1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 17
[ Page 6781 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of approximately 15 adult students from the Executive Secretarial College in Victoria-Beacon Hill. They are here to have a tour of the Legislature as part of their course work at that college. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
K. Jones: Visiting with us today is Mr. Jack Cook, an active community worker in Surrey. He is accompanied by his two sons, Christopher and Matthew, and his mother, Mrs. Diana Cook from Anaheim, California. Would the House please join me in making them all welcome to Victoria.
F. Gingell: Joining us in the precincts today are some more visitors from California: Carl and Linda Walters from Newport Beach. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.
VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
Hon. M. Sihota: A report was released yesterday by Simon Fraser University concluded that health care workers in British Columbia face as much violence as police officers working in the province. In some ways I think this study may have caused quite a bit of interest and surprise.
In fact, workers in British Columbia are exposed to the potential for violence every day. A clerk working at 7-Eleven late at night is vulnerable to acts of violence. A taxi driver, as we have witnessed in the past, is vulnerable to acts of violence. We have seen taxi drivers lose their lives because of their exposure to violence in the workplace. A night watchperson left unattended for hours is exposed to the potential for workplace violence. A clerk working in a liquor store alone in the evenings is exposed to violence in the workplace, as is a hospitality employee serving beverages in a bar, a guard secluded in a jail cell and a hospital worker working on a floor.
Over the past ten years, violence in the workplace has increased at an alarming rate. In 1982 the Workers' Compensation Board recorded 539-wage loss claims due to acts of violence in the workplace. In 1991 -- some ten years later, and the most recent statistics that we have -- that figure had doubled to 1,158. Statistics show that women in particular are exposed to violence in the workplace.
Recognizing these trends, and the vulnerability that working men and women feel in the workplace, the Workers' Compensation Board, in July 1992, started to examine the issue. I am pleased to advise the House today that the Workers' Compensation Board has now developed draft regulations to protect workers from violence in the workplace. The draft regulations require that each workplace first perform a risk assessment of each worksite based on past experience and other variables. Secondly, tailor-made regulations must be developed for each work environment to minimize and eliminate the risk of harm to workers. Thirdly, the draft regulations require the training of workers to deal with violent situations and to reduce their vulnerability.
The draft regulations are now available to the public, and the Workers' Compensation Board is in the process of holding public hearings throughout B.C. seeking input from employers, trade unions and other British Columbians. The public input stage with regard to these regulations to eliminate violence in the workplace will be completed this month. It is expected that regulations will be in place this summer to reduce the exposure that workers feel to violence in the workplace.
Last month I stood in my place in this House and announced that regulations for farmworkers have been developed and have indeed been implemented. This month I'm pleased to advise the House that we will soon have regulations in place to deal with violence in the workplace. Both of these developments have placed British Columbia at the forefront in protecting the occupational health and safety rights and standards of workers in B.C. In the months ahead there will be further announcements with regard to new regulations dealing with occupational health and safety as a demonstration of this government's commitment to enhance the rights of working men and women in British Columbia.
A. Warnke: I welcome this opportunity to respond to the minister's statement. Only last weekend I too expressed concern publicly through a press release that rising violence and crime are becoming real problems in B.C. This isn't a problem confined to the lower mainland; almost everyone has been affected by crime and violence at the community level. I emphasize that very strongly, because it's not only outside of the workplace but also in all of our lives; we've become increasingly vulnerable to forms of violence and crime in every minute of our lives. This increased rate of such crimes and violence has been acknowledged, I'm pleased to see, by the Minister of Labour.
I also want to echo the concern expressed by the Minister of Labour. Violence in the workplace isn't something that has just happened in the past, and we recognize that. I too believe that it has been on a sharp increase in the workplace. Every effort must be taken to combat, control and, hopefully somewhere along the line, eliminate increased violence and violence from the workplace altogether.
Such initiatives as announced by the minister certainly are welcome, I suspect, by all members of this House and society. This is exactly the kind of thing that the public has been expressing time and again. We need to address violence in our communities not only just outside of the workplace but also in the workplace, our homes, and in every aspect. This is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed. Any kind of initiatives certainly are supported.
[ Page 6782 ]
L. Hanson: Certainly our party will be supportive of this initiative. It has been recognized for some time that certain segments of our society who are not responsible and have some criminal intent seek out people who are in vulnerable positions; violence is the result. Anything that can happen to prevent that or provide some safety or security is certainly laudable and would be supported by our party.
[2:15]
I know that the minister is doing this because of the involvement of the WCB. I would suggest that a number of people are vulnerable to this sort of violence who are not necessarily in the workplace. It would be my hope that the Attorney General and the enforcement part of our province also do a study to help those people who are vulnerable not because they're in the workplace but simply because they are alone. We would certainly support that initiative; I think it's an excellent one.
ACQUITTAL IN VANCOUVER BREAK-IN CASE
A. Warnke: My question is to the Attorney General. Recently three youths charged with breaking into the home of William Twaite were acquitted by the judge on so-called constitutional grounds that could be considered a gross distortion of the intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What action is the Attorney General taking for the Crown to appeal this decision by the court?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The appeal period has not ended. I have no comment to make.
The Speaker: Keeping in mind the minister's reply -- supplemental, hon. member?
A. Warnke: In this particular case, Mr. Henry....
Some Hon. Members: Out of order.
A. Warnke: It's not out of order. Listen to the supplemental, hon. member.
One particular individual acted not only as a responsible citizen but as a commendable citizen by providing the police with information that combatted crime. Surely the justice system in this country wants to encourage that. I'm taking into consideration what the Attorney General has said. Nonetheless, what does the Attorney General want to say to those citizens who want to protect themselves and their fellow citizens by providing police with hot tips?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The matter is before the courts. It's inappropriate for any public discussion in this forum on this subject.
The Speaker: In consideration of the response of the Attorney General, I will recognize the hon. member for a second supplemental but ask him to avoid any reference to a specific case that may be before the courts at this time.
A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll avoid making any reference whatsoever to the case.
A simple question to the Attorney General: when will the Attorney General take concrete action to enhance victims' rights and recognition of their just place in a court of law?
INVESTIGATION OF WELFARE FRAUD
V. Anderson: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday I received in that famous brown envelope a memo that indicated the Social Services ministry would be hiring an additional 264 persons for the ministry, plus the five fraud investigators and a senior Crown attorney would be appointed. At best, only half of these people will be frontline workers. Will the Premier indicate to us how and why they are undertaking this expense of probably $8 million to $10 million without increasing the effective service to those in need?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Liberal opposition indeed has changed its approach. In May they were saying: "We want to see you crack down on fraud." Now in June they're questioning that. The member is well aware of the special prosecutor -- which I've talked about here in the open Legislature; you don't need a brown envelope to get that information -- the five special investigators on organized fraud, the 16 auditors who will be able to deal with administrative error and the other people who have been approved by Treasury Board. They are all there to deal with the increased caseload, which Alberta has also received. The hon. member will be able to deal with those details when the minister's estimates come up.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: My question was not about fraud particularly; my question was about efficient service to those clients who are in need of it. Clearly the management of this ministry is confusing the public once again, and this mismanagement should not continue. I ask the Premier again: will he not undertake, in the light of another set of confusing responses, to set up a royal commission on social services, so that we might have a clear picture for the future?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member will have a chance to ask those kinds of detailed questions when the minister's estimates come forward. Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, this government doesn't want to waste money on a royal commission. We want to put that money into B.C. 21 and into getting British Columbians back to work.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: You talk about wasting money on a royal commission. The royal commission would not cost as much as the 270 new workers you're putting into
[ Page 6783 ]
the Social Services bureaucracy. Let's have a royal commission once and for all. If the Premier will not undertake to have a royal commission, will he put a new minister in charge so that we might get the action we need?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, this government would prefer to put the funds into training single parents to enable them to get back into the workforce and into getting unemployed forest workers involved in reforestation and silviculture programs and reclaiming salmon streams -- getting those workers back to work.
I'm sure the member is aware that last year British Columbia created 28,000 new jobs, when the country lost 120,000 jobs. This year British Columbia will create 35,000 new jobs. We're trying to keep up with other Canadians moving to this gorgeous province of ours. For every three Canadians who move here, two find jobs. We're trying to find work so that other person, who is on the welfare roll, can get into the workforce.
ACCESS TO FTE UTILIZATION NUMBERS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The Treasury Board secretariat has denied us access to the FTE utilization numbers, the number of employees actually working in each ministry. The Treasury Board secretariat claims these numbers are for internal use and are confidential. Can the minister tell us if was it on Mr. Gunton's direction or the minister's direction that these numbers are deemed confidential?
Hon. G. Clark: I think that's kind of ironic coming from a member who was part of a government that hid thousands of public employees from the government payroll -- shielded from scrutiny. Peat Marwick, the largest accounting firm in the country, documented that they hid thousands of public employees from the payroll. Revenue Canada is auditing the government of British Columbia for breaking the law because of that government's flagrant disregard....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The minister will conclude his reply to the question, please.
Hon. G. Clark: The Korbin commission was established precisely to deal with cleaning up the mess left behind by that administration. That report is due shortly, and we hope to have legislation flowing from it.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: Well, one always knows when they're getting close to the point, because the minister goes in to his bafflegab mode. I believe the problem is that there are many ministries in this government that have already exceeded their allocated number of FTEs for this year. The Ministry of Social Services is already 24 FTEs over their allocation, and they advise us that they are going to hire more than 200 additional employees. Will the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Social Services is already over its FTE allocation, even before it hires new employees?
Hon. G. Clark: I want to remind the member that Peat Marwick said that the allocated FTEs bear no resemblance to the number of employees in government. Year in and year out, there are thousands of contract workers. What we have been doing is a process of rationalization. As we uphold the law by rolling contract workers into full-time employees, they become FTEs. Generally speaking, that accounts for 100 percent of the increased number of FTEs in the government.
I want members to know that the entire FTE allocation system is under review. It will be changed. Peat Marwick said that the appropriate mechanism for controlling costs in government is their budgets. Very clearly, that's what we're controlling much more effectively than that administration. FTEs bear no resemblance to the number of people who work in government.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: You can provide the information in here, or you can provide it outside in the hallway. Somebody is going to ask you the question.
Will the minister commit today to table in the House an allocation of FTE numbers for each and every one of the ministries in government, or does he stand behind Tom Gunton in his statement that this information is confidential and private?
Hon. G. Clark: I would have thought, hon. Speaker, that a member who had been in the House this long would know that in the budget document there is a page that shows the FTEs of every ministry; it's public information. We are reviewing that entire process, because it does not capture the entire number of people who work in government. It also does not capture the 1,800 fewer people working in the hospital sector, which are not included on the books of the government. We are reviewing that, and it will be changed. Peat Marwick and Korbin both recommended that it be fundamentally changed and eliminated, and they are reviewing it again. It will be changed, so I give all members the comfort of that.
Until it's changed, the Financial Administration Act is very clear. We are working on the FTE numbers that are in the budget. Until it is changed, if any more FTEs are required by the end of the year, the Financial Administration Act requires an order-in-council -- which is public information. That was done last year, and I might remind members that last year there were more FTEs than were published and an order-in-council was required to comply with the legislation. The legislation is flawed, and we are in the process...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the minister will conclude his statement quicker when we have
[ Page 6784 ]
order in the House. Could the minister wait until we have order in the House? I'm sure the minister is just concluding his statement now.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to be clear. The Financial Administration Act requires FTE controls. We know they are inadequate, but until they are changed, they are required to follow them. At the end of last year, when there were more FTEs, an order-in-council was required.
WELFARE FRAUD
A. Cowie: My question is to the Premier. Since the Minister of Social Services has taken over the provincial welfare system the costs have spiralled and fraud is running rampant. I think we all understand that. Will the Premier now admit that the minister's policy of requiring only one non-photo identification is costing this province millions in fraud?
I would have thought the Premier would have known that digital photo identification has been recommended by the police. It is not demeaning to the welfare recipients at all. The minister is allowing fraud to cost a horrendous amount of money in this province. She is just simply out of control. Will the Premier ask the minister to install video camera systems in the social welfare offices in this province in order to help her overcome the fraudulent situation.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise hon. members that Committee of Supply A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
[2:30]
I call second reading of Bill 5, the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1993. Oh, my apologies, hon. Speaker. We will be dealing with Bill 5 later on, but we'll work that out with the House Leaders opposite. At this point I call second reading of Bill 28.
ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. A. Edwards: Four statutes are being amended under Bill 28: Energy Efficiency Act, Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and Utilities Commission Act. I'll touch briefly on the changes to each of these acts before the other members are invited to respond in second reading.
The amendment to the Energy Efficiency Act will allow the province to introduce minimum energy efficiency standards for a wider range of products, including thermostats, low-flow shower heads and manufactured windows and door systems. The bill also provides for stronger energy efficiency reporting requirements for manufacturers who want to sell their products in B.C. This will, of course, assist the government in compiling information for setting new standards.
Currently, only appliances and other energy-using products can be regulated under the act. However, windows, doors, thermostats and showerheads have a significant impact on energy consumption, even though they do not directly use energy. I make that distinction: we have previously regulated appliances that actually consume energy; now we have ones that make a difference in their use, but don't actually consume it themselves. So you don't need a motor for your showerhead, but if you have it regulated, you actually have rules for how efficient it must be.
The proposed legislation is enabling legislation only. Before any new standards on energy efficiency are set, there will be wide consultation with all affected parties. I might say that it will be even wider than the consultation which has already occurred with the manufacturers who are willing to work with us to assure that we have better standards.
The second act is the Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act. The amendment we propose will allow B.C. Gas Inc. to form a holding company, which will allow the isolation of its non-regulated companies from its B.C. Utilities Commission-regulated companies. The separation will allow regulatory clarification for B.C. Gas Inc. and the Utilities Commission by simplifying calculations on utility components of their utilities business. In addition, it will provide greater flexibility for the management and financing of the corporation's other companies. The reorganization will enable B.C. Gas Inc. to invest in projects outside its core distribution utility business and to pursue economic development opportunities within the province by enabling its shareholders to participate in activities that have higher risks and rewards and which are not appropriate to its regulated activities as a utility.
The Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act contains provisions to ensure that B.C. Gas Inc. shares are widely held, and this amendment ensures that the shares of the holding company will remain widely held. The same shareholder constraints that applied to B.C. Gas Inc. will apply to the holding company.
The amendment to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act includes minor revenue items, administrative changes, an allowance for suspension of tenures and the adoption of an updated survey standard. The revenue items affect only the upstream oil and gas industry and are expected to generate about $40,000 in the first year from a new fee for service. They are expected to save the province $120,000 on an annual basis through the cancellation of an ineffective program. The administrative changes will improve efficiency for both government and industry without loss of regulatory control. One of the changes will aid land use planning by allowing suspension of tenures, which would be necessary to protect the natural values where a land use study of tenured areas is underway. Adoption of the new survey standard will reduce the potential for mapping errors by conforming to a standard that is used nationwide.
The Utilities Commission Act amendment will amend section 133, which will permit the Utilities Commission to award costs in regulatory hearings to
[ Page 6785 ]
various interest parties who may not otherwise be able to participate. Broad public participation leads to better decisions and ultimately will benefit everyone. No one should be excluded from proceedings and reviews simply due to lack of resources. Public interest groups and first nations are among groups who have asked for assistance so that they can participate in these public processes.
Applicants for assistance will be required to meet specific eligibility criteria and will be able to claim specific expenses such as travel, meals and accommodation at current BCGEU rates. They will be able to claim dependent care and per diems when they can demonstrate financial hardship, by foregoing income, in order to participate. Participants will also be able to hire experts to address specific issues. I bring that forward with the note that the commission will certainly be encouraged to hire, and participants encouraged to use, neutral experts, so that we can avoid the unnecessary adversarial confrontations in hearings and allow the best use of the resources. The amendment also provides for prescribed limits on the commission's ability to award funds, to avoid excess costs.
With that, I conclude my remarks on second reading.
D. Jarvis: Bill 28 is not a single piece of legislation, nor does it have one particular effect; rather, it's an omnibus bill which makes amendments to six separate acts. There are some positive things in the bill. Several of the changes in the bill are supported by the Liberal caucus. Measures that clarify mineral and petroleum tenures are welcomed. Increasing the accuracy of surveying is a good thing. Changes that serve to reduce the bureaucracy and allow the minister to delegate responsibility to regional employees, who are more in touch with local issues, are a positive step. Anything that serves to expedite the exploration process and cut through the bureaucratic red tape is endorsed by the Liberal caucus and is really a progressive measure.
However, there are several sections which raise serious concerns with us, and there are a handful that we are firmly opposed to. I would like a moment to canvass those, while leaving the detailed interrogation until Committee of the Whole.
On the Energy Efficiency Act, the government proposes to expand their ability to set regulations regarding energy-using and -effecting devices. The intent behind this change is good, however there are concerns that the changes to the Energy Efficiency Act may lead to a violation of current and future trade agreements. The current FTA and the proposed NAFTA have to be taken into consideration. Many forms of non-tariff barriers.... There is a potential for this bill to be perceived as such a violation, and we will canvass that aspect of it.
The B.C. Hydro and Power Authority section is an attempt to create a clear distinction between the utility and non-utility functions of B.C. Gas. As such, this is seen to be a positive step, and it is long overdue. We will be canvassing this issue in some depth. However, the proposed changes are complex and may have some unforeseen implications. We will be seeking assurance from the minister, of course, that the changes regarding the special company designation and shareholding restrictions will only have the intended effect and are limited to that purpose alone. We had a briefing by the minister's deputy on that aspect, and he was very helpful.
In the petroleum and natural gas section of the bill, we see the true nature of this NDP government once again. We find two attempts to increase revenues from a sector which can ill afford it. The government has proposed a new fee for geophysical exploration. Previously there was no charge for that. As you are aware, we have consistently objected to the crippling taxes and fees imposed by this government on the mining and energy sectors. We feel it is really unnecessary in an area that is in trouble. Our resource industries are already on their knees, and the economy of the province cannot be too far behind. This is an attempt to bring fee increases in through the back door. It's one more burden that the industry does not need and cannot bear. We are doubly concerned that the fee is not spelled out in the bill but will be at the discretion of this government. From what we know of their spending habits, and thus their insatiable need for new revenues, this isn't a very comforting situation. In addition, the government proposes eliminating an incentive that currently exists to encourage drilling activity on leased lands. Anything which discourages development and activity, especially in the resource sector, is indefensible and sends yet another signal that the industry is not welcome in this province. These are revenue measures pure and simple. We believe they are ill-conceived and are being imposed on those least able to bear them. For these reasons, we are strongly opposing this aspect of the bill.
On accountability, there is also some over-tendency in this bill to remove specific definitions and requirements from legislation, either to reintroduce them as a regulation or to leave them undefined at the discretion, again, of the government. This trend is of concern to our caucus, as it reduces the accountability and the scrutiny of this government. We will certainly be seeking explanations as to why this is necessary.
We have grave concerns over the proposed changes to the Utilities Commission Act. This government proposes to grant the BCUC the power to award expenses, to fund intervener groups and even to order one group to fund another. There are several problems with this section. There is no indication of how much this may cost the province, and the potential for a massive expenditure is frightening. The BCUC will now possess quasi-judicial authority, with the ability to punish all the participants by forcing them to cover the expenses of others. The potential for abuse will be outstanding. This is especially true as there are no guidelines outlining when and in what fashion this power may be invoked. Thus utilities could end up repeatedly having to finance the challenges of their detractors. This situation may prove to be both unbearably expensive and impossible to justify to their shareholders. In addition, the potential cost to the taxpayer is tremendous, and a further discretion with tax dollars cannot and should not be tolerated.
[2:45]
[ Page 6786 ]
In conclusion, while parts of this bill are timely and will be welcomed by the Liberal caucus, there are several major initiatives in this bill that seek to further bleed the resource industries through additional fees and penalties. There are yet other sections that may place an unbearable burden both on industry and on the taxpayer. These sections are not acceptable to this caucus and will be vigourously opposed. There's hope that the government will reconsider the wisdom and fairness of these measures. In the course of debate and through constructive criticism, we can improve on this bill to the benefit of all British Columbians.
R. Neufeld: I rise to reply to Bill 28 introduced by the minister. I will be brief, because when we get into committee stage we'll want to go into a number of the areas in more depth.
Just to briefly go through it from the start, we commend the government for some of the actions and changes. We don't have any problem with the cleanup of the language and with putting Power Smart and energy conservation into the bill. I think all of us are concerned about that in British Columbia and, in fact, in Canada and the world as a whole. So we don't take much exception to the items that do those types of things.
It was interesting to hear the minister speak about shares in special companies and the amending of Hydro and Power Authority privatization. Those issues will come out a little further during committee stage. It will be interesting to see what happens on the issue of repealing the definitions of block and grid areas in the survey areas in the province and how they describe them now.
As always, in every bill that the NDP government brings forward there's a little charge to somebody. This government has never failed. The Finance minister is sitting here listening. He talks about small bills that really don't mean that much, but you never know; there could be a sleeper. Obviously, there's a sleeper in almost every bill that this government brings forward. This is an industry that's having some difficulty surviving, I might add. Although some gas sales of land leases are up in the last few months -- that's obviously what has driven this minister to start charging more for a few things -- it does not mean that the industry is in good shape. One thing that the industry has done, which government so often fails to do, is reduce the number of employees. Unfortunately, that's what happens when government increases fees to these corporations. They have no recourse. They can't charge it back to the public at large, so the only way they can alleviate the increase in charges is by laying off people.
I think I spoke to the Minister of Economic Development yesterday in these same terms. We think we're going to get more money if we increase the rates that we charge, but it doesn't always work that way. It works in reverse. Something happens on the other side of the book, and it's usually the number of jobs. Maybe the government has a magic way of picking up all those jobs and keeping them in the economy, but I don't believe so. It's hard to say, though.
The application fees for geophysical exploration are again something that probably doesn't affect any area of the province other than Peace River North and Peace River South. I represent one of those constituencies, and I know that the geophysical part of the oil and gas industry is not faring well. There have been numerous bankruptcies. They are not well off. They charge it back, like I say, to the oil companies, and then they just lay people off. That certainly doesn't help anyone.
