in place, where the black ice is and where the forest fires are — these particular emergency functions as well as the simple function of knowing where there is a good place to eat, or at least a place that's going to welcome them because it advertises in the area.

So my question to you is: in this business of highway signage and particularly radio station frequencies, when will you make a decision as to what you're going to do about it? Will this be soon? I need to know what the criteria are.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It looks like we're having tie wars in here this evening between the member for Vancouver East and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

In Prince Rupert we're spending about $10 million in your constituency this year, mostly on the Yellowhead Highway. We've had some legal difficulties with that one pit, and I am told that we're just about ready to start work on it. As you know, we had gone to them and said: "You must start work." His lawyer wrote back very articulately and said, "What is your definition of work?" and all of the other postponement things, but since his equipment and facilities had moved offsite, we were able to actually move on it. I expect that we'll be able to get some work done on that soon. I would like to think that within the next month we'll get started on it, because there's a problem with some unreported explosives that were on the site. There are a number of complications.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I went out to view the particular pit, but the pit that's located two or three kilometres down the road is working very efficiently, considering the very difficult terrain they're working in, by the way. This is not Saskatchewan on that part of the Skeena River. However, the existing contractor is doing an admirable job, and I don't see why we can't have either him or someone else do the job a little further down the road.

I'm at a loss on your B.C. Ferries issue with the Skidegate thing. If you want to send me a note on that, I'll get you an answer on it.

About the airport, we have given some approvals for the Masset airport, but I'm constantly hearing two sides — one of the necessity for the airport to be put in at Masset, and the other from the people who think it's environmentally in the wrong location. But in view of the fact that there's no place to legally land a wheel airplane on the north island, it's probably time the thing proceeded. We've given them some extra funding this year as part of ATAR.

MR. MILLER: It's going ahead; that's not the issue.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have dealt with your not-so-friendly bus company in Prince Rupert not very long ago in getting to the airport and all the difficulties entailed. I'd certainly like to have the job of Peter Lester when it comes to setting tariffs on ferries. The way he operates that ferry, if I operated B.C. Ferries on the same rate, the cost of going between the mainland and this Island would be about $60, because on a per-mile basis it's pretty expensive.

They asked me about a week ago to examine the possibility of changing the road routing so that the small community currently not being served can be included, and we're going to have a look at that.

On bypasses, I appreciate your making the case for Prince Rupert. I just must tell you that almost every community in this province has a legitimate case to be made for a bypass.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: And Vancouver East has the most important one of all, in my opinion.

Mr. Member for North Island, I had not driven the Hart Highway, and I chose to drive the Hart Highway so I could see that. We are just completing a small project. I would hope, as part of our five-year and ten-year plan, to see that the completion of that project takes place, because clearly the driver gets used to driving on the road that was built to the newer standard, and all of sudden, despite the signage, is downgraded to the old Hart Highway, which was either designed for narrower cars or slower speeds, and there are

[ Page 5124 ]

two particular spots that you know very well and I am also aware of where accidents take place. I would like to think we can get that done, and hopefully we can include it in next year's budget, because I view it as a priority. For the people who live in Mackenzie and travel that highway, that particular little jog is a real nuisance.

Member for Kootenay, one of the problems we have is signage on a global basis. The commercial radio stations . . . . I was going to leave all their signs up, but I was thinking of taking the non-commercial ones down, and I'm considering whether or not to let the others stay up. The bigger problem came as a result of illegal signage placed on the highways throughout the province. We would like to have it consistent. In some cases the signage has been put up because the Ministry of Highways did not adequately provide some type of alternative for people in the tourism accommodation business. Therefore people would put up an illegal sign, our staff would take them down, and there would be sign battles as to what would come up and what would come down.

[9:30]

Some of the signs that we have in the province are steel posts embedded in concrete that have been put in there by people who wish to display a sign on the highway. That's not the kind of thing we'd like to do. We'd like to have them so they are all constructed to the same standard. If they are hit inadvertently by a vehicle, the sign comes over rather than the car being impaled on the sign.

We are trying the process in the Fraser Canyon, in terms of new signage, where a commercial enterprise will have their particular business labelled on an official sign. Where they have a logo and they wish to put the logo on that sign, we'll charge them a fee for it. If they're a small operation without a logo, then we'll be able to put that on just as a regular name. I can assure you that all the radio station frequency signs will remain, as will a whole host of other signs. But we would like it to be consistent, because there is great inconsistency, especially on the Island, in signage on highways, and it does lead to decreased traffic safety; there's no question of that. In the Kootenay I don't think it's that big a problem, but I have to be provincewide. As I drove from Invermere to Cranbrook, I noticed a number of signs that didn't conform with our signage policy. I'd like to see it be consistent around the province. Therefore the new ones you have seen in the Fraser Canyon, which we're going to try out for three or four months and that so far we've had an excellent response to . . . . If that's the case, we would like to see that continued provincewide.

