[ Page 10961 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Ensure the Agricultural Use of Farmland (Bill M229).

Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 10961

An Act to Establish the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area

(Bill M230). Mr. Harcourt –– 10961

Oral Questions

Administration of justice. Mr. Sihota –– 10961

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Harcourt –– 10961

Medical Services Plan premiums. Mr. Mercier –– 10961

Awarding of forest licence. Mr. Miller –– 10962

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10962

B.C. Ferries construction contracts. Mr. Lovick –– 10962

Boundary Bay golf courses. Mr. Davidson –– 10963

Foreign doctors' hunger strike. Mr. Clark –– 10963

Transportation Capital Funding Act (Bill 17). Second reading.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 10964

Mr. Lovick –– 10964

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 10965

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 66: minister's office –– 10965

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Miller

Mr. Bruce

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Davidson

Point of Privilege

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Hon. Mr. Richmond 10988

Natural Gas Price Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 63). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 10991

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Williams

Third reading

Mineral Tax Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 33). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 10995

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Mine Development Assessment Act (Bill 59). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 10996

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill PR401).

Second reading. (Mr. Mercier)

Mr. Mercier –– 11003

Mr. Clark –– 11003

Mr. Mercier –– 11004

Municipal Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 50). Second reading.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11004

Mr. Blencoe –– 11004

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11004

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 66: minister's office –– 11004

Mr. Lovick

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Zirnhelt

Ms. Cull

Mr. Jones

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Rabbitt

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure today for me to introduce the sister of one of our pages, Rebecca Kamerbeek, who is a grade 10 student from Pacific Christian. She is visiting us, and I'd ask the House to give her a warm welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today is a recently retired MPP from the riding of Welland-Thorold in Ontario. I'd ask the House to welcome Melvin Swart and his wife Thelma.

MS. MARZARI: I ask the House to welcome Elizabeth Lamb, who is visiting from South Vancouver.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ENSURE THE
AGRICULTURAL USE OF FARMLAND

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled An Act to Ensure the Agricultural Use of Farmland.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, this bill does four things. It stops political interference by cabinet in the appeal of Agricultural Land Commission decisions to include or exclude land in the ALR. Secondly, it provides for independent consideration of appeals of commission decisions by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It is the intent of this bill that any aggrieved person may have their day in court and be heard. Thirdly, it expands the mandate of the commission to be a steward of agricultural, greenbelt and parkland. Fourthly, it repeals the cabinet order, which allows golf courses as permitted uses on agricultural land.

Bill M229 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.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARY
BAY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area.

MR. HARCOURT: Without prejudice to any present or future claims of aboriginal title, this bill creates the Boundary Bay wildlife management area to protect the habitat of more than 1.5 million birds of 310 species that use the delta as part of the Pacific flyway migratory route that goes from Alaska and Siberia through to Central and South America. The bill outlines boundaries for the management area and allows for land acquisitions necessary to ensure adequate feeding- and resting-grounds for those migratory waterfowl.

Bill M230 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General. Given the concerns now expressed about tampering with the administration of justice in this province, will the minister agree to hold an inquiry into the matter of the administration of justice during the tenure of his predecessor?

HON. MR. FRASER: I believe that everyone in the House knows that certain matters are under investigation, and therefore it is not proper for me to comment.

TAPED CONVERSATIONS
OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the government House Leader. It is now very clear that the NDP caucus had absolutely no involvement in the interception of the material that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) put before the House last week. Will this government now apologize to the official opposition for the offensive and groundless accusations of criminal activity that were made in this House last Thursday?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think it's anything but clear, and I think the opposition should let justice take its course and quit trying to interfere with it.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we were talking about: is justice being done? It may have been a bit too much to expect this government to acknowledge when it's wrong and make the appropriate amends. If the government House Leader is not willing to apologize, will he give British Columbians the chance to judge the administration of justice by this government and the integrity of this government in a general election?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't even know who calls elections in this province. How could we possibly expect him to know how justice will be carried out by the Deputy Attorney-General? He couldn't possibly know that.

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN PREMIUMS

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Ads have appeared recently, charging that the province has redirected $145 mil-

[ Page 10962 ]

lion in MSP premiums outside the health care system. Are these ads correct?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that some of the ads that have arisen through the efforts of the BCMA have misled the public in terms of the contributions of MSP towards the health care system. The revenues for MSP are $641 million, as opposed to a budget of some $5 billion, so I find it very difficult to understand how we can redirect funds to another ministry or another allocation.

AWARDING OF FOREST LICENCE

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the ombudsman's report and the awarding of the Takla-Sustut timber, the timber policy branch noted that the proposed cost of upgrading the B.C. Rail line was low at $25 million and more likely to exceed $40 million. Has a subsidy been requested by the recipients of the timber licence for the government to assist in the cost of that upgrading?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MILLER: Is the minister satisfied that the work is proceeding and will be completed as per the terms of the agreement?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I believe the agreement has not been finalized as yet.

MR. MILLER: On Thursday the minister took as notice questions I posed with respect to the report. I note that the minister reviewed this entire matter in April and decided not to change the wording of the report. Could the minister advise if the ombudsman's report on political interference will prompt a new, independent review, or has the minister already made up his mind?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I took that question as notice last week and I will be bringing an answer back to this Legislature.

TAPED CONVERSATIONS
OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. GABELMANN: On Thursday the Premier accused the House....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you're speaking about the issue which the Chair undertook to review on Thursday during question period, the Chair has reviewed the matter and will deal with the matter appropriately when all of the appropriate players are here. If that's possible, there is a retraction that the Chair will ask for. I would like to leave the matter as it was left in my hands at that time.

If you have another question, I'll accept it.

MR. GABELMANN: As I understand it, the Speaker said on Thursday that he would review the entire contents of question period to see whether there were any matters that should be dealt with. My difficulty is in knowing which matters you will deal with and which ones you won't; I would expect that you would deal with the matter of the blackmail charge.

MR. SPEAKER: I will deal with the matters at the appropriate time, when the appropriate members are in attendance in the chamber.

MR. GABELMANN: I would like to ask a question which I believe you may not be considering.

MR. SPEAKER: Fine. Then proceed.

MR. GABELMANN: On Thursday the Premier accused members on this side of the House of taping telephone conversations. We did not. He is not here to apologize, and I ask the House Leader to apologize to us on this side of the House for that false accusation by the Premier.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I said to the Leader of the Opposition — if that is a leader — the matter is still under investigation. I think if you let justice take its course, then we will all know whether the charge was false or not.

MR. GABELMANN: May I ask the government House Leader who is conducting the investigation into whether or not those tapes were taped by members of this side of the House?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The Deputy Attorney General has said that he is bringing in the RCMP and the deputy minister from Alberta to investigate the entire matter, and I am sure that in the course of their investigation the truth will come out.

MR. GABELMANN: Given that, how was it that the Premier seemed to know the answer to that investigation on Thursday last?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It is certainly not in my realm of expertise to know what the Premier knows, as it is not in yours to know what your leader does or does not know.

B.C. FERRIES CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transportation and Highways and concerns the super-ferry propulsion system that has been purchased. I would like to ask the minister if she can advise this House who authorized the removal of the Wartsila engines from the preliminary design for the new super-ferries, and whether she was indeed consulted before that decision was made.

[ Page 10963 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Within the last few days, I did provide members on the opposition side of the House with a report, as they requested, regarding the awarding of the contract and the specifications. I'm not qualified to make changes in a tender call, and one would assume that the people involved with B.C. Ferries would have done so. But if you have any further questions, and if you would like to give them to me, I would be pleased to get the precise answer for you from B.C. Ferries.

MR. LOVICK: I do have further questions, and I certainly shall be pursuing those.

Again to the same minister. The B.C. Shipbuilding Action Group recommends that all ferry construction should be offered for fair competitive bid. Can the minister confirm that the two small, 85-car ferries which were recently put out to bid were indeed tendered?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, I can.

MR. LOVICK: Can the minister confirm that the approximately $1.5 million propulsion system for those smaller ferries was also put out to tender?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm not absolutely sure how that was handled, but there was a contest among the people who were qualified to fulfil the requirements. As I said earlier, you have a great deal of that information now. If you would like something more that we haven't provided you with, hon. member, we would be pleased to provide it.

MR. LOVICK: Given that there was apparently some consultative or bidding process undertaken, can the minister explain to us why the propulsion system for the super-ferries — some $20 million worth, as opposed to $1.5 million worth — was not put out to tender?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It was a decision of the board of B.C. Ferries, based on a great deal of experience. If you really are sincere in wanting to know the answer to that, I would be pleased to arrange a meeting with the senior management officials at B.C. Ferries for you and anyone else in the House who would like to sit down and have a full explanation of how they arrived at the process used. I believe you will find it was a fair process.

BOUNDARY BAY GOLF COURSES

MR. DAVIDSON: My question is to the Environment minister. There are presently two golf-course applications pending in Delta, in an environmentally sensitive area of Boundary Bay. I'd like to ask the minister if he can give some assurance that before any such approvals are given, a full environmental study of the wildlife will be conducted by his ministry. Can he give that assurance to the public?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can advise the member that the Canadian Wildlife Service and my ministry are doing a study of Boundary Bay. We expect that study to be completed on September 1. I phoned the mayor of Delta on Thursday or Friday of last week and asked him if his council would delay any decision it is making on the golf courses until that study is complete and his council has a chance to look at it and my ministry has a chance to review that study. As I said earlier, I expect the study will be complete in the first week of September.

FOREIGN DOCTORS' HUNGER STRIKE

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Health. At this moment six foreign-trained doctors are on a hunger strike in a church in my constituency. I met with them last night. I realize that the resolution of their problem is not an easy one, but will the minister agree to meet with the doctors in an effort to end their fast?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Vancouver East is not aware that I have met with the doctors and spoken to several of them by name about the problem of their acceptance in the internship program in British Columbia. If the member is suggesting that I should start hiring doctors individually for all our hospitals, I would find that offensive. We have in place in British Columbia a system where the intern program directors of each teaching hospital hire interns. I have told the foreign trained doctors that we are putting a program in place, and we expect, with the medical college, to have that program operating as soon as possible. Beyond that, I can't offer any assistance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. The minister knows that if this has driven people to this kind of extreme action, clearly there's a problem. Given that there were at least 31 internship vacancies in Canada last year, would the minister agree that it would be reasonable to have these vacancies filled by foreign-trained doctors?

HON. J. JANSEN: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the member is not aware of the facts. Last year we had trouble matching intern positions with interns; we had too many interns for the positions available. The member is suggesting that we give priority to foreign-trained students, over and above our Canadian trained students; that we issue instructions to the individual hospitals that they must be hired in advance of our students that come out of UBC. I don't find that acceptable, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated that we are putting a program in place, but it requires the cooperation of the medical community to make it happen.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 17.

[ Page 10964 ]

TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FUNDING ACT

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: For several years now it has been recognized that the funding arrangements for our highway capital construction have fallen far short of the requirements, due to the extended time-frames for planning, engineering, design and construction. From the date of identification the time-frames to the end of construction can be anywhere from several months to ten years. The existing funding formulas require an annual appropriation, which gives no guarantee that the project, once commenced, would be funded adequately to completion. Funding lapses annually and the voted appropriation in the following year may or may not be sufficient to continue with all projects identified or in fact commenced.

To provide continuity to the capital program within the ministry, the government has introduced the Transportation Capital Funding Act. This act will provide funding through a special account in the consolidated revenue fund. The funding source will not lapse at the end of each fiscal year. The fund will provide capital expenditures for highway capital construction, the air transport assistance program, B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit, and will provide support to other levels of government with respect to the road system.

The operating grants to B.C. Ferry Corporation, B.C. Rail and B.C. Transit will continue to be funded in the operations vote, not through the fund. As well, the major functions of highway maintenance and highway rehabilitation will continue to be funded through the operations vote, not through the fund.

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

MR. LOVICK: The ostensible purposes for this bill are, of course, understandable. I certainly have some sympathy for the ministry, insofar as there are obvious initiations on the way we allocate money in this chamber. However, I'm sure the minister can forgive those of us on this side of the House who have to have some apprehensions about this particular measure, given a couple of things that have recently come to light.

I'm referring, as a starting point, to the auditor-general's report. As you recall, Madam Minister, the auditor-general points out that apparently the Ministry of Highways lacks the ability and the expertise to do any kind of accurate assessment of the costs of major construction — that it simply doesn't have that capacity; or at least that capacity on the part of the ministry is certainly called into question in the auditor-general's report.

Secondly, in the wake of the Coquihalla, I think all of us are a bit concerned about transferring money. You'll recall, Madam Minister, I am sure, that the story of the Coquihalla was not so much that there was a cost overrun; it was the fact that we didn't know that the total sum had changed. We weren't aware of what it was actually costing us until much after the fact.

Commissioner MacKay, I'm sure the minister will recall, stressed emphatically that what happened was that the Legislature had indeed been misled, that we didn't know what we were voting on, and that the total amount of money that was finally involved in the project bore little resemblance to what the Legislature had approved. You can therefore understand, I am sure, Madam Minister, that those of us on this side of the House who have some familiarity with those incidents — the two I have named — are perhaps inclined to call this a Freedom to Move money account.

We're a little concerned, then, about the whole area of accountability — indeed, a little concerned that the public will be informed via its representatives in this chamber as to just how much money is in fact being shifted from one account to another, because, of course, that's one part of discretion this particular bill gives to the minister.

The ministry, of course, offers three principal motives for the bill, each of which, of course, is understandable and ostensibly makes some sense. The first — I guess we can loosely call it a macroeconomic reason — is that the long-term commitment of funds will more or less ensure that we can adjust our construction budget and activities to deal with local circumstances and know when we need to put extra resources into perhaps otherwise depressed communities. It's a perfectly legitimate reason.

The other area, I take it from my reading of the bill, is that this particular measure will give us some flexibility; i.e., managers can shift priorities from one district, one project, to another to take advantage of local circumstances — perhaps changes in pricing.

Thirdly, of course, the planning function is the justification. Again, we don't have too much quarrel with the argument, because, of course, we would like to see whatever we can to ensure that a longer-term planning model is established for highways.

The problem, however, is that we're worried that this particular measure might enable some funding to be used for highway construction purposes that doesn't really get subjected to the same scrutiny of the Legislature as is normally the case. I see the minister shaking her head, and I'm pleased to note that that's the case. Certainly my calls to the ministry — some efforts to get information on the bill — didn't satisfy me that that isn't the case, so perhaps when we get to committee stage, at least, we can determine that.

I'm also a little concerned that there seems to be rather too much discretion, too much latitude, allowed the ministry with this particular bit of legislation. If I can quote to the minister from the 1990 budget, where the fund is described, you will recall — the Freedom to Move special account fund — it says the fund will "allow the government to reallocate funds from one transportation mode to another as priorities and opportunities change." The obvious question, of course, is whether priorities and opportunities are indeed going to change very much if capital construction is being done on the basis of

[ Page 10965 ]

measurable, specific, defensible criteria as opposed to political ones.

[2:30]

We have difficulty then with this particular measure, because it looks as if what we're giving the ministry is something like a blank cheque to spend hundreds of millions of dollars without detailed legislative scrutiny. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced that I am wrong.

This bill seems to authorize diversion of funds -precisely the kind of thing that happened in the Coquihalla. Our concern then is that dollars could be approved for one purpose by the Legislature and then reallocated to another purpose, and we wouldn't even know about that until some two years later when public accounts become available.

The MacKay commission on the Coquihalla and the auditor-general both called for greater accountability regarding major projects — over $50 million in the case of highways. This particular measure does not deal with the recommendation that MacKay made. Accordingly, my colleagues and I are going to present an amendment to the measure when we get to committee stage, just suggesting that we need the kinds of guarantees that MacKay enunciated in his report.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place and reserve other discussion from my side until we get to committee stage.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Certainly the ministry and the government as a whole learned a great deal from the MacKay inquiry, and many of the weaknesses that were identified are presently being addressed by the ministry. Certainly the identification of the weaknesses by the ministry has been acknowledged in the auditor-general's report. So I'm very pleased that the government has adopted this funding philosophy, which provides a multi-year certainty to our capital program. I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 17, Transportation Capital Funding Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: My introductory comments will be very brief so that we can allow as much time as required to respond to questions from members of the House. But there are a few points we should be making. First and foremost we should point out that the priority of the ministry is a safe and efficient transportation system. We have consolidated all transportation agencies under one ministry and established a provincial transportation council to ensure integration between all sectors.

I would note, Mr. Chairman, that this was done in November. Subsequent to the consolidation, I see that the NDP transportation policy, which was brought out several months later, has suggested that that should be done, so one would assume that the NDP agrees with the move we took last year.

We have developed a comprehensive long-term transportation plan, and we are establishing a five-year revolving capital account, termed our Freedom to Move account. This is to provide $3.5 billion of provincial funding towards significant long-term improvements to our provincial transportation network.

We have also in the ministry initiated major projects in all transportation modes — by land, sea and air — to meet the growing demand of a rapidly expanding economy and our growing population base. We have accelerated the pace of replenishing our existing transportation infrastructure, which in many cases has been shown to be inadequate. We have increased funding for road and bridge rehabilitation. We have an aggressive replacement and upgrading program for our bus and ferry fleets, as well as for our railway system and facilities. We have involved ourselves in this ministry in the development of airport and port systems that will support our commercial, recreational and social needs. The ministry is also spearheading safety and public consultation programs.

We have also launched and continue to explore new transportation systems such as the SkyTrain and the SeaBus, and the focus is on moving more goods and more people, not on moving more vehicles. We have broadened the scope of the ministry to look beyond what's needed today and hopefully to plan, design and implement the transportation network of tomorrow.

I will conclude my introductory comments with those few notes, and I will be pleased to respond to any questions the members of the House may have with regard to the operation of the ministry as a whole.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I'm a little taken aback at the brevity of the minister's comments. Given the great fanfare that went with announcements such as Freedom to Move and the glossy publications attendant on that, the special pamphlet on the consultative process and a whole batch of mega projects, it would seem to me that the ministry ought to be at least acknowledging — if not indeed bragging — that none of these things have happened yet. Rather there is a kind of quiet. I suspect it's because we're in mid-July, and perhaps members on the other side are looking to places other than this chamber to spend the rest of their summer.

HON, MRS. JOHNSTON: Some of us were working last week.

[ Page 10966 ]

MR. LOVICK: The minister makes reference to a special meeting of the Public Accounts Committee membership of this Legislature in St. John's, Newfoundland. Insofar as the Speaker authorized that trip, I assumed that it was considered to be a legitimate pursuit of the public's business. Perhaps the minister's own experience in terms of her travel is somewhat different; therefore she has a jaded notion of what members of the Public Accounts Committee did.

I am a little concerned, as I say, that the minister hasn't given us a more detailed opening statement about ministry plans. I'm especially concerned about the fact that the minister hasn't devoted any time or attention to talking about longer-term plans, primarily with a view to the large problem of dealing with environmental constraints. I don't need to remind the minister, her deputy or other staff who are here in the House of the difficulty we have with highways construction and any kind of transportation activities or initiatives.

As we know, the ground rules have changed. We know that if we announced the building of a major highway project 20 years ago, the likelihood was that 90 percent of the people would shout with joy and say: "Thank you, thank you." Today that is simply not the case. Rather, people are apprehensive. They are concerned primarily because of the environmental questions, but they're also concerned about quality of life arguments. They also wonder whether indeed the complete consultative process that governments like to talk about is being followed or whether that's essentially rhetorical and the reality is that decisions have been made prior to the consultative process unfolding.

So I'm a bit surprised that the minister didn't want to talk in those terms about what we envision for a longer term transportation planning activity in this province. Instead, it seems that what we have, sadly is a cobbled-together document based on a number of regional transportation task force inputs called "Freedom to Move," which isn't really a plan; rather it's a cobbled-together wish list. It's a so-called plan that tends to ignore much that was offered by way of submissions from the various transportation task force subcommittees. It's a plan that doesn't seem to have the financial wherewithal to unfold and indeed is old hat. We've heard about most of the projects before; in fact, there wasn't anything new.

You can understand then why we on this side of the House are a little skeptical and concerned when we don't hear the minister go on at great length about how she and her staff are looking to the future with a view to producing a transportation policy that will take us well and truly into the twenty-first century, as her rhetoric goes.

I note that the minister tries to make something of the fact that my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party — I might point out, by the way, volunteer members of the party as opposed to paid staff — produced a document that talks about the need for integration of all the transportation functions under one ministry. Yes indeed, we agree with that.

We on this side of the House are perfectly willing to give credit where credit is due, and we do so with complete confidence because, given the track record of this government, we seldom have to give credit. So when we do see grounds to give credit, we're quite prepared to do so.

I am also concerned about the fact that the statement made by the minister about the major projects, accelerated construction and so forth are apparently made as if oblivious to everything the auditor-general has had to say. The auditor-general, we recall, seriously called into question whether the ministry had the wherewithal to be talking about calculations of — I shouldn't say honest — reasonable and accurate projections for major highway projects; whether it had lost that ability, given that we've now had a reorganization, restructuring, privatization and downsizing, and we're now on our fourth Highways minister in about three and a half years. Understandably, the ministry is in some difficulty.

The aggressive upgrading of transportation infrastructure is desirable; one doesn't deny that. The issue, however — let us not forget — is that the system was effectively allowed to fall down over the past ten, 15 or 20 years. We have not injected the kind of capital we need to maintain the system at the level it ought to be. The Delcan study — I'm sure, Madam Minister, you'll recall the study — effectively told us that the transportation infrastructure was something like a basket case and would cost us literally billions of dollars to bring it up to the level it ought to be at.

Finally, just by way of opening.... I'm going to give the minister an opportunity to tell me how I err in all of these observations, and these are just off the top. She referred to "the transportation network of tomorrow." I guess that's what I'd like to hear more about, because I haven't seen any evidence yet that we're looking at anything much beyond say a five- or ten-year maximum time horizon. If we want to talk about the transportation network of tomorrow, surely we ought to be thinking a little bit beyond that.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: The minister is already sadly demonstrating that she has difficulty rising much beyond the here and now. I think the obligation for any transportation minister is to be talking about growth, about land use and about a whole bunch of things other than a 1950s model of transportation, which is what we got, frankly, with the freedom-to-move initiative. So if the minister wants to say something, as opposed to just making gestures and all that, I'll give her her first opportunity.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I find the member for Nanaimo's comments really quite interesting. On one hand, members of the opposition have criticized some of my colleagues because the preamble to the budget discussion has been too long and repetitive and the ministers are continuing to say things that they've already been saying out on the hustings. I could stand here for an hour and tell you

[ Page 10967 ]

about all the really neat things we're doing in the ministry. But in most cases, the member for Nanaimo has outlined several of them, so he's well aware of what is being carried on the ministry.

We have never in the history of British Columbia entered into projects that have made provision for more in the way of public consultation than we have at the present time on highways and SkyTrain rapid transit expansion projects. We have had hundreds of people across the province involved on a voluntary basis in our transportation task force. Each of the regions had transportation task force committees. We're following the plans that were laid down by those volunteers, who were truly representative of the people from right across the province.

[2:45]

We do have a long-range plan. How do you plan further than five or ten years down the road when you're looking at the transportation needs? With few exceptions, you have to address the needs as they come up year after year. Our transportation task forces will be meeting annually, at the very least, to ensure that the plans they have in place are current and that when changes are required, those changes will be incorporated.

There's a great deal going on in the ministry. The member for Nanaimo is well aware of it because of the documentation and reports that we've put out. I recall a comment made by the member for Nanaimo last year in which he referred to the Delcan report as less than significant. I find today that he's quoting from it as if it was almost a bible of transportation needs in the province,

I'm prepared to respond to any specific questions that members in the House have. But it seems to me that for me to stand up here and wax poetic about all the things that we're doing in the ministry would serve to speak to the people in the constituency that I serve but would serve no useful purpose in this House. I'm pleased to answer any specific questions you have.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, when the minister threatens us with waxing poetic, we know that's an empty threat. That's clearly beyond the capacity.

Just to qualify, I'm sorry that the minister's review of what I had to say about Delcan in the House last year was as cursory as it was. I was very clear about what Delcan did and did well. What I said, however, was that we didn't need to spend $315,000 with a private consulting firm putting together all the material that Highways ministry personnel had already done. That was the issue; that was my criticism of Delcan. So let's establish that.

When the minister tells us that we can't really look beyond five years for transportation planning, I'm appalled. I don't think you will find anybody with expertise in planning who would for a moment say that a five-year horizon is planning. That's not. That's crisis management.

When we talk about planning, we're talking about land use decisions. We're talking about projecting what population growth is likely to be in this province, where the pressure points are likely to be. What do we then do to accommodate that kind of population growth? The minister said, in introducing the freedom-to-move special account and that so-called plan, that this was the first comprehensive plan ever for transportation in this province. My response at the time was: if that's the case, God help us. We've got to begin looking at the future. We've got to start determining where in fact the growth will be, so we know whether we can accommodate that growth.

The reason we have the crisis on the Vancouver Island highway, in places like my constituency of Nanaimo, and on the Pat Bay Highway in the Saanich Peninsula is precisely because we haven't done that kind of longer-range planning. We haven't done anything with a view to determining where populations are going to go, talking about assembling land, protecting and guaranteeing right-of-way, and so forth. Thus we have the crisis we do. I hope the minister is going to tell me that I misunderstood her when she said that her ministry doesn't commit itself to anything beyond a five-year horizon in terms of planning.

We had a travesty of planning within the ministry. I see you have a few people here from the ministry; I know most of them, and I think that, privately if not otherwise, they'd acknowledge that. What's happened in the last roughly eight months is that we've put together a new planning function within the ministry. Will the minister tell us specifically what that planning group is doing? Is it indeed looking beyond five years? Tell us something about the planning function within the ministry. I raise that question specifically because it seems clear to me it was very much in question whether we had any planning capacity about a year ago.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I find that question quite interesting for a number of reasons, the first of which is that it seems to be the first question that has been asked in all the verbiage that we've heard from that side of the House.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We aren't in college right now, hon. member. Possibly your vocabulary includes far more in the way of words from the dictionary than mine.

I want to tell the members opposite, Mr. Chairman, and anyone in the House who cares to listen, that it's our belief on this side of the House that the people in the province, in the regions, should be helping us plan our transportation network, not the bureaucrats in Victoria.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, that kind of vacuous populism doesn't serve anybody: pretending that what this government is doing is talking to the people. That is not an excuse for not having a planning function. I asked the minister a specific question: tell us about what your new planning department in the ministry is doing. How many folks

[ Page 10968 ]

have you got? What are they doing? What mandate do they presently have?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the process of public involvement is new. The planning function in the ministry continues to carry out the functions they always have: that is, to assist in the planning. But we have a new process that involves the public at large.

MR. LOVICK: The minister could very easily tell me something about what that branch of the ministry does, instead of giving that kind of puffery. Instead, she doesn't seem to want to.

What are we looking at? Do we have in fact a beefed-up planning function? Consider, Madam Minister, if you will: if you're going to say to us that this freedom-to-move thing, this cobbled-together little account — put together essentially for what appears certainly to be political purposes largely — is the equivalent to planning, and that that's the only comprehensive plan we've ever had for transportation in this province, you can understand, I am sure, why we're concerned. I'm giving you an opportunity to allay the fears of the public, who say that nobody there knows anything about planning. Tell us about what that branch does. Tell us about its capacities Tell us about its expertise. Do you have some economists there? Do you have some agrologists? Do you have some people who know something about water? Who's in there? What's going on? It's a simple question.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Obviously I'm having a bit of problem with this line of questioning, because we have a planning department. You're well aware of the fact that we have a section in the ministry. They do deal with future growth. They assess what they see as the growth areas across the province. They do deal with traffic counts. They do deal with environmental concerns. And we have established, as you are undoubtedly aware — I hope you would be aware — a new provincial transportation council that is made up of the senior management from each of the Crowns and the deputy from the ministry, so that we ensure we have a coordinated outlook on what is being planned in the province with regard to our transportation infrastructure.

If you want to be specific.... Do you want me to get you the name of every employee in the ministry and precisely what their duties are? I'm telling you that we make all these assessments. Our planning division is doing precisely what you would expect a planning division to do. Is there something more you think should be done that isn't being done?

MR. LOVICK: All of this, I take it, Madam Minister, is within a five-year horizon. Do you want to acknowledge? Is that the case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Within an indefinite horizon.

MR. LOVICK: That's certainly comforting. I think I will be coming back to the planning function as we go. I might just mention, Madam Minister, that my approach is probably going to be a little scattergun, rather than dealing with discrete chunks. The reason is simply that, as you know, we didn't have any kind of advance warning, so I've been scrambling to pull together files. It may be a little more slow and a little less efficient than would normally be the case, but so be it.

Let's go back....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: No, no. Sarcasm is a perfectly legitimate tool, especially when the other side also interjects it — or at least attempts to. I never introduce it; I always respond with that. The member may have noticed, if she was paying attention.

