[ Page 6673 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supreme Court Act (Bill 23). Hon. S.D. Smith

Court Rules Act (Bill 24). Hon. S.D. Smith

Small Claims Act (Bill 25). Hon. S.D. Smith

Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 26). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6673

Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill PR401). Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 6674

Oral Questions

Drift-net fishing. Mr. Harcourt –– 6674

Polar 8. Mr. Sihota –– 6675

Ferry design and construction. Mr. Clark –– 6675

Recommendations of Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.

Mr. Kempf –– 6676

Forest Resource Development Agreement. Mr. Miller –– 6676

Tabling Documents –– 6676

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 6676

Mr. Williams

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6678

Hon. Mr. Vant

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Miller

Mr. Long

Mr. G. Janssen

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the precincts today we have four distinguished gentlemen: Mr. Fran Brunelle, member of the board of governors of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College; Dr. Chris Martin, president of the British Columbia Chiropractic Association; Dr. Don Nixdorf, executive director of the British Columbia Chiropractic Association; and Dr. I.D. Coulter, member of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the members of the Legislature to give a very warm welcome to Mr. John Windebank, who is visiting us from Pictou, Nova Scotia. He is known in British Columbia for his previous involvement in the Youth Parliament, through the Mission United Church Trail Ranger Group in his youth, where he became not only Leader of the Opposition but Premier in the Youth Parliament. Accompanying Mr. Windebank is Mr. John Clark, also a member of the Mission United Church ranger group, who is a resident of Sidney and a retired teacher from Claremont Senior Secondary School here in Victoria.

As well, we have a gentleman who is known to a number of you: Mr. Bill Hartley, with his son Eric. The former Minister of Public Works in the New Democratic government, as you are aware, put a lot of his heart and soul and the taxpayers' money into helping restore this fine legislative building. He was also the minister who did the design work and hired Arthur Erickson to design the Robson Square complex — who completed the job on target, on budget.

Would you please give these gentlemen a warm welcome.

HON. MR. REE: Today in the galleries we have 45 bright, wide-eyed, wide-awake students from Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver — who have been up since before 5 o'clock this morning. They are here under the guidance of their teachers, Jim Adams and Stu McDonald. Also accompanying them are two former teachers, Mr. Ed Peterson and Mr. Ross Stanway, from the same alma mater that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and I went to a long time ago. I would ask this House to give them a warm welcome to Victoria and to the chamber.

HON. S.D. SMITH: In the House today is Her Worship Susan Brice from Oak Bay, who is a member of the Justice Reform Committee of British Columbia which produced the "Access to Justice" report. I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming her to this chamber.

Also in the House today — or about to be in the precincts — are a number of individuals who have served as the advisory committee to the Attorney-General on implementation of the Justice Reform Committee report.

These individuals have been an integral part of that process, and they will become an integral part of the evaluation process that is being developed to ensure that we achieve, through reform, the goals that we have established for ourselves. These individuals have worked very long and very hard — usually at night. They have done so on a volunteer basis, and I must say they may take credit for what works with our reforms, and I will assume responsibility for what needs reworking.

Mr. Speaker, would the House please join me in welcoming to the chamber today — or to the precincts later: Madam Justice Prowse; the Hon. Judge Low; His Honour Judge Shupe; Don Jordan, who is an administrative law person from Vancouver; Brian Saunderson from Campbell River; Douglas Macadams from Abbotsford; Blair Suffredine from Nelson; James Vilvang, who is the president of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch; Peter Leask, who is bencher of the British Columbia Law Society; Bryan Williams, a former president of the Canadian Bar Association; Michael Hutchison, who practises in the city of Victoria; and Alison MacLennan, who is a practitioner in Vancouver. Would the House please join me in welcoming and thanking them.

MR. PELTON: Would hon. members please welcome to the House this afternoon Grant and June MacDonald and their son Murray, who are visiting us from West Vancouver.

Introduction of Bills

SUPREME COURT ACT

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supreme Court Act.

COURT RULES ACT

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Court Rules Act.

SMALL CLAIMS ACT

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Claims Act.

JUSTICE REFORM STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. S. D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. S.D. SMITH: With leave — and the cooperation of my friend the House Leader — I'm pleased to present members with a package of legislative mea-

[ Page 6674 ]

sures to reform our justice system. Reports to legislatures frequently collect some dust on their way to implementation. The "Access to Justice" report has instead collected much deserved acclaim. The report's 182 recommendations were received by me November 30. Less than six months later we are presenting legislation to begin implementation of that report.

[2:15]

On behalf of all members of this House — and, indeed, all British Columbians — I say thank you to members of the Justice Reform Committee for their work. These bills are the product of an extensive, broadly based, deeply rooted consultation process that began December 1, 1988, and finished last Friday. Implementation of the "Access to Justice" report would not be proceeding without the widely based consensus that has been achieved through that consultative process.

Bill 23 will merge the Supreme and County Courts of our province into one unified superior court. In 1969 this House debated a bill to do just that. Attorneys-General before and since have visited the issue and have moved away. The "Access" report itself recommended further study. Today a decision has been made to merge now, and this House will have a chance to give authority for that step by July 1990 or sooner.

Merger will reduce the number of trial courts from three to two and thereby fulfill one of the major recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada report released today. Merger will mean better administration and, more importantly, better service for all British Columbians. Through Bill 23 we will fully clothe the Supreme Court as a place for all British Columbians, not just for those resident in the lower mainland of this province.

Bill 24 will consolidate the court rule-making power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under one piece of legislation. Today that power is found in nine separate acts. Provisions in this bill will facilitate the new economical litigation program which covers a range of claims between $5,000 and $20,000. Bill 24 has provisions to help citizens and small business people pursue remedies without needing complicated legal procedures.

Bill 25 will create a new small claims act. Small claims court is intended to be the people's court. Bill 25 will improve access by raising limits to $5,000 and by providing simpler rules and procedures.

Bill 26 amends various acts, including the Family Relations Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter and the victim services legislation.

Earlier I invited the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) to be briefed in my office on these matters. I want to say now that through the process of consultation it is my view the people have spoken on these matters. It is now for us to heed that call and give these bills our serious consideration and early passage.

Bills 23, 24, 25 and 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SEMINARY OF CHRIST THE KING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr. Jacobsen presented a bill intituled Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989.

Bill PR401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Oral Questions

DRIFT-NET FISHING

MR. HARCOURT: A question to the Premier. Two weeks ago the Premier declared drift-net fishing an attack on our natural environment that B.C. won't tolerate. Can the Premier explain how it happened that while he was talking, Canada, far from seeking a ban on the drift-net fishery, was about to sign an agreement with the United States and Japan to extend the fishery?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can't speak for the federal government. Obviously we consider this whole issue despicable and atrocious. We're very much opposed to the whole idea of drift-net fishing, and we intend to continue pursuing it. We will raise it at every opportunity and will again make representation to the federal government to see what we can do at this date to have them take a more aggressive stance with respect to the whole issue of drift-net fishing. We're also pursuing it in my office through the Ministry of Agriculture to see what we can do in B.C. as an initiative to focus on the issue more effectively, and we have some good ideas in that regard.

MR. HARCOURT: The federal government's own Fisheries staff have said this extension could have a serious impact on B.C.'s salmon stocks, yet from the government's reaction to this federal sellout of B.C.'s fisheries it's clear you only learned about it in the Sunday Province. Does the fact that the Mulroney government went ahead and negotiated an extension rather than a ban on drift-net fishing mean that you and your government played no role at all in the decisions about B.C.'s fisheries?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For clarification, unlike the members opposite we don't get our research from the Vancouver Province. I will defer the question to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the hon. opposition House Leader: we have had constant discussions with federal Fisheries and Oceans and have expressed our concern very drastically about the effect of the driftnet fishery on the Pacific salmon industry. We have

[ Page 6675 ]

constantly raised the issue with the minister's assistant, Mr. Pierre Asselin, and have very much expressed our view that we are opposed to the drift-net fishery and, in fact, that it should be closed down.

MR. HARCOURT: From the Premier's strong statements two weeks ago to this pathetic show today, it's clear that the Premier either has no influence on Ottawa or is taking lessons from John Crosbie on how to sell out the B.C. fishery.

The question is: given the GATT decision, the FTA sellout and now this action, can the Premier say why British Columbians should have any confidence in his government's ability to stand up for the B.C. fishery?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, it's fairly simple. Yes, the people of British Columbia can have real confidence in a free enterprise government, and that's why, for the last 37 years, they've chosen Social Credit over the socialist NDP. When they did decide on the socialist NDP, it was relatively short-lived. I hope that answers your question.

I must say, too, that we're attempting to work continually with the federal government on this issue. I appreciate that not all things are happening just as we'd like to see them, and we're certainly going to continue to pursue this. But I must say that it's going to take more than headlining in the House to get this matter addressed, and we're getting good cooperation from industry and the union.

POLAR 8

MR. SIHOTA: I asked the Premier yesterday about the Polar 8 situation. He dispatched Mr. Rhodes to Ottawa to attend to this matter when the story first came out that the Polar 8 deal was going to be cancelled. Could the Premier confirm that the government was advised at that time — in other words, Mr. Rhodes was advised at that time, and hence the government — that there were no guarantees that the project would proceed this year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can well appreciate why so many in the NDP live in a world of negativism, and I suppose if we allow that negativism to spread, we would end up with a province down in the dumps. Now the representative for a constituency very much affected by the construction of the Polar 8 — instead of giving his people some hope and confidence — talks about the project being cancelled. It has not been cancelled, it is not cancelled and it won't be cancelled.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, this is the same Premier who talks about confidence in our economy who has allowed the grape industry and the fish-processing industry in this province to die, and who now has the shipbuilding industry on the ropes.

My question again to the Premier is: was Mr. Rhodes advised by the federal government when he went to Ottawa that indeed the project was not on go — in other words, that it was not going to proceed this year? Was he advised at that time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In the introductory remarks, again we heard the NDP socialistic negativism that somehow the fish industry had died as well. The fish industry has not died. It is much a part of my constituency, and in my constituency the fish industry is still thriving. If we have our way, I can assure you we will be positive and fight to the very end, and that industry will survive in my constituency.

I will speak to Mr. Rhodes to see if, in fact, he was told something that the member mentioned.

MR. SIHOTA: This Premier, in his thirst for headlines, chose to send Mr. Rhodes to Ottawa and said that he was going to be acting with dispatch to attend to this matter. Now it turns out that the Premier never even talked to Mr. Rhodes. Is the Premier saying that once Mr. Rhodes returned, he never even talked to him to determine the status of the Polar 8 project? Is that what the Premier is saying now?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rhodes is an excellent deputy in this government. He serves the province and the people extremely well, and we have good and ongoing communications. He will probably continue to be deputy for many years, and he will always communicate with whoever he serves and serves well. We don't really have too many negative discussions. All our discussions tend to be fairly positive. I can understand why the opposition has such difficulties in question period, because most of it is based on rumour. If that's a rumour you've heard, perhaps you may wish to tell me where you've heard the rumour that Mr. Rhodes was told the project might not be proceeding.

From all the information I have, we had and continue to have the assurance from the people in Ottawa that in fact the Polar 8 will proceed. I understand perhaps that there is some further work to be done with respect to design, and I understand too that there is some difficulty with respect to change of ownership. But all of that will hopefully be resolved very quickly, and this government and this Premier will fight in a very positive way and very hard to make sure that the people in that constituency of Esquimalt, who are very dependent on those jobs, will, in a very positive way, achieve that employment and those opportunities. We will not be negative. The project will be theirs.

[2:30]

FERRY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In a letter to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in February, the minister stated that 100 percent of B.C. Ferry Corporation's construction has been done in British Columbia to date. Will the minister assure the House that

[ Page 6676 ]

the construction and design work for all the new ferries will be done in British Columbia by B.C. firms?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm very pleased that the second member for Vancouver East has such an interest in marine transportation and ferries. As in the past, particularly regarding the construction of the ferries, we will continue that policy to have them built here in British Columbia.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the minister. Can the minister tell the House why the government, for the first time in B.C. history, has awarded the design contract for a 100-metre ferry to a Finnish company named Wartsila?

HON. MR. VANT: Design work is a very small component of the overall project, Mr. Speaker. It so happens that the corporation was looking at various schematics — not actual working drawings. The Ferry Corporation board decided on that particular firm because of their initial conceptual design. They want the best possible design for our ferries in this province. That's why I said earlier that the construction would occur in British Columbia and would be done by British Columbians in our own shipyards.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the minister. The minister is saying that no companies in British Columbia are capable of doing the same quality design that Wartsila is. That is simply unacceptable, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANT: It so happens that this particular firm that is doing the designing has very significant connections with firms that are based in and do business right here in British Columbia. In the marine industry, there are many interconnections all over the world.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF SELECT STANDING
COMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND LANDS

MR. KEMPF: I have a question to the Premier. Having spoken so highly yesterday in question period about the "truck loggers, small loggers and contract loggers," has the Premier decided — through his ever so democratic system — to draft legislation accommodating the recommendations made by the last Select Standing Committee on Forest and Lands, giving those people, of whom you spoke so eloquently yesterday, that which they have sought for so many years?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would very much like to answer the question, because we have certainly been addressing these issues very aggressively over the last while, but I can't talk about future legislation.