We had a choice of using the American system or the Quebec system and, on the assumption that most of our visitors come from the United States, have chosen to go with the American system. I would like to think we'll have another three months of the system, we'll get it through the summertime, and at that point, depending on the feedback we get from the community, try and go provincewide with it so that we have much more consistency. It's better for the tour operators, for the motorists and certainly for those people who have enterprises along the highway system and who currently have to resort to breaking the rules.

The radio frequency thing really isn't a problem. It was a suggestion that was thrown out and grasped, I believe, by a fellow called Hesketh here in Victoria, who has made it his cause celebre; he has laboured long on it. All he had to do was phone me and I'd tell him it wasn't a problem. Anyway, he made an issue of it, and now it's in Hansard.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just wanted to check, Mr. Chairman. I thought I heard the minister say that the most important unfinished job was the Cassiar connector. Was it something like that? "Begging to be done," "high priority," "this year" — is that what he was really trying to say just a few minutes ago?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It is the worst traffic jam in Canada west of Toronto. I believe we could come to a solution to it this year, in terms of design. Ports Canada appears to be cooperative in terms of paying an additional. . . . Well, I'm going to ask them. I know you shake your head, but they may do it.

There is some community resistance. I had a long talk in my office with your seatmate about the levels of appreciation. Some people in the community don't want it. Obviously we can't accommodate everybody's wishes in any highway. But the city of Vancouver has fairly detailed plans and is prepared to pay the premium that will be required to try and make this thing as acceptable as possible in the community. I have gone through the detailed plans with your seatmate, and I am prepared to do the same with you in my office if you like, because we are really getting to the stage where I would like to see it go ahead. It solves the biggest problem for the constituency of Mackenzie and for the constituency of Langley and Whistler Mountain and a whole host of other places, because that is the worst logjam.

I must tell you that when I was in Kelowna being somewhat chastised by the community there about the four- or two-laning of the extension of the Coquihalla Highway, and I told them the story about the Cassiar connector, they agreed with me that it was a higher priority. I just think it's something we have to address, and it's going to take a little negotiation with a number of people. For the people in your constituency and Burnaby North and for anybody who has to travel through there — and there are people from virtually every constituency who have to — the more we can improve the access there, the better off we'll all be.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's encouraging, and I'd be pleased to meet with the minister with respect to the details. I'd like to commend the city. I think they have done an excellent job, and it's been a most productive process involving the neighbourhood and community. I am satisfied that the majority of the community is on board with the city's proposals.

If the minister thinks there are only a couple of people who have to be convinced, that's wonderful. I could guess who those couple of people might be.

As far as the waterfront end is concerned, I guess I might throw in a minority view. Personally — and I have advised the mayor of it — I don't think that connection down to the waterfront makes a lot of sense. Most communities in North America now don't want expressways along the waterfront, and I think that is what's proposed. You could do without a lot of that spaghetti at the McGill bridgehead and just not worry about that link. The bit of money from the feds I don't think is a big deal, and I'm not convinced the connections are all necessary.

The city is looking seriously now at an interesting alternative which I think is a better one for the city: the Great

[ Page 5125 ]

Northern cut, tying in Grandview Highway to the freeway and using the old dugout area to False Creek. It could avoid having a heavy impact on the east side of the city. You could move most of the truck traffic in that cut, one-way traffic on each side of the rail line, and that in turn could play the role that the waterfront expressway would without being as disruptive in the community as well. I guess I should admit an interest; I'm building a new house right above that damned waterfront road that is proposed, and I don't look forward to all that truck traffic below my home — and that's true of most of the people in my neighbourhood as well.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The plans that I have — that I've showed to your seatmate and, I repeat, would be pleased to show to you — are trying to avoid the stop and go of the major transport vehicles that are carrying either containers or the standard vehicle. While it's relatively easy to stop and start an automobile or a light truck, it's not with some of those vehicles, especially with engine brakes and all the other things they have. We aren't doing it to try and create a freeway in Vancouver. Obviously, that's something that hasn't been desirable for a long time. The people of Vancouver voiced their disapproval of that long ago when those proposals were put forward.

However, sometimes you have to consider the type of vehicles that will be on the road. The majority of them will be the kind of heavy vehicles for which we want to try and have the gradient and the number of stops as few as possible, just from the neighbourhood noise point of view. It's a lovely place to build a home though; I think the view is sensational.

