Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1992

[ Page 957 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, it's a great delight to introduce to members of the House some distinguished visitors, who are probably already known to many members. With us in the members' gallery are: Councillor Libby Davies of the city of Vancouver; Dr. Jan Christilaw, a physician from White Rock and a representative of Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War; Elizabeth Leach, chair of the Nuclear Weapons Free B.C. Society; Laurie McBride, representing the Nanoose Conversion Campaign Committee; Thelma Ruck Keene of the Nuclear Weapons Free B.C. Society; Mr. Rich Shier of the Nuclear Weapons Free B.C. Society; Commander Roger Sweeny, retired from the Canadian Navy, of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms; and Dr. Mike Wallace, professor at the University of British Columbia and a representative of Science for Peace.

They are here to meet the Premier to discuss yesterday's declaration by the House of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in British Columbia and to discuss further initiatives that can be taken by the province on behalf of its people in pursuing the concept of a nuclear-weapons-free zone and making it a reality for our province. I would ask hon. members to make them welcome.

R. Kasper: It's a great pleasure to introduce in the House today representatives from the Nursing Sisters' Association of Canada. They are here for their thirty-first biannual conference in Victoria. They have a membership of 900 -- 300 of which are attending this conference. Their ranks include an honorary nursing sister at the age of 102 and one of 96. Would the House please welcome Miss Elvira Nordland, Mrs. Hilda Rennie, Mrs. Ruth Hood and Miss Elizabeth Clement.

Hon. M. Sihota: Joining us today in the gallery are a number of students from an ESL class at Arbutus Junior Secondary School here in Victoria, together with a number of students from a similar class in Vancouver, and their teacher Leanne Harrison. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

B. Simpson: I am delighted this morning to introduce one of British Columbia's outstanding citizens, Prof. Ira Nadel, a professor of English at the University of British Columbia and well-known commentator. Join me, please, in welcoming Professor Nadel.

U. Dosanjh: I join the hon. Minister of Labour in welcoming to this House some students from John Oliver Secondary School, who are in the company of students from Arbutus Secondary School in Victoria. John Oliver Secondary School happens to be in my riding of Vancouver-Kensington. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

Introduction of Bills

MINERAL LAND TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. A. Edwards presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. A. Edwards: It is my pleasure to put before the Legislature this proposed bill, as it includes a revenue-related amendment and four administrative amendments to the Mineral Land Tax Act and consequential amendments to the Mineral Tax Act and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. This is a revenue-related amendment increasing the rate of acreage tax on the ownership of mineral lands. The tax has remained unchanged since 1974. The administrative amendments will facilitate more effective royalty collection and administration.

Bill 27 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.

B. Copping: I ask leave of the House to make a statement on Armenian Memorial Day.

Leave granted.

B. Copping: Today, April 24, is Armenian Memorial Day. On this day the government of British Columbia would like to join Canadians of Armenian descent in remembering the tragedy that took place in Armenia 77 years ago and the many innocent children, women and men who died at that time. For our citizens with origins in Armenia, the devastation and suffering experienced by Armenians in 1915 and 1916 remains a painful memory.

On this day we would like to reaffirm our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration opens with the statement that recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. It is our sincere hope that this day will also serve to remind governments throughout the world that all outstanding differences should be resolved peacefully and in a manner acceptable to all concerned.

[10:15]

A. Warnke: In light of what the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has expressed, I want to represent our caucus in our support of this as well. From the beginning of the wars that we have chronicled -- from the Peloponnesian War through World War I -- we've seen over and over again how everyone and everything can become vulnerable. This was especially expressed in World War I, where not only Armenians but a variety of peoples who wanted to retain their own particular ethnic understanding and nationality became vulnerable. The effects of World War I were exhaustive and affect us to the present day. The Armenian massacre should always serve as a reminder that politics polarizes people when expressed in war. No one is invincible; everyone is vulnerable to such an act. 

[ Page 958 ]

Therefore the recognition of human rights is not merely rhetorical. The recognition of human rights is indeed a foundation upon which we can build a better world. The human condition is vulnerable; nonetheless, we should also reflect on just how blessed we are in British Columbia.

C. Serwa: I thank the member for bringing this to the attention of the House. It's also an opportunity to speak of the eternal struggle. You could summarize it as man's inhumanity to man. It goes back to the earliest days of the beginning of history and was certainly enunciated well in the Biblical record. While it's small comfort for those who suffered in those years of darkness in Armenia, many such events have transpired throughout the world in the distant and recent past. An almost planned genocide of the Irish at the time of the potato famine is an example of man's inhumanity to man. In the Ukraine -- and I'm of Ukrainian extraction -- eight million to ten million Ukrainians lost their lives in the early 1900s with basically a planned genocide there. In the Holocaust -- again a very recent situation -- over six million of Jewish ethnic origin perished.

Yesterday we discussed nuclear disarmament and nuclear weapons. That has coined a new word in the English language -- omnicide -- where the death would not be genocide but would involve all living creatures on the face of this earth. I think that all legislators all over the world remain dedicated, with faith, hope and optimism for a brighter future, and that the memories of past atrocities will help shape a stronger, better and brighter future.

The last thing I would like to say is a statement found written on the walls of a basement in Europe after the Second World War: "All of the darkness in the world cannot put out the light of one small candle." What we strive for is that type of freedom, self-determination, honesty and opportunity and rights for all people of the world.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, in your absence yesterday -- but not forgetting you -- the House passed, by a very substantial margin, a resolution to declare British Columbia a nuclear-weapons-free zone. Although your name wasn't taken in vain, you were alluded to in the debate, I'm pleased to say.

I wonder whether the House might give leave for you to transmit, on behalf of all members, a copy of the resolution to the Speaker of the House of Commons and Speakers of other legislative assemblies in Canada.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

THE STATE OF FOREST TENURES
IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

W. Hurd: It's a privilege for me to rise today to make my first private member's statement to this House on an issue that I think is of importance to many people in British Columbia. My topic of discussion today is the tenure system in provincial forests. On the issue of forest tenures in British Columbia, forest-dependent communities and their operating companies and mills must have a secure access to the timber base in order to flourish.

I think that all of us in this House accept the principle that timber supplied throughout this province must be and should be managed on the basis of sustained yield: no more trees are cut than are replanted with new growth. We all accept the principle that responsible harvesting, coupled with an aggressive and farsighted approach to planting and intensive forest management, should ensure a timber supply in perpetuity. Few would argue that achieving a balance between harvesting and planting will secure forest-dependent jobs, provide community stability, and provide in the minds of the public a belief that the resource which belongs to all of us is being managed not just for today, but for the future.

The tree-farm licence was to have been that vehicle to achieve stability of timber supply. Originally identified as the timber management licence in the Sloan report of 1945, it was the type of area-based tenure which the commission of the day felt would promote stability and a balance in harvesting and new growth that was needed to secure employment. I would like to share with this House some of the original comments from Chief Justice Sloan in 1945. They have the ring of truth today when we review them.

"The future existence of our forest industries depends upon the intelligent management of our forest land to ensure its continued productivity. No industry that continues to deplete the source of its own raw material can hope to survive without providing for the future replenishment of that material.

"The vital necessity of continued forest-cover to the public welfare and the importance of the forest industries to our economic structure demands that, in the national and provincial interest, our forests be perpetuated.

"Under our present system of temporary alienations of timber lands that revert to the Crown when logged, operators who cut these lands to secure raw material for their own conversion units are offered no encouragement to treat these lands as permanent tree-farms producing continuous crops....

"The first step towards this objective would be a form of tenure permitting the operator to retain possession in perpetuity of the land now held under temporary forms of alienation, upon condition that he maintain these lands continuously productive and regulate the cut therefrom on a sustained-yield basis."

So where are we today? In preparing to deliver my remarks to this House, I researched some of the remarks on this type of area-based tenure that I had occasion to review in the Forest Resources Commission report, The Future of Our Forests, which suggests that tree-farm licences have not worked.

"Virtually all of the forested land is now covered by either an area-base tree-farm licence or one of a number of volume-based licences within a timber supply area. There are 32 TFLs" -- I guess 33 now with the creation of TFL 54 -- "representing about 25 percent of the allowable annual cut, and 35 timber supply areas representing about 75 percent of the AAC."

[ Page 959 ]

The main problem with the current tenure system, according to the FRC, is that the high level of concentration over wood control makes the system too rigid. It does not allow for the flexibility required to accommodate society's changing values. The public is demanding that the forest be managed for integrated uses and not just for specific economic values such as timber. The point the report is making is that because virtually all forest land is already allocated in long-term TFLs and TSAs, other forest uses cannot be accommodated. The companies that now have wood supply tied up in B.C. generally produce low-value commodities such as dimension lumber, because they are denied a market in pulp; and new users cannot pursue new value-added opportunities, because they are denied access to this timber.

As we review the litany of commissions and reports on forest management over the years since 1945, we realize that from the glorious beginnings of area-based tenure we find ourselves today in a situation where we have economic dislocation, concern in communities about perpetuity of supply, and a general feeling that somehow the idea of area-based tenure has not worked in the best interests of this province.

We've never given the theory of area-based tenure a proper chance to succeed. Even though we have seen large reductions in annual allowable cuts.... You can go back to the beginning of the TFL concept and realize that governments have never accepted the idea of area-based tenure, certainly in perpetuity. We wonder how a concept with such a promising future in the 1940s could go so horribly wrong in the 1990s. Was the idea of long-term licences in exchange for a commitment to enhance forest stewardship really a fatally flawed concept? Or was it never really given a chance?