FOREST RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

MR. MILLER: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. Last week the minister reiterated that B.C.'s position is that we require a $700 million FRDA program, fifty-fifty cost shared with the federal government. This weekend the federal Minister of Forests indicated that he felt B.C. should shoulder a higher percentage of the cost. Has the federal government formally advised the provincial government that it will not fund any new agreement on a fifty-fifty basis?

HON. MR. PARKER: My discussions with the Hon. Frank Oberle have indicated that the replacement agreement for FRDA I will be coming from the western development initiative, and there was no indication whatsoever whether there would be any reduction of their participation, which in FRDA I was fifty-fifty. Furthermore, I emphasized to the minister the importance and magnitude of the agreement, because the second agreement will be very much in a stand-tending and intensive silviculture program.

Hon. Mr. Vant tabled the annual report for the British Columbia Railway group of companies for the period ending December 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

On vote 44; minister's office, $311,570 (continued).

MR. WILLIAMS: It wasn't entirely clear to me whether the minister's transit staff were going to be here or not. They are? Fine.

Insofar as the conflict-of-interest guidelines are concerned, I might just note for the record what parts of them state. It states that these refer to outside consultants as well as employees, so they're the same regulations. The general statement says:

"(a) No conflict should exist or appear to exist between the private interests of employees and their official duties. Upon appointment to their position, employees are expected to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest from arising.

"(b) Employees should exercise care in the management of their private affairs so as not to benefit or appear to benefit from the use of information acquired during the course of their official duties not generally available to the public.

"(c) Employees should not place themselves in a position where they could derive any direct or indirect benefit or interest from any contracts over which they can influence decisions.

"(d) All employees are expected to disclose to their supervisors all business, commercial or financial interest where such interest might conceivably be

[ Page 6677 ]

construed as being an actual or potential conflict with their official duties."

I think those are the core areas, and the discipline is simply that it may be subject to disciplinary action.

While those regulations are fairly general, they still invite careful examination relative to what occurred during that period of the studies of the Clarkson corridor with respect to the private acquisitions that took place in that same time period.

While the conflict-of-interest guidelines are pretty general — and less than adequate for a privatized system, which is indeed what we have in British Columbia — they still bring to bear some worthwhile things. If the minister ponders over this, she might well reconsider those guidelines insofar as consultants are concerned, so that they might indeed be more specific for the next round of right-of-way negotiations. Maybe she has comments at this point.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: During lunch hour, I did have an opportunity very briefly to secure some information with regard to the concern that had been expressed by the member this morning.

I did learn that the properties purchased by the individual and company involved in New Westminster were purchased well after the alignments for phase one and phase two were made public information. If there was a suggestion that because of some prior knowledge with regard to the alignments for SkyTrain there was a purchase of property made in order to realize personal benefit, that should not any longer be considered. There was no withdrawal of the fact that the properties were purchased and that Mr. Macdonald did have an interest in the properties. A good many of the properties were on the market for some time, apparently; and some even to the extent that on Columbia Street they had been boarded up.

Rather than go into any more detail with regard to those acquisitions.... I don't honestly have enough information here to make a full statement, but it is my intention to do that. I have requested a full report on Mr. Macdonald's holdings, and will be making a statement as soon as I possibly can. All of the information will be laid on the table. We will also be reviewing our conflict-of-interest regulations.

You may or may not know that Mr. Stuart Hodgson, our chief executive officer, has been ill. He has been on holidays recuperating for the past month. He will be returning probably in two weeks. I think that it would be most appropriate after he is well rested to have a good job for him to do: to go over these things to ensure that we are adequately covered. If there are some inadequacies, we should address them. You now have a copy of what is made available to contractors and to employees. If you have some suggestions for tightening up or improvements, we would be pleased to hear from you.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the bulk of my comments are already in Hansard, so they might be perused by Mr. Hodgson and the staff.

Specifically, impacted areas where they carry out studies and right-of-way acquisition should be out of bounds — pure and simple — in terms of their private business interests. That's the trade-off they have to make. That's my view of what the policy should be. In fact, I think it's so clear that you almost wouldn't have to spell it out; and I would hope the minister would agree. Just nod your head; that's fair enough.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister indicates she certainly will consider that.

Item (d) in the conflict guidelines states that employees or consultants are expected to disclose to their supervisor their business, commercial or financial interests where such an interest might conceivably be construed in actual or potential conflict with their official duties. Was B.C. Transit advised, in the case of these three people who were with Interwest, of their private activities at the time?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We do have that information now, but I'm not sure when the information was acquired. I would have to determine whether it was on Mr. Macdonald's taking on full-time employment with B.C. Transit or whether we had that prior to his becoming a full-time employee.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would suspect it was prior to the exercise on March 1, when he became a full-time civil servant. But that remains to be seen.

In the case of Mr. Pavlakovic, who is the signing officer for most of these various instruments and corporations, did you receive such background information from him?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Not likely.

MR. WILLIAMS: Similarly with Danny R. Grant, again involved in these various corporations that were active in New Westminster. It seems to me that even with these guidelines they were under obligation to report those business interests. Clearly the activities were taking place.

[2:45]

I know the minister has said that people knew generally where the right-of-way was going, so it didn't, in a sense, represent privileged information. I don't find that very acceptable as a response. Everybody knew you were going to have to cross the river around the Pattullo Bridge, and they knew that SkyTrain was coming down around the diagonal part of Columbia Street from 20th. You could pretty well guess where the right-of-way was; in fact, everybody knew where the right-of-way was. But that alone isn't the question. It's these other questions of impacting an already constricted, difficult, tight market at a time when the people who were being thrown out of their buildings were having to scramble and look for stuff themselves. So while it's true that some of these places weren't rented or active on Columbia Street,

[ Page 6678 ]

the time was coming when they would be. It was just around the corner.

I understand what the minister is saying, but it does seem to me that this is something both Mr. Hodgson and staff could look at, in conjunction with the appraisal institute and the various professional bodies, in terms of what is normal, expected professional practice to see whether in fact guidelines were violated, as it appears that these were violated.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't have any problem with that suggestion.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think that's a positive response from the minister. I guess I would be satisfied, since the staff are here, that indeed the areas we've canvassed are confirmed: that Interwest Property and their staff were the primary players in terms of the acquisition in that area and were also the people who carried out the Clarkson corridor study.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I can undertake that we will follow in Hansard the questions that have been put to us by the members opposite. All of the questions will be followed up by the appropriate staff member or Crown corporation.

Vote 44 approved.

Vote 45: ministry operations, $61,833,550 — approved.

Vote 46: municipal revenue-sharing, $288,300,000 — approved.

Vote 47: transit services, $182,240,633 — approved on division.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

HON. MR. VANT: I stand before you today to outline my budget for the 1989-1990 fiscal year for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

The budget, I'm very happy to report to this House, is in excess of $1 billion. Included is the highways capital construction fund, which is increased 145 percent to almost $412 million. By my ministry's best calculation, this figure corresponds to some 7,000 person-years. As well, a further $154 million has been allocated to highway rehabilitation so that we can properly maintain our infrastructure. In total, we estimate that our highway capital plan will generate about 9,700 person-years of work this year alone. The commercial flow and the employment created by this labour-intensive expenditure will substantially enhance our economic and social well-being province wide for many years to come.

Since being appointed last July 6, I have adopted a policy of systematically visiting and revisiting as many areas of our large province as possible. Only one who has done this can truly appreciate the great diversity that is ours: diversity in our physical makeup, climatic differences and economic structure.

It is obvious that our policies in regard to air, rail, road and marine services and the dollar outlay involved can only be addressed by listening to input firsthand, listening to the users and to the business community, and listening to the advice of our very competent and knowledgeable staff. Their pride and dedication to excellence are second to none, and I am exceedingly fortunate to be able to rely on their depth of experience and expertise.

It is up to my ministry to ensure that transportation networks are developed in an integrated manner, to provide the most efficient, cost-effective method of moving people and products — a "Freedom to Move," as highway construction signs around the province outline. We are working hard to give you the freedom to move.

British Columbia shall have a cohesive transportation plan to guide us in the right direction through to the twenty-first century. In speaking of direction, I want to spend a few minutes on our new sign policy for services, facilities and attractions. Since this program has received a good deal of press lately, I want to explain the reasons for its implementation.

At the request of local governments, tourists and business operators, in a cooperative effort with the Ministry of Tourism and Provincial Secretary, my ministry has developed a standardized program, where all facilities, regardless of size, type and location, are treated the same. Up to this time, this has not been the case. We have set an ambitious schedule to implement this $4 million program, and we hope to have new signs in place by this July 1, the beginning of the prime tourist season.

The test of any good policy, though, is how well it has been accepted by those directly affected by it. In recent public meetings throughout the province, including business owners who depend on our great tourist influx each year, we were repeatedly told that the new policy is exactly what was needed.

Turning to other forms of travel, Mr. Chairman, as you know, under the umbrella of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are two Crown corporations: B.C. Rail and British Columbia Ferry Corporation.

At B.C. Rail, 1988 was the seventh consecutive year for which they reported improvements in operations. The year ended with an all-time record net income of $58.3 million — and no new borrowings. During the year, an existing long-term debt was reduced by almost $2 million to $111.5 million. B.C. Rail was also partially responsible for a steel-tie manufacturing plant opening in Squamish, adding new jobs to the Squamish area. During 1988, B.C. Rail took delivery of 160 bulkhead flatcars. These are used primarily for transporting lumber. This new equipment allows for heavier loads per car, resulting in greater efficiency. A new tunnel on Seton Lake has been completed, improving both the safety of operations and train performance. Additional rock stabilization, ballast and replacement programs were also undertaken.

[ Page 6679 ]

B.C. Rail's plans for the current fiscal year include major rail and tie replacement and upgrading programs worth approximately $48 million, with a $4.5 million expenditure in the first year of a five-year development program of the North Vancouver yard. Almost $18 million is budgeted for the purchase of additional rolling-stock and new locomotives.

B.C. Ferries, as of February 28, 1989, reported almost $13 million in surplus on gross revenues of over $173 million. For the 11-month period, the provincial subsidy totalled $46.8 million, with expenditures of $207 million including depreciation.

Compared to 1987-88, revenues rose by more than $15 million while cost increases were held to just over $3 million. This $6.5 million improvement over last year's surplus at the end of February is from a higher-than-anticipated increase in traffic on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay and Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo routes, a small tariff increase on April 1, 1988, and, lastly, through continuing operating efficiencies.

System wide, in the 1988-89 fiscal year B.C. Ferries carried more than 17.5 million people and nearly seven million vehicles, volume increases of 5 percent and 6 percent, respectively, compared to the previous fiscal year.

Our commitment to the marine industry means more ferries for the Ferry Corporation and more work for B.C. shipyards. Increasing traffic on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay route has necessitated the decision to build two new superferries, each with a carrying capacity of 470 vehicles. In addition, two small vessels will be built to accommodate growing demands in the southern Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast. The first of these four vessels is scheduled to enter service in 1992. We are also going to upgrade ferry terminals on the lower mainland as well as at Swartz Bay and Nanaimo on Vancouver Island to meet this traffic growth.

On another front, my ministry intends to continue and expand our commitment to the air transport assistance program. This beneficial government initiative has already contributed over $30 million to air facility improvements since its inception by the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) back in 1978. It is an integral part of this province's regional economic development. Last year alone there were over 5,000 medical air evacuations from community airports throughout British Columbia.

As all members of this House are aware, road and bridge maintenance throughout the province was privatized during this past year. I am pleased to say that this major transition was completed smoothly and on schedule in just seven short months between September 1988 and March 31, 1989. Ministry energies can now be directed to managing the work and monitoring the performance of the private contractors.

At this time I would like to take a few minutes to delve further into the topic of privatization. This initiative announced in 1987 has generated a great deal of controversy, but, as we predicted, it is gaining ever-increasing acceptance and appreciation.

Before proceeding to privatize road and bridge maintenance, my ministry made a thorough review of the service provided by government. We found that about 35 percent of maintenance work was already being done by the private companies. In addition, road building has been contracted out successfully to the private sector for many years, where it has been proven that individual companies can do the work as well as government. Obviously if private companies can build and pave roads in an efficient, competitive manner, certainly they can maintain them.

I want this House to know that we didn't rush into this process of privatization. However, several criteria had to met before privatization progressed. Public safety had to be protected. All employees had to be offered work with the new employer. Overall, the private sector had to be able to provide the service more efficiently.

Employees were encouraged to set up their own companies and were given an exclusive opportunity to bid on the 28 contract areas. My ministry at this time is very pleased to be able to report that our successful privatization policies resulted in ten new employee-owned businesses around this province. When the members opposite look for substance in that regard, they certainly have it.

[3:00]

Where an agreement with an employee group could not be negotiated, private contractors were then given an opportunity to submit a proposal. Expressions of interest were invited and interested groups received a package outlining the scope, method of contracting and contract administration. Detailed operational information was prepared for each contract area, covering an inventory of roads, the bridge register with the latest inspection information, equipment available to be leased, buildings and terms for leases, materials to be purchased, conditions applicable to the proposal submission and, most importantly, the standards that the ministry would require in day-to-day operations. That was the most important: the standards that we as government would require in the day-to-day road and bridge maintenance operations.

A bidders' meeting was arranged in each contract area to show typical facilities, materials and equipment. These meetings were chaired by a project director from the privatization group, accompanied by a senior ministry representative, a business consultant and a legal adviser. These four people formed the project team that managed each contract to its conclusion.