MR. LOVICK: I promised the minister that I would finish my part in these estimates this evening. Therefore I'm going to cover a number of different areas very briefly and point to a number of particular constituency problems, if I can, and just leave it to the minister to respond.

I note first, though, that the minister has answered a number of questions from my colleagues by saying, "I can advise you that your constituency is going to have x number of dollars spent in it." I note that the last annual report published for the ministry is '85-86, and I understand that a more recent annual report is now in the hands of a publisher. The reason I mention that is because given the absence of that report, one has considerable difficulty finding out how much is being spent. I'm wondering, then, if the minister could assure the House that all constituencies in the province will be given that information on the precise spending plans for the next year.

While on that subject, I might just say to the minister that I'm impressed by the argument he presented in response to a question from my colleague for Prince George regarding the means of reporting highway expenditures on a district basis rather than on a constituency one. I think that's probably desirable.

I want to touch briefly on something a little closer to my own territory before I begin to list a number of other specific highway concerns — namely, the proverbial much-talked about Island Highway. First of all, I assure the minister I want to allay his fears: I'm not going to give my speech on the subject, because I do have it down to about ten minutes and can handle it well — and we might get his set speech in response. Rather than do that, instead I'm merely going to say that I think what causes the problem, and why a number of us on this side — and perhaps others too — get quite impassioned when we talk about the Island Highway, is that we have been told for so long that yes, indeed, this is the priority; yes, indeed, it's coming.

Let me just give one brief illustration. The Premier was in my constituency some two weeks ago and gave an extensive interview to the local press for central Vancouver Island. I don't think the press misquoted or misrepresented at all what the Premier said, but I had a marvellous sense of deja vu — I've seen this movie before — because the headline in my local paper was: "Highway's Coming." In other words, it's in the bag. Once again we have been had — or we have been handed, I should say, the carrot. It's out there, friends. Any day now it's coming. Unfortunately, as the minister well knows, when you check, you discover that yes, the plans are there, but we're talking about a longer construction period; some ten years, etc.

I've written to the minister on a couple of occasions, and I have received answers. I'm not entirely happy with the answers, but I accept that this is under study. I merely want to emphasize that the Island Highway has taken on a kind of mythical significance now for Vancouver Island communities. I'll remind the minister that a couple of his colleagues — one of his cabinet colleagues — was part of a task force about economic development on Vancouver Island that pointed to the fact that Vancouver Island was receiving proportionately less money on highways than all other districts in the province, and that it was time Vancouver Island got its "fair share." That's one of your cabinet colleagues. Indeed, it's the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) who was part of that process. Other members of this chamber from your side of the House were also part of that same task force.

In short, everybody agrees that it's absolutely crucial. Everybody agrees it's long overdue. Everybody agrees it is our fair and just desert. I hope that the minister will be guided by that.

I want next to briefly touch on a couple of very consistency-specific things. Before I mention any other constituencies, I'd better make sure I leave time for a few of my own, so I will.

These are matters of concern on that same stretch of highway. Given that there may be some improvements, what will happen to these older projects? One is the pedestrian crossing in Ladysmith at Transfer Beach. Will that pedestrian crossing still be part of the plan when the highway is improved? A number of the locals are asking that question, and I would appreciate an answer at some point.

Similarly, another problem in the same part of the region in the Ladysmith area: the Takala Road junction with the highway. The visibility has been improved because there was some rock removed, which intelligently enough was used for another project. It was taken away from the Takala Road intersection where it was blasted out and used in another area to improve the grade there, and that's good. The point is that it is still dangerous. There is still an almost blind intersection — people making that left turn on to the highway trying to head north on the highway. What we need there is simply a left-turn lane, and again I would just flag that for the ministry's attention when the highway is improved.

A third area was given me by my colleague the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who has just arrived. Rather than give up my place, I will simply mention it on his behalf — the Diamond Bridge in the same area. You will note that the pressing concerns are all in the south end of the

[ Page 5126 ]

riding; that is very much in evidence. When the highway and bridge are widened to four lanes, we need a left-turn lane for traffic heading north and turning left onto Christie Road. That's at the south end of the Diamond Bridge. Again, that's a problem. It's a safety hazard, and that's why we are asking for that specifically.

The fourth area concerns the Gabriola bridge. I know we touched on that just a little bit, but I understand that some more concrete and specific action is now taking place. Indeed, a ministry official — I believe it was Mr. Flitton — had a conversation with my colleague from Nanaimo and was wondering how the locals would respond to the idea of a bridge connection to Gabriola Island. Thus far, when we've talked about that, needless to say it's all been very indeterminate; it's all been very much a matter of study. I'm wondering if the minister would like to give us an update on that, given that apparently more things are happening.