I want to come back to the questions I was posing earlier today, Madam Minister, regarding the super-ferry construction and all of that business. The minister made reference to a report that she said all MLAs had been given last week. I didn't say so in question period, but I'm not familiar with that report, and I don't believe the research people in our caucus are. Could she tell me about that report she was referring to?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Just to correct that: I didn't say all; I said some members on the NDP side of the House.

I can see that we're going to have a bit of a problem. It seems to me that we should have some order in how we deal with the responsibilities of this ministry. We have the ministry staff present at this time. The Crown corporations should be dealt with not in a scattergun way, as the member from Nanaimo has suggested, but in an orderly way. We will allow as much time as necessary to deal with each of the areas, but I don't think we should bounce around from highways to ferries to transit to rail. Let's try to get through one section and one part of the ministry without sending this staff out and bringing another staff in. It seems rather irresponsible and not a very constructive way to spend the time.

If you did not receive a letter with regard to the engine, hon. member, I would be pleased to ensure that you do get one.

MR. LOVICK: I find it difficult to be lectured to about responsibility and using the resources of this chamber effectively. As somebody who has been involved in estimates for the past three years, I have always begun by saying: "These are the ground rules. On this part of the time, we'll be dealing with the following people." I've always exchanged that courtesy with the minister.

Today, however, we discovered we didn't know what the rules were until about an hour before the House was called to sit. If you want to talk about responsibility, Madam Minister, I suggest you have a chat with your House Leader, because we on this side

[ Page 10969 ]

will do whatever we can to cooperate and to make sure that the operations of this House are carried out properly, efficiently and effectively. I am not about to suddenly start to go through the agonies of the damned, etc., trying to put stuff together to satisfy your agenda, when clearly your colleagues have treated us in such a shabby manner. Let's establish that.

I want to, as I say, come back to the report that you told us earlier we had been sent — which we weren't sent. That causes me some concern, needless to say. Would the minister now be willing to answer the questions I posed earlier about the tendering process? First of all, is it the case that the propulsion system for the 85-car vessels was put out to public tender, whereas the $20 million propulsion system for the super-ferries was not? Would the minister confirm that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I really can't let that comment go by about how the estimates were sort of dropped on the members opposite. We've been here for several months now, so it should not be a surprise that sooner or later we're going to arrive at the Transportation and Highways estimates. This is the third time I have been asked to be prepared. On the previous two occasions, I was told that my critics were not available, so there were delays.

[3:00]

Somewhere along the line, I'm prepared to cooperate as much as I can. On that basis, I will take that question on notice until we have the B.C. Ferries staff available to respond.

MR. LOVICK: As far as I know, I've been available the whole time, save last week, which was a scheduled trip through the Speaker's office. I don't know what time the minister might be referring to; it's never here nor there.

I did want to start with ferries. Is the minister suggesting that she's not prepared to answer any questions about ferries for the present?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Not unless they're very general.

MR. LOVICK: Okay. Why don't we give the minister a nice general question then? That's fine, let's just open it up. Tell me how the decision was made to go the route of super-ferries as opposed to looking at other possible technologies. You've talked about a consultation process. I don't believe there's any reference in any of the task force subcommittee reports or anywhere else that I'm aware of. Where did the idea of super-ferries come from? How did you come up with that technology?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I think that question could be more appropriately answered when the staff from B.C. Ferries are present. They can give me all of the background for you.

MR. LOVICK: I've got lots of questions I want answers to, but I want to start with ferries. I'm a little concerned that the minister chooses to defer that rather broad, general question to some distant time in the future. Again connected with the question of planning, can the minister tell me whether any significant amount of attention and energy within the corporation is being given to looking at alternative technologies in terms of the ferry operation in the province?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The answer to that question is yes, it is.

MR. LOVICK: She's taking a page out the government House Leader's book, I see: brevity and succinct answers. Right?

Can the minister give us any update on the status of the alternative technology for ferries — i.e., aluminium hull construction? Can she tell us what's happening with regard to that technology?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I think that could be better addressed when we have the staff standing by here.

MR. LOVICK: Would the minister agree that the commitment to super-ferries of the old style will inevitably entail construction of larger ferry terminals, as well as expansion, and necessitate additional network infrastructure, roads and such like at those ferry terminals? Would she agree that perhaps that is not the most advisable route to go in terms of addressing the legitimate needs of the ferry-travelling public?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The answer to the first question is yes, and to the second one, no.

MR. LOVICK: Can the minister inform me which specific recommendations regarding ferries that were presented in the transportation subcommittee task forces around the province were implemented in the Freedom to Move plan — if any?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to review that with the B.C. Ferries staff when they're here. I'm not familiar with every single recommendation there.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's intriguing that around questions of scale.... I just wonder if the minister and her senior staff haven't thought about some of these issues, specifically with B.C. Ferries and the super-ferries as very significant development questions for the province. These are not traditional engineering questions. I think that's part of what my colleague has been directing his questions at. I know the minister has other disciplines in her staff, but I wonder whether the range of disciplines that are needed has been applied to some of these questions.

[ Page 10970 ]

In terms of my interest in economics, if we're talking about four super-ferries at $125 million each — or something like that — we're talking about half a billion dollars. That's a huge capital expenditure in anybody's language, and it seems to me that requires some high-level thinking about its implications. As a person who has historically been involved in planning in this province and the question of managing growth in some communities, it seems to me that at some point the technology starts demanding questions.

As a regular user of the system — unlike some other members in the House-it strikes me that what you've got here is this big carrier — the super-ferry. Then you need the big storage bin prior to people getting on the ferry, and that's the enlarged Horseshoe Bay terminal or the enlarged Swartz Bay terminal. So the technology starts rippling through in terms of other capital expenditures and the infrastructure. If my memory serves me right, you're talking about close to $40 million for the storage bin at Horseshoe Bay this year. You can nod your head if I'm right or wrong. It's something like that anyway, isn't it? It's a big expenditure, and it starts begging the question about (1) pedestrian movement and (2) scale.

The more I've been around in terms of these technical questions, the more I'm convinced that scale is the villain again and again. Scale has become a serious problem, and you're starting to reap the whirlwind out of the scale question. You're only beginning. The Saanich Peninsula has said: "We don't want that answer." That seems to me to trigger a whole bunch of other questions and thoughts about the system. My uneasiness — and I think that of my colleagues— is because that probably hasn't been done. The great fear is that we could have $500 million spent on the ships, as we're hearing.

The whole question of how we bid is a neat question. There's all the economic spin-off questions around that, about our shipyards and our workers, because scale is a problem. If they get that size, there's only one bidder within British Columbia; if they are smaller scale, there might be four, five or six bidders in British Columbia. All these ancillary, fascinating, economic development questions come to bear.

What we'd like to know, Madam Minister, is whether at some point you or some of the senior people in your ministry say: "I'm hearing the bells ringing, and there's something wrong out there. Forty million dollars for a storage bin in Horseshoe Bay doesn't make sense. Isn't there a better way of dealing with this?" The $40 million for the storage bin has to add up the costs of the Upper Levels being upgraded to full freeway standards, the Lonsdale interchange, etc., etc. They are big dollars.

Quite frankly, I don't believe that your troop of engineers have the skills to deal with these questions, and I think those are the questions being begged by the member for Nanaimo. You've been getting the auditor-general's reports on inadequacies in the most fundamental, simplistic engineering-growth questions and estimate questions and so on, and they are damned scary in terms of the capacity of your ministry. But that's in just basic, traditional engineering.

You start moving to this level, where you're talking about billion-dollar expenditures on the ferry system and then the linkages to it, and you're starting to impact the nature of Vancouver Island in the future. These are really big questions. We've limited ourselves to these two basic terminals at Tsawwassen and Horseshoe Bay. It begs the question about that limitation. You've essentially limited yourself to the terminals on Vancouver Island. It begs the question about the limitation of those two terminals.

Only this year did a bell ring, and somebody over there realized that it made sense to move trucks from Tsawwassen to Nanaimo and avoid the urban congestion. That took a long time. It just begs the question about the capability of your ministry for high-level, strategic economic planning for these huge issues that have impact on this entire basin between Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. We'd like to hear more from you about the capacity of your ministry and this Crown corporation to deal with these questions.

On pedestrian movement alone, isn't this the first year you've turned back pedestrians on the ferry system? You couldn't handle them when they came to the terminal. You look at the pedestrian flow on some routes, and it's fascinating — 27 percent on the Powell River run. That amazed me when I looked up the numbers. The same percentage on the Bowen Island run is not so surprising, but that number on the Bowen Island run automatically tells me: hey, we should be talking about a pedestrian link for passengers from Bowen Island to downtown Vancouver. I think that's obvious, and the member from the area clearly thinks it's obvious too. But something's wrong if I have to stand up here now, having just looked at the pedestrian data two months ago, and tell you that. Something should have been in the planning some time ago for moving just pedestrians from Bowen Island. It's so obvious that it's wild it hasn't occurred before now.

I just don't think you've got the capacity in your ministry to deal with these really big questions and their huge economic and development questions. I think you’ve got a hidebound board in the Ferry Corporation that has not been creative. I have a lot of time for what B.C. Ferries has achieved over the years, but I think the last half-dozen years have indicated that they are simply applying more of the same, and the scale problem is getting severe.

I'd like to hear the minister's comments.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There is not a lot of what the member for Vancouver East said that I could disagree with. The technology that has been utilized by B.C. Ferries over the past number of years has been rather stagnant.

The issue of the super-ferries is one that was under discussion and review, and being looked at by consultants, for a number of years. Finally, about two

[ Page 10971 ]

years ago, the decision was made. We have tender documents out now. They are expected back at the end of this month. Early in August, I would expect, after evaluation of the tenders, a decision will have to be made.

You're right: we have limited terminals at the present time. But an expansion of the terminal facilities, both on the mainland and on the Island, has to be looked at very seriously, and B.C. Ferries will be dealing with that.

I'm delighted to hear your comment on the necessity for a marine-pedestrian link between Bowen Island and Vancouver. I think it should even go a little further than that, and we are seriously looking at that as well. Your comment was that it has long been recognized that this was necessary, and you were amazed that you had to bring it to our attention today. I'm wondering why you didn't bring it to the minister's attention last year, because it was talked about at that time. The member from West Vancouver did, but I guess the member for Vancouver East is so delighted to have SkyTrain in his community that he's not really worried about marine transportation.

[3:15]

All the points brought forward by the member for Vancouver East are actively under discussion by the senior staff and the board of B.C. Transit. Our Provincial Transportation Council, made up of the senior representatives of B.C. Rail, B.C. Transit, B.C. Ferries and the ministry is presently looking at the coordination. We do understand full well that when a major improvement is made at any of those ferry terminals, and when those super-ferries do come on stream, there's going to be a very significant impact on the adjoining infrastructure, whether it be transit or highways. These people all have to be working together, and they are, as never before.

So I'm delighted to stand here and tell you, hon. member, that I agree with the comments you've made. The suggestions for addressing some of these infrastructure concerns are well taken, because they are under consideration at the present time by the affected Crown corporation and by the ministry.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know how you can say that, Madam Minister. You're saying: "Yes, I really agree with most of what you say. Yes, most of this is really going on."

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it isn't. Let's at least understand that there's a difference of opinion and start from there.

Why do I think there's a difference of opinion? Because the steamship's sailing through the barn door. You've already moved down the road in terms of $125 million boats. That's a quarter of a billion dollars for two ships. Did the matter come up in your own thinking: "Well, there's really only one shipyard that can build these, isn't there? Is that desirable?" That's sort of a small ancillary economic argument in terms of competition, which the minister usually waves the banner about at election time. I'm reminding you about that — there are advantages in terms of competition. Remember the old flag. But the problem is that once you move down that route, you're basically moving down the route of four of them, and you're moving down the route of the big storage bin again.

Madam Minister, just think about Horseshoe Bay, if you will. That tiny village in that small basin handling all of the movement to Bowen Island and to the Sunshine Coast — Gibsons, Langdale, Powell River and all that fairly fast-growth area up the coast — and to mid and northern Vancouver Island.... Shouldn't that ring a bell? Can — or should — Horseshoe Bay continue to carry those volumes? Should Horseshoe Bay and North Van carry all of that volume on a freeway-style road, with a new storage bin that will be added to again? Or does it make some sense to start separating that movement? Should mid-Vancouver Island not go through Horseshoe Bay within the next five to ten years? I suspect that it should not.

If that's the case, then you should not be building the $40 million storage bin today. That's what planning is about, Madam Minister, not doing stupid things that you're sorry about just a few years later —things that you've dropped a bundle of money on, that violate a community and a small place like Horseshoe Bay improperly, and that have implications that are unsatisfactory.

Then, if you're thinking in a creative planning sense, the next question you ask yourself, Madam Minister, is: would it make sense to diversify terminals on Vancouver Island? In view of the fact that the people in Saanich don't want more ferry movement, might it not make sense to provide other terminals on the Island — or termini, to satisfy some of my colleagues? Wouldn't it make more sense to do that?

Then shouldn't we be looking at other locations, like Crofton or that part of the Island, for example? In terms of access points, you have the fastest-growth part of the capital region in the western communities, towards Sooke, Colwood, Langford, Metchosin, Mill Bay, and so on. They could well be served by an upper Island terminal, taking away some of that movement from Swartz Bay. Then you might have a creative development instrument for a part of Vancouver Island that might in fact be interested in it as such. Then you start turning a problem into an advantage, a liability into an asset. That's what a creative approach is all about.

There are other locations on Vancouver Island as well that might be looked at in terms of development strategies, Then, with different terminals, you might not have to think in terms of what is really a full freeway solution on the Island. I don't know, but there are questions that deserve to be investigated and analyzed with the best brains around. I'm talking about economists and planners and so on. I don't know how many transportation economists you've got on your staff. Tell me. Raise your fingers. One hand. How many transportation economists have you got in...?

[ Page 10972 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: They're all good guys.

MR. WILLIAMS: I believe that. But how many?

We've got transportation economists in this province that consult with the World Bank, with CIDA, around the world, and make their home on Vancouver Island and in Vancouver. I bet you've never hired one of them. Yet they'll be advising every state in Africa and around the Middle East and so on. I don't think you guys have ever hired them; I don't know that you ever have.

I'm saying there's a need. I don't think anybody has really addressed the question about these big boats you're thinking of ordering in the next month or two. Once you put in the order for two $125 million ferries, then you're committing yourself to an infrastructure and system that is a major development question for Vancouver Island, the lower mainland and the province, in terms of economic strategies.

I see your new executive from the Ferry Corporation is here to provide sound and worthy advice. That's good news. I'm sure it's good news for the Ferry Corporation, because the corporation is at a stage where it requires the attention of people who are prepared to go back to square one and challenge the old, traditional assumptions that made the system work. We're at a watershed point where those old assumptions have to be challenged. We have to avoid locking ourselves into a megaproject solution, a megabucks solution, when there might well be less costly answers that would be more beneficial for everyone concerned.

MR. LOVICK: Do you want to just agree with that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, come on. You're not going to get up and just agree, are you, Madam Minister? That's not good enough. It's an old political ploy, saying: "Gee, I really like what you said. You're a great guy. Thanks a lot. Beat it, and then we'll pass...."

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, I didn't say that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I agree that's exaggerating. But it's a neat way of getting rid of the point.

I would hope that the minister would at least tell us that there's something there, something to really think about carefully before we embark on those expenditures; and yes, maybe we should bring in some outside help to look at this question in a fundamental way, because it has long-term development implications for both the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. It may be something that shouldn't be rushed into.

MR. KEMPF: While we're on the question of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, I just want to ask a few questions of the minister with respect to the service to Prince Rupert from the northern tip of Vancouver Island.

A short time ago I had an opportunity, as I do each year, to take the ferry from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. As in years gone by, I was very disappointed with the facilities we have for not only our own people who use that facility regularly, to travel between Vancouver Island and the north, but also for the tourists aboard, who had to put up with what I believe to be less than mediocre facilities on those boats and on those runs.

Frankly, I think the Queen of the North and certainly the Queen of Prince Rupert — we were talking about the spending of money-have outlived their usefulness on that run. We have to enhance those facilities to bring them into the twentieth century before we run out of years in that century.

First I'm going to tell some little stories about my trip on the Queen of the North, and my question at the end is going to be: what planning are we doing to buy vessels that are proper and to be expected by not only British Columbians but those who come from other parts of North America and the world to enjoy the trip from Vancouver Island to Prince Rupert?

I don't know if it's a regular situation, but on the trip that my wife and I took, the first leg of the journey, Port Hardy to Bella Bella, I have never in my life.... I have never ridden on a tramp steamer, but I'm sure there are better situations on tramp steamers. Never have I experienced the situation of freight, belongings, groceries and what have you virtually clogging the purser's area, the hallways and the area in which a video was shown in the evening. If you could make your way to that area over all of these boxes, belongings and what have you, you were lucky. It was a situation that just wasn't acceptable.

Fortunately, members of the Legislature are afforded a pass on the ferries. I tried to put myself in the shoes of a tourist who would have had to have paid $350 for the same trip. Mr. Chairman, it wasn't worth it getting it free, let alone paying $350.

[3:30]

I think that doesn't speak well for beautiful British Columbia. Those ships and the facilities on the ships are archaic. Something has to be done to enhance the facilities, firstly, on the boats we have. I realize it's very costly to replace those vehicles. First, some changes would enhance the facilities for the people riding on them, for the people eating a meal on them and for those wanting to partake of a drink at the bar on one of those ferries. If any member of this Legislature or of the minister's staff has recently ridden on one of those trips, they will agree that they are simply not good enough for our own citizens; and surely they are not good enough for those visiting our province and using the facilities. They are absolutely awful, Madam Minister.

If we intend to continue that service, we have to do something about it. We cannot expect visitors to this province — or even our own citizens — to sit down at tables where three or four other sittings have taken place and used the same tablecloths, for example. That was the case on the pride of our fleet — the flagship of our fleet — the Queen of the North.

[ Page 10973 ]

Again, I say that if I had been a tourist on that trip, not only would I never return to do it again, but I certainly wouldn't tell my friends back home about it. Or perhaps I would, but the story I would tell certainly wouldn't bring them to British Columbia to partake of that trip. Something has to be done.

We talked a few moments ago about planning. I want to know what plans are in the works to replace those archaic vehicles in the long term. I want to know in the short term what plans are afoot to change the facilities to make them simply habitable, let alone bring them up to the standard that someone paying $350 for that trip would expect. What is being done, Madam Minister?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: You are going to reduce the price, aren't you? That's your answer.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I can't really reduce the price for the MLAs, because they have a pass.

I have to tell the member that I'm rather concerned about the comments he made, because according to the information given to me by B.C. Ferries, we have never heard one complaint about the condition of the vessel in the last four years. The demand for space on the vessel is growing each year. People seem to love the trip.

Within the last six weeks, I had the opportunity to visit the vessel. There was a retirement event for some of the B.C. Ferries staff. I had a complete tour of the Queen of the North, and if there's anything the NDP did right, in my opinion, it was purchasing the vessel once known as the Queen of Surrey and now known as the Queen of the North.

I think that the employees on the vessel do a super job of making the guests feel welcome and very important. I'm distressed that a member of the House would have had an unfortunate vacation on the vessel.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just because you don't fly in a jet, it doesn't mean it's a vacation.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, when I have an opportunity to take a vacation, I intend to take it on the Queen of the North.

We don't really have any plans to replace the Queen of the North, because in the opinion of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, it's a first-class vessel. It is well received; it is well manned; there is a great deal of pride by the employees working on the ship. If anything, it would be great if we could somehow expand it, because the demand for accommodation is great. I know the rooms are very small, but how much time do you really spend in the small rooms? We don't really have anything on the drawing-board to improve the Queen of the North.

MR. KEMPF: I certainly hope the minister — or anyone in this House — didn't get the idea that I was criticizing the employees on those particular vessels

Far from it. I think they do the best they can with what they've got. I'm simply saying that the facilities are archaic. The bar area is simply unacceptable for any kind of passage. It's stuffy; it's too small; it's got a whole host of problems.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Well, if they move me back over there, so be it, Mr. Member; I don't mind. I find it just as interesting and just as fulfilling to sit anywhere in this House on behalf of my constituents.

The Queen of the North is a lovely ship. It has outgrown its size and outgrown its facilities for that particular run. I understand that it's very costly to replace it with a vessel that would bring it up to today's standards. A number of things could be done if the B.C. Ferry Corporation were to speak to their employees on that vessel and ask them what they thought could be done to enhance the facilities and make it the enjoyable trip it should be, I don't think anyone enjoyed walking around the ship — and really, that's all you can do. I wasn't talking about staterooms. Staterooms on any cruise ship are certainly not large and not very accommodating. I think you take that for granted. But not to be able to even walk around the hallways without climbing over boxes of groceries.... The member for Prince Rupert has found the same thing in using that facility.

Maybe there haven't been many complaints. That's the way northerners are: they pay their dues and they don't say a whole lot. I think it's up to us, as the members representing that area and using the facility.... It certainly wasn't to go on a holiday, Madam Member; it was to return to my constituency. I do it once a year just so that I know the facilities and what the service is like on that particular run.

We have to really bring those facilities and that service.... The staff is doing the best they can with what they've got. They've got a vessel that not a cent has been paid on to upgrade in 15 years that I know of. They paint the hull every year. They do some painting inside. They keep the lifeboats in good shape. But they haven't done a thing to bring that vessel into the twentieth century. They haven't done a thing to enhance the trip for not only northern British Columbians but for a number of tourists.

I was surprised at the number of tourists who were on the boat that early in the season. We have an awful lot of people coming to this province who could enjoy, and who could bring more people to enjoy, that particular run. I don't think we'll do it with the facilities that are on that vessel today. I think short-term planning has to be to upgrade that vessel, to make it a people vessel. It isn't now. It's an overgrown freight vessel. Make it a people vessel.

You have to spend a considerable number of hours on the trip from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert on that boat. You get on it at four o'clock in the afternoon and you're on it until the next morning. Eighteen hours. In this case it was longer; it was an hour and a half late. That isn't the problem. Showing a video is a good idea, but when there's no place to sit and watch

[ Page 10974 ]

that video, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest it's a lost cause. There wasn't. My wife and I took a look at where we were supposed to sit and watch this video and gave up.

There wasn't any room. It just wasn't acceptable, and I think it must be. If we are to advertise a first-class passage from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, then it has to be a first-class passage. It isn't, as it is now, and I'm just making a plea to the minister to, short-term, give a whole lot of consideration to upgrading the facilities on that vessel.

Surely there must be somewhere below decks that we can carry the freight that the people from Bella Bella are going to take off with them when they leave the boat at 12 o'clock at night. Surely we don't have to pile it in aisleways in the purser's area, as was seen there. It wasn't just a box or two; it was a whole lot of freight. Surely there are ways to overcome that situation and make it a desirable passage for people from the north and for people visiting our province.

Long-term, I think we have to bring that run into the twenty-first century and talk about a brand new super cruise ship for that particular run. It is very popular and it is going to become more so.

MR. MILLER: While we're on the topic, I thought the member for Omineca might actually get up and talk about the terrible roads in his constituency. I hope that he's going to take the opportunity to do that. We were starting to be concerned that the maverick from the north was the silent maverick from the north, but he seems to be starting to recover his form and attack the Queen. Or the Queen, should I say.

I think some of his points, although he may have overstated them.... And I don't think he should be attacking the service, because any British Columbian or any non-British Columbian who's had an opportunity to take that can't help but be impressed by the magnificent scenery of coastal British Columbia. I never really had time to watch videos, Mr. Chairman; I'm always looking out the window or reading a book, which is the other restful thing you can do on a boat or a train.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: And I don't spend a lot of time at the bar, either.

At some more opportune point I'll talk about the plight of the people in the small communities along British Columbia's coast, because they're not looking at sailing in the lap of luxury and having aisleways where they don't trip over something. They're looking for some pretty basic transportation to relieve their position and, particularly, the high costs they face. I'll address that to the minister subsequently in these estimates.

[3:45]

Clearly the Queen of Prince Rupert is reaching the point where replacement has to be actively considered. That vessel was first put into service in 1965, or somewhere around there. I always remember it as being fairly famous because on its maiden voyage it ended up on the rocks. Nonetheless, it's a familiar vessel to those of us on the north coast, and I've taken it dozens and dozens of times.

Given the fact that it has been used on that service to the Queen Charlotte Islands.... Just to illustrate — you talk about waiting — I've gotten on the boat in Prince Rupert to go over to the Charlottes at midday and some time at six the next morning you might leave port, or you could head out to some of the islands and just wait, because the Hecate Strait is a very tough body of water. Anybody familiar with the operation of the ferry knows all about the difficulties of serving the Queen Charlottes in the wintertime or during the really tough weather. I think that boat's taken a pretty big pounding over the years.

That's not to suggest it's unsafe, but to suggest that given its size and the service it's seen, there should be some active consideration for a replacement vessel — ideally, a bigger vessel as well, in terms of trading off between the Queen of Prince Rupert and the Queen of the North. I think the time is overdue to look at it. I've talked to people in the marine industry and people who were previously connected with the board of directors, and there seems to be some agreement on that. I'd like to hear the minister respond in terms of what her ministry is looking at, and possibly some time-frame and what ideas they have in terms of a replacement vessel or new vessel.

I'll leave it at that for now. I really do want to get into, as I said, the other and very serious issues of the people in the small, remote villages along the coast of this province. There used to be a heck of a lot more of them. There are not as many as there used to be, but they need service too. In most cases their service is non-existent, hit and miss, high cost. Let's deal with the Queen of Prince Rupert first, and we'll get into that later.

MR. BRUCE: Just before the minister responds, I'd like to offer a couple of words on that ferry service up there. I actually had a holiday. I wasn't going to and from. I must have been on a completely different ferry than my colleague in regard to the one from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert.

I had a delightful time. I thought it was a first-class service. I can appreciate that there might be some concern over the in and outs that the ship takes with regard to getting people's goods and wares on and off the ship. This was two years ago, so maybe things have happened since then. I can recall a number of conversations I had on the ship — I took it up, and I also came back on it — with visitors and travellers from around the world who were absolutely stunned by the beauty and the geography through the area. They thought it was fantastic and were extremely impressed with the ship itself.

In regard to the ship from Rupert over to the Charlottes, I had one of those wonderful experiences where you are able to grapple with the bowl in the men's room as you climb that incredibly high wave, and then fall from the heavens and smash down

[ Page 10975 ]

again. It was one of those trips that I'm sure our colleague from the north has made on several excursions over there to the Charlottes where you wished you were not on the ship. On the way back it was perfectly calm. Perhaps in time — and maybe the time is now, and I'm sure the minister might be able to comment on that — you might want to review that ship in regard to its days in service. Really the whole excursion was just absolutely second to none.

I might add that there was a little bit of a problem with the ferries coming to and fro. We entered the harbour in Rupert, coming back from the Charlottes in some fog, and the two ships — at least at that point; but that was a year and a half to two years ago — had to adjust. One poor chap from Quebec got on the boat thinking he was heading across to the Charlottes, but he had got on the boat that was going back down to Port Hardy. So we had to go back into port again and allow him and ten other people to back their cars and their little trailers up the jetty to get off there to the great cheers of the many hundreds of us on the boat. There could perhaps be some improvement there.

I appreciate that my colleague the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is making a point and looking to improve service to the north. Certainly my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) feels likewise in regard to the shipping back and forth from the Queen Charlottes.

It's also important that we make sure that our visitors from far and wide don't get the impression that this whole particular transportation process from Hardy is in sad disrepair or neglect or that it's in a state that is not conducive to good holiday travel Indeed, it is conducive to excellent holiday travel.

There may be some points raised by both these members that could make things better for those who travel to and from on a regular basis. I'm sure the minister would take those into consideration. For our friends far and wide, let it be clear that it is one of the best trips you could take here on the west coast. I think the Ferry Corporation should be applauded for that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, I can respond very briefly to the members for Omineca and Prince Rupert that if you want to look a number of years down the road, the B.C. Ferries Corporation can see an eventual sale of the Prince Rupert. It would be replaced by the Queen of the North — I still refer to it as the Queen of Surrey. A new vessel will be going into the run that is presently handled by the Queen of the North. But that isn't going to happen in the next couple of years. It is on the drawing boards over a number of years — within ten probably.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would just like to get back to those big $125 million boats, Madam Minister. Maybe you could give me the background in terms of the decision-making process, in terms of going to tender for those, because it does seem to me that it preordains a lot of other decisions and a lot of other solutions. I've gone through the whole exercise in terms of the implications for infrastructure, the likelihood that that means another two and the prospect that it will be a no-bid situation. If it's going to be in B.C., it's going to be a no-bid situation because we only have one shipyard that can build them that size. The alternative is them not being built in B.C.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: You mean as in 1974.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you're promoting that, Mr. Member from Shuswap, stand up in the debate.

Clearly those questions, and questions of scale, are ones that we should be concerned about. It moves us on that route in terms of heavy-duty, capital-intensive solutions, in the road system, terminals and ships. We have to ask ourselves: "Is that the right approach?" Do we want capital-intensive solutions to these questions, or do we want to rethink a little bit? Do we want to think about other technologies? Do we want to think more seriously about pedestrian movement? This year we've seen higher pedestrian movement than we've ever seen before. People are as usual voting with their feet, and that's intriguing.