As we look at the history of forest tenures in this province, I would suggest to you that we've seen a continual erosion of the idea of area-based tenures. The original licences were granted in perpetuity. Then they became a 21-year licence renewable at the end of the period. Then it was changed to a straight 25-year period, but only replaceable after ten years. In 1987 there was a further adjustment for the small business development program. Over the years we've seen land-based reductions from tenures, as people and their governments felt -- quite correctly -- that forested areas were better set aside for other uses. In the bargain, however, the idea of sustained yield was abandoned, and tenure has become a term with little or no meaning in British Columbia.

The governments that made these decisions at the time were naively shortsighted, and are no longer around to answer for them. Such is the perpetual challenge when the Crown owns 95 percent of the forest land in B.C., but seems determined not to manage that resource for the long term but to take a political approach to the management of a long-term resource.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that your time has expired.

P. Ramsey: I listened to the comments of the member for Surrey-White Rock with some interest. The member is accurate in his recapitulation of the history of one form of tenure in this province, the tree-farm licence system. But I would suggest that what we're faced with continually, as we look at our responsibility as government for managing 96 percent of this province -- this Crown land -- are three responsibilities. The first is enhance the stability of our communities that depend on this resource, and the recent forest commission report on the extent of forest dependence of many of our communities in the interior just reinforces the importance of that goal. The second major goal, of course, is to make sure that the companies in this province that rely on the timber for their economic life are viable. The third one, of course, is the one the member alluded to: whatever tenure system we have must ensure that our forest resource is a sustainable resource, and that it's there not only for our communities and our industry today but for tomorrow and in the next century.

The member points to some difficulties with the tree-farm licence system -- and far be it from me to say it has been a perfect system -- but let's consider the three options that have been used in forest communities around the world. One, of course, is privatization of our timber resource, and that is an option that has been used extensively in the United States. Much timber harvest in the U.S. relies on private land. I would suggest that that is not an option that is viable to the people of this province. We want public control and public responsibility for our public forest resource.

The second option is public management of public forest lands. In other words, create an immensely larger forest service -- or whatever vehicle you wish to call it -- to oversee that sustainability of our forest resource.

[10:30]

The Sloan commission in the forties, to which the member referred, said there's a third way; there's a middle way, and that is to turn over for a time a portion of our forest resource to private companies, but to also give those private companies the responsibility for stewardship of that land. Has it worked? Hon. Speaker, by and large, I suggest that it has. The member deduces that somehow tenure has little or no meaning in this province. I suggest he ought to talk to the many forest companies, community groups and others who seek such tenures repeatedly. I suggest he ought to review the number of applications for such tree-farm licences that arrive at the Ministry of Forests almost on a daily basis.

I find the member's comments somewhat confusing, as well. On the one hand, he wants to say that such tenures have turned over some of our forest resource out of the good stewardship of the government. I would not quarrel with any assertion that says that some tenure-holders have indeed abused their rights, particularly in the era of sympathetic administration in the mid-eighties. On the other hand, as recently as January 13, the member has been quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying that holders of tree-farm licences on Vancouver Island are in a bad position because "the government isn't prepared to offer any incentives beyond the normal TFL agreements for them to spend capital to grow more trees or to increase yields."

[ Page 960 ]

I'd ask the member: which is it? Is it that tree-farm licences provide too much or is it that they provide too little?

Finally, I suggest this is a very complex matter. We must be careful, if we're trying to increase sustainability, that we're also ensuring the economic viability of companies and the stability of our communities. It is a triad that we must serve here. This is a complex issue, and this government is not prepared to rush into alteration of tenures willy-nilly. We must recognize that tenure is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. It is a tool that government employs to ensure wise management of our forest resource; it is not the end product.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. My purpose in raising the history of the tree-farm licence particularly is to point out that the concept of tenure has never really been given the opportunity to work in this province. A 25-year licence with a five-year renewable term is far shorter than the life cycle of a forest, as we know. Under the terms of that particular licence, there is little or no incentive for companies or communities to do more than meet the short-term interests of that particular licence. As we've seen, those short-term requirements have not been sufficient to guarantee a long-term timber supply.

The hon. member refers to the situation in the United States. He could have well talked about the situation in Scandanavia, where they are ahead of us and have come to the realization that tenures have to be tied to the life cycle of a forest. If an individual or a company is willing to plant a tree and expend the resources to tend it and engage in intensive silviculture, that person should have the inherent right to harvest what he sows.

That isn't the case in the province of British Columbia. As we play around with tenures and licence requirements in this province, we reduce the incentives for responsible forest management, and we place the burden back on the shoulders of government, who have demonstrated that they're unwilling or politically unable to do the job over the longer term.

My interest in raising this issue today is to point out to members of this House that the issues in forestry have not changed in this province. The simple question is: who will plant the trees and who will tend them? As we look back on the 40 years that have elapsed since the Sloan commission report, we realize that the tenure system, which was supposed to guarantee a supply of timber in perpetuity, has never been given a chance to work. It has been attacked in communities by some people involved in the union movement and by environmentalists as an example of corporate concentration and of loss of control by the people of the province. At the end of the day, the real loss has been in responsible forest management.

We have not yet tied any form of area-based tenure to the life cycle of a forest. That's one of the major reasons we find ourselves reducing annual allowable cuts by 20 percent in some of our TFLs in this province. This has had the effect of reducing employment and economic stability and providing a disincentive for companies to invest in manufacturing facilities. Whatever the form of tenure, whether they be tree-farm licences, woodlot licences, aboriginal forestry cooperatives or community and college sustained yield forestry projects, we must challenge our people to manage this resource in this province.

THE CASSIAR CONNECTOR

J. MacPhail: It's my pleasure to do my first member's statement in the House today. I'd like to speak on an issue important to my constituents: the Cassiar connector. That is the name for the new stretch of highway that runs right dead, smack through my constituency and now ties those dedicated Liberal constituents on the North Shore -- I'm sure they're all very grateful to have this tunnel -- to the solid social democrats who live in New Westminster and Burnaby and Surrey. I am pleased on their behalf that they can now get through the lower mainland more quickly.

I must say, hon. Speaker, that if indeed the decision to build the Cassiar connector had faced us today rather than in the mid-eighties, we might have taken a different approach. I am a strong believer that we should be concentrating our transit efforts more on group public transit. Nevertheless, there is a role for highway transportation, and the Cassiar connector meets that.

Let me take a couple of minutes to describe the Cassiar connector for the members of the House and you, hon. Speaker, so that some of my points may be a little clearer. It's an upgrading of 2.3 kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway that runs now between 1st Avenue and the Second Narrows Bridge. It's a freeway standard. It eliminates at-grade intersections with Vancouver street systems; we used to face lights throughout that stretch. And it minimizes the impact on adjacent communities -- I will talk about that more in a minute or two.

The tunnel itself and the stretch can take about 50,000 vehicles per day away from Vancouver's busy Hastings-Cassiar intersection, which is the heart of my riding. The project did mean the closure of a street that runs right through Rupert Park. However, even though the street is closed, the street itself still exists, and our government is working very closely with the city of Vancouver to ensure that the city of Vancouver meets its obligation and restores that park. It has also offered some improvements to the east-west commuter traffic that flows along Hastings Street.

With the Cassiar connector, there are some concerns that we must watch carefully. One is what some people refer to as rat-running -- that isn't a political term, I'm happy to say; it's a traffic term -- where people leave the Cassiar connector and jump through the surrounding neighbourhoods in order to get more quickly to their homes, which are off the Cassiar connector. However, if one lives in those surrounding communities, one has to pay careful attention to maintaining the neighbourhoods. Of course, those are the constituents of my riding.

I also happen to have the great fortune of living in the area of Vancouver Heights myself, and that is just 

[ Page 961 ]

above the Cassiar connector. I want to make sure that as our new government proceeds with fully developing the Cassiar connector, we do it in a fashion that maintains and enhances the neighbourhoods surrounding it and that is the most user-friendly to those of us who choose public transit, as well as our private cars, on this highway. It is to those two points that I hope the new government will pay particular attention.

As the major construction activities near completion, we are ensuring that there is a high level of landscaping being carried out around the highway. I am pleased to tell the opposition that we have also ensured that the landscaping involved native species. I was interested to find out that there are species native to Vancouver East. We'll be using those for the further development of the Hastings Park as well.

Our Minister of Transportation and Highways has a new policy for addressing traffic noise problems in the area, and this will be a model for dealing with future problems around new expressways and freeways. The Cassiar connector is one of the first ones to have this policy applied to it. We are working with the city of Vancouver, which is a major player in this project. It is important that the liaison continues in the development of all these circumstances. We are also putting up noise walls of up to three metres in height, and they'll be erected and integrated with the landscaping design.

I want to point out to members that there was an article in the Vancouver Sun in the last couple of days, which I'm sure was brought to their attention, about some complaints about the development of the system. I hope that opposition members will work carefully in the neighbourhood and that those who will benefit from the system will work with us to make sure that this project takes on its fullest enhancement for the benefit of all British Columbians.

D. Symons: I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker. There seems to be some satisfaction there with the previous administration's operation of the Highways department. The Cassiar connector was indeed construction that had to be done. We have become more automobile-dependent, and at that time this seemed to a be the only way of solving the problem.

I believe that at the time the Highways department did consult with the community there, because the type of project that was initially conceived didn't meet with the approval of the people. So they went for this cut-and-tunnel affair, which was much less intrusive into the community. I guess that is of great satisfaction to the people there and a credit to the Highways department for taking that into consideration.