I think it's commendable to remove the existing exemption for penalty lease payments of companies that drill on land for more than ten years, with the intention to tax them if they're still drilling ten years later. If they're drilling for ten years it means we've hit a field that's going to produce. It's an incentive to keep companies drilling, producing and giving revenues to the province. But what does the government do? They're going to penalize them after ten years when they've been fortunate enough to hit a field. Going out and finding natural gas and oil reserves is not that easy. They spend tremendous amounts of money on exploration and on dry holes where they don't get anything. But if they hit a field or are lucky enough to get something that provides to the economy and the betterment of the province and all the things that we enjoy, this government intends to penalize them. We're going to hit them with another tax, because, by golly, they shouldn't be that lucky. Maybe it goes back to some of the new people in the A-G's ministry: either you win it or somebody gives it to you; you don't work for it.
They've removed the 90-day time limit from some tenures for production of petroleum and natural gas, and we're going to question that and find out just what's taking place there and why we have to do that. But the interesting one is section 22, which allows the cabinet to nullify well-drilling licence permits and leases without compensation if it decides that a study area should not have any development.
The whole natural gas and oil industry has been telling me that they are very nervous about the protected-areas strategy. I can understand why because I've spent the majority of my working life in the oil and gas industry in the north. For instance -- and I know that it may not make sense to a lot of the members here, but there will be people that it will make sense to -- there's a field in northeastern British Columbia called the Helmet field. It's a natural gas field. We've had tremendous difficulty trying to convince the government to maintain the road into that area because it delivers an awful lot of natural gas into the pipelines for export and money is derived from that. But this field is some 100 miles north and east of Fort Nelson. I've been in that field for many years. As a youngster I was up there working in the oil and gas industry. And all of a sudden, just a year ago, the government decided that that was going to be a protected-areas strategy because of some biodiversity or something -- nobody seems to understand what it means, but it's a nice, cute word -- and they're going to put that under study. It happens to be that there's an ecosystem there -- that particular area, that field -- that they say is found nowhere else in the world. Hon. Speaker, it's muskeg. There's one river
[ Page 6787 ]
that goes through there, the Petitot. I can't understand why that particular area, right where the drilling activity has been taking place for a number of years, is all of a sudden under a protected-areas strategy.
But it's obvious, by this bill, that this government intends to remove the drilling rights of those companies, and that's what they have feared. They have come to Fort St. John; I met with CAPP just recently in Fort St. John, and they told me that they are really nervous about what the government is doing with their protected-areas strategy. And all of a sudden it comes out: that's exactly what's going to happen. I guess Bill 32 last year fell flat on its face. The Schwindt commission has reported, and this government intends to carry on in other ways.
The last part that disturbs me is the section added to the act that will force participants who are coming to make their cases to the government about issues in the resources field to pay the fees and wages -- and they could even have to pay room and board for others to come and bring information against what they want to do. That's like telling someone who's going to court to sue someone else that they have to pay that person's costs up front before they can even get them into court. That's just not right. And we know exactly who that's put on. The oil and gas industry will be picking up the bill for all kinds of people, anyone at large. I don't have too much problem with the public having their say. We have to have that, but sometimes that can get a little bit carried away.
The minister talks about native bands. I don't like her singling out native bands because they want to come and make presentations. I think the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs probably has some money in his budget, or the federal government might have some money in its budget, to help those bands. Any one that I'm aware of that has happened in northeast British Columbia, that's the way it's happened. But all of a sudden now we're going to place that further burden on this industry.
This industry is having a difficult time. I said that before and I'll say it again. As a government, if we continue to try to wiggle in here and there a little bit on this part and a little bit on that part, increase taxation here and increase taxation there, we are going to see the industry fade into the sunset, much like the mining industry. The mining industry is moving away from British Columbia simply because of over-regulations, fees that are ridiculous and hydro rates that have gone sky-high. This government has brought in all kinds of taxes, fees and regulations to no end.
I thought that this Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources understood the business a little bit, because we haven't seen very much legislation from her. But all of a sudden it is starting to come through. We're going to see an assault on that part of her industry that so many of us in the south here cannot relate to. They don't understand it down here as much as I do, living in the north and working in it most of my life.
With that I will take my place and will wait for committee stage to go a little deeper into each section.
L. Fox: I am pleased to speak on the principles and philosophies of Bill 28. I am rather amazed that it must be a prerequisite of this government -- in order for a bill to be placed on the order paper -- that there must be at least one new taxing authority placed within the bill. While there are some particular bookkeeping amendments which allow the process to be updated, we see three major areas of cost to industry contained within this bill. That's a concern to me. Over the course of the last 19 months this government has literally driven mining exploration out of British Columbia.
[3:00]
R. Neufeld: In fact, the Premier says: "Go away!"
L. Fox: As the ships were leaving for Chile and other foreign countries with the manpower and the investment, the Premier stood on the docks in Vancouver waving goodbye and wishing them well. What do we see here? We see another area of our industrial community being attacked by this particular legislation. It's shameful that this minister cannot understand her ministry and cannot understand the negativity that this government is placing on that kind of investment, and once again brings legislation into this House that is driving another wedge between the investment dollar and the resource industry of this province.
As I said before, the Finance minister has to have made it a prerequisite that in order to get a bill on the table of this Legislature, there has to be some form of new tax.
An Hon. Member: Bob Williams did it.
L. Fox: We do not need more taxation in the oil and gas industry before they have the ability to realize a profit. This government has to understand that there is a phenomenal amount of red tape and there are development costs that these corporations have to put in before they ever get one nickel back. It's not made over a short term; it's made over the long term. We have to recognize that any more bureaucratic paperwork or costs prior to the ability to raise any dollars is going to be another detriment to the development of British Columbia.
Clause 22 reminds me of the arguments of Bill 32 last year. Cabinet is going to have the unilateral power to take away any resource if it's put into a study area. Any permit may be put on hold, without compensation, until that study is concluded.
It reminds me of the interview that the Minister of Energy gave in, I believe, early spring or late last fall. When asked by a member of the press, she announced that if the mining industry lost a particular claim because of a new park allocation, she would offer them new land and a new opportunity elsewhere. That shows the understanding of the minister. She doesn't seem to understand that it takes seven to ten years to develop a claim and bring it to the point of recognizing that there is something worthwhile in a mine. You cannot take a body of ore and move it from this area over to that area and say: "There boys. Go at it. We've given you an equal claim of land here to offset your losses there." That is
[ Page 6788 ]
exactly the kind of statement made in section 22. I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm deeply disappointed.
Now we look at sections 24 and 25, which are of even more concern to me. When we look at the red tape and the length of time it takes to put forward any kind of major project in this province, we're looking at a commitment of huge amounts of dollars in environmental and social impact studies. All these things are demanded of the proponent, and rightfully so. We now have an environmental project review process which is indeed in the best interests of all of the province, including the industry. But now we're going one step further. We're giving the Utilities Commission the authority to arbitrarily tell the proponent that they must meet the costs of the interveners. Not only that, but there is no definition of what an intervener is.
I've been around this block a few times and know that a handful of people can all of a sudden become an authority in a particular area and can automatically qualify as an intervener and demand a huge amount of resources in order to prepare themselves. We find now that the proponent has no voice in that. In fact, the commission can tell the proponent that it will be a direct cost to them, thereby putting another obstacle and another cost in front of development in the province.
The intervening cost issue is an important issue, and it should be addressed by this Legislature. But I don't believe that we should have this kind of initiative within legislation before there are some principles as to what constitutes a legal intervening body and whether it is the responsibility of this Legislature to provide the funding for those intervening bodies. I don't believe this government should automatically assume that the proponent should have to pay the costs of that particular process, without having any ability whatsoever to either edit the number of interveners or to limit the amount of funding they will be given. I will be voting against this bill primarily because, once again, it's nothing more than a new taxing authority and a new shift of costs from government onto industry.
P. Ramsey: I hadn't intended to speak on second reading of this act, but after sitting here and listening to the arguments of the opposition, and knowing how they want to encourage government backbenchers to speak up, I thought I'd seize this opportunity and say a few things about this series of initiatives that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has brought forward to take some legislation and add provisions to make sure that it addresses the true situations of 1993 and beyond. I couldn't help but notice the objections the opposition were raising to some of these initiatives. We have a very progressive change, for instance, to the Energy Efficiency Act, which points out, quite properly, that when we're looking to control energy use, we have to look at not only devices that consume energy but also at those that save energy.
It's a wonderful initiative, and I can't believe what I'm hearing from the Liberal opposition when they dither and squirm and say: "But oh, this might somehow be against the tenets of FTA or the NAFTA." I guess we know where your priorities are here. First, I think you're dead wrong. I don't think there's anything in NAFTA or the FTA that is going to prevent this government from doing what it should to enhance energy efficiency in public and private use in this province. Good Lord! Why should we possibly get concerned about energy efficiency and making sure that we have windows, showerheads and other passive devices that will help us control energy use? We'd better look south of the border and make sure that the U.S. will let us do that here in British Columbia? To hear that as an objection is just ludicrous. I ask the hon. member to give his head a shake. This is good legislation that recognizes the variety of devices that we need to have in place to control energy use in this province.
The second thing I want to comment on is the concern about some fee measures that are being brought into place -- and properly, I think -- in the area of gas and petroleum exploration. Like the members from Peace River and my area of the province whom I heard speak, I recognize that there are limits to what industry can be prepared to bear in terms of exploration fees. I'm sure that when we get into committee stage the minister will be addressing some of the concerns that the member raised. But to take these minor changes and blow it up to the extent that I heard opposite is just amazing. I'm not so much concerned about the members from the third party, but I heard a comment from a member of the Liberal Party which was just fascinating. He characterized these fees as an imposition on those least able to bear increased fees. I guess this reveals the true priorities of our Liberal opposition here. Day after day in this House we hear the Liberal opposition stand up and ask what we are doing about welfare fraud. My word! Lord forbid that we should possibly give the poor in our society a decent chance and some assistance with their basic needs of food and shelter.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I regret that I am interrupting the member, but we need to have order in the House. The member who has the floor at this time is the hon. member for Prince George North. I'm sure others will have the opportunity to participate in the debate. Please continue, hon. member.
P. Ramsey: I recognize that we have to take account of the ability of the corporations to bear the fees that are part of doing business in this province, but to characterize them as those least able to bear the cost of this is just absurd, quite frankly.
The last thing I want to comment on is the comments about the changes to the Utilities Commission Act to enable and enhance participation in hearings before the B.C. Utilities Commission. I heard a variety of comments about this. The member for Peace River North said he supported public intervention, but thought we might be getting carried away with this thing about the public having their say. Maybe this government is carried away compared to the standards set by the former administration. But I assume that this is the right direction for this province. The people of
[ Page 6789 ]
this province increasingly want to have a say before those who regulate their activity, before those who set the cost of their gas and oil and before those who control how corporations can behave.
Members seem to object to the fact that we would differentiate between one participant before the commission and another; they want to treat everybody the same. They object to the principle that the commission could require one participant to perhaps pay for another participant's expenses or that the commission itself could assume the cost of interveners. It's just amazing. This is egalitarianism carried to its extreme. It assumes that all are equal in their ability to carry their case before a commission. It reminds me of an old sign -- I don't know if it's apocryphal or not -- that is supposedly posted in some park in England. It says: "Both lords and paupers are forbidden to sleep in the park." According to these members, both lords and paupers are equally able to come before a commission and make their case. I suggest that that totally ignores the facts.
One of those members referred to a handful of people who might come forward. Well, that's exactly the problem: there are handfuls of people. Sometimes they are from native groups, sometimes they represent aboriginal interests and sometimes they may represent a small group of concerned citizens. To assume that those groups have the same financial resources and expertise as corporations, municipalities and well-funded interest groups to come before a commission ignores the reality of the way this world works.
We have a progressive piece of legislation here that says we must try to level the playing field to make sure that all citizens of British Columbia have their say. What did they say to this? They said: "No, we like the old way, where those who had the wealth, the power and the resources had their say and their way." That's not good enough anymore.
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Okanagan East.
J. Tyabji: As amusing as this discussion is, I don't think that socialism is what we are debating here; we are debating Bill 28. Maybe because this member wasn't planning to speak, he didn't prepare any notes for it. But if he could stick to the subject....
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the point of order. I would encourage the hon. member to continue to address second reading of Bill 28.
[3:15]
P. Ramsey: The reason I originally decided to speak on this was that the changes to the Utilities Commission Act are vital to a Utilities Commission hearing that is going to be starting in my community and other communities in the north this summer and fall into the Kemano completion project. I would suggest that these sorts of provisions, which try to level the playing field for those who wish to have their say before that commission and have their voice heard on the Kemano completion project, are essential. That's why I will be fully supportive of this act when we come to vote on second reading.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure to take my place in debate with regard to this bill. I just want to make a few comments. It's not too often that I actually have some time in the House. But the last time I looked, there was no strike going on, so I thought I'd pop in here.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I think even Surrey is resolved, if hon. members are interested.
I just want to take a few minutes, as the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, to say a few words about this legislation. I want to commend the Minister of Energy for taking the leadership and introducing this legislation to the House.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I'm getting too many disruptions.
Short term? No, B.C. Hydro is the most enjoyable part of my portfolio. If I may say....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I must call the House to order. As members know, we cannot have conversations going across the floor. When a member is recognized, he or she does have the floor to speak. We have to extend a courtesy to the member who has the floor. At this time, it happens to be the Minister of Labour.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate it when you come to my defence. I trust the members will listen now.
I'm pleased to report that just this week the Minister of Energy and I launched the Power Smart challenge here in the beautiful city of Victoria. We challenged the citizens of Victoria to help this city be number one in terms of energy conservation and environmental responsibility. We're saying to people who live in Victoria that we can make better use of our energy. Through the Power Smart program, B.C. Hydro has spent a lot of time trying to curb the demand for energy. What we're trying to do now is take the Power Smart concept to a new height: to invite British Columbians, particularly the people in the greater Victoria area, to look at all the steps they can take to become more energy-efficient.
I know that my colleague the Minister of Finance is sitting here next to me. We are encouraging people to take B.C. Transit to work everyday as a way of being a bit more conscious about our energy. Cycling to work everyday is another example of being a bit more efficient in the way we utilize our energy in the greater Victoria area. We're encouraging people in greater Victoria to be more responsible with respect to recycling. We're inviting the input of groups like the
[ Page 6790 ]
Sierra Club to educate people with regard to environmental needs.
As a component of the plan that we're bringing forward, we're also taking steps to encourage business to promote energy-efficient products. When we go shopping in stores, all too often businesses promote a particular kind of product and draw your attention to another type of product. In fact, the Buy B.C. program initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture has been a very successful program. It has encouraged people from British Columbia....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know the member for Chilliwack endorses the program to buy B.C.-grown products. What we're trying to do is encourage businesses in the greater Victoria area to promote energy-efficient products, so that when you walk in through the door of a particular enterprise or business, people will see right in front them a product which promotes energy efficiency.
This bill, as you are aware, deals with amendments that encourage the sale of products designed to improve energy efficiency in British Columbia -- products like thermostats, low-flow showerheads and manufactured window and door systems. Those are all being encouraged in this enabling legislation, which enables us to develop standards so that a business can place a little sticker on a thermostat or on a window and door system, just like they do on an appliance, that tells the consumer it is an energy-efficient product, so that that business promotes energy efficiency right in the store.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Preferably orange and black, or whatever the more contemporary colour is.
As the minister responsible for Hydro, I want to endorse what the Minister of Energy is doing and the leadership she is taking in bringing forward enabling legislation to establish standards for thermostats, low-flow showerheads and manufactured window and door systems. In fact, if you think about it, the amount of water that gets wasted every year in British Columbia is incredible, particularly in a community like Victoria, because low-flow showerheads aren't a requirement under the Building Code as a standard feature of buildings. It's one of the things that I think we should do.
In the context of the legislation being proposed here and the Power Smart challenge, I really want to take this opportunity to congratulate a lot of the businesses in Victoria, particularly Capital Iron. It has taken leadership in making sure these products are front and centre when you walk into the store.
An Hon. Member: Buying a showerhead.
Hon. M. Sihota: Right. Just as you're walking in to buy your new shower stall, there you have a low-flow showerhead, and as you're looking for the new thermostat for that shower you want to put in downstairs in the basement, you've got the energy-efficient thermostat. Just as you're walking out the door there's the window and door systems that allow you entry into those legal suites that you're building in your community.
First of all, I want to encourage British Columbians, particularly the people of greater Victoria, to participate in the energy efficiency program and challenge in B.C. Secondly, and equally as important, I want to congratulate the business community, which has taken some leadership here in Victoria, particularly under the auspices of Capital Iron, to develop a consumer awareness program to make people more aware of energy-efficient products. The repertoire of products that can be covered is going to be increased because of the legislation that the Minister of Energy has brought forward, and I congratulate her for that, as much as I congratulate those who are involved in the Power Smart business awareness program established for consumers in Victoria.
A. Cowie: This is a very wide-ranging bill. I think it can be supported, with a number of concerns. I'll carry on with the discussion of the last speaker regarding B.C. Hydro.
B.C. Hydro participated in a program called Quality Plus. By backing out of that excellent program, which operated for the last two years, B.C. Hydro has destroyed it. I was very disappointed to see that happen. I'm looking forward to seeing B.C. Hydro reinstate that initiative on the energy conservation side. They've stuck with their Power Smart energy program. Mr. Shell Busey, an excellent person, at least from the public relations point of view -- he's certainly very knowledgeable -- is running that program.
The Quality Plus program set a number of standards for walling. For instance, they used different methods of Nascor walling. I probably should use the generic name: foam walls were used in housing. They also had ratings for windows. We have to watch that here in B.C., because if you want the highest standard for energy conservation, you'll go with vinyl windows. Vinyl windows, as you know, will disrupt the wood industry to some extent, so we have to think whether we want to promote wood or not. Depending on how they set the standards, vinyl and wood will eliminate some windows -- like metal windows, in most instances anyway.
One of the advantages of specifying materials is that.... This bill will, I hope, encourage the use of materials that last a long time. Our housing industry builds to a very low standard at the present time. In fact, the standards currently used by the builders are at the bottom. It's like zoning: everybody always goes to the lowest common standard. By setting standards that are not so market-driven, the industry will build to the lowest standard. Although the Quality Plus program that B.C. Hydro participated in encourages the use of six-inch rather than four-inch wall construction, if you go throughout the lower mainland today, you'll find that in Richmond they're using four-inch construction. They do in Delta too. We should be ensuring that we're using proper six-inch wall construction.
[ Page 6791 ]
Interjection.
A. Cowie: South Delta as well is using four-inch construction.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: No it isn't NDP. Our leader comes from South Delta and it's solidly Liberal. Although it's a very quality area, you will find four-inch construction in Delta, which I think we should be discouraging.
I'll be looking to some of the provisions in this act at third reading that I can speak to very specifically. Some of the members speaking before me talked about nozzles, and got down to detail like that. I know that the biggest energy-saving device in a home is your shower head. While I respect that, I don't think government should be specifying shower heads. What they should be doing is setting an overall standard for water consumption. Certainly I will look at that in detail when we get to that stage.
There's one other aspect that I'll want to address when we get to third reading, and that is private energy systems. For a long time in this province, people who had private energy systems couldn't get into the electricity grid. B.C. Hydro would not allow private systems to buy into the grid. So I would hope that this bill -- my understanding is that it's a very wide-ranging bill -- will enable private energy systems to plug into the grid and get paid for their electricity; and when they need electricity for particular developments, they will be able to get out of the grid.
I assure the government that I -- and, I think, our party -- will be supporting this in principle. But we will want more information on particular details when we get to third reading. I won't take any more time in the House on this.
J. Tyabji: I want to spend a few minutes on this bill as it affects the environment, and as it affects some of the interior communities.
First of all, I want to commend the minister for the amendment to the Energy Efficiency Act. However, I'm wondering -- and I'm sure we'll get to this in committee stage -- to what extent these amendments are going to be followed up with legislation or regulations that will direct either development of homes or development of industrial complexes, and generally how much we will see a redirection of the standards by which we construct homes and buildings in the province, with regard to energy efficiency, alternative methods of conserving energy and alternative methods of producing energy. I hope we will see some progressive ideas coming forward, whether it be through the minister or through the Energy Council, and some further amendments to the act.
[3:30]
I'll be interested to see if the information that is provided with regard to greater energy efficiency -- for example, of windows or solar panels or any of the things that would fall under this section of the act -- will be available to consumers. For example, will there be a labelling process in place whereby a private contractor going out to gather energy-efficient materials can easily -- by looking at the labelling on the products -- understand which are the most advantageous from the perspective of lowering the consumption of energy. I am disappointed that in the amendments to the Geothermal Resources Act we don't see a little bit more progressive legislation coming forward in that area.
I want to move to the part of the bill which we see under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. I'm concerned with regard to the protected-areas strategy, and the impact that the amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will have on people who have followed due procedures of the government in pursuing a permit, a drilling licence or lease, etc. When they're prevented from doing their work because of the protected-areas strategy, or because of the evaluation or planning process of one of the committees of government, there is no provision for some kind of compensation, or some kind of time frame within which that cancellation or postponement of the permit will occur. Those of us who are very concerned that the protected-areas strategy proceed, and who want to see a responsible protection of representative ecosystems around the province, don't want to engage in some kind of corporate backlash on that process by having an unfair, or severely disadvantaged cancellation or the permits or leases, as we see through, I believe, (o) in section 22 under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. We will have to canvass that at some length in committee stage. If it does turn out that in order to advance the government's agenda on the protected-areas strategy and the land use commissions in the parts of the province that have been frozen that people in the business sector are being unduly disadvantaged by that, then surely we're going to provoke a backlash, and I don't think that we want to do that. We would like to see at least some recognition in that area that there should be an adequate time frame provided to the people who will be affected by that section of the bill. In addition to an adequate time frame, they should have some confidence that the capital investment they have put in will either be recouped at the end of the time frame or will be compensated for in some way, so that they have some comfort before they make that capital investment so that we don't have a further grinding to a halt of the economy.