Beyond that there's the question of other terminals. That's intriguing, and I don't think that alternative should be dismissed. It seems to me there is a lot of homework that has to be done before you make the decision to spend the $250 million on those two big ships.

If you can provide the evidence that the alternatives have really been looked at, I'll be satisfied. But it looks to me as though we have a done deal here, and a done deal means more of the same: big bucks, probably having to rethink it not too long down the road and finding we've spent a lot of money that has not been spent well.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the member from Vancouver East, as I understand it, the determination to call tenders on the super-ferries was as a result of looking for the largest-capacity vehicle that could accommodate the time-frame — the two-hour cycle turnaround that was required — and with the ability to navigate in the waters that we were attempting to have the vessel placed in. You asked the question: "Is that the right approach?" That's a very valid question. I don't like to keep agreeing with you, but that is a valid question which will be asked very seriously when the tenders come in. I can tell you that several B.C. shipyards have picked up the tender documents. You seem to be so certain in your own mind. Maybe you know something that we don't know — that only one shipyard can handle it — but we will certainly be taking a very serious look when we have received the prices at the end of this month.

You once again ask about other technologies. I suggested earlier that we are looking at a number of technologies, not the least of which is the "passenger only" that you mentioned earlier. I would hope that in the not too distant future we will be making an announcement in that regard. But we're going to be looking at the corporate plans of B.C. Ferries and how

[ Page 10976 ]

best to share them with the communities being served.

Under the new direction of Mr. Rhodes, I think you'll find that in B.C. Ferries there will be far more in the way of community involvement and public participation and consultation than we have seen over the past number of years, because we understand full well, as you do, that B.C. Ferries has had a reputation of operating very much in isolation from those they are serving. That is no longer acceptable, and changes will certainly be made to ensure that the public we're there to serve will be more fully involved.

We are looking at a number of the issues you have brought to our attention, and over the next few months I expect you'll be very pleased with some of the announcements that will be coming out.

What did you mutter there?

MR. WILLIAMS: I said a lot of us are easy to please, so hopefully that will be so. So you see, it was positive.

I'm a little encouraged by what the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, but the framework you put it in — the two-hour turnaround, the place and so on — is still within a fairly tight framework. That's the question we're really addressing. So if the $250 million potential expenditure is causing you to pause and say, "Hey, this is a lot of money, and we really have to think it through pretty carefully," then I’m encouraged, because that's overdue. You can nitpick and say that it should have happened earlier, but I think that's good news in terms of prudent financial management for the province.

You've already remarked on the $40 million in Horseshoe Bay, though. That's a given — is it? — because I really think that one deserves to be questioned as well. Horseshoe Bay as a long-term deliverer of vehicles to Vancouver Island doesn't strike me as the right long-term answer. Considering the linkages to Langdale and Bowen Island, that strikes me as max in the long-term at Horseshoe Bay. You might comment on that as well if you can. If there's going to be some news about passenger vessels, then that's encouraging too.

[4:00]

But in economic terms, when you start playing with economic models and analyses here, it strikes me — as a person who used to be interested in some of this stuff — that you're talking about fairly sophisticated, complex things, and the linkage of the peak system pedestrian things with the vehicular movement is an intriguing one. I hope that's being addressed in a good technical sense.

It really begs the question of some kind of model of the basin in terms of movement and looking at the alternative patterns of movement and what can be achieved by them. Then, of course, an economist would argue pricing systems as well. It may be sacrilege, but all of these things — once you start looking at them in this kind of method — deserve some thought about peak pricing as well. I know that's extremely difficult in our traditional system, but peak pricing questions are begged in terms of traditional economic analyses here. So I would hope that at least some analysis went into that aspect of the question as well. Then one could feel reasonably secure that technically we're doing something close to state of the art analysis prior to spending the money.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's a point that is certainly worth exploring.

You mentioned Horseshoe Bay and the expenditure that's going to be carried on there. The numbers given to us would suggest that it is one of the busiest ferry terminals not just here but in the world. Even with the diversion of some of the traffic — and it is our hope to have another vessel for the Tsawwassen to Departure Bay route so we will be able to remove even more of the commercial traffic from Horseshoe Bay — we still require the upgrading because of the other areas being serviced from that particular terminal. Hopefully some of the new technology that we're looking at will also somehow possibly fit into the same terminal.

So the expenditure that is being looked at for Horseshoe Bay is not with a view to it being necessitated due to the probable building of the super-ferries. The expenditure and improvements are essential regardless of what we do in that area, because of the number of routes that we see going out from there. I mentioned earlier we're looking at other possible terminals, both on the mainland and on the Island.

MR. KEMPF: I hope I am not cutting in on that discussion on ferries, because I wanted to change the direction for a moment and talk about highways. I hope the member for Prince Rupert didn't think that because I wanted to talk about the Queen of the North I was going to forget about highways in the north. Highways in the north and highways and transportation routes for northerners are probably the most important subjects that I could speak about as a northern representative.

I want to talk for a bit about Yellowhead 16 — the northern transprovincial — and particularly the area from Prince George to Prince Rupert. I also want to talk about my newfound area: that vast part of British Columbia called Atlin and Highway 37.

MR. MILLER: Oh, you may not win there anyway.

MR. KEMPF: I may not win what — the election? That's no problem. I may not win on the highways issue.

First I want to talk for a bit about Highway 16 — the Yellowhead route. A whole lot of the Highway 16 route from Prince George to Prince Rupert is totally worn out. It's long past due that we give very serious consideration to spending some very big bucks on Yellowhead 16 West.

Yellowhead 16 West is 20 years behind in engineering. I think a case in point is one which I brought up with the minister not too long ago. Yes, Madam Minister, I am a bit remiss in not bringing the problems of the Queen of the North to you before

[ Page 10977 ]

raising them in the Chamber, but I think you'll agree that that's not the case with respect to highways — which I very much brought to your attention.

I think a case in point is Hagman Hill. Tenders have been called, and for that I'm very grateful and very happy, because Hagman Hill was just an accident waiting to happen. But it's not just Hagman Hill on Yellowhead 16; it's the whole of that some 450 miles — I'm of the old school; I use miles — of Yellowhead West, Prince George to Prince Rupert. It's 20 years behind the times. There are very few passing lanes, it's very narrow and the wide shouldering was done on very short sections of the highway which are few and far between. It's 20 years behind the times, especially for the heavy truck and RV traffic that we now see on it. The amount of traffic that we see on Yellowhead 16 West is just horrendous. We've got to spend some big bucks.

It's not good enough that only $18 million of a $1 billion-plus budget is earmarked in this fiscal year for that well-known state of Nechako — that clearly 20 percent of the land area of British Columbia. I know what the minister is going to say. She's going to stand up and say: "Well, you know we had a transportation committee, and that transportation committee has submitted their priorities, and those priorities are being adhered to with $18 million in this fiscal year." It's not good enough by a long shot.

We're talking about an area from whence a lot of natural resource revenue comes in this province — that revenue that builds all those wonderful highways on the lower mainland and provides that wonderful ferry service from the mainland to Vancouver Island. It's simply not good enough that from an over $1 billion budget we see only $18 million returning to that area. We need some big bucks spent on the Yellowhead 16, not only to bring it up to today's standards but to reduce those areas that are absolutely dangerous because of the maintenance situation. I travel a lot of that route practically weekly in a motor home, my mobile office. I know where every pothole, every hump, every problem in the road is. You find it soon in a vehicle like that Yellowhead 16 West is 20 years behind the times. We have to find the money in this Transportation and Highways budget, however it's done, to ensure that that's a first-class transportation artery.

I want to talk about one other isolated situation on the Yellowhead 16, and then I want to get on with talking about Highway 37. We have a situation in a small community in my constituency called Telkwa which we've been wrestling with for a number of years now, and which I believe can be rectified without spending a great deal of money. But it is not being so rectified because of the bureaucratic process, because someone in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has got it in their head that they've got to four-lane the Yellowhead 16 through the community of Telkwa. Mr. Chairman, if you four-laned the Yellowhead 16 through the community of Telkwa, there would be no more community. It's a little heritage community nestled along the Bulkley River, a beautiful river. But if you four-laned the Yellowhead 16, as is being suggested by the bureaucrats, there wouldn't be anything left of Telkwa; it would virtually wipe out the main street, which is heritage Telkwa.

So I want to point out to the minister: we're not asking for the four-laning of the Yellowhead 16 through Telkwa. We're not asking at this time for a billion-dollar bypass of Telkwa, because that would be 20 or 30 years before its time. We're not asking for those things. We're asking only for the hill immediately east of the community on the Yellowhead 16 to be changed as a safety measure, because there is a primary school in the vicinity of that hill. It has to be changed. It should be being changed at this very moment, so we don't have to go through another winter with that very dangerous situation in place.

Contrary to what the district manager for Transportation and Highways in Smithers thinks and wants, all we need through Telkwa is for that highway to be repaved and for about three turning-lanes to be installed. That's not expensive. It's not a billion dollars; it's probably not even $10 million, Madam Minister. It's very inexpensive. We could rectify the problem and, incidentally, make the local people very happy, because they don't want it four-laned either. Pave it with wide, bicycle-type shoulders, put in two or three turning-lanes, and it will rectify the situation for Telkwa for the next 20 to 30 years. You could forget about Telkwa. Just leave it as a nice, beautiful little heritage village beside the Bulkley River for the next 20 or 30 years. That's all that's required. With that, I'll get off the Yellowhead 16.

[4:15]

I want to talk a moment about Highway 37, which stretches for many miles from the Meziadin junction to the Yukon border — a highway forgotten, in the eyes of those who live along it; a highway used to an extent that you would not believe, Mr. Chairman, by tourists and locals alike; a highway that we as legislators in this chamber should not be proud of at all, not only from the standpoint of the people living along that highway not having the freedom to move — not at great speeds, anyway, I'll tell you — but with the dust and the mud when it rains, and the rocks sticking out from its surface, literally tearing their tires to shreds. It's not a highway that we, as legislators in British Columbia, should be proud of.

I understand the cost of bringing that highway up to blacktop standards, particularly when there aren't great numbers of voters living along its length. I understand that problem. But, Mr. Chairman, because of its usage alone, we have got to have a short-term plan for Highway 37 and a long-term plan. When I say a long-term plan, I don't mean in this case the twenty-first century, because those people have been promised yearly from 1980 on that the program would begin. The minister's predecessor, the now deceased member for Cariboo, to my knowledge had set in place a plan back in the early eighties that would have seen Highway 37 paved by 1986. It's now 1990, and still hundreds of miles of Highway 37 not only have not been paved but haven't even been brought up to twentieth-century gravel condition.

[ Page 10978 ]

This situation can't go on. We in this chamber have to realize where the revenue dollars for these things come from. It's all very nice for governments — whatever government — to spend money on highways where the votes are, but I think we've also got to realize that we have to start spending money on transportation and highways in the areas that the money comes from.

I see the red light is on, so I'll leave it at that for now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: While the member for Omineca has been in to see me about what I guess we can refer to as a wish list for highways improvements in his constituency, there's no question that the ministry and the transportation task force did identify the upgrading of Highway 16 as a priority. It's an important corridor. The ministry has made the determination that improvements will be made, but they are going to be made over a number of years, not over a couple of years. They will probably be done more slowly than the member would like. The corridor has been identified and improvements will be made, but they will take several years.

On the improvements to Telkwa, there has been no final decision to four-lane through the middle of town, as I'm told. I am advised that ministry staff are working with the community to determine the scope of the improvements. By working with the community, I mean with the council; the locally elected people are having input there. If that's not an accurate statement, I would be pleased to hear about it. But on the basis of ministry staff working with locally elected people, we have no plans for improvements to the hill out of Telkwa, because we have to determine the type and scope of the road improvements going through the town.

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to say any more, but frankly, Madam Minister, therein lies the problem: transportation task forces. That was the problem with the so-called states and the transportation committees. They were very general, because you had people sitting at the table from Atlin through to Fort St. James. They were very general in their wish list, but they didn't zero in on real problems.

I am absolutely appalled to hear that there was no mention of the dangerous problem with the hill in Telkwa. I know that enough money has been spent on studies, and yet another one is going on now in Telkwa to rectify the problem. I think we've earmarked another $30,000 or $40,000 for yet another study. It's not a study we need; we need bulldozers to start to rectify the problem. But therein lies the problem. You can say what you like about transportation task forces or transportation committees. It would seem that now that I sit here rather than there, I am welcomed into the area of sitting on some of these committees. Perhaps through that, things might change, and the true story on the problems may just get to Victoria. Certainly if I have anything to say about it, that will be the case.

But we do have problems in Telkwa with respect to what your staff wishes and what the locals wish. I ask you here to look very seriously at that. I see your deputy minister shaking his head. He's a very able fellow, and I know he will do that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I just have to clarify one point to the member for Omineca. Where the member sat in the House really mattered little to those of us who were involved with the ministry-of-state project or the transportation task forces. Everyone was invited to participate. So your movement to this side of the House doesn't really matter. You were welcome to sit on the task force prior to that, and I think you made the decision not to participate.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be back after a long absence. I'm looking forward to chatting to the minister and her staff again. I appreciated the reference the minister made some time ago to the fact that the B.C. Ferry Corporation had a reputation for operating in isolation, and I also appreciated her assurances that that will change.

I would just point out that my own experiences in dealing with the corporation lead me to the conclusion that all the people there have certainly made every effort to be cooperative and to answer questions.

I'm delighted to see Mr. Rhodes in the position he's in and also delighted to see Rod Morrison here again. I know they both have a good track record for answering questions. So I am pleased to see them here, and I hope they can edify me somewhat on some of these questions.

Madam Minister, if I may, I want to pick up very briefly on the super-ferries decision. I think we've established now that when we make a decision to use that particular technology — what I've referred to as an old technology — the predicament is that it takes us so many steps further along a given path of development. I'm wondering if I misunderstood something. The minister seemed to be suggesting that the fact that the two super-ferries had gone to tender didn't necessarily mean we were committed to that technology. I am struggling with that, because it seems to me that if we go to tender and say that's the approach and the technology we want to purchase, then we are in effect committed.

I am wondering if the minister could first of all clarify for me what the nature of our commitment is. Can we change that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I guess I could answer the first member for Nanaimo in this way: nothing is ever carved in stone, hopefully. If the tenders don't come in on budget, we will have to look very seriously at how we're going to proceed from that time. But we're about a month away from being able to say whether or not the plans we presently have in place are going to be followed through. So while all of these people are out there preparing their tenders, I think it would be rather irresponsible for

[ Page 10979 ]

us to say that we're just doing this, and it's a bit of a game we're playing. It's not; that is the plan. But having said that, a number of issues could require us to rethink what we presently have planned.

MR, LOVICK: I appreciate the candour of the minister's answer. Sadly, it confirms my worst suspicion. But I think that we have in fact made the deal, given that the tenders come in roughly within the budget we're talking about. My concern is that the decision is perhaps precipitate, and that it does indeed commit us to a path of development that causes me some concern. However, that's that. As the minister says, nothing is forever written in stone, and perhaps other circumstances will interfere to make us rethink that.

If we're committed to the contracting of two super-ferries, can the minister inform me if any consideration was given to modifying the tendering process to give some advantage or assurance to the B.C. shipbuilding industry — in other words, any kind of preferential status or anything? If that was rejected, could the minister tell me why?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the tender document there were a couple of very strong statements made with regard to B.C. content and B.C. value-added. We did not quantify it, but it was made very clear where our preference would lie.

MR. LOVICK: Is it safe to assume, then, Madam Minister, if we stress the fact that we would prefer B.C. content — we're aware of leakage from this economy, and therefore we talk about value-added in B.C. — that there is in fact a price differential; that even though it isn't necessarily quantified, we're acknowledging the principle, at least, of doing so?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We already have a 25 percent advantage because of the duty; we have an advantage along that line. But I'm beginning to be a wee bit uncomfortable with this discussion when we're in the midst of the tendering process. Suffice it to say that we would prefer to see the work done in British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK: Okay, I can certainly appreciate the sensitivity. Obviously we don't want somebody from offshore saying that the deal was queered and that they didn't have a chance, so that's a fair answer from the minister.

[4:30]

I wonder if I might return to the questions I was posing earlier about the propulsion systems and the apparent discrepancy between the tendering processes used. For the propulsion system for the two smaller ferries, we apparently went to tender. It seems on the face of the evidence that we didn't for the $20 million contract. I'm wondering if you could clarify that for me.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's rather difficult for a novice in the field to try to fully understand the process. When we conclude, if the member for Nanaimo has more specific information he would like to get, we would be pleased to have him sit down with the senior staff at B.C. Ferries, as I stated earlier.

There was a proposal call from the consultant who was designing the vessels. It was not the normal process, but it was determined that it was a fair process. Several local people were involved, and I believe you have a letter from one of them, who subsequently took legal action because they were distressed that they had not been awarded the contract. It was interesting to note that the company they represented was not a British Columbia company, either. The senior staff at B.C. Ferries are quite satisfied and have given me the assurance that the process was proper, in order that the consultant who was most knowledgeable about the vessel because of working on the design dealt with the proposal call.

MR. LOVICK: Madam Minister, I have a rather detailed background paper on this that I could read into the record. However, I don't think the interests of the House would be well served. But I will take your invitation to forward it to your senior staff. We ought to get some answers to the questions.

Let me state briefly what the Canadian company is suggesting. It is that there was no tender process, and moreover, that the rules were apparently changed in midstream. Clearly, if there is any substance whatsoever to that allegation, I know the minister and her staff will agree that we ought to do something about it. It obviously should not happen. I will simply make a point of forwarding the information to you and your staff, with the request for some specific answers.

I also want to.... I apologize for this, but as you know, there was an hour-long hiatus between our conversations. So bear with me if you will. The minister made references to new technology and new approaches and said that she and her people were indeed looking at that. I wonder if I might push that for a moment and probe a little, asking whether any thought is being given by the corporation and the ministry to going the route — pardon the pun — of new ferry terminals on either the mainland or the Island. Are we actively looking at new ferry routes and new terminal construction?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I mentioned earlier, we are looking at the possibility of new terminals and new routes. We are very restricted on the Vancouver side. We are looking at expanding the terminal at Tsawwassen. There's little question that we're going to have to somehow find at least one more location on Vancouver Island. I would expect that in the not too distant future a very serious move will be made. B.C. Ferries is looking at it now.

MR. LOVICK: The matter of new technology. I'm sure the minister and some of her staff have met with at least one of the groups that are arguing the case for aluminium-hull construction. As you are probably aware, Madam Minister, this is a technology that seems to be capturing the imagination of people all

[ Page 10980 ]

over the world. In fact, I understand a number of vessels are now actively operating. The only thing that isn't operating at the moment is a vessel roughly analogous to the Cowichan class. Up to that size we already have the technology in place, so it's quite well proven.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Given the tremendous potential benefits in that technology, namely that it is aluminium and we could use B.C. resources and give a boost to our own mining industry producing the ore, and given all the wonderful possibilities for spin-off — it's an exciting and marvellous way to use a Crown corporation, to actually use B.C. Ferries as part of a larger economic development strategy for the province — I wonder if any specific consideration has been given to that technology. Has a group within the corporation been given the mandate to go and do some studies and analysis of the technology and see if we might do something with it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, we do have a group in B.C. Ferries looking specifically at that technology, and we would like to think that B.C. Ferries' future would certainly not be a single-technology future. We would be looking at all technologies available.

MR. LOVICK: Changing the subject away from technology and futurism, I know that the minister must have been concerned about the report on safety on the B.C. Ferry fleet that was issued a month ago. If my memory serves, the report was commissioned by the B.C. Ferry Corporation to answer the critics of the corporation in terms of alleged malpractice in maintaining and ensuring safety on the fleet. The report, as we now know, was rather damning in what it had to say about the fleet, and I'm wondering if the minister could give us an update on what has happened subsequent to the release of that report. I believe a committee was struck. Could she tell us what has been done in response to that safety report?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There's no question that safety is a high priority. Very recently I had an opportunity to meet with the head of the union and discuss some of his concerns as the representative of the employees. If you will recall, a committee was set up from the corporation and the union. They commissioned the study, and management at this time is looking at all of the recommendations with a view to — once they have evaluated all the recommendations — sitting again as a committee and determining the next move. But if there are obvious safety concerns, they will have to be addressed.

MR. LOVICK: May we take it, then, that some kind of formal report from that committee is indeed forthcoming and that there will likely be recommendations that may be acted on and become policy for the corporation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, that's correct.

MR. LOVICK: I want to turn now to a very specific question regarding the operating subsidy for B.C. Ferries. As we all know, it's been the practice for a number of years now for the government to make an operating subsidy available to the corporation. Last fiscal year the amount approved under vote 73 was some $55 million, of which some $51 million was for operations. This year, under the Freedom to Move special account appended to the budget, it says: "No funding is provided in 1991, since an additional contribution was made to the corporation in 198990." I'm wondering how that came to be. There is apparently no special warrant in 1989-90 for this purpose. How was the money paid and how much was paid?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The ministry was concerned that B.C. Ferries, because of their expansion program, might have a problem with their cash flow. The funding was therefore paid prior to the conclusion of our last fiscal year. We are looking at $51 million. Treasury Board applied a discount factor to the prepayment, so the Ferry Corporation was paid $48.45 million on a grant of $51 million. B.C. Ferries will be getting the interest on that money, so they still received what was the equivalent of $51 million, and it was to assist them with their cash flow.

MR. LOVICK: This question may more properly be directed to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), but I'm struggling with the mechanism of payment. How did that come to be, given that...? I understand operating subsidies, I know where they fit into a budget, and I even understand the Freedom to Move special account. But we haven't passed that yet; it's still a new policy. It looks to me as if we're dealing with the kind of thing that would normally happen under a provision such as the Freedom to Move special account. So my question is: how did we do it in the past without the apparent authorization?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, there was no warrant required. The money was advanced through a real allocation. It went through Treasury Board.

MR. LOVICK: It went through Treasury Board, to be sure, but then by what avenue were members of this Legislature informed? When did they vote on that appropriation? As we all know, it's absolutely crucial that at some point this chamber approve those expenditures.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It was a global vote, part of our budget last year. The funds were available when we came to the end of our fiscal year, and in order to accommodate the projected cash-flow needs of B.C. Ferries, application was made to Treasury Board to allow the movement in advance to B.C. Ferries.

[ Page 10981 ]

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry if I'm obtuse, Mr. Chairman, but was the existing Highways budget underspent by $51 million, and therefore we had this money to give?

[4:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, that's correct.

MR. LOVICK: If that's the case, could you explain to us why the existing Highways budget was underspent by a rather large figure like $51 million?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm told it was because of the lag in proceeding with some of our projects. There were delays in moving along on some of our highways projects, so the projected required cash flow was not needed prior to year-end.

MR. LOVICK: This may sound like a rather irreverent question, but I think it's a fair one. If this is what we did last year to accommodate that particular set of circumstances, why ever do we need legislation called the Freedom to Move special account? In other words, if we can do that — and we did last year — why are we introducing a new bill before the Legislature? I hope the question is in order, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I have no wish to be mischievous or anything; it seems to me a fair question.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure whether we should be going into that bill, but the funds would have lapsed at the end of the year. Under the Freedom to Move special account we're dealing with, the funds would not lapse at the end of the fiscal year; they would be allowed to be carried over.

MR. LOVICK: To be sure, Madam Minister, but what you have just described is that we've found the mechanism to ensure that we use the money so that the funds didn't lapse. In other words, we did precisely what the Freedom to Move account and the new legislation are designed to do. Isn't that the case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, only in that one case, because logically speaking, you wouldn't always have the demand for the funding prior to its being originally paid out. B.C. Ferries happened to be able to utilize the money at that time; otherwise it would have had to come out of this year's estimates It was available; they required the money, so we went ahead. Otherwise the money would have fallen aside, and we would have started from square one. Under our new Freedom to Move financial bill, the money doesn't fall aside; it carries on. We will still require Treasury Board approval to move it around, but it doesn't automatically fall back to zero.

MR. LOVICK: Forgive me, Mr. Chairman. I'm smiling because it sounds to me that it didn't fall back to zero last year, because we did indeed find a way to put that money to good use rather than let it disappear. My question is, then, with all due deference: why do we need this new legislation if in the past we've been able to put that money to good use quite legally and legitimately? However, that's a rhetorical question, so I won't belabour the point.

Just another quick question on ferries — a very specific one from my colleague from Vancouver East. It may have wider implications and ramifications. It has to do with scheduling. What apparently happens on the Denman-Hornby run is that there is no system whereby the individuals who have to catch another ferry to Hornby get preferred departure from the ferry. I gather it is causing consternation on the part of the residents of Denman, because all the people who get off the ferry who are trying to make the Hornby connection go racing across Denman Island, causing considerable concern. The obvious solution, it would seem, is simply to change the boarding and departing system on the ferry so that those who have to make a connection can get preferred unloading. I wonder if the minister could give us assurances that that problem will be looked at, and perhaps something could be done about it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It seems there are two or three problems, not the least of which is the capacity problem. B.C. Ferries are working in an attempt to accommodate the Hornby passengers. I guess it remains to be seen whether they are going to be 100 percent successful. But there is a capacity problem.

MR. LOVICK: That concludes my questions on the ferries. If your staff want to depart, certainly they may, at least from my point of view.

I would just point out, by the way, Madam Minister, that I would probably have had a great deal more to ask of the Ferry Corporation staff, but what we decided to do regarding that question of a propulsion system and tendering is defer that to another forum. I feel a little self-conscious about the fact that both Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Morrison made a special trip to get here, and clearly I haven't kept them for nearly as long as I'm sure they both wanted to be here. I feel badly about that; however, it's nice to see them both again.

MS. EDWARDS: I do have a change of pace here for the minister. I want to question the minister about the problems of cattle drives on highways. I hope she has some good advice on this, because I have some constituents who are somewhat exercised about it.

The question is about the frustration of trying to find out what the provincial regulations are concerning cattle drives on B.C. highways, and also some concerns about the policies that some of the ranchers have been given. I have a file of correspondence here which indicates that while the stock breeders' association have been given some.... I guess we could call them terms of reference. I understand from one of the letters that a policy on cattle drives is about to be published.

Probably the best way to go is to ask you first whether we do have a specific policy for cattle drives on B.C. highways, or whether it's still done on a half

[ Page 10982 ]

ad hoc basis and a number of rules of the road, if you like, that have sort of been put together in various districts. There is some concern. Is there a provincial policy in place now?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The ministry is in the process of developing a policy, but at this time all that is required is a permit from the district Highways office.

MS. EDWARDS: It may be the time, then, to put in some of the comments I have — very specific comments — following the attempt by a number of ranchers to do a cattle drive this spring. Actually, they were preparing in late '89, and then this went on into the early spring of 1990. In the process of trying to get these drives, they were told that they should report to the RCMP, and that they should have a certain size of sign, and it should have a certain size of letters, and so on and so forth. They can certainly conform to that, but there was a list of approximately ten other requirements. There is some obvious disagreement on this.

I'm sure you don't have the list in front of you, but I will describe what I'm talking about. There were three items considered extremely restrictive and unfair, and I will put these to the minister.

There is a rule that says that the hours of permission are restricted to those from dawn to 10 a.m. Now, as any cattleman will tell you, it may be easy to do that on certain days of the year, unannounced to any cattle-driver, but the cattle are not available at the beck and call of their driver. They are not necessarily going to be available to be run, and they certainly are not necessarily going to be willing to hustle along because it's getting near coffee time at 10 o'clock in the morning. The comment made by the stock breeders' association is that cattle that move well one day may very well be uncooperative and slow on another occasion. They are certainly not predictable. I got a number of very good stories about this when I inquired. I would like to put it to the minister that this requirement seems overly restrictive for people who drive cattle on the highway.

Another of the requirements is that all excrement from any animal must be cleaned up from the highway surface immediately following the drive. Madam Minister, that excrement sells for lots of money in various markets of the country and is, as I understand it, organic waste, certainly not a toxic or dangerous waste or any of that. The cattlemen say that any excrement on the highway is harmless and should be of no more concern than that left from wildlife or other biodegradable refuse. I put that to you for your consideration.

Another of the requirements that they consider unfair is that the permittee shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the ministry to repair any damages caused by the cattle drive — that is, the resurfacing of treated shoulders. The point here is that the cattlemen feel they are being treated very differently than other users of the highway. They don't know why other users of the highway — for example, huge trucks of any kind or any numbers of machines and so on — are not required to repair the highway. Cattle are traditionally among the first users of highways in our system, and highways were put there partly for the movement of cattle, so why in the world, if a cow steps on a piece of blacktop and chips it off at the edge, should that be repaired by the rancher? It seems to be restrictive and unnecessary. I would suggest that I have to agree with what the ranchers say on that one. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

They also talk about some confusion about the insurance that is needed. A requirement was given to them that the permittee was to arrange comprehensive liability insurance for a minimum of $1 million, and there was to be no deductible for personal injury and a maximum $100,000 deductible for property damage. That's in one of the sections that was given to them. Another one says there is to be no deductible for personal injury and a maximum $250 deductible for property damage. That's highly confusing, and it's practically impossible to decide what the ministry really wants.