[9:45]

As well, before I leave this, Mr. Minister, let me just touch on a couple of other very specific highways district problems. I see that we are rather few in number here, so I will presume to mention things that otherwise I would leave to members there.

Regarding Highway 5A, the road from Princeton to Merritt, there are some improvements going on there, I understand. The improvements, though, are apparently minor; that is, the road is not being straightened or widened. I understand further that the railroad that is now used for transporting chips from Princeton is going to be closed down and therefore the locals are suggesting that perhaps a partial and piecemeal upgrading will not be satisfactory. I'm wondering if any thought has been given to upgrading and improving the road in a more significant way, perhaps expanding its capacity.

The minister, I'm sure, recalls the visit from the National Farmers' Union. They made reference to a couple of things about Highway 97. The road link between the Peace River area and the rest of the province, of course, is how they perceive Highway 97. They are concerned about a section approximately 20 miles long along McLeod Lake which needs widening and straightening. They would like to suggest that it should be a priority and would like to hear from you. They also....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Good. I'm pleased, then. You just arrived, I think, as I was about to say that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not my riding, it's Lois's.

MR. LOVICK: It's not yours.

Also, what about Highway 103, the Beatton River road? I'm told that funding for improvement was promised some time ago. The National Farmers' Union brief says: "The need for upgrading of this road is becoming critical, and the Beatton River hill is deteriorating. We request the funding to improve road 103 be made available immediately." I'm sure the minister has heard things like that before.

I'll also make a brief reference on behalf of my colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who said that he thought he had an understanding with ministry staff regarding improvements to the Sooke highway, but now understands that everything is in limbo, and he would like clarification, therefore.

I'm wondering as well whether there is any update to be given on a couple of written questions on notice regarding Highway 97, the first question concerning the highway between Penticton and Trout Lake; the second concerning the highway between Trout Lake and Summerland. As I say, those questions are on written notice, Mr. Minister, and therefore you can certainly respond to them at your leisure. I'm sure you're well familiar with what the questions are about.

I think at that point, Mr. Minister, I will simply give you the opportunity, then. I have no further questions. Let me just say that I have appreciated the forthrightness of your answers. It seems to me that our discussions have indeed been fruitful and, I'm pleased to report, civilized.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Member.

We're going to spend $1.5 million in your constituency, but as we go through this process, again I want the budget to reflect regional expenditures. MLAs can hive it out. After all, we don't stop the project at boundary lines. In fact, it's been a bit of an engineering problem to have to constantly budget everything with boundary lines, and every time there's a change in the electoral districts, we had to change our process. So we'd like to stay with that original thing.

I'm delighted that you mentioned that part about the Island Highway and the particular member of the executive council who has something to do with funding, I believe, and will be more than aware of the requests that we put forward and the suggestions that we made in terms of expenditure.

The bridge to Gabriola. Your colleague told me that 70 percent of the people this year are for it, and 70 percent of the people are against it, which is an improvement from the 60-60 you had last year. We continue to examine that option and what's involved. I anticipate that sometime in the next month or two we'll be able to make a public statement that the local people can consider. As you know, there is a group calling itself the Gabriola Island Bridge Club, which doesn't play with cards, that has been actively involved. And, of course, there are those who are opposed to it.

I don't think I'll comment on the highway by Prince George, because your colleague did that eloquently and well. The railroad and 5A: at this point it's still rumour as to whether that will happen, but there's a constant battle between the railroads and trucks in terms of chip movements. I actually get pleased when we start moving some of the chips back into rail cars and off the highway, because a train of chip trucks does tend to do a little bit of damage to the highways as it goes along.

To your colleague from Sooke, I'd say: get it in writing, because when he has a commitment from the ministry to build something.... I can tell you, I don't have to make a single commitment. Just honouring the commitments of my predecessors will keep me very busy in this portfolio, and I'll endeavour to get them straightened out. Nobody would ever say your project isn't a priority; what they'd say is that it's on the list and it just didn't make it this year. I think we've got to be a little more forthright than that and come up with a list of what our expenditures are and not have them all in one area. Quite frankly, there are certain areas of the province which cry out more than others, but the work should be relatively evenly balanced.

[ Page 5127 ]

I did answer your question that was on notice about Trout Lake, although it is not on Highway 97. However, we still answered the question.

Vote 67 approved.

Vote 68: administration and support services, $97,125,770 — approved.

Vote 69: highway operations department, $590,355,241 — approved.

Vote 70: motor vehicle department, $41,420,822 — approved.

On vote 71: Nechako development region, $576,987.

MR. LOVICK: I believe that by prearrangement we are going to hold this over, so I would accordingly move that the committee rise and report resolution.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:53 p.m.