The firms were invited to make submissions based on proposal requirements as a prequalification for submitting detailed bids. This step was taken to ensure that only those companies that met all government requirements would be considered. Prequalification was based on proof of financial, operational and management capability. We also required letters of insurance and bonding, evidence of previous applicable experience and the assurance that all government employees would be offered employment at their same rate of pay, in the same position and with union status.

[ Page 6680 ]

Companies that pre-qualified were invited to submit a detailed proposal. These were numerically rated according to ten evaluation criteria developed jointly by the project directors, the ministry and the legal advisers. They included bid value, management team, operating plan, understanding of the concept of road and bridge maintenance, quality control, safety and regional development.

Once the choice was made, the successful company reached an agreement in principle with the ministry. In finalizing the contract, the companies purchased government assets at a price already confirmed by independent, accredited appraisers. My ministry, though, leased all specialized equipment to ensure that it would remain in our hands if the contract were to be cancelled at any time. Lease rates for that heavy equipment were established by using accepted industry standards.

I am also delighted to say today that close to 90 percent of all employees chose to accept work with private contractors, even though they had the option of remaining with the government. My ministry's goal in implementing the privatization program is better service to the taxpayer and user as well as fairness to the employees and the employers.

In regard to the employees' status in our privatization plan, I would like to quote directly from a weekly newspaper: the Invermere Valley Echo. The March 8 edition carries the following quotes from Bill Richardson, the staff representative for the East Kootenay region of the British Columbia Government Employees' Union. I see the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) nodding his head; I think he knows this gentleman.

This union official is speaking about negotiations for a contract signed March 3, 1989, between former employees of my ministry and the contractor in the East Kootenay contract area, Trendline Industries Ltd. The union leader, Mr. Richardson, is quoted directly as saying that he was very pleased with the manner in which Trendline negotiated the contract. Mr. Richardson goes on to say: "This employer has been a very good one to talk to. They weren't mischievous in negotiating, and were straightforward. The contract is almost identical to the former government contract...but wages are higher than previously paid by government."

Congratulations are in order to Trendline Industries and to members of the union negotiating committee. I feel certain that in offering these congratulations I will be joined wholeheartedly by all members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANT: I hear a few mutterings from that side.

MR. LOVICK: What about the West Kootenay?

HON. MR. VANT: We'll discuss that later.

Victoria Highway Maintenance Corp., right here on the Island, just settled with their employees at wages higher than those in government. As a matter of fact, new collective agreements in eight contract areas have been settled, with a further two yet to be ratified. While a number of settlements have been reached, it is also interesting to note that members of three employee groups, of their own free will and accord, elected to decertify. Clearly operators who are now owners have no one to bargain with but themselves.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure now to table — because I don't want the members opposite to have to wait — the final costs in each contract area, over the three-year contract period. At this time, I would draw all members' attention to.... I will table this document at this time. 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the minister asking leave to table a document?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANT: Well, you want good, solid information.

MR. LOVICK: Why don't you table the contracts while you're at it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will continue, please.

HON. MR. VANT: At this time I would draw all members' attention to Appendix H in the supplements to the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Couvelier's) budget speech, specifically table H1 on page 73 of this document. It can be clearly seen that the total savings — and I will also refer to that document — and benefits to government are almost $106 million for the next three years. This total is made up of $21.5 million in direct savings, close to $24 million in indirect benefits, and more than $60 million in proceeds to the privatization benefits fund from assets, sales and leases. These figures support our decision that privatization of road and bridge maintenance benefits all the people of British Columbia.

I know that these figures were of great interest to the hon. members of the opposition last year; they were, of course, to my ministry as well. To ensure that the ministry's historic baseline costs were accurate for comparison purposes, my ministry called in an independent international accounting firm to verify our estimates. A conservative estimate of inflation over the next three years was added to the baseline figures since, to be fair and to be reasonable, the comparison had to anticipate what our costs would be if maintenance had continued to be performed by the ministry. I was very pleased to, just a few moments ago, table the audit report of Coopers and Lybrand, which verifies our historic costs. As indicated in table HI of this year's budget supplements, you can see,

[ Page 6681 ]

Mr. Chairman, that over the three-year term of the agreements the government figures would have been substantially more than the total price to be paid to the contractors.

No one — and I repeat no one — can see the future, and thus it is very easy to call any projections into question if one chooses to do so. Nevertheless, to add weight to my ministry's savings estimates, I refer to the auditor-general's audit report on contract area 1, being southern Vancouver Island. The auditor-general, not someone within my ministry, found that the contract would generate the projected saving. He said: "The representations made by the government about this privatization were fair and sufficient for the Legislative Assembly and the public to judge the value for money achieved from it." He goes on to say: "The final estimates, which were compiled with the assistance of an international firm of chartered accountants, indicated that the preliminary estimates had been conservative. They showed net cost savings greater than the original estimate."

[3:15]

During the next round of tendering, in three years' time, I expect savings to be substantially higher, as the natural benefits of competitive pricing begin to take their full effect. Because of competition and to protect the integrity of the tendering process, I will not be making available a detailed breakdown of our historic costs by contract area, nor am I releasing the contracts for any of the 28 contract areas. Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, I'm sure it is not in the public's interest to have this information become available to all those potential competitors that we will be entertaining in negotiations less than three years from now. The public is more than welcome to examine the performance standards, and these are available in all our district Highways offices. But I will not compromise our future negotiating position by releasing information that could cost the taxpayer more for highway maintenance.

Significant as these cost reductions are, they of course do not tell the whole story. The safety of the traveling public concerns us too. That's why, for the first time, detailed maintenance standards have been developed and put in writing.

In addition, 141 experienced ministry managers monitor the contracts through our newly developed quality assurance program: a program of planned and systematic monitoring by the ministry to ensure that contractors have met specific standards and that the public is being well served. Every possible precaution has been taken to ensure that the same high level of maintenance is provided today as in the past. That's responsible government in action.

One might ask: how has privatization fared since the contractors took over last fall?

MR. LOVICK: Good question!

HON. MR. VANT: I thought you would see that as a good question.

Given one of the harshest winters in recent memory and the usual start-up time in any new business, all contractors were severely tested in their first few months of operation. There were some problems, of course, but none that the government would not have experienced itself during such a winter. Remember, nearly 90 percent of government employees are now with the private contractors. These are the same dedicated people, doing the same work, with the same quality equipment as when government performed the service. Moreover, let me repeat that there are 141 experienced ministry managers who ensure that the contractors conform to our very precise quality assurance program.

Have people noticed a difference? A recent provincewide poll found that only 42.6 percent of the respondents....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Sorry, minister, your time under standing orders has expired.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm enjoying so much the wonderful dissertation and lesson that this wonderful minister is giving us with respect to the great cooperation between government and private enterprise that I'd like to have him carry on.

HON. MR. VANT: Thanks to my hon. colleague the Minister....

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, I would certainly also have leapt up to suggest that the minister should be able to continue, because I am also enjoying this leap of faith.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Most enjoyable. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. VANT: I am indeed delighted that more than one hon. member wants to hear more.

A recent provincewide poll found that only 42.6 percent of the respondents were aware that roads in their areas were now being maintained by private contractors. Now take note of this: a further 74.7 percent described road and bridge maintenance to be as good as if not better than before.

MR. LOVICK: Is that the one, by any chance, that was done by the RTABC?

HON. MR. VANT: No.

As I have stated, and as we all know, weather this year has been in some cases the worst on record. The severity of this winter came as a surprise to all drivers. Many of us had not anticipated the first snowfall and were caught unprepared. Yes, indeed, there was snow in White Rock and — horror upon horrors! — there was even snow in Victoria. Because of this, my ministry will be developing a safety education program this fall, which will highlight preparing for winter driving.

MR. LOVICK: How to deal with unplowed roads.

HON. MR. VANT: No.

[ Page 6682 ]

As well, later this year my ministry will implement a toll-free telephone number to provide a provincewide road information system. Travelers will be able to call from anywhere in B.C. to find out about our ever-changing road conditions.

With privatization in place, my ministry has moved from being the operator to the more appropriate government role of planner and manager. We have moved from being responsible for doing the road and bridge maintenance to being responsible for managing the road and bridge maintenance. We need to anticipate and manage our changing transportation needs. Let's make no mistake, they are changing. A balanced and comprehensive program will allow us to anticipate those needs: replacing, rebuilding, expanding and improving facilities as it becomes necessary, and it is because of this that the transportation plan is so critically important.

We have invited transportation committees in each of the eight economic development regions to gather information for submission to my ministry this summer. Out of this work will emerge an integrated provincial transportation plan which, on adoption by cabinet, will become the blueprint for action.

Regional committees are made up of representatives familiar with the needs and characteristics of their regions. Technical assistance to the committees is being made available from my ministry along with help from other transportation agencies. Public input is vital. Indeed all the stakeholders in our various modes of transportation have to have input into this very important process, and that is vital to the success of this plan. Submissions have been invited throughout the province. This is not a one-time action; each year the regional transportation committees will review and update their plans in order to meet the changing transportation needs of British Columbians.

While this transportation planning process is underway, we have an accelerated program to be implemented this fiscal year. The magnitude of this year's capital development program represents a bold undertaking, and reflects the priority this government places on good transportation services. We are not only substantially increasing the magnitude of our financial commitment but we are also going to be delivering these improvements more quickly.

For the first time government has embarked on a $100 million advance tendering process to undertake projects which local committees have already indicated are priorities in their regions. This process ensures that a major portion of this year's capital and rehabilitation program will start earlier than in previous years. This process will allow transportation committees in each economic region to focus on their needs for the long term.

A number of major projects will get underway in 1989. Two of these are designed to address problems of congestion on the Trans-Canada Highway in the lower mainland. The Cassiar corridor and Burnaby freeway will together facilitate the flow of highway traffic into Vancouver and to the North Shore.

MR. JONES: About time.

HON. MR. VANT: I'm already gaining some converts here.

Work this year on the Burnaby freeway will involve planning and preliminary engineering studies. Construction on the Cassiar connector in Vancouver is scheduled to begin this winter.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT: Oh, just hang in there; I'm winding up.

Described in terms of the Cassiar connector: it's the most congested intersection west of Toronto, and the Cassiar connector will provide unimpeded vehicle flow to the north shore and to the federal port of Vancouver when completed in 1991.

Public meetings within the community of east Vancouver have been held regularly since the announcement was made to ensure that all residents are fully informed of developments in their neighbourhood. We are also sensitive to the needs and concerns of those people who must relocate as a result of this project. Every reasonable effort is being made to achieve fair settlements so that those residents can secure alternative accommodation.

A major project to be completed this summer is the Richmond east-west connector. It will provide an alternative route for Alex Fraser Bridge traffic into Richmond and Vancouver. This will both enhance highway safety and ease commuter frustration.

The Okanagan connector, I'm very pleased to report, is proceeding extremely well, and will be completed one full year earlier than originally scheduled. I am pleased to say we have increased the number of four- and five-lane lengths to almost 76 kilometres, leaving just over 24 kilometres of two-lane and eight kilometres of three-lane sections. This vital link will be open in the fall of 1990. When it's completed, the driving time from the lower mainland to the Okanagan will be reduced by as much as 25 percent.

HON. MR. VEITCH: And vice versa.

HON. MR. VANT: And vice versa. And the connector will be toll-free.

As a complement to the Okanagan connector, work is continuing on our four-laning of Highway 97 from Penticton to Vernon on a progressive basis.

MR. LOVICK: Tell us about the Slocan Bluffs.

HON. MR. VANT: I'll get to the Slocan Bluffs later.

You want more, I understand. Well, the Vancouver-to-Whistler sea-to-sky project on Highway 99 is now in the preliminary design stage. This long-term project is one of the most challenging engineering undertakings and does not lend itself to an easy solution. It is made doubly difficult because traffic volumes must be maintained during construction.

[3:30]

[ Page 6683 ]

My ministry has addressed the immediate danger points on this highway and has recently completed two projects replacing aging bridges with new, safer ones. The contract to correct the Brohm Ridge situation just north of Squamish has been awarded, and work is now underway.

Design and land acquisition are continuing for the Vancouver Island Highway project. Construction cannot begin until design is further advanced, which is why the amount budgeted in 1989 is relatively modest in comparison with the total cost of the project. My ministry, I assure you, projects much larger expenditures next year in anticipation of the start of major construction. The first contracts for this eight-year project should be let later this year so that construction can begin on the major segments of that project. During peak construction more than 1,800 workers will be employed each year to completion, but this does not include the hundreds of associated jobs created by this project.

I realize that some communities on Vancouver Island are concerned about the eight-year project life. I am carefully considering modifications to the schedule, but with a project of this magnitude it takes time to build each section. Island community councils have been involved with the project from day one, because we're an open and consultative government. Also, they and we understand the environmentally and socially sensitive manner in which the design must be considered. Before determining final designs, ministry staff are scheduling public meetings in each area to seek feedback from residents. It is our requirement that the road be built with as much public input as possible.

People want progress, but they do not want it at any price. I too want progress, but I also want to avoid the pitfalls identified by Commissioner MacKay in his report on the Coquihalla. In all projects over $50 million new accounting procedures have been established in my ministry, in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the MacKay commission report. These projects are defined on page 214 of the provincial estimates for this fiscal year Also, they will be described separately in all annual reports, commencing with the 1987-1988 report due to be tabled within the next few weeks.