Since this is the only economical method for some ranchers to utilize their pastures and ranges — and certainly it's very difficult sometimes to get from one pasture to another — and if we want to continue with the rotational method of using range, there are going to have to be cattle drives. I would ask the minister to remember the traditional use of highways and the fact that cattle are certainly there and should be considered there, and to consider these points that I have just laid out.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Ministry staff are aware of the concerns you have outlined, and they are all under review as they look at formulating the new policy. Just as an aside, you made a comment to the effect that cattle should be treated no differently than other users of the highway. We should remember that the vehicles are paying gasoline tax.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to suggest to the minister that I'm sure any rancher would be quite happy to pay tax on any gasoline that the cattle use, and I will certainly put that to the Waldo Stock Breeders' Association. I'm delighted to have a good answer like that.

I would also like to ask the minister if she has any time-frame on this, because there are rotations on range use four times a year. So there are a number of ranchers who will be facing this again and again, and they have this major uncertainty about what the rules are.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We expect to have the policy in place in early 1991 so it can be in effect next year, but there will be consultation with the Cattlemen's Association before the final document is brought in.

[5:00]

[ Page 10983 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I have another issue. As a matter of fact, I have a couple of issues, and two of them put together relate to the licensing of vehicles from Alberta.

We live on the border of the province, as the minister is no doubt aware, on Highway 3. At the Cranbrook international airport, if you look down at the row of rental cars, you will find most of the vehicles are licensed in British Columbia, but there is one company which has every one of its vehicles licensed with Alberta plates.

This seems to me and to a number of people to be unfair. It relates — as I understand it, on trying to find information — to the Motor Vehicle Act, which allows the owner of a motor vehicle or trailer which is in the province for other than touring purposes for a period of 30 days.... If they're only in for 30 days, they don't have to buy a provincial licence. These rental cars are coming in and out, of course, because a rental company moves cars frequently. They do move them out. I understand the motor vehicle branch has attempted to enforce anything else, and has found always that they simply come in and sit there. They obviously sit there for 30 days and are moved out, presumably. But is it fair for a company to operate out of the Cranbrook international airport, have all their vehicles licensed to Alberta and pay no licence tax to British Columbia, although the British Columbia highways and facilities are being used?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I agree with you, but that question would be more appropriately put to the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is responsible for motor vehicles. It's not within our mandate.

MS. EDWARDS: All right. I see what you're saying. Is the Commercial Transport Act also within that?

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: It is. So the same thing applies to contractors who come in and have the same sort of leeway — an even broader leeway, I believe. Okay, I shall move that to the Solicitor-General. Thank you very much.

I have one other issue that I want to bring to your attention. It is summed up extremely well by a letter which was written in late May to the editor in our local paper. It deals with the incidence of near-misses in highway accidents, which seems to be getting greater. He talks about the trucks that are on the highways these days. There was a time when trucks were only two or three times the size of automobiles, and when a pass was executed by a truck on a wet or snowy road, the hazard of restricted vision did not persist too long.

The situation today is quite different, especially when a truck is hauling a trailer at least as long as the truck itself. When they execute a pass under wet, muddy or snowy conditions, the windshield-wipers on a car cannot cope with the amount of debris deposited. There is no alternative but to drive virtually blind until the truck has pulled far enough ahead to alleviate the situation, all the time hoping nothing is in your way. I have had the experience of having to stop to wash the windshield of mud before being able to proceed, and also of being nearly run into a concrete abutment by the huge trailer when the driver started pulling in before the trailer was clear.

One of the questions that this writer to the editor puts — and I believe it's fair to say — is: why are we reducing the amount of rail traffic? This is like putting railway freight cars on the same right-of-way as automobiles, and I don't believe that is a reasonable situation.

I would like to suggest to the minister that the number of trucks, the length of them, the fact that they are now driving in convoys — which I too have investigated.... People say it's also against the Motor Vehicle Act, but it's not corrected. The whole business of driving on highways is becoming very unsafe, particularly in bad weather when there is either mud or snow to be slopped onto the windows of these very light and tiny cars that the driving public are in.

Has the minister any comment on that or any suggestions as to what's going to happen? Is there some reason that we are now being subjected to this huge influx of freight on our highways that is really turning them into something relatively unsafe?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't like to give you the same answer, but I'm going to have to ask you to take that up with the Solicitor-General. The mandate he has under the motor vehicle section deals with all of those items you just mentioned. We don't have that mandate in Highways. We build the infrastructure; he's responsible for regulating how it is used.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not disputing the minister. I'm suggesting that you may have some input into how the taxing is done for your highways, and so on. You would shape, I would imagine, the use of the highways. Certainly, as we seem to be somehow moving from rail freight to highway freight, it would seem to me that the people who are responsible for building and maintaining the highways might suggest that the way the highways are paid for may not be as fair. I don't want to go into this whole thing, because I really don't have the figures, but there's certainly a sense that the charges put to the users of the highways are not nearly the same as those put to the companies who run rail freight. As the minister knows, there is some real resistance to the use of the highways by the huge numbers and the sizes and shapes of the freight vehicles we have on the highways. Does the minister have any input into the shaping of that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, if it is a matter of discussion around a policy meeting, I certainly would have input. Wearing my B.C. Rail hat, I can tell you that I would do everything possible to encourage more movement of goods by rail rather than on our highways, because they are a very expensive infrastructure. If I am asked to indicate my

[ Page 10984 ]

prejudice, it would be in favour of encouraging movement by rail.

MR. MILLER: I want to talk about ferries, and people keep telling me I can't. But I'm sure the minister can answer any question I can put.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: No, these are straightforward. There are no trick questions here at all; this is all straightforward stuff.

You know about the dangerous cargo issue. I've sent you extensive letters and backgrounders on it. I got your letter, and I could read between the lines. I wonder if the minister could advise me what the plans are — just so I can outline the issue — on the movement of what's considered dangerous cargo to the Queen Charlotte Islands. People are very constrained. They essentially can't use the ferries for much of it; and the commercial service is not there and is not likely to be there, given the population base.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I know that the matter mentioned is of concern to the member for Prince Rupert. I would be very pleased to arrange for a meeting with you and the senior management of B.C. Ferries to sit down and go over the subject thoroughly. It's obvious that the correspondence hasn't been satisfactory, in your view. If you have some other ideas as to how the issue can be better resolved, then feel free; we can talk about it here. But I believe you have far more information on the subject than I will ever have because of your constituency concerns, and it might be useful for you to sit down with someone like Frank Rhodes and senior management at B.C. Ferries, and they're prepared to do that.

MR. MILLER: I will take the opportunity and thank the minister for that. But I suppose that like everything else, the solution ultimately comes down to: are you prepared to spend a few bucks? If you're trying to talk about anything different, I don't think it exists. I think it's going to involve some expenditure, and really, that's where it falls into your lap.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The Crown corporations operate in a not entirely autonomous way, because B.C. Ferries does receive a $51 million subsidy. The type of decision that you have asked the minister to make would be made by the board of B.C. Ferries Unless the government as a whole wants to start planning the routing and the servicing and is prepared to pay 100 percent of the additional service, I think it's important that we ensure that the board of B.C. Ferries is in tune with what is being proposed That's why I felt it was important for you to meet with senior staff. If they were convinced that it was an issue that should go to the board of directors, then that's the route it would take, and that's the appropriate route for it to take.

MR. MILLER: Okay, well, I've worked the guy over in Rupert. I think he's on board. We'll see what we can do with the rest of them. He'd better be on board.

Just going back. You said: "Within ten years on a new vessel." Can we use this Delcan...? Is that who did this "A Transportation Planning Overview"? Is that a pretty reliable document to use in terms of talking about what's happening in your ministry?

I took it to be. It was sent to me. You know, the problems of British Columbia.... Is this a reliable document? Can I use it in terms of what has been recommended?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Go ahead.

MR. MILLER: Was it not put out by the ministry as the transportation planning overview for British Columbia? At the time it was hailed as the blueprint; therefore, when I refer to issues from this, it's reasonable to assume that this is the course the ministry is on.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Ask the question.

MR. MILLER: The question was going back to the ten years. The recommendation of the study was that a market study be carried out. They said that B.C. Ferries had completed a cost analysis that indicated that given sufficient demand on route 10, it would be economically feasible to purchase a much larger vessel second-hand and run it for only the summer season. What they were suggesting was that this would be an economically good thing to do. They go on to say: "The demand projected for route 11 will require a larger vessel to service the summer traffic within the next five years."

I give you these comments out of the report against your comments about a new vessel within ten years. Is this report I'm quoting from operational? Is this indeed what the ministry is doing? Specifically, the points made in the report — that B.C. Ferries have conducted this cost analysis, that a market research study was required to complement it and that a larger vessel would be required on route 11 within five years — seem to suggest that there's a need for a little speedier action. "Within ten years" could mean six, I suppose. Would you care to comment on that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm really glad you waited till all the staff from B.C. Ferries left. It makes it so much easier for me. The numbers you were giving me of the routes — were you talking of the Charlotte's and Prince Rupert?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure whether you were in the room at the time, but it was suggested that that is the long-range plan of B.C. Ferries — that the Queen of the North be moved over to the Charlotte route and that a new vessel would go

[ Page 10985 ]

in there. It is hoped that this would be accomplished within the next ten years.

MR. MILLER: Okay, so the statement here that a larger vessel will be required — page 55 — says: "The demand projected for route 11 will require a larger vessel to service the summer traffic within the next five years." Do you feel that you can get by beyond five years then without a larger vessel?

[5:15]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: So you don't have the money to put into a larger vessel. Okay, I'm just trying to find out what's happening.

With regard to the small communities I talked about, the report made some recommendations. Again, to illustrate the problem, a number of the very small communities on the coast have a very limited transportation network. Most are inaccessible by road and are only accessible by water and air. If you lived on the north coast for any length of time, you know there are certain times of the year when both of those become either impossible or very risky.

When you look at the areas — Kincolith, Port Simpson, Kitkatla, Hartley Bay, Klemtu, down in the Bellas — the service is really either sketchy or non-existent. I'm glad to see Mr. Rhodes is back. You know, you can't always ask the questions when you want to. I would have loved to have asked them previously, but I couldn't. Now I'm trying to ask them. I won't take a long time.

These communities — let's use Hartley Bay as an example.... Hartley Bay doesn't have any service; it relies on people using fishboats and aircraft. Talk about the impact of the goods and services tax. When I was in Klemtu late last year — and I think the ferry is bi-weekly in the winter months — you can add 29 cents a pound to what you would pay at the point of purchase to every single thing. That really adds up for the people in those communities.

In some ways, what we had years ago was better. Coastal freighters served these small communities. Ultimately they came to be subsidized. Nonetheless, they provided a service. I don't know what inflation would have pegged that subsidy at today, but I don't think it was that great.

The report goes on to recommend that a task force be struck to draft a strategic plan for the development of coastal marine transportation for these communities. It makes specific recommendations. It notes the concern and makes recommendations for improvement. I think B.C. Ferries can play a role here, both in improving the quality of service that is currently available, making that service available to communities that currently aren't served, and ultimately in designing a total package to follow the recommendations of the transportation planning overview study.

Perhaps the minister could advise me what specifically is being done with respect to that issue and when we could see some results.

MR. DAVIDSON: Each year I take my place in this particular debate to ask that the minister commit to letting motorcycles use the bus lanes where so indicated. We have to be one of the few jurisdictions in the free world that does not allow motorcycles in the lane marked for buses. Let me tell you the impact that that has.

As the minister is aware, people who ride motorcycles in this province have to wear helmets. The House Leader himself will verify that. They have to wear helmets; they have to sit on motorcycles which are not air-conditioned in a line of traffic. The temperature on those bikes becomes excessive, the helmets are on, and yet we ask those people to sit in a line-up of traffic. It is virtually impossible to keep a machine....

Every year I get the same sort of noncommittal answer from the minister — not this particular minister, but in the past it's always been: "Oh, yes, Mr. Member;" "Thank you for the question, Mr. Member;" "We'll look into the reasons, Mr. Member." There has never been a commitment, and I am asking today that the minister undertake to at least make the same commitment in this jurisdiction that other jurisdictions have — to allow motorcycles to use those lanes earmarked for buses only. It's a safety measure, a convenience measure and a measure that is long overdue. I would ask the minister today if she can give that undertaking that we will have motorcycle traffic allowed in those lanes marked for buses, where it is so indicated.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have to say that I must have missed your speeches over the last six years, because I don't recall having heard that subject. The undertaking I will give you, and it sounds like something that we should be able to accommodate.... Can I give you the assurance that I will sit down with the ministry and get back to you within 30 days with a response?

MR. DAVIDSON: Will you be here?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Will you?

MR. MILLER: I wouldn't like to be diverted. I could go through all the stuff I did previously with the minister. I expected the minister was going to respond.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am sorry; I was waylaid. The Delcan study is just one of the studies being looked at in formulating the corporate tenure plan. It's a very important element, but it is only one element. We are looking at the best ways of servicing some of those smaller communities. As I mentioned earlier, B.C. Ferries will be becoming far more involved with the public, as it applies to service to the areas, and will be receiving input from the areas they are expected to service. The plan that will be drawn up in rather a draft form will be taken to the public. At that time, your constituents who feel they are lacking in service will be given an opportunity to

[ Page 10986 ]

respond and to put forward their ideas. In the meantime, B.C. Ferries is looking at the best way of servicing some of those small communities.

MR. MILLER: I think it's important, when you advise the public that you are going to do something, that you don't snow them. I don't think that serves you very well; it wouldn't serve us very well if we were government. I don't think you can put a plan like this out with all kinds of fanfare, saying that this is the plan for transportation and have people in regions read their specific community names in this plan. I don't think you can go and set up regions, as you've done, and form regional transportation committees, and then have them come up with plans with some expectation that there's a process that's going to be followed. It doesn't work; the system breaks down.

This Delcan study made specific recommendations that were pretty straightforward. I'm not looking for instant answers; I think these are difficult problems to solve. Given the backup, the media attention and the hype that was put out on this plan by the minister at the time, surely the province has some responsibility — even though you weren't the minister — to follow through. Otherwise, none of it is worth anything.

I'm speaking for the people in those communities. I don't suppose you could understand it that well unless you spent some time there.

The plan specifically said, under section 4.1 recommendations:

"...the new provincial transportation planning framework, in cooperation with the economic development region, assume responsibility for gathering information regarding present water transportation to isolated communities; and services needed or requested by such communities."

The regional transportation people did that. They rated their transportation priorities and they submitted that to government. Two other points were made:

"...the transportation planning framework, in cooperation with other involved agencies of the provincial government, and in consultation with both the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, develop a ten-year plan for the provision of reasonable water transportation links with isolated coastal communities."

And the final point:

"...the Attorney-General's department be requested to review provincial and federal obligations with regard to the provision of freight and passenger services by water to isolated coastal communities."

Has it been done? Has anything been done, or are these just words on paper? Is the Attorney-General currently doing what was recommended in this report? Has he got any information to date? Do you know if he has?

Under point 2 of the transportation planning framework, has that been done? Has any of this consultation with the Coast Guard or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans been done? Have you anything more substantive to report? Where are we in terms of developing a ten-year plan that your government said was required to serve these communities?

I'm not looking for all of the detail in the world, Madam Minister, but I am looking for a reasonable statement from you that this is a serious report, that the elements of it that were proposed are in fact being undertaken, and that people who live in those communities can look forward to some reasonable expectation that somebody is looking after their interests. So I'm sure that the minister would want to say that that in fact is happening. Really, that's all I'm looking for.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The Delcan report was looked upon as an overview, which was then given to all of the transportation task forces to further refine. That was a consultant's report; it was not a people's report, as we look upon the transportation task force recommendations as being. And there's no snow job or anything in the Delcan report. It was a consultant's report that was given to the affected ministries and Crown corporations — B.C. Transit, B.C. Ferries and the ministry itself.

We now have the reports that are referred to as the transportation plans, and I'm looking at region 6. The recommendation is that isolated coastal communities have a need for improved ferry and barge services, especially for hazardous and dangerous cargos. B.C. Ferries is presently in the preliminary stages of pulling together their ten-year plan. They're going to now have to go out and discuss, with the communities that they are required to service, what has to be brought about in order to improve service that in many of those communities is looked upon right now as being inadequate.

There are no snow jobs. There is no neglect of the Delcan Report, but we have to look at that Delcan report as one of many. The final recommendations that we are dealing with in the ministry are as a result of the transportation task forces. The people who live out in the regions, out in the areas, are telling us what their priorities are. What you have mentioned today was identified out in region 6, and it will be responded to by B.C. Ferries.

MR. MILLER: So you're prepared to follow the recommendations of the regional task force on transportation in terms of what they identify in the regions as the priorities? Okay.

[5:30]

Specifically, with respect to the recommendations here — and I have to do this with you because you're the minister responsible overall — the ten-year plan, the consultation with the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.... Is that something that you are actively doing now? It's not quite two years since this report was issued. I don't know how long it would take to develop a ten-year plan, but it would be reasonable to assume that you could probably put one together in less than almost two years. So it would be nice to know when people can anticipate that they could actually see a ten-year plan. These reports we're talking about are almost two years old.

[ Page 10987 ]

Has the Attorney-General's department, to your knowledge, reviewed with the province and the federal government obligations with regard to the transportation of service to isolated communities? I'm aware of correspondence between the former federal minister and the former provincial minister — it's part of the problem; we're keeping too many former ministers around — on the issue of the use of the federal subsidy. I don't know if anything further has come out of that; I haven't seen any correspondence. But certainly the federal minister was making the allegation that the subsidy was not being used properly. I didn't see the provincial response, so I think that falls under that category in terms of the Attorney-General's involvement, in terms of reviewing that agreement that exists between the two governments.

This is the opportunity for me to get up publicly and talk about these issues of concern. I'm always happy to send positive answers up to my constituency, Madam Member. I'd like some answers to those specific questions.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have not stopped consulting. I'll have to take on notice the one question you mentioned with regard to the Attorney-General, because I have no way of knowing what they are following up on.

You will recall that some months ago we announced a ports policy that had been worked on for the better part of a year in the ministry, with a great deal of close consultation with the Coast Guard on developing and establishing a ports policy. We work very closely with the Coast Guard.

On the question with regard to the Attorney-General and his dealings with the federal ministry, we'll take that on notice and get a response to you.

MR. MILLER: I wonder if I could ask the minister why, given the reliance on the regional study, it's not being followed. I'm just looking at this glossy brochure. The region listed their concerns in order of priority. They listed secondary concerns. Yet I see that many of the secondary concerns seem to have found their way up to the top of the active list. I just wonder how that could happen. If there is indeed a commitment to the people in the region identifying and prioritizing their needs, why would the ministry deviate from what the region proposed?

Secondly, I guess the whole issue of the ports policy.... I'm not quite sure. You now have an airports policy too, I guess. There has been a great deal of concern raised in Prince Rupert with regard to proposals for the province to build a port in Kitimat. I wonder if the minister might care to elaborate on why that initiative is being undertaken. It does not appear, on the surface at least, with any of the transportation economists I've talked to.... I can't get those in your ministry to talk, but I've talked to quite a few outside. They all tell me that it does not make a lot of economic sense and that you might in fact be beggaring one port against the other. That, of course, would be foolish economics.

I wonder, in the face of that — and I can cite a lot of statistics to back that up — why that initiative is being proceeded with, for example, in Prince Rupert, where we have a very busy port. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and I both participated not that long ago in opening the second phase of the general cargo facility — a $38 million facility — which will provide even more room for the shipment generally, but not exclusively, of lumber out of the port of Prince Rupert. Why, in the face of a port such as Prince Rupert, which is not at full capacity and won't be at full capacity, given current economic trends, for some time, would initiatives be undertaken to develop a second port that clearly would have to compete with the existing port — which would, I would assume, only result in both of those ports being money-losers? It does not strike me as a very sound economic proposal.

Further, it does deviate from the very clear proposals made in the regional study by those regional people whom you said should get together collectively and decide the priorities. It doesn't deal with the issue as recommended in the regional study and as included, I believe, in the Delcan study, if I'm not mistaken, by developing the infrastructure for the port of Stewart — which does make sense in terms of the additional economic benefits that could flow to the province as a result of that kind of move. It doesn't deal with the fact that we have a very busy port in Prince Rupert.

You should come up; I invite the minister to come up and watch the heavy truck traffic that flows through my community. Because we are an end-of-the-line community, the highway goes right through town. I've spoken previously about the risks that that poses not only to vehicle traffic but to pedestrian traffic. There have been a couple of very bad accidents where lumber trucks have spilled their load. We've got a pretty bad approach to the city coming in on the highway, and I've seen a couple of loads spilled there. Without trying to overstate it, I've seen a lumber truck spill a load that I think half an hour previously would have wiped out a good number of high-school students. I know there's a study going on, but this is an old issue. We have a bypass to a non-existent port being promoted in this other community when in my community, we have what I think is a very serious and potentially dangerous problem. Why isn't there a little bit more speed on getting a bypass there? It strikes me that there is some difficulty in trying to interpret this government's approach to policy.

I'd like to look at the documents and see what you've said and what you say you're going to do. That's fine. If I agree with it, I'll agree with it; if I disagree with it, I'll disagree with it. But if you say you're going to do something and then I find that you're not doing that, it seems to me you're doing yourself a disservice in terms of public confidence. It makes it very difficult in for people in regions to know just what is going on.

[ Page 10988 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Your last statement is difficult to dispute. We should remember that the Delcan report was a consultant's report. The transportation task force is a citizens' report, and it is the report that I place priority on following. You mentioned that we're not following the task force recommendations. I would appreciate the specifics. If there are some priorities that we haven't followed, I would be pleased to respond to that for you.

As far as the proposal for a port in Kitimat, I'll have to ask you to take that inquiry to the Ministry of Crown Lands.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, that last statement is not one I would care to make were I the minister. We're talking about transportation. We're talking about a report you — I'll have to say you, because you're the minister — put out that dealt with a rail policy, a water transportation policy and a ports policy. These are policies emanating from within your ministry, and you're telling me I've got to go talk to the Minister of Crown Lands with respect to a port. It seems to me there is something wrong here. Are you running it in terms of the policy end, or is someone else?

I'll give you one specific. I can't find my page now, but I know what it is, so I'll tell you what it is. In your brochure, number 6, "Shames Ski Hill Access Road Construction." As I said, I can't find the page, but it was a secondary consideration in this. That would seem to suggest to me that the people in the region had been asked to put together a report and list their priorities, and it would appear that somebody else had some other agenda, some other priority. That's the only explanation that I can come up with.

Madam Minister, let's be clear on what's being proposed here. We're talking about the development of a major port, and we're talking about the province buying an airport, and you're telling me you know nothing about it. I think that's pretty serious.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Prince Rupert, if you recall, when the cabinet was structured in November, the responsibility for the establishment of a port in Kitimat was given to the Minister of Crown Lands by the government of the day.

MR. MILLER: Was your ministry involved to any extent?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, we have a ports policy. The proposal for Kitimat fits in with the ports policy that was prepared by our ministry.

MR. MILLER: Does the minister have any background information she could make available that would allow me to be more informed about why this particular initiative was undertaken? I would like to know the basis for going this route. Was it studies emanating from within your ministry that prompted this initiative, Madam Minister? Did somebody just think it was a good idea, or did you do some studies?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Could I get them? Would you make one of your senior people available to brief me on why you started this? We're having some difficulty understanding the origins of this.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Could I suggest that you obtain that information from Crown Lands.

MR. MILLER: I have to persist. Do you mean — and I'm going to put my interpretation on this — that your ministry has no studies that would suggest this initiative should have been undertaken?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm troubled by the line of questioning. The mandate was given to the Ministry of Crown Lands. I fail to see why the member for Prince Rupert can't take his questions to that ministry, because we are not dealing with the matter, other than if it falls within the ports policy that we have.

MR. MILLER: So it falls within the ports policy; the minister said that it falls within the ports policy that they have. Right. That would suggest that your ministry has actually done some work in identifying, in this particular instance, that there should be consideration for further port development.

Is there expertise within the Ministry of Crown Lands that would have that? The minister is saying that it's within your ports policy. I'm simply asking: where's the background? Where are the real words on real paper that explain this initiative? I don't want it from the Minister of Crown Lands; I want it from the Minister of Transportation and Highways, whose responsibility it is.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would be pleased to provide you with a copy of our ports policy, which I'm sure will assist in clarifying. But any of the further details.... It's a mandate that was given to the Ministry of Crown Lands. That's where the question should be appropriately put.

[5:45]

I would move at this time 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.

Point of Privilege

TAPED CONVERSATIONS
OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have a submission for you, and I would like to give you a copy. Further to the matter I raised with you last

[ Page 10989 ]

week — on Thursday to be precise — under the law of privilege and contempt, as to whether or not the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) acted in accordance with accepted parliamentary principles when making his presentation to you in this House on Wednesday, July 11 last, I wish to make the following submission.

In the guise of raising a matter of privilege, that member stood in his place and utilized for his purposes a transcript of an electronic surveillance which was illegally obtained; and it is now abundantly clear that the hon. member knew that such transcripts were illegally obtained.

Mr. Speaker, the enormity of these actions transcends partisan politics and, I submit to you, goes to the very heart of parliamentary privilege and contempt.

In considering your decision I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to examine and adopt the principles clearly enunciated by the special committee of privileges of this House which reported on June 6, 1980. That all-party committee concluded, among other things, that the interception of telephone communications of a member of the Legislature constituted a breach of privilege and a contempt of this House.

Let me emphasize, in the strongest possible terms, that the committee found a clear contempt, even though the telephone intercepts in that case were authorized by a court of law. I believe it to be common ground between all parties that the intercepts used by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew were illegally obtained, thus making their use by him even more reprehensible.

In considering this matter I would ask you to adopt one of the principles clearly stated in that committee report, when the committee said: "Parliamentary democracies flourish only when member and constituent can communicate freely..." [Applause.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would appreciate it if the minister were allowed to make his presentation uninterrupted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: "...openly and candidly without having the spectre of interception such as the one recently examined by your committee interfering with such communications."

Mr. Speaker, last week the Attorney-General was the victim selected, and tomorrow, who knows? I believe that this action and the use of those transcripts has cast a pall over this chamber and every hon. member who sits in this House. I cannot imagine an action that would be more effective in obstructing members in the performance of their legislative duties, and I suggest to you that obstruction of members fits squarely within the four corners of parliamentary privilege.

Is this the atmosphere in which the people's business is to be conducted? If parliament does not protect its own from this type of outrageous intrusion, who will?

You, Mr. Speaker, do not have to make a final determination on the detail of this matter, but you should be able to conclude that prima facie something is very wrong. Let a committee of this House get to the bottom of this outrage. Do not be persuaded by arguments about the content of the tapes, for it is the unauthorized intrusion on a member's communication that is the offence. I trust that we will never adopt the perilous concept that the end justifies the means. That is a totalitarian concept and has never been acceptable in a parliamentary democracy.

If the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew thinks that a plain brown envelope can shroud him in innocence and prevent this House from seeing what he has really done, he is mistaken. He is no better than a receiver of stolen goods. He is no better than the person who actually did the taping. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew knowingly used illegally obtained intercepts, and in doing so is as responsible for the result as the person or persons who engineered that illegal surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, I am tendering to you the motion I would propose to move should you find that the matter raised qualifies under the law of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. As I stated last week — and I will restate it — the Chair will take this matter under advisement and consideration, and bring forward a decision at some future time.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the member did not provide me with notice of his statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member rising on a point of order?

MR. SIHOTA: No, Mr. Speaker. I thought he was rising on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm curious to know under what basis you are rising.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising in terms of further advice to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, just for a moment.

The government House Leader gave notice last week of his intention to bring this motion forward, and I'm prepared to listen to the matter that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew may offer to the Chair in terms of guidance, in order that the Chair can make the appropriate decision.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Initially let me say this: I would of course like to have the opportunity to review in some detail the statement that the minister made, to respond to it fully. However, a number of initial considerations should be brought to your attention. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring it to your attention, first of all, that I'm not exactly clear what the government

[ Page 10990 ]

House Leader is accusing me of doing. Mr. Speaker, in its simplest and its purest terms, all I did was to report a possible violation of the Criminal Code. That's all I reported to this House. I think every citizen has a duty to report a crime to both the Deputy Attorney-General and to this House.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I think that you should know that I in no way participated in the taping of the material that the member refers to and in no way participated in what he alleges to be an unauthorized and illegal transcript, wiretap or interception.