I feel quite disappointed in the part of this bill dealing with the Utilities Commission Act. I am very encouraged by the energy-efficiency portion; I think that's the right direction to go. I think we should move more in the direction of the Geothermal Resources Act and start to release some of the grip that B.C. Hydro has in terms of exclusivity of our power production.
In the Utilities Commission Act, the government had an opportunity to address some of the promises it made in the last general election -- particularly in the Kootenays -- such as the commitments made to groups like the Electric Consumers' Association and the people who were interested in the West Kootenay Power interim rate increases. With a few amendments in this section of the bill we could have had some redress to the injustice that is being experienced right now.
[ Page 6792 ]
For over a year people in the interior who are subscribers to West Kootenay Power have been paying interim rate increases subject to them going to a public hearing process. The public hearing process has been unduly delayed because of ongoing labour disputes, so the consumers are paying higher rates with the expectation that there would be a public hearing. Through those public hearings, there may very well end up being a recommendation that the rate increases not be approved, in which case West Kootenay Power has had access to that extra money for a great length of time. All the subscribers and consumers who are locked into that are engaged in a very unfair process. There could be some redress to that through this portion of the bill.
It's ironic that one of the members from Prince George say that the amendments to the Utilities Commission Act will allow the public to have their say. Well, the public want to have their say in the interim rate increases, and they're not able to do that. Costs of a proceeding are being paid for. I think that's interesting, because in the interior, when many of us spoke out against the gas turbine proposal that UtiliCorp was trying to bring in through West Kootenay Power from Venezuela, people travelled from around the province to participate in that. So I can see that participant cost is an important point to make. The public does have to have legitimate access to public proceedings. That's very important, and at that time the leader of the Liberal Party spoke out very strongly in favour of more public input.
At the same time that we have this section trying to increase public access -- when we had the public repeatedly speak out for a number of years through the Electric Consumers' Association, at their own cost.... When we had this government commit again and again through every community in the Kootenays that there would be proper redress to the issue of West Kootenay Power and UtiliCorp, that there would be proper redress to interim rate increases, that there would be adequate redress to the issue of ownership of our own utilities, that there would be an adequate process beyond the Utilities Commission, that the government was going to take action to reform and to change the legislation that addresses the Utilities Commission, especially in the Kootenays, and here we don't see any of that coming up. That is unfortunate, because this is supposed to be aimed at advancing the cause and the interests of the public. When the public have repeatedly said very specifically that here are some important issues -- and when this government was in opposition they committed unequivocally that they would see those issues advanced -- now when we have an opportunity to do that, it hasn't been done.
In terms of some of the principles behind this bill, yes, I do agree that the Energy Efficiency Amendment Act is an excellent first step; I would like to see what the rest of it is. I think we should be very cautious, when approaching progressive initiatives like this, that we take into account the status quo and that we make sure that the status quo is adequately provided for in a transitional period and that if we are going to have alternative products available, the market is informed before the legislation comes forward so they feel part and parcel of the process.
With regard to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, I look forward to committee stage to see how the minister is going to address the anxieties that will be engendered in the private sector by people who may have capital investment there and who may, as individuals, representatives and people within British Columbia, very much support the idea of the preservation of representative ecosystems, but not to the extent that there is so much anxiety in the private sector that nobody has any security for their capital investment.
These are the things that we have to flag, hon. Speaker. Although there's an important principle being addressed in the Utilities Commission Act, it certainly doesn't go far enough. It doesn't do what the government committed to do in the last general election, and that's truly unfortunate. With that, I yield the floor.
W. Hurd: It wasn't my intention, originally, to speak to this bill, but I was so moved by the dissertation from the Minister of Labour about the challenge for natural gas consumers in Victoria that I felt it was important to point out a few things about the switch to natural gas, particularly as it relates to Vancouver Island. I am delighted to see that the Minister of Finance is here, because in the vaunted Peat Marwick Thorne report, there's a substantial section about lurking expenditures, particularly on Vancouver Island. There's one section about the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island and the extent to which that pipeline is being subsidized by the taxpayers. The minister will well know that the rate of natural gas to Vancouver Island has been fixed at a rate of 15 percent below any other fuel source, which will cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the coming years. The company which is converting to natural gas in Victoria is also benefiting from generous subsidies by the provincial government, particularly as it relates to conversions of up to $1,000 for people converting to other energy sources.
The exposure of the provincial government is absolutely mammoth in connection with this project, and it should be pointed out to the Minister of Labour that the good consumers of Victoria are going to have to install a great many efficient showerheads indeed to make up for the kind of subsidies that are going into this particular conversion to other energy sources. In fact, I can see many generations of energy-efficient windows and showerheads and improved insulation before the taxpayers ever recoup the kind of investment they have in this particular project.
I am delighted the Minister of Finance is here. I urge him to reread the Peat Marwick Thorne report, particularly the section about lurking expenditures and the one that talks about the taxpayers' exposure for conversion to what is an energy-efficient source, but which the generations of British Columbians will pay, particularly on Vancouver Island.
I couldn't help but throw that in, because the energy-efficient challenge that the Minister of Labour is talking about may be efficient for consumers, but it is quite a different story for taxpayers.
[ Page 6793 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, I'm a woman of few words, and usually, in the interest of efficiency in this House, I try to keep my speeches to a minimum and to a minimum length. I know that in general that is appreciated by those who listen and hear what is said. What has happened here today is that we have discovered a swamp of misinterpretation, misunderstanding, misconception, misstatement and even irrelevancy in the other benches about this bill, which is a relatively minor bill and deals with relatively few things.
I would like to deal with a few of them. Most of them, of course, we will discuss in committee stage. This bill deals with four acts, so it's very difficult to consider them together, but I would like to deal with a few things before I put this second reading to bed.
There is a strange misinterpretation about the Energy Efficiency Act. This is an enabling act which allows you to do things. Certainly, for the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, we would never do a thing that would oppose the requirements of the FTA. Nor would we like to challenge the NAFTA on this issue, would we? He brings out a truly amazing attitude on this. What we have is very good legislation which will allow us to work further with manufacturers in order to bring in standards for energy-efficient appliances and devices and to develop stickers and things like that to assure buyers.
There was a strange attitude that there are some back-door fees here. These fees are right up front. We want to make sure that the whole House knows what we're planning to do. There is some kind of an interpretation that we're bleeding the resource industry, and that's absolutely amazing.
I would like to go back to the idea that the Energy Efficiency Act was a first step. I repeat that this is about step three with this act. I have to congratulate the previous government for first bringing it in. We improved it once, and we've improved it again. I think it was a good first step. We even supported it at the time. I would certainly say that this is a good act, and I'm sure that later, when the members understand what it's about, they will support it all the way.
[3:45]
There is a strange attitude about participant funding. Strangely, they seem to think that there are no limits on how the participant funding can go. It says right there that the Utilities Commission can put limits on it. There are limits and there will be limits in the regulations. A number of members agree that it is a very good idea to let people have a say in a public process. Well, it certainly is. Here there is a public process, but, because of legislation on the books right now, there is no way to support people who cannot afford to attend public hearings and say what they have to say. If they have a legitimate interest and are willing to work with the Utilities Commission, this particular amendment will allow that to happen.
I will limit my remarks to just one more issue before I sit down, a misunderstanding about (o) in section 22. There have been a number of statements that we are nullifying leases, permits or licenses. In fact, what we're doing is allowing an extension of governmental requirements, which is a move in favour of industry.
I encourage the critics and others who want to speak during committee stage to look carefully at the legislation and, if they choose, to consult with the ministry beforehand so that they will have a good sense of what we're talking about. I look forward to committee debate later. With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved on division.
Bill 28, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 5. I believe the member for Delta South had just completed his remarks.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)
J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak to the Income Tax Amendment Act, Bill 5. I appreciate the courtesy shown to me by the government and the official opposition when they spoke earlier on this bill.
I think it's important for us to look at this tax legislation, which clearly flows from the budget and is an instrument of the budget. British Columbians have already had opportunities, and they have taken those opportunities, to tell the government what they think about the budget. Indeed, we've seen rallies around this province focus primarily on disapproval by a wide range of British Columbians to the tax measures introduced by this government. Many of the people who demonstrated in protest of the tax measures in the budget were people who perhaps had never before found themselves part of a protest rally.
When I spoke to the group out on the lawns here, many of the people had never -- at least since the 1972-75 period -- felt motivated to come out and protest at the Legislature. They felt abused by this budget. They saw in this budget a pattern that had started in the first budget introduced by the NDP government. There was indeed a trend established in last year's budget that follows through into this year's budget, a trend that sees the government look to taxes and debt as the way to finance spending. There doesn't appear to be any appetite on the government side to control spending. Indeed, after the demands are made, the question is only: will we finance our spending with more taxes or by creating debt for future generations?
This legislation clearly deals with those areas where the government has decided to look to income taxes and to eliminating the renter's tax credit for revenue. Those are the three things. The minister said in his opening remarks there were four areas that were dealt with. Three of them are tax measures, if you like, and there is a small sales tax rebate measure designed to soften the
[ Page 6794 ]
blow for people whose incomes are in the $17,000 range or below.
Essentially what we have here is a bill designed to take more income taxes from those who are described in the bill as higher-income earners. We know now that the government considers anyone earning a taxable income of $60,000 or more to be in the higher-income range. We have to think about a Minister of Finance who earns about $100,000 a year in his portfolio. We understand, because of his reluctance to participate in the debate over teachers in the province, that his wife is employed as a teacher. One could project that she would probably earn another $60,000 a year. So here is a minister who looks at people earning $60,000 a year and decides that these are the higher-income groups that should be attacked. Those people are expected to pay -- and will have to pay, because this bill will undoubtedly pass -- a 20 percent surcharge. If they are fortunate enough to earn $86,000 a year, the income surtax is 30 percent.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Now we know that governments have to tax as a way of raising revenue, and let me say, hon. Speaker, that I don't particularly argue with income taxes as a way of generating revenue. I believe that if government has to generate more revenue, income is a reasonable place to look. But I believe -- and I think most British Columbians believe -- that government has an obligation to first of all ensure that the money they already receive is being wisely spent, that it is using its resources wisely and that it is allocating tax dollars in the most appropriate way. Not many people in this province believe this government is doing a good job in that area. Most people look at a whole range of initiatives undertaken by this government: new layers of bureaucracy, increases in the size of government, new bureaucracies, increases to public sector workers and a fair wage policy that costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Taxpayers look at all of these actions of government and say that surely if government has money for public sector wage settlements at three times the inflation rate or three times the settlements in the private sector, and all of these things for those people who are traditionally supporters of the government, then it should be able to economize and find a way to manage the business of government without coming back to the taxpayer for more. My opposition to this increase in sales tax....
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: Income tax, as the minister so appropriately corrects me; he got to sales tax a little later on. There's another bill to cover that.
Hon. Speaker, we see a government that has not taken the prudent steps to trim government spending or dealt with the issues that British Columbians expect their government to deal with. It has brought in new programs and has allowed welfare costs in this province to increase by $900 million a year. This same government seems to have no hesitation in coming back to British Columbians for a whole range of new taxes and increases to existing taxes. These income tax increases are not acceptable. They slow the economy down. At the end of the day they start to damage the government's ability to generate revenue, because if you take money out of the economy and put it into government, it's economy that's not available for investment or purchases to stimulate the economy.
In tandem with this, the government has increased the corporate tax rate. It is a natural and common occurrence for government to try to balance the income tax rate with the corporate tax rate. But we now see corporate tax rates of 16.5 percent in British Columbia -- a full percentage point higher than Alberta and much higher than in other jurisdictions in which we compete. This again slows down the economy and reduces investor confidence, the attractiveness of British Columbia as a source of investment and, ultimately, the government's ability to generate wealth.
This government is going in the opposite direction of the last administration. The last administration maintained tax rates at the lowest level in the country and generated tax revenues as a result. It encouraged investment in British Columbia as a direct result of an attractive tax environment here. Investors in British Columbia were more willing to invest here and expand their businesses. People from across Canada and all over the world looked at British Columbia as an attractive place to invest. It still is, but it is not quite as attractive as it was two years ago because this government is systematically increasing taxes in every possible area. There is no tax, fee or revenue source that this government and this Minister of Finance haven't attacked once or twice in the two budgets they have brought down. People looking at British Columbia understand that this isn't the end of the road for tax increases and that this is part of a clear pattern by the government to continue to increase taxes and take more money out of the economy and spend more in government. When you combine that with the increasing debt in British Columbia, you understand why people are nervous about what's happening in B.C. and why folks have gathered earlier this year all around the province to protest the tax measures that the government has brought in.
This Income Tax Amendment Act also deals with the elimination of the renter's tax credit. This is an area where I quite honestly expected an NDP government to be more sympathetic. What we see here is an attack on the working poor; the people who generally rent properties, who can't afford to buy properties but who are not looking for public or social assistance; the people who are earning too much to qualify for the sales tax credit that this bill established. This bill targets those working people in British Columbia and punishes them with one more tax, and it is very much to the detriment of young people in particular. In large measure young people are folks who rent accommodation, rent apartments, rent homes and hope to save enough money to buy a house or a condo or an apartment, but this tax simply cuts back on their net income -- or the amount of money that they can set
[ Page 6795 ]
aside to buy property -- and slows down growth in the economy.
[4:00]
Every aspect of this legislation hurts the economy of British Columbia, and if this government had its priorities right and had an agenda for economic development for wealth generation -- for economic stimulation in the province -- it would not introduce this kind of legislation. It would have the courage to set about increasing government revenues by encouraging and promoting a more robust economy. That's the answer in British Columbia. We have the health; we have the potential; we have the economic base here for a very strong economy. We've been leading Canada for most of this decade. We've been doing it because there were the resources, the people, the skills and the economic climate. We see this being undermined by a government that doesn't understand what makes British Columbia tick, doesn't understand what causes people to invest their savings and create new jobs and create wealth in the province.
We are very much opposed to Bill 5 because it's a key part in a budget that we are overall opposed to and disappointed in. With that, suspecting that there is very little chance of defeating this bill, I'll take my place and hear from other members of the House, if anyone is so moved to speak.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand and speak on the principles and philosophies of Bill 5. Obviously following our leader, who has expressed our concerns very well, there are only a few personal observations that I would like to give to this particular bill.
The minister in his opening statements talked about the fact that this was only going to affect 8 percent of the province, but that percentage is a bit misleading. When we take out of the population the 20 percent -- 10 which is on welfare, 10 which is on UI -- then, in fact, that percentage of those who contribute to the province changes substantially and becomes about 15 percent. That is a significant factor. When we look at the people who drive the economy of British Columbia, it is not the average wage earner or the low-income wage earner. They all contribute; they contribute in a very sincere and obvious way. But the movers and shakers, the people who drive the investment in the province, are the high-income people.
Look at the recent incident in which a Burnaby company hired a new CEO from California at a wage I'm not sure of -- it was in excess of $100,000. This individual chose to manage that British Columbia firm yet to live in Bellingham, because the tax advantages of staying in Washington while managing a B.C. company were significant to him. I recognize that is only one incident, but it is a very serious symptom of the kinds of things we are going to see grow to some magnitude over the next few years if we don't recognize the need to cut the size of government and thereby cut the need to raise taxes.
The other aspect of this bill that I really have problems with is that the $60,000 and $86,000 ceilings are on individual taxpayers. That discourages an individual, whether the male or female of the family, from seeking higher employment in order to allow his or her spouse to stay home and raise the children. You now have a situation where two wage earners who have jobs that are under those particular caps can contribute more in wealth to their family by both being in the workforce than one individual looking at improving his employment, because he's going to be penalized the minute he does through this extra taxation on the so-called high wage earner. That's a real concern to me, given the social problems we have today. It's something that should be recognized about all the taxing policies of this government: what is that policy encouraging or discouraging by way of social and economic problems throughout the province?
Because I don't support the budget or the taxing policies of this government, I will not support this bill either. I'm not going to belabour the fact; as my leader has said, we obviously don't have much chance of defeating this bill. But I wanted to make those two observations.
Hon. G. Clark: I enjoy hearing some of the comments from the opposition. It's unfortunate that they're somewhat incorrect, or certainly I have profound disagreements with other aspects. The member said that what makes the system go round is the rich.
L. Fox: They drive it.
Hon. G. Clark: They drive it, he says. Therefore the logic is that we should cut taxes on the rich and that would help the economy. That's the philosophy that we saw Ronald Reagan pursue; George Bush called it "voodoo economics," although he continued it. That's the policy we have seen pursued by the current Mulroney administration and by the Vander Zalm government that the members opposite were part of. Of course, that's one of the fundamental reasons that we have this massive deficit and debt problem in this country -- and, I might say, in the United States as well. This is what has happened under conservative administrations: big tax cuts for business and the rich, all the while pretending that it's going to create more income for government, and this simply hasn't been the case. It won't happen. It's called trickle-down economics. It has been totally discredited in this country and in the United States.
We have increased taxes on the richest 8 percent. This is not a subjective term about who is rich and who isn't; it's an objective fact. For the record, I want members to know that after this budget, we have the second lowest taxes in Canada. This budget gives us the lowest rate of spending growth since 1987, way back when Bill Vander Zalm first got elected. If you count population growth and inflation, the real per capita expenditure is minus 0.8 percent. As a result of these tax increases on well-off individuals and a spending restraint, we have cut the deficit that we inherited from that discredited administration from $2.4 billion to $1.5 billion. We just heard from the remnants of the last administration, who want to continue the policy of tax
[ Page 6796 ]
cuts for the rich and larger deficits. They've been rejected by the people, thank goodness.
We have increased taxes modestly on the top 8 percent while maintaining the second lowest taxes in Canada. We've cut back on government spending, we made a dramatic cut in the deficit, and we still have the second lowest taxes in Canada. We have the lowest deficit as a percentage of the economy of any province in Canada, and our credit rating has been confirmed. I shouldn't criticize another province, but I note that the Conservative administration in Manitoba, which is following exactly the policies mentioned by the members opposite, just had their credit rating dropped today.
[4:15]
In conclusion, no one is happy with tax increases. No one wants to increase taxes, but to dig ourselves out of the massive deficit inherited from the last administration, it's important to have taxes that are based on the ability to pay. The tax credit in this budget for low-income people will stimulate the economy, because low-income people will spend that money in small businesses, creating jobs here in B.C. So I commend all members who believe in prudent fiscal responsibility and prudent fiscal management and in a fair taxation policy, unlike the regressive policy followed by the previous administration, to vote in favour of this legislation.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 40 | ||
|
Petter |
Boone |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Charbonneau |
Jackson |
|
Pement |
Beattie |
Schreck |
|
Lortie |
Hammell |
Lali |
|
Giesbrecht |
Hagen |
Harcourt |
|
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
Clark |
|
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
Blencoe |
|
Barnes |
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
|
Copping |
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
|
Farnworth |
Evans |
O'Neill |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Simpson |
Brewin |
| Janssen | ||
|
NAYS -- 18 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Reid |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Stephens |
Hanson |
|
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
Mitchell |
|
Tyabji |
K. Jones |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
Warnke |
Symons |
|
Fox |
Neufeld |
de Jong |
Bill 5, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I would like the House to welcome 47 grade 7 students from Tyson Elementary School in Chilliwack. They are here to study our parliamentary system and to see just exactly what we do to earn our dollars. Could we please make them most welcome.
D. Mitchell: I ask leave to make an introduction as well.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: We have in our public galleries today a very enthusiastic group of grade 7 students from Hillside Middle School in West Vancouver. They are here in Victoria for a few days. They are here in the Legislature today to understand how it works, and they have many questions about how the institution works. I hope that members will welcome them here today. They're going to be observing our proceedings for a short while.
Hon. G. Clark: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 13.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
(continued)
F. Gingell: I rise to speak to second reading of Bill 13. As the minister stated when second reading debate first commenced on May 27 -- just to remind members of the House -- Bill 13 deals only with amendments to the provincial Income Tax Act to bring it in line with the federal Income Tax Act. With respect to the assessment and collection of taxes, there is absolutely no purpose that ours should be different because of the arrangements that exist between the province and the federal government.
There are just two minor items that I wish to deal with. When we got our briefing papers my heart rose, because we were told that this act would bring in some new fairness provisions.
An Hon. Member: Poor language.
F. Gingell: Poor language, indeed. I was hoping that the minister was going to take this opportunity to bring some equity and fairness into many of the acts of this province that deal with various taxes. I'm going to use this time, if I may, as an opportunity to make a plea to the Minister of Finance that he consider making those changes that will be necessary in the Social Services Tax Act to allow the minister to use the discretion that he has a great deal more than he ever does. A great deal of the time of an opposition Finance critic is spent communicating with the Minister of Finance about instances in the provincial sales tax act where there are anomalies of wording and where written and verbal rulings that have been given to taxpayers, on which they have relied for long periods of time, are suddenly reversed by a new auditor, ruling or practice that is
[ Page 6797 ]
taken up by the department of the Ministry of Finance that deals with the administration of that act.
One of the most important things in taxation is that everybody sees taxes to be fair. I must say that from the days when I first started in the profession of chartered accountancy, the compliance of taxpayers to the Income Tax Act really was voluntary. There was an attitude in this country that the taxes were reasonably fair. No one likes to pay them, of course, but people obeyed the law, filed the returns they were required to file and complied with the requirements of the legislation. That doesn't happen to the same degree now. That is caused, to a great extent, by the tremendous increase in the level of taxation. Anyway, it turned out that these references to fairness in this have something to do with the Human Rights Act. I look forward to having some further understanding of it during committee debate.