Mr. Chairman, it is not enough that I assure the House of our commitment to accuracy and good management. Let me add that the auditor-general recently endorsed these changes and is satisfied that the ministry has followed through on Mr. MacKay's recommendations. Once again I quote from the auditor-general's report: "We found that the ministry has taken action on all of the major recommendations made in the commissioner's report." He mentioned specifically the ministry's reorganization, improved planning and cost-estimating procedures, expanded scope and detail in submissions to Treasury Board and cabinet and overall improved public accountability.

The auditor-general goes on to say: "...it has implemented status and cost-reporting procedures for its major projects. We reviewed these procedures as they relate to the Okanagan connector project and concluded that they could be relied upon to provide proper accounting for costs on the project."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry. The minister is out of time under standing orders.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways is just about to finish his exciting dissertation. I would like to hear the end of it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT: I hear the hon. House Leader of the opposition hoping that I'll soon be through, but I thought he'd be delighted to hear me quoting the auditor-general.

We have responded to concerns about accounting procedures, just as we are responding to the needs of British Columbians for improved transportation infrastructure and facilities.

This brings me to the end of my speech on the status of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by observing that ours is a province that depends on transportation. British Columbia's economy demands a well-planned and well-developed transportation system if it is to grow and prosper. The contribution my ministry has made, and continues to make, to a healthy economy in British Columbia cannot be overstated. Whether it is moving resources on their way to being processed, delivering manufactured goods to market, carrying tourists and travelers between the many attractions our province has to offer, or providing the means for people to travel to and from their places of work, it's this ability to move, this freedom to move, that allows us to enjoy continued prosperity.

MR. LOVICK: I would be obtuse indeed if I didn't acknowledge the fact that the minister's opening comments were moving, based of course on the repeated enunciations about the freedom to move. However, let that pass.

What I want to do, first of all, is to offer a comment of appreciation to the minister for a courtesy shown me. Last week I was unable to pursue the estimates debate because I was not feeling well, and the minister kindly was willing to pull those estimates. I therefore thank him for that courtesy.

I quite enjoyed that rather long speech from the minister, and what I referred to earlier as a kind of leap of faith. Indeed, as I listened to him outline all the claims of achievement on behalf of his ministry and state that privatization was an unalloyed success, I thought perhaps he had confused his present vocation with his past one. As we know, he used to be another kind of minister who was more used to making leaps of faith. However, I'm willing to accept that he has a somewhat different view of these circumstances than I. Indeed, we shall be — how shall I put it? — converging or crossing swords on a number of those issues.

[ Page 6684 ]

What I want to do today, though, is start not by a response to all the points the minister made, but rather to focus on one particular area. The area I want to focus on is that study, that apparent and alleged commitment to transportation planning loosely called "Freedom to Move," a study commissioned by the ministry and undertaken by Delcan. I have a number of questions I'd like to pose to the minister. Rather than my getting into some process of making speeches for ten or 15 minutes, perhaps I can just go directly to some very specific questions.

First of all, shades of John Crosbie and Ottawa: can the minister tell me if he has read all 18 volumes?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm glad the member has referred to the Delcan study. It has been wrongly referred to by some people as the transportation plan; really, it's a baseline study. Yes, it has 18 volumes. If you put them in a pile, it would be at least this high. I can assure you that in the last few months I have made many references to it, but it would take considerable time to read every page of all 18 volumes.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

It's certainly very useful as a constant reference, because that baseline study gives very accurately — for the most part accurately — the state of our infrastructure in all modes of transportation throughout the whole province. So as a reference document, it is exceedingly useful. It assists not only me, but all of those people who are concerned about transportation planning in the province. It keeps them properly informed. It keeps them mindful that there's more to the system than just their own particular back yard. It also gets them thinking intermodally, because with our rugged terrain in British Columbia, you go along a road, and eventually you're going to run into a bridge. You'll go over a bridge, and eventually you'll end up at a ferry terminal. So I have certainly referred to all 18 volumes, but at this point, I haven't actually read every page.

MR. LOVICK: I would remind the minister that there's a considerable amount of repetition in those 18 volumes. In fact, in a rough calculation, you could probably reduce those 18 volumes to about three or roughly one-sixth of the total 2½ feet that the minister illustrated earlier in talking about piles of material. In fact, what we see is a pretty elaborate cut and paste job there, in which we take what is stated in one volume and then reprint it with slight modifications in almost all of the others. I wonder if the minister was aware of that.

My second direct question is: will the minister tell me what the total cost of the study was? I know what the cost of the video was, because I went and asked the ministry when it first came out. That rather interesting video — and nobody knows the purpose of it at this time — cost us apparently some $50,000; that was the information I received from the ministry office. If that was the cost of the promo video, what was the cost for the total document or the total process?

HON. MR. VANT: I'm taking one question at a time here. As I recall, the first question was about the actual cost of the 18-volume study. I want to assure you that this study took several months to complete. It took a great deal of consultation on the part of Delcan to consult with the major railways, for example, including our own B.C. Rail. It involved every mode of transportation, and it took several months to complete.

Also, because of the nature of the volumes — a specialized volume dealing with the whole province in one mode of transportation and yet custom-made volumes for each development region involved all modes of transportation — naturally there was some duplication. We did not assume that everyone would be interested in all 18 volumes of the study. Therefore it was broken up, but certain basic transportation items had to be covered, being mindful that certain people would be interested only in a particular volume.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

We wanted them to think in every mode of transportation, but particularly in their own region. I want to report to the House that the cost of the 18-volume study was $315,000.

The first member for Nanaimo also asked me about the promotion of the study and the very necessary "Freedom to Move" video. It was created in November of last year. It very successfully outlined the magnitude of our transportation challenges, and it did the very important job of promoting the new planning process. I must say that I have consistently received nothing but praise, not only for the actual study, but for that video which sets the stage for the planning process. That video cost $65,000.

[3:45]

MR. LOVICK: The justification for that — on the face of it — outrageous and exorbitant amount of $370,000 in total between those two things seems to be that it took several months and involved some consultation. The point I am making in this line of questioning, and would like to make as emphatically as I can, is that I don't think we got anything new, Mr. Minister. I think we had all the information that the Delcan study puts forward. All we had to do was dig it out of the ministry. Most of the work had been done, as I shall have occasion to show.

I'm wondering if you could tell me very briefly, in response to your answer to my question, what use the video has been put to. Who has seen it? Who was it for? Why does it exist? To be quite candid, after watching it, I couldn't understand why it had been made; I truly couldn't. It was a lovely film and nice to watch, but it told us absolutely nothing we didn't already know. I wonder then what was the reason for the video. To whom has it been shown? Are people requesting it? Do you simply give it to your friendly

[ Page 6685 ]

mailing list or something? Could you answer that for me?

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Chairman, the video has been used very frequently by MLAs and ministers of state. Indeed, I think a copy of the video went to every MLA in every corner of the House. I certainly have used it to great advantage. Given my capacity as minister, I've seen it several times, and I must say that each time I do I get something more out of it in terms of another aspect of our transportation system and the great importance — and the cost-saving, really — of having both short-term and long-term transportation planning.

There's an old saying that haste makes for waste, and to just proceed on an ad hoc basis or from crisis to crisis.... For example, many of our bridges have been identified as being over forty years old. Indeed I can think of one example, the Squilax Bridge, which is near Sorrento, near Chase, a very old Howe truss wooden bridge which has to be replaced.

In terms of the importance of making both short-term and long-term plans, that eases the cost to government; it eases and smooths out the cash flow so that we do make the right decisions and get the best value for the taxpayers' dollars in doing the right transportation projects at the right time. You can't underestimate the value of selling a very proper planning process. You seem to be somewhat concerned about that cost, but it had to be a first-class job, it had to properly outline the challenges and concerns of every mode of transportation. That set people in the right frame of mind and also showed that everyone in every corner of this province has a very significant stake in our transportation systems. Indeed, our transportation systems are the very lifeblood of our economy, of our quality of life.

MR. LOVICK: The minister made reference to there being an old saying. I would remind him that there's another old saying, that there's one born every minute. Quite frankly, when I hear the minister tell me about what a good promotional video this is and what good service it does, I'm reminded of that saying. That video is vacuous in the extreme. It doesn't have any hard data; it states some self-evident truths and it's a nice promo. Again, you didn't answer my question, Mr. Minister. What's its purpose? What's its function? If you're telling me it's to market the need for transportation improvements, I would question that you need to market that concept. We all know that. We all know that we have to improve our transportation system. We certainly don't have to spend $65,000 to do that.

I'll let you come back to that later. Let me pursue the matter. How much was in fact paid to Delcan? And how much work was done by the ministry people in producing that Delcan study?

HON. MR. VANT: As I reported earlier to the House, the cost was $315,000 for the Delcan study, and naturally, especially concerning community airports and our road and bridge system, considerable consultation took place at an appropriate level between Delcan and our own staff to get some of the necessary raw data. Believe me, it took several months, especially when you consider every mode of transportation in the province, to gather and consolidate all that information and also make it very presentable so that it would be of long-term use to any citizen who would want to go to any public library or any district Highways office to look at the complete set, so that it would be that ongoing, very valuable reference point.

It was primarily Delcan staff who have the expertise in the transportation field to know what to request, not only from my ministry but from the major airlines and the railroads and, of course, with British Columbia being on the coast, the very important aspects of marine transportation. So it took several months to compile, and I think it was well worth the time and cost to put that together. It will be of great benefit as a baseline study for a long, long time.

MR. LOVICK: I had thought my question was direct and clear, but perhaps it wasn't, so I'll restate it. I am asking the minister if he can give me some idea of the cost of putting that together in terms of ministry involvement. In other words, we've got how much was paid to Delcan, but how much ministry time was devoted to working with Delcan? It seems to me we ought to know that if indeed we're talking about cost savings as the minister's primary concern in all of these activities.

HON. MR. VANT: Of course, many staff and engineers within the ministry are constantly working on at least our road and bridge transportation. Probably there was minimal staff time; it was more getting hold of the information which the Delcan people would request. We don't have any way of actually measuring the cost of the very modest, I would say, staff time involved by ministry officials. It was probably simply to convey information that was requested of my ministry.

Also, you mentioned that there was very little hard data in that video, yet at the very beginning it gave significant data, such as the fact that there are over 45,000 kilometres of public roads in the province. A lot of that data was noteworthy, and it amazed some of the people who saw that video; they didn't realize how vast and complex and extensive our modes of transportation are in this province. In a very effective and palatable way, in a quality way, that video did an excellent job of conveying the basic important information so that all of the stakeholders out there — the people of the province — could grasp in a meaningful way just what our transportation systems are all about.

MR. LOVICK: If you do indeed believe that the video was so worthwhile and informative, I suggest that it would probably not cost the province very much more to give it more widespread use. Why not send it out to the schools or something? I suspect

[ Page 6686 ]

most people don't even know of its existence. I think the coverage has been rather narrow.

You made reference to the fact that the input of your ministry staff essentially was a matter of getting hold of information requested by Delcan and then forwarding it to Delcan. Apropos of just that point, I wonder whether you can deal with this problem then. Based on my examination of the report, much of the information in it would seem to simply regurgitate material from government reports of one kind or another. The ferry report is a case in point. My question, a very direct one, is this: how much of the material in the Delcan study is original — i.e. produced by Delcan — as opposed to material already produced somewhere in the ministry and then simply recast and put into that study?

HON. MR. VANT: Before I forget, I would like to say that the member's suggestion that we give our video, "Freedom to Move," wider distribution is an excellent one. The initial cost has been paid, but we can, at a very reasonable cost, duplicate more copies and make them available in schools.

Your other question asks about the originality of the contents of the Delcan report. I think what is really original about the report is that for the very first time in the history of the province we have this consolidated, gathered-in information. Lots of information was available here and there before the Delcan report was put together, but it was never systematically documented in such a way that it was readily available to a wide variety of people throughout the province and was at everyone's fingertips. That, we saw very properly, was essential and critical to having this transportation planning process. We saw this baseline study as step one. You have to have a takeoff point.

[4:00]

I agree that a lot of that information certainly was available, but not readily available. Indeed, it would take the expertise of an engineering firm like Delcan to know exactly what data was critical to this baseline study. I'm sure there is all kinds of information available which they thought was not necessary for this study.

You must admit, though, that the 18 volumes are quite a quantity of material. They were given the mandate to have a custom-made volume applicable to each mode of transportation, and also one that was custom designed for each development region of our province. This government doesn't believe that any part of the province should be ignored or left out. In just having a smaller one-volume study there could be a danger that one region would be overemphasized at the expense of another. That's why the baseline study was so extensive.

We realize too that each region of the province is somewhat unique. We wanted to make the pertinent, important information meaningful to each and every part of the province readily available. The process of putting together that baseline study was very important.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we move on, perhaps the minister would read the part about tedious and repetitious answers.

MR. LOVICK: Nobody is arguing for a moment, Mr. Minister, the importance or the validity of the exercise to consolidate all that material in one place. You seem to choose to ignore the question I am posing. Why did we have to get someone else to do that work for us at great expense?

Almost all of the material that appears in the Delcan study already appeared in ministry publications and records. The job we are looking at was essentially to compile material. Is it not the case, Mr. Minister, that we had to go that route simply because the policy and the planning departments in your ministry have been decapitated and decimated to the point that you no longer have the competent staff to do that kind of thing and therefore you had to go to Delcan? Is that not the case?