Mr. Speaker, I can fully understand why a Social Credit cabinet minister and a Premier may be upset that one has reported a crime in relation to a Social Credit cabinet minister, but I cannot see a wrong in that. Having said that, I will reserve now the opportunity to review in detail the comments made by the member opposite, and I will reply to you — hopefully tomorrow — with any fuller amplification with respect to the allegation that he has brought before the House.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With the greatest of respect to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I don't really believe this should be construed as a form of debate. For your clarification, I never did intimate that the member did any illegal taping. I said he received them; I didn't say that he'd taped them, nor did I intimate that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, should you find, as I've suggested, that there is a prima facie case, I can think of no better way than a committee of that member's peers judging whether he is innocent or guilty.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is the first time the Chair has gone through this procedure, so you'll bear with me as we go through it. In our procedures in this House, there isn't an unlimited opportunity to respond to these matters. Now is the correct time for the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to rise and state any matters that he wishes to have the Chair consider in terms of the motion put forward by the government House Leader.

MR. SIHOTA: My difficulty is, although I've heard it and the member read it quickly — and that's fine; I'm not faulting him for that — that I haven't had the opportunity to fully digest what he's had to say. I think it's only fair that I have the opportunity to digest what he's had to say, read it, and then....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, please. Order, please. This is critical for the Chair to have accurate remarks in Hansard for my consideration. If I could have them without the interruptions from members on either side, it would be useful. I would ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue.

MR. SIHOTA: I think only fairness would warrant me to be provided with an opportunity to read what the minister has had to say and then reply to it once I've had the opportunity to fully digest it, pointing out any errors or inaccuracies or any points that may guide the Chair with respect to its deliberation on this matter.

Accordingly, I would ask for that opportunity before I.... I would like to reserve the right to be able to come back to the House and state any points that may arise with respect to this matter or, if that's not acceptable, to write to the Speaker comments that I may want to make with respect to the comments made by the government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review the matter and will reserve the right to determine whether the member has an opportunity to add further to this statement.

MR. GABELMANN: Understanding that point, may I just inquire then...? When a member raises a matter of privilege, the procedure is for the Speaker to consider whether a prima facie case exists. Is it not appropriate for the Speaker to have in his possession all of the relevant facts in order to be able to properly make a determination of a prima facie? If so, is it not then appropriate for any member who may be able to bring information to the House to do so? If that's also the case, shouldn't the member have a chance to do that at the earliest opportunity, which would be tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the matter, as I've said, under consideration. However, it is not the intention of the Chair to allow the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to rebut the statement made by the government House Leader and then the government House Leader to add to it. I don't wish this to generate into a debate.

The only thing the Chair has been asked to determine is whether or not a prima facie case exists, and if the Chair determines that such a case exists, then it will be for a committee of the House to discuss all of these relevant details. The Chair will determine whether or not there is enough information available.

MR. GABELMANN: One further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Speaker to also consider whether this was the first opportunity that was available.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will always consider that as well as other factors. Members who have served in this House for some time will know that there are a whole host of criteria that have to be met for a prima facie case to be brought forward, and that will be brought forth at such time as the Chair brings down a ruling.

[6:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 10991 ]

NATURAL GAS PRICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, this deals with the winding up of the natural gas price adjustment fund. I wonder if the minister could clarify how much money is anticipated to be transferred to CanWest Gas under this section.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I wonder if the hon. member would repeat her question relative to section 12 in the Natural Gas Price Amendment Act.

MS. EDWARDS: Section 12 deals with winding up the natural gas price adjustment fund, and according to the bill the money will be transferred out of the natural gas price adjustment fund to the Petroleum Corporation fund in order to pay for the wind-up costs of the price adjustment fund. The Petroleum Corporation can pay money to CanWest Gas, which is equal to either one of two formulas: either the balance remaining in the adjustment fund after the money is transferred out, or the balance in the Petroleum Corporation fund after all costs are paid to cover the costs of winding up the fund.

How much money is anticipated to be transferred to CanWest Gas under this section?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm informed the amount is approximately $17 million.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could clarify why this money is being paid to CanWest Gas rather than back to the province.

HON. MR. DAVIS: This money is essentially owned by the producers and is going back to the producers through their vehicle, CanWest. What we're doing, really, is turning over to CanWest some 600 contracts. One signatory in each contract is the producer; the other signatory was the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. It was a contract between the producer in each of the 600 cases and the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which, among other things, performed the function of marketing that producer's gas.

Now that CanWest will carry on that function of marketing, the contract will be between the producer and CanWest, as its marketing agency of choice, and those moneys, which essentially belong to the producers but were being held by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, will now be held with CanWest and administered in the same fashion as formerly but now by CanWest as opposed to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister is saying that it used to be a contract between the producers and the Petroleum Corporation, and it's now a contract between the producers and the producers.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The producers, in great majority, agreed to novate their contract or contracts with the Petroleum Corporation over to CanWest, so the functions, the obligations of the Petroleum Corporation have now been assumed, or will shortly be assumed, by CanWest, and the same relationships will apply. CanWest's name, in other words, is simply substituted for that of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

CanWest has its own board of directors. It's not the same board, by any means, as the board for any of the producers. It's made up of representatives of the producers in sum total. It's a separate board, and there are no producers actually on the board. The board members are named by the producers by consensus, and none have a vested interest directly in gas sales.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise us if they've carried out an analysis of whether there is any value in the Petroleum corporation’s position?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, and in simplistic terms, the value is zero. CanWest now has the obligation — you can turn it around and say the opportunity — of selling the gas. It will be paid a fee by the producers — a fee which, incidentally, is considerably less than they would have had to pay had they contracted separately with some other gas-marketing entity. The main reason a great majority of the producers are favouring this CanWest arrangement is that it will be their gas-marketing company, and if it makes a profit, the profit will come back to them as individual shareholders, I'll call it. That's the advantage of CanWest to them, as they see it.

To the extent that they're not obliged by contract to sell — formerly to the Petroleum Corporation and now to CanWest — they can sell gas themselves directly to a market or consumer through another marketing entity. But in the case of these 600 contracts explicitly between the Petroleum Corporation and the producer, CanWest will now take on the Petroleum Corporation's obligation with respect to marketing only.

MR. WILLIAMS: If there were to be a profit in any of these transactions, up until this point that profit would be taken by the Petroleum Corporation. If that's the case, then of course, as the minister knows, it has a value, and it could have a capitalized value. The question is: what analysis has been carried out, and what would those numbers be? The minister says zero, but maybe he could explain that further.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The arrangement up until the end of this month was that the Petroleum Corporation, let's assume, made something of a profit on a great majority of these transactions. The arrangement

[ Page 10992 ]

was that to the extent there was a profit, that was distributed back to the producer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as the minister knows, this is not an area that I'm familiar with, so I appreciate his indulgence.

You said that the arrangement to now has been that there has not been a profit. It then begs the question whether that was simply what was done or whether that was the contractual situation in that the corporation simply didn't take a profit but it might well have been possible under the contract.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, I'm informed that it was contractual. Beginning in I think it was 1985, the Crown extracted its revenue by way of royalty. The Petroleum Corporation administered its various obligations, but ended up with no profit, no loss. It, being obliged to turn over profit and loss — but it was always, on average, in the black — turned those moneys back to the producer who had, let's say, been unfairly charged some amount. In some ways the analogy was a co-op marketing entity, and the producers would receive back any profit that was made in the process of administering these contracts. The royalty system, in other words, was set up. The royalty, since 1985, has generated the income to the Crown, and the Crown has to be very concerned about whether it's being properly levied and whether all the amounts due are paid. But the Petroleum Corporation was not, after 1985, a revenue-generating entity producing revenue to the Crown. So while it sounds rather convoluted, I think it's true to say that there is no value in the corporation itself. In this process CanWest will simply carry on precisely the way the Petroleum Corporation has been carrying on with respect to the marketing function.

MS. EDWARDS: I wish the minister would clarify this for me. You say that since 1985, the Petroleum Corporation was not a revenue-generating fund for the government. I'm not sure why there would be $17 million there.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I gather that there was a fund. There will continue to be a fund generated initially by payment by the producers. The fund was to stabilize prices throughout the year, as opposed to varying prices and continual adjustments being made contract by contract. They are made annually with each producer but not different amounts and different months. It was a fund simply to ease the administration of this process. It's a stabilization fund provided by the producers, which now continues as a fund for stabilizing purposes, but it will be operated by CanWest as opposed to the Petroleum Corporation. It's an investment by the producers, in this case, in stabilization. It's a rotating fund. I assume it's earning interest as it would otherwise in the hands of the producers.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister says it will continue to be operated by CanWest. Is it required by legislation that they do so? If so, I'm afraid I missed that in going past.

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is an obligation, but it is required by contract between the producers individually and collectively with CanWest. In other words, their business is between them, both being in the private sector. The contract also includes numerous other safeguards protecting the producer from what could otherwise be activities by CanWest which would redound solely to CanWest's benefit and not to the producers'. It is one of numerous safeguards.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister has also said that it's not only a stabilization fund but that some profits were made. Actually I'm not sure that was the word you used, but it meant that, I believe. Does this $17 million include only the amount needed to retain a stabilization fund, or does it include the interest that was gained? Has the province never taken that interest into its own revenue? Is that now going to CanWest?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The $17 million is owned by the producers, in effect, but is in the hands of CanWest. It is used exclusively for price stabilization purposes. But while it's in CanWest hands, it does have to pay interest.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister would clarify the levy account.

[6:15]

HON. MR. DAVIS: The B.C. Petroleum Corporation will collect certain moneys. It's a levy which will be applied per thousand cubic feet. Actually marketed, it will be paid, in effect, by each producer. Those with large volumes, of course, will pay more than those selling small volumes.

The levy will cover all of the Petroleum Corporation costs — I'm talking about the part of the Petroleum Corporation that will continue to monitor the industry, to provide the basic data for the calculation of royalties — and certain costs in relation to the activities of the Utilities Commission. It will cover costs not only within the Petroleum Corporation, but in the ministry. On balance, the industry will be paying more to government — if I can include the Petroleum Corporation as government for a moment — and the ministry than has been the case in the past. It will be paying for all services used mainly by government, mainly by the industry or both. The industry will be paying all costs incurred by the ministry in the levying of the royalty and in publishing market prices month by month — a variety of functions. It puts the producer to somewhat greater expense than was formerly the case by operating exclusively through the Petroleum Corporation. We

[ Page 10993 ]

will be covering all costs related to the production of gas in this province through that levy.

It's really unique. We don't have other industries in the province, to my knowledge, where all costs of gathering of statistics and whatever are paid for directly by the producing industry. They're paid for — in part, anyway — through ministries' budgets and collected on balance or maybe more so through a general royalty or whatever. This ensures that all costs related to the monitoring of the industry, the levying of the royalty and so on are properly accounted for and are covered — or more than covered — by this particular levy.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could clarify what ministry costs would be covered by this. You said there would be not only the cost of the shred of what's left of the Petroleum Corporation — what their costs would be for their services — but also some services which the ministry will provide. Could you clarify that for me? And also clarify whether this will cover the costs of the B.C. Utilities Commission as it applies here, or whether that will be a separate levy if any company is required to go through the Utilities Commission process.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, to take the questions in reverse order, the relationship of a producer or the producer group with the Utilities Commission won't change. They will have to pay all of their own costs, as they have done in the past, when they make an application to the commission.

But you asked what functions presently carried out in the ministry will either continue in the ministry or be taken over in part by the remaining Petroleum Corporation and will now be covered by this particular levy. There will be the administration of energy removal certificates ensuring that we do indeed have surplus energy or have indeed covered the core market's requirements, and then some, making sure there's enough gas there, that it is proven, that it's deliverable on a daily basis and making sure there's no price advantage to an import in the United States — I'll put it that way — and so on. Before, there was a fair amount of checking and validation to be done before an energy removal certificate. That's a certificate to remove gas from the ground, whether it's going to a Canadian or a foreign market.

All those costs will now be covered by this levy. Formerly all the costs incurred within the ministry were not covered. They came out of the general revenue of the province.

There's another element of cost to the extent that the ministry has been involved in costs of collecting royalties. All those costs relating to royalties will be covered also by this; I'll say a charge of roughly three-quarters of a cent per MCF. It's a new charge and a new arrangement, but it does cover all costs It's our attempt to ensure that the industry pays all costs related to their business in the case of this particular industry — the oil and gas industry — in British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS: As I see it, Mr. Minister, you talk about the assurance that there is no price advantage. Actually, let me not deal with that first. Let me deal first with the issue of whether there's a secure supply. By your White Paper you are trying to put the whole function of seeing that there is a secure supply into a pooling arrangement which the ministry will oversee, if I can put it that way, and it therefore is an extra cost to the ministry.

You are saying that the producers will pay more. But will they pay more as a collective rather than as an individual producer? Previously a producer had to assure that his own security of supply was there. Now he doesn't have to do that, but presumably.... How does that work? How does that balance come out? You say that the producers will be paying more, but in one sense they may not be paying more.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Collectively they will certainly be paying more, because there are a number of costs formerly paid by taxpayers generally in the province — costs incurred by activities within the ministry which will now be covered by this special levy.

The member also asked whether they would be paying individually or collectively. They'll pay, I'm saying, three-quarters of a cent per thousand cubic feet. If they are small producers, they would pay less than a large producer, and so on. They pay in relation to their production, presumably in proportion to their sales, to the income from the marketing of the gas that actually moves.

To be quite specific about it, it's tied completely to production of each individual producer, but collectively those moneys will more than pay for all of the administration — not just part of it — carried out in the totality of the ministry and the corporation.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't like to get on to the White Paper too much, but this certainly relates to it. I believe the minister is saying that the cost of assuring that there is whatever secured supply we will have in British Columbia will be higher than it currently is.

HON. MR. DAVIS: That's right. The cost to the industry will be higher than it presently is or has been up to the end of this month, simply because we're including activities in this new fee or tariff which I'll say were formerly provided gratis by the Crown through the ministry. We've taken not only the costs of the Petroleum Corporation that are historic and ongoing, but also costs within the ministry which have been ongoing but were not covered by any special levy from the industry.

All those costs will be wrapped up and more than covered in this particular fee. It's total cost recovery of all administration related to the execution of policy in the actual administration of natural gas production in the province. I would assume one of the largest activities is checking before an energy removal certificate is granted for a new contract, but there is the continuing and ongoing obligation to make sure that the amount paid in royalties is right,

[ Page 10994 ]

that we're not missing any production and — very important, of course — that the gas is there.

MS. EDWARDS: You said that part of the activities that would be funded from this levy would be to ensure that there would be no price advantage to a foreign importer of our natural gas. Presumably that would include no advantage as far as a royalty were concerned.

HON. MR. DAVIS: That's correct. There will be no advantage or disadvantage. The royalty will be the same on the same volume of gas and the same load factor and so on.

The foreign importer will, under this new system, always be paying more than a Canadian user, because the price they will be paying is not only the value of clean, dry natural gas in the Peace River area, but it's that plus the cost of transportation. So the price at the border, if you like — certainly the price at the point of destination, which is even further removed from the Peace River area — will always be higher for the reason of transportation costs alone.

We have an additional proviso in here which protects the revenue to the government. Alberta already has this regime in place, although they allow a larger discount. When a number of producers who were relatively small and weak from a bargaining point of view began to sign up customers in Ontario at bargain-basement prices simply to get some revenue, Alberta in self-defence stepped in and introduced legislation which said that for royalty purposes — and they weren't changing the contract between the producer and the buyer — it had to be current market price. But they did allow a latitude of 20 percent. It has to be, at the very least, 80 percent of the going market price, so there's a deemed price of 80 percent. We're using a figure of 10 percent, so the deemed price — the price for royalty purposes — can never be less than 90 percent of the going market price, which is the price we publish monthly. The average going price for the industry we publish monthly, and no contract which names a lesser price will be recognized for royalty purposes at less than 90 percent of the going market price. When the price structure of the industry is tending downward, you could have royalties collected on a lesser price than the market price, but by no more than 10 percent Alberta allows 20 percent.

Where gas prices are generally rising, the presumption will have to be that new contracts are selling gas at higher prices than the average presently in effect in the province. But when prices are trending downward, we have to be even more on guard as to unusually low prices being negotiated, especially between parent and subsidiary. Indeed, we'll be looking very critically at any contract between a parent and a subsidiary, the parent being a company other than the producer but owning a majority of shares, say, and particularly in instances where the real owner of the producing entity is outside of Canada.

[6:30]

We won't give permits for removal, period, for prices that are much out of line with the current market price, but there is this mechanism in the legislation which says a minimum of 90 percent of the current market price is the least price that would be recognized for royalty purposes. The revenue to the Crown is protected to that extent in this legislation, but you have the additional protection that our administration in the ministry and in the Petroleum Corporation will be very much on the qui vive as to proper pricing and making sure there's no price advantage at the Peace River district in selling outside the province.

MS. EDWARDS: My question, of course, was directed to the proposal that the royalty be based on 90 percent rather than 100 percent. You said there should be no price advantage, and it seems to me that that is an advantage. That was the question.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, it's an advantage, but the 100 percent is the current average price resulting from old contracts and recent contracts, and if prices generally are trending downward, the new contracts will tend to be at prices below the 100 percent, if you see what I mean. There has to be some latitude in there, but the discretion as to whether a permit is granted or not rests solely with the ministry.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MS. EDWARDS: This one deals with the payments out of the Petroleum Corporation fund. As I can see, provisions are made for both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy to order payments to be made out of the Petroleum Corporation fund into consolidated revenue. How much is anticipated to be transferred in this manner each year?

HON. MR. DAVIS: This year we expect some $24 million to be transferred; in future years, zero. As I said, the collection of revenues by the Crown is through the mechanism of royalty and not through CanWest, or formerly BCPC, as an agency that paid one price for gas and received a higher price for selling the gas. The price now is the market price. CanWest is not a collection agency for the government.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 10995 ]

Bill 63, Natural Gas Price Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 33.

MINERAL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I was remiss; I should have introduced Joan Hesketh, who is on our ministry staff and who was very much involved in helping to arrange for the devolution of the marketing end of things of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and Deputy Minister John Allan.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MS. EDWARDS: I am just going to ask the minister to clarify a bit about adding provisions for determining the transaction value to be attributed to a mineral product. Perhaps he could just clarify why that was considered to be required from last year's bill.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, Bob Cook and Alf Lockwood are joining me now to help me through these sections. The first question relates to section 6, and I would like the hon. member to repeat her request for information. She was asking what a certain transaction was for on section 6.

MS. EDWARDS: My question was very general in relation to section 6, which is described as adding provisions for determining the transaction value to be attributed to a mineral product. I wonder if I could have a clarification of why these provisions were added to this legislation which passed just last year.

HON. MR. DAVIS: We are bringing it into the legislation; it was formerly in the regulations. It is the power for the ministry to deem a value and a price in instances where a parent is buying from a subsidiary We want the power to be explicit and in the laws as such, as opposed to the regulations, which gives the ministry the power to deem a price which is the equivalent of what the ministry believes to be the market price, as opposed to some other lesser price that might have been entered into. It might have been part of a contract between a parent and a subsidiary. I think "related parties" is the term here.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MS. EDWARDS: Again, I'm looking for clarification. The description suggests that certain assets located outside the province may be included in computing the balance of the cumulative expenditure account at the end of the fiscal year. Perhaps you can clarify the impact that will have throughout the province on the industry.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, it could be that the subsidiary operating in British Columbia had few assets in the province and that the liability was more comparable with present assets in the province. This enables the Crown to go after not just the value up to the assets of the subsidiary here, but the assets of the parent or related corporation, so that there is no substantial limit on what we could recover if, for example, the price were deemed to be too low.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MS. EDWARDS: Again, this reduces the reporting requirements for non-producing mines. Does this mean that a mine that is not producing at the moment need not make a report in a fiscal year? Is that correct? In terms of an example I know relatively well, the Sullivan mine in Kimberley: if it's not operating for a year, does it no longer make any report at all?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, generally the mining companies have to report certain information. We're talking here about filing a return on income earned during the current fiscal year. If they're not operating at any time during the fiscal year, they're not required under this legislation to file a return. Even if it's to file zero, they don't have that obligation. If there's any production, of course, then they are obliged to file a return.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it's possible that they would not be producing, but they might be selling stockpiles.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is right. I assume that the definition of production — I used the word "production"; perhaps I shouldn't have — income would include selling off stockpiles or receiving moneys which were the final payments from production of previous years and so on. It's really filing an income statement. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "production." If they were generating any income in the year in question, then they would have to file.

MS. EDWARDS: They may not be filing any income; they may be filing some expenditures. Does that mean they don't have to report?

HON. MR. DAVIS: In this case there's no requirement to file expenditure data as long as there isn't any income data required.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

[ Page 10996 ]

On section 11.

MS. EDWARDS: Again, it expands the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council's power to make regulations. Perhaps the minister would like to elaborate on that.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I gather that this makes explicit the power of the ministry to prescribe regulations which have to do with the transitional phase between the old legislation and the new legislation, prior to which that kind of regulation wasn't envisaged in the act as passed last year. We do need some regulations which deal purely with the transition between the legislation as it existed a year ago and the legislation now in force. That's one of the new regulatory powers, but you'll see that it is limited in time. It's limited to this transition from the old act to the new act.

There are several other provisions here. It changes the way we establish interest rates and the calculation of those interest rates, it establishes a reclamation cost account and a reclamation tax credit account — again, there wasn't provision in last year's legislation to cover off those items explicitly in the regulations — and finally it prescribes deemed proceeds and the allocation of various account balances in the event of a disposition of a mine. I assume that's an ongoing power.

So there were some powers not clearly expressed in the legislation passed last year which relate to regulations. Most of them are of a transitional nature — this latter one is certainly of an ongoing nature — and are needed to deal with the operations of mining companies. Very important, of course, are the proceeds, balances and so on relative to the disposition or sale of a mine — especially the reclamation problems, and the values and costs associated therewith.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Title approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 33, Mineral Tax Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

[6:45]

On section 1.

HON. MIL DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, joining me now is Dr. Bruce McRae. He is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Mines.

MS. EDWARDS: Section 1 is an interpretation clause. I'd like to draw the minister's attention to the definition of a reviewable mine. A reviewable mine is a coal- or mineral-mine that, in the opinion of the chief inspector, is capable of producing more than 10,000 long tons of coal a year. I wonder if the minister could tell me what percentage of the mines in this province would automatically fall under this designation. In other words, how many mines a year would this process be dealing with?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm told that any mine that is commercially viable would produce this amount of coal or that amount of minerals in a year, or more, so substantially it covers all mining in the province.

MS. EDWARDS: All mining except placer mines — a number of placer mines, I presume?

HON. MR. DAVIS: That's true, Mr. Chairman. Placer mines are in a special category. They will be identified by the chief inspector, and the words are: .any other mine that is designated a reviewable mine development by the chief inspector." So the chief could make exceptions. It could include mines producing less than 10,000 tonnes a year of coal, etc., and certainly would cover most, if not all, of the placer developments.

MS. EDWARDS: The placer mines, however, don't have to be included. There's no requirement.

There's also no requirement that sand and gravel pits, which are now included in this act, under the Mines Act, have to be reviewed. Sand and gravel pits regularly can be very large operations. They're usually nearer to populated areas than metal or coalmines. They create a lot more dust and considerably more noise and trouble in populated areas than most mines do. Has the minister considered including sand and gravel pits in this designation of reviewable mine development?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as I said before, all or virtually all of the placer mines and gravel-pit operations will be covered as reviewable. The problem, particularly with relation to gravel pits, is to have some meaningful minimum cut-off number; rather than try to establish that number, it's being left to the discretion of the inspector of mines. However, I think if there's any local concern expressed by a significant number of people or by a local municipal government or whatever, the mine — the gravel pit, the placer development — will become a reviewable mine for purposes of this legislation.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm just questioning the minister about what is involved in the definition section of the act because it's not there. As the minister has said, and the wording in the bill says, "...in the opinion of the chief inspector" will produce 10,000 long tons of ore. The chief inspector doesn't do the inspections, as the minister is well aware; the district managers review the mine applications under the Mines Act. So

[ Page 10997 ]

there has to be a process whereby the district managers are going to notify the chief inspector. I just wonder how that will work. Could the minister elaborate a bit on how he expects to be sure that the district manager's comments will get to the chief inspector? Then I will ask another question. Is there an ability in the act to require the review of a mine when it expands from a smaller operation to what is expected to be 10,000 tonnes a year?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The cut-off number of 10,000 tonnes applies to metal, hard-rock and coal-mines, and is not the number which would be applied to the class of operations which, in quantitative terms, might be much smaller — or to gravel pits, some of which could be a lot smaller. It's a discretionary item, but if there's any local concern, it's the duty of the local mine inspector to alert the inspector of mines — indeed, the deputy minister — that there is a local concern. That development, whether it's brand-new or a significant expansion, will be brought under this legislation, and this review process will be set in motion.

Again, what's lacking here is an easily recognizable lower threshold level. We're trying to overcome that by simply giving to the local people — the local inspector initially — the job of alerting us to a possible problem in respect to environmental concerns, location concerns of the municipalities, zoning concerns, and on and on. Particularly in the case of gravel pits, there are overlapping jurisdictions between Municipal Affairs, Mines, the municipalities and the province. There are more concerns.

We do have a special task force presently constituted with Municipal Affairs and Crown Lands, with a view to coming up with simpler, better and more readily described legislation in this area, where it's badly needed. Whether they'll come up with some threshold numbers I don't know; I rather doubt they will. But it will be clear as to what triggers this review process. It won't take much to trigger the review process, particularly in the case of gravel pits.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister mentioned that there would be a different threshold figure; I'm not sure whether he's talking about it being lower or higher. I know some gravel pits that would reach 10,000 tonnes in a hurry. Is he talking about a threshold for gravel pits that would be greater or less than 10,000 tonnes a year?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think it's fairly clear that it can be less; it could be an awful lot less. There could be some borrowing operation next to a highway which was relatively minor; nevertheless, because it's highly visible or there is dust or other local concerns, it would be reviewable. I think what I'm trying to say, perhaps not too well, is that it's difficult to come up with much smaller quantities — we have one number in the legislation, for example— or with a smaller number, maybe 1,000 tonnes a year, certainly a smaller number than 10,000, but one that would cover every case where there is likely to be, or where in fact there is, a local concern. I think it's a local concern which would drive the process rather than the tonnage in those cases.

MS. EDWARDS: The definition also says that "...both the facilities at the mine site and such offsite facilities as are designated by the chief inspector..." shall be involved in the review process. I wonder if the minister could clarify what offsite facilities might be routinely included in these sorts of hearings.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I could think of on-site investments — a crusher or processing operations related to the actual mining itself. If a road has to be driven through other lands, that is, I presume, offsite as opposed to on-site. Nevertheless, if they are related investments of any significance, they would also qualify for a review as part of the project, if not part of the mine.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. EDWARDS: This section deals with the mine development certificate. Subsection (3) says: "An application under subsection (1) shall be made available for inspection by the public in accordance with the regulations." I wonder if the minister could describe how the application would be made available for inspection by the public. I know the regulations are not made yet, but the question, of course, as the minister knows, is: are you simply talking about a referral through ministries or about referrals through municipal or regional governments?

This is a matter of considerable concern, Mr. Minister, because it's the only place where there is an absolute surety of public process. It's required by the legislation right here; it's not required otherwise. It can be ordered by the minister, but this is the only place where it is certain that there will be an opportunity for public review. I wonder if the minister can describe how he sees that happening.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Copies would certainly be available in libraries in the area affected, but the ministry itself would take on the obligation of endeavouring to determine who the interested parties were and who the affected parties might be. To ensure that they receive copies directly, there would be publication of the fact that there's going to be a hearing. I think in some part the obligation rests on those who are in any way interested in the review process, and who want to participate or sit in on it or whatever, to go after the information. The information will be available gratis.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister used the term "hearing" here, I wasn't sure that this meant a hearing. It says "public review, " and that doesn't necessarily mean a hearing. I want to clarify whether the minister means that there will be a hearing at this point or whether he will advertise. He said "advertise." Then

[ Page 10998 ]

he said "circulate the information to all interested parties." I think that could include a whole range of possibilities. I have in mind the Windy Craggy mine review process, which has even gone beyond the province. I assume that was at the ministry's discretion. Is that what the minister sees? Does he mean a hearing in every case, or only an opportunity for review?

[7:00]

HON. MR. DAVIS: The application and the rationale for the application will automatically be made public. Whether there's a hearing or not will rest not just with the Mines minister but collectively with the ministers on the review panel, or represented on the review panel. In a case like Windy Craggy, I can't imagine the process being complete without a public forum. But there may well be some mine developments where there isn't any particular concern or any substantial concern, either federally, provincially or locally. The project could proceed without any hearing whatsoever.

A proposal of the visibility of Windy Craggy is clearly going to require a couple of years. It is not only going to require a full airing of international impacts and transborder impacts in the sense of B.C.-Yukon, but will also involve the federal Fisheries Act, perhaps Navigable Waters and so on. So the federal government will be interested, I hope, not only in participating in our hearing, but participating actively, even supplying us with a representative or two. We will have to have a full airing, and everyone will be heard.