Since you were describing the project, I might also note that there are some unique features to this particular project. Maybe some of you -- and I'm one -- have not yet driven through this tunnel. But there are some features built into it that are unique and interesting. They've taken a modern approach to it.

For instance, as you drive into the tunnel, the lights are arranged in such a way that they slowly dim, so that your eyes have a chance to adjust to the darkness. It's not quite the same as the Deas Tunnel, where there is a sudden change from very bright sunlight to a darker tunnel. As you come out the other end the lights are still few, but you get the sunlight, or whatever outside light there is that day, coming through the end, so your eyes can again slowly adjust to that change. They've also got the lights arranged in such a way that you're getting an indirect lighting. In this way, there's not a glare from the lights in the tunnel. As I drive through the Deas Tunnel frequently, there is a glare from the lights and from the walls. This tunnel has been devised in such a way that this does not occur there. It's almost like natural daylight.

There are two wide lanes in each tube, and there's room built in for a third one. They've taken future expansion into consideration. I think it is almost necessary in any highway construction -- tunnels, bridges -- nowadays that we look further ahead, rather than building for immediate needs. This seems to have been done there.

It is an expensive project; it will be over $115 million by the time it's completed. I believe that if the Highways ministry is following through with the schedule, it will be completed this year. As you mentioned earlier, it carries 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles a day. The intersection of Cassiar and Hastings was one of the busiest intersections in Canada at the time. That sort of road-level intersection is now made a freeway standard by having the Cassiar connector there.

I'm glad that the member mentioned alternative forms of transportation, because that's really what we should be looking at. I hope that there won't be too many more of this type of connector needed on the highway. We must -- and I think this is currently imperative for the government -- move into rapid transit, so that these types of roadways won't be necessary. People will be encouraged to get out of their cars, which are environmentally unfriendly, and into rapid transit, high-occupancy vehicle lanes or public transit. These three initiatives must be expanded in order to move people away from dependency on the automobile into an effective and efficient transportation system that will make the automobile, in a sense, obsolete.

[10:45]

L. Hanson: It's interesting to hear the member suggest that it ties those dedicated people on the North Shore to the social democrats in Vancouver. It also ties the few Socreds that we have left in the Fraser Valley and Okanagan to those North Vancouver people.

Seriously, it is a wonderful example of engineering in British Columbia. The planning and so on that went into that construction project is something that we will long look at as being an advancement. It was the single largest contract ever issued by the Ministry of Highways to one firm, which is an interesting statistic.

The rat-running that the member mentioned earlier is simply caused by traffic congestion. When people find their normal route congested beyond what is reasonable, they seek other routes. That gets traffic onto residential streets, with all of the inherent dangers of that to children and other people on those streets.

Noise abatement and the architectural design of the banks and so on were all in the original plans. It 

[ Page 962 ]

certainly is my hope that the current government will continue with that, because it is a much-needed benefit to the travelling public of British Columbia. When I look at the budget, though, I suspect that capital costs are a little restricted in the single year ahead. I hope that this is one project that they will go ahead with, and some of the other....

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that despite the light the time has well passed for a reply.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the comments of the members opposite in their support of my neighbourhood issue. I will note that there was one feature not listed by the members opposite and which would be of particular importance to them, I'm sure. That's the fact that you can use your cellular phone in the tunnel, which I know is important to many of you on that side.

It is important to talk about public transit, and I think that there is an opportunity for us to make sure, now that we have the Cassiar connector, that public transit through that section is enhanced with a special lane or car-pooling lanes, as the member opposite suggested. It is also important, when we talk about our fellow British Columbians who live in the suburbs, that we be able to get quickly to and from our jobs, which tend to be concentrated in the Vancouver area, because affordable housing tends to be outside the Vancouver area. So this transit system is important for working people. I'm committed to making sure that the public transit system is enhanced around the Cassiar connector and will be working closely with my government on that.

The Speaker: I see three hon. members rising for a private members' statement. We next have the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, but I will ask first the hon. member for Port Coquitlam: what are you rising on?

M. Farnworth: I was just rising to ask the House to make leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to make welcome to the Legislature today a group of Girl Guides from my constituency, the 9th La Farge Girl Guides, and their leader, Miss Mayert. These young women range in age from nine to 12. I would ask that the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Is the member for Parksville-Qualicum also rising on that same point?

L. Krog: Yes, I am, hon. Speaker. I would ask leave.

Leave granted.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I make my first introduction of anyone from my constituency in this House today. It is likewise a company of Girl Guides, from the wonderful town of Qualicum Beach. It's the 1st Qualicum Company with their leader, Ms. D. Brown. I would ask you to make them welcome, please.

REFORM

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, the statement I want to make today is a very brief one, obviously, but still an important one, in my view. It deals with the concept of reform and how the term reform is used in political language, not only in this province and throughout Canada but indeed around the world. And as we are seeing developments in eastern Europe, especially the breakup of the Soviet Union and the transformation taking place there, obviously the impetus is towards the reform of institutions, along the line of what the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain mentioned a few moments ago. It should remind us that sometimes the quest for reform can take all kinds of different directions. As we're seeing in the breakup of the Soviet Union, many different nationalities now want to express themselves in the form of a state government and so forth, and they're not having too much success at it -- as other parts of the world.

Indeed, when I reflect on how reform is coming along in this country, I'm also having some difficulty, as well as many other Canadians. Constituents have asked about reform, and how it's going on. In this country it seems that, if I can borrow a line from Roger Whittaker, everybody talks about a new age in the morning, but the new world never comes. I dare not sing it, because I don't want a mad rush for the washroom or something like that.

An Hon. Member: Go ahead.

A. Warnke: One of the hon. members in fact would like to hear a few bars.

At any rate, we talk about reform all the time: constitutional reform -- we don't have to elaborate on that -- parliamentary reform, electoral reform, party reform. We even have a Reform Party. It's interesting, incidentally, that the most conservative element in Canadian society are calling themselves the Reform Party, and I don't know what that says either sometimes.

We are talking about reform, and we're not really sure where reform is going. It disturbs me a little bit, because the quest for reform sometimes can actually generate a certain frustration. The leaders of our country, whether they're conscientious about this or not, who express and advocate reform, may actually increase expectations that will not be met unless they're very clearly articulated. At the present, reform of our institutions is not being clearly articulated. It seems that the emphasis on reform of our institutions is unnecessary, because it's not the institutions so much that need reform. Some of them do; obviously, institutions have to change over time, but I sometimes wonder whether the individuals themselves are slightly responsible for that.

When we express reform of our basic institutions -- in the Legislature and in Parliament and so forth -- it's worthwhile to examine the nature of the implications of 

[ Page 963 ]

what is being advocated here. For example, in British Columbia about a year ago there was a new set of ideas and proposals about parliamentary reform that ought to take place here -- fixed election dates, fixed terms -- which I think are good ideas.

There is one concept in particular I want to draw to everyone's attention, and that is the concept of recall. It is the public's desire, and a good public desire, to say: "Look, if there are bad politicians around, we want them out of the system as soon as possible." But that is an aspiration, and to a certain extent, to raise that kind of expectation does not explore the nature and implications of what is being advocated here. Let us explore the implications of recall for a moment. How long does it take? What's the process? How many signatures are there on a petition? Those issues, incidentally, have not really been explored in full. Recall as a concept is out there, and we had a referendum in the last provincial election on it, and people advocated it. They voted for it with good reason, because the public did not want to send a signal to politicians that: "Oh well, we'll vote the other way and let you guys have a free ride for four or five years." That applies to all members. Recall, in a concrete case, really means a fixed two-year term by the time you implement it.

The implications and the nature of some of these ideas, whether it's triple-E Senate -- my views are known on that -- recall, so forth, are good ideas, but at the same time, it is about time that when we explore the concept of reform, and advocate reform here and advocate reform there, we understand exactly the nature and implications of what is being advocated.

U. Dosanjh: It's my pleasure to respond to the member's statement on reform -- the necessity of reform, the concept of reform, and the perception of reform in the present political environment. We in the New Democratic government are committed to an open, honest government that's accountable, that has some integrity. Obviously, because of those issues we are interested in reform on a continuing basis.

I need not remind the members of this House that it was the previous NDP administration from '72 to '75 that instituted, for the first time in the history of this House, question period, which leads directly to the issue of accountability. It was the previous NDP administration that introduced Hansard to this House so the people of British Columbia could have at their disposal and in written form what their representatives say or do not say in this House. It's important in the sense that we as New Democrats understand that we have a tradition of wanting to reform and of reforming the institutions that ought to represent the people of British Columbia more appropriately.

In the present throne speech we introduced issues and promises such as freedom-of-information legislation. That opens government up. It opens the records of the government to scrutiny without hindrance by the ordinary people of British Columbia. It might provide due process for appeals, so the people of British Columbia would have direct, open access to the records of government.

We have pledged to deal with conflict of interest. We can strengthen conflict-of-interest legislation.

There would be an independent review of MLAs' salaries, benefits and pensions. That would be taken out of the hands of the members of this House so that it's independently assessed.

You have a promise in the throne speech to expand the jurisdiction of the ombudsman to include municipalities, regional districts, school boards, universities and hospitals.

You have expansion of the committee system of this House to include a committee on parliamentary reform that might address these issues. That committee has been in existence for a long time. In due course, in this session or the next, that committee may address the issue of recall, on which there was a referendum in the last campaign. Obviously that issue of recall is important; 83 percent of the public supported that concept. However, there was no opportunity to debate that issue during the campaign. The legislative committee dealing with parliamentary reform may have the opportunity in the next few months to deal with that issue more openly by hearing people's views on it and formulating legislation to deal with it.