The only section in this bill that doesn't deal purely and simply with ensuring that the provincial act is harmonized with the federal act is the section that provides a tax exemption for the Vancouver International Airport. I appreciate that in the past, of course, the operation of the airport, as a division of the federal Ministry of Transport, wasn't subject to taxes. I can appreciate that because it has gone to a non-profit organization and is being run by an authority on behalf of all taxpayers, it is, I guess, only reasonable that it stay non-taxable. But, again, this is an opportunity to encourage this government, having given up the right to tax the profits of the airport, not to relax their intent to try to get a little greater say in the operation of the Vancouver International Airport. It is clearly a provincial facility. I think it is a great disappointment, as I know the government does, that the federal government in Ottawa would have seen fit to move the control and operation of that airport to a body that really reports to no one and has no responsibility to the provincial government for the manner in which it is developed and operates.
With those few words, hon. Speaker, I am happy to advise you that the Liberal opposition will support this bill. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to it today.
Deputy Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. G. Clark: Just to close the debate, I'll start with the first comments from the member opposite, which dealt with sales tax anomalies. This bill, of course, is an income tax amendment act. I appreciate his remarks, although I disagree with them. Maybe we can have that discussion in the estimates.
[4:30]
My own view is that the sales tax administration, although it is very tough.... I think there are lots of appeals. The minister has to exercise his discretion. I tend to support staff almost routinely -- but not always. The reason for that is simple: we want a consistent application of the law. If the politician, as the court of last resort, is going to overturn staff and use his or her discretion, the only problem with that is ensuring that all taxpayers are treated fairly and consistently. That's the challenge we try to deal with. If members have concerns about that, I'd be delighted to talk further, either in estimates or privately, with any member of the House. If people feel that the tax is not being applied consistently or that it is consistently harsh, I'm certainly prepared to look at that, although it has nothing to do with this bill.
With respect to the airport authority, I think the member opposite and I agree completely on this question. We are a bit concerned about the lack of any provincial input, particularly since we're in the middle of this bill, which gives tax-exempt status.
On the other, I must say in all candidness in the House that the airport authority has had a very good relationship with the provincial government. Mr. Emerson, who is now the head of the airport authority, has great experience working for the previous administration and briefly for our administration, and is very capable. He very clearly understands the role the airport plays in the province's economic development. He understands and I think fully supports working with the provincial government. We've had some very frank discussions in preparation for this legislation. I feel very confident in saying that the province of British Columbia, regardless of political stripe, will have a major influence over activities at the airport. In fact, there is some undertaking to that effect in writing from the authority, which I'd be happy to share in the House, if members want that. It's not formal documentation -- but just to seek some reassurances of the House.
Finally, I might say in closing that I'm really sort of bullish on the airport. I think that this is an important economic development engine. Their plans are very exiting for the province, and they're in fact key to encouraging trade and growth. I fully support their rather ambitious undertaking of expansion at the airport, both of the terminal and the runway. So I personally feel very confident and positive about this expansion for the economic development of the province. I think all members do generally.
This bill really enables that to happen. I think it's good faith, in the sense that I think the previous administration made some commitments to this effect. We didn't have to do it as a new government, but I feel that this really paves the way for more local autonomy -- although without the strict accountability guidelines -- which is better than allowing Ottawa, that administration in the east, to have influence over our airport. So even though it's not strictly accountable in a local sense, which I would prefer, any local control is more desirable -- maybe my bias is showing here -- than allowing the bureaucrats in Ottawa to have that kind of influence. Because of that local control and because of this bill, in part, we are seeing dramatically more development on that site than we would had it still been in the hands of the federal government.
I'm pleased that opposition members are supporting this. I think it's good news for the province. I appreciate some of the caveats that the member opposite raised, and I agree with them. But I think that any concerns have been met. I'd be happy to further share any discussion about that with members of the House. With that, I ask members to support Bill 13 and move second reading of the bill.
[ Page 6798 ]
Motion approved.
Bill 13, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 17.
BONDING ACT
Hon. G. Clark: The Bonding Act has existed in various forms in this province.... You learn something new every day in this job, hon. Speaker; it has existed in British Columbia since 1897. Over the years various improvements have been made, such as the concept of consumer protection and the establishment of standards for bonding and financial guarantees. The present act came into force in the mid-seventies, during that period of time when lots of legislative modernization and exciting changes took place in B.C. The Bonding Act is designed to safeguard the interests of the public and the government from the failure of a holder of a permit, licence or statutory privilege to perform on their obligations.
This bill simplifies administrative procedure and allows the legislation to keep pace with modern business practices. One of the key features of the bill is to introduce regulatory flexibility, particularly in the area of the types of acceptable performance security. This will allow the acceptance of new forms of performance security that are being developed by the financial industry and the retirement of security forms that are no longer in use. This will be a significant improvement over the present act, which has a very narrow description of security and fails to adapt to changing business practices. Regulations under the new act will provide legal descriptions of such financial instruments as term deposits, letters of credit and other types of commonly used performance security instruments. The bill also recognizes -- and these are capitalized, although I'm not sure that it's significant -- the safekeeping agreement which has been developed by the Canadian Bankers' Association to significantly ease the administrative burden of posting performance security for the licensee and the government.
While the old act had its problems, one of its features, that of establishing a two-year claim period for the public, has been carried forward in this bill. This bill is also a reflection of the government's commitment, where possible, to the use of plain language in legislation. When compared with its predecessor, the legislation tries to avoid the excessive use of legal terms to achieve its goals. Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
F. Gingell: Having read the bill and the bill kit, I'm really quite impressed that the minister managed to speak on the subject for a minute and 45 seconds. I don't think I'm going to be able to match that. The bill seems to us to be common sense and brings the act into the 1990s. We totally support this new act.
J. Weisgerber: As rare as it is for me to be able to stand up and endorse legislation brought in by this government, today seems to be the exception. The Social Credit caucus, too, joins in supporting Bill 17. I think these kinds of improvements, particularly in the area of simplified language, are important steps forward. Acts like this need to be updated from time to time, and we should join with the government in doing it and move on.
Deputy Speaker: Does the minister wish to close debate?
Hon. G. Clark: No, thank you.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I thank the members of the House for a rare unanimity motion.
Bill 17, Bonding Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 8.
SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
The House in committee on Bill 8; M. Lord in the chair.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll introduce my staff. Glen Armstrong is on my left and Ed Turner is on my right. Ed is executive director of the consumer and taxation branch and Glen is in the tax policy branch.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
F. Gingell: Perhaps this is a more appropriate occasion for me to make a speech about fairness in the administration of the Social Services Tax Act, seeing that we have the administrator through whom many of the appeals go.
We debated this bill at great length last year, and we all recognize that the purpose of this new act is -- pure and simple -- to fix up a bad job that was done by the government. Since they are all amendments that were made last year, I wonder if the minister could just briefly cover the changes as we come to each section.
Hon. G. Clark: The whole of part one of the bill parallels exactly last year's bill, and that was canvassed at length in the House. I'm in the hands of the members of the House if they want to redo that, but frankly there's nothing new there. Part two on the other hand is new. I don't want to prejudge members of the opposition, but one option would be to proceed with the first half of the bill, or part one of the bill, and then have some detailed discussion on what has changed this
[ Page 6799 ]
year from last year in terms of the new parts. If members are at all interested in that suggestion, that means that the first 14 sections we could do on one shot and then move on.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, what we're doing now is having another look at some legislation introduced a year ago that received a great deal of debate in this House, and I too am reluctant to go over that argument again. But what we're doing here does bear repeating. The government set out to impose a tax on legal services, arguing that it was somehow taxing the legal profession. Reflection on that and common sense would tell you it was a tax on the users of legal services, not a tax on the providers of legal services. I think too that it was pretty clear last year -- and the reason we're back here this year is that it's patently unfair to take a specific area of service in isolation from another range of services. The government's solution is interesting: when it was found to be inappropriate to tax a narrow range of services, the government taxed a broad range of services. They now say that what they did was okay in the context of the new tax regime, which sets out to expand taxes to a broad range of services.
[4:45]
I recognize that we're in committee stage of the bill and essentially dealing clause by clause, but we're also taking the liberty of lumping together the first 14 clauses. I will try to be brief in that regard.
It's unfortunate that we're trying to solve this problem by going back retroactively. I recognize that this is not the first time in the history of this Legislature that retroactive taxes have been imposed or that taxes which were struck down have been brought back to the Legislature in a form that would allow them to stand for a legal challenge. I think it's also important to recognize that most of the arguments that succeeded were raised in this Legislature a year ago. One of the shortcomings of government is that when it has the bit in its teeth and has decided on a course of action, it is pretty much oblivious to the arguments that are made.
An Hon. Member: Is this from experience?
J. Weisgerber: One of the more silent members of the opposition asks if this is from experience. As a matter of fact, I do speak from experience. I have seen governments introduce legislation. I have seen oppositions provide appropriate critiques that the government chose to ignore, as in the case of Bill 2 last year. The arguments that were made in court were not new arguments. For the most part, they were repetitions of the arguments made in this Legislature, and they succeeded.
Hon. G. Clark: You should have charged them.
J. Weisgerber: But then someone would have had to collect the 7 percent sales tax for the advice, and that would have been awkward.
I'm prepared to move on, having made those few comments.
Sections 2 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
F. Gingell: My understanding of the court decision that struck down this legislation is that in the end it was really struck down for lack of certainty. There was a whole series of other issues on discrimination that the courts didn't decide on, things that I mentioned during second reading. The change that is made to section 1 of the act through this section 15 adds the words "legally related" in front of "services prescribed as legal services." Perhaps the minister will give us some description of how that changes the original intent of the act.
Hon. G. Clark: It actually defines the services. This is an amendment to the definition of legal services, and they're defined as the services that come within the meaning of the practice of law under the Legal Profession Act and those described in the Notaries Act. The definition captures most services provided by lawyers and notaries except those provided by employees to their employers. Unlike the retroactive legislation, the definition of legal services in the prospective tax includes the authority to prescribe legally related services as legal services. It's required to deal with a possible omission. The member is correct. Initially we attempted to keep.... If I could just back up, what this does is dramatically narrow the definition outside of the province and somewhat significantly broaden the definition within this province and allow the ability to prescribe legal services. That gives greater certainty, which is one of the fundamental problems with the "vagueness" of the tax initially.
Initially we designed the tax in such a way as to try to not disadvantage British Columbia lawyers from other lawyers in other jurisdictions doing work here, or vice versa. We wanted to try to not have them at a competitive disadvantage. But unfortunately, that's the part that was ruled largely to be a bit too vague for the courts, because it's a principle, I guess, of the Charter of Rights, quite correctly, that on things like tax policy -- fundamental policy -- the Legislature has to be absolutely clear. The problem that the courts had is that someone could break the law inadvertently. If somebody is going to break the law, we want to make sure that the law is clear. This is a significantly tightened-up version dealing with that specific question.
F. Gingell: I'm afraid I cannot resist the temptation to speak again to the last line and a half of section 15: "...but does not include services provided by a person to that person's employer in the course of employment." Hon. Chair, this is a very discriminatory tax. Not only is it discriminatory in the area of asking why tax legal services and not tax a whole series of other services, but that line and a half specifically causes small corporations seeking advice from lawyers to pay a tax, but excludes from taxation the value of services rendered in large corporations who have so
[ Page 6800 ]
much legal work that they have a need to employ their own house counsel.
I'm not suggesting that you should include the value of legal services rendered by house counsel to their own employers, but I want to point out the unfairness of this act, and I am interested in your comments on it. You shouldn't bring it in period, because it's unfair. This is one of the areas in which it is terribly unfair. You have not only the problems of a tax that is going to be deductible to business and never deductible to individuals but you're also creating a tax on services rendered to small business that will be perfectly legal and properly avoided by large corporations. That is so unfair, and unfair taxes are the cause of underground economies and people avoiding and evading taxes. I really do think that you should reconsider this whole exercise. I wish you would. That particular line and a half causes unfairness that isn't acceptable.
Hon. G. Clark: I recognize that there are some concerns, and obviously we'll monitor this tax very carefully, as we do others, but I might say that the tax system is replete with tax preferences or taxing at different rates. We don't tax books right now; no one would like to see us tax books, but that's an advantage. That's a tax advantage conferred upon books.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Everybody who buys books is treated the same way. Similarly, we don't tax children's clothing but we tax adult clothing, so we're discriminating against adult clothing manufacturers versus children's clothing manufacturers. The system has inconsistencies, tax preferences by virtue of the tax policies pursued by various governments across the country. It is somewhat unfair in some respects. One legislation we are looking at is limiting the preference for certain renewable energy sources. We didn't really want to do that, but there was this bias in the legislation that was growing and was getting very difficult to police and was causing some inconsistent application, so we have rectified that.
I appreciate that with members opposite there is some concern about this legislation in terms of its application. I am concerned as well, and we will monitor it very carefully. But on balance, we think this is progressive legislation. Firstly, we think that -- factually and individually -- the consumers of legal services have a somewhat higher income; secondly, we would hope that lawyers would become more competitive as we move forward and there won't be a passing on of this tax, particularly to the business community.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
F. Gingell: If one just takes the number of words that are in the new section compared to the number of words that were in the old section, there is a fairly substantial change in the definition of the legal services to which the tax will apply. I would presume, from reading the result of the court case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that the changes made in this section must be very key to bringing it within what you believe is going to be provincial jurisdiction. I wonder if -- for myself and for the Leader of the Third Party -- you could just cover the changes that you believe have accomplished your nefarious program.
An Hon. Member: Nefarious?
F. Gingell: Nefarious, yes.
Hon. G. Clark: The member is essentially correct in saying this is a key section. "A connection to British Columbia" were the words used; it is now simply that any British Columbian purchasing legal services in British Columbia is taxed. This is what we talked about earlier as being much tighter. Before, the key question was "a connection to British Columbia." That's been eliminated and tightened up under this section.
F. Gingell: Does this mean that a resident of British Columbia now receiving legal advice from a lawyer not resident in British Columbia with respect to a matter that doesn't have residency here in British Columbia will not be taxed?
Hon. G. Clark: The answer is no.
J. Weisgerber: To follow that question, and assuming that the minister was correct in what he said, the flip side then is: is someone who receives legal services in British Columbia who is not residing in British Columbia exempt from the tax?
Hon. G. Clark: I want to clarify this. If you are a British Columbian resident and you buy legal services in Toronto for a function which is not in British Columbia, you don't pay the tax.
F. Gingell: Maybe the best way for us to understand this is just to move through all the alternatives. If a British Columbia resident with a non-British Columbia lawyer is dealing with an issue that is in British Columbia -- like the transfer of real estate -- will that be taxable?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
F. Gingell: I guess we will get into how you collect those taxes later. The next issue that I'd like to ask the minister about is whether it is taxable to have a non-resident of British Columbia dealing with a non-resident lawyer dealing with a matter that is resident within British Columbia.
Hon. G. Clark: No.
F. Gingell: Is the reason that that is not included in Bill 8 because you do not believe you have jurisdiction to charge that tax? It obviously wouldn't seem to be fair.
[ Page 6801 ]
Hon. G. Clark: I think that's correct. Constitutionally there's nothing to tax.
[5:00]
J. Weisgerber: This opens a whole range of possibilities. I would find that area contradictory, if I understand the minister's answers. If someone non-resident in British Columbia were to visit a B.C. lawyer and seek advice on an issue that was not particularly related to this province -- for example, an issue that might arise in Alberta or Washington or the like -- is the minister then suggesting that that advice, that legal service, wouldn't be taxable?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's correct. Let me just draw the member's attention to section 16 dealing with section 2.012(3). It says that if neither the purchaser nor the recipient of legal services provided in British Columbia resides, ordinarily resides or carries on business in British Columbia, a tax shall be paid essentially for the following services: real property situated in British Columbia; tangible person property, delivered in British Columbia; and the ownership, possession or use in British Columbia of property other than that referred to, and so on. So, it's fairly tightly prescribed.
J. Weisgerber: I live in Dawson Creek, and quite regularly, hundreds of times a day, Albertans come into British Columbia to buy goods, and there's no shame. As a matter of fact, it's of considerable benefit to British Columbia and the region. It is a longstanding argument of Alberta residents coming into B.C. that they should be exempt from social services tax. When they come in and buy goods, the vendor is obligated to charge them a tax. I'm curious to know what the difference is between a legal service and some hard goods that are purchased.
Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct. I thought he was talking about British Columbians going to Alberta. Albertans coming and buying goods in British Columbia is good news. It's important that people realize that we're trying to treat legal services exactly the same as goods. As you know, if you're an Alberta resident and you're buying goods in British Columbia for export to Alberta, you don't pay the sales tax, if you have them shipped to your address. Similarly, if you purchased legal services in British Columbia, you would not pay the legal services tax, unless it is something absolutely integral to British Columbia -- these five things. So if it's real, tangible personal property in British Columbia, then you pay the legal services tax, but if it's essentially exported -- legal services for a function outside of the province and the person is from outside of the province -- then constitutionally we cannot tax it, so we don't in this legislation.
J. Weisgerber: The purpose of my argument is not to include in the web the lawyers in my constituency who provide legal services regularly to Alberta residents when they come over to buy other goods. But I find it quite contradictory, quite ironic, that the legal advice that an Alberta resident, for example, might receive in Dawson Creek, would, in most cases, be received in the legal office. It wouldn't be delivered, exported or shipped by common carrier; it would be delivered at the lawyer's office. I want to make sure you understand the point that I'm arguing: if you're going to take an action that I think is appropriate in this tax, it would also be appropriate to apply a more liberal or generous approach to goods purchased. It's a real issue in many communities along the Alberta border; it is a big issue. The higher the sales tax gets, the bigger an issue it becomes.
I'd like to explore a bit to see if perhaps there isn't some way we could extend this exemption beyond legal services. You can, as a matter of course, apply when you purchase an automobile that's shipped out of province. There are a number of purchases that are exempted. But there is a big trade in Dawson Creek from people who come over to buy clothing and a whole range of consumables that they pay tax for. There is a strong belief in communities like Dawson Creek that that inhibits the amount of commerce with the people who live as close as ten miles away. They argue that if you were to find some way of taking that tax burden away, you would stimulate more people to come into the region and stimulate business in communities like Dawson Creek.
Hon. G. Clark: I have no problem in telling the member that we could review that question. My staff say this is something that comes up every three years or so. I hope the member now realizes that this section is good news for Dawson Creek. In fact, it allows an Alberta resident to receive legal advice in Dawson Creek for something in Alberta and not pay the tax. Now this is the difference. If you're buying goods in Dawson Creek and having them delivered to your address in Alberta, you don't pay the sales tax. The corollary is exactly the same: even though you're buying legal services in Dawson Creek, it is for a legal service that takes place in Alberta; in other words, it's only when you're asking for legal advice about an Alberta event. The corollary is there; it is consistent now. You're asking me to review the question of the sales tax generally for Albertans paying it in Dawson Creek. I don't mind saying that I haven't reviewed that question. My staff tell me that it's reviewed periodically; I'm sure it was by the previous administration. I don't mind reviewing it again if there is some logic to it and it has some implications. But I think this adequately deals with legal services, at least, for your community.
F. Gingell: To carry on with these alternatives, I'm not sure if this one has been dealt with. First of all, the question of where the legal services are rendered -- whether it's in an office in Victoria or in Toronto -- is of no relevance. The relevance is where the property or the domicile is of the person with whom the legal services are connected.
Let me ask you this, then. A British Columbia resident goes to a British Columbia lawyer about advice on an estate in England, of which they're a beneficiary. Would that be taxable?
[ Page 6802 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
F. Gingell: But if the British Columbia resident goes to a Toronto lawyer about an estate in England, that wouldn't be taxable?
Hon. G. Clark: I want to make sure members know that that person would not have been taxable under the original act. This act makes it taxable. That's the connection-to-B.C. argument that we tried to pursue to try not to tax that kind of service. Unfortunately, the courts have struck that down, so now it is taxable.
F. Gingell: So what is the answer to my second one?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, what was it?
The Chair: Hon. member, could you repeat your most recent question?
F. Gingell: B.C. resident, Toronto lawyer, the estate in England.
Hon. G. Clark: My understanding is that the answer is no, it would not pay.
F. Gingell: I'm just hoping, hon. Chair, that some kind person is going to leave me an estate in England.
The result of these amendments is actually going to put British Columbia lawyers at a disadvantage in dealing with extraprovincial matters.
Hon. G. Clark: As I said at the outset, that is precisely what we tried to avoid with the original legislation. It was very unfortunate that the Law Society chose to challenge that particular section, because now, the member is correct, there is somewhat of a disadvantage. Again, we would have liked to have corrected that. Perhaps once this bill has passed, the Law Society will be constructive in terms of giving us some legal advice on how we can do that. We haven't been able to do that, and that's a bit of an unfortunate consequence to this legislation.
F. Gingell: Moving down to section 16, the new section 2.012(3)(e) looks at the registration of extraprovincial corporations. If a Toronto corporation with a Toronto lawyer applies for extraprovincial registration in British Columbia, will it be a requirement to pay the tax on the services before the registration is effected?
Hon. G. Clark: I wasn't completely listening to all of what you said, but this section is simply the list of non-residents. If you're a non-resident, there are only five things that are taxable in British Columbia. This is one of them: incorporation of a company.
F. Gingell: Yes, I recognize that, Mr. Minister. My question was: in dealing with the problem of collecting these taxes, is payment of the tax going to be a pre-requirement of acceptance of extraprovincial registrations?
Hon. G. Clark: No.
Sections 16 to 21 inclusive approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm just rising because I want to make sure the member opposite doesn't have any further questions on any of these sections before we whip through them.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: No, I'm just rising in defence of the opposition spokesperson on this subject to make sure that we're not going through this faster than.... I've been there -- Brother. I might just advise members that we have gone through the guts of the bill. These are minor amendments, but I know that we're moving quickly, and I want to make sure that the member has an opportunity if there are any questions left on the remaining sections.
Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
[5:15]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 8, Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete without amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. G. Clark: Now, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: The motion before you is third reading of Bill 8.