HON. MR. VANT: Delcan is an engineering firm that has expertise in every mode of transportation. We don't have that much in-house expertise on every mode of transportation. Our staff would take a lot of time. It took several months for Delcan to put this together. It would certainly have taken our own staff as long — or perhaps longer — to do that, given the detail involving every mode of transportation in that study. It's not that we wouldn't have the numbers of people to do it, but Delcan had in-house experts on every mode of transportation.

MR. LOVICK: I am shocked to hear that the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who presides over one of the largest ministries in this province, and has a rather long — and some would say glorious — track record of expertise and ability in transportation matters, tell me that they didn't have the in-house expertise and therefore had to go to an engineering consulting firm to talk about a transportation plan for B.C. I'm horrified by that, Mr. Minister. I can't believe that I have indeed heard that from you.

Is it not the case that the planning department in Highways has effectively been decimated? Is it not the case that when this study was underway the policy advisers for air, marine, rail, roads, ferry and transit were all vacant? In fact, some half — we guesstimate 16 — of the 24 positions in policy and public affairs were vacant while the study was in progress. Is that not the case?

Mr. Minister, may I also — giving you an opportunity to answer that — ask you to please clarify and correct what I am sure was a mistake on your part when you said you don't have that expertise in-house? Surely that is not what you intended to say.

HON. MR. VANT: Within the ministry we have the air transport assistance program, which develops community airports in every corner of the province. It's not a big part of the ministry, but it is a very important part. Indeed....

[ Page 6687 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert will have ample opportunity to discuss this and canvass thoroughly later.

MR. MILLER: I'd just like to save time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, but there has been no indication of the committee wanting to save time up to this point. I would like us to proceed in an orderly fashion.

HON. MR. VANT: Within a certain scope there is certain expertise within the ministry, but given the depth of the baseline study, the time necessary to consult, for example, with the major airlines and involving the major airports and so on, we thought it best to engage Delcan to commission this all-important study. Sure, there was a lot of information available and tidbits here and there. You could get a partial picture of, say, air transportation within the province, within my ministry or in other areas. You could consult, for example, with other important bodies, such as the B.C. Aviation Council, but it was necessary to gather, in a systematic and informed way, the important information on each mode of transportation. We wanted to have that systematically and properly documented, and we thought the best way to do that was to engage Delcan.

MR. LOVICK: More than tidbits, Mr. Minister. I'll give you a small example. In volume 8 of the transportation study, economic development region 5, the Cariboo — your own area, Mr. Minister — we have one, two, three, four, five, six pages under the heading "Economic Analysis" that all come directly from the information provided by the former Ministry of Economic Development and what are now euphemistically referred to as successor ministries. The point I'm getting at is: what did we pay for? Why did we go through this extravagant and elaborate exercise? Is it only because despite all our claims to the contrary for the past Lord-knows-how-many years, we really haven't had a planning function within the ministry? Is that what you're telling me, Mr. Minister? We don't have a planning function, and therefore we had to go outside? Are you suggesting to me that intermodal transport suddenly is a concept that is beyond the pale, beyond the imagination, the expertise and the ability of your own staff? I don't think you're saying that. It seems to me that we did have a planning department that ought to have been able to carry out the responsibilities that had to be assigned to Delcan.

Let me turn to another area, Mr. Minister. I don’t want to belabour that point unnecessarily. I have a number of other questions I would like to raise, however, about the Delcan study.

A direct question: has the minister decided to adopt the Delcan recommendation for the organization for strategic planning? You know the flow chart, Mr. Minister. It's the one with the strategic transportation planning committee standing off to the right. If yes, I would ask you how often that committee has met and with what results, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. VANT: The first member for Nanaimo asked me about the strategic planning committee. It has already met to set the stage regarding the overall process but, of course, it will await the information that will come in from the regional committees as they complete their work.

At this time we don't necessarily intend to engage Delcan in that ongoing planning process. There's a separation between the baseline study and this ongoing planning process, which isn't a one-time process but will be done yearly, because the transportation plan has to be constantly updated.

Planning is being expanded and indeed decentralized to the regions for the very first time, so that's another reason. For example, you referred to volume 8, which happens to do with the Cariboo development region. It was necessary to cover many bases so that anybody at a transportation planning committee meeting or consulting or integrating on a provincewide basis would have all that important information readily available.

The strategic planning committee's primary work this year will be when the data comes in from all the regions of the province, so that the provincewide plan can emerge from that process.

MR. LOVICK: Again, Mr. Minister, I want to emphasize that I am not questioning the validity of having a section in every volume of the report that deals with an economic analysis of the region; that's not my question. My question has been, I repeat: why did we have to get somebody else and pay them handsomely — exorbitantly, it seems to me — to produce information we already had? It's there. All these folks have done, it seems, is some cutting and pasting from material that your people had already done — in other words, that we the people had already paid for. Why are we spending all this extra? That's the question, and with all due respect, Mr. Minister, I don't think you've made any effort to answer it. I would suggest that Hansard will show very clearly that you seem to be sidestepping that issue.

Let me turn to another question, another very straightforward one. Perhaps we'll have better luck here. Has the minister implemented the recommendation to establish the secretariat with expertise in transportation modes and to provide the essential background and analysis? You recall that group you were talking about, the secretariat. Has it been decided that it will indeed be established? If so, where does it show in the budget? Is there money for it?

HON. MR. VANT: Certainly, appropriately from time to time, staff will be assigned to that secretariat. I find it very ironic that on the one hand the hon. member opposite doesn't agree with hiring outside engineering firms from time to time to do a very important task, thinking we should do everything in-house. Certainly if we have the people necessary, we use what facilities we have.

[ Page 6688 ]

I must say we have ongoing programs within my ministry where our staff are constantly engaged in their regular routine: day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month and year-to-year operations. We don't have staff just sitting around who are available to take on a long-term project such as the baseline study. I think in your way you are agreeing somewhat with the necessity of a very important planning process.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, it's not the role of the committee to canvass the thoughts or aspirations of the members opposite. It's really to deal with the administrative responsibility of your ministry and not necessarily what others might have done in another place.

MR. LOVICK: Can the minister give me some information regarding the makeup of the secretariat? Does it consist of people who are simply seconded to that role, who are otherwise full-time ministry employees? How many people are involved, or do we again do it on the basis of some contractual arrangement with people outside the Highways ministry?

HON. MR. VANT: It involves people from the major railways and the major airlines, some of which of course are in the private sector. They are involved on a basis that they're major stake-holders in transportation. Also, within the government family you might see someone from B.C. Transit, someone from B.C. Rail and someone from the B.C. Ferry Corporation involved in this strategic planning.

MR. LOVICK: I'd like to shift to another area. I guess that's as far as one goes with that. I'm not sure there's any other information forthcoming.

One of the things that isn't clear to me as I read the Delcan study, and as I hear the minister explain the initiatives of the transportation task force committees and all of that, is how the decision-making process in Victoria will differ from what we have now. The regions, as always, are giving input and making recommendations. The difference now is that the regions seem to be represented by a hand-picked committee — chosen by the minister, so they're not going to cause him any anguish; at least, one could be forgiven for suggesting that that seems to be the case — rather than a group that represents the voters or the people at large. Similarly, the decisions don't seem to have changed insofar as they will still ultimately be made by the minister after discussion with his officials and the deputies and the chief executive officers of rail and ferries and everything else. The obvious question is: have we done anything different from the old process? Is it the same stuff? Could the minister please enlighten us on how the decision-making process has qualitatively changed from what it's been in the past?

HON. MR. VANT: I want to emphasize that this is a matter where, I guess for the first time, we are very concerned about listening to what regional priorities are. At one time all decisions were made at ministry headquarters in Victoria. I want to say too that on every one of these regional transportation committees usually, the regional director of Highways is present to give technical expertise. In line with the regional development program of this government, my ministry is reorganizing and decentralizing to a certain extent, so there is more autonomy under the direction of the regional director of Highways in each region of the province.

So hand in hand with this planning process, my ministry staff is involved in the final implementation in each region in a significant way. I think that's very appropriate; it goes hand in hand.

You mentioned that these committees were handpicked. The ministers of state carefully selected people or requested local leaders to suggest names for appointments to these transportation committees. Also, a very open, warm invitation was given to all MLAs to partake in these transportation committees.

I can't speak for individual ministers of state, but these public hearings.... Anybody who can read a newspaper could certainly attend those meetings. I know that in some development regions of the province, MLAs from both sides of this House have attended the meetings.

MR. LOVICK: Most of us thought that was what the Legislature's job was, actually — to do these things.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, that's in the democratic system, as my colleague from Omineca says.

I'm not sure how to respond to your answer, Mr. Minister. On the one hand, you're trying to tell me that this is the same old stuff we've always been doing, yet you're still apparently trying to tell us that it's somehow a good idea to spend a whole bunch more money doing things that for some reason haven't been done before. In other words, we have a little internal contradiction in the testimony.

Let me see if I can put the question in a very direct way. The product of the Delcan study is to propose a process that Ministers of Transportation and Highways have always claimed was coordinated through them. For example, in 1986-87, the annual report says that the minister's mission is "to provide and maintain safe and efficient movement of people and resources on the provincial transportation system."

If the result of Delcan is a process to propose to do what the ministry has said in its report, year after year, is already being done, there is either nothing new here, or the ministry is allowing somebody else to do its job. Which of those is the case, Mr. Minister? Please explain to us, in short, why we needed the Delcan study?

HON. MR. VANT: To respond as briefly as I can, I think you have to look at the past where a lot of people concerned about transportation felt that the only

[ Page 6689 ]

way they could have input was to have direct contact with the minister, or at the very least, come down here to Victoria to ministry headquarters. I think we are having very appropriate opportunities for local and regional input. Certainly in terms of the final implementation, the final budgeting and the final decision about projects throughout the province, the ultimate decision still rests with me as the minister.

There is at least that vehicle out there that assists in setting both short-term and long-term priorities. Indeed, in a sense I am still recovering from the last UBCM convention that was held at Whistler, where every mayor, every regional district chairman and many other people wanted to see me about their own particular — often very parochial — transportation interests.

Now I've found that with local people who see me on a one-to-one basis, thanks to the Delcan study they have that necessary overview, and they're approaching the planning process in a more disciplined and informed way. They have that wider vision, which is so necessary to having the best transportation systems possible in this province.

MR. LOVICK: I just wanted to make a couple of other brief observations about the Delcan study, and then we'll turn to some other matters.

Let me put my remarks in this context. When I read this material — and I don't want to berate the consulting engineers — good chunks of this stuff were so patently self-evident, were so vacuous, contained information that you could get by spending five minutes on any street corner or by simply walking in the region for ten minutes, that I wondered what we were paying for. Let me give you a couple of examples, Mr. Minister, to make the point.

If you look, for instance, at the volume study done for the Kootenays.... I'm sorry, I've forgotten the region number; I just took an excerpt with me. I was in the Kootenays the other day on the weekend; I must have some familiarity with some things there. We discover all kinds of wonderful statements in this document. I'd just like to share with the minister a couple of them.

In 4.3, statement on the Kootenays, under the heading "Traffic Flow Conditions," we get this absolutely profound and insightful observation: "The most prevalent highway problem" — in this region — "is the alignment deficiencies resulting from the mountainous terrain and construction limitations." What that means is that this is a mountainous region. Well, holy cow, that's really exciting! You mean, the Slocan Valley actually has mountains on either side? My God, isn't that profound! Then we go on; it gets better. We go to 4.5 and we learn about trunk routes, and we get this gem of information: "The significance of these strategic corridors" — where trunk routes go — "is that they provide continuous routing for long-distance trips through the province." If you unpack the verbiage, what that means is that roads go somewhere. What are we paying for here?

Then we get another observation: "In areas such as the north, where there is less population, the trunk routes" — are you ready for this, Mr. Minister? — "are spread further apart." Wow! I felt like my life had changed when I read that. What are we paying for? What is this stuff? Let's go a little further, to 4.7, and we get a description of our old friend Highway 3, this telling description. Two sentences will make the point: "Highway 3 has many sharp curves and long grades which restrict travel speed." Hah! "These curves and grades are the result" — in case you missed it — "of rugged, mountainous terrain" — and here's the insightful part that we paid for — "and it would be very difficult and expensive to make major improvements to them."

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

We've had a Highways ministry for a long time in this province that probably knows that region backwards, forwards, sideways and up and down. Why ever are we spending money to produce that kind of vacuous twaddle, at considerable expense, for reasons that are not at all clear to any right-thinking and reasonable person?

The case against the Delcan study is not that it didn't do something valid insofar as it pulled together material or gave us a baseline — I'm granting you that, Mr. Minister. What I'm saying, though, is that we seem to have spent a considerable amount of money on a job that was already done or should have been done by the ministry staff itself. I would invite the minister to (a) prove me wrong or (b) give me a retort to that claim.

[4:30]

MR. KEMPF: I thought I'd just give my learned friend from Nanaimo a bit of a break and give the minister some time to contemplate the answers that he should be giving the member to the questions being asked. Mr. Chairman, it's quite evident from this first hour and a half of this minister's estimates that we're going to be here for a great deal of time, so I think it only right that I give the member for Nanaimo a bit of a break.