The proceedings will be public, and so will the submissions - first the initial one in the case of Windy Craggy, and then revised submissions. We are requiring a revised submission — at least a chapter 2, if you like — from the Windy Craggy people, because it didn't seem to us, just on first blush, that they had a chance of getting the project approved in the manner they'd presented it. So there will be different stages, and they'll vary depending on the project, its nature and the problems envisaged.

But the decision as to whether there will be full-scale public hearings or not will rest essentially with the government, with the Minister of Mines and the Ministry of Environment.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister speaks again about a public hearing, and there are other points in the process at which there could be a public hearing.

I'm questioning the minister as to whether he sees this as a probability at this stage. An inquiry by an assessment panel could happen later. I'm wondering how the minister sees this happening, because this looked to me more like a review. It didn't look necessarily like a public hearing, although the minister is saying there could be a public hearing.

Whatever public process goes ahead, will the public participation be formal at this stage? I'm always concerned, as the minister may know by now, at the process of open houses versus some more formal kind of hearing. An open house is very nice; it allows people to come in and be dealt with one by one. There is much less opportunity for people to get together and raise a ruckus, if you'd like to put it that way. But it also doesn't allow the public the opportunity to hear the views of other members of the public.

So I'm curious as to how the minister sees this happening. I'm very interested in the process. I'm interested in knowing whether the applicant or the ministry is going to do the ordering and the taking out to the public. Who receives the input from the public when the public makes input? Does it go to the minister? Does it go to the proponent? Who is going to get the information? Is there a process that assures members of the public who go that they can trace whether or not their input has been listened to?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I hesitate to use these terms, but I think that essentially we'll ad hoc it. We'll try to read the situation and see what concern exists out there. If there is genuine concern, then there will be an opportunity for that concern to not only be heard but to be debated properly in an open forum. Certainly those who participated actively would see whether or not their input was heard and indeed acted on.

If I can take the Cinola project — which has now been put off indefinitely — we stated last year that the concern of the native people on the Queen Charlottes and the concern of fishermen who fished in the general vicinity of the Queen Charlotte Islands, for example, would be taken into account. They would have an opportunity in a public situation to make their presentations. Indeed, the timing of the hearing — I'll call it — was decided to be at a time convenient to the fishermen, when they would be generally available and not out fishing at the height of the fishing season. So it will depend. If there's a likely impact on a fishery or otherwise on the local environment, if Indian land claims are in any way involved or if there are local municipal interests or international concerns, they will all be addressed. If they appear to the government to be significant, then the whole process will be made as public as possible.

If the hon. member is asking whether this will all be highly legalistic and all evidence sworn and so on, I would say that not usually. I think we'd rather it be a more relaxed atmosphere and an opportunity for people to put forward their ideas, but also an opportunity to track the whole process and see what weight was given to their arguments in the process.

MS. EDWARDS: I certainly don't believe you have to have a formal situation in order to have the public assured that they know where their input is going to go and whether or not it did later, but it sometimes does need certain structures which they know about and can then use, because they know how to use them and what the structure is. That's why I'm pleased that this is going into legislation. I think that's useful.

The minister didn't answer. I believe and I hope he said that the ministry will deal with the input from the public, but he didn't say that; he said it would be

[ Page 10999 ]

ad hoc. I would like to know specifically whether the proponent or the ministry will receive the information from the public, because that could make a difference in how they feel about it.

I'd also like to know about the section which allows a minister to require the applicant to undergo public consultation with other groups. Is it possible that if that's the case, it would be the only public interaction that would take place in a community? I can see this happening with a minister deciding that a specific group, for example the native group in the Queen Charlottes as far as the Cinola was concerned.... You might talk with them and the commercial fishermen and then leave it at that. Is that a possibility?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member is way ahead of herself. This section deals only with the initial filing. It doesn't deal with the rest of the process right through to a decision either way. These are the conditions required in the initial filing.

However, I used the words "ad hoc" in a general way; I really meant related to the size and significance of the development. The degree of process will be much more elaborate in the case of a middle- or large-size development which is highly controversial, as opposed to a small development surrounded by no controversy whatsoever. We'll deal with those in different ways.

If the hon. member is asking whether people with some concern, let alone considerable concern, in a particular project will have their day, my answer has to be that they'll have every opportunity to have their views heard. It will be one of the responsibilities of the Mines minister to make sure that their views are indeed heard and that they get as much information as possible from the developing company and from the ministries that will be providing critiques of the various aspects of the proposal by the developer.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: Subsection 4(b) allows the minister to direct the applicant to undergo mediation before the application is accepted. Again, I wish the minister would describe who would conduct the mediation in that kind of a case, and why it is not specified in the legislation that the mediator would be an independent mediator. When would you know that your goals had been achieved? Again, the minister may say ad hoc. If that's the case, I would like to know that. For example, might that mediation involve groups like native Indian people in an attempt to avoid confrontations at the mine site for the construction? Is that the kind of thing the minister has in mind?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Because this section deals with the acceptance or otherwise by the ministry of an application, it may be obvious from the start that the developer is of one view and that there are others in the community — say one group particularly — who is of an opposite viewpoint. The minister would endeavour to bring them together and reconcile, if possible, their major differences before the ministry would even embark on this whole review process. This is prior to the process beginning; this isn't during the process. As to some independent mediator, I assume that if we want the mediation to be reasonably successful, it would have to be someone who was a third party and independent.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. EDWARDS: Once the application is here.... This section is modelled fairly closely on the Utilities Commission Act, as I understand it. After a decision is made in this section, is there any provision under the act for appeals? I put these two possibilities forward: from a local community which might be concerned with the handling of an application; or from a mine.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, completion of this process doesn't take for granted, for example, that the Ministry of Environment will grant an application under the Water Act to utilize a certain quantity of water. There are numerous other pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with, and each of those pieces of legislation have their particular appeal processes attached. So the appeal would occur under one of a number of headings — for example, under the Water Act. If water were a crucial item, that's where the appeal would be launched. The Water Act has its own description of appeals, how they're dealt with and who deals with the appeal.

MS. EDWARDS: I think it's possible that an application could be rejected on the basis of some reason that is not in any other legislation. If that were the case, is there an appeal process?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The simple answer is no. It would be a cabinet decision. But it's a first step — a major step — in the process. However, it doesn't automatically guarantee delivery of permits by each and every ministry which has to rule in respect to other related matters such as water supply, power supply or dust emission standards. They have to conform to each and every one of those particular laws in order to have all their clearances necessary before financing.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister has considered — and I bring it up at this point — that there are a number of processes in this province for dealing with the same sorts of things. I am talking about the energy review process, the major project review process, the Utilities Commission process and so on. Did the minister and the members of his ministry consider at any time some consolidation of the requirements for some of these review processes so that we wouldn't have so many? I ask this of the

[ Page 11000 ]

minister; I'm sure he would prefer a simpler world too, but I'd like to hear his answer.

HON. MR. DAVIS: We're certainly endeavouring to streamline the process. We don't want to streamline it to the extent that it rules out relevant interventions. I'm sure that isn't what the member had in mind. More comprehensive legislation: Environment argued that it should be given time to come in with a bill that covered all major projects in the province.

The federal government has actually tabled a bill which similarly covers major federal projects. I'm told that it will be at least two years before the federal government will be prepared to come back to the House of Commons with a final bill. It will take at least a year here, if not more. We thought it better in the case of mines, as we've done in the past in respect to major energy projects, to simply put into legislation what the practice was in the province. So this bill simply puts in law in a more formal way what is in fact the practice in the province today, hopefully anticipating changes — improvements, if you like — which may be made in the years to come. But of course this bill could also be amended.

[7:15]

This bill is specific to mining in British Columbia. It doesn't have to take into account all kinds of considerations relative to water discharges from a pulp mill. It doesn't have to have more general phraseology which covers all possibilities in so-called simpler language. I rather doubt if the language of a comprehensive bill will be simpler. It could be much more elaborate. I'm sure the draftsmen are overawed with the prospect of having to try to draft a bill which not only does for mining what this has been doing for mining, but does the same or a similar job in respect to food processing or wood products or indeed many kinds of manufacturing and even commercial activities.

I think that where's there a line ministry, the line ministry should have legislation similar to this, focused more on that industry and its characteristics, and then there should be a general bill covering all the rest. That's maybe where we'll end up.

MS. EDWARDS: I can see the difficulties that the minister points out and I'm not sure that it would work, but it certainly deserves a question, I believe. There are at least three processes within this ministry itself.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. EDWARDS: This section talks about the assessment panel, if a panel is decided by the minister. It says that if the two ministers agree, technical experts may be appointed to the panel, but beyond that there's no indication of who will be assigned to the review. Could the minister clarify who will be on the panel? Would it include, for example, community representatives, or would the process continue, as now, to be conducted by members of ministry staff? That, of course, could lead to certain things, but I'll leave the question open now for the minister.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Essentially, we're describing in legislation what the practice has been over the last ten years. This reflects the practice as of now, where all affected ministries will have a representative on the panel.

Mr. McRae is saying that if it goes to a public hearing, there would also be people appointed from outside government to sit on the panel. There would be a special inquiry, let's say, ordered under the Inquiry Act, where the panel would be separately and differently constituted than has been the customary case in the past where we've simply had in-house people on the panel. Again, that's in circumstances where there's considerable public concern, a variety of concerns expressed, and the need for every appearance of objectivity.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister indicates now that this may not necessarily be a public panel. I hadn't initially thought of that. He also makes a distinction between what might be a panel appointed for a public hearing and a panel appointed to simply review it. He says that it would have to be the observance of objectivity. I would suggest to the minister that I think that would apply whether it were public or not.

There are some concerns, and I would like the minister to clarify whether he sees that most of these would be public, or might not be public. In terms of having ministry staff on.... For example, with a Utilities Commission hearing, members of a ministry cannot examine other members from the same ministry. Does the minister see any conflict in that kind of situation?

I would also like to repeat my question about the probability of having more arm's-length and community involvement for this panel.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think the hon. member is making one assumption. She's assuming that the government employees on the usual panel don't have the public interest in mind. I am sure they are as publicly minded as anyone else, so I'm not really questioning their motives or their judgment.

A majority of the reviews to date have not been public, in the sense of the appointment of an assessment panel or assessment panel members from outside of the ministries, but certainly projects of the scale and complexity of Cinola and definitely the scale and nature of Windy Craggy would require an assessment panel to be established at an intermediate stage in the process. Of course, not only the appearance but the fact of their objectivity would have to be well established in everyone's mind.

MS. EDWARDS: I certainly never assume, Mr. Minister, that the public servants don't have the public interest at hand, because I believe that in almost every case they do. The question is that there

[ Page 11001 ]

is sometimes a predilection, perhaps I should call it, presumed with ministry. That kind of predilection could work against the acceptance by the public of whatever the decision. So I'm asking the minister about that. In this case the panel may be there and the public doesn't know what's going on.

I see that the minister sees as quite a possible situation that the assessment panel may not in fact deal publicly at all. They may do their inquiry work behind the scenes and then report directly, I presume, to the two ministers. Again, I would encourage the minister to consider that whether or not they are public-dealing publicly or not-they in fact should be seen to be totally objective and willing to deal with what's there; in other words, be able to put something before the public that the public is going to accept as very objective and not biased by a ministry or industry viewpoint or by the advocacy that the ministry may do otherwise for the industry.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, these matters are also substantially dealt with in section 5.

Subsection (3)(a) I think is specifically designed for a Windy Craggy kind of situation, where we will certainly be appointing an assessment panel that is objective and will carry out its review in public. So I don't think there's a problem. And in section 5, towards the end, it makes explicit what kinds of information would be made public and at what stages.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MS. EDWARDS: Thanks to the minister's direction, we're moving on to section 5. We can deal with it here too.

If the application is referred to an assessment panel, that still doesn't mean it has to have public hearings. The minister has made that very clear. So it's correct that the only required public involvement is under section 2. There is a reference here to a "reasonable period of time." The panel can be given powers under the Inquiry Act, as the minister has said.

Then under subsection 7: "On conclusion of its inquiry, the assessment panel shall submit a report and recommendations to the minister and the Minister of Environment, and the minister shall make the report and recommendations public for a reasonable period of time before disposing of the application under section 6." Perhaps the minister would like to speak to that particular phrase, which is very broad at the moment. What do you mean by "reasonable period of time"?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I really have no idea. If it was the Windy Craggy project, and the panel was divided materially — a majority one way or the other, presumably for approval — then the government may well want to take a good, hard look at the situation and may indeed want some other kind of review made. A reasonable period of time? I don't know. It can be any period of time. It doesn't oblige the government to make a decision, but there's an assumption that in using this process and following it religiously, the applicant will know whether the project is go or no go at the end of the day. We'll always know, within reason, where it stands. I think "reasonable period" is a period of months; in my mind it's certainly not years. But again it'll depend on the project and the degree of controversy and complexity of the project.

MS. EDWARDS: I was more concerned that the minister might say weeks or days, and I think that would probably not be reasonable for the public to respond. I didn't hear him say that, so I assume that he doesn't mean it would be a rush job on this kind of technical work that the public has to do some work on if it's going to respond intelligently.

This is a very short question. I presume that the panel would not duplicate any review work that would already be done for other certificates required.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, I think that's generally true. Hopefully we are reducing, if not eliminating, the overlapping jurisdictions of the different ministries — indeed, overlapping federal-provincial as well — and simplifying the process. But we can't miss the essentials and the essential arguments, pro and con. If this appeal panel, for example, turned down a project, I think that it would be the end of the road for that development in that shape, form and location. Perhaps then the hon. member wouldn't have much trouble with the word "weeks." That was off the top of my head -months rather than years. That's just my feel of the situation.

I don't think that the panel necessarily commits a ministry to some final ruling under an act for which that ministry is responsible. But hopefully the ministry — let's say it's Environment and that it's a water related matter.... Environment has already been heard; its concerns have already been expressed. They've been well documented one way or the other. The tendency would be for the panel to be reaching a general conclusion which didn't require yet another go-round in respect to the individual permitting process. The permits would tend to flow fairly quickly after the panel had reported out.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a question here to the minister. Under subsection (2) it says: "Where, under section 5(2), the assessment panel has recommended that an approval, licence, permit or other statutory authorization...be made, given or issued" — there are other specifics in here, but I'll abbreviate — "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that" those things be "given or issued subject to any conditions that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council specifies."

[ Page 11002 ]

[7:30]

That then overrules the power of ministers for the specific.... A minister may have power to issue a permit, licence, or whatever. Now if the panel recommends to the minister that it be done, can the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council order that minister to allow that permit or licence to be given?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think that the cabinet in total can always overrule an individual minister or ministry, but that's highly unusual and would be unlikely in the case where the process has already gone through the normal adjudication and through a panel. I want to say again that the normal process plus the panel scrutiny would surely have dealt with the relevant matters — water cleanliness, just for one — and it wouldn't be necessary for a ministry or minister to suddenly stand up and say: "Uh-uh. I oppose the panel's recommendation or the granting of a permit under the Water Act."

His representatives should much earlier on have indicated their concern, and their concern should have been properly researched and the answers provided either by amending the application or otherwise. The last-minute intervention by a ministry — that is, last-minute after the panel has reported out — I would think is unlikely if everyone is doing their job.

MS. EDWARDS: One of the consequences I saw, Mr. Minister, was the appeal allowance. Some of the permits and licences allow an appeal process. If that were the case, is that appeal process forgone if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council now allows that permit or licence?

HON. MR. DAVIS: If the appeal process calls for a hearing, I think one could argue that the hearing has already been held. It's covered in the Utilities Commission Act that way. I would assume this legislation would have a similar result.

But if there's an appeal mechanism under the water, for example, a party having a concern could appeal to the Minister of Environment under the mechanism provided in the Water Act for a review of the issuance of a permit. Hopefully, the Ministry of Environment could move quickly one way or another, once it had considered any new information, whatever this opposing interest raised.

I'm not at all sure that the appeal process as identified in individual acts would be subverted or otherwise rendered unnecessary by Bill 59 or the act that follows it. However, whether the right to the appeal is granted or not, I assume it is in some measure up to the minister or the government of the day.

These late interventions, I assume, would be dealt with, if at all, by political considerations: "What does the public out there feel about all this, now that everything's out on the table and the panel has had its say?" The panel has presumably approved. If it hadn't approved, I doubt if there'd be an appeal.

The panel, after due process, has approved. There may be some "political reasons" for government to still stay the development, and that could take place through reviving the appeal mechanism under a particular piece of legislation for a particular permit.

I hope, however, that long before that moment is reached, the question at issue would have been well addressed in the drafting of the application initially, turned back several times perhaps before it's finally approved for review by the ministry people, and then reviewed further by a panel — so that there aren't any great surprises at the end of the road or indeed any "political reason." Again, it would be public concern to negate the panel's recommendation.

MS. EDWARDS: If there's good public process, that happens. But I'm trying to clarify the right of appeal. Here it clarifies that the Ministers of Energy and Environment still remain the final arbiters of the fate of the application. I'm just putting this to clarify the power of the panel. The panel is not an independent panel in any sense that the Utilities Commission is; it simply recommends to the two ministers.

So the function of the bill is exactly as the minister said, but not further. It allows a single window for applications, but it does not change the power of who makes the decision. There is nothing to this panel except an advisory capacity.

[Mr. Lovick in the chair.]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is right. In simplistic terms, the panel is advisory. I think the ministers would ignore the panel at their peril, but it is advisory. It isn't a ruling such as by the Utilities Commission, which is final and mandatory.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MS. EDWARDS: In section 7, interestingly enough, the Ministry of Environment disappears — exit stage left. The Minister of Energy is now the operative person in subsection (2): "On receipt of an application, the minister shall issue the certificate if the minister considers that the relevant terms...." Why is the Minister of Environment not involved at this stage? Is there any particular reason that he now disappears? Is he busy on another play?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the role of the Mines minister thereafter is one of tracking or monitoring to make sure that all the terms and conditions are in fact observed by the applicant company.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MS. EDWARDS: This clause says: "The minister may enter into agreements consistent with this act

[ Page 11003 ]

with the government of Canada and other jurisdictions." Presumably that's just to deal with the environmental assessment review process of the federal government, and so on. I simply want that clarified.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. DAVIS: That's one — I'll call it ministry. Although the federal legislation revising the environmental review legislation of 1971 virtually creates another department in Ottawa, it's not going to be directly under the Ministry of Environment. We would also take into account the concerns of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We would take into account any concern that Transport Canada may have regarding navigable waters and so on. In certain instances it's clear that a permit or permits will be required from the federal side, so we would always want them involved as much as possible in the process so they don't have to institute yet another process to review their particular concerns.

We did that with the island pipeline; we were setting it up to deal with the Cinola project. At every stage on the island pipeline, for example, Fisheries and Oceans gave us the nod before we would proceed. In other words, they had the next thing to veto power when it came to terms and conditions of construction of the line.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MS. EDWARDS: This is where the minister sets the fees. Is it the goal of the minister to have this process be self-funding?

HON. MR. DAVIS: That hasn't been decided finally as yet, but certainly it's my objective.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, let's get to the real question, Mr. Minister. Has the minister considered intervener funding? Will the fees be set to cover the situation, such as the electromagnetic field hearing by the Utilities Commission in Courtenay, where the commission chair said that had he had the opportunity, he thought it would have been fair to have some intervener funding so that a point of view other than that of the proponent could be presented? Has the minister considered that intervener funding be considered and included?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The policy of this government is not to fund interveners.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MS. EDWARDS: This is the regulation section, and it talks about the regulations that will be written. Are these regulations basically in place? The process has been in place for quite a while, so I have to assume we're not going to wait a long time for regulations. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DAVIS: That is correct.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MS. EDWARDS: This deals with the transitional stage. Will the Windy Craggy project be reviewed under this act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 59, Mine Development Assessment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR, RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill PR401, Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990.

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

MR. MERCIER: Bill PR401 is presented to enable the Vancouver Stock Exchange to, among other things, ensure that the exchange has jurisdiction to investigate and discipline persons who have allegedly committed infractions of exchange bylaws and rules but who have since left the industry and cease to be registered; to standardize the wording of the act in this regard; and to empower the exchange to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents for regulatory purposes.

The bill will enable the enforcement of disciplinary measures of the Vancouver Stock Exchange over its members for the greater protection of the public and will improve the application of self-regulation and self-discipline procedures to those who would operate outside the regulations.

The final item is that the bill will also make provision for the appointment of a trustee, liquidator, receiver or receiver-manager over the whole or part of the undertaking and affairs of a member.

[7:45]

MR. CLARK: On behalf of the New Democratic Party and the official opposition, I can say that we have no hesitation in supporting this bill. I would

[ Page 11004 ]

just concur with the remarks of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and say that the specific clause which I am in strong support of is the ability to enforce regulations particularly on those who have left the securities industry. This enhances the ability of the Vancouver Stock Exchange to deal with members who may or may not still be practising in the field, which is a problem that has arisen in Ontario over time.

There are many other aspects of the bill which commend themselves, and we on this side of the House have no hesitation in supporting it wholeheartedly.

MR. MERCIER: I move that Bill PR401 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill PR401, Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 50.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. L. HANSON: It is my privilege to put forward Bill 50, Municipal Amendment Act, 1990. Bill 50 contains revisions which clarify regional district legislation passed last year and makes minor corrections. It also contains measures which provide taxpayers with more effective means of voting on regional services. And it contains revisions which allow municipalities to enact bylaws to make smoke alarms mandatory in existing dwellings.

MR. BLENCOE: We will be supporting the bill. Indeed, it appears that this bill is truly housekeeping. With that, Mr. Speaker, I take my place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to move that Bill 50 be read for the second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 50, Municipal Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

MR. LOVICK: There are some expressions of anxiety emanating from various corners of the House. I suspect that what has happened is that a number of people are looking at summer weather and saying they could think of a better place to be.

I am not going to be unduly long.

Interestingly, the member who is pounding his desk in approval is the gentleman who took an hour sometime earlier wanting to say something on estimates. But I'll let that pass, because he isn't in his proper seat.

I wanted to touch base with the whole area of the public consultation process, something that the minister in her opening remarks, although they were brief, wanted to identify her ministry with; she was pointing to that and saying that she felt very happy about that commitment to consultation.

The predicament, I guess, to put the matter as delicately as one can, is that the minister and her officials have constantly spoken of a consultative process. Indeed, they have published a flashy pamphlet on the subject called "The Public Consultation Process." The minister, moreover, has written letters to the editors of certain newspapers talking about the public consultation process.

Curiously, however, what has happened is that there seems to be a pattern of complaint up and down the length of.... Take, for instance, the Island Highway project. Up and down the length of that route citizen groups and communities from Merville all the way to Saanich, doing a complete hook around again, up to Saanich again, down the Island — in other words, to the bottom and then all the way back up again to Saanich.... People in those communities everywhere all seem to be making the same complaint. They all say that the consultation process, much touted, is in fact a sham. It isn't real, because the deal has been done; the fix is in. Those are the words we hear.

Needless to say, what causes me concern about that is not only the particulars of the case — and obviously something very frightening in that, that people do have that perception — but also the implications for the entire process of governing. Individuals are going to feel increasingly cynical about the entire process of governing if they perceive that the consultation process is essentially show biz rather than the real thing.

I want to start by just asking the minister if she could explain something for me in terms of the estimates book. I decided to do a little digging in that break we had, and I noticed under item 40 in the supplement to the estimates, which is the STOB.... Standard operating object of expenditure is what that item refers to. I understand that this refers entirely to publications and advertisements. We are talking about a significant amount of money, some $399,000 allocated for item 40, advertising promotion.

[ Page 11005 ]

I'm wondering if the minister could tell me whether it is the case that this is the budget being used to produce the television advertisements talking about the consultative process, and the newspaper advertisements, the ones that are certainly featured in my community of Nanaimo, on the subject of the inner route. Could she also tell us whether this amount of money represents a significant increase over the normal operating procedure of the Ministry of Highways as compared to, say, the last five years?

I'll give my reason for asking the question. There's no mystery in this. It seems to me — and this is a case that I am sure a number of people who have complained about the consultative process would argue — that what we are looking at is a process of consultation that tends, unfortunately, to be largely a process of public relations; propagandizing, to put it less delicately. What we have is a tremendous resource on the part of the ministry being used to convince the people that what the ministry is doing is good for them. Rather than addressing their specific questions, rather than saying, "Yes, we'll consider your input as part of the process," the ministry is coming up with a very slick, effective and well-orchestrated campaign of public relations.

I am wondering if the minister would like to respond to that — if my reading of the STOB is correct or if I am missing something. It seems to me very clear that item 40 in the supplement to the estimates, STOB, makes it very clear that what we're talking about is a much-inflated public relations budget.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Nanaimo, yes, the item you mentioned is the source of funding for the publications. When you look at a budget of some $1 billion, the sum is not outrageously out of line.

I'm pleased to hear you say that you believe we're undertaking a major initiative, which you refer to as public relations, because the number of projects that we have on the drawing-board is such that it's important that we are advising the public as much as we can and involving them as best we can. So, yes, you're correct, the source of funding is in that part of the estimate.

MR. LOVICK: I'm wondering if the minister could answer the other part of the question. What does that sum of money represent, by comparison with previous budgets, such as, say, last year's and the ones for the preceding two years? It doesn't have to be a perfectly specific answer, but give us some sense of the magnitude of this particular budget allocation.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: According to the numbers given to me, Mr. Chairman, we had $435,000 in last year, and this year, $605,000.

MR. LOVICK: That certainly puts it in perspective.

Can the minister tell me what portion of that STOB amount is in fact being devoted to telling us about the consultative process? What percentage of the ads and the television programs, and so forth, is in fact designed to tell us that consultation is going on?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We don't have that breakdown at this time. It would be very insignificant. But I'll get you the precise numbers.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer, and look forward to receiving that.

Part of my concern, I guess, in asking that specific question has to do with the fact that it may be the case — and I'm choosing my words very carefully — that some of those advertisements that we are seeing are in fact somewhat misleading.

For example, let's take the Mid-Island Express, okay? The B.C. Ferry thing. Don't worry, Madam Minister, we're not going to have to call staff back. But if we're trying to suggest that that particular initiative came from any kind of consultative process such as those regional task forces that were established throughout the province, then that's simply not the case. That particular initiative, as nearly as I can make out — and I'm perfectly willing to be disabused of this notion — came entirely from ministry personnel. It was a good idea, but it certainly wasn't part of a consultative process. Yet the advertisements we're seeing on TV — it seems to me, at least, and I'll give the minister an opportunity to respond — suggest that that idea came as a result of your government, friends and neighbours, consulting with you and talking with you about your ideas for how to improve and enhance your freedom to move.

You can understand my concern, then, whether that advertising campaign is in fact simply misleading. I'm wondering if the minister could answer my question.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the ads. If you would like to give me the specifics, I could certainly respond with a little bit more intelligence. I don't have time to watch television.

MR. LOVICK: Well, I wish a knew the ad better. The minister said that she hasn't had time to watch the television; nor have I. I saw the tail end of one ad, and if I had seen it better perhaps I could sing it for her or something. I'm sure it has a jingle to it, right? But I'm sorry I don't know it well enough to do that.

[8:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Try.

MR. LOVICK: No, no. I shan't try, tune unheard, or anything like that.

You can understand, I hope, Madam Minister, my concern. If we're talking about a public consultation process and saying it produces X results, and the example we use to illustrate the consultative process is not in fact a result of that process, then what we're dealing with is pretty shady, to put it mildly. So I

[ Page 11006 ]

hope that you agree with me that it is a serious question, one that deserves some attention.

I'm going to come back to a point I made earlier, vis-à-vis the consultative process. As I say, and I don't believe I'm exaggerating, everybody from Merville all the way down the Island, and then coming around and all the way up again to Saanich and throughout the Saanich Peninsula — you've got, what, 17 groups now having formed? — is making the same complaint. I've had this conversation, by the way, with a number of your officials, specifically Gregg Singer, the project director. Nobody can deny the fact that all of these people are registering concern that the consultation process isn't in place. I'm wondering if the minister would like to respond to those concerns.

I know she had a meeting — I believe it was two weeks ago now — with a number of representatives or delegates from groups up and down the Island. They left the meeting saying: "The minister's mind was made up, and therefore the public input didn't matter." They are cynical. They are angered. I'm wondering if the minister would like to respond to that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There has been a great deal of public consultation. You are absolutely correct: I did meet last week in my office with representatives of a number of groups. I'm left with the impression that people — I'll talk specifically about the Vancouver Island highway — who are not pleased with the route or design or some facet of the proposed highway have been coming forward giving their opinions. But if those opinions aren't adhered to 100 percent in the redrafting of the design or scope of the project, they are somehow arriving at the conclusion that we aren't listening, that there really is no public consultation and that it's, as you said, a done deal.

It has not been a done deal. We have allowed for a great deal of public participation. We have also allowed for consultants and, more or less, the expertise that we have to pay for in attempting to come up with a solution that's going to do a couple of things. It's going to provide us with a design for a safe and efficient highway. And yet, as best we can, it's going to take into consideration the concerns expressed to us by the general public, as they've been coming to the meetings, writing us letters or contacting Gregg Singer, particularly, or other people in the ministry.