[11:00]

We're talking about reform right now across the country. We're talking about the reform of the Parliament of Canada, the Senate and the powers and obligations of various sections of the population in Canada. We're talking about reform so we can deal with our native peoples across the country in a more honest and fair way and provide the justice and equality that has been long overdue.

We're also talking about the issue of gender parity in the institutions of power and in representation in this country and in this province. We're interested in those important and fundamental issues. In the very near future we would like to see 50 percent of this House being made up of women, so we would have gender parity in this province, which is long overdue. We need to have representation in this House on a more regular basis from visible minorities and various multicultural groups. Those are the kinds of issues that need to be addressed.

Whether or not parliamentary reform ought to be addressed to institutions or to individuals is also an issue which my friend the member for Richmond-Steveston raised. Perhaps the....

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, the Chair notes that the member for Okanagan West also wished to reply to this statement. Does the House give leave for perhaps a two-minute reply if the member still wishes it?

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. If it's the wish of the House, I would be very pleased to speak for a few minutes.

The Speaker: I think the House has given leave for perhaps a two-minute extension to the five-minute reply usually given.

[ Page 964 ]

C. Serwa: Reform is obviously needed. There is a great deal of cynicism out there in opposition to politics and politicians. In fact, we can do a much better job in this Legislature in British Columbia. The primary responsibility that we all share is as legislators, communicators and facilitators. The reality is that we can do many things. We can look at the free vote as an example of part of that reform. We can look at the expanded use of multiparty committee systems, which is a positive reform movement. We can look at utilizing government private members in much more meaningful roles than they presently fill. One process that is taking place at the moment is the politicizing of the civil service, and I dislike that. But I see an opportunity where government private members could be utilized either as parliamentary secretaries or perhaps as junior ministers -- not as part of the executive branch, but given meaningful roles to play in specific allocations of responsibility for ministries.

There are a number of things that can be done to make government more sensitive, to make the civil service more accountable and to make all of us deliver better governance to the people of the province. I welcome the commitment from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington to the reform movement, because we can do things much better in the service of people.

A. Warnke: I want to extend my thanks to the members for Vancouver-Kensington and Okanagan West. If there's a debate on reform that has begun, we're well on the way. Some of the ideas expressed by the member for Vancouver-Kensington are to be welcomed and endorsed. At the same time, what I have specifically in mind for my summary remarks is three areas where parliament can be improved -- this Legislature in particular. It is to really make a commitment toward the legislative committees and a commitment to increase the influence of the private members for policy-making, so that they have an impact on policy-making and so forth.

I must admit that I'm looking with enthusiasm for legislative committees to be taken very seriously in this Legislature and in subsequent sessions. If not, we will be certainly monitoring it and voicing our objection. But I hope the member doesn't mind my saying that some things appear to have got off on the wrong foot.

I believe that greater financial management and accountability is absolutely necessary. We do not want to face a situation next March where the Legislature is convened at the last minute, and all of a sudden a budget is being rammed through. I respect that this government has made a commitment that they will not do that again, and we will hold them to that. They are to be commended if they avoid that alternative.

Finally, I believe that we should avoid as much as possible the temptation toward excessive patronage. That needs to be reformed. If there is anything we've seen in the federal Parliament -- and indeed in the provincial Legislatures -- that needs to be changed, it is this business of excessive patronage. Earlier this century, with Professor Short putting forward at the federal level the need to reform the management of government, we developed the principle of merit -- that merit must come before patronage. For the most part of this century, we have practised it. Let us hope that we will not return to the principle of excessive patronage. If that's the case, we will definitely oppose it.

TRANSITION SERVICES FOR
IMMIGRANT WOMEN

G. Brewin: British Columbia is the home of choice for many new Canadians. Twenty-two percent of British Columbians are now foreign-born. That's nearly one-quarter of our population. We can expect that between 1990 and 1995 more than 100,000 immigrants are going to be coming to British Columbia. I'm not sure how many of you are aware that more than 60 different cultural communities are now present in British Columbia, and that more than 70 different languages are spoken in this province. That's a very impressive situation.

This government recognizes that women from different cultures need to have services provided in their first language. We understand that women may not seek help because of cultural or language barriers. We also know that it is important for women not to feel isolated. Part of that is to ensure that they are able to remain within their own environment and culture.

In January we announced that $1.5 million would be spent to help provide settlement counselling for refugees and immigrants. Grants will be provided to immigrant organizations to relieve existing service pressures and to expand programs that meet the special needs of immigrants. Sixty-eight projects were funded, and they include initiatives designed to meet the specific needs of immigrant women, such as pre-employment, life skills and language training.

Also, it can be very difficult for women to remove themselves from abusive home environments. If a language or cultural barrier exists, help can be very far away indeed. Fear of authority figures like police officers, doctors and court officials, and also fear of deportation, make it even harder for some immigrant women to take a sick child to a doctor or to report cases of wife assault or child abuse.

Access to health information and health care can also be impeded by cultural and linguistic barriers. The Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs recognized this and has recommended that these factors be taken into consideration in the development and delivery of health care services. Health care workers need to be culturally sensitive, and health care programs need to reflect differing cultural realities.

I recently had the pleasure of attending the very first workshop on mammography screening, breast self-examination and pap-smear testing for uterine cancer, set up specifically for immigrant women and visible minority women. Translators were available at the workshop, and visual aids were used to help educate the women there. Over the next six weeks this workshop will be travelling around British Columbia, and some 12 communities will be reached. The province is very pleased to be supporting this program and bringing this information to women in their own communities.

[ Page 965 ]

Another example of this government's commitment to transition services for immigrant women is the recent announcement of $450,000 directed to ensuring that women who are victims of family violence have access to multicultural transition services in their own language. Recognizing that women who are victims of abuse and assault must be able to count on immediate and trained help, the Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services Society is ensuring that the appropriate support is available to women when they need it. Counselling is available in Punjabi, Hindi, Gujarati, Vietnamese and Spanish. Services in other languages will also be made available.

This program also offers support to women in their dealings with the legal and social systems. Assault is a crime, but often women are afraid to talk to the police about their situations. For the safety of herself and her children, a woman must be able to know that she will get professional help when she needs it.

Our government also believes that supporting this kind of intervention, which integrates a service into an existing system, is preferred to setting up separate, parallel systems, because it helps keep women a part of their communities and does not create ghettos. It is also a way in which women, most importantly, can learn from each other.

Cultural diversity is a positive by-product that immigrants bring with them to British Columbia. It cannot be used as a barrier to service delivery and accessibility. In some situations, women's lives may be in danger because they are afraid -- or don't know how -- to contact a doctor, a police officer or a social worker. Women's health and safety cannot be threatened because they are immigrants. Providing transition services for immigrant women is one challenge that this government is pleased to begin to meet.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments of the previous speaker and also the awareness of this opportunity and need within the community. We certainly do have a variety of persons coming from different parts of the world to share their strengths with us in our Canadian society. With the previous speaker, I welcome them and hope that we will learn much from them as we interrelate day by day.

I'm very much aware that these women, as well as the men who accompany them in many cases, are bringing to us a variety of different approaches and needs. Some of them come to us through university training by coming here for education and then staying to work within the Canadian scene. Some of them take that kind of training, go home again and then come back to us with enriched experiences. Many of them come to us because they have personal, business and professional connections prior to being welcomed into this country. They bring international experience not only from their own country but from many other countries of the world in which they have lived. We welcome the experience they bring with them. They bring families, who wish to be a full, active part of our society.

At the present time, though, the obstacles that we place in their way for coming fully into society are ones that we need to look at carefully and reconsider. Many of those with professional training -- medical training, for instance -- find it very difficult to become part of the medical scene in our society. I think of one medical doctor who found that the one job available to her was to work on a sewing machine in a factory in East Vancouver -- unable to use her medical skills.

[11:15]

Many of these people are very anxious to volunteer and participate in our Canadian scene. Their orientation is not always available to them, and I'm delighted that the opportunities are being provided through their own facilities, so that this need may be more realistically met. Some of these people come with a refugee background and have lived through horrors and difficulties that most of us would find difficult to imagine. This is another group that we need to respond to and support. Some of them are teenagers, who have the normal teenage adjustments to make as well as the cultural ones. Others are seniors, many of whom come through family reunification programs.

So there is a whole variety of needs. Sometimes we looked only at the negative needs of the problems that people have -- and we need to recognize and meet those -- but we also need to look on the positive side and recognize that into our society we welcome immigrant women who are bringing us health, wealth and cultural diversity which will make us a stronger and richer community.

G. Brewin: I welcome the comments by the member for Vancouver-Langara. They clearly demonstrate his understanding and interest in this issue as it affects all citizens in British Columbia. It has been evident for many years now that Canada is going to need many more immigrants -- and numbers suggested to us have been as high as 250,000 people newly arrived each year -- starting now, if our population and our workforce is to be maintained at its current level.

One of the groups of people that will be very important to us will be workers. We need to be providing services in our province, and nationally as well, that will help those citizens and workers integrate into our communities. As the previous speaker mentioned, we need the bigger picture; we need the issues of health and services that will be required. Hon. Speaker, I also think we need to ready our communities for the arrival of new people.