Certainly there are many things about which I wish to speak in this minister's estimates, but first I want to put on the record that it's most unfortunate that many of these things are going to have to be discussed here and are going to have to take up the time of this entire Legislature, due to the fact that, unlike previous years that I've spent in this place, communication between members of this Legislature and the Minister of Highways is completely lacking. I don't know how you get an appointment to discuss matters of importance in one's constituency with this minister; I have seriously tried for a number of months and failed. Perhaps it's me, perhaps not.

Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot of things, particularly in that lengthy prelude by the Minister of Transportation and Highways to this fiscal year's estimates, and many flowery phrases such as "people want progress," "good management" and "public input is vital."

I'm going to talk for a long time about public input. I heard the minister refer to the transportation

[ Page 6690 ]

planning committees and how individuals were appointed or happened to get on those particular committees. We'll talk a long time about that. We'll also talk a long time about what's in this $1,198,100,000 budget that pertains to the north, and how much is going to be spent once again in the southern 10 percent of British Columbia on such things as the Squamish Highway, the Okanagan connector, the Cassiar connector and the Island Highway.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we in the north are fed up with getting the short end of the stick with respect to highways dollars. We're fed up with traveling over highways that are worn out and that should have been resurfaced a number of years ago. We're fed up with having promises broken once again, such as the completion of another Cassiar Highway, which has been promised for many years and not delivered. It's interesting for a government that suggests it's interested in all people to once again spend the big bucks for highways where the populations are.

The minister mentioned pitfalls. Those are the things we find on Highway 16 West, between Prince George and Prince Rupert, that cars drop into — and we talk about hundreds of millions of highways dollars being spent in the southern part of the province.

We heard the phrase "responsible government in action." I've got to ask the minister, as one of my first questions, who chose the members of the transportation committees in the so-called states of British Columbia, whether he agrees with the way they were chosen and whether he also agrees that the MLA for an area should be left off such committees. If he believes the MLA should be left off, the question is: why were MLAs left off when they tried desperately to be appointed to those committees, only to be told, in effect, in my case, that with 14 years' experience as a duly elected representative of this House, I shouldn't be on the committee? It's an interesting question, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to know now from the minister how those political appointments were made.

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, I'm very pleased the member for Omineca is so keenly interested in my ministry. I want to assure him that I certainly have a great interest in the interior and the north of the province. I can assure him that there will probably be more work this year in his constituency than there was last year.

Regarding the appointment to the regional transportation committees, that was done by the ministers of state. MLAs wanting to get involved in the process or not was somewhat optional on their part, but I want to assure the member for Omineca that nothing should ever stand in the way of direct communication between an MLA and the Minister of Transportation and Highways. We're not circumventing any of the traditional avenues of very proper communication, because after all, MLAs are elected to represent their constituents, and that can be a part of the planning process, but certainly when it comes to the implementation and the actual contracts getting underway, the MLAs play a key role.

I want to assure this House and the member that I have responded to any letters that he has sent to me. Also, I was in his constituency and I awaited a group that was supposed to meet with me. I was there, I was very accessible, and regarding the issue that was of concern to that member, the only people who approached me were the media, and I responded to them about the issue.

As I travel throughout this great province of ours as the Minister of Transportation and Highways, whenever possible I certainly try to make myself accessible, and especially if an MLA is trying to arrange a meeting. I think that too is very important in hearing firsthand what some very urgent concerns may be, and they may or may not have anything to do with short-term and long-term planning.

MR. KEMPF: I'm very happy to hear that the minister is in favour of the democratic process. I only wonder how he could communicate that to the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber), because although the minister seems to believe that MLAs should serve on such committees, it doesn't seem to be the philosophy of his colleague down the way. Try as I might, Mr. Chairman, I was overlooked time and time again as a possible member of the transportation committee in the state of Nechako.

MR. MILLER: Is that in B.C.?

MR. KEMPF: I don't know. It seems rather strange, all right, whether it's part of B.C. or not. I wonder whether the government feels it is.

The minister talks glowingly about letters he's written to me and communications we've had, and will talk about a great deal about the Omineca Princess and the meeting that he was supposed to have kept with a very concerned group of my constituents in that area. But I have a question of the minister now with respect to correspondence we've had on different issues. I have a whole sheaf of them here, and we'll go through them one by one as the days and weeks progress. How do you get an appointment with the Minister of Transportation and Highways? In every letter that I've written in the past eight or ten months I have requested that the minister meet with me on very urgent situations in my constituency.

MR. WILLIAMS: It might be your party affiliation.

MR. KEMPF: I have no party affiliation, Mr. Member, so I don't know how that could be it.

In every reply, no response to the request for an appointment; no olive branch held out by the minister in order to find out what troubled the people of Omineca. I guess he got all his information from the minister of state and his politically appointed hacks who run around my constituency doing things supposedly behind my back.

I guess the next question I want answered....

[ Page 6691 ]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: We'll find out whose supporters they are soon enough, Mr. Member, and so will you in your constituency. I'd check the polls if I were you.

The question is, how do you get an appointment with the Minister of Transportation and Highways for the province of British Columbia?

[4:45]

HON. MR. VANT: It would be very simple to phone my office and arrange an appointment. In terms of the reference to correspondence by the hon. member for Omineca, I felt very sincerely that I had addressed his particular concern in my letter. He's mentioned the Omineca Princess, and he is very concerned about provision of essential services, especially if there is an emergency.

I realize that particular ferry is indeed very essential, because it is a very long distance around. If somebody was severely injured or suddenly became very ill, it would be very necessary to have that ferry operate. I want to assure the member for Omineca that the Omineca Princess and its captain and crew can respond under normal conditions to a genuine call for that important transportation link in the event of an emergency.

I understand the ferry operates except between about 5:00 a.m. and their normal start-up time. I can assure you that the captain and crew are to be on call. They live in the area, and traditionally the employees of my ministry have always responded very quickly whenever there is an urgent call.

MR. KEMPF: We'll talk more about the situation of the Omineca Princess as we get on with these estimates.

There are a couple of questions I want answered now with respect to the budget of over $1 billion. How much of that budget is being allocated in this fiscal year to the section of Yellowhead 16 between Prince George and Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. VANT: With all due respect to the member for Omineca: in general terms, I want to assure him that there will be work done on Highway 16. To give a more precise answer, I'll have to take that on notice so that he will have the detailed answer he is seeking.

MR. KEMPF: As the minister said earlier: "No one can see into the future." I think it is incumbent upon the minister to . . . . In these estimates I would hope that he could come up with the dollar figure, although the dollar figure is not really that important.

Can he assure the people of the north, who rely on Yellowhead 16 West, that the atrocious situation...? I saw the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) enter the chamber. Ah, there he is.

I would hope — because I just travelled 35 miles of Yellowhead 16 in his constituency.... It is absolutely unacceptable for a main thoroughfare — a main trans-provincial highway in British Columbia

To the member for Prince George South: that hill leading west out of Prince George is nothing compared to the shape of other sections of that road. It's worn out. I think it's incumbent on that minister to tell this House and the people of that area what is going to be done about it.

Are they just going to continue to spend, spend and spend where they expect to get the votes, with no dollars going to the areas in which the wealth of this province comes from? Are they going to continue to mine not only the ground, but the forests as well, and not return any of that wealth from whence it came?

Mr. Chairman, I have lots of questions. I want to get back to the transportation planning committees. I have the same question to ask the minister as did the member for Nanaimo. He didn't respond to the member for Nanaimo, so perhaps he will respond to me. What's different about the present situation except that it bypasses the MLAs for the area? What's different about the decision-making process with respect to projects in any "state" in this province?

HON. MR. VANT: I want to emphasize to the member for Omineca that I realize fully the importance of the Yellowhead, Highway 16, and indeed I'm delighted that I have a considerable increase in the rehabilitation budget this year. I am very aware and very concerned that we not only have to build new roads to resources, but we have to keep in good repair our existing routes.

Also, I'm hoping that through the RTAC, the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, Highway 16 will be part of a designation of a national road network. This is, of course, with a view to having more cost-sharing by the federal government in that regard, especially in view of the fact that Highway 16 not only goes through the great constituency of Omineca, which gives it great importance, but it also goes to a very excellent seaport at Prince Rupert and also at Ridley Island. The importance of that highway cannot be overemphasized, and I sincerely believe in it.

The other part of your question was: what is the difference between the way things were before and the way they are now. I think the major difference is that there's considerable involvement in each region of the province to give all kinds of input to me, as the minister responsible for delivering the end product in terms of either delivering the road and bridge system or, when it gets to intermodal things, looking at the railroad, air transport systems or marine transport systems, all of which, one way or the other, certainly touches your great constituency. Unlike before, it involves....

This does not have to exclude the MLAs. Some MLAs of their own free will and accord wish to retain just having direct communication with me as the minister, and that is in addition to and a separate process from the other transportation planning process. I can see it being a both-and situation. There are things that are still the way they always were, but there is that additional important consultative open process which involves a vast number of people.

[ Page 6692 ]

I think if the member for Omineca has further concerns about the way the minister of state has handled the appointments or the selection of the regional transportation committees, the hon. member should bring that up during the appropriate estimates.

I want to again emphasize without being repetitious that the MLAs still have that important direct link with the minister.

MR. KEMPF: Certainly I have a great number of concerns where the minister of state is concerned, not the least of which is the three-quarters-of-a-million dollar budget allocated to a politically oriented office. But I'm delighted to be able to tell the people of Omineca that they're going to have to wait for transfer payments from the federal government before Highway 16 will be upgraded. I'm sure, given the events of the last couple of weeks with respect to other transfer payments, it's going to be a long time in coming.

While the minister is looking for the figures with respect to this year's budget on how much is going to be spent on Yellowhead 16 West, I would ask that he also tell this House exactly how much money is going to be spent on the third phase of the Coquihalla, the Okanagan connector, and on the Squamish Highway, and on the Cassiar connector, and on the Island Highway, so that we can compare — we people from the north that the minister professes to be one of — the percentage that we'll be getting of this year's Transportation and Highways budget.

MR. SERWA: What percentage do you pay?

MR. KEMPF: What percentage do we pay? That I would like to know, Mr. Member, because we in the north have been stripped of our natural resources, the payment for which has been squandered in the south for years — squandered, with no return to the people of the north, whether it comes to transportation or anything else. We're sick and tired of it.

There are all sorts of things I want to talk about in this minister's estimates, but I want to give the member for Prince Rupert a chance to vent some of his frustrations with this minister, so I'll pause for the moment.

MR. MILLER: First of all, some marine issues.

One of the concepts advanced recently in discussions on the need for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline is the need to obviate the transportation of oil, primarily, to Vancouver Island. It's been cited quite strongly by members on that side as one of the substantiating reasons: to reduce the risk of accidents at sea and their consequences. I would like to ask the minister whether he subscribes to that proposition.

HON. MR. VANT: The Vancouver Island pipeline per se I don't think should be specifically a part of my estimates, but I'm not afraid to say that I wholeheartedly support the initiative because of all the environmental pluses in having natural gas come to the Island. It saves on a lot of dangerous marine transportation of heavy bunker oil, and naturally we want to reduce the risk of having that come anywhere near our shores.

[5:00]

MR. MILLER: We have a situation in my constituency concerning the transportation of dangerous cargo to the Queen Charlotte Islands. I don't know if you're familiar with the background on this issue, but I'll briefly sketch it for you.

Some years back, in 1974-75, a private carrier, Northland Navigation, used to provide transportation services to coastal British Columbia, including the Queen Charlotte Islands. They carried general cargo, freight, passengers and all kinds of things. Anybody who grew up on the coast probably at one time or another wound up on one of those boats. They used to be Union Steamships on Vancouver Island; I remember taking that as a boy.

The federal government had been subsidizing this system and abruptly withdrew the subsidy in 1974 or '75; I can't remember the exact year. As a result of the furor at that time, an agreement was negotiated with the province and the federal government wherein the province agreed to provide freight and passenger service on coastal British Columbia in exchange for a yearly subsidy that was indexed in some manner; there's a formula, at any event. That subsidy is now, I believe, in excess of $16 million.

What eventually resulted was that the ferry service over time was upgraded to provide service to some coastal communities. I'm talking particularly about the Charlottes. But as a cost-saving measure, in 1985 the Ferry Corporation eliminated a subsidy they had been providing to a private tug and barge operation to transport dangerous cargo to the Queen Charlotte Islands. At the time the subsidy was cancelled, the B.C. Ferry Corporation made a commitment to transport dangerous cargo on their own ferries. That was the case. There were meetings on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I think the press clippings at the time indicate that the people on the islands felt that the B.C. Ferry Corporation was considering their position; that they were satisfied with the proposition that dangerous cargo would be carried on board the B.C. Ferries vessel. In fact, the Prince Rupert Daily News clipping of November 16, 1987, in rehashing this story, said:

"The Queen Charlotte Islands residents, initially angered by the change, were appeased by promises that all their concerns would be answered. Among the 40 people who turned up at a January 29 meeting in a Port Clements restaurant was chamber of commerce president Ron Merk. He said afterwards that the Ferry Corporation had bent over backwards to cater to the islands. 'It has been a breath of fresh air,' he said."

The story goes on to say that less than three years after that meeting the air is growing a little stale. So here we have the B.C. Ferry Corporation firstly entering into an agreement with the federal government to provide service; secondly, subsidizing a tug and barge operation; and thirdly, removing that subsidy but making a commitment to carry dangerous cargo

[ Page 6693 ]

on the B.C. Ferries vessel. Then we get to 1987, when the then Minister of Transportation abruptly removed the use of the B.C. Ferries vessel to transport dangerous cargo.