The fact that we aren't able to accommodate every single, solitary suggestion for alignment of the highway doesn't mean we aren't listening — because we are. I consider the ministry staff to be very good listeners. We have been out — I have been out — on a number of occasions speaking to a variety of groups. They are not always satisfied with what we are doing, but we're giving them every opportunity — as has never been the case before — to look at the options available to us and subsequently have their input. But there comes a day when a decision has to be made if we're going to proceed with the project. In some cases we have made or are about to make those decisions. But those decisions are only going to be made after we have allowed for what in our opinion is considerable public input and participation and have attempted to address the concerns that have come to us.

MR. LOVICK: I certainly appreciate that answer, and I don't for a moment question its sincerity. The predicament, however, is that the area for consultation seems relatively small based on the testimony of all those citizens' groups that are protesting. They are arguing that it's a done deal insofar as a particular alignment or corridor has been decided.

To be sure, we may move back and forth little bits and pieces within the corridor, and to Singer's and others' everlasting credit, they have been willing to listen and have made some adjustments. The fact remains, however, that the basic corridor is not to be questioned. In my own constituency, for example, there are two instances. One is the so-called inner route versus the outer bypass. We all know the rather chequered history of that, Madam Minister. We remember that in November '88 we were promised the outer bypass. Apparently it made good sense. Apparently highway engineering and everything told us it was a good route then. Subsequently, however, it has been decided that it isn't a good route.

So there's the concern that suddenly the whole question of an outer route — at least for the foreseeable future — is no longer on the agenda. Individuals in my community are saying: "Wait a minute. We never had an opportunity to have a debate over outer versus inner." Instead the debate concerned what we might do about the inner-route corridor to somehow mitigate its impact on us? You can understand the concern. That's one instance.

The other one is that individuals in the community of Ladysmith just to the south have a community plan — something called Ladysmith 2000. That plan also posits the notion of something like a bypass following a hydro right-of-way. The city council and others are arguing that nobody has ever spoken with them about the fact that they had their own community plan. That hasn't been part of the calculus, according to my information. So you can understand then the cynicism. I see that you're having some discussion with the engineering staff, so therefore I'm prepared to listen to that.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Which route do you figure Nanaimo?

MR. LOVICK: If the member opposite who's chirping away could read, Mr. Chairman, he'd know what I had to say on the subject. However, I won't belabour that point.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: You need to know a lot, Mr. Member, a lot; more than I can satisfy you with, I'm afraid.

[ Page 11007 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, we have attempted — and it is our policy — to work with local government all along the road. As I explained to the delegation that met with me last week, there aren't enough hours in the day or days in the week for me to meet with representatives of every ratepayers' group, so there are liaison committees set up all along the proposed alignment of the Island and Pat Bay Highways.

There are local councils that I would expect would be the first point of contact that the local ratepayers' groups should be making, because the staff in the ministry and the consultants are working very closely with the local elected people. That's really where the jurisdiction lies.

I know, as you do, of the controversy surrounding the Nanaimo inner route. We are attempting to come to resolution over that. But we are going to proceed with the inner route in Nanaimo. It has been determined in a number of ways that to go with the outer route at this time will not properly service not only the present but the projected — over the next several years — traffic.

A very significant percentage of the traffic that we are attempting to accommodate is local traffic. Only 15 or 20 percent is determined to be pass-through traffic. If we don't go in there and do something, Nanaimo will very quickly, in the next couple of years, be badly clogged up with traffic. I would really like to hear your comments, as a local MLA, on that subject.

I don't have to run for election there; you do. I think that you should be telling us what your constituents and what you believe we should be doing to address the problem there.

MR. LOVICK: I never thought I'd see the day, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Transportation and Highways would be taking advice from the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) on that side, but so be it.

My position, you know, has been rather clearly enunciated. You have a number of letters on file from me. You've probably, I'm sure, seen columns on the subject that I've written.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't get the Nanaimo paper.

MR. LOVICK: On the contrary, your staff is well aware of what goes on in Nanaimo, I can assure you. Your turn-around time in responding to everything I say is very quick, by the way. I'm well aware of how well informed you are about whatever I've said in Nanaimo on the subject.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: For the record.

MR. LOVICK: The question I'm posing to you is whether it is the case that in November of 1988 you were dealing with a ministry composed of incompetents who didn't know what they were talking about; who committed themselves to a $240 million project bypassing Nanaimo as a result of 20 years of study; who apparently said that this was the way to go and who then within two years' time suddenly decided: "Whoops, we made a mistake."

Is that what you are now telling me, that what was said in November of '88 when the project was announced was incompetence on the part of the ministry? That's the only conclusion I can draw, Madam Minister.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Okay. Let's try a simpler and more straightforward question, not nearly so contentious perhaps. What about Ladysmith? Is that particular deal done? I attended the open house. I know the good work done by your staff. They're certainly trying to answer questions. But is that particular deal done? In other words, is the main road through Ladysmith now going to happen whatever those citizens may have to say about the subject?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The public consultation has been done. The technical assessment is nearing completion. Ministry staff are expecting to be ready to come forward with the recommendation in the not too distant future.

MR. LOVICK: The question, though, is whether the particular alignment, the particular configuration — i.e., using the existing highway, expanding and improving that highway that runs directly beside the waterfront — is the only option. In other words, are we saying that we have entirely dismissed any notion of heading west, away from the waterfront? You can understand Ladysmith's concerns. It's a community like Parksville. You know what we did in Parksville. We put a five-lane road through the middle of town, allowing left and right turns from that middle lane, and we're also building a bypass around Parksville.

I've written you a letter on the subject. The people of Ladysmith are saying, "If it's good enough for Parksville, why don't you consider doing something like that for us" — especially given that the minister and her project staff, both Richard James before and Gregg Singer now, have acknowledged that what we're looking at here is an interim measure. We know that eventually we will need some kind of outer route, some outer bypass.

Given that, will you answer the question — if you can — as to whether there is any possibility of another route, beyond the one going directly through the downtown as talked about in the drawings and in the plans and projections of your ministry staff at the open house? Is there anything else on the agenda or on the table?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I said earlier, staff are compiling all of the information that has been available to them, and they will be coming forward with a recommendation in the not too distant future. It would be rather presumptuous of me to suggest what

[ Page 11008 ]

the recommendation would be and what the alternatives are, when I haven't seen the recommendations.

[8:15]

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour the point, and if I haven't made my question clear enough, I apologize. It seems to me that the presumption and the presumptuousness is to say that there is only one route really being considered. That's what's bothering people. They want to know whether there is any possibility that the official community plan is still alive and well, whether that will even be taken into consideration. To judge from the presentation made at public meetings, there's only one agenda on the table. That's the question. Can the minister answer that?

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Okay. One tries. I appreciate your candour, because you are saying you can't answer it, obviously, for reasons I think anybody can deduce from simply reviewing this discussion. Fair enough.

I don't want to, as I say, pursue this overly, but would the minister explain to us what she meant by her statement in Nanaimo — vis-à-vis the consultation process — when she was reported to have said to local groups there: "Your public input is over. This is going through whether you like it or not"? I'm paraphrasing; I'm not quoting her exactly. Would the minister clarify for us what it was she was saying at that time and how it's consonant with the public consultation process she's been describing?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The member for Nanaimo knows precisely what I said. The public consultation process did go ahead. There was a great deal of public consultation. A great deal of correspondence was received in the ministry office. There was a great deal of evaluation — not only technical but also the comments from the people living in the area, or anyone who had something to say. The decision was finally made that we would be going forward with an inner route. It's as simple as that.

We are not looking at other than the inner route at this time; although, as property on the outer bypass becomes available, we are securing it in order to have less property to purchase 15 to 20 years down the road. We'll go from there.

But as I said earlier, there comes a time when a decision has to be made. That's precisely what we're going to be doing, unless you'd want us to stop and not do anything in Nanaimo at all. We could stop at the borders and use the money in the lower mainland.

MRS. BOONE: I've got a few things. I'm not going to be too long on some of these areas, but I can't let this debate go past without calling the minister's attention to the absolutely disastrous state of our highways in the north. I don't think it's exaggerating to state that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You and Jack Kempf.

MRS. BOONE: That's right.

In fact, a motion came from the Social Credit constituency association at the nomination of Len Fox for Prince George-Omineca, and a resolution was passed calling on the government to make some substantial improvements on that section of the road. I see deputies are writing fiercely. Certainly Social Credit constituencies have a lot of power. But the stretch of road that they're talking about is from Vanderhoof to Prince George, and that stretch has been in a really sad state.

Last year they did what I think is called seal-coating, which resulted in just about everybody who ever travelled that highway having punched-out headlights, windshields and numerous other things. I'm sure the ministry has had lots of calls requesting some assistance on those things. They're asking for a proper covering and repaving of that road and not the seal-coating which took place last year - and which I hope never takes place again.

On the Hart Highway that goes north of Prince George, we're certainly glad to see construction continue on that stretch, which has been a danger to us for a long time. But last winter we went through conditions in that whole area that were unreal because the work never started until August. Then we were left with a pile of mud that created — I don't know if this is unparliamentary or not, but I'll try it anyway — absolute hell for those who were driving in those areas. In fact, there were people who had to get their vehicles towed through there because of the mud at various stages. I couldn't even blame the minister for that. The poor ministry people who were trying to deal with it were having a heck of a time because we had thaw, ridges, mud and everything like that. They did the best they could, Madam Minister. But I want to make sure that that stretch of highway is completed, and that we never again start construction on a stretch of highway in August in the north part of this country. It just doesn't get finished, and we end up with a disaster such as we had there.

There have been calls from the mayors in the region for a dualling of Highway 97 between Prince George and Quesnel due to accidents that took place. I think it was last fall when we had several accidents there that were disastrous. We had a loss of life there on numerous occasions. We'd very much like to see that take place.

The real disaster seems to be.... We who live in the north — and I'm sure I can look at the member from central British Columbia — know what it's like to have frost heaves. I can remember when I was working with the ministry and I was talking to somebody, and they said: "What are frost heaves? What is the state of the highway?" I said: "That says it all as far as I'm concerned." The frost heaves make a disaster of our roads, and every year we put up with it. We know we have to put up with it.

However, Madam Minister, if you go east, in the other direction.... I've gone in just about every direction from Prince George. If you go east out to

[ Page 11009 ]

Valemont and McBride.... I lost a muffler and a windshield going out there on one trip. Of course, half the road is currently caved in. Again, you can't blame the ministry for that. But I can blame the ministry for the state of those things.

One of the things I find really interesting is that there's a small stretch of highway between Valemont and McBride that is in superb condition at all times. I asked the mayor of Valemont why this stretch is great, whereas on the other side, between Prince George and McBride, you've got potholes and frost heaves all over the place. Apparently there was some kind of a special process that was used on that stretch of highway as an example — something that they used just once — and for whatever reason, it works. That stretch of highway is never broken up and does not have frost heaves. I'd like to know why we can't have that type of covering and that type of road throughout the entire north. If they can do it on one stretch of road, why can't we have it everywhere else? Because I'll tell you, the people are fed up with having cracked windshields and lost mufflers. I'm sure that anybody who travels those highways can reiterate this. We would love to see a little extra money put into providing quality roads, so that we wouldn't have disasters happening all the time.

I've written the minister asking for some information regarding what's going to take place on the highways and what the plans are. I received an ambiguous letter back saying all the stuff that was written in the plan was going to take place. But you couldn't tell me how much was budgeted for it or when it would take place, because that would hinder the tendering process. I'd really like to know what is going to take place in the north. What roads are going be paved? Are we going to have any of them repaved? Is there any major project taking place aside from the highway north of us that is currently being continued, and reconstruction of the section that is rained out? What are the plans for the north right now?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak to precisely what we're spending in the northern part of the province. Your comment that Socred ridings do very well isn't going to jibe when I tell you that in Prince George North we have capital funding amounting to $15,395,000 that will be spent there this year, and in rehab $3.6 million. In Prince George South, which happens to be a Socred riding, we're spending $2.5 million on capital and just under $4 million for rehabilitation That should go to strengthen the fact that the ministry isn't looking at whether the riding is held by an NDP member or a Socred member; they attempt to have their priorities set on a more logical basis.

You were wanting to know specifics of the work that was going to be done in your area. Might I suggest that you contact the regional director in your area. He would be pleased to outline precisely what is going to be done in your constituency.

MRS. BOONE: I've already done that, and I haven't got that information back yet.

That highway that you're talking about, the Hart Highway, has been under construction for the past ten years. It's a bit of a standing joke with us that we will eventually.... I think it's a ten-year project to eventually get the Hart Highway finished, and we will be glad to see it finally completed. It has gone on for a long time.

I would like to ask the minister again if the ministry is looking at changing the substance or process that's used.... I'm not sure what they did on that stretch of highway that made that stretch so much better than the rest of it, but if you can do it on one stretch of highway I would think it would be possible to do it on the rest.

Is that stretch of road between Vanderhoof and Prince George...? Seal-coating took place on that last year. The fact that your own Social Credit riding association have called for a full recoating of the highway shows that it's in quite a bad state. We would really like to see some move taken to improve the quality so that we are not constantly faced with.... As I said, it's something that we bear with every year. We know when we go out on the highways that we're going to have potholes and frost heaves, and we know we're going to lose windshields and mufflers. We would really like to see those things rectified so that we are not facing those situations all the time. It has nothing to do with the quality of the staff, who are out there doing the best they can; they're out there plugging up those holes. But I can guarantee you that by next year we're going to have those same holes and those same frost heaves. That has to do with nature.

The construction process or the material used in that stretch of highway makes that stretch far superior. Anybody who drives on it would acknowledge that it comes through the winter well. It does not cause problems for everybody. It may cost more in the short run, but I think in the long run it will save the ministry money, and I can guarantee it will save the rest of the constituents out there money, because it's very costly operating vehicles in our area.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The type of construction used.... I assume it's the Pine Pass area. No?

MRS. BOONE: Between McBride and Valemount.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That is referred to as heavy pavement. We thought that maybe you were talking about the section around Pine Pass and it had something to do with the quality of gravel that allowed for what appeared to be a far superior quality of road surface. We'll check on the other.

The success that the ministry found with the construction in the Pine Pass area.... They intend to use it for some time, because it has been very satisfactory and comes through the winter well.

[8:30]

The seal-coating that you mentioned, I'm told by staff, allows considerably extended life to a road

[ Page 11010 ]

surface that isn't 100 percent the way we would like it. But going in and doing seal-coating, which is certainly less costly, allows us to delay the eventual, very substantial expenditure of rebuilding and repaving. Wherever possible, it is done to extend the life of a road. But of course, it isn't as satisfactory as some of the other types of construction. It's only done when we want to extend a road for a few years until we're in a position to rebuild it properly.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I just want to talk for a short period of time about the Coquihalla Highway — phases 1, 2 and 3. 1 want to say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I have read all the reports and studies regarding the stretch from Vernon to Salmon Arm, and it's my view that on the opening of Coquihalla 3, there's going to be immense pressure on the stretch of Highway 97 that has not yet been four-laned. I would ask the minister to have a very, very serious look at the impact that highway is going to have on the stretch between Vernon and Salmon Arm. I think it's going to be profound, and I don't think the work on that stretch can wait for the time-period as laid out in the plans.

I want to say that the success of Coquihalla 1 and 2 — and we know, of course, that the opposition were opposed to the construction of those highways — has been absolutely enormous. There's no question that the usage of those highways has increased dramatically every year since they opened in 1986. It's also true and evident that the opening of those highways has had a tremendous impact on the economy and on tourism in British Columbia, whether you look at the ski resorts or the houseboat industry or the use of the parks or anything in the interior that those highways feed into.

I want to say, before I sit down, that a couple of small communities in my constituency, Sicamous and Enderby, are going to be significantly impacted by four-laning. I would urge very early consultation, through all the stages of planning, with those two small communities, because it is going to have a truly dramatic effect on their lifestyle.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to pass on to the minister a little bumper-sticker that was handed to me a short while ago. It has to do with the Yellowhead Highway. A submission was made to me as Minister of Tourism that we should give consideration to naming the Yellowhead Highway in British Columbia part of the Trans-Canada Highway North. I have given a lot of thought to this, and I really don't see a tremendous obstacle. I think the ministry should give serious consideration to naming the Yellowhead as Trans-Canada North. It is my understanding from the submission made to me that two other western Canadian provinces have done that, and the third one is about to do it. So I would ask the minister to give consideration to this. And just as a reminder for the minister, I will pass on this little bumper-sticker that she can have.

MR. SERWA: I'm going to enter the debate on these estimates. I'm going to have to come up with a few things, but I saw so many members of the opposition having their say that I thought I might as well stand up and speak for a few minutes about Okanagan South and some of the concerns of Okanagan South.

I would certainly like to support the member from Shuswap, who emphasized his particular concern about the pressures on Highway 97. It's a valid concern. There's no question in my mind that we must abandon the Mara Lake section, because neither the horizontal nor the vertical alignment is possible or practical with the amount of rock that would have to be moved in that particular location. So the member from Shuswap is certainly promoting a good concept. I think we could build a four-lane road that would be quite cost-effective, and certainly better the Highway 97 system throughout the Okanagan.

There's no question in my mind that the Okanagan connector, connecting phase 1 and the Okanagan, will not only bear a great deal of traffic but also provide a great deal of the traffic growth for the entire Coquihalla system, both north and south. Locally, I think we — and I can say this on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan South — are very pleased with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Highway 97 four-laning is progressing. The population is increasing. We have very, very high traffic densities on some sections, particularly in the vicinity of Kelowna. There are some local concerns that must be taken into consideration, but they're not entirely the Ministry of Transportation and Highways' responsibilities. Certainly municipal concerns from Kelowna with respect to the north connector are quite in order.

There are a couple of areas that I would like to see some care and consideration for. On the west side of Okanagan Lake, on Westside Road, we have a situation where Okanagan residents and holidayers to the Okanagan are using Bear Creek Park in greater and greater numbers. We have a very narrow, twisting section of road, and that continues northward towards Vernon on the west side of Okanagan Lake with similar limitations and hazards until you get to the vicinity of Lake Okanagan Resort. Then the road is upgraded from that point northward. It would be deeply appreciated if the ministry could consider accelerating that particular project, in view of the increasing residential and commercial usage on the west side of Okanagan Lake.

MR. JONES: If you can, before the election.

MR. SERWA: The hon. member for Burnaby North has said it must be done before the next election, and I think he has a very valid point.

But all in all, minister, I compliment you and your ministry on the quality of work that is being done. I commend the ministry on the wisdom of using the seal-coat process as a method of extending the life of the surface of roads, because you're able to do four or five times the length of road in upgrading — and protect the infrastructure by that process. So it's a valid process indeed.

[ Page 11011 ]

I sympathize with the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). She mentioned the matter of frost heaves in the Valemount-McBride section. In actual fact the Valemount-McBride section is quite a good piece of ground. There's an awful lot of gravel in the road, but the real problem you have in Prince George North is with the high water-tables and the silt and the clays that the roads were built of.

The Cariboo Highway is another section that is of considerable importance to us in the Okanagan as well. It's been a marvellous piece of road, considering it was built some 40 years ago and has handled a tremendous amount of traffic.

With that, I'll cease and let someone else have the opportunity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health has requested leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, in the House today we have the Minister of Health for the province of Newfoundland, the Hon. Chris Decker. Would you please make him welcome.

MR. ZIRNHELT: My first concern is with the short-term plans. I wrote to you, Madam Minister, about the plans for this year's construction programs, and you replied that you were waiting for the Transportation in the '90s report, which I appreciated receiving when it came out. What's missing there are the short-term plans, the smaller projects that are of concern to many people who live in the back roads of the Cariboo. I was wondering if your ministry generates these plans in a way that we could be provided with them, so that it will assist us in replying to our many constituents. You appear to have a list of priorities, but all we hear is that it's on the list of priorities. So I'm wondering if you were going to rationalize this process and make them available on a more comprehensive basis.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the member for Cariboo, if you go into the district office, they'll provide you with any information you're looking for, and they have the specifics of the work that's to be done in the area.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I find that that process isn't entirely satisfactory. The priorities seem to change from time to time, and there doesn't seem to be a way to get the information early. Maybe it's because of the budgeting process, but I found that it wasn't.... But I'll pursue that again. I do on a piecemeal basis, but I find that unsatisfactory.

The next question has to do with road salt and alternatives to road-salting. Road salt is of grave concern to a lot of people. There is a growing feeling that we're overusing road salt, and they want to know what the status is of your ministry's investigation into alternatives.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the member for Cariboo, the use of road salt is of concern to the ministry as well. They have been working with the Ministries of Environment and Forests in an attempt to do some tests. They have several test areas under consideration. The preliminary information that has been pulled together at this time indicates that there could be a bit of a problem. So the ministry is exploring every avenue open to them in an attempt to come up with some conclusive evidence as to precisely what they should be doing. So I would have to think that we're a little bit off from having all the information we need. The preliminary information came from one test site. They are now doing random samples on a number of sites to see if they are going to be coming up with the same information. In short, it is a concern of the ministry. They are attempting to get further information before they decide which way they go from here.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm sure we don't want the alternative. It would be worse than the problems we have now. I appreciate that. But we'll look forward to your reports as they come available.

The next question I would like to deal with is the issue of grooves in the road — impressions — made probably by overloaded trucks. This is a constant problem, it seems, on every new surface. It seems to be a cost that the public is absorbing from the industrial users of the road. I think the minister does a pretty good job of dealing with the worst of these before ice comes in the wintertime. I'm concerned and want to focus my question on the continual absorbing of the cost that may not be covered by the users of the road. The problem is created by the industrial users — overloaded logging trucks or whatever. What is being done to minimize this cost by changing the nature of the roadbed or the surfacing? What is being done to look at the licensing itself as a way of picking up the cost?

[8:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The ministry is attempting to come up with different formulas to allow them to increase the strength of their road base to try and accommodate the problems you have identified. They are well aware of the problems. When you go into the regulations, you are getting into the Ministry of Solicitor-General when it comes to regulating the vehicles that are using our roads. But as far as the construction of the roads, we are attempting to find ways of building a road base that could accommodate the heavier loads.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The other issue that I'd like to deal with is that of traffic zones through previously existing built-up areas. I'm referring in particular to a situation in the Canim Lake area that you may be familiar with. There has been a longstanding request by the band to have a speed zone, and it has been under consideration. I know it was brought to the Premier's attention last fall. There are icy spots that create a hazard. I believe two people have been killed

[ Page 11012 ]

on that stretch of road. It's something they can't get a satisfactory answer on. It seems that some people want to maintain the speed zone through there. I want to bring it to your attention, because it has been unsatisfactory as far as the residents of the Canim Lake area are concerned — in particular, members of the reserve. There have been ongoing problems with the road going through the reserve, and their way of solving it is to create the speed zone. I don't think it would unduly hamper any of the local traffic. If you're not familiar with that, I'll just leave it with you. But if you are, I'd appreciate a response.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In talking to the deputy and assistant deputy, neither of them have had that concern brought to their attention, but they will follow it up.

MS. CULL: I've had a request from one of my constituents to deal with the question of seal-coating roads in Oak Bay, but I don't feel well enough qualified to talk about that tonight.

I'm going to shift to public transit. I want to talk about light rail transit in the greater Victoria area and suggest that I think there's a need for some broader vision here in the greater Victoria region on the matter of public transportation. When we look at transportation planning, it hasn't had the kind of comprehensive focus that many of us would have liked to have seen in our metropolitan areas. Transportation planning — particularly public transit — is very much tied into one of the issues my constituents are most concerned with, and that is the quality of life in urban areas.

Transportation planning is tied into a lot of things. You can't just separate it out and say: "We're going to deal with the roads in isolation." As I'm sure the minister — having formerly been the Minister of Municipal Affairs and also a locally elected person — is well aware, transportation planning is tied into growth-related issues, air pollution, water quality, preservation of open space and land, the density of development and traffic congestion, which, of course, is a major issue of quality of life in our urban areas.

In some ways, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has been coming to grips with this over the last number of years through their liveable region plan. But here in greater Victoria, we've yet to see the public expression of these concerns.

Some of it came out a year and a half ago when Visions Victoria took place in this city. Many people throughout the community came together to talk about growth-related problems. Transportation issues were certainly one element that received a lot of attention.

We're also seeing, through a lot of community groups, calls for various kinds of action, particularly in the area of public transit, that are starting to pull this issue to the fore. But part of the problem we face in greater Victoria is that we don't really have a mechanism for this overall transportation planning that I think is needed, partly because, Madam Minister, your government eliminated regional planning in 1983. It has created a bit of a vacuum wherein communities are not easily able to come together to solve their problems.

There is this important link, and I want to talk a little bit about it. I believe that the minister has said that greater Victoria isn't big enough to have light rail transit, a rapid transit solution for the community. But if we look at the broad picture of transportation planning, it's more than just the need to move vehicles and people efficiently and effectively. We've got to consider air quality. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) has said in his own report that cars are one of the major polluters of our urban area. Water pollution: we know that toxins washing off the roads and going into storm sewers are one of the major problems of chemical pollution on our beaches, and a very difficult one to deal with. Unlike hazardous waste of a more concrete source, you can't come to collect it at source and say it won't be put into the environment anymore. It's coming out of cars all the time, on the roads, and is washed into the system.

We also know that there is a great interrelationship between land use and transportation; that growth and development, housing projects and the growth of communities create the need for more transportation links: roads, buses and transit services of all kinds. Also, we know that the transportation nodes that are there dictate to some extent the kind of development that occurs. If you provide access to a part of the community that hasn't had access in the past, development becomes more desirable, easier and more likely to occur.

I'm not really sure; when I ponder on this one, it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Which really leads the other? But there's no doubt that land use planning and transportation planning cannot be easily separated from one another.

Here in this community, that is a particular concern in the two areas that I want to talk a little more about. In the Saanich Peninsula we have a lot of agricultural reserve land, a lot of prime open space and a very strong desire on the part of the people who live there to protect the quality of life. But we have a major transportation link running through it with a ferry terminal at one end and the downtown at the other, creating a lot of stress and a lot of attention focused on that land for development. On the other hand, we have the Western Communities, which many people in greater Victoria look to as an area that could take some more development. They're at the other end of one of the worst transportation bottlenecks that we have on the Island.

There's also the interrelationship of one form of transportation with any other. The ferries, I guess, are the biggest example locally. The demands placed on our local roads and for local forms of transit are very much affected by the fact that we have hundreds of cars arriving regularly at the north end of the peninsula, and they're funnelled down a road coming to basically one location, downtown Victoria, although some of that traffic may end up going up-Island. A lot of it is coming down into the same

[ Page 11013 ]

area which has a lot of other concerns: protection of the farmland, protection of the quality of life.

Greater Victoria is, I think, uniquely set up for light rail transit. We have a number of old rights-of-way which fortunately happen to be in these two areas I've talked about: running up the peninsula and going out to the Western Communities. They're there. They're not continuous and absolute, but there's the start of a right-of-way system that could be used for light rail transit.

The greater Victoria population, as I've just outlined, to some great extent is actually aligned along those two spines. The population right now is about 280,000, and it's going to be well over 300,000 by the turn of the century. If that population was just spread out in a semicircle around the downtown, it might be very difficult to service the area with public transportation. But it's not; it is focused to a great extent along the spine going up the peninsula and the one going out to the Western Communities. Coincidentally, when we look at the Western Communities, that happens to be the place where there are two relics of railway systems just rusting away, looking for some use such as public transportation.

I believe the minister has said that light rail transit doesn't make sense in greater Victoria. I'm assuming she means primarily economic sense. I'm also assuming that she is relying on the report that was done in May 1990 for B.C. Transit on light rail transit. I hope not; I hope that there are some other ministry studies that are behind her comments on this and behind the ministry's decision, because I've read the study. It's 12 pages long. I understand it was done in a very short period of time. It does not look at any of these other issues I'm talking about. It doesn't look at land use, air pollution or water quality. It doesn't look at any of the broader environmental and community planning issues that should be looked at when we're dealing with public transportation.

The minister has said that the population density in greater Victoria just isn't there for light rail transit. I'd like to know what she considers to be the threshold. Has the ministry established a population threshold at which light rail transit is practical in greater Victoria?

When should we begin planning for that? If we've established that there is some level at which light rail transit does make some sense — if it doesn't make sense now, then it will at some point in the future — when do we begin planning for it? The land isn't getting any cheaper as we wait. The patterns of growth are such that the longer we go on developing around the road system with the kind of low-density, scattered development that the road system will allow — and in fact encourages — the ability to make land use decisions that will reinforce and support public transit becomes more and more difficult. Presumably there's some point well before we reach the threshold at which light rail transit makes economic sense that we start planning for this, acquiring land and making decisions that will lead into that direction.