F. Gingell: In committee stage we dealt with the changes that the government has brought in to try to legalize what we consider to be a very discriminatory and unfair tax. We stated that last year when the bill was found to be ultra vires, or whatever it was that caused it to be struck down in the Supreme Court of B.C. We hoped that this government would use that opportunity to rethink the whole matter of this tax. They chose to bring it forward with the amendments that they have made. Today's committee stage has told us, and the minister has admitted, that it is more unfair now to British Columbians than it was before. It is a shame that the minister did not decide to let the whole matter die, but he chose to bring it forward. We've now dealt with it and this opposition will vote against it on third reading.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure whether leave has been granted for third reading. I'm not certain whether
[ Page 6803 ]
or not it requires it. Perhaps you could clarify that for me?
The Speaker: For the information of members, the bill was reported without amendment and therefore leave was not required. We are on third reading debate of Bill 8.
J. Weisgerber: As I did briefly when we considered part one of the bill, I would like to put on record again that, as much as the government would like to portray it, this is not a tax on lawyers. Perhaps it seems a bit more acceptable if you suggest that you're taxing lawyers, so average British Columbians shouldn't be too concerned about it. The reality is that it's a tax on legal services. It's a tax on what you purchase as individual and corporate British Columbians from lawyers. It's a tax bill that adds to the cost of the service you buy. It has certainly proved to be the case, as we said last year when the bill was originally introduced, that it is one more step in the move toward creating a provincial tax on services generally. In other parts of the legislation flowing from the budget, we now have taxes on a range of services. It was clear last year that that was the direction the government was going. It is being brought in in the worst possible way, in a piecemeal way, which makes a difficult accounting issue even more complex. With the delivery of services, the question now arises: is this a taxable service? Is this something for which there is an obligation to collect tax on? Is there an obligation to submit taxes to the province?
Even in Bill 8 we find a number of circumstances where there are exemptions to the tax. It's not a broad tax. For the most part, if we're going to introduce new taxes -- if we must have taxes, and I don't think we always need these kinds of taxes -- they should be reasonably administrable, they should be easily understood and they should be broadly applied. Instead we have exemptions and exceptions. More importantly, and more disturbingly, we appear to see the government wanting to introduce a GST -- a tax on goods and services -- rather than a provincial tax on goods alone. We see this piecemeal introduction of taxes on services. We find that the government does not have the courage to take the step, if that's what it's determined to do. If the government has decided it is going to tax services -- and I would not encourage the government to take that step -- for heaven's sake, get on with it. Do it in a way that small business people can understand. This bill demonstrates the piecemeal approach the government takes to taxation: half steps, baby steps -- year by year, step by step.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The minister asks if we want big steps. We want steps that are clearly understood and boldly taken. If the government feels they have to take those steps, then have the courage and the boldness to take them. Don't sneak these things in. Don't try and pretend that we're introducing a tax on lawyers, not a tax on legal services. This tax is clearly a tax on consumers.
The Leader of the Official Opposition pointed out that large corporations with legal departments avoid the tax. I don't know whether the minister has done any kind of investigation, but I would expect that 60 or 70 percent of this tax will be paid by individual taxpayers dealing with non-business-related matters. It is nothing more than a consumer tax, a tax that's not very attractive. When you recognize that people often get themselves into difficulty with purchases, with wills, with a whole range of undertakings in their private lives because they don't go out and get legal advice, why would you want to bring in a tax that makes it even more expensive and tends to cause people to not take the appropriate steps and seek legal services?
[5:30]
We were opposed to this bill when it was introduced last year. The courts agreed with us and threw it out. The minister is back again with a new version, and time will tell whether or not it will stand the test of time.
We will be voting against it.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 41 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Boone |
Cashore |
Charbonneau |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Hagen |
|
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
Clark |
|
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
Blencoe |
|
Barnes |
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
|
Copping |
Lovick |
Ramsey |
|
Pullinger |
Farnworth |
Evans |
|
O'Neill |
Doyle |
Hartley |
|
Streifel |
Lord |
Krog |
|
Randall |
Garden |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
Janssen | |
|
NAYS -- 17 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Reid |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Stephens |
Weisgerber |
|
Serwa |
Mitchell |
K. Jones |
|
Jarvis |
Warnke |
Hurd |
|
Tanner |
Symons |
Fox |
|
Neufeld |
De Jong | |
Bill 8 read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 4.
BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 4; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 1.
[ Page 6804 ]
J. Weisgerber: My understanding is that within the last couple of weeks the federal government has amended regulations that would permit the sale of leaded gasoline for use in automobiles in some circumstances. I am wondering whether or not this removal of unleaded gasoline is appropriate, given the recent actions by the federal government.
Hon. G. Clark: According to our information, the government of Canada banned the use of leaded gasoline in automotive engines in 1990 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act gasoline regulation. If the member is saying that it is not now banned, I'll be happy to review that. Despite my desire to get this bill through, maybe we should stand down the first three sections. I might just make one minor point for the member. If we were to eliminate these sections and it is available, it probably would have the effect of eliminating the tax on leaded gas. I thought members might like that loophole. If the member wants, on that basis I am prepared to stand down the first three sections and perhaps my staff can find the answer, although I think it's unlikely in the next few minutes. We'll bring it back tomorrow when we bring back some other legislation.
I think we have passed three second readings of finance bills today, so with the indulgence of the Chair and members, tomorrow we could do those in committee. Any sections remaining here before 6 o'clock we could do tomorrow. If we could stand it down until tomorrow, then that would prevent debate on that. So we would move to section 4 then, hon. Chair.
The Chair: So it is agreed that sections 1 to 3 will stand down until a later time.
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Chair: Agreed.
On section 4.
F. Gingell: I've been anxiously waiting for the explanation on why we used 810.32 litres, which has intrigued us all. I believe...
Interjection.
F. Gingell: No, it isn't, because it's one tonne, because gasoline is lighter than.... Tell us why.
Hon. G. Clark: I've been eagerly awaiting that information myself so I'll read it for the record: prior to metric conversion in 1979, all coloured petroleum products, including natural gas, were taxed at 5 cents per gallon. The act defined a gallon of natural gas as 130 cubic feet at atmospheric pressure. In 1979 the act was amended to convert to metric measurements, focusing on the litre as the unit to be taxed for all coloured petroleum products. The tax rate of 1.1 cents per litre is equivalent to a tax rate of 5 cents per gallon. To covert natural gas to a metric measurement, a volume had to be determined that would incur a tax liability equivalent to 5 cents per gallon measured, as I said, as 130 cubic feet. It was determined that the tax at the rate of 1.1 cents for every 810.32 litres of consumption at standard reference conditions as defined in the legislation would incur a tax liability comparable to the 5 cents per gallon. This conversion was based on information provided in 1978 by the metric conversion office of the Ministry of Education -- that was under the Social Credit administration of the day in British Columbia. Seeing as we were amending the legislation, I asked my staff if maybe we could clean up that section, and I was advised that there were legal concerns about trying to shift the rules, so we chose not to do that at this time. So it's a historic anomaly, and it arises from converting first of all gallons of gas to cubic feet of natural gas, and then further flipping that by converting to metric.
F. Gingell: Well, hon. Chairman, that's fascinating. I think that it would have....
Interjections.
F. Gingell: Yes, it has made my day. You learn something new every day.
This would have been a good opportunity to have changed the base on which the tax was charged from 810.32 litres to 1,000 litres or whatever. Can the minister advise us, please, why the tax was increased to 1.9 cents, rather than just telling us that it was an increase of 0.8 cents? Is there some significance in the amount of 1.9 cents, or were you acting like Woodward's and not wanting to make it an even 2 cents to sound like a little less?
Hon. G. Clark: The revenue raise was $7 million; that translated into 1.9 cents per 810.32 litres.
J. Weisgerber: That is, essentially, $7 million added to the price of natural gas, whether it's consumed domestically or exported. That's the effect. Increasing the transportation costs of natural gas affects consumers of that natural gas consumed here in British Columbia. It is also one more charge added to exported gas. I'm sure the minister understands how tough the export market is for natural gas these days. When he decided to collect $7 million more in transportation charges on natural gas, did he examine its effect on exporters and consumers?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, we did. I might note that Alberta has no tax; Manitoba applies their 7 percent sales tax -- we do not do that; Saskatchewan applies their 9 percent sales tax. So other jurisdictions tax similarly. I did advise the industry -- West Coast Energy, in particular -- of this in advance discussions, although I didn't give them the amount. There was some very minor discussion, as is the nature of tax policy, but a bit more than normal. We did review the impact. We think it's very modest indeed. Although it looks like a large increase -- from 1.1 cents to 1.9 cents -- it is very small indeed throughout the entire system. We are conscious of that; again, as in all these cases, we
[ Page 6805 ]
will be monitoring to make sure it doesn't have any adverse impact. As you know, Westcoast Energy has capital plans for a $1 billion expansion -- a doubling of the pipeline -- in British Columbia. None of those are in jeopardy as a result of this modest enhancement of revenue.
J. Weisgerber: I remind the minister that Alberta and B.C. are not parallel situations. Alberta has natural gas throughout the province. In many cases, pipeline costs are a relatively small percentage of the delivered price of natural gas at the border. In B.C., natural gas is at one corner of the province. Westcoast ships throughout the entire province, there's rocky terrain, and all of those things add to transportation costs.
[5:45]
I don't think it's as simple as saying that one jurisdiction has a tax and another one doesn't. I think we've got to look at what we have to do as a province to keep our industry competitive. I acknowledge that it's a relatively small amount, but $7 million is not that insignificant if you're in a close competitive situation. When the minister looks around for sources of revenue, these are perhaps not the most appropriate places to look.
F. Gingell: Is the anticipated additional revenue of $7 million based on shipments of natural gas in 1992, or does it take into account the tremendous increase in pipeline capacity that will come about with the Westcoast Energy expansion?
Hon. G. Clark: It's an extrapolation of the 1.1 cent going to 1.9 cent. It's not based on incremental returns. There might be more revenue, but.... I know that it's based essentially on the status quo, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some assumptions in this revenue number on natural gas exports for the coming year. I'm sure there would be. It might not be just an extrapolation of 1.1 cent to 1.9 cent. There may well be an assumption of either increased or decreased exports of gas as a result of market conditions.
F. Gingell: Does the minister happen to have in his briefing book the portion of this additional tax that will be borne by British Columbia residents, how much of it will be cause for a move by B.C. Gas and other distributors of natural gas in the province to pass on to British Columbia consumers? How much of it will be applicable to export volumes?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that. I can get it for the members if they like. But I want to give categorical assurances that if it were passed on, it would be pennies per year, at most, for an average household. The majority of gas would be exported; then the majority of what was left would be industrial consumption, and there might be some impact there. But in terms of the residential consumer, spread out over the year, it would be absolutely tiny -- not even noticeable -- on the bill.
Section 4 approved.
Section 5 stood down.
On section 6.
F. Gingell: It seems to me that the effect of section 6 is to move the decision-making on the expenditure of fairly substantial sums of money from a committee that previously had the interests and input of many members of cabinet. Section 8 will probably explain that somewhat. But as I understand it, it's going to move it from a committee to a single minister, who will now be in a position to determine substantial expenditures that will not be voted on by this Legislature because they are in a special account. It will move it into the hands of a single individual, who will only have the hurdle of Treasury Board to approve expenditures. Is that...?
Hon. G. Clark: That's not quite right. What is happening in these few sections is, first of all, a fairly dramatic constriction of what is funded from the sustainable environment fund, and then all that is left is Ministry of Environment. So we've made the sustainable environment fund purely an environment fund, and we've given the responsibility for administering that solely to the Ministry of Environment.
I'll just give you a couple of examples, if I could, hon. Chair. In the past, revenue from the AirCare program -- we get a little piece of the AirCare program -- was going into the sustainable environment fund, and the Ministry of Attorney General was getting some of that revenue, through the fund. Similarly, fish hatchery construction and a variety of things had revenue attached to them by the various ministries. It was essentially a special account of convenience, and it inflated the amount.
We essentially blew up the sustainable environment fund -- and I know the former Minister of Environment over there will probably appreciate this. The revenue from AirCare now goes to general revenue, but it is essentially given back to the Ministry of Attorney General to administer the AirCare program -- right in the line ministry, debated in the House. Any other ministry function.... If it is the Ministry of Forests, it has now been taken out of the sustainable environment fund and moved into Forests. What's left in the sustainable environment fund is only program expenditures of the Ministry of Environment. That's why only the Minister of Environment will be spending from the fund. All those other programs are now gone into the ministries.
The second thing we've done is to make sure the fund is truly sustainable so that there aren't inflated revenues and expenditures, which sort of was the case. I don't blame the minister of the former government; I've been here long enough now to understand how this works. We've tried to do net revenue, and net revenue from an item would go into a fund. In other words, some fees and licences levied by the Ministry of Environment cost more money to administer than we get in revenue.
An Hon. Member: Not any more.
[ Page 6806 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Still today, hon. member. A good example of that is waste management fees, which do not even come close to covering the cost of administering them.
In any event, this is to try to narrow it down. It's a Ministry of Environment fund, administered by the Minister of Environment. It's self-sustaining. The other programs are no longer delivered through the fund.
F. Gingell: The point that I was trying to make was that the expenditure decisions made out of this fund do not have to be voted on by this Legislature, because they come out of a special account. You have now left the ability to make those spending decisions to a single minister. That is rather unusual, isn't it?
Hon. G. Clark: No, I don't think it's unusual. But the member is correct that it's a little different, because it doesn't have the line-by-line estimates debate that you would normally have, except that it is a voted appropriation in the House and the Minister of Environment is now totally responsible for it. In the past, it was exactly the same as the member is concerned about, only you had a committee and all kinds of different ministries with their hands sort of in the little programs -- in and out through the special account and back into their ministry.
It may not be perfect in the sense of accountability that the member is talking about, but it is 100 times better than it was before, because we got rid of all those other ministries and all those other ministry programs. It is now just an environment account. It's a smaller number than in the past, and it's fully accountable to the minister in the House. And, of course, there is annual reporting.
J. Weisgerber: It's an interesting argument that you have narrowed the fund now only to deal with revenue coming in related to the Ministry of Environment's activities and expenditures by the ministry. One of the things that I saw as a benefit under the sustainable development committee -- with the various ministries competing for the funds -- was an opportunity for ministries to bring proposals to the committee, to make arguments and to see some competition between the various ministries on the merits of the proposals that they were putting forward. It makes one think that perhaps now these priorities are driven only by the bureaucracy and overseen by the minister, without any real scrutiny by cabinet or by a committee of cabinet.
Hon. G. Clark: The member makes an interesting argument, and I'm a little bit sympathetic to it, if that is how it had worked. The reason I am sympathetic to it, as the member might know, is that we just formed the Build B.C. special account for precisely that reason -- so that ministries have to compete for those funds. There is a committee, it is adjudicated and it is specifically for job creation. That's a similar type of approach, and I'm sympathetic to it. In this case, what happened, though -- and I know the members opposite probably are aware of this, having been in government, particularly the member to your left, interestingly enough, hon. Chair -- was that the entire fund was filled with program expenditures. In other words, instead of a discretionary fund that ministries could compete for, it ended up funding -- and I understand why this happens -- program-delivery items, line items that should be in ministry budgets. We simply took them all out of this and put them where they belonged in the ministry budgets.
I have some sympathy for the member's concerns. I want him to know that there is still a sustainable development committee of cabinet. It will still deal with many of these questions. Treasury Board deals with these questions, of course, in great detail, so the minister doesn't have complete discretion over what he or she can do. I think the members opposite understand that. It's more accountable than it was in the past. I'm sympathetic to the concept the member talked about -- in fact, we've done it in another area -- but it wasn't the way this was functioning. It does give more power to the Ministry of Environment, in a sense, to deliver on, but it also narrows the fund to dealing specifically with environmental issues.
J. Weisgerber: I accept, in part at least, the argument put forward by the minister. I suspect we won't resolve it, except to say that I wouldn't leave unchallenged the notion that there's more accountability with the minister having sole discretion. If cabinet committees, as the minister argues on the one hand, provide accountability and competition, I don't think he can have both sides of the argument. You have either got to accept the argument and apply it in both instances, or reject the argument and accept that it has no validity. I'll let him take his choice. But I wouldn't accept the argument of both sides.
Section 6 approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I thought we could get through sections 6, 7 and 8, but it's 6 o'clock, so I'll move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.
[ Page 6807 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 58: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
D. Symons: I have a great number of papers here, and was hoping to be joined by some other members from the opposition who have not yet arrived. You are very eager to get going here.
I notice that the auditor general, in his March '91 report, noted a lack of programs for regularly assessing the road system on a systematic and objective basis. He expressed concerns about the reliability of the bridge inspection programs, and felt there was no assurance then that the highways and bridge infrastructure was being protected on a least lifetime cost basis. What improvements have been made to address these concerns?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The design of a bridge inspection program is underway now and will be completed later this year. A pavement management program started up last year, and will be continuing for about another three years before all the data from around the province is acquired.
D. Symons: I was going to ask later on about the pavement management program and how far it was along, so you have semi-answered that question.
Again from the auditor general's report, it's felt that the ministry should receive and keep information regarding costs of specific maintenance activities, in order to choose between alternative maintenance system treatments or between maintenance and rehabilitation. Is there a more integrated approach to maintenance and rehabilitation planning? And are the maintenance contractors involved in this? Could the minister explain how all of this works?
V. Collins: That was one of the few recommendations of the auditor general's report that the ministry did not agree with. It was our view that by virtue of setting the standards by which maintenance was to be complied with, and the open bidding process that contractors were required to apply, the competitive process would determine what the appropriate level of cost was, rather than the ministry predetermining component costs. What was most important was the setting of the standards, which has been a matter of continuous review.
D. Symons: I think the concern wasn't as much with that as it was with the idea of gathering information to be able to adjust the actual types of maintenance programs that might be carried on, and to make adjustments in the system rather than use it as an evaluation one. By working together, they could end up figuring out where other problems are, and what problems are common. Problems occurring in one district could then possibly be foreseen in a different district and a different maintenance group, so that compilation of information could be used in a more effective manner to assist with maintenance throughout the province.
The Chair: I would remind the committee of the necessity for addressing remarks and questions through the Chair.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The contractors and our own quality assurance people report in the nature of problems that are being encountered. The nature of the work being done by the contractors is highly variable all over the province, changing from district to district. If there is any commonality in there that needs attention, it's going to be caught in the pavement management program or the bridge inspection program.
D. Schreck: The matters surveyed in the auditor general's report have been surveyed extensively in the Public Accounts Committee, and all members have access to Hansard covering that discussion. It would probably be the best use of the committee's time to deal with the estimates, and review matters of public accounts by reviewing Hansard for the Public Accounts Committee.
The Chair: Thank you for your input, hon. member. I would remind the committee that the necessities of standing order 61 are to examine those items directly under the control and the influence of the minister's office. As well, it becomes inappropriate to examine items that have been before the committee extensively. Although this may have been examined in Public Accounts, there may be areas that are of interest to the committee and that would come under the influence of the minister's office. I would caution the hon. member for Richmond Centre on the relevancy of some of the questions, and ask that he keep his questions and comments to the areas that are under the direct control of the minister's office.
[2:45]
D. Symons: Thank you for that caution. I do believe that I am fitting within that, because the auditor general's report is reporting on things that were practice two years ago. My questions are aimed at what the ministry is currently doing about it. That also involves the funding for dealing with these problems in the current system, so I believe the previous member's objections to that were not valid on that basis.
I gather from the minister's answer that as this information comes in on various maintenance problems -- cost overruns, or whatever they may be -- it is then kept on file and there is a record kept of these so that
[ Page 6808 ]
this can all be.... Is this part of this program that you were talking about, where it's all readily available and can be accessed with great ease in order to determine changes that might be necessary?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Chair, the point in having the maintenance contracts is that there are no overruns. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the roads to a certain standard. Those standards are enforced through quality assurance. They are lump-sum contracts. The contractor agrees, over a period of approximately three years, to carry out the work in accordance with the standards. They, of course, have all the opportunity they need to study those standards before coming up with their bid. Once they have bid -- once they have been accepted as the contractor -- there are no overruns. They deliver a service for a bid price.
I might also point out, in the general sense, that you should be aware of where maintenance borders on and moves into rehabilitation. We will be hearing back from the contractors and from our quality assurance people on the general state of the travelling surface of a road, and if that surface needs to be replaced in a major way, then it becomes a rehabilitation project. That is why the pavement management system is being set up -- because that will allow us to catch the appropriate time to do major rehabilitation, and there is a tremendous benefit involved in that. Whatever funds we are expending in setting up the pavement management program will be repaid manyfold by being able to catch the pavement at that appropriate time. It will not only be a savings directly to the ministry in having better long-term management of the travelling surface, but it will also be a tremendous benefit to the travelling public, because the cost to the travelling public of a poorly maintained road or a substandard road system or service is very substantial.
D. Symons: I guess it was a slip of the tongue -- or of the thought -- in saying "overrun" there, because I indeed realize there are no overruns under this system of the maintenance program.
What monitoring system or systems are in place to ensure that adequate maintenance is taking place? You mentioned a quality assurance program. Whose responsibility is it for monitoring? How many ministry staff are dedicated to monitoring the program?
V. Collins: The response to the question asked opposite is that 148 contract managers -- area managers -- are employed in the 26 districts the ministry has around the province. It is their principal duty, day in and day out, to monitor all facets of the maintenance contract, using the quality assurance program designed by the ministry.
L. Hanson: How does the 148 the deputy mentioned compare to the previous year?
V. Collins: There are an additional four over last year.
L. Hanson: There have been an awful lot of suggestions and calls to me, because of some past association, that there are larger numbers of people supervising the contractors' work in the various districts. From what I hear you say, that just isn't true. Can you verify that it isn't? I think generally they're talking about all numbers, not that the Ministry of Highways district offices seem to have more staff than they did before. Quite honestly, I have no proof or firsthand knowledge of that, just suggestions. I'd like to have a comment from the minister on what the situation is.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The number is 148; that's all-inclusive. Of course, this cost has been created inevitably by the privatization that has occurred. If we are going to be relatively confident that we are getting value for our dollar, and to assure ourselves and the travelling public that the job is being done, we must have people on the road on an ongoing basis all over the province. The number is 148.