It was done under the guise that new Coast Guard regulations prohibited the use of that vessel, which in my view was not completely accurate. It may have made it more difficult, but at no time did it prohibit. It would have required a different arrangement in terms of transporting some cargo. It was nonetheless feasible. I point out and reiterate that B.C. Ferries had always accepted that responsibility. They had accepted it by subsidizing the tug and barge operation; they'd accepted it by transporting dangerous cargo on B.C. Ferries. The fundamental change in policy took place in 1987 when B.C. Ferries said they would no longer carry because of the Coast Guard regulations, and all of a sudden the islands were left on their own.

I did a survey last year on the Charlottes after fairly extensive consultation with a number of people both in the business community and in the services end of things. I want to just briefly outline a couple of the concerns that exist and which the survey turned up. The inability to transport various kinds of dangerous cargo — and it's surprising what is considered dangerous cargo — has made life not only very difficult but very costly. I suggest this has created some underground conditions that have made things quite dangerous in terms of trying to get various goods to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

It was surprising for me to learn from the head janitor in the Queen Charlotte School District that toilet bowl cleaner is considered a dangerous cargo. It's no small matter for that janitor to try and have sufficient supplies of that commodity available to use in the schools. It may bring a smile to the minister's mouth; I'll smile, Mr. Minister, if you give me the correct answer to all these questions I'm raising.

Chlorine to purify drinking water is a dangerous cargo, which meant immediately that for all of the water systems, whether regional, municipal or in the native villages, the cost of chlorine increased enormously.

Propane, which is the basic home-heating fuel on the Queen Charlotte Islands, instead of being transported on the B.C. Ferries vessel in what I thought was a relatively safe manner from Prince Rupert, now has to be barged from Vancouver. It seems to me that if you accepted the proposition that one of the reasons — maybe not the fundamental reason, but one of the reasons — for providing gas to Vancouver Island via pipeline was to eliminate the transportation of bunker oil across the Strait of Georgia in recognition of the dangers that could pose to the environment, an analogy could be drawn with the transportation of propane from Vancouver via barge and the much safer proposition of transporting it on the B.C. Ferries vessel from Prince Rupert.

Those are just a couple of examples. The Queen Charlotte Islands is coming into its own in terms of tourism. There are businesses there. For example, Mavis's Sporting Goods in Sandspit sells equipment for tourists; ammunition is just one example. She can't get it. People buy those supplies off-island and transport it themselves. They bring it in their luggage. I've heard of some cases where material is flown over on the Goose that serves the Queen Charlotte Islands.

All of these areas are too numerous to mention. I have a letter from the only veterinarian on the islands, and there is a bit of an agricultural community. A lot of the supplies that the veterinarian needs to carry out his business and serve the people on the Charlottes are extremely hard to get. The cost has become prohibitive.

I think I'll leave it at that for now. I'm going to continue on this issue until hopefully we get some kind of indication.... Fundamentally I'm asking the Ferry Corporation to live up to the obligation they have and which they have exercised. In no way do I see any justification for relinquishing the obligation to provide that service to the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

HON. MR. VANT: I can understand the member for Prince Rupert being very concerned about transportation to the Queen Charlotte Islands. In terms of general cargo in the overall operation of B.C. Ferry Corporation, yes, we subsidize our runs to the islands. As an inheritance, you might say, of the Northland Navigation federal subsidy, currently we do get in the neighbourhood of $16 million or $17 million to subsidize the runs up the north coast.

Before I leave the particular topic you raised of subsidies, I'm very envious of Marine Atlantic on the east coast. In the last figures that I saw, their operating grant was in the neighbourhood of $140 million. In addition, they get all kinds of capital funding for building new vessels. We as a government will continue to underline the importance of marine transportation on the west coast and will continue to fight aggressively for our fair share of those funds.

When it comes to the transportation of dangerous goods, not only to the Queen Charlotte Islands but on other parts of the coast, I want to emphasize that this is currently being performed by the private sector and it is not subsidized. You might say the market prevails. The freight rates are such that this private sector operator, under the very proper guidance of the Canadian Coast Guard.... All those Ministry of Transport guidelines concerning the movement of dangerous goods do apply to that situation. We of course have to be concerned about dangerous cargo.

By the way, Mr. Member, I wasn't smiling regarding your reference to toilet bowl cleaner; I was just smiling at my critic as he was leaving the House. A mixture of chlorine and gasoline, or pressurized containers of things like toilet bowl cleaner... A combination or mix of some of these goods can indeed be very dangerous. When it comes to a B.C. Ferry Corporation run where we have a mix not only of general cargo but of passengers, we of course have to abide by very stringent guidelines. Also, I think you're aware of the high cost of moving dangerous goods because of Canadian Coast Guard guidelines. Certain

[ Page 6694 ]

kinds of vessels have to be provided, certain parts of them have to be somewhat explosion-proof, and so on. It's an ongoing problem of marine transportation.

[5:15]

I'm glad the member agrees with me that the Vancouver Island pipeline would certainly reduce the risk to our environment on the coast. Concerning those other risks that are inherent in all dangerous cargos, we have to proceed very cautiously and very carefully and in line with the appropriate federal guidelines.

MR. MILLER: The minister seems to have missed the point. I suppose I should give you the opportunity to reflect on your statement that the federal subsidy is received to subsidize runs up to the north coast. Is that the position of the B.C. government with respect to the federal subsidy?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes.

MR. MILLER: All of it, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, to the north coast. But I want to clarify to the hon. member that the subsidy does not apply to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the minister is saying that all of the federal subsidy is used to subsidize the northern ferry service. You've just said that; it's in Hansard. I'd like you to confirm that.

HON. MR. VANT: Perhaps I should have added to what I said that it is to the north coast. When I say "north coast," I am not including the Queen Charlotte Islands.

MR. MILLER: This is a very important point, and it's news to me. Just to again repeat: the federal subsidy, currently between $16 million and $17 million, is used to subsidize only the B.C. Ferries operation on the north coast, but you are saying the Queen Charlotte Islands are not involved.

The minister nods his head; let Hansard confirm that.

Could the minister advise what the loss position of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the last fiscal year is on the Inside Passage and the Queen Charlotte Islands? If you look in the Delcan report, you will find the number. Can the minister advise what it was?

HON. MR. VANT: Well, we'll certainly look that up in the appropriate volume of the Delcan report, although I think the member could certainly read it for himself.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps that's one of the pages the minister never got to. It's $13.4 million. I wonder what you do with the surplus. It would leave almost $2 million, I guess — perhaps $3 million. My contention is that the corporation has an obligation to provide the service that they had provided up to the point where they decided not to carry dangerous cargo on the B.C. Ferries vessel. The way to resolve it is to go back to what existed prior to 1985, and that is that a tug and barge is subsidized to transport dangerous cargo from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands. It could easily be accommodated with the surplus of unspent federal subsidy that the minister says is there.

HON. MR. VANT: I think the member has to realize that the subsidy, which is indexed, has slowly and gradually worked up to a certain level over a number of years, ever since Northland Navigation gave up that northern run and we took responsibility for it. The subsidy received goes into general revenue and ends up being part of the annual $51 million subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation and its operations up and down the coast.

I think that the B.C. Ferry Corporation drops in on the Queen Charlotte Islands three times a week — not taking any dangerous goods, but all kinds of other goods and, of course, people going back and forth. Part of that overall subsidy, naturally, goes to that part of the Ferry Corporation service to the Queen Charlotte Islands. I think the member is saying that somehow we should take a portion of that federal subsidy and apply it to the dangerous goods movement, which is currently being provided for by the private sector.

MR. MILLER: You are now starting to confuse me, Mr. Minister. What I'm asking is pretty straightforward: that the B.C. Ferry Corporation start to serve the people on the Queen Charlotte Islands according to the obligation they accepted when they extended service there — after concluding an agreement with the federal government — which they carried on up until 1985 through a subsidized tug and barge service, and from 1985 to 1987 by using the B.C. Ferries vessel. They just abruptly cut it off to shed this responsibility because of changing Coast Guard regulations.

The minister said previously that the subsidy is used in total to subsidize runs up the north coast. He now tells me that the subsidy goes into general revenue. Is it used to partially offset losses in the entire B.C. Ferries operation, Mr. Minister? Is the minister aware of the terms under which that subsidy was originally negotiated? It was done on highway-equivalent mileage, using the route mileage at that time from — I believe — Kelsey Bay to Prince Rupert and Vancouver to Vancouver Island. Is the minister aware of that? Could the minister explain to the people in the business community and to the many people in the Queen Charlotte Islands who, in responding to this questionnaire, detailed how the callous actions of the Ferry Corporation, in walking away from their responsibilities, has impacted their lives — whether it's in terms of home-heating fuel or the ability to get supplies to carry on a business or to provide services in hospitals and schools...? Things are a mess over there, Mr. Minister. I am surprised you are not aware of it. You go from on the one hand saying that the

[ Page 6695 ]

subsidy is used on the north coast to on the other hand saying it's not.

Your colleague sitting in front of you has asked the federal government to exempt a foreign company $15 million to bring in a cruise ship to operate on the coast of British Columbia. He wants the taxpayers of Canada to pick up $15 million for a private company to come in and operate a cruise ship when the people in my constituency in the Charlottes are denied the opportunity to get basic commodities for their livelihood. Perhaps the minister could justify that kind of contradiction or apparent contradiction in government policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the minister that we are replying to your estimates. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, the basic commodities are delivered three times a week to the Queen Charlotte Islands. Also, we took over Northland Navigation services that were provided to the mid-coast and north coast. I know the hon. member likes to be concerned primarily with the north coast, but that also involved the services from Powell River and the middle coast and north.

The Ferry Corporation having a suitable vessel to take dangerous goods to the Queen Charlotte Islands would require very expensive modifications. This is because of the appropriate, quite stringent Coast Guard–Ministry of Transport regulations. We feel that the private contractor is providing a service of those particular dangerous goods at a market cost at the present time.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, I am well aware that the private sector is providing that service. I have just detailed to you a number of instances where that service is less than adequate and extremely costly. It's a service that the B.C. Ferry Corporation had acknowledged was their obligation and responsibility. They provided it. What I don't understand is why they now don't provide it. I'm not asking you to build a new vessel. I'm asking you to do what you have done previously: subsidize a regular tug and barge service from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands so that people on the islands can get the full range of products and commodities that they require.

I'll read, for the minister's edification, some.... I sent a copy of this to the regional transportation committee, and I'm sure they have dealt with it. Unfortunately, the representative from Prince Rupert, who was a friend of mine, died rather suddenly. I've also sent it to the representative of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the north coast, although he lives in Vancouver right now.

Let me just read some of the items that people responded to in this questionnaire. Here's a guy who's trying to run a carpet, tile, paint, etc. service: increased prices due to having freight on North Coast Air from Prince Rupert, 40 cents a pound. Delays in waiting for dangerous cargo. What kind of goods can he not get or does he find extremely difficult to get? Lacquer thinner, resins, fibreglass repair kits.

We have the Skidegate Band Council: chlorine for their water purification. They have to fly the chlorine over on a Goose. A Goose is an airplane, for those who don't know. It's an old one, but it still flies pretty good. Jon Leus, Cumshewa Enterprises: products for his business — can't get. Michael Brown: only small quantities available. In some cases the regulations only allow the shipment of very minute quantities of goods. I've already talked about the veterinarian, the only veterinarian on the island. Don Richardson from Richardson Ranch is a veterinarian. They can't get hay over — also fertilizer, oxygen, x-ray developer, chemical fixers.

The list goes on and on. I'm tempted to simply read it all out, but I don't want to take too much time in the House. In case after case we find small business people completely frustrated, either unable to get goods that they previously were able to get, or restricted through extremely high costs. Mr. Minister, why, since the Ferry Corporation previously accepted this responsibility, will you now not do it?

HON. MR. VANT: The short answer is that the Coast Guard regulations say we can't. But I think the hon. member is making some very good, detailed points. I've listened very carefully, and I certainly take his point under advisement.

MR. MILLER: That means nothing to me. If the minister can't give some more assurances than that after listening to the situation I've outlined, it's quite disturbing.

I am not asking for a new vessel, Mr. Minister; I know you are aware of that. I'm not asking you to break any Coast Guard regulations; you are aware of that. I am simply asking you to return to the situation that existed in 1985, whereby the Ferry Corporation subsidized a tug and barge service. I don't know why the minister won't give a commitment for that to be reinstituted. It's simple; it's effective. It cuts down the cost; it cuts down the distance. For example, propane needn't come from Vancouver now; it could come from Prince Rupert. Why will the minister not reinstitute the service that was previously in operation and subsidized by the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

HON. MR. VANT: The member continues to repeat his points. I will certainly take them under advisement, but at this point he is getting into the area of future policy. However, I will certainly give his suggestion due consideration. It seems to me that some of the options would be an expensive modification to one of our own vessels or, as the member seems very quick to suggest, the reinstatement of a subsidy.

[5:30]

Of course, I'm not in a position right now to commit myself to that, but I will certainly give it due and careful consideration, because this would involve the very distinct possibility of increasing the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

[ Page 6696 ]

MR. MILLER: I'll make a couple of closing points.