I'm just going to run through all of my questions for the minister here rather than have us both jump up and down. I want to know if the minister has any figures which show us the comparison of subsidies for highways versus light rail transit.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: No comparisons? I find that rather curious, then, if we're relying on this one-week-long, 12-page report to make these kinds of decisions when we don't even know about the costs. The Greater Victoria Electric Railway Society, which has done a lot of work — and I'm sure your caucus has seen the presentation that our caucus has seen on light rail transit in many communities in North America and in Europe — says that only about 40 percent of highway costs are recovered through fuel taxes and registration fees and the like. So that means there's a significant subsidy there to highways out of general revenue.

As we start talking about the cost and it being uneconomic to have light rail transit in greater Victoria, if we consider the same level of subsidy, is it still more expensive — and too expensive? Or if we start looking at the kinds of subsidies we provide to the automobile, and consider the environmental imperatives that are starting to face all North American cities when we look at air pollution and energy use, do we not have a false economic accounting here?

[9:00]

In the decision to not proceed at this time with light rail transit in greater Victoria, were any of the broader implications that I mentioned earlier considered by your ministry: air pollution, for example; reducing carbon emissions; preserving agricultural land in the peninsula; or the relationship between highways and transit and urban development? In reaching the conclusion that light rail transit is not a viable option in greater Victoria at this time, what kinds of studies were-done with the greater Victoria communities? In the absence of a regional authority that is able to undertake transportation planning in conjunction with land use planning in greater Victoria, I assume there must have been some kind of discussion.

I think it's sad we don't have this kind of mechanism. I might point out for the record and to the minister that what have here in greater Victoria when it comes to this kind of planning are 11 municipalities in an area the size of Surrey municipality — 11 different communities trying to piece together a regional land use pattern and a transportation pattern in an area the size of Surrey. That's challenge enough in Surrey municipality, but imagine carving Surrey up into 11 and saying "get your act together and solve your transportation and land use problems" when you don't even have a table to come around and do it.

Interjection.

[ Page 11014 ]

MS. CULL: What we need is some kind of a regional decision-making forum — yes, I agree with you there, Madam Minister. We just can't do it with the system we have right now, but I have set out a number of questions that I'd like to hear from the minister on, and I'll sit down and give her a chance to answer.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I was interested in many of the comments made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I think she should be comforted in knowing that many of us on this side of the House share her concern with regard to the number of small local governments that we have and the problem they have coming to grips with some sort of overall planning option. But they do have that option available to them on a voluntary basis. It's not as it was before when it was compulsory. They can get together on a voluntary basis and do whatever they want in the way of planning.

You were asking whether the ministry has done any....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you interested in this, Mr. Member for Victoria?

Representatives of the local councils also sit on the Victoria Regional Transit Commission as well as on the CRD, so there really is a lot of cross-consultation that allows them to work very closely together if they choose to do so. As far as B.C. Transit and Highways are concerned, at the present time it has been determined — you have the brief overview of the study that was done — that it was premature and would not well serve the area to look any further at a form of light rail transit. There's no question at all that we should be preserving the corridors for future use. It has been determined that it is far more practical and allows more flexibility in the transit system if we continue to service the area with buses that can be moved around to readily accommodate the demands for service, more so than utilizing rail lines as a spine. But it also has been determined that those rail lines — the corridor — should be preserved for the growth that we know will take place in the future.

MS. CULL: I appreciate that the communities in the greater Victoria area have the option of voluntarily coming together on any regional planning issue or any issue like that. That is precisely what your government has said to them ever since regional planning was eliminated in 1983. But the fact is that they haven't done it here.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: It may be called local autonomy, Madam Minister, but at some point in the community, there has got to be some leadership shown in a regional overall approach.

What I think has happened in greater Vancouver is that the people have been able to keep something together, because the pressure of growth — the sheer size and complexity of that community — has ensured that it didn't die. What has happened here in greater Victoria is that we may not have reached that threshold yet. We are failing to address the issues here, perhaps because we haven't been pushed quite so hard and the interests have not been quite so clear or the problems quite so difficult to resolve individually. But we're missing an incredible opportunity.

Even if greater Victoria did come together voluntarily and deal with some of these issues, we're still missing this essential crossover link between land use planning and transportation planning. It's just not happening. It's not good enough to say that we have a couple of local politicians who sit on some provincial boards that deal with transportation planning, because I'm not even convinced that the public transit planning and the highways planning happen in any coordinated fashion. There doesn't seem to be a linkage that when a decision is made on a highway, the public transit implications are looked at before the decision is made.

In the discussion earlier today the minister made the comment that she was happier with giving priority to studies done by citizens than by consultants. I'd like to ask the minister whether she's satisfied with the analysis provided in this consultant's study as the basis of making a decision of this magnitude — that Victoria is not ready for light rail transit. We're going to let those options continue to slip away.

It's fine to talk about buses being more flexible. Sure, they're more flexible; they can go all over the place. But the point is that we are missing the opportunity of moving towards light rail transit at some point in the future, which we're obviously going to have to do. If we don't start planning well in advance of its being needed, when we get there it's going to be tremendously expensive, because we are going to discover that the decisions about density and land use in this community have been based on roads and buses and not on future thinking about light rail transit.

I think it's environmentally short-sighted. It fails to recognize the long-term needs of the region.

Madam Minister, is this the kind of study that you feel comfortable making these decisions based on, or do you not think that a citizens' study -maybe not as all-encompassing as we would like...? Surely the citizens' study done by the Greater Victoria Electric Railway Society — which, as the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has pointed out, is more than 12 pages long and took more time to put together — should at least be given equal weight. Perhaps what we need in this community is that kind of regionally based decision-making body that can look at land use and transportation and public transit and work out something with vision.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: For the information of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who has

[ Page 11015 ]

suggested that it is most difficult for the local councils to work together in Victoria....

MR. BLENCOE: Boring.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Then why don't you leave, if you are so bored?

I would like to tell the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head that there are 18 members in the GVRD. They work very well together on a voluntary basis. They have worked for some time now on choosing their future program. They have problems due to the population growth on the lower mainland that Victoria will never know, I'm sure — in our lifetime, anyhow. They seem to be able to work very well in an attempt to come up with planning through the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission, going out into the community and identifying Transit needs and the priorities as set by the community: the routes of their transit lines, the frequency of the transit service that's provided and the fares.

I just want to say that it's very easy to do it voluntarily if the will is there. This government believes in local autonomy. I believe that we're going to have to look to CRD members to get their act together. Rather than have big government tell them what is best for them, I believe that the members of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission and the CRD should be working together to tell B.C. Transit what they feel is important. The provincial government is not going to make that kind of decision.

In the meantime, I think you overlooked one of the other comments I made. We are taking steps to preserve the corridors for future needs. Highways, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit and B.C. Rail are working together as a provincial transportation council to ensure that their jurisdictions are well aware of what the other jurisdiction is doing. So they are working to preserve those corridors, and we'll have them here for your grandchildren to help plan the transit System.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I too wish to speak about an issue of the quality of urban life. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has a key role to play. The sector that I would like the minister and her staff to focus on is the northeast sector of the lower mainland. That sector, as I'm sure the minister knows, is going to experience more than half of all the growth that's going to take place in the future in the lower mainland. We've already seen the tremendous growth in Port Moody, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Langley, Surrey and Delta — all those northeast regions that are going to be the future population centres of the lower mainland.

In the area that I'm most concerned about, there are three corridors that service that tremendous population and population potential. Those three corridors are the Barnet-Hastings corridor, the Lougheed Highway and the freeway. In fact, there is another one right in the middle of my riding called Curtis-Parker Street. Although it's a local arterial, it's serving as a major connector with some 20,000 cars per day going by the residences there.

When I look at transportation planning and focus on the kind of development that might be used to upgrade those three corridors or arterials that funnel a tremendous traffic volume from the population growth in the northeast sector through my constituency of Burnaby North with all the attendant pollution problems, safety problems and quality-of-life problems that impact on those constituents, I really have to question the kind of thinking that has gone into what the ministry has come up with in terms of planning for development and expansion of, first of all, those arterials and, secondly, the supplementary plans — the light rail transit that my colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head just talked about.

First of all, we don't want 20,000 cars per day going by Curtis-Parker Street. That's meant to be a local street. In fact, your predecessor, when I first raised this question, thought those 20,000 per day were local. Very clearly, they're not. They're from the eastern suburbs, and they impact severely on the quality of life of those residents. We don't want that to be a corridor, so we try to eliminate that corridor. The proposal for the last 20 years, of course, has been the Hastings-Gaglardi connector.

[9:15]

Then we have the other three corridors, and the question of what to do with those. I admit the complexity of this thing and the difficulty and challenge that the ministry faces in trying to deal with these improvements. But very clearly, the priority of the ministry had to be the Barnet-Hastings corridor -ignoring, of course, the other two, and I don't know why. I'd like the minister to explain to me why the Lougheed Highway and the development of that thoroughfare, which doesn't carve up a community and has great potential for widening and expansion.... Similarly with the freeway, which was originally designed to accommodate more lanes of traffic, at least to the Port Mann Bridge, than we currently see. Why the Ministry of Highways and Transportation would choose to upgrade the Barnet Highway for $75 million, which is going to funnel more traffic onto Hastings Street, which is also part of the improvement plan east of Springer.... We don't know what's going to happen there. It's a big question mark for the minister.

The minister says in her announcements that.... The community is very concerned; the merchants are concerned. They don't want the community carved up by a major freeway through what has been a local shopping area, where merchants have carried on business since I was a child — that's going back some years. Some of those same merchants are there. In fact, some of the sons of those merchants are still carrying on the same business on Hastings Street as when I was a child. I could go on at length about how I enjoyed that relationship with those merchants, but I will not do that.

Problem number 1 is the choice of the Barnet; problem number 2 is the ignoring of development of

[ Page 11016 ]

the Hastings-Gaglardi connector; and problem number 3 is the Lougheed and the freeway as immediate solutions to the tremendous problem of commuter traffic going through North Burnaby. We have a series of problems that are really going to create more of a traffic mess in the northeast sector of the lower mainland than we've had in the past.

Getting on to the second part of what I wanted to talk about — transit solutions — the ministry pays some lip-service, the plans are there and it sounds good, but I see very little evidence of it. In fact, I see a bias against the transit solutions that we've been talking about, such as light rail.

We see, for example — I don't want to pit one area against another, and I sympathize with the ministry for having to do that — the SkyTrain being extended to Richmond. I understand that that's an important link. Not to downplay that, but at the same time, in terms of population growth and in terms of population growth versus employment growth, the obvious area to put an extension of SkyTrain would be through the northeast sector, because that's where the growth is going to take place. What that means is that there is going to be growth in Richmond, but it's not anywhere near what it's going to be in the northeast sector. Not only that, more of that growth is going to be able to work in Richmond, because the employment opportunities are going to be there at a greater rate.

We seem to have lost the opportunities. The minister was intimately involved in negotiations with the federal government and CP Rail for what I had hoped would be some solution: commuter rail on those CP tracks. The ministry seems to have totally backhanded the opportunity for light rail transit on the Burlington Northern tracks. We seem to have ignored any of the other possible corridors for light rail transit, such as Hastings Street and the Lougheed Highway. I understand that the freeway isn't a feasible alternative for that, but the Burlington Northern tracks are; Hastings Street is; the Lougheed Highway is as well.

All the money that has been spent on the planning and on the public relations has, I think, generated more frustration and more confusion in the minds of the residents and the constituents that I represent than if you had done nothing.

I want to say at this point that I do wholeheartedly support the high-occupancy vehicle lanes. I support all the park-and-ride proposals. I certainly support the proposal for the purchase of more buses and articulated buses. I support wholeheartedly all that stuff. I want to see it in place; I don't want to see it on paper. I want to let you know how much I support it and the people I represent support it, because they know that the solution to our transit problems is in moving people, not in moving more vehicles. So if you're going to do highways stuff, look at the alternatives. If you are going to do transit stuff, then let's have a serious look at those things as priorities rather than the $75 million on the Barnet-Hastings proposal.

I have thrown a lot at the minister, and I'd be very interested in her response.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It should be made obvious to you, hon. member, that we have had a technical planning committee working on these improvements for your area. We have had representation from Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, B.C. Transit and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. So it has been a cooperative effort. It is not something that the ministry has decided is good for the municipalities; the proposal has been put together in cooperation with the staff from all of those municipalities and the elected officials as well.

You are probably aware that the Barnet-Hastings widening was identified as a priority by the transportation task force, and we expect to start construction on that this fall. The improvements to the freeway are currently under review, and once the scope of the improvements required there to properly move traffic is determined, we will be looking at what is required for the Lougheed Highway. But certainly they are not going to be done all at once, and that is the sequence of events as far as expenditures are concerned.

The Hastings Street improvements. We are not going to turn Hastings Street into a freeway. We will be working on the present alignment. The widening will take place from curb to curb. Where presently on Hastings Street we move some 2,700 people an hour, the improvements — which will include the high-occupancy vehicle lanes and the special transit buses that will go there — will increase that to some 8,000 people per hour.

We're looking at moving people, and I don't know why you would suggest that we're looking at turning that into a freeway. It's on the present alignment. I realize that some of the businesses in the area have expressed concern because of the loss of parking, but in concluding, hon. member, I would ask you: what would you do to improve the Hastings-Barnet corridor?

MR. JONES: Very clearly, people have to move from the northeast sector to downtown Vancouver. There's no doubt about that. Many of them are going to do it in cars, so there does have to be an improvement. I was suggesting to the minister — and I'm surprised at her asking me what I would do — that the Lougheed Highway, for example, could be upgraded. It doesn't impact on the local amenities or on the shopping centres, and neither does the freeway.

The minister says: "That was our priority, and we're reviewing the other things." You've got your priorities backwards. The priorities should have been.... You talk about consultation. The municipality of Burnaby — I don't know what the other municipalities and those in the technical planning committee suggested — has indicated to you on numerous occasions that they do not agree with those priorities. They're trying to work with "the plan" and make it

[ Page 11017 ]

work. They have a number of contingencies they want worked into the plan, but the overall reaction to the coordination and timing of these proposals is considerable unhappiness on the part of the municipality of Burnaby.

The other thing we would do, which I think the ministry should have done, rather than starting with the Barnet and with the other two east-west corridors, is to look seriously at light rail transit. For some reason, there seems to be a negative bias about those options. I don't think the ministry has looked seriously at Burlington Northern. The CP alternative, which was a very attractive one in my view, was also lost. The Burlington Northern is still very viable. You can pick up the cars for a song these days, due to the cutbacks in Via Rail. There are other light rail alternatives on the Lougheed Highway, on Hastings Street. There are a whole host of things to move that large volume of traffic.

The minister does not understand the ambience in the community that is going to be impacted by that use of six lanes. It is going to divide the community. The community is very upset. I'm sure the minister has had representation from the merchants in the area. The merchants also represent their customers and the people who want to maintain the integrity of that traditional shopping area.

That was not the right choice for the priority of moving those — I forget what the minister indicated — 2,700 cars per hour. The impact and the effect on the quality of life in Burnaby, in North Burnaby, in that northeast sector, is going to be serious. For some reason the planning, the coordination and the forethought in terms of moving people rather than vehicles has been inadequate. Perhaps that's what happens when different municipalities are put in competition. I don't think that's the problem. I know only one municipality that has the same concerns that I have in the northern part of that municipality. That unhappiness is serious. The timing is wrong. The planning isn't there. The vision isn't there. The residents are going to be impacted seriously.

As I said at the outset, your ministry has tremendous potential for improving the urban quality of life, and I think you've let the people in my constituency down.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would first of all like to second the fine motion made by the member for Delta about allowing motorcycles to use the bus lanes.

I rode down here today from my constituency on my motorcycle, and he's right — it is hot out there, and there are no air conditioners. Perhaps if you're like the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond), and you have a motorcycle that's bigger and probably more expensive than most cars, you could well put an air conditioner on it. But most of us don't own that kind of motorcycle.

[9:30]

Just on motorcycles for a moment, and seeing as your ministry also has the ferry system under its wing, I think a reasonable alternative would be to look at the fact that you can put four motorcycles in the space of one car on a ferry. Therefore the charge to get a motorcycle on a ferry should be one-quarter that for a vehicle. Perhaps more people would be encouraged to take their motorcycles, or to buy motorcycles, and get on that ferry and leave more space for cars.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) says: "Raise the insurance." Well, the insurance is already high enough, and if he rode a motorcycle he'd know that. If we were allowed to ride in those bus lanes, there would be fewer accidents, and therefore the insurance rates would come down — so look at the saving. So I second that motion from the member for Delta.

I would like to talk about the Island Highway, which is now under construction. Once again we're four-laning. Of course, we all know who started that road: it was the New Democratic Party government, 18 years ago. And it still isn't finished, despite the fact that the Social Credit Party has been in power all these years.

As I drive up and down, back and forth to my constituency, the roads....

MR. DAVIDSON: Why?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Because we don't have an airport or a government jet.

As I drive back and forth the time doesn't get any shorter, because as improvements are made to the road, you keep putting up these traffic lights. In the year and a half or so since I've been elected, five new traffic lights have been put in, so I have to stop....

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Again the member for Yale-Lillooet.... There are no traffic lights on the Coquihalla; I know that. So he's not to be worried about that.

As a matter of fact, when I was going through Nanaimo the other day — and I'm sure the minister knows the questions about Nanaimo — I was told that the meaning of the word "Nanaimo" is actually: "the city with many traffic lights." There are 19 traffic lights in that community. It takes longer to go through Nanaimo than it does to travel from Nanaimo to Victoria, if you hit the lights wrong.

I'm glad to see that some improvements are being made. I'd also like to congratulate the minister on the $100,000 toward the Valley Link road that has been under consideration and that the Alberni transportation study identified as an important road. I congratulate her for that. Hopefully, sometime within my lifetime we'll see that built.

There are a number of questions about my constituency that I would like to raise. The first one is, of course, the fact that somebody burned down the Sproat Lake Bridge. That was done some time ago. On May 19, 1 believe, that bridge was burnt. We're

[ Page 11018 ]

using a one-lane logging bridge adjacent to that bridge. We're travelling on gravel to get to and from that bridge. My office opens at 10 o'clock in the morning, and by 1 o'clock this afternoon we had five phone calls...

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: We're open very late.

...about the condition of that bridge. The ministry keeps promising that they're going to pave that less-than-one-kilometre piece of road that leads to the bridge and back to the highway, and yet it hasn't been done. I've phoned your office many times. I've had phone calls. I have letters here to your office about when it is going to be done. The last report was that it was in front of Treasury Board. Certainly, Madam Minister, if the government is in such dire financial straits that it has to go to Treasury Board to get approval for money to pave a one-kilometre section of road that on a weekend, with Pacific Rim National Park and the people who live at Sproat Lake, Ucluelet.... Ten thousand people go over that bridge, and there are waits. There are logging trucks and transportation trucks; there are motor homes. In a matter of hours it's full of potholes. Yet we're still waiting. A month and a half has gone by.

I would like some assurances from the minister that that will be done immediately. The discussions with MacMillan Bloedel about the use of the road can go on after you've paved it; I'm sure there would be no objections there. The road to Ucluelet and the Long Beach-Tofino area is bad enough. It's a logging road with many wooden bridges which was simply paved. Those waits, I think, are unreasonable.

It's going to take a year and a half to build a bridge. I can understand that engineering work has to be done and that it's going to take time to redesign the approaches and so forth, but it is a major highway. It does lead from one end of Canada to the other. Certainly if we can fast-track the Coquihalla Highway, we can put some speed and emphasis on rebuilding this bridge, which the minister and her ministry well know has been a contentious issue for many years. As a matter of fact, on July 6 the regional board wrote the minister a letter expressing concerns "about the stability of this temporary bridge...and resolve that staff request the ministry's assurance that it is safe for public use." Madam Minister, I hope that you take that under advisement, and I hope that we will see a resolution fairly quickly.

Another concern, from the correspondence passed on to me and to the minister, is the road on the west side of Bamfield, which was given priority by the task force and which still is in some doubt. There's some doubt as to whether or not we're going to go ahead with that road, even though the task force originally identified it as a priority. As a matter of fact, in June '89 the Bamfield connector project was placed second only to the upgrading of the Vancouver Island Highway.

The natives are in favour of it; the people in Bamfield are in favour of it. It's been going on since 1955. On May 14, 1990, Mr. Neville Hope from your ministry said a study would be done perhaps late this summer to ascertain if there was general consensus. That places it in some doubt.

Is there general consensus? Is the position of the transportation task force of any validity? They originally approved the project, second only to the Island Highway. There was a problem, and it went back to the task force. Again the task force said: "Yes, it is a priority." Now we find on May 14 that maybe that will be the case.

I'll leave those questions with the minister and wait for her response.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We do require Treasury Board approval with regard to the bridge, because we have to enter into a lease agreement with MacMillan Bloedel. That shouldn't present a problem, but the technicality is that Treasury Board approval is required when we enter into an agreement with an outside operation.

The road that you refer to will be paved. There is a shorter detour road that is going to lead into the bridge. Once that has been completed — and I'm led to believe that it will be done very shortly — we expect to start construction early in 1991 on the bridge and complete it by the end of the year.

You speak of the $50,000 study for the Bamfield road. That has been approved of. We are doing precisely what the people of the area have asked us to do. We're doing the engineering study. Your comments would lead one to believe that everybody in the area supported that project going ahead. That is not entirely true. I can tell you that the correspondence I have received is quite strong going both ways. So not everybody in the area is supportive. We are proceeding with the study. Once that has been done, we will once again discuss with the residents where they would like to see us go from there.

MR. G. JANSSEN: To put the consensus in Bamfield on the record for the minister, three years ago a petition was held which indicated 72 percent of the west-side residents of Bamfield were in favour of the road. About two years ago, I was at a community meeting with MP Bob Skelly and 70 people. The residents there voted 68 for and two against the road.

HON. MR. MESSMER: It was an NDP meeting.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It probably had to be, because I don't think there are that many Socreds in Bamfield.

In August 1989, 100 percent of the Ohiaht band were in favour of the road. In August 1989, on the petition that was brought forward against the road, the regional director disregarded the petition, indicating that it was not the true feeling of the Bamfield full-time residents, that the community was opposed to the road. I think the question of consensus, Madam Minister, has long been settled. I'm sure that if she were to consult with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), who makes frequent trips to Bamfield to go fishing.... Just this last weekend he

[ Page 11019 ]

caught some salmon; I think the largest was a 24-pounder. Congratulations to him for that.

On the question of the Sproat Lake Bridge, I can appreciate the concerns that Treasury Board may have in entering into agreement with MacMillan Bloedel over the use of that logging road. That is small consolation to people who have to drive over the road every day. Again, I urge the minister to see if the road could be paved before Treasury Board — however long they may take — makes a decision.

You can, in fact, make the agreement after the road is paved. That's my point. I'm sure that the price MacMillan Bloedel is asking for the usage of the road does not depend on whether the road is paved or not paved. The cost of paving will not be borne by Macmillan Bloedel; it will be borne by your ministry.

One other issue is the question of the Lady Rose, which I'm sure the minister.... We've had conversations about it. Last year I asked about this matter in the House, and I was promised that a resolution on the contract for the Lady Rose would be forthcoming shortly. The owners of that boat are contemplating removing it from service because they feel that the subsidy they receive for the run is not adequate.

Could the minister apprise the House as to what the situation is with the Lady Rose? Are we still going to negotiate temporary contracts? They put it out to tender a number of times, and nobody else seems to be interested in running the boat. It would be a great loss not only to the residents it serves up and down the Alberni Canal but also to the tourism industry, which we're becoming more and more reliant upon as the forest industries in Alberni seem to downscale.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that B.C. Ferries have made their final offer with regard to a subsidy for the provision of service by the Lady Rose. I have not heard that the arrangement had been finalized. They were several thousands of dollars apart. One of the problems appeared to be that the service the Ministry of Highways was asking the Lady Rose to provide was not what the owners of the Lady Rose thought they should be providing. They wanted to provide more in the way of service, so of course they wanted more in the way of a subsidy. B.C. Ferries had determined that they were not in the position to provide a subsidy to a tourism service; they felt the mandate was to subsidize a service to the local residents. That seems to be where the difference lies.

[9:45]

Of course, we had the people here from B.C. Ferries, but we're all over the map....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Oh, you're here! This is sort of like musical chairs here this evening. We have more members of staff from B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit, B.C. Rail and the ministry than we do members sitting in the House. I hope you're all very impressed.

I'm told, hon. member, that B.C. Ferries had a recent meeting with the people who operate the MV Lady Rose, and they're going to be meeting with them again on Friday. So discussions are still taking place.

MR. RABBITT: Coming from a rural riding, one which has the Coquihalla Highway, the Trans-Canada, the southern transprovincial, the Duffy Lake, two of the national railroads, plus B.C. Rail.... I should mention that we have the CEO and the treasurer from B.C. Rail joining us in the gallery tonight.

Coming from a rural riding such as that, I get a different perspective on highways than the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) does. Whereas the member for Burnaby North talked about moving his people around, I want to talk about moving my people around. But I also want to talk about moving the people of British Columbia around, because anybody who wants to go north, south, east or west has to go through the beautiful riding of Yale-Lillooet.

Madam Minister, it's always a pleasure to come in here each year, as all the members do, and talk about our Christmas list, because there are always a lot of projects within our own ridings that people back home find imperative to their way of life.

One of the projects I want to talk on today is the Hope bridge. I'm sure that the deputy minister sitting there with you is fully familiar with it, because we have chatted about it at various times. The Hope bridge crosses the Fraser River and is part of the Trans-Canada Highway, yet it is in excess of 65 years old, and the deck needs widening. I would like the minister to commit that we are going to move into planning on that bridge and within the next year are going to be able to make a commitment to giving the people of Hope and Yale a new deck. This will give the people crossing the bridge — which is sometimes a little jittery for those who are not used to a narrow one — a level of comfort and safety.

On the Hope-Princeton Highway we've got a project that we've been lobbying on with the ministry for the past three years. It's the relocation of a part of highway on the east end which is locally called the Whipsaw section. I would like to know the ministry's position on that section, because this area has caused a lot of accidents, a cost to British Columbia and a lot of lives. I'd like the minister to bring me up to date on the status of that particular area of highway.

We were also under the understanding — and the indication was — that the Duffy Lake Road would have been completed this year. Because of weather and other events that have transpired, it appears that the Duffy Lake Road will not be completed this year. I would like the minister to clear the vision and let us know when we can expect a completion of that particular piece of highway.

On Coquihalla phase 3, there's a section of two-lane which is approximately six kilometres long. I would very much like the minister to ask her ministry to look at the possibility of creating passing lanes so that when traffic is attempting to travel that particular two-lane section, they will have safe areas to pass. On both ends of this highway, we have a

[ Page 11020 ]

beautiful four-lane highway coming into a section which is bottled down to two lanes. My personal advice, Madam Minister, is that we should restrict the passing on those two-lane sections and put in some passing lanes, and I think we will make that section of highway much safer.

The one last question I would like to ask the minister is with regard to the negotiations of outstanding claims by the natives on rights-of-way where roadways pass through their reserves. I know there are many outstanding areas of concern with the natives. I would like to know that we have a commitment to make a settlement with the natives and get the matter of road rights-of-way cleared up.

Road right-of-way for the interior people is, as you well know, an essential fact of life. With the limitation of blockades and disputes, we find that the ways of life are disrupted. We're finding that right now this is a very serious issue. I would like to know that the ministry, where possible, is negotiating and trying to find an answer and a solution to these disputes.

I look forward to the minister's answers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'll start with the last comment first. There isn't an area in the province where the ministry isn't prepared to meet with the affected property owners and attempt to negotiate a deal. Possibly we could discuss with the ministry the specifics of the one that you have concern about.

You have mentioned previously the passing lanes on the two-lane road leading into Merritt, and we will look at that. I'm not sure technically whether that is a safe improvement to make, but certainly it's something we can look at very seriously.

God willing, we will finish the Duffy Lake Road next summer.

Whipsaw. I'm told that the engineering and clearing is scheduled for this year, and major construction in 1991.

The Hope bridge. Planning this year, engineering '91 and construction '92.

MR. LOVICK: Given the lateness of the hour, I respectfully move 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.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise a point of order under standing order 40. This is the first opportunity I've had to bring this matter to your attention since the Blues were printed, and I wanted to make sure what the Blues said.

I am asking the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) to withdraw the following terms which he used in his address to you: "I think every citizen has a duty to report a crime to both the Deputy Attorney-General and to this House." This was in reference to the then Attorney-General. "Further, Mr. Speaker, I can understand fully why a Social Credit cabinet minister and a Premier may be upset that one has reported a crime in relation to a Social Credit cabinet minister, but I cannot see a wrong in that."

Clearly, no crime has been proven. While allegations exist, it is most improper for a member of this House to put on the record that a crime has in fact been committed.

Regrettably, the member is not in his place at this time. I would ask, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you have an opportunity to review these remarks overnight and bring back some direction to the House tomorrow.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn, I would just remind all members of the House that we sit earlier tomorrow morning, at 9:30. Having said that, I wish everyone a pleasant good evening, and move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:56 p.m.