L. Hanson: I recognize what the minister is saying, that there is a need to monitor, similar to the need we have for an auditor general who comes in, looks over everything and makes sure everything is done in the manner it should be. That's fair enough and recognizable. The calls I have been party to have been to the effect that there are many more staff in the regional and district offices. I recognize that 144 are looking after the contractors. That's gone to 148 -- nothing really spectacular about that. Can you make a generalized comment like that -- that there isn't an increase in the staff in the regions -- or not?
V. Collins: In response to the question opposite, the number of people actively involved in monitoring the maintenance agreement has not changed in any appreciable amount, other than that referenced earlier. We do have two things happening that may give rise to some of the comments. We have a more uniform set of inspection standards now than we had heretofore; there's a more disciplined approach. One of the criticisms the auditor general had was the degree to which we were consistently inspecting what the quality assurance program indicated we should inspect. We did give an undertaking to increase that to a more appropriate level set by the quality assurance program, so there would be a more rigorous inspection taking place than previously.
We have also redeployed staff to deal with our rehabilitation program, in which our maintenance contractors, while not accountable, are often involved. It may be that they are seeing the presence of our staff monitoring rehabilitation programs, which are separate from our district programs. They would be evident to the maintenance contractors, who may perceive additional staff. But there has not been any number of an appreciable size added to district operations, other than those referenced earlier.
L. Hanson: That's really the answer I was looking for, and I appreciate that.
[ Page 6809 ]
First of all, I should preface my remarks by saying that I'm not looking for future policy, but I'm looking for a sort of timing. The minister announced at least a year ago -- it might be longer than that -- a study into the practicality of the contracting-out process or the privatization of highways maintenance. Can the minister reveal any sort of schedule for that report to come back to him?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Indeed, somewhat over a year ago I announced that I intended to initiate a review of the privatization issue. That review would look at fundamentally three items: was the job being done, were we getting value for money, and were the employees of the contractors being treated fairly? The study is not yet underway in any meaningful way. My sojourn as Minister of Forests put it off for three months, and the recent addition of ICBC and Ferries have further forestalled my plans. But we have every intention of getting the review up and underway shortly, with the intention that it would report its recommendations to me this fall.
L. Hanson: Well, that's interesting. I suspect that the minister is going to have to do something with the contracting proposal pretty soon. Some expire early in the new year. There is an ability to extend them; I recognize that. Would that report be made public after the minister has had an opportunity to study it and so on?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, it is my intention to make it public.
D. Symons: I'm just wondering about the number 148 that you gave us. You commented that they are moving about in their duties and are required to look into the monitoring. I would assume that they're doing other things as well as that, and that monitoring the conditions of the highways as far as maintenance goes is not the only task these 148 people are performing.
V. Collins: Yes, they do undertake some additional tasks. They have a function with regard to the general public for the purpose of providing information with regard to either ministry programs generally or such things as development approvals or access to highways. They also take care of the very minor betterment program that is run through each district.
D. Symons: The auditor general reported that the ministry wasn't carrying out all of the required monitoring for the quality assurance program at that time. Has this lack been corrected? Also, some concerns were expressed over the slow reaction of some contractors to the non-conformance reports. How does the ministry follow-up on these reports and monitor that the standards are being met? I think we've semi-answered the last question, but possibly he could answer the first ones.
V. Collins: Hon. Chair, I think I responded in part to a similar question from the other member opposite: namely, that the criticism the auditor general offered with regard to the frequency of inspection was something that the ministry did undertake to improve upon. It has improved upon it to the point that we are now satisfied that we are in compliance with what the quality assurance program required, which the auditor general did indicate satisfaction with. So, in short, we are now in compliance with our own quality assurance program in terms of active monitoring.
D. Symons: I'd like to move back to the estimates themselves. The part I would like to begin with, under vote 59, is highway rehabilitation. I don't think I've actually brought the figures with me in all this pile of papers -- no. Under this heading I notice the same pattern of increases for salaries and benefits. The increases are particularly large for bridge and ferry rehabilitation. Is this increase more to do with the bridges or with the ferries aspect of that particular vote? What staffing increases are covered, how many are there and what are their functions?
[3:00]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Generally speaking, there has been a shift of emphasis from roadway to bridge rehabilitation, so of course the salaries, and no doubt benefits, have followed that.
D. Symons: I find that that answer does fit in with some criticisms that the auditor general had, and this fact -- that there were comments to the effect that the bridge aspect of rehabilitation had been somewhat neglected -- seems to answer that concern.
I did ask how many of these new people were added, to account for that increase in salaries.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was a error in last year's estimates, but in actual fact there was no increase -- in staff, we are speaking of. If I haven't answered your question, perhaps you could ask it again.
D. Symons: I would have to question what the error was. Was it under the amount in this particular vote 1? It does make it difficult for us to look at these figures and discuss estimates when the figures we're given are incorrect.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was an error in the amounts for bridge and ferry workers in the salary component in last year's estimates, where 60 FTEs were costed at about $450,000. There was simply an error there. The number this year for 60 FTEs is about $2.8 million, which would be about 5 percent above last year's -- whatever the salary settlement is. Fundamentally, it was a published error.
D. Symons: As I said, in discussing these it does make it difficult when the figures aren't the figures.
There were also concerns over the slow reaction of some of the contractors to the nonconformance reports. How does the ministry follow up these nonconformance reports and monitor so that these standards are met? Apparently in the auditor general's report there
[ Page 6810 ]
was concern expressed again that when these nonconformist reports come in, there are difficulties on ministry staff's part in getting them to conform. Has that been addressed and is there more speedy conformance?
V. Collins: The answer is yes. For the benefit of our own management staff in the ministry as well as the contractors, we have published what the appropriate due process is, all the way from a nonconformance report, which is the ministry's first formal indication of a concern with regard to a standard not met, through to the eventual and conceivable dismissal of the contractor. That is now a written, documented process published within the ministry and available to the contractors.
D. Symons: I see that question was out of order. I guess my assistant didn't follow my little arrows for the questions I wanted typed up for me. I'm using the written notes; I'll make sure that I hit everything I intended to hit. I would also find it much more convenient if we could sit down and do this.
The Chair: It's not possible, hon. member. The requirements are very traditional for this.
D. Symons: The amount budgeted for statutory notices in item 42 has increased substantially. There appears to be a decrease in the amount spent on actual rehabilitation projects, however, so it cannot reflect increased tendering costs as was the case with this item when we were discussing maintenance yesterday. What has caused this increase in the nondiscretionary publications?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's placing numbers in cubbyholes. In last year's estimate, there was a zero estimate for these expenditures. In fact, there were expenditures within it. That figure for the coming year is estimated to be $150,000. It is neither a dramatic rise nor a dramatic change; it is a matter of allocating numbers.
D. Symons: In this particular line, then, we find that the overall spending in rehabilitation on the surface, so to speak, is less this year than before. The total spending on rehabilitation is less -- well under the $250 million per year needed according to the Good Roads Cost Less study. In fact, we have been well under that figure for quite a few years. The Good Roads report says that 1,000 kilometres of roads per year need to be rehabilitated. We have been falling further and further behind, year by year, as those shortfalls accumulate. How many kilometres of road for rehabilitation are being funded for this year?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the specific question of how many kilometres of road are being rehabilitated, we do not have an answer here for you today. But for your overarching statement that it would be desirable to get the expenditures up to something like 2 percent of the value of infrastructure, which would convert to a number around $250 million, I agree it would be highly desirable. Of course, if the opposition would stand and suggest how we could find another $80 million to get to that point, I would be delighted to accept your suggestions.
In terms of the amounts being expended, however, we have been able to bring that up somewhat -- from about $157 million in 1990-91, to $178 million in 1991-92, $169 million in 1992-93 and about $174 million this year. This was a deliberate choice. To make deficit targets, if we were going to have to accept a budgetary reduction, then the question comes as to where to accept it. I made the deliberate choice to maintain spending on rehabilitation -- that is, maintain in as reasonable shape as possible the existing set of infrastructure -- and to yield on new capital. So we have sustained rehabilitation spending. We have, of course, sustained maintenance spending through the contracts. And I have reduced new capital construction.
D. Symons: Unfortunately, I think that when you say maintained, it means maintaining at a level below that required to maintain the infrastructure that's there. Indeed, all the studies I've seen indicate the importance of timely rehabilitation. All stress the delicate balance between maintenance and rehabilitation. All indicate that deferred rehabilitation is costly and represents false economy. It would appear, then, from the amount of money being expended this year, that there's a shortfall in there rather than the amount needed.
In fact, I can quote from Hansard of June 7, 1991, when your own member for Cowichan-Ladysmith -- and she's referring here to the Lea study, which I believe is the Delcan report -- said:
"...action is required now. Poor roads are jeopardizing our economic health and quality of life. It says that costs and timing are critical. `Ten kilometres of road in poor condition can be restored to almost a new state for $1 million. If allowed to continue, deterioration sets in rapidly and a very poor road costs $3 million.' These people haven't done the work. They've let a $12 billion asset deteriorate, and if we allow these people to carry on with this fiscal irresponsibility, I would suggest that they'll ultimately bankrupt this province with their kind of political decision-making."
Unfortunately, these people they were referring to are the third party. But I think the words that the opposition NDP were using at that time apply equally, if not even more so, to the current funding the government's putting into this rehabilitation program. Indeed, they're not even keeping up to what the previous government had been doing in its final few years.
I am reading again here: "Politics has been the basis for this government's decision-making for highways. This study is called Freedom to Move, but it's not about building new highways; it's about rehabilitation and putting back -- at great expense -- what this government has let fall apart. They simply haven't done the work."
I am concerned about the way in which the government currently is funding the rehabilitation of the highways of this province. This budget indicates that this government is choosing the priorities. It has
[ Page 6811 ]
not been a good steward of the province's highways infrastructure, and underspending now on rehabilitation will in the long run cost the taxpayers more. Would you not agree with that?
[3:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have said earlier that it would be desirable to be able to spend about 2 percent of the value of the infrastructure on rehabilitation, which is about an extra $80 million this year. If the member opposite would like to suggest which school or hospital in his riding he might want to defer, or which other kinds of expenditures he may wish to defer, I'll gladly entertain them. Then perhaps he can go to his fellow members and they can all put on the table $80 million, and I'll be delighted.
Either that or the members opposite should not harangue us about the deficit or about taxation. You cannot have everything at once. You cannot demand that we decrease taxes, that we decrease the deficit and that we increase spending. Those things don't add up. When you want to get into the space of reality as to what we can do under the existing financial condition of the government, and where it would be better to make cuts, then I'll hear you out. Certainly I agree, at the philosophical level, that we ought to spend more on road capital and on road rehabilitation, but you might tell me from what other projects in your riding you would like to deflect the money.
D. Symons: One of the advantages, I suppose, of being in opposition rather than in government is, indeed, that we can take the three opposing views that you were mentioning. Frequently I find when I read through Hansard that your government, when it was the opposition, did precisely the same thing. But it's really a matter of priorities, and your government chose not to tell its employees, the BCGEU or your own ministry staff, for that matter -- which yesterday you admitted had a salary raise -- that there was no more money. They got their wage increases. Unfortunately, you cannot tell the highways to wait another year when times are tough. Deterioration waits for no person. Your government made those decisions and, unfortunately, the people of this province are eventually going to have to pay the price for those decisions. That's the point I was trying to make, sir. So there are options that your government chose not to make.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.
D. Symons: I beg your pardon -- through the Chair.
On this same matter, has the ministry got the pavement management system fully operational? This should be giving the ministry some information as to what is needed to protect our infrastructure at this least-lifetime cost, and I think it would indicate that more is needed for rehabilitation. You mentioned earlier that there's going to be a three-year buildup time within that program before the information will come into use, so you may have already answered my question. But certainly, I think the indication to the minister must be that more is needed than is currently being expended on rehabilitation.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: On what expenditures there may have been with respect to salary increases, I think if you go back and look at the rate of inflation in the retroactive year, and if you allow for some wage equity programs, you will see that the increases that were granted were reasonable. If you would like to stand in the House and say that you object to wage parity and you object to wage equity, and that women in low-paying government positions should not receive any assistance, then of course you have identified one possible place that we can save money and put it into highways. If you wish to stand and say that we don't need to do anything in child care, that we don't need to do anything in community health care, that we could keep those salaries low and that we do not need any kind of wage equity, you of course are free to stand and say so. I myself could not agree with you. I think that we need to protect low-paid, salaried people. I think that we need to assist women employees who are mainly caught at the lower wage levels. We gave them modest help -- perhaps 1.5 percent or something like that.
The problems of costs that we are wrestling with go far beyond that. If you wish to expend the amounts of money that you are suggesting on highways, we have to make very, very significant cuts in other social programs. We can cut in health care, we can cut in education, we can cut in the social safety net. You cannot have it both ways.
With respect to the pavement management program, as I've said, it will take about three years to gather the rest of the data. The program will be up and running in its entirety at about that time.
L. Hanson: I'm not sure that estimates were designed for these sorts of discussions, but certainly the minister raised the issue. I could suggest a number of places, given the equity and so on. Be my guest. That's not a concern. I could tell you about the welfare fraud, I could tell you about the administrative fraud, I could tell you about the fixed-wage policy, and I could tell you about the BCGEU settlement and the HLRA settlement. There is all kinds of money that could have gone into roads, but we're not here to discuss that. I didn't start it, and I think it's a subject that we should leave, because what we're trying to find out is what the ministry is doing in the coming year. My colleague may wish to pursue it.
I have a very simple question for the minister: is it not contemplated that any of the road rehabilitation would be funded from B.C. 21?
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I welcome the words from the member for Okanagan-Vernon, with the attempt to bring the examination of these estimates strictly under standing order 61 and those areas that are under the control and the direction of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. B.C. 21 does not come under the minister's office.
[ Page 6812 ]
L. Hanson: It doesn't? Mr. Chairman, ask the minister if that's his understanding.
The Chair: I could take direction from the minister on this basis.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: B.C. 21 is under the direction of Minister Clark. There is one element of B.C. 21 -- the Transportation Financing Authority -- which I will be the chair of. But even the Transportation Financing Authority, fitting under the umbrella of B.C. 21, comes under the responsibility of Minister Clark.
In answer to your question, however, the intention of the Transportation Financing Authority will be expenditures on capital, not on rehabilitation.
L. Hanson: That's what I wanted.
A. Warnke: I'm not sure whether the minister used the name Clark or whether he was referring to the English-accented "clerk." I just want to know if the minister meant the Minister of Finance.
The Chair: The point is well taken, hon. member. It becomes inappropriate to address an hon. member of the House by their name -- only by their riding or the constituency they represent.
Hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon, as we progress admirably in these estimates this afternoon.
L. Hanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like a clarification of the statement that you just made. We're here to address the issue of transportation and highways in British Columbia. We have recently spent a number of hours debating a new Crown corporation that's going to be very influential on highways and transportation in B.C. I have great difficulty in understanding why you, as Chairman, suggest that it has nothing to do with the Ministry of Highways.
D. Schreck: On a point of order, the standing orders clearly provide that a challenge to the Chair is out of order.
The Chair: Thank you for your input. I will address the direct question from the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon. If you review Hansard you'll find that the Chair permitted the Minister of Highways to address those areas under B.C. 21 that do come under his office's direction. I believe the minister did that.
L. Hanson: I have two points, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I don't think asking the Chair for clarification was a point of order; I think it was a reasonable request. Secondly, if we are to believe what we were told during the debates on B.C. 21 and what this minister told us about the ability to review the actions of B.C. 21, you would have to conclude without question that it is appropriate to discuss B.C. 21 with the Minister of Highways in his estimates, only as it relates to highways and their financing.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I believe that is the conclusion that has been reached. At the risk of seeming to carry on a three-cornered debate over this, I think the hon. Minister of Highways will be able to address those areas that come under the administration of his office.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I confirm what the Chair has said. With respect to expenditures under the estimates, those of the Transportation Financing Authority are clearly subject to question.
L. Hanson: Under your estimates.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes.
D. Symons: It was interesting watching the three-cornered tennis match on the appropriateness of discussing items having to do with the Transportation Financing Authority. We canvassed a fair amount of that yesterday. I suppose it will keep coming up because it does impinge upon this particular ministry.
I'm not sure if the hon. member of the third party has completed his questions on rehabilitation; I was ready to move into capital construction.
It was felt that the ministry should receive and keep information regarding the cost of specific maintenance activities in order to choose alternative maintenance treatments. That question has been done, so obviously things are not in order here.
I note that the amount budgeted for minor capital construction is about half the amount spent last year. Would B.C. 21 -- here that comes in again -- be funding further minor projects?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I stated yesterday, when some flesh has been put on the bones of the Transportation Financing Authority, I will come forward with a list of both minor and major capital projects that will be carried out under B.C. 21.
D. Symons: I assume that the $76 million recovery under major capital construction, which represents the money from the 1-cent-per-litre fuel tax and the car rental tax of $1.50 a day, is to be collected by the Transportation Financing Authority. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, that has nothing to do with it. The amount for minor and major capital in the estimates is within the regular budgetary process. On the amounts that will be expended by theTransportation Financing Authority, as I've said, I will be releasing a list of projects in the not-too-distant future.
D. Symons: I'm a bit confused because the Highways ministry hasn't had a recovery under its capital headings before. If this $76 million isn't coming from there, where is it coming from?
[3:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I wish to correct my previous answer. I was working on a different set of numbers. In the estimates as published totalling
[ Page 6813 ]
$96,177,100, that is the number including the recoveries of $76 million. The $76 million will be coming from the Transportation Financing Authority. I apologize for that.
D. Symons: If we compare this year's estimates with last year and the previous year, I gather that basically only $28 million is going toward major projects from the traditional funding sources that we've had before. The rest of the approximately $104 million -- if you add a little more in for the two figures there -- is from these new taxes. Is that correct then? Is the $76 million all coming from the Transportation Financing Authority?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I just want to be certain of the question. I wonder if you could restate the question, please.
D. Symons: I'm not sure, because I think you've basically answered the question for me. But if we subtract the $76 million from the total voted expenditure, we come up with something under $30 million actually coming from what normally in this line would have all come from general revenue into the ministry's office from the Finance minister. But we're now getting $76 million from a new taxation authority, so what I'm getting at is that basically we're spending less than $30 million this year from traditional sources on capital construction.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total expenditure will be in the order of $172 million, and $76 million of that will come from the Transportation Financing Authority. That will not be revenue; that will be the debt financing and the proceeds from a bond or a borrowing somewhere of $76 million passed over to the ministry to carry out projects. The exact projects will be announced shortly. But the total expenditure will be up around $172 million. If I've not clarified that, ask again, please.
D. Symons: No, I think you have. You can just nod if this is correct, but I was not being a bookkeeper and taking these bracketed numbers as meaning that they would be subtracted from the total of all the rest. You're saying that it's still added into the $96 million, therefore if you add the $76 million and the $96 million together, you get $172 million. I was subtracting it from the $96 million there, thinking that it had already been subtracted. Okay, so that answers that. It was confusion on my part. That kills that part, because it's all predicated on my confusion.
I note that a person in the minister's riding, Mr. Chuck Johnson -- who was president of the Okanagan Mainline Municipalities Association a year ago -- was somewhat concerned about the amount of money being spent on highways. He stated something to the effect that there was concern that the interior highways would be allowed to deteriorate as the provincial government is cutting spending. I suppose he was referring more to maintenance and particularly to rehabilitation, but it seems that these are concerns in your own riding.
In l993-94 the rehabilitation capital funding per electoral district that you kindly supplied to all the MLAs -- this booklet.... I beg your pardon. It wasn't; it was this other document that you supplied to me on request. The bottom line is that the total funding for all districts -- that was the very last figure -- was almost $202 million. Yet if we add up in the estimates book the figures for rehabilitation -- the $173 million plus and the capital funding of $96 million plus -- and add in the $76 million from the Transportation Financing Authority, we get a much higher figure of $345 million plus. Why is the discrepancy in here?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There were so many elements of your question, hon. member, that I would suggest you give me a written version of which lines you're adding up. Then we may be able to come back to you with a explanation.
D. Symons: Fine, I will do that. I was working with the total figure on the right-hand side of the supplementary book of the estimates and the total from this rehabilitation one, and simply adding some figures together. It didn't seem to give me the answers I was expecting.
I thank the minister very much for supplying this. While I'm discussing this figure here, I was hoping I might be able to get the inner page where it gives the actual projects being funding in Richmond. I thought it would be easy for the computer to kick it out quickly. For instance, in Richmond Centre it has the total amount of rehabilitation funding over here, and it does that for all 75 ridings. So rather than just telling me the total of these two here, it would tell me the actual ones for all 75 ridings. I would suspect that just that information would be available on computer and easy to supply. Would the minister mind just fleshing out, so to speak, this other document? I'd appreciate that so I can monitor what's going on riding-by-riding throughout the province.
I would like to revisit one question from yesterday. I was asking about staff in the minister's office and, in particular, the position of special assistant to the minister. Mr. Kent Macaulay was recently moved to that position. My question at the time was: is this special assistant position new in your office? I really didn't get an answer, so I'm wondering if you've had an opportunity to discover whether that's a new position.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm a bit puzzled. It's not an additional position, but the position of special assistant is a new position. It reflects the additional staff burden due to matters relating to ICBC and B.C. Ferries.
D. Symons: That's the answer I was seeking yesterday; I didn't get it as clearly as that. It does raise another issue though, because I did ask if there were any additions to your staff. The year before there were eight staff members, and now you inform me that this is a new position. If there are still eight, as you informed me there had been previously, I suppose one staff position must have been eliminated. I wonder which staff position that might be.
[ Page 6814 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It was a conversion of a vacant position.
D. Symons: On my question before about the number of staff, you gave the answer that there were eight staff. But there weren't eight bodies.
Interjection.
D. Symons: There were eight positions. Okay. I was asking about bodies, and I got positions.
In order to facilitate things on the agreement we made to bring in various deputies and CEOs, and while you have your people here to assist, I wonder if we could go into our around-the-province tour that I did last year. If we have time left over and we're going to do B.C. Rail or B.C. Ferries, we can get more into the political aspects of your office, and your staff wouldn't necessarily have to be here for that. I'm suggesting that on Thursday afternoon -- I forget which one we were going to do Thursday afternoon -- it wouldn't be necessary for these gentlemen to be waiting here. If we happen to finish with ICBC, we can simply go onto something else, and I'm quite sure the minister would be able to answer.