In the past, our immigration pattern has been one from northern Europe, eastern Europe, Scandinavia and Great Britain. We're going to be receiving, welcoming and wanting new citizens from Central and South America, Asia and Africa; people -- men and women and children -- with very different languages and very different cultural traditions. I think it's very important that we as a society recognize the importance of their presence with us, and that we work to develop programs that will help the community respect their presence here, enjoy their presence here, and work with them as newcomers to our community, building yet again this great country of ours and this great province of British Columbia. I'm looking forward to working with all members of the House as we as a government 

[ Page 966 ]

develop these programs, and further develop how we can integrate newcomers to our province.

The Speaker: Before we proceed with other orders of the day, I would bring forward my comments on the point of order that was raised on Wednesday last.

On Wednesday last, during oral question period, a point of order was raised by the hon. Attorney General relating to a question posed by the hon. member for Okanagan West. I quote the text of the question because of the important implications which flow from the point of order raised:

"My question today is to the Minister of Labour with respect to the Firestone case. If the minister's personal legal costs were deemed to be an appropriate public expense of his previous role as opposition critic, and even though some of these funds were expended after he became a minister, perhaps the minister can explain why the settlement costs were not also paid from public funds."

The hon. Attorney General suggests that such a question, directed to the Minister of Labour, is out of order in that it deals with matters outside the minister's responsibility; and also that the question deals with an issue that was current in the previous parliament. The hon. leader of the third party, speaking to the point of order, referred to the practice of this House in directing questions to ministers, and the hon. member for Okanagan West stated in his submissions that although the issue first arose in a previous parliament, the information requested related to funds expended after November 5 by the current administration. The hon. member for Okanagan West also advised the House that he had written letters to the Attorney General and the auditor general and the deputy Attorney General on this matter.

As members are aware, the guidelines related to questions and answers are outlined in some detail in the material that was circulated to every member of the House on April 13, 1992. The overriding principle relating to questions is stated in Beauchesne's fifth edition on page 132: "A brief question, seeking information about an important matter of some urgency, which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of a specific minister to whom it is addressed, is in order."

When that guideline is applied to the question posed by the hon. member for Okanagan West, it seems to the Chair that the subject matter of the question does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the minister. To the contrary, the question appears to ask the minister for a policy explanation as to why settlement costs were not paid from public funds when personal legal costs were described as an appropriate public expense.

A further examination of the question as reported in Hansard could well lead to the conclusion that the member is seeking an opinion from the minister rather than information. Accordingly, it would fall squarely within the prohibition quoted in subparagraph (3) on page 132 of Beauchesne's fifth edition. However, in assessing the propriety of the question the Chair does not rely as much on this ground as it does on the administrative responsibility aspect previously mentioned.

Any question, when challenged on a point of order, must be examined on its individual merits. The Chair has examined and considered the past practices of this House as they relate to the conduct of oral question period. While there may be a perception that certain practices were permitted in the past, I am unable to find instances in the Journals of this House when a similar question, on a point of order being raised, was found to be within a particular minister's administrative responsibility. I cannot find any parliamentary authority that would suggest that the question as framed by the hon. member for Okanagan West and directed to the Minister of Labour is an admissible question.

In addition to the authorities previously cited, procedural authorities in the House of Commons both in this country and the United Kingdom have been consulted, and I would advise all hon. members that the Chair's opinion in this matter is confirmed in both Parliaments. There may be other approaches available to the hon. member to pursue the information he seeks.

For the reasons stated, therefore, the Chair rules that the question as worded and directed to the Minister of Labour is indeed out of order.

Orders of the Day

C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply, section B only.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 60: minister's office, $392,000 (continued).

L. Hanson: There has been a lot of reference in the media to tolls and how they might assist the construction of future highways. Could the minister give this House some indication of the net return dollars to the province of British Columbia when you have...? I know you have the gross amounts taken in at the Coquihalla tollbooth. Can you give us an indication of what those net amounts might be after cost of operation?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, I'll take a clarification. Are you asking with respect to retirement of capital costs, or are you speaking strictly of the net between tolls received and costs of operating the toll system?

L. Hanson: Actually I'd like to have both, but I recognize that the amortization of the capital cost of the tollbooths may not be as readily available. I may get to that on another question. If you had both answers, I would certainly appreciate that. Primarily I was interested in what annual return the government got from the tollbooths operationally. What was the income, and what did it cost to collect that income?

[ Page 967 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The proceeds are $30.5 million, and the costs associated with the toll plaza and collection are about $1.2 million, for a net of $29.3 million.

L. Hanson: That, in fact, does not include the capital of the construction of the booths in the first place. I know that might be information that the minister may not have with him. If we could get some indication during the estimates of that cost and the amortization, it would be appreciated.

I have a number of questions, of course, on various projects around British Columbia. I was interested yesterday in hearing the minister's comments on the ATAP program. Can you describe what change the ATAP program has seen this year in terms of dollars and breadth compared to last year? I believe there's considerably less money involved this year than last year.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there have been substantial amounts. It's been running about $4 million a year. It was $4 million last year, and our budgeted amount for this year is $0.4 million. So there's been a reduction of $3.6 million.

L. Hanson: Is the minister suggesting that there was a need for that because of restraint or shortage of funds, or has a lesser application or demand for funds been perceived this year?

[11:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Over the past several years a total of some $20 million has been spent on this program. However, the decision this particular year was that it was one area that would have to be cut back due to fiscal considerations. There may well be sufficient demand out there to far exceed the $400,000 that we're providing. It was just one of those decisions that we had to make on cutting back costs.

L. Hanson: I suspected that the demand was fairly heavy, and it was a reduction in funding. I'm not sure that you would know this, but the funding out of Municipal Affairs for revenue-sharing programs, highways projects.... Your ministry would approve the project. What amount is allocated to that this year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Fifteen million dollars.

L. Hanson: This is actually the same as last year, then. I noticed in the discussions earlier, when you were answering some questions for one of the other members, that the restructuring grant to municipalities for the reorganization of boundaries, etc., was $7.5 million. That is down considerably from past years -- out of revenue-sharing?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes. The amount last year was $7.7 million; this year the budgeted amount is $6 million.

L. Hanson: I understand where the demand comes from for those; it's compensation for municipalities that take over the maintenance of roads or that expand their boundaries and take that over. Do you anticipate that the demand this year will be that much less than it was in previous years?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In past years it has typically been overfunded. We anticipate that the full demand for restructuring can be met out of the $6 million.

L. Hanson: Just to switch horses for a second, you published a bulletin outlining the costs of maintenance contracts for the current year as somewhere around $280 million or $290 million. What is that compared to the maintenance contracts for the year before? How much did they increase in the one year? I know we just entered into new contracts in most cases, and I'm interested to know what the two figures are that compare.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount paid last year was $263.9 million, and the renegotiated amounts covering all 28 maintenance districts will be $285.4 million for the current fiscal year.

L. Hanson: That's slightly more than $20 million higher. The figures in the estimates for maintenance will give you about the same dollars for maintenance this coming year over and above the maintenance contracts that you had last year.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There will be a reduction. There was an efficiency saving of about $7 million.

L. Hanson: There was an efficiency saving of about $7 million -- a different approach to work or...? I'm not sure I understand that. Reduction in volume of work?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The numbers will be developed for you, if you will take a deferment of a few minutes and go to another question. Perhaps we could come back to this.

L. Hanson: I have a number of questions on various projects and their status. I see you have all of your experts with you, so you can probably answer most of them.

There was a fairly large project that entailed not a new concept to highways, but a bit of a new concept to British Columbia. We were developing a highway from Coquitlam into Vancouver with the inclusion of some high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. The member made the statement this morning on the Cassiar connector and suggested that more emphasis should be on public transportation, and that vehicles carrying more than one person would be of the same assistance.

There was a program started I believe about two years ago for the Barnet Highway to create that high-occupancy-vehicle lane. What are the ministry's 

[ Page 968 ]

plans for this year? Do they have dollars in the budget to continue with that, or is it in abeyance?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Barnet-Hastings corridor project is proceeding, and it continues to include the HOV lanes.

L. Hanson: It's proceeding. I think there were some projects underway actually since last year. Has the amount of money been allocated that had been anticipated for this year's work in the capital program?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There have been cutbacks in that project as well as in every other project around the province. The amount that we're proceeding with this year is $9.63 million.

L. Hanson: That's the total allocation for the project this year. Can the minister tell us what the project might have next year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There were a wide range of possibilities. Had there been full application of funds to the degree that the engineering and construction industries could deliver and if the budget could deliver, it could have run up as high as $40 million.

L. Hanson: I have questions on so many different projects that I would like to hear about.

The Cassiar connector was mentioned today, and I know it's substantially complete but not complete. Is it the intention of the ministry to dedicate the funds needed to complete it in this fiscal year? The approaches and the different parts that make it a complete....

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, it is the ministry's intention to completely finish the project.

L. Hanson: I think I heard yesterday in the conversation -- maybe I read it in the media; I'm not sure -- that you had reconsidered the McKenzie intersection, and that it would be completed in time for the Commonwealth Games.

There's some fairly extensive work being done, partially by B.C. Ferries and partially by Highways, at Lands End. Will that also be completed by the Commonwealth Games?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Lands End will be completely functional but not completed as a project at that time. A correction: it will be completed by the Commonwealth Games, and substantial completion in terms of usability by June of this year.

L. Hanson: In effect, when we do get those millions of people coming here to watch the Commonwealth Games, they'll be able to come in by ferry and have excellent highways to do it on. That's good news; I'm pleased to hear that.