First of all, it's not at all clear that that would be the result. As I look at the numbers for the B.C. Ferry Corporation — you can correct me if you think I'm wrong in these — we see on the Vancouver Island operation what appears to be a profitable operation of some $19 million. We see on the Inside Passage and Queen Charlotte Islands a loss figure of $13.4 million. We see on the Sunshine Coast, on the southern Gulf Islands and on the northern Gulf Islands what appears to be a loss position of some $43.5 million. It's clear that the provincial contribution to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, in the main, is going to quite heavily subsidize a passenger ferry service in the gulf of Georgia. When I look at the federal subsidy and bear in mind the minister's words that his intention was to use it on subsidizing the northern service, and it's between $16 million and $17 million and the loss on the northern service is $13 million, it seems to me that you don't have to be that good with figures to conclude that it is quite reasonable for the B.C. Ferries service to go back to doing what they previously did: that is, run the subsidized tug and barge. I would try to impress upon the minister the numbers involved here.

In terms of the number of people being served — I don't know if there are figures on the Gulf Islands and whether that could be worked out on a per capita basis — B.C. Ferries is a lifeline to the Queen Charlotte Islands. We are not talking about a short distance through safe water. We are talking about a long distance through what is sometimes the roughest water on the B.C. coast. We are talking about a situation where people are smuggling dangerous cargo in the trunks of their cars. Whether the minister is aware, or whether people will admit it or not, it is happening. I know it's happening. That in itself gives rise to some alarm.

We are talking about a situation in which, when the ferry service initially cancelled the subsidized tug and barge service, they accepted the responsibility for that cargo by carrying it on the B.C. Ferries vessel. I would hope that the minister could give me somewhat more of a response than: "We'll take it under advisement." It's easy to take things under advisement and forget about them. I think that there are other words available to the minister in terms of this issue than to simply say: "We'll take it under advisement."

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I can give you an idea, but I'm sure that the minister knows what I'm talking about. I would like to be able to tell people in my constituency, including those members of the Social Credit Party in my constituency who are with me on this one, and who feel quite strongly.... The mayor of Masset will be down here next week and no doubt will want to talk about the very same thing. I'm sure that the minister can come up with more encouraging words than: "We'll take it under advisement."

HON. MR. VANT: I want to emphasize that I realize you're somewhat biased towards the north coast exclusively, and you keep bringing up this federal subsidy number, but Northland Navigation also served the mid-coast. I have to be very aware of the needs of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) as well as the needs of the hon. member for Prince Rupert. I think you have to look at the volumes of people and the frequency of service which was previously served by Northland Navigation on the mid-coast as well as the north coast. Probably if you looked at the numbers today, that federal subsidy isn't nearly enough to cover the cost of the losses on the mid-coast and north coast runs.

But I appreciate the observations the member for Prince Rupert has made. I want to emphasize also that the B.C. Ferry Corporation prides itself in providing a good level of service in an efficient manner. We all have to be aware that the overall direct operating subsidy currently amounts to no less than $51 million, so we have to very carefully consider any suggestions which would increase the amount of that subsidy.

MR. LONG: I can sympathize with the member for Prince Rupert, but I think he's missing a few things in what he's saying. The Ferry Corporation, as far as I know, has some very limited runs that look after dangerous cargo. I don't think there's any dangerous cargo on major runs anywhere else in the province. In this case, Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands would constitute a completely different set of rules than those already being followed for the whole coast, be it Gibsons, the Sunshine Coast.... They do not have a dangerous cargo run. It is brought in by private carrier and is looked after very well, as it is to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

He mentioned small quantities of dangerous cargo moving onto the Queen Charlottes, and with the federal regulations, small quantities of dangerous cargo can move in normal freight containers, trucks and trailers. I can pick up on an instance where he said oxygen was a dangerous cargo. If he checks it out, he'll find that oxygen is not a dangerous cargo. Acetylene is a dangerous cargo because it's inflammable. Oxygen only supports combustion and is not classed as a dangerous cargo.

I can sympathize with them; they do have a problem up there. But in this case, I don't think it's done anywhere else in the province, and I think the private carriers can do a good job. I really believe that if it were to be done in that area, it would set a precedent for all of Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast to run a special dangerous-cargo ferry at all times, and I don't think we are prepared....

He mentioned another thing: the $43 million. He lumped together a large area of approximately half a million people on Vancouver Island as well as the entire Sunshine Coast. But I think if he took each run on its own merit in each area, he would find out the real losers and the real winners in this. I can vouch for the fact that the run between Vancouver, the Sunshine Coast and Powell River, which does not have

[ Page 6697 ]

dangerous cargo, is also very near break-even. Some of the other runs.... I think it's unfair of him to use those figures in a lump and to say we've lost $43 million, because it's lost on many runs, not just one run, as his $13 million indicated.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Seeing as we're on the topic of ferries and freight service, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring up the question.... I was amazed that the minister said the entire amount of subsidy was paid on the north coast, when in fact there are two vessels on the west coast of Vancouver Island that also receive — or, should I say, used to receive — a subsidy from B.C. Ferries and have been waiting for some time to renegotiate those contracts. One is the Lady Rose, which runs up and down the Alberni Canal and has been under negotiation for some time. The owners of that vessel are still waiting for a reply. I wonder if the minister could tell us if those negotiations are going on. When can they expect a reply? When can they expect to be signing a contract so they can go about their business?

HON. MR. VANT: The member for Alberni is obviously concerned about the MV Lady Rose. I want to assure him and this House that the hon. minister of state, who is looking at transportation in the development region, has been constantly working with me. Indeed, Gillian Trumper, the mayor of Port Alberni, has also been in touch with me and talked to me about this particular subsidized, I guess we could call it, ferry run. At long last I've heard directly from the MLA for Alberni, and I want to assure him that negotiations are ongoing and that the next meeting concerning the MV Lady Rose is on May 12.

This process very appropriately involves the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the captain and owner of the MV Lady Rose. I understand it's a somewhat historic vessel. The route it takes is very scenic, and it adds to the tourism of the Alberni area. At the same time, we are very responsible in terms of our Crown corporations, in view of the heavy subsidy the taxpayers are expected to pay for that corporation. They have to properly negotiate these agreements, because it does cost money to have this ferry service provided. We want, of course, the best possible deal for the taxpayers of the province.

MR. G. JANSSEN: We have heard that the subsidy used to come from the federal government and was passed on through the B.C. Ferry Corporation, who I have been in contact with over the last number of months. I phoned them, as a matter of fact, a week ago to ask them again how negotiations were going, The owner of that vessel, Brooke George, would like to make some ongoing plans as to the repair and upkeep of that vessel. It's hard for him to do that when the Ferry Corporation keeps putting him off, saying: "Well, maybe next year. You're not carrying as much cargo as you used to. You're carrying more tourist traffic, and therefore you should have your subsidy reduced." I'm sure the owner of that vessel would be more than happy to just carry tourist traffic in the summertime and retire the vessel in the winter. However, he has a responsibility with the people of Alberni that it seems the government does not recognize; that is, he likes to serve areas such as Bamfield, Ucluelet, Kildonan and the many logging communities and aquaculture sites up and down the canal. He feels some responsibility that this government obviously does not feel.

I'd like this government — this ministry in particular — to recognize that responsibility. Give me a time and an amount so that perhaps the Lady Rose can go ahead and plan for the future. Businessmen in this province are looking to the Social Credit government — as we hear so often from the benches opposite — for leadership. This leadership is not coming in this instance.

HON. MR. VANT: I want to assure the member for Alberni that we are eager to negotiate a satisfactory agreement in this case — satisfactory to both parties. If this gentleman is such an entrepreneur, so anxious to give service to Bamfield, Ucluelet and all over that part of the coast, we wish him well. If he runs the business appropriately, he should do well. Again, we have to be responsible with the amount of funding that the Ferry Corporation will provide to marine service. I'm optimistic that on May 12 a mutually agreeable agreement will fall into place.

[5:45]

MR. G. JANSSEN: Is the minister saying that the $17 million received from the federal government, of which, I believe we ascertained earlier, $13.5 million was being spent, is not enough to supply the Lady Rose with the subsidy that it enjoyed in the past? Is the Ferry Corporation itself now paying that money? Is it no longer coming from the federal government?

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, that's correct. It never did. That part of the coast that MV Lady Rose serves was never part of Northland Navigation.

I fail to see why the hon. member keeps bringing up this federal subsidy. The fact is that no less than $51 million is provided by this Legislature to subsidize the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The federal subsidy comes from Ottawa into general revenue. You can't just isolate those funds to suit the part of the coast that the hon. member comes from and apply them to his particular area. It doesn't always fit.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Could the minister apprise me as to exactly how much money the federal government pays into general revenue?

HON. MR. VANT: I believe the member is asking me what the federal government pays as a subsidy for the coastal service. We indicated earlier that it's in the neighbourhood of $16 million, but as he wants a specific answer, I will take that on notice and provide the figure to him in due course.

MR. G. JANSSEN: When those figures come forward, I would ask you to give us a breakdown as to

[ Page 6698 ]

how much of that money is spent on ferry subsidies. I'm aware that the sister ship of the Lady Rose, which now operates out of Gold River was not part of Northland Navigation, but in the past they did always, I believe, receive a federal subsidy. Whether that was under Northland Navigation or another arm of the federal government I'm not sure; however, the B.C. Ferry Corporation took over that role and is now hedging on providing service to the people who live in these remote areas.

One of those remote areas, of course, is Bamfield. The people on the west side of Bamfield have been attempting to have a road put in since 1962. I think I'm the fourth member of the Legislature to be dealing with this question. The number of people that live on the west side of Bamfield has gone up.

If you are familiar with the community of Bamfield, Mr. Minister, you know that the connecting road that goes from Port Alberni to Bamfield is a MacMillan Bloedel company road. They receive a subsidy from the Highways ministry to maintain the road for the traveling public. But a number of the services in Bamfield exist on the opposite side of their little inlet. The hospital is on one side, the community hall is on the other; the school is on one side, the store is on the other; the hotel is on one side, the Coast Guard is on the other; and so forth. So boat travel is used back and forth across the inlet. I think a scant four kilometres of road is necessary to be built to go around to the other side of the inlet to provide service to those people.

One of the major problems is the disposal of garbage from the other side. Formerly, when only a few people lived there, garbage was simply taken out in a boat and thrown overboard. Now, with the numbers living on the west side of Bamfield Inlet, it has become a problem doing that because of the amount of garbage that washes ashore. There is also a problem with the houses that are built on the other side. Before they were small, summer-type or fisherman-type cabins. Now we have major developments on the west side of Bamfield.

I would ask the minister what progress he is making and when the people of west Bamfield can expect to have that road completed.

HON. MR. VANT: First of all, to deal with the member's earlier question of how much of the $16 million subsidy is used to help run the B.C. Ferry Corporation, my answer is all $51 million of it.

About two kilometres of road would be required to link Bamfield with the existing road network. At this point, there is no actual right-of-way; no design survey for this proposal. The right-of-way would also be partially through an Indian reserve. To proceed with your suggestion a fair number of things would have to happen.

I think that if the proponents of this connection — certainly a good case could be made to do that — would assist the regional transportation committee in identifying that as a priority, we would certainly have a good look at it. You have made a good case that it would be of great benefit to the community of Bamfield. I'm not too sure how that would impact on the operation of the MV Lady Rose, though.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The MV Lady Rose doesn't just serve Bamfield, and it is capable of carrying the type of freight that is impossible to carry down the existing logging road. There was a strong case made by the people of Bamfield on April 14, when the transportation hearings took place in Port Alberni. I also spoke on that issue.

It's been 27 years since this issue was first pursued by the people of Bamfield, and I'm rather surprised that the minister is reporting to me that there is no right-of-way. In fact, people of their own accord and at their own expense did put through a road, which is probably there illegally, to service both a section of west Bamfield in behind the beach area — I think it's some two kilometres of the four-kilometre stretch — and the east side of Bamfield, where there is also a road put in by private entrepreneurs through what I presume is Crown land.

In 27 years the Ministry of Highways hasn't seen fit to do any kind of a study, allocate any kind of road or take any kind of look. After 27 years these people are asking for a road. Could you explain to me why that is, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VANT: The hon. member says that this has been an issue for some 27 years. I'm just wondering why that road wasn't proceeded with between 1972 and 1975.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I don't think the minister answered the question. I'll wait for his response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 72 pass?

MR. KEMPF: Certainly not. I think we've got all sorts of things yet to discuss with respect to this minister's estimates.

Again, I apologize to the House for having to bring some of these issues before the Legislature. They are issues that should have been resolved between the member and the minister. They shouldn't take up the time of the whole assembly during estimates. But as that communication isn't the best, it's a must that I discuss them here.

I would like to ask the minister about several projects in my constituency — three of which he told me in a recent letter were proceeding in this fiscal year. With respect to the Nechako River bridge at Vanderhoof, how much money is available and exactly what will be done with respect to that new crossing in this particular fiscal year?

HON. MR. VANT: I want to assure the member for Omineca that there will be considerable work done on a new bridge at Vanderhoof to replace the old Howe truss wooden bridge this fiscal year.

I would be happy, given the hour, to suggest at this time that I will certainly get more details regarding the member's question. I would now like to move

[ Page 6699 ]

that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. VANT: Could I have leave of the House to file this document?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would remind the House that pursuant to standing orders the House will sit tomorrow afternoon. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.