If that would be satisfactory, we'll move into region-by-region problems that have come to my attention over a period of time. I'll try to be more organized than I was last year, because I know I kept you hopping around by jet following my trip around the province. I've tried to organize them into regions, and I want to start on Vancouver Island.
We'll start nearby, if we can, with the McKenzie interchange. I'm wondering how the work is progressing there. There is also a concern over an asphalt plant at the Sayward gravel pit. Has this dispute with local residents been resolved? While I'm still there, let's finish off the whole question of that particular intersection upgrading. There was also some conflict with the local residents over the restoration of a relocated Rainbow Park and the location of a highway overpass. I believe some money has been spent on the planning of the overpass at Haynes Road, and there now is some thought of removing that and putting it down at the intersection of McKenzie and Rainbow. Maybe you could deal with all of the McKenzie problem at once.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The McKenzie interchange is proceeding on budget and in fact is a bit ahead of schedule, and a variety of issues having to do with the community have been settled satisfactorily. The ones you mentioned include Rainbow Park, and we have agreed with the municipality to allow them to expand another area in order to replace the portion of the park that has been lost. We have dealt with the Pacific Christian School in the area and satisfied their concerns regarding some noise attenuation. We have worked with the mayor and council and with the MLA from Saanich on issues having to do with the noise berm near Rainbow Park, and we were also able to dispose of some additional material in a way that will give some shielding to other parts of the road.
With respect to the pedestrian overpass, we listened very closely to the concerns of the MLA and of the mayor and council, and acceded to their request to move a planned overpass from across the Pat Bay Highway to across McKenzie. We've done so in such a way that it does not cost the taxpayers of British Columbia anything additional, but gives the community what they deem to be a better service and a better project.
[3:45]
D. Symons: Thank you. I am sure the people of that area will be pleased with what the ministry has been willing to do, because these had been very serious concerns for them for quite a while. I'm glad to hear that they've been settled to their satisfaction.
Last fall the ministry was planning work on improvements to the western approaches to the Capital Regional District. Around the Thetis interchange, Atkins, Millstream and Helmcken roads were, I believe, part of a study being done. I'm wondering if that work has been completed, and whether these improvements will fit in with the eventual construction of the Island Highway. Is the funding there for actual construction of these projects? Is this a small part of the whole Island Highway project?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Capital Regional District, as you would know, is carrying out a regional transportation study. The previous government agreed to a moratorium, and we have honoured that agreement. Other than areas where the CRD agrees, such as the McKenzie interchange, we have not pressed ahead with construction. We have, however, at the wishes and with the cooperation of the municipality, made some modest improvements to two or three interchanges -- Thetis, Millstream and Helmcken. In addition to that, we are -- again with the blessing of the CRD -- proceeding with a design of Thetis Lake interchange. There is no intention, however, of carrying on into detailed design or property acquisition until such time as the CRD's transportation plan is finalized.
D. Symons: Fitting in with the question prior to that one, I'm wondering if there are any more improvements to the Pat Bay Highway in anticipation of the Commonwealth Games in 1994. The McKenzie interchange, I would gather, is the major one there. Are any other improvements going to be made in the coming year prior to the Games?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We were able to make a number of modest safety improvements last year along a number of roads where we were unable to complete major projects. We were able to work on the Pat Bay Highway, for example, putting in some additional median barriers. I am making sure that the construction at the McKenzie interchange will be completed. As I indicated a few minutes ago, the contractor is in fact ahead of schedule there. So we will be out of that area completely many months before the Commonwealth Games start. There are no other major construction projects planned in that area at this time.
[ Page 6815 ]
D. Symons: I pass that interchange twice a week coming and going to the Legislature, and it does appear that it's moving along well. It's looking like a pretty good improvement for that particular area, so I'm looking forward to its completion.
The minister stated only two weeks ago -- I was frantically looking for the quote here -- that the design work to relieve the Colwood crawl could not begin sooner than the next budget year. My thoughts were that the ministry was aware of the existence of this problem, and that it was already working on plans and designs. Surely this would be the type of work that your ministry would have had the planning staff working on over the last year, while there was so little actual construction work going on. Why isn't the ministry ready now, at the first hint of funding, to commence construction on the Colwood crawl?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I stated in answer to the previous question, there is a moratorium on major transportation construction at the request of the CRD. We are working within the spirit of that moratorium. Where we are able to proceed with preliminary design, we are proceeding; where we are able to proceed with some interim interchange improvements, we are proceeding; and where we are able to proceed with major construction, such as the McKenzie interchange, we are proceeding.
We are not proceeding on detailed design of Highway 1 until such time as the CRD's transportation study is submitted to us. I met with the committee last month, and they indicated that they should have the report to us by early in the new year. We will take that report at that time and commence design or property acquisition as expeditiously as we can. The Colwood crawl is a tremendous problem, and the people of the Western Communities show great patience every day that they come in on that route. I appreciate their patience very much. We will work with the CRD as closely as we can through this period, and as soon as the moratorium is lifted and we have the funds, we will proceed with the design and construction as quickly as we can.
J. Doyle: I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions about matters in my constituency of Columbia River-Revelstoke. First of all, I'd like to thank the minister. About six weeks ago he was at a meeting of the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities in the Windermere area, and he looked at a bridge in Athalmer. After the minister looked at that bridge, he fast-tracked the building of that bridge, and I'd like to thank the minister for that.
I have a question on the Kicking Horse canyon on the Trans-Canada Highway east of Golden. I'd just like to ask where you, as the minister, see that going, and what you could do on behalf of the many people who cross our country and, most of all, the people who live in the area. Where are we with respect to construction and improvements to that section of highway?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I had mentioned in response to a question yesterday that I found it a bit ironic that Canada, a proud member of the Group of Seven and a leading industrial nation, does not have a four-lane highway across our country. In particular, we in British Columbia don't have one across our own province. The particular section that you refer to, hon. member, is one of the more difficult ones. The Trans-Canada Highway on the Golden hill was, in my view, not built to standards when it was built as part of the Trans-Canada system 25 years ago or so, and it remains sadly substandard now. As you well know, there have been fatal accidents and a tragic accident involving a bus, as I recall, in the last couple of years.
It is a very sizable transportation problem. The rock on the mountain is of poor quality, and it may be desirable to construct an entirely new four-lane route on the south side of the Kicking Horse River up the canyon, while leaving the existing highway in operation through the construction period. We want to be very cautious on this, however, because the highway is important to the residents of Golden. There are people making investment decisions as to where they wish to put a motel, a store, a restaurant or some other convenience. They don't want to be too far from the town.
On the other hand, it seems fairly clear to me that we need to go to the south side of the river. We'll be working very closely with you as the MLA, with the mayor and council of Golden and with the regional district in order to come up with a satisfactory product. It is, however, going to be a very expensive project -- probably in the order of $200 million to solve that problem. I believe we should get on with solving it, and I hope that it may be one candidate for carrying out under the new Transportation Financing Authority.
J. Doyle: Mr. Minister, I know you were up through there shortly after you took on the portfolio, and I appreciate that. Of course, I want to think that something can be done as soon as possible.
Another area I'd like to ask you about is the Three Valley Gap. While this is in the Shuswap riding, as the member for the Revelstoke area I get most of the calls on this because the Three Valley Gap area, which is ten or so miles west of there, greatly affects the people in Revelstoke. I know that after the slide about a month or six weeks ago, you were through there. I'd like to ask you as the minister what the status is of the Three Valley Gap area of the Trans-Canada.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: On my way up the Kootenay regional district meeting, I stopped at Three Valley Gap and had a firsthand look at the rock fall that had come down. As you are aware, there was a need to close the Trans-Canada for three days, I believe, earlier this year near Easter. It was done, of course, out of a sense of responsibility. It looked like several hundred tonnes of additional rock could come down, and I was certainly not going to authorize having personnel and equipment on the road clearing away the first rock fall until we had had our rock scalers up top to determine whether or not any more was about to come down or
[ Page 6816 ]
should be brought down. I know that when road closures like that occur, they cause great inconvenience to the travelling public, and they have a particularly large impact on the cities of Revelstoke and Golden.
The problem is another sizable one. You seem to have quite large problems in that area. We have taken a preliminary look at what could solve the combination rock fall and avalanche problems in that area. As you well know, it's very tight. We've got a lake to deal with; we've got the CP to deal with; we have a very tight valley; we have a great elevational change there and many avalanche tracks and much potential for rock fall. I think that the ministry does a tremendous job in keeping that area open virtually 365 days a year. When it is closed down to bring down an avalanche, it is done so with the safety of the travelling public in mind.
[4:00]
Preliminary estimates for solving the Three Valley Gap problem, which is over a six- or eight-kilometre length of road, range between $100 million and $140 million. Possibilities range from two-lane tunnels to four-lane tunnels that might involve acquisition of property. The alternative of filling in the lake can be studied, but apparently there are geotechnical problems with respect to poor quality material there. I can only give you an undertaking that we view it as a very serious matter. I have, in fact, taken advantage of the Okanagan Mainline Municipalities Association meeting to visit our district office in Revelstoke and to look at about six preliminary designs that could possibly solve the problem. They were very expensive. Again, I would possibly look to B.C. 21, the Transportation Financing Authority. But even more important than that, I would look for the presence of the federal government in this case. Yesterday I mentioned the fact that the federal government takes a great deal of transportation money out of the province and puts very little back in -- about half a billion a year in fuel excise taxes, and a very small fraction of that comes back.
We have been in negotiation with the federal Transport minister and the other provincial transportation ministers to establish a national highway policy, which would include the adoption of a national transportation system and then the expenditure, on a matching-fund basis, of large sums of money. I think it should be up in the $20 billion range or more over the next ten years. Those negotiations have stalled. The federal government appears to have decided to put this on the back burner. They've decided that transportation is something they cannot afford at this point in time. We will be reopening some negotiations with them in the fall, and I hope to be able to report to you that the federal government is willing to come to the table. If they are, then we certainly will be there with funds possibly under the Transportation Financing Authority to get on with solving the problems not only along the Trans-Canada but on other highways in the interior as well.
J. Doyle: Mr. Minister, I think you mentioned earlier regarding the Three Valley Gap area and the Kicking Horse canyon that when the highway was built 25 to 30 years ago -- I'm sure that at that time a lot of federal dollars went into that highway across the country -- those two areas and maybe others were not built to the standards they should have been. I would think that would assist you in your case to get additional dollars, when you have a successful meeting, in the form of a cheque or some moneys coming from the federal government. That would assist us greatly in this section of the Trans-Canada, which is a very important corridor not just not for the people in Revelstoke and Golden but for people right across the country.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I've certainly been pointing that out to the federal government. The Trans-Canada Highway is the primary commercial transportation link into the Prairies. If we don't maintain our roads and enhance our transportation system, you can be certain that the Americans will. As the Americans rebuild and expand upon their interstate system, they will proceed to take transportation from us. That will mean a loss of revenues and jobs across Canada, which I think we would all like to avoid.
H. De Jong: The first question I have deals with the closure of access on Highway 11. There was a notice put up on Highway 11 yesterday where Fore Road crosses Highway 11 that Fore Road will be closed on June 15. Is it common practice to put up closure signs with two weeks' notice, and without consulting the neighbouring property owners who are directly affected by such a closure?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We're speculating, but we suspect that it might be a temporary closure related to the construction of the proposed shopping centre along Highway 11. We have no knowledge of any closure of that access.
H. De Jong: There's no shopping centre planned or anything within five or six miles of this location. This is the first crossing of Highway 11 south of the Fraser River between Harris Road in Matsqui and the Mission Bridge. There was a new section of highway built some ten years ago for access to the new Mission Bridge prior to the construction of that road or the acquisition of the land for the right-of-way. I suppose it comes a little closer when your own property is involved, but when they purchased the piece of property from my farm back in '68 for the purpose of building that road, it forced me as a farmer to replace my complete set of farm buildings. We were promised at the time -- in fact, maps were shown -- that the parallel road, which now leads from Aish Avenue to Fore Road, would be continued up to Harris Road for a safe crossing where the traffic lights would be installed.
Following that, there was a long discussion and a disagreement with the farmer just south of us, Mr. Derek Hougen, who refused to sell the additional land for the right-of-way of the frontage road. There was a bridge built across Matsqui Slough specifically for him to get from one side of the farm to the other. That bridge could have served as the bridge for the frontage road itself. But it was all done in secrecy. We were not told
[ Page 6817 ]
about it until the building of that section of Highway 11 was finished. Then we were advised that we would be allowed to cross the highway at Fore Road, for which a crossing was made.
Now there are signs up that the road will be permanently closed as of June 15. The signs were put up yesterday. Apparently the municipality was made aware of that back in March. There has been no notification from the municipality to the affected property owners. Certainly this is not only a great inconvenience to the property owners, but it also involves a loss of actual and potential revenues because of location.
I'm just asking the minister to review the plans that were in place on which we, like other farmers, rebuilt their farm properties back in the early seventies,'and which guaranteed a safe frontage road for those people to get on and off the highway. I'm also asking that the closure of Fore Road be delayed until that frontage road is a fact. I would like to have the confirmation of the minister on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was a spot of confusion before. There's another Fore Road -- or maybe it's Fore Street -- south of Highway 1 along Highway 11, where a shopping centre is being built. I have been in direct negotiation with representatives of the community with respect to that.
Other than the fact that there is a rehabilitation project going on near Highway 11 and Fore Road, we're not aware of a permanent closure at this point in time. My assistant deputy minister has made notes of your concern. We will get a response from the region and provide that to you. I can give it to you verbally perhaps as early as tomorrow, or we can provide you a written response at your request.
H. De Jong: I can appreciate, hon. Chair, that the minister is not aware of it was probably his area director, or whoever makes the decisions there as area supervisor, who made the decision to post the permanent closure signs. It is of great concern to us -- not only to me. There's a meat-cutting plant down Fore Road that has a large clientele who always use the road for access to and from the meat plant. His livelihood is at stake with the closure of Fore Road. There is a sign there that says "permanently closed" as of June 15. I would like to have a commitment from the minister that the road is not going to be closed unless another safe frontage road is being provided, as was initially in the plans.
The Chair: Order, please, hon. members. I believe that bell signals a division in the House. This committee is recessed until the business of the House is finished.
The Committee recessed at 4:14 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 4:26 p.m.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We've already taken a question on advisement. You'll be pleased to know that the wheels are moving. We'll get an answer from the region as quickly as possible. You can rest assured that I will have to be satisfied that there's due attention paid to local needs and to safety.
H. De Jong: I appreciate that the minister can't give full assurances at this point in time. Local people involved in Highways -- I'm not sure who -- have commented that left-hand turn slots are not possible at that particular location, because it is within a mile or so of the next intersection. Apparently it's highway policy. We know that rules are made and perhaps should not be broken. They can be bent; that's why they were made flexible.
If it's impossible to get that frontage road built, left-turn slots should be a consideration rather than closing the road in this case. Along Highway 17 leading to Victoria there are several places within a mile and between stoplights, where there are two or three turning-off slots and left-turn slots that cross two lanes of traffic. So it wouldn't be a precedent-setting situation.
At other crossings on that same highway, even though it's still two lanes, the Highway ministry has installed turning slots, which are much appreciated. Perhaps it should be done at every major crossing, like Townshipline Road and Hallert Avenue -- but Townshipline Road in particular. I know for a fact that a flashing light with a left-turn slot is being considered on the main road leading to the waste collection station on Valley Avenue, so there is precedent. I would certainly like to pose to the minister that the closure is not going to happen until all of these areas have been thoroughly researched and discussed, in particular with the local citizens.
[4:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, I've taken the question on advisement. We will determine the facts from the region. I'll take into consideration your statements of concern. I would point out, of course, that on roads all over the province there are needs for left-turn lanes, for signalization, for medians, for paved shoulders, for right-turn lanes, acceleration lanes and pedestrian overpasses. Those needs are all there, and they're all real, legitimate requests. But given the limited financial resource, we of course must choose, based on a priority system and on a warrant system, when we are able to put in a left-turn slot or even a flashing light. I would like to be able to put them everywhere and to then offer the citizens that degree of safety everywhere. The reality is that we can't.
The needs of your community and the needs of the particular residents along this road and the intersection will be considered fairly, openly and in consultation with members and representatives of the community. We will look through the warrant system to determine whether or not a left-turn lane, for example, is warranted. And if so, we'll put it on the list of to-dos, and we will get to it just as soon as funding levels permit.
H. De Jong: Again, I just want to confirm what I said at the beginning. Before that stretch of Highway 11
[ Page 6818 ]
was constructed, when land acquisition took place, we were shown maps by the Ministry of Highways showing the full frontage road to Harris Road. On that basis the deals were made; there would be safe access. This safe access is now in jeopardy. In fact, the total access is in jeopardy, and this is why I'm begging the minister to either provide reasonable safe access with left-turn lanes or provide the frontage road up to Harris Road as per initial plans and promises and commitments made by the Ministry of Highways during the negotiations for the land with the surrounding farming community.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will certainly take your request into consideration and evaluate it in keeping with the needs of citizens around the rest of the province. We will do what we are able to within our funding limits.
M. Farnworth: Hon. minister, I want to speak today about an issue that's of considerable concern to my own constituency of Port Coquitlam and, I think, to the constituencies up the valley -- Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Mission-Kent. The issue is the Mary Hill bypass. The issue is not the underpass but rather the area that's known as "dead man's curve." Over the past few years there has been a number of very serious accidents there, and there has been a great deal of concern about the issue of putting in concrete dividers. There has not necessarily been the number of accidents that would automatically trigger some of the improvements that are required, but the accidents that do occur at one particular place are extremely severe. They are invariably head-on collisions, and they are invariably fatal, because cars swerve over the curve. There was an accident this past March, and there was another one just over a week ago in exactly the same spot. The community of Mary Hill-Port Coquitlam is extremely concerned, and they are wondering what can be done to stop this problem.
The ministry has said that it would cost a great deal to widen the bypass in order to put in the standard concrete barriers that would be required. There has been a number of suggestions from constituents, including some engineers in my constituency who have said that other options would be available. Some are apparently in use on the Coquihalla Highway involving a narrower form of divider. The situation as it exists right now is unacceptable to my constituents, and it's really unacceptable to me. I'm asking the minister if he will commit to reviewing the situation as it exists today and, in particular, to review the coroner's recommendations regarding the cement dividers and to see what options can be put in place to end the carnage on this particular curve. If there is a solution to be found, we should try to find it.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I certainly appreciate the hon. member's comments. That whole sector of Vancouver -- the northeast suburbs -- faces a very difficult traffic situation: delays and danger. The congestion is severe and unacceptable. The potential solutions have been identified, and we are working toward the ability to address them in a serious way, mainly through the Transportation Financing Authority. You've raised, I believe, a very valid point that there are some things that could be done in the interim at an acceptable cost. Indeed, I don't think it would be wise to simply add a lane, for example, at a substantial cost, if in the scheme of things we might be able to do a proper job of the whole Mary Hill bypass some time in the reasonably near future. Yes, there is a certain desirability to having a lane width and a certain amount of distance between a barrier and the traffic lane.
I'll take your request under advisement to see whether or not we could use a narrower post or no post, and whether we could compromise a bit on the standards for clearance between the post and the travelling lane. If the cost of doing that is at an acceptable level and we are not doing anything of any great magnitude that we're going to subsequently waste, then I would recommend doing so. I would accept the advice of staff with respect to that. So if you will leave the problem with me, I will look into it. I will have a briefing note of costs prepared to see whether or not it is reasonable.
In fact, I did have a staff member through much of northeast Vancouver on Monday morning at rush hour to take a look directly at some of these problems, including the problems along the Mary Hill. I've had a recent update firsthand, so to speak, of what the problems are, and I would like to be able to work with you to solve some of them.
M. Farnworth: So I can take it back to my constituents that you will look at the options with a view to solving that particular problem?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I've got an extremely tight budget for works of this nature, and of every nature, this budget year. I will look at the situation, consider the seriousness of the accidents that have occurred there, the magnitude of the traffic and the volumes, and weigh that against the cost of some interim measures. If that turns out to be acceptable, then I will take action on it.
M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. minister. I drive that curve myself. I will continue to keep you posted.
The Chair: It seems appropriate at this time to remind the committee of the necessity to address remarks through the Chair.
D. Schreck: Thank you, hon. Chair. While we're dealing with issues that are very important to our local constituencies, I would like to thank the minister for the cooperation I've received from his office and from his staff on the Lloyd Avenue entrance and exit to the Upper Levels Highway. With this blind, right-angle corner onto the divided highway, I think we've got an example of how the spending of very little money will ease the concerns of an entire neighbourhood. The city
[ Page 6819 ]
of North Vancouver passed a motion a week or two ago at a council meeting, indicating its approval of the closure of that right-angle corner, and I understand that the district of North Vancouver has it on its agenda for next week. I'm looking forward to a favourable decision from the district. I'm hoping that if the district gives its approval as well, within a matter of weeks we can see the closure of that interchange.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm always more than pleased to be able to solve a problem with the application of as few funds as this particular solution would require. Entrances and exits such as the one that you've mentioned at Lloyd Avenue can be a danger, and it may well be a greater service to the community to eliminate the danger. I was pleased to cooperate with you, and hope that the municipality and the city cooperate all the way.
D. Jarvis: While we're on it, I hadn't even thought about that aspect of the Lloyd Avenue entrance and exit. Have there been a number of fatalities and accidents there of any consequence, or was it just that the neighbourhood requested it?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I could not advise you directly of accident counts, but I can obtain the information for you.
D. Schreck: If I can enter into this debate.... My friends from the neighbouring constituencies of North Vancouver-Seymour and West Vancouver-Capilano and I all travel this route, and we are familiar with the traffic problems.