I have one last question, and then I will turn it over to another member. The last question I have is that some time ago -- and it's dealing with ferries -- I had the opportunity of looking at the traffic at Tsawwassen and how it was getting into the traffic flow at that entrance to British Columbia's mainland. There were some pretty difficult traffic situations developing there. Can the minister give me some indication of what plans they may have for assistance to that problem this year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There will be some improvements for volume at the Tsawwassen intersection and some improvements as well at the intersection of 17 and 10. Beyond that, we'll be studying the overall project to construct a substantially new Highway 17 between the Tsawwassen terminal and 99. But that will certainly not be a project undertaken in this or probably the next fiscal year.

L. Hanson: I have another commitment and must leave this most enjoyable debate. I will return next week.

[11:45]

D. Symons: I would like to just follow on. This last thought on the traffic on Tsawwassen has changed the order of my questions, because that impacts on the area that I live in -- Richmond. I also am concerned, particularly when the superferries come into operation, that the highways are not going to be adequate to handle that increased volume along with the rush-hour traffic that happens to want to go through the Deas Tunnel. I'm pleased to hear that you're planning on restructuring Highway 17. Would there also be some plans in the future for the tunnel traffic and traffic through Richmond for the way it's going to get eventually into Vancouver?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Rather than get into any kind of detail with regard to a specific project, I would defer until we see the results of the overall Transport 2021 plan that is being carried out in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I don't want to give in any way an indication that we are closing off options on them or opening up options that they themselves are not coming up with.

While I'm on my feet, I had meant to say before the third party representative departed that if there are questions in the future regarding B.C. Rail, I would ask if I could have a day's warning. Then I can have a representative or two from B.C. Rail come over for that day, rather than have them on standby here and simply cause unnecessary costs. I'll convey the same invitation to the third party.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

D. Symons: I wasn't really asking for definitive plans, just an overall view of the fact that something has to be done at the tunnel there. The Massey Tunnel is past gridlock in a sense during some of the transportation times now, and it's getting to the point where something must be done very shortly.

Let's go back to the actual estimates in the book, if we could. I'm looking at the subvote of highways operations under vote 61. There's an increase in this one 

[ Page 969 ]

of over $1 million from last year. Could the minister tell the House how he justifies an increase in this department, when the whole of his ministry seems to have been cut by about $160 million for the year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The reason that operations has not changed significantly or has increased modestly is that it pertains to the operation of our existing infrastructure. We haven't lost infrastructure by 15 percent; the same infrastructure is there. We must operate it, and in fact it would have increased modestly due to expenditures during the year. So the modest -- I think 1 or 2 percent -- increase in the operations budget simply reflects the ongoing operation of the existing system.

D. Symons: I'm having to find my place in this one. Also in this subvote under STOB 82, we find a figure of approximately $170,000. I'm wondering if the minister could list the organizations that received contributions and explain to us how they're selected and who they represent.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount relates to snow removal operations on roads to ski hills. The operators apply.... We have a formula whereby we look at the number of trips and visits -- that is, by the travelling general public -- in order to prioritize whether that road should be included in our snow removal system. Once it has qualified, then it stays in for future years. The total of that at this particular time is $170,000.

D. Symons: Is there any return on that? Apparently you're assisting commercial ventures on the ski slopes, and I happen to ski myself. I'm wondering if the company that's operating this venture pays something back to the Highways department for the removal of snow, which is conveniencing their customers.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there would be two aspects of that. First of all, in terms of return, the return is in the sense of tourism and return to general revenue of all of the economic activities associated with any specific ski hill. The other side of the coin is that if we didn't maintain it on this basis, then they would petition and receive public support to have these roads declared part of the public road system. Then we would be stuck with the far higher cost of maintaining them and periodically upgrading them from start to finish for 365 days of the year. So this is very much a money-saving measure.

D. Symons: It's interesting to hear the reasoning behind it, and it seems like quite a good arrangement.

I'm still looking under the Highways operations at STOB 40, and we can see that there is $50,000 here. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what information, advertising or publications would be undertaken within this department. And are these publications tendered?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: They're principally announcements such as road closures, weight restrictions being implemented on the system, tender notices and a variety of activities like that.

D. Symons: I would have thought that announcements of that sort would be carried on radio as a public service and wouldn't require a cost to them. I guess $50,000 for advertising if you're paying for it doesn't seem like much, but it's possibly an area where we could investigate getting it for free.

I asked the other question: are these tendered? I suppose if they're radio announcements, they are not, but would any written, published ones be put out to tender?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Clarifying on your previous point, by publishing we're speaking mainly of buying space in local and community newspapers around the province to advertise road closures, weight restrictions and that sort of thing. No, they're not tendered. It's a case of simply purchasing that advertising space in all of those community and city papers. Typically, announcements made -- be they on television or on radio -- are public service announcements that we do not pay for.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that clarification. I was somewhat confused on that.

Also under this subvote, STOB 95 has other expenditures, and we see that there is approximately $10,600. I understand that the minister may ask why we should care about the $10,000 in a ministry with a budget of $823 million. But what would these other expenditures cover? What sort of thing would be listed there rather than under some other heading?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We're down now to about the fourteenth decimal place in the ministry. It is $10,000 out of nearly a billion dollars. They just happen to be small expenditures here or there that don't fit in any other specific cubbyhole. So we have one cubbyhole marked "other," and it happens to total $10,000.

D. Symons: Can we move to the next heading in vote 60 under highways maintenance? I note under STOBs 1 to 3 that the salaries and benefits have decreased by approximately $3 million. How has this been accomplished, how many employees would this involve and what positions have been lost? That's a three-part question.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The item referred to is realized through efficiency savings within the ministry. Going back one question on the other, I just asked my officials to provide me so I could provide you with one typical example. We have 25- and 35-year awards that we give long-term employees. Printing certificates or framing something and handing it over to an employee might be one of those $10,000 costs. We do that for quite a few employees through the year. They're a small recognition of longstanding public service.

[ Page 970 ]

D. Symons: It makes me a wee bit jealous. I didn't receive that sort of small recognition at the end of 30 years of teaching. But I am glad that the ministry does recognize long service.

Hon. T. Perry: Didn't you get any accolades from parents or students?

D. Symons: That usually happens ten or 20 years later, when you go to a reunion and suddenly the students realize that you did something for them. At the time it's not too often, I'm afraid.

Hon. T. Perry: Think of it as an investment.

D. Symons: There are long-term investments in education; that's for sure.

I assume that under this subvote we see the contributions that go to private highway contractors. Is it correct that they would be under STOBs 1, 2 and 3 under the maintenance heading?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, they fit under highways maintenance.

D. Symons: How many contractors are there? How many contracts are involved throughout the province? Could you give me an average cost of these? I assume that each contracting zone will vary in size and difficulty from one to the other, but roughly what do they average out to? It might be easier to give me a range.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We'll get some details for you in just a second. I can start off by saying that there are 28 contract districts, and there are 20 contractors. Some of the contractors have two. The range is from a low of about $7 million to a high of $36.7 million. Among the 28, the average would be about $10 million.

[12:00]

D. Symons: Is the ministry continuing with the privatization of other areas of highways? Prior to that I might ask if these 28 contract districts cover the whole district. Are all areas in the province now under private contract, or are some still done by the ministry? Would you give me an idea of the percentage of the province that might be covered by private contractors versus that which might still be under the ministry?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The 28 districts correspond to highways districts, and they cover the entire province with two exceptions: maintenance in national parks and maintenance of the Alaska Highway.

D. Symons: Are there any areas besides maintenance that the ministry is considering privatization techniques for? Maintenance includes rehabilitation, does it?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, all of the rehabilitation work, some $180 million worth, is done by contractors. New construction, totalling some $175 million, is all done by contractors. Much of the design work that we're doing is through engineering firms, and some construction management is through private engineering firms as well. Many aspects have been in the private sector all the way along.

D. Symons: I gather from that response that the ministry has downsized, in the sense that it's contracting out as many of the items under its jurisdiction as possible. What is the process for tendering of contracts? Does the minister have any plans to change the contracting process for maintenance?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We're speaking now of the maintenance contracts? There's an open tender first of all; then each of the parties that has tendered has to show their bona fides in terms of their financial, technical and administrative capabilities. There's then a tendering process. We will start with the lowest tender and enter into negotiations, looking in detail into their capability -- financial, technical, equipment, administrative -- and negotiating specifics. If we can come to an agreement with that tenderer, we enter into a contract. If we cannot for some reason come to a final agreement with that tenderer, we would go to the next highest tender and start the process again.

D. Symons: Is there any requirement for these groups that are tendering -- or who receive the contracts -- to be unionized employees?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's not a condition, and there are some choosing to decertify. For the ones where there is certified union representation, then there's a successor clause whereby they must take on the same employees and offer them the same package that the previous contractor had.

I'd like to add a comment -- so I don't mislead anyone -- referring to your previous question on the tender process. I said before that we start with the lowest tender; I want to correct that. We don't necessarily start with the lowest dollar tender; it's a combination of the tender price plus the apparent capabilities of the firm. That is to say, if somebody put in a stink-bid, so to speak, and we saw through it immediately, we wouldn't start negotiation with them; we would start with what we felt was the first bona fide tenderer.

D. Symons: Fair enough -- a very reasonable approach.

Following a little on that, because it's a detraction from what I have here, I note that the fair wage that was brought in exempted the highway construction from the fair-wage policy. I'm wondering if you might explain, because that could have some effect on budgeting and so forth for the highways, if we believe that fair wages should apply to unionized and non-unionized employees -- from your comments, there may be some non-unionized employees here -- why they are exempted from the fair-wage legislation that affects other people who contract out for the government.