I can add, for the minister's information on this matter, that the concern here is not only one of the potential for an accident. Once one leaves the Lloyd Avenue intersection, I can assure you -- regardless of what the body count may be -- that in going onto the highway when a ferry is letting out, if there is not a backup at the West View interchange, one is taking a high risk. If there is a backup at the West View interchange, the only risk one runs is being allowed into the traffic pileup.
[4:45]
That aside, another consequence of having a city street go directly onto a divided highway, like the Upper Levels Highway, is that traffic exits from the highway and is a major nuisance to the neighbourhood. In my capacity as MLA for that area, I am certainly acting on behalf of the neighbourhood to stop commuters from the Upper Levels Highway destroying the peace and quiet of the entire neighbourhood. It's in that capacity that I bring up the matter. I'm extremely appreciative of the cooperation and help of the ministry.
D. Jarvis: I want to thank you for your explanation. In any event, I believe it was strictly for the enjoyment of all the people who live in that area. Because if anyone starts saying "potential" and then uses the words "body count" afterward, I'd assume there have not been many major accidents in that area resulting from traffic exiting onto the highway. In fact, as far I'm concerned, there's not that many there; it is for the convenience and peace and quiet of those people. I sold eight out of about 14 houses in the first two blocks. Everyone bought those houses on the premise that it was next to a highway and it was cheaper and all the rest of it. If you're going to close it for them, they'll be getting extra enjoyment; if the road had been closed before, they'd probably have paid thousands of dollars more for their houses.
Mr. Chairman, seeing that we're on the North Shore and I happen to live over there, I want to ask the minister about that infamous bridge that he'll probably be hearing more about -- the Lions Gate Bridge. I understand that you are having hearings during the spring or summertime. I don't know when exactly, but I heard that you are maybe having a series of hearings. I want to know what the procedure is on that. Is it on the basis of how big the bridge is going to be, where it's going to be or which of the three plans you plan to do? Are you going to ask for input, or have you made up your mind as to how many...? If there has to be a new bridge, there's got to be a minimum requirement of four lanes. Just what is planned for it?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The process of either the rehabilitation or the replacement of the Lions Gate Bridge will be and is a very complex process. I intend a full public consultation process. There is no determination at this time of what the decision should be, whether it's rehabilitation or replacement. Some people say: take it down completely. There will be consultation over the summer with the political representatives of the communities on either end of the bridge and then consultation in the fall with the public on either end of the bridge. When the details of the entire consultation procedure have been worked out, they will be made public. Following that consultation period, a decision will be arrived at.
D. Jarvis: Then there is going to be a specific cut-off date sometime in the fall, and the review will happen after that. We're probably looking at a year from now before there is any thought of construction in that area, whether it be replacement, a tunnel or whatever.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm certain that it will be more than a year. From the standpoint of making the final decision, recognizing there are elections this fall, I imagine that the actual final consultations will occur after the election and the final decision beyond that. Then the detailed design of whatever option is selected would commence. That in itself will be a very major undertaking, depending on the specific nature of the option selected. In my view, construction would not be starting for two or three years.
D. Jarvis: On the premise that there is only about five years left on that bridge, there certainly wouldn't be enough time to replace the bridge or build a second bridge. Would that mean, therefore, that we're going to have to spend an additional amount to repair the decking?
[ Page 6820 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The consultant has indeed suggested that a reasonable life expectancy is about five years, or he has recommended that the problem be solved by that point in time. There is not some day or some month or some year when suddenly the bridge becomes unsafe; that is not the case. What happens is that the maintenance requirements escalate to the point where you're into unscheduled closures, a lot of inconvenience and rapidly escalating costs -- all of those being undesirable. A time frame of five years has been called out. I have accepted that advice as being fundamentally sound advice. That gives us quite comfortably a couple of years to proceed with the public input and the design. That leaves two and a half years for the construction, and that ought to be adequate. If it turned out to be one year this way or that, there is not a severe consequence to that.
D. Jarvis: I was informed that it would take at least five years to build a bridge; on that premise we would be looking at almost a ten-year period. We have a five-year lapse. Everyone is shaking their head, so I assume that it's....
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, the five-year figure would reflect a reasonable period of time for design and construction.
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask a question about tolls. I interpret from your previous statements that you are in favour of tolls. If any tolls on that bridge occurred -- if a new bridge was to be built -- would those tolls be dedicated to that specific bridge?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: What I am fundamentally in favour of is getting on with solving the transportation problems around the province and, in particular, in the lower mainland and on the Island. The best way of actually accomplishing that, from my point of view, is to go to a user-pay philosophy. The capacity to do that has been set up under Bill 3 in the Transportation Financing Authority. We will be able to borrow funds or form joint ventures with private pools of capital and get on with design and building. If it happens to be a bridge or tunnel, a toll is a suitable way of retiring a debt. I would not necessarily tie the revenues from the toll solely to the bridge. For example, we might want the leeway of building HOV lanes coming up to the bridge on either side or of making other transportation improvements in the vicinity that relate to the bridge. There has not been a final determination on the details of the revenue streams and the expenditure streams. What has more or less been decided is that through tolls or gas taxes, we will get on with constructing the necessary infrastructure based on capitalization of the works, using debt financing and tolls to pay it off over a reasonable period -- perhaps 30 years.
D. Jarvis: On that basis, then, at the end of 20 or 30 years, that debt will be retired for that specific area, for access, and I assume you will remove the tolls at that time on the structure that's put up, or under -- whatever it may be.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is no way that I can or would attempt to bind the decisions of some future Minister of Transportation. It might well be that further improvements might be required at that time, or further works required on transit, bus lanes, queue-jumpers or anything else. So I would not make any statement as to whether or not some future Transportation minister might or might not take the toll off.
D. Jarvis: On the basis of the previous track record of this government, 20 years down the line it may just be in power again, but nevertheless....
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask the minister again: if you put tolls on either structure, what effect is it going to have with regard to the Second Narrows Bridge? Is that a federal bridge? Are you allowed to put tolls on that bridge? Or are we going to see people cheating?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Second Narrows Bridge is ours. At such time as we do substantial expansion work at Second Narrows.... There is certainly a need there -- perhaps to add two HOV lanes, for example. It would then tie in nicely with the capacity of the Cassiar connector. There are some improvements required on the North Shore as well. At such time as we do that work, then it would be my intention to apply a toll on the Second Narrows, but not before then.
D. Jarvis: Following that, about the Second Narrows Bridge, are there any definite plans for improvement of the interchange down by the Coach House area -- I don't know if you are familiar with the area -- in the near future?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no set plans for that right now, other than, as I have pointed out, there are going to be some needs. There are needs for improvement in that whole area where the Second Narrows Bridge lands on the North Shore. As you are aware, the GVRD is carrying out Transport 2021, looking at the overall needs of the region. I anticipate receiving short- and long-term technical recommendations from that process by this fall. We will bring that into an overall transportation strategy that is being determined, which I hope to be able to report on to the Premier in the early fall.
D. Jarvis: Do you have any preliminary plans on what you plan to do down there? If possible, can I be briefed on them by your department?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, there are no preliminary designs available at this time.
[ Page 6821 ]
D. Jarvis: Is there any plan in your department for expansion in the near future for the Dollarton Highway area?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As you would know, there's been a fair amount of expenditure on the Dillarton Highway recently. There's no intention of any further upgrading, beyond completing what needs to be done there now as part of the present upgrading.
D. Symons: If we can go back to that shaky structure, the Lions Gate Bridge, I've admired that bridge for many years -- I guess I was maybe ten years old the first time my father walked me across the bridge. After that long walk, we discovered at the other end that you paid a toll for walking the bridge -- I thought they should have paid me. It's a grand structure, and I'm going to hate to see it go.
[5:00]
I noticed when the three options came out -- replacement, or upgrading of the bridge, or other -- that a fair number of people chose the "other" option. I'm just wondering whether the ministry is going to consider other options that may come out of these hearings; and indeed, whether the concept of a tunnel, which has been around for 20 or so years, might be reinstituted and become part of those discussions as well.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: First, I'd like to make sure it's on the record that the bridge is in fact sound; it's structurally secure; and it's safe into the indefinite future. Having said that, decisions as to whether it will be rehabilitated with the replacement, fundamentally, of the roadway structure, or whether it will be expanded, or whether it will be replaced either with another bridge or with a tunnel, are all on the table. There is a wide variety of interests who have views on the First Narrows crossing. They will all have their opportunity to put their views forward. I have been approached by a number of parties who have put ideas, preliminary designs and even financing schemes on the table. We will listen to all of them in the process of public consultation.
D. Schreck: While we're on the topic of the Lions Gate Bridge, I should advise the minister that I've recently sent several thousand questionnaires out to my constituents asking their opinion on precisely these matters. I will certainly do everything in my power to encourage my constituents to participate in this consultation process that the minister has outlined.
On the preliminary results, I found that approximately 60 percent of the people who have returned my questionnaires have indicated support for a toll on the bridge, and they are perfectly willing to pay it. But they are also telling me that they would like to see a strong preference given towards favouring public transit when improvements are made. They are also extremely concerned about the impact of any changes on Stanley Park.
So I'm urging the minister, when looking at options, to be extremely sensitive about Stanley Park, and also to keep the public transit option in mind. I'm sure the members for North Vancouver-Seymour and West Vancouver-Capilano will be joining me in working as part of the community on this consultation process so that whatever the option is, it's an option in which we can bring all of the community together to improve a bridge that some change is clearly necessary on.
D. Symons: I thank you for that ministerial statement. The member mentioned problems with the south shore, the Stanley Park side, and there are people who are very concerned about that park and that it keep its pristine character, and they don't want to see a major highway interchange within that park.
I gather there are also some concerns about the interchange on the north end of the bridge. This could, I suspect, involve some aboriginal land claims. So I'm just wondering if the minister could elaborate on whether this is also part of the concerns. Will negotiations be necessary not only on the kind of bridge, but also with the aboriginal people who, I believe, own the property at the north end of the bridge?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We presently have a right-of-way through the Squamish nation reserve on the North Shore. If we stay within that right-of-way, there will be limited consultation. If we have to move outside that, then of course there will be extensive consultation. On the Stanley Park side, that will certainly be of greater interest than the bridge itself. So all aspects of how to deal with Stanley Park will be on the table and dealt with in an open way.
D. Symons: I think that's probably very true for the people in the greater Vancouver area, because the park is of great interest to them, and no doubt whatever happens there is going to create a great deal of interest.
I think there's also going to be some concern over what appears to be the demise of that bridge, because it has character. It's something like the Golden Gate Bridge of San Francisco. It has defined the entrance to Vancouver harbour for a good number of years, and it will take some time to get used to a new structure there, if that's the way it goes.
I want to go back to a question that my colleague asked before, regarding tolls and, particularly, the possibility of tolls on the Second Narrows Bridge. I was under the impression, maybe wrongly so, from the answer you gave that when the federal government participated in the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway -- the Second Narrows Bridge was deemed to be part of that -- part of the conditions was that there would not be tolls on that structure. It was indeed turned over to the province upon completion of the construction. But are we not still under those restrictions? Or was I totally incorrect in that?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: To my knowledge there are no constraints on what we can do on the Second Narrows Bridge. The province built it in its entirety. Furthermore, in discussions I've had with the Hon. Mr.
[ Page 6822 ]
Corbeil, federal Minister of Transport, he has been encouraging the application of tolls or user charges.
Interjection.
D. Symons: I'm just as surprised as my hon. colleague is, when he said "the Tories," because that may be the first structure in Canada that has tolls on it, if that's the case. Of course, that's all supposition as to what may happen -- on the Trans-Canada, at least.
I'd like to move back to the tour I was doing of the province, because we jumped out of it a little with the hon. member here. I'm wondering if we might go back to Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. Where did the hon. member for Nanaimo go? He was here a moment ago. I'm wondering what the status of the Nanaimo parkway to bypass the downtown area may be. I know the people of Nanaimo are anxious to avoid the many traffic lights in going through the downtown core, as the highway currently does.
The Chair: For the benefit of the committee, we actually have a map of British Columbia here to aid us in our tour of the province. So I hope we enjoy our vacation.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Perhaps the Chair could put the map up on the wall and stick coloured pins in at the various points of inquiry. It might be an interesting map.
The Chair: It may at that, hon. minister.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As for the status of the Nanaimo parkway, it is nearing the end of detailed design. We are close to a position where we could start to acquire properties.
D. Symons: Assuming that B.C. 21 gets up and running and manages to have some money in there, it might put some money into that particular project, for acquiring property, so there will be an early start on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: You could assume that. You might or might not be correct.
D. Symons: I was hoping, for the people who live in Nanaimo and for the member for Nanaimo, that we might have a more definitive answer on that one, because I know that's one of the bottlenecks on the Island Highway that does need addressing. I remember reading recently in one of the news clippings that the Premier of the province had stated something to the effect that the Island Highway was a real priority. I believe the minister himself has made that comment. This would be a good place to start on that priority.
If we can move on to the town of Parksville, last year I asked about some problems with the bypass route and drainage there. The people and the town were concerned that it drains into the city's waterway. They're concerned that this problem with storm water is still there; that the runoff from the highway will overload the city's system, and pollutants off the road will have adverse effects on the downstream part of the river system. Does the ministry have any plans to address this continuing concern on the part of Parksville?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: All the aspects of drainage have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the community.
D. Symons: I'm just looking for a date on the letter I have from the town of Parksville that brings up this concern -- it is dated May 18. I must admit that the ministry is extremely expeditious if, between May 18, the date of this letter when this concern was expressed to me, and June 2, they have managed to address those concerns. It seems that -- and this is from the office of the mayor of the town of Parksville -- they still have a different opinion from yours as to whether that has been settled.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member opposite or the mayor of Parksville will make available to me the correspondence that you're making reference to, I will be able to develop an answer.
D. Symons: I had assumed that this correspondence I got had also been conveyed to the ministry. Obviously it hadn't, so I will converse with the mayor and see if I can give you a copy. I would be delighted to do that on his behalf.
I have one other question on Parksville. In 1988, under the previous administration, the ministry completed a four-lane upgrade of the Island Highway, almost through Parksville. It leads very nicely in as you come up from Nanaimo. The problem is that it narrows down to two lanes at Bay Avenue, and this creates a very serious bottleneck. In fact, it is near gridlock during the tourist season. The citizens of Parksville would really like to see completion of this project. Can you give them some indication of whether that is going to take place?
The Chair: Order, hon members. It is appropriate in committee that all hon. members address their remarks through the Chair.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The resolution of the problem in Parksville is the construction of the bypass. The construction of grade is going on up there as we speak.
D. Symons: I'll come to the bypass in a little while. I guess what you're saying is that this four-lane is going to continue to end at this particular intersection and become a two-lane. Although it may take some traffic off, the bypass is going to leave a beautiful four-lane highway converging into a two-lane street. Is that the case?
[5:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The congestions problems will disappear for the most part with the
[ Page 6823 ]
completion of the construction of the inland Island Highway, particularly the Parksville bypass. If there are congestion problems in the future, they will be dealt with at that time.
D. Mitchell: If we could go back to Nanaimo for a second, I was interested in the minister's answer to the question asked by the member for Richmond Centre. The whole issue of a bypass in Nanaimo has been the subject of promises by different provincial and municipal governments over the course of at least a decade. The issue as to whether there will be an inner route or an outer bypass is one that has received a lot of very healthy discussion in Nanaimo. Can the minister tell us whether or not the ministry has done any particular studies on the costs of either of those options, and whether or not it's possible to provide costs of either the inner route or the outer bypass to the committee today?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There were preliminary cost estimates made for both an inner route and an outer bypass. The outer bypass was much more expensive; it passes through some fairly rugged territory. A decision has been made on the inner route -- now referred to as the Nanaimo parkway -- and we have proceeded to near-completion of the detailed design. We have a very good handle on what the cost might be on the parkway, but we still are left with only a very preliminary estimate of what the outer bypass might have cost.
D. Mitchell: I wonder if the minister could tell the committee, in the cost-benefit analysis that was done by his ministry and in addition to taking a look at actual capital costs, whether what might be considered social costs were considered in terms of the inner versus the outer route in Nanaimo -- in other words, the health costs for residents in Nanaimo, the costs relating to property devaluation, the cost of expropriation of homes -- and whether all of these were factored into the decision. I take it from the minister that the decision has now been made to go with the inner route as opposed to an outer bypass.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The most important factor is the resolution of the congestion through Nanaimo. The outer route would not have solved the congestion problems within Nanaimo. There is a single road through there at the present time, with something like 23 traffic lights. Much of the traffic is of local origin. The outer bypass would not have served the local transportation needs of Nanaimo at all. Hence we have to try to factor in the social costs of not doing it, of not solving the problem and of having the continued environmental implications and the continued implications of accidents, deaths and injuries. It was the determination, after considering both, that the inner route or the parkway was the best thing to do now. There will be in the long term, no doubt, a requirement for an outer bypass as well. Perhaps 15 or 20 years down the line, given the increasing population in the mid-Island area, an outer bypass will become attractive. But in the meantime, we had a responsibility to the residents of Nanaimo to solve the transportation problems of Nanaimo. The outer bypass would not have done that.
D. Lovick: I notice what I would regard as a deplorable tendency on the part of the opposition. The last two speakers now have presumed to advocate for constituencies held by other members. We had somebody speaking for Parksville; now we have somebody speaking for Nanaimo. I would just like to advise members opposite that those constituencies are indeed well represented by their own....
The Chair: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on a point of order.
D. Mitchell: The member for Nanaimo has some sensitivity on this particular issue, and we can understand why perhaps. It would be nice to hear him get up and speak on behalf of his constituents, but I know of no rule or standing order of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia that would prevent any member of the House -- or indeed, any member of a committee such as this -- from commenting on any aspect of public policy. Clearly, the comments of the member for Nanaimo are out of order.
The Chair: Your point of order is well taken.
The hon. member for Richmond Centre on a point of order.
D. Symons: If the hon. member for Parksville was listening intently, he would have heard that I was reading some comments made by the mayor of that city. The member is implying that I was speaking for myself, with my own opinions; indeed, I'm speaking with some facts from somebody who I believe represents the community fairly well. Whatever the member is saying is irrelevant to this conversation and discussion.
The Chair: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on an additional point of order.
D. Schreck: Points of order should be referred to standing orders, for relevancy. They should not be used to interrupt members so as to participate in the debate. It appears to me that that is what members of the opposition are attempting to do to the member for Nanaimo.
The Chair: For the committee's benefit, the rules of debate in supply estimates are almost entirely governed and controlled by this blue document, which the Chair passed out at the beginning of this estimates session. The questioning by hon. members is restricted to the areas of control and influence of the minister's office. They are the guiding factors within the examination of these estimates. As well, the Chair is periodically asked to determine a question of tedious and boring ongoing debate. But that is very infrequent, and this afternoon it seems that we have some lively exchange in an otherwise rather complacent committee.
[ Page 6824 ]
As a matter of fact, I thank the members for that, because the Chair was having some difficulty with droopy eyelids. Carry on, hon. members. Thank you for your input.
D. Lovick: I had no idea that my comments would generate such a response, and I am delighted to determine that the members are indeed sentient. That's good to know.
What members might like to know, Mr. Chair, is that the estimates process and standing up and talking in the House are two of many mechanisms one has to deal with the minister. If either of them would like to see my files and my record of correspondence with the Minister of Transportation and Highways on this subject -- this minister and his three or four predecessors -- I would be more than happy to share. I merely want them to be mindful of the fact that a number of people are speaking about specific constituency concerns, and the normal procedure -- I'm not challenging anyone's right to do so -- is that, within estimates, one talks about general Highways policy and the management of the ministry. One defers the matter of an individual's own constituency to the member who represents that constituency. That's the normal procedure of civilized debate.
I hasten to point out to the member, the opposition critic for Highways, that he might like to know that many mayors and other members of municipal councils will take advantage of inexperienced and not terribly sophisticated members, to use them to further their own political agendas. You might like to know that's probably the case in terms of the individual from Parksville.
I don't want to interfere with the members' time in terms of addressing questions to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, if they are finished, I do have a number of things I want to raise with him. But I certainly don't intend to interfere with you now.
D. Mitchell: That diatribe from the member for Nanaimo was certainly interesting, but I think it might be interesting to return to the estimates right now. Perhaps his intervention might be explained by the fact that we've hit a few nerves here. That was not the intention.
The question I would like to direct to the minister, though, before we leave the topic of the Nanaimo bypass -- and I thank the minister for his answer to this, and agree that the minister and the ministry do have the obligation to make a decision and that they have made a decision now -- is how the actual decision was made to go one route versus the other in Nanaimo. The decision has been made to go the inner route, as opposed to the outer bypass. The minister has indicated that the decision has been made, and that it is his obligation to make the decision. Was the decision made in Victoria? I know that this has been a heated issue in Nanaimo for a long time and that there has been much representation to the minister and the ministry on this issue. I'm aware of incidents such as the petition that was circulated in that community. It was presented to the minister with some several thousand names, signed by a concerned citizens' committee, requesting a referendum on this issue locally in Nanaimo because of the polarization on it in the community. Was there any consideration given to perhaps allowing a referendum to proceed on that kind of an issue? Would that have been useful? Why did the minister believe that the decision could be made without that kind of local consultation?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member asks where the decision was made. I've driven a lot of the highways in the province, and it might have been between Valemount and Blue River -- I'm not quite certain. But it was made with proper input from the MLA for Nanaimo who, in his previous life as critic in this area, gained a great deal of knowledge of the highways issues, and of the Island Highway in particular. There was a referendum -- a very good one. It was the election in Nanaimo. I met with both sides on this issue. I met with a delegation of citizens who came down opposing it. I also met with the mayor and councillors and MLAs. The mayor and council, in particular, were elected following a period when the debate over this issue was the single largest debate in the election. I listened to the duly elected representatives of Nanaimo, both at the municipal and the provincial level. After listening to that, plus listening to the advice of my own ministry officials, I made the decision that it would be the inner route.
The Chair: In view of the division and in view of the hour, we have time to entertain the motion to rise and report progress at this time.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:29 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]