[ Page 971 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You would have to put that question to the Minister of Labour during his estimates.

D. Symons: I'm just disappointed that there won't be an answer, because I would assume, since this particular ministry seemed to be exempted, that there would have been some consultation between the Minster of Labour and yourself on that matter.

Can we move again to STOB 20 on professional services? This figure for last year was over $3 million, and this year it's reduced to less than $1 million. What were these professional services, and how will this reduction affect the operations of highway maintenance?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's a little uncertainty as to exactly which figure you're asking about. I can give you a partial answer, but I will also take it on notice just to make sure that I provide you with the correct information.

In the last fiscal year we were in the process of renegotiating the 28 contracts and used some external consulting capability in helping with that process. It was a massive undertaking, and that may represent the difference in the two figures. But I'll seek a clarification and advise you.

D. Symons: That will suffice. One last one on this particular heading.

Under STOB 25 you have information systems, and this figure has been reduced by 80 percent over what was budgeted for it last year. I'm wondering what information systems have been cut back, and how this will impact on highways maintenance. Will any change in the information systems impact on the safety of our roads?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It certainly won't impact on the safety of the system. I'll have to take your previous question on notice, but I may be able to have an answer for you before we leave today.

C. Tanner: During the course of the discussion yesterday afternoon, the minister stood up and, in a thinly veiled threat, suggested that he should be able to introduce somebody from the gallery, and it turned out to be his brother, and I'm sure the House was very pleased to meet him. Immediately after that occasion, another gentleman was introduced. His name is Jim Campbell. He's from Saturna; he's from my constituency; he comes from the Gulf Islands.

Mr. Campbell elicited a promise from your predecessor of the last NDP government in '72-'75. I can't remember the minister's name off the top of my head, but he's well known. The promise was: in the Gulf Islands this department would not treat the roads in the same way as roads are treated in the rest of the province. The point that Mr. Campbell made and got the promise from this department for was that the roads in the Gulf Islands are different from the rest of the province, and Mr. Campbell was correct.

Subsequently Mr. Campbell, when he went to the minister and said, "Mr. Minister, you have made a public promise to the people of the Gulf Islands that you will treat the roads differently on the Gulf Islands," the minister admitted that he didn't have the authority to make that promise; that the gentleman sitting beside you and their cohorts in the department were the people who made those decisions; and he apologized for making the promise.

My question to the minister is this: would you like to repeat the promise that that minister made -- the last time your party was government -- that the roads on the Gulf Islands will be treated differently with a different set of circumstances than those on the rest of the islands, and that he won't impose the standards on the Gulf Islands that you do on the rest of the roads across the province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can assure the member opposite that the roads on the Gulf Islands are treated differently. We negotiate with the Islands Trust. We've been in a two-year negotiation with them over road standards.

I can attest personally that I have received -- Heavens! -- probably dozens of letters from people on the Islands objecting to specific things, brushing and ditching most frequently. We have indicated to them in writing time and time again that we are cognizant of the problems, and that we are sensitive. We are treating it differently, and we have time and again turned it back to the local level to work out those problems in concert with perhaps the member, the residents, Highways personnel and in ongoing negotiations with the Islands Trust. So I have no difficulty at all in pledging that the roads on the Islands will be treated differently from the roads in the province as a whole.

C. Tanner: Thank you. I will remind you of that promise constantly, because that's what the people who live on the Gulf Islands do to me -- constantly.

I've received more mail from the Gulf Islands about the roads on those five beautiful places than any other mail I get concerning any other department including -- would you believe? -- ICBC and Workers' Compensation, which traditionally are the departments most members get the most mail about. I do appreciate the minister's commitment.

However, I have just recently had occasion to deal with a particular case. I don't want to talk about the particular road; I want to talk about the situation that happened with the contractor you have on the Islands. That's where some of the problems arise, I think. The contractor is working by standards which he is being given, I assume, by the ministry. They probably are the standards for the whole of British Columbia. I wonder sometimes whether the contractor on Saltspring, in particular, is working on the basis that he is working under special circumstances -- Saltspring -- or whether he working under the same rules as everybody else around the province.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the basis of letters coming in, our staff have talked to the staff of the 

[ Page 972 ]

contractor on numerous occasions to make sure that they are more aware of the sensitivities of people on the Gulf Islands. We're constantly working on that problem and trying to meet those local demands.

I might point out that should the member so desire, we might make all the ferries one way: off the Islands.

C. Tanner: You will have a problem if you do that, because we're going to have those same people coming here then. Thank you for the offer; I'm afraid I'm going to refuse it. But I will hold the minister to his commitment in regard to the Gulf Islands.

I have another problem which concerns the balance of my constituency. The highway that everybody in this House travels to get here from the ferries is the only main highway through my constituency, which runs through North Saanich, Sidney -- Sidney-by-the-Sea, as the member reminds me -- and Central Saanich. I appreciate that the minister's department has made a decision that they are not to go ahead with some of the intersections and so on. However, can the minister give me his assurance that some of the dangerous aspects of the highway will be treated with some concern over the next two or three years until the major engineering undertakings are started?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there are ongoing negotiations with the CRD about safety issues -- in the coming fiscal year about $1.5 million on both the Trans-Canada and the Pat Bay Highway to address critical safety issues.

[12:15]

B. Copping: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Copping: I'm very pleased to welcome a class from Glenayre Elementary School. Ms. Wickerson is their teacher, and she told me they followed the election campaign for three months, so they're exceedingly interested. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Tanner: The minister, when talking about the Pat Bay Highway, mentioned that they were talking to the Capital Regional District. Are they also talking to the municipalities?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: By all means, and the police forces.

C. Tanner: Is the minister aware whether the police forces have brought to his attention some of the particularly dangerous aspects of the highway that need attention between now and when they do the overpasses?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, and on an ongoing basis. We have met with all of the police forces on a package of safety issues that they have put forward and approved.

C. Tanner: I've just got one further question, which doesn't concern my constituency but just the department in general. I was here for most of the afternoon yesterday when the Minister of Highways talked about a reduction -- I think he said 15 percent -- of funding to his department for projects on highways throughout the province. I think he also said, after a question that I asked him about consultants, that he had advised the consultants to the department that they should expect employee reductions of between 200 and 250. Incidentally, I compliment the minister on giving that warning to the private enterprise. It begs the question, after those two statements, that if you have reduced your department expenditures by 15 percent and if you have warned the consultants you have used in the past two years to reduce their staff, why haven't you reduced the staff in your own department?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have had a rather dramatic downsizing in the department over the last several years. Last year we were utilizing a lot of overtime, but we're going to cut back on that. Even though our expenditures on new construction are dropping -- and that's where the consultants and contractors lose a great deal -- we in the department must still carry on with planning and preliminary design and, in many instances, design. Hence, we're able to keep our staff busy, but not overly busy as they have been in the past couple of years due to the downsizing that has occurred.

C. Tanner: Could the minister give the assurance then that as far as staff are concerned, we would not anticipate any expansion in his department in the next two years?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You certainly have that undertaking for this year. Next year, should manna fall from heaven and should the feds come with hundreds of millions of dollars to the table, you can rest assured that we will increase staff.

G. Farrell-Collins: In the brief period of time when I served as the minister's opposite number on this side, we did have a meeting at which I brought up a concern from my constituency which extends to the previous government but has an application with the present government and certainly with his ministry. It was with regard to Reclamite which was sprayed on a stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway that extends throughout the Langley municipality. That was done about a year ago over the Easter weekend. Some 30 accidents took place over the period of that weekend which in the end were all attributed to driver error. If it wasn't so disastrous, it would almost seem comical that everyone became poor drivers on the same weekend.

At the time we had our meeting I asked the minister if he would investigate that for me, perhaps look at it from a new angle, given the fresh ministry, and get back to me. I didn't receive anything. I don't know if my colleague received something, given that he took over my responsibilities, or if that investigation has ever 

[ Page 973 ]

been done or if copies of the engineering reports that were done are available to the public.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are three or four points I wish to make. First, this whole question is probably out of order as it has nothing whatsoever to do with estimates. Second, it has to do with a previous administration. Third, the issue is in the courts -- some aspects of it -- so I would not comment on some aspects. But lastly, I will say that there are some engineering reports -- they have not been made public, but they're also not secret reports -- and would make some of those engineering reports available through the critic to you.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am mindful of the fact that the accident and the issue took place under the previous administration. I understand that, but I think that people would still like to know what took place. I do understand that there are probably resultant ICBC claims that are going to go on for some protracted period of time.

I guess the question I would then ask the minister is: has this product been put on hold? Has there been a commitment by his ministry to not use this product until such time as this investigation, these court cases -- as far as assigning of blame -- come to some conclusion? Or is this product continuing to be used on an ongoing basis?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The product, and I believe comparable products, are still being used as part of the pavement rehabilitation program. It's a rejuvenator. It's still being applied in appropriate circumstances, and we're not experiencing general difficulties with it.

G. Farrell-Collins: My concerns at the time I voiced them to the minister were particularly with the fact that this product had been used in the past; certainly in the Okanagan, in the summer when it's relatively dry and the product, I assume, would evaporate much more quickly or set more quickly into the pavement. My concern was that this product had been applied to a stretch of extremely busy highway just prior to one of the busiest weekends -- Easter weekend -- in a climate in the lower mainland that is particularly rainy and wet. I drove that stretch of highway for the first couple of days, and then I decided to take the back roads because I wasn't very comfortable with it.

My concern, I guess, is not so much that the product is being used but with the conditions and the environmental conditions under which it is going to be used. Has there been any commitment...?

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting, but we did allow the previous question because it dealt with matters of present administration. Now you are straying into areas that deal with past administration. I would ask you to confine your questions to the present administration of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, Chair; in fact, I'm trying to do that. The question is dealing with the present direction the ministry is taking and what direction this new minister has given to the ministry with regard to the application of this product. I was just trying to give a bit of background as to the history in my experience, and why I have this concern over the environmental aspects of the application.

We're dealing with a product that is continuing to be put on the road in the form of a petroleum-based liquid, if I'm correct, which in itself reduces the traction of a vehicle. Then in order to absorb some of that or to help with the setting of the product, sand is applied on top of it which, in itself, if it were applied alone on to a highway or any road, would reduce the traction. The combination makes it even worse, in my personal experience.

I guess the clincher on this one is that if we apply this product and the sand at a time of year when it is very prone to a good deal of rain -- for example, spring in the Fraser Valley -- perhaps we're magnifying the problem and the risk. I'm wondering if there has been any decision on the part of this new minister to take that into consideration in determining when this product will be applied.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I've sought a clarification, and we have in fact advised our contractors not to use that specific product -- the name-brand product -- right now. We are using comparable products, but not that specific one.

In the instance of the incident that the member opposite is referring to, the addition of sand to the process in fact makes it safer. The sand acts as a blotting agent and assists with the drying out and with stability. It increases traction. Whatever you've done to compromise traction, the sand offsets that.

I would also point out that by shear happenstance I too happened to drive that road on the day following the incident.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. I appreciate the information. I might also ask the minister if he could give us his personal feelings -- I don't know if this is in order -- on the condition of the road on that day.

The part of the question that I was most curious about is: has there been any guidance given to the ministry by you or the engineers who were involved in the review to attempt to not apply this product or comparable products when the weather is prone to adding moisture, rain, to the surface and thereby complicating the traffic problems?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: All of the specifications outlining the proper usage of the product come with the product. The contractors are fully aware of the limitations, the weather conditions and all of the precautions that might be or must be taken in every other way. We are not applying or providing additional information to the contractors.

[12:30]

[ Page 974 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps one last question on this issue. I'm not always confident when I receive a package of instructions with a product that they're all right up to snuff. There was a considerable amount of testing done on that section of the highway, I believe, about two weeks after the really difficult Easter weekend. My understanding is that a good deal of that testing was done with.... In fact, they added water -- they sprayed the road down in order to make it wet.

What I'm wondering about to the minister is: has he given -- and if not, perhaps why not -- any indication to the ministry and indeed the contractors to be careful when applying this product? Does he feel that water has been a mitigating factor in some of the concerns?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As minister, I have not provided advice to technical staff on this product, but I am advised that it is a widely used product throughout many jurisdictions in North America and that contractors are well familiar with its characteristics and with all of the conditions for application. I repeat that we have advised that the specific name-brand product not be used.

D. Symons: First I'd like to comment on an earlier comment the minister made. I'm not sure how many questions other people and the third party may have on Transportation and Highways. I'm responding to your comment about having people from B.C. Rail available. My schedule would say that probably some time on Monday afternoon we would be getting into B.C. Rail, but the third party might have more questions. I don't know, and I'm not too sure with some of my own members. This is no chastisement of them, but I'm not sure, when they get into the fray, how many questions they might be asking and how long they may go on. But I would hope that towards the end of Monday we would be into the Rail estimates.

You would probably like a more definitive answer, but I would like to move back into the highway maintenance section of the estimates under vote 61, and then move on to STOB 42, which in the brief descriptions given in the book here are referred to as "statutory notices" and "non-discretionary publications." The one thing I note in this one is that the figure here is considerably less, roughly half of what it was last year. I'm somewhat curious as to how you can cut in half something non-discretionary. Could you maybe explain what non-discretionary cuts have been made in order to reduce that budget by about half from last year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those are again the legal announcements that are from time to time required. Last year, going through the process of reselecting all the maintenance contractors, we had a large number of notices that needed to be published. That is non-discretionary. This year there is far less of that. We also get into notices that must be given on tenders for contracts of a wide variety; we'll be putting out far fewer tenders this year, and hence the non-discretionary amount dropped.

R. Kasper: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Kasper: I'm pleased to present to the House Mr. Guy Dumoulin. He is the executive secretary of the building construction trades division in Ottawa. He is also the chairperson of Dollars Against Diabetes, or DADS, which is a national campaign on the Father's Day weekend. I ask the House to make Mr. Dumoulin welcome.

D. Symons: I guess we could consider the previous minister's comment that by cutting back on capital construction this STOB 42 becomes a fringe benefit of that, in that we aren't making as many announcements asking for tenders, etc.

STOB 50 under that same line in our book -- utilities, supplies, vehicles -- has increased by 10 percent. Again, when other expenditures are down, an increase under here seems discordant with the other reductions.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Could I seek clarification as to whether you are still referring to an item under maintenance?

D. Symons: Under STOB 50, the figure we see is $307 million budgeted there under highways maintenance. I believe this is an increase over last year for the same item.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There still may be some confusion on this particular element. The $307 million is the total amount being paid to contractors for the maintenance in the 28 maintenance districts around the province; that figure has increased from about $285 million last year. Again, it's not clear to me if that is the item that member is referring to.

D. Symons: I wasn't aware that it would include the utilities, etc., for the contractors.

Can we move along on that same one to STOB 82. This is under contributions. I notice contributions are down by 50 percent -- again I'm comparing this year's estimates to last year's. Who would these contributions be made to and for what purpose? I'm curious about the reduction of about 50 percent from the previous year.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again I would seek a clarification from the member. Under highways maintenance, I see a grant in contributions dropping from about $728,000 to $618,000. You've made reference to some contribution figures that are about half, so I'm not clear what you're referring to.

D. Symons: I made my notes here, but I did not bring the pages from last year's estimates with me. I have every page but this page, unfortunately, so I can't check back on that. Maybe I had read between the two a wrong line. If the figure you gave is correct, then obviously my assumption of the 50 percent reduction is certainly incorrect. I would have to check that out at another time, so if you don't mind, I'll pass that one by until I see whether I have made a mistake on my figures 

[ Page 975 ]

here. It is difficult with these long lines across two pages to sometimes stay on the same line.

If we follow under the subvote, there's also about $2.9 million in asset acquisitions listed. Could the minister detail for us what these acquisitions are -- possibly by regions -- and clarify that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll have to take that question on notice. Again, I may be able to clarify that before we rise.

D. Symons: On STOBs 97 and 99 are recoveries within government and external to government. Again, reading in highways maintenance, I assume that these would be the external ones from the federal government, possibly. Am I correct?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are a few items that we recover from some of the contractors. For example, they make use of our gravel pits. As gravel is a valuable mineral commodity, we determine how much they've used and recover that from them. We have a provincewide radio network that they make use of, and we recover some of those costs from them. Those would be two examples.

D. Symons: Would those examples be under recoveries within government? I see that there are two categories, STOBs 97 and 99, that are external to government. Since these were contractors working for the government, would they come within government or external to government?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Various districts and regions around the province are charged back the costs on vehicle usage. It's a matter of keeping track of costs. We make sure that the costs are allocated to the district where usage of the vehicles occurs.

D. Symons: I hope the minister will bear with me, as he knows that I'm new at this. This is a great learning experience for me. When we go through this next year, I hope I will be much more able to hit the question exactly and make it more understandable to you. I'm in the learning process. Sometimes I may not phrase things quite the right way, and I might misunderstand some of the figures I'm reading in the book, but I am learning, I assure you. I will do a better job when we come around to this the next time.

Looking at the clock, we might just hit the next line on highway maintenance and then call it a day. What projects are involved in rehabilitation this year? Could the minister outline these for us and detail the priorities and the justification for taking those priorities on rehabilitation?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're asking for information relating to the expenditure of some $180 million. I have made available to all the MLAs, on this side and the other, the details of all of those contracts as they apply to each of your districts. I could read through about 40 pages of contracts, but I don't think we would want to do that.

D. Symons: I wasn't sure if that was the booklet that refers to it. I thank you for it; I see it's even personalized. I'm somewhat surprised, though, because the line that indicates what happens within my riding appears to be one line in here. It might have been more cost effective to just give me one page of notepaper with that mentioned on it. But that at least clears up where all these are going. There may be, as you say, many different ridings here. Some of them will certainly have a lot more than Richmond does.

[12:45]

I notice that STOBs 1 and 2 in this particular line are identical to last year, but STOB 3 -- the benefits -- seems to be somewhat down from last year. I'm just wondering how it's possible that the basic salaries, supplementary salaries and costs remain the same, whereas the employee benefits seem to drop considerably. What benefits are the employees now missing that they had before?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's just a refinement of the means of calculation of the superannuation costs.

D. Symons: It seems to be a rather significant refinement.

Do most of these employees belong to the BCGEU, and how can these benefits then be refined, in a sense? Was it with their consent?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, they are mainly members of the BCGEU. In previous years a fixed amount -- a percentage -- was.... We were given instructions to use a certain fixed percentage, and a number was crunched out of that to plug in for the benefits. That has been refined now by using the precise number, right to the penny, for superannuation costs for each employee. It's accurate, and that now totals the figure given. It happens to be substantially less than the approximate method that we were instructed to use before.

D. Symons: Noting the time, the next section, highway capital construction, is a rather large unit of material, so with the indulgence of the minister and members, I am wondering if we might adjourn at this time. I would call for the committee to rise and report progress.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Charbonneau moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada