[ Page 21 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, congratulations.

I have a number of introductions. First, I'd like to introduce Mr. David Marshall and Mrs. Marshall from Metchosin, who are here with their grandson James Burr and his friend James Deeks from England, who has worked with the Ministry of Environment in England. These two Jameses have been on a round-the-world trip, and this is their last stop before returning home. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

Second, joining us in the gallery today are Mr. Moe Gill, Mr. Sabu Singh, Mrs. Gurdev Singh and Sabrina Sandhu -- well-known activists in the Indo-Canadian community who are visiting us here in Victoria today, as well. Would all members give them a warm welcome as well.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I hope members will join me in making welcome two very good friends of mine. Mr. Steven Hadley is also visiting from England, and he is also on the last leg of a round-the-world tour that will take him home next week; and Mr. Steven Phipps is visiting from Edmonton, Alberta. In spite of the fact that both derive their living from the practice of law, I would ask members to make them feel welcome.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome David Keto and his family, from the lovely community of South Surrey, who are with us today.

J. Doyle: Today I'm pleased to have three visitors in the gallery. One is Patricia St. Laurent, all the way from Quebec, who is visiting us here in British Columbia. Another two longtime friends of mine who reside all over British Columbia, but presently reside in Burnaby, are Thyra Pecora and her sister Talea Pecora. Would the House please make them welcome.

However, on June 13 and 15 I received documents which show that although the Premier knew there were problems, he made promises before the election which he had every intention of reneging on after the election. In fact, the report from the Ministry of Health dated June 13 suggests: "...a number of projects will be done on June 15. Over 27 projects are cancelled." Why did the Premier spend so much time making promises to the people of British Columbia before the election, when he knew he was not going to live up to those promises after the election?

Hon. A. Petter: Before the election, the Premier and this government promised to make tax cuts for ordinary British Columbians, and after the election we made tax cuts for ordinary British Columbians. We promised to reduce small business taxes, and we did that as well. We said that we'd make jobs a priority and protect health care and education. We did that too.

We said that we would listen to British Columbians and that we would react to the concerns of British Columbians. During the course of the election campaign, British Columbians said that this government should do more to deal with debt and the cost of government. We've listened, and we're responding to that concern -- as we should, hon. Speaker.

G. Campbell: It is this kind of cynicism the people of British Columbia reject totally from all people in public life. The leader of this Minister of Finance's government, the Premier of the province, went to the people at the Normanna Rest Home, seniors who are living in conditions which are not satisfactory, which do not meet British Columbia's standards -- and he sits smiling with his colleagues -- and said: "We will improve your construction. We will give you $13 million to make sure you're cared for" -- because he's on their side. He is not on their side. He misled these people. I want to know from the Premier: why would you use a group of vulnerable seniors as a photo op when you knew you were going to renege on your promise immediately after the election?

Hon. A. Petter: It's good to see the Leader of the Opposition getting good at opposing, because he's going to have a lot of opposing to do for the next five years. If this government had not listened to British Columbians and had not responded yesterday as we did, the Leader of the Opposition would be on his feet saying, "You didn't learn; you didn't listen," and opposing us on that too. That's his job, and he's doing a good job of it. That's good to see, because he's got a long haul ahead of him.

Let me say this, hon. Speaker: what this government has done is not cancel any projects. What we've said....

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Out of a $1.4 billion capital expenditure this year, we have said that we are going to review those projects that have not yet been legally committed to or commenced so we can satisfy British Columbians that we have a capital plan that responds to their concerns. If the Leader of the Opposition is worried about that, I understand that worry.

G. Campbell: I can guarantee you this, hon. Speaker: this side of the House will oppose this government every single time they break their word. Every single time you mislead patients and mislead students and mislead seniors, we will oppose you.

There is a significant difference between this side of the House and that side. We told the truth during the election.

I would like to know from the Premier why he spent so much time promising so much to British Columbians, when he knew he was going to break his word to every single person in this province after the election.

Hon. G. Clark: What a stunning conversion, hon. Speaker! Three years in this House, and every day that member stood up.... They opposed capital spending, they opposed the Island Highway, they opposed commuter rail, they opposed school construction and they opposed capital 

[ Page 22 ]

investment. Now, today, they are the defenders of capital investment. There is nothing I enjoy more than seeing Philip Hochstein attack the government for slowing down on capital investment.

We will be investing $1.2 billion in capital investment this year in British Columbia. How much is not enough for those members opposite? How much is not enough? They said they were opposed to this. We've moved to listen to British Columbians, and now they have the audacity -- the shame -- to stand up here and attack us for listening to British Columbians. That's why they're on that side of the House and we're on this side of the House.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Yes, we are defenders. We are defenders of the truth. What is sacred to us are the interests of all British Columbians, not special deals for your friends and insiders.

Yesterday I referred the Minister of Finance to table G7, provincial net debt summary, on page 56 of Budget 96 Reports. Would the minister please explain to this House why the funds and investments on hand in the warehouse borrowing program were omitted from the listing under amounts held as investments and cash for relending by the consolidated revenue fund, Crown corporations and agencies?

Hon. A. Petter: The warehouse debt is fully disclosed as part of the government's total debt form agreed to with the office of the auditor general. The warehouse debt is not included in taxpayer-supported debt since there are liquid assets to cover and offset that borrowing. And the auditor general fully agrees with that approach.

[2:15]

The Speaker: A supplemental question.

F. Gingell: I have also talked to the auditor general's office, and they said you had to disclose it properly in the consolidated financial statements. But they told you that you should show net debt only in dealing with per capita debt, in dealing with debt-to-GDP. Clearly it should have been deducted from this in arriving at net debt -- unless this minister doesn't intend to spend it for what he said he would. Is that your intention: to spend it on matters other than capital expenditures for Crown agencies and Crown corporations?

Hon. A. Petter: I will be happy to take the member's concerns under advisement. What I can tell him is that the warehouse program is one that makes good sense for protecting the interests of British Columbians, and that the procedures through which that program were accounted for in the budget were consistent with the advice received from the auditor general.

The Speaker: On a supplemental, member.

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Do you not recognize, Mr. Minister, that the reason you borrowed $900 million more than you intended to was because you paid 1.5 percent over the market rate for the B.C. bonds? You paid 6.75, and the Canada savings bonds came out at 5.25. That's why the money flowed in, and you've used it in a phony manner to suggest to people of British Columbia that this year you will reduce debt. Mr. Minister, I ask you: is that not the real reason for the warehouse fund?

Hon. A. Petter: The warehouse borrowing fund makes altogether good sense because it enables the government to borrow funds when it is economic to do so and to spend them when it makes sense. I can assure you, based on the information received from my officials, that those funds are fully offset by the investments they bring in while they are in the warehouse. I'll be happy to discuss the matter further with the member during the course of the budget debate or estimates.

Hon. A. Petter: You know, democracy is about listening to people, and that means all people in British Columbia -- not just some select, narrow group of elite few that the members across there tend to listen to.

During the course of the election campaign, people made it very clear that while they supported this government in terms of our commitments to increase funding for education and hospital care, they were concerned about the level of the debt. For that reason, we are reviewing all capital expenditures that have not been legally committed to or are not underway in order to ensure that we respond to that concern. And yes, that includes the project referred to by the member opposite.

I. Chong: It's encouraging to hear that this government is listening. However, back in March 1995 the Greater Victoria Hospital Society announced it was ready to proceed with construction. Instead of moving ahead, the NDP chose to make the hospital construction a major plank of their election platform now. How can the minister possibly defend his government's callous electioneering with the health of the residents of Victoria?

Hon. A. Petter: It's my understanding that the members opposite try to have it both ways. They talk about their billion-dollar tax cut for big business, they talk about cutting spending, and then suddenly they pop up after an election that they lost and become the sanctimonious defenders of health care.

But I must correct the member's account of history, because it is wrong. The Greater Victoria Hospital Society made it clear that their priority was to proceed with the laundry facility, and this government went ahead and built that in preference to the Royal Jubilee Hospital, based on their recommendation.

I have a question for the Premier, who's demonstrating a shyness that we are unaccustomed to. It was only a few short 

[ Page 23 ]

months ago that the member for Yale-Lillooet wrote a letter to the Hope Standard newspaper, smugly asking his B.C. Liberal opponent which of the following important local initiatives he would cancel, and he listed them. He talked about a skill centre, a pool and library complex, the Lytton hospital and the Lytton Bridge. He listed them all, and he guaranteed their completion.

My question to the Premier is: can he advise the House, and in particular the member for Yale-Lillooet, which of those projects he has cancelled or delayed and what the member for Yale-Lillooet should say to those people who elected him on the strength of promises that have disappeared faster than cash in a Nanaimo bingo hall?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, at least we're not like the Liberals, who wanted to take ordinary people to the cleaners in British Columbia. They should look in the mirror. How can they stand there and day after day say to the government: "You're spending too much, you're spending too much"? Then right after the election they're standing up there sanctimoniously saying: "Spend, spend, spend." They want us to spend or they want us to cut back. I don't know what it is. They must be Liberals. I can't tell from one day to the other. You can't tell which car door they're coming out of: they're both open at the same time.

Look, it's very clear. We need to invest in British Columbia to build for the future. We're investing $1.2 billion this year. But we're also listening to what people said to us. They said they're concerned about the debt. We're putting a pause on capital projects while we review them, to make sure British Columbians know that what we're doing makes sense and that building for the future is affordable. We're doing something which I would have thought the Liberals would be on their knees thanking us for.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

I have a point of order from Vancouver-Fraserview.

I. Waddell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the question period, the member for.... It's a point of order with respect to comments by the member from Little Mountain. He turned to the Speaker earlier on and said: "You're supposed to be neutral." In my submission, I think that's unparliamentary, and at the very least the member from Little Mountain should withdraw that.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member, but I must remind all members in this chamber that only those comments made while members are standing in their place are part of the record, and heckling from across the hall is not part of the record. Therefore the point of order is not truly a point of order. However, I appreciate the intention.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I've ruled that it isn't really a point of order, Opposition House Leader, so I'm not sure.... Is this another point of order?

G. Farrell-Collins: All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that if in any way I've offended any member of this House or yourself, I would withdraw anything I've said.

The Speaker: I thank you for that, member.

However, hon. Speaker, it is important for this government to remember that their position in this House does not in any way alter their position in the province. This government received significantly fewer votes than the opposition parties. I am proud to lead the party that received the most votes of any party in the last election. I am proud to lead the only party in this House that has increased its representation over the last House. I am proud to lead a party that outlined a clear program for change in the province -- that would protect health care, protect public education and reduce people's taxes so we could have more jobs. Equally important, I am proud that during our election campaign, we told the people of British Columbia the truth. Sixty-one percent of British Columbians rejected this government's politics of division. They know that them-and-us politics do not work.

There should be no hesitation from the members of this House or from the government when they wonder who we speak for or how we intend to act during this next parliament. We will speak for all British Columbians in every region of this province. If a constituency feels left out or left behind, we will speak for them. When the teachers and the students of British Columbia speak out against this government's imposition of policies which ignore their needs, which close students out of schools, which ignore the resources that are necessary to provide our young people with the education they need, you can rest assured that we will speak for those students, those teachers and those parents so we have the kind of education system we deserve. When the patients of this province cry out for care, instead of rhetoric, bureaucracies and more committees, we will speak for those patients. When the small businesses of this province cry out for understanding from a government which has loaded taxes and hidden fees and regulations on their backs so they can no longer hire young people, so they can no longer hire sustainable employees in the province, we will speak for those small businesses as well.

During the last election, this government took a specific tack. They decided to divide British Columbians; they decided to pit one region of the province against another, one British Columbian against another. We reject that kind of politics. While this government will, we are sure, continue to try to divide -- as we heard this morning from the throne speech mover and seconder -- I can guarantee you this, hon. Speaker: this caucus, this opposition, will do everything we can to bring British Columbians together so that we can meet our full promise in British Columbia.

During the last election, there were many things that we agreed on. In fact, you could have heard the leaders of all the parties speak, and many times the first sentence sounded the 

[ Page 24 ]

same. There is no question that British Columbians expect change in the way their government works; there is no question that they demand a change. There is also no question that this government suggested they were going to provide change. But what have we found? The same old government, the same old faces, the same old tired rhetoric. Look at the cabinet. Who's new? Where are the new voices? Where are the new ideas?

The problem is that when you look at this throne speech, you can only dub it with two words: a "failed opportunity," "failed beginnings." Every time there's an election there's an opportunity to wipe the slate clean, to start again. Every time there's an election there's an opportunity to reach out -- particularly right after the election -- to bring people together, to recognize areas that we have agreement in -- every time. Yet this government failed miserably at that. There's no question that we need change in this province.

[2:30]

I'm sure every member of this House can talk to people and families in their constituency, and they will discover that take-home pay has dropped. They will discover that the sense of opportunity that used to thrive in British Columbia has been eroded. They will discover that our young people in this province are worried about their future -- and, equally importantly, that their parents are worried about their future and the future of their families. People demand a change, and this government stayed the same. Nothing changed.

The only thing missing from this throne speech was the attempt to blame all of the woes and problems that we may face in the province of British Columbia on the previous government but one, the Social Credit government. I know why the government didn't blame the previous government: it's because they would have to point the finger at themselves. They would have to point the finger at their rhetoric.

When you really look at this, the most difficult thing that we face with this government -- and the obvious opportunity that the government had following the election -- is to re-establish the sense of integrity in government and a sense of public trust in government. They failed the test of integrity, as my colleague from Delta South so eloquently pointed out yesterday in his quick response to the budget speech. And they failed the fundamental test of re-establishing trust with the people of British Columbia.

In two short days this government has changed 60 days of decision into 60 days of deception, 60 days of deceit. [Applause.] Do you like that?

Hope built on a foundation of distrust is a cruel hoax. It's a cruel hoax on all the people of this province -- not just the people who voted on this side of the House, not just the 42 percent that supported the B.C. Liberal Party, but the meagre 39 percent that supported your party, as well. You let them down.

And what an opportunity you had. There isn't one person in this House who doesn't recognize that we do live in the best province and the best country in the world. There isn't one person in this House who doesn't think about the potential that we have in the province of British Columbia and how to develop that. But, hon. Speaker, I know you will know the meaning of this expression: Facta non verba. Deeds not words. This government is good at words and bad at deeds. Your actions always belie what you say.

The NDP tell us that they are committed to education. They were committed for 60 days. The problem is that we, every one of us, should be committed to education every single day in this House, and every single day in this province. How can we possibly say that it is necessary for students to attend school, but that we will not provide to make sure that those children can have their learning and their education day in and day out without the fear of a strike or a lockout? Obviously education should be an essential service in British Columbia, and this government continues to turn its back on the young people of this province.

How can anybody in this House be satisfied when 18.5 percent of our students in grade 10 can only write at grade 4 or grade 5 level? How can any of us be satisfied? Did the government even start to deal with that issue? No, because they do not worry about what is happening with the young people of the province of British Columbia. How can anyone in this government be satisfied when 15 percent to 30 percent of all students don't have basic reading skills?

This government claims to be worried about jobs. Well, in jobs in the 1990s you have to be able to read, you have to be able to write, you have to be able to learn and you have to be computer-literate. And the fact of the matter is that this government has done nothing to address those glaring problems in the province of British Columbia, and that should change.

We are all concerned about youth employment. We are all concerned about opportunities for the next generation of British Columbians. And yet today in the province of British Columbia -- by the government's own figures -- 25 percent of the young people between 16 and 24 fail basic literacy tests. Does this government say it's time that we attack that problem? Does this government outline a way that we can deal with that, so that in the future those people will have jobs that are not just short-term but long-term jobs that they can build a future on and support a family on, and know that they can have opportunities ahead? No, not a word. Not a word from this government about that.

I can tell you that this House needs to deal with education, needs to deal with results, and needs to provide the young people in this province with the tools they need to be successful in the coming world, and we intend to continue pushing for that. Our top priority must be education, and it must be education that focuses on students' needs and provides for teachers. The government stands in the throne speech and says: "We're going to create 7,000 new spaces." Have they talked to the people in the universities and colleges? Have they talked to the people who are being laid off right now because of this government's strategies -- because of what this government has imposed on them? Students can't learn without teachers. We should be providing teachers and students with the resources they need so that those 7,000 spaces will be worthwhile for all of the young people of British Columbia.

What's happening with jobs? What's happening is that job growth in this province has been cut in half. What's happening is that region after region and community after community is worried about their future. The speaker from Rossland-Trail today got up and commented about the Kootenays. Well, I know that in the East Kootenays -- in the Elk Valley -- literally 50 percent of all families lost their employment while this government was in office. This government did nothing to meet their needs -- showed no concern for what was taking place in that part of the province. That's not good enough for them, and it's not good enough for British Columbians.

[ Page 25 ]

We have watched in this House as this government has performed its magic, and its magic has driven investment from the province. When you drive private sector investment from the province, you drive jobs and job opportunities from British Columbia, and everybody in this House should understand that. When we watch as our primary industry, the forest industry, makes a deliberate decision that they are going to invest elsewhere, that they are going to invest outside British Columbia -- in other jurisdictions in Canada, in other jurisdictions in North America, in other jurisdictions on the Pacific Rim -- because they don't trust this government, I can tell you that means that resource communities and resource families have a much gloomier future than they did before this government took office. They must change that to bring investment back to the province so those resource communities have a sense of confidence about their future and about their families' future in British Columbia.

The Premier of British Columbia cares so much about the forest industry that he hasn't even taken time to understand that we have different forests in this province. He hasn't even taken the time to understand that the forests that grow in the Peace River country and in the interior are different than the forests that grow on the coast. I know there are MLAs on the government side who have come from all of those regions, and they should explain it to the Premier. In fact, when you look at our coastal forest, which is the same quality of forest they have in Washington and Oregon, we exceed their productivity. The people of British Columbia can and will exceed the productivity of any jurisdiction in North America or the world if the government will just let them -- get out of their way and provide for their jobs and provide for their future.

Yet because this government is locked into their own ideology -- the ideology of the past, the failed ideology which has driven jobs out of British Columbia -- because they are committed to that, we are watching as our employment picture blackens. Talk to the next generation. Talk to the young people of this province. Ask them how they're feeling about their employment opportunities. Ask them, as they're on the streets trying to get a job in the province this summer, how they're feeling about their future. Ask the students in the colleges, universities and institutes how they're feeling about their employment opportunities this summer. You know that the students are worried about that.

The government knew that students were worried about their job opportunities, so they made a grand announcement about 11,500 jobs. But once again this government failed. It failed the students of British Columbia because it didn't think about how you actually do provide jobs, how you actually do encourage investment, how you actually do encourage small businesses to bring young people into their enterprises. They didn't think, because they didn't care. Instead of 11,500 jobs, they've managed to squeeze about 3,000 out, and the people who were involved in that program say those jobs would have been there anyway. No, the fact of the matter is that we have to try to create an environment that encourages jobs in this province, that encourages small businesses to hire people. Just think, you actually go out and you hire them. They come in and they go to work and you pay them. That's what you've got to do.

What does this government do? It says: "Here, have some paper to fill out. Have some new taxes to pay. Have a few extra fees that you've got to pay. And every time you hire one person, we're going to make it more expensive for you." So those people don't ever have a chance. Small business people in this province are spending 80, 90 or 100 hours a week in trying to make their enterprises work. They would like to hire young people. But because of this government's intransigence they have not been able to.

The Premier was just in Ottawa at a first ministers' conference, talking about the federal government's intransigence, the federal government's arrogance, the federal government's stupidity. I think this government should take a good, hard look at itself to see whether those adjectives work for it as well when it comes to dealing with our young people.

There's not one person on that side of the House who, when they were the age of these young people, between 16 and 24, lived with a 20 percent unemployment rate. One out of five young people can't find work, even though they're trying to. They're talented and they're energetic and they're willing to work, but because of this government's policies, they can't find work.

You know, one of the problems we have when that starts happening is that they start giving up hope. The government talked about this in its throne speech. It's words again; no actions to create the hope, no actions to show them that if they go to school and go to work there will be a job for them when they graduate.

One of the things that all of us in this House must do is work to make sure we do rekindle that hope, so there are real jobs, so people do have real goals and know they can meet them in a province that's as great and wonderful as British Columbia. That's what we're going to work to do.

This government looked at injured workers in British Columbia and discovered, I guess about 60 days ago -- as everything else was discovered by this government -- that the WCB was in a mess. I can remember when the Deputy Premier stood up on that side of the House, said it was the best thing since sliced bread and couldn't imagine how it could be any better. The only reason he couldn't imagine it was that it didn't fit his agenda.

We are now going to spend another year studying the WCB. "Let's go talk some more, maybe two years. Let's see if we can push it all the way to the next election, whenever that may come on. But don't act, don't do anything that might take care of those workers." It would take about four minutes to figure out half the things you could do with WCB, if there was a will to act here -- if there was a will to not just listen but learn for the injured workers of British Columbia.

Currently WCB is a hidden tax with no benefits for injured workers or for the employers who are paying the bills. And people in British Columbia know that; injured workers in British Columbia know that. In every single community that they live in, that should change. It should change as a result of actions, not as a result of more royal commissions going out for more studies that we're going to put on the shelf -- and forget about the workers when the election has gone by. We on this side of the House will not forget about the workers of British Columbia.

There was a chance for some new opportunities with this throne speech, and again the government failed. Think about health care. For three years members of the opposition have been urging the government to think about patients in British Columbia. You cannot go to a community in the province where the quality of patient care has not deteriorated. You cannot go to a community in the province where people are not worried about their health care.

The reason for this is that the government decided they weren't going to listen to anybody, they weren't going to learn 

[ Page 26 ]

from anybody. They've spent millions and millions of dollars, not on patient care but on propaganda and on trying to impose a system that was designed to fail from the day it was introduced in this House.

[2:45]

Go to G.R. Baker Hospital in Quesnel, look at that hospital and at what the government did there. Look at what regionalization has done to health care in the lower mainland. Look at what regionalization of health care has done on Vancouver Island. Community after community....

An Hon. Member: How about Prince George?

G. Campbell: I must admit that most of us do look at Prince George on a regular basis. We would have thought the former Minister of Health would have spent a little bit of time being concerned about that....

An Hon. Member: In his riding.

G. Campbell: in his constituency, it being his former ministry. There is no better example of how our health care system has failed the people of the north and the people of British Columbia than the Prince George Regional Hospital and ambulance service to those remote communities. Both have been deteriorating; both have failed patients and the people of British Columbia. This government should be willing to change those things right now so patients are put back at top of the health care list.

An Hon. Member: They did elect a New Democrat.

G. Farrell-Collins: One less than last time -- and counting. One down; two to go.

G. Campbell: The critical issue is not who was elected; the critical question is how we provide patients in British Columbia with services. You don't do that by building more bureaucracies.

We know that over the next few months we are all going to be faced with dealing with the Canadian constitution again, and we know the Premier is very interested in that. That's worthwhile. We should also recognize that Prime Ministers and Premiers have consistently and persistently failed in their efforts to deal with that issue. It seems to me that all members of this House share an interest in trying to break that impasse, in trying to strengthen our country, in trying to strengthen the opportunities and the public institutions that we have in this country.

It seems to me that the way to do that is to break free of the politicians and start talking to people about what they think would work. I think a citizens' assembly is something that should be pursued. It's critical for all of us in this House to remember that what we have in our country is a system of government where people tell governments what to do, not the other way around. Constitution-making is not about power deals brokered in the back rooms of some fancy hotel or conference centre; it's about making sure that governments are responding to the needs of people and families across this country.

We all share a commitment to Canada. We all share a commitment to the people who elect us. It seems to me that we must reach out to them and tap into their wisdom so we can break the impasse we've all experienced over the last quarter-century and make sure we can build a brighter future for our children as we move forward into the next century.

I can say that all members on this side of the House were pleased when the government finally decided it was important to make fisheries an issue and bring the administration of the Pacific fishery here to British Columbia. I would like to be clear to the government that we are willing to work with them in any way to make sure we can protect those salmon stocks, protect those communities and protect the people who work in the fishery in the province. We would like to work together with the government on that so we can be successful in bringing the fishery home.

One issue that was barely touched on during the throne speech -- which is again of critical importance to all of us, regardless of our political party -- is the issue of aboriginal treaty negotiations. No matter how one wishes to present this in terms of politics, it seems to me that we have many lessons to learn about how to move forward to a successful ratification, not just of the proposed Nisga'a agreement but of future agreements in British Columbia.

Again, I would urge the government to look for new ways to bring the public into the discussion about what's taking place with regard to aboriginal treaty negotiations. If we do not trust the public to come up with solutions that will work for them in their communities, I guarantee you, hon. Speaker, that we will fail in our task of coming up with treaties that can be ratified by all British Columbians for the right reasons. It is critically important for us to look at all aboriginal treaty negotiations as an opportunity for us to create certainty in the lives of all British Columbians.

There is no one in this House -- there is no one I know in British Columbia -- who can go to many of those aboriginal communities and feel a sense of accomplishment. The fact of the matter is that the social degradation that is found there in many cases, the abuse that we see, the family abuse that they experience, the lack of economic hope they have, all of those things must be dealt with. We have failed abysmally in the past, so we are all willing to work for the future to try and make sure that we can provide people with the kinds of opportunities and responsibilities they deserve.

I believe that the only way we will succeed in doing that is by basing all treaty negotiations on a foundation of principle that all of us as British Columbians share, that says each of us will have equal rights and equal responsibilities as we move forward into the future, and that is based on the critical understanding that in Canada we have one constitution and one law for all Canadians. That is how we are going to build the brightest future for everybody here.

Again I am pleased to say that this side of the House is willing to work diligently and tirelessly with the government to try and make sure that we can develop a public process which invites people to come to talk, to understand, to learn and to create solutions to the actions we're going to have to take and the problems which we all face and all understand have got to be discovered over the years ahead. We are ready to work with the government on that. We can only hope that the committees of this House will actually start to work so that we can move forward in the future towards successful ratification.

As we discuss the opportunities that face us in a new House, I think another opportunity which we must all grasp is an opportunity to build a government which looks at the future of British Columbia, looks at all of the programs we 

[ Page 27 ]

provide and looks for ways that we can measure our results, ways that we can actually discover whether or not the actions the government is taking in terms of its decisions are leaving the benefits that we hope all British Columbians will have.

In fact, after this government looks back, as we look back on 1991.... I mentioned the average take-home pay for the people of British Columbia is down over that term. It seems to me that all of us should be striving to be sure that when the term of this government is up, regardless of which side of the House we sit on, the take-home pay for British Columbia families has gone up again, so they do have a sense of hope and opportunity and control over their lives.

Let's be sure that services that many of us take for granted.... Even when you're just visiting here in Victoria for the Legislature, we take for granted things like ambulance services that we have here. Let's make sure that those ambulance services are available to every person in every community in British Columbia, so they have the benefits of the health care system that we want to preserve and protect and enhance as we move forward. Let's be sure that the number of low-birth-weight babies in British Columbia is reduced, and let's try and develop programs that make sure we can do that. Let's be sure that we can increase the literacy rate in the province, so young people have the kinds of hopes and opportunities that they deserve. Let's make sure that the unemployment rate goes down and that the job creation rate continues to go up in British Columbia.

Let's all of us work to find measures that will determine whether or not the programs that are put in place -- that are paid for by taxpayers -- are actually working for the benefit of the people who pay the bills. That's something that the Public Accounts Committee has worked on. We're looking forward to continuing that work as we move forward through the next few months.

I should say I was disappointed in the throne speech. I say that because I do believe there was an opportunity, a chance for new beginning, and unfortunately what we had was a failed beginning. I believe we need a plan for British Columbia that recognizes the potential and the promise of this province -- a plan where we all understand that there are many goals that we share and have in common, but that we may have different ways of getting there -- a plan that understands that those goals and solutions we come up with in this province will lead this country.

There is no place in Canada that's a better place to live than British Columbia, and there are no places in the world that are better places to live than Canada. That bestows upon each of us, I believe, an onerous responsibility. But it's a great opportunity that we all share in this House. We do have an opportunity to find new solutions. We do have an opportunity to bring people together in this province. We do have an opportunity to show the next generation of British Columbians that we're willing to work on their behalf, not to selfishly take from them, from the children of British Columbia, but to give them opportunities, hopes and a Legislature that they can look at with some form of pride, so that each of us can leave at the end of this parliament and say that we did act in an exemplary fashion and did re-establish and restore the trust that the people of British Columbia deserve to have in their public institutions.

I wanted to thank you, hon. Speaker, because of my respect for you. But I'd also like to move that we adjourn the debate.

G. Campbell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: In the House today watching these proceedings -- and I'm sure taking notes for the purpose of going some 3,000 or so miles east of here and telling them that we do have a busy and exciting House here.... I wish the House to join me in welcoming the senior federal minister from British Columbia, the Hon. David Anderson, Minister of Transport.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 5.

The first section of the bill requests five-twelfths of the voted expenditures as presented in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The second section requests the disbursements amount required for the government's voted financing transactions, which appear in schedule C of the estimates. The third section requests an amount of $22 million in statutory authority for the Purchasing Commission working capital account to permit the delivery of goods and services provided through this account. The fourth section notes that amounts authorized by the special warrants listed in schedule 2 are included in the sums referred to in sections 1, 2 and 3.

I move second reading of Bill 5.

F. Gingell: If I were to have with me what I had hoped to have, which was a long list of quotes from members of this government or members of this political party relative to the actions of the previous Social Credit administration in operating government on special warrants, we would indeed be here until 6 o'clock tomorrow morning. We may be here until 6 o'clock tomorrow morning anyway.

But this government, these people, these same members and their replacements continually chastise....

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Not you, indeed. But the hon. minister sitting behind you -- the hon. Whip sitting behind you, too -- chastised the Social Credit government for the sin of operating government month after month on special warrants.

They went back and brought up the images of Cromwell, of King Charles II, of the whole process of democracy. Runnymede, I think, got mentioned. Many, many lives have been lost. Many martyrs have been.... I was going to say burned at the stake, but they've certainly been hanged, drawn and quartered for criticizing government for spending without the authorization of the people.

[ Page 28 ]

There is no more important part of the democratic process that we are responsible for than ensuring that the people's money is not spent until it has been examined, reviewed, discussed, argued about and, finally, voted upon. This government was more interested in re-election and the timing of the re-election than they were in good governance.

[3:00]

I had the audacity to write to the Lieutenant-Governor suggesting that he should not have allowed the thirty-fifth parliament to rise without us dealing with interim supply. I thought, after I'd mailed the letter, that I really shouldn't have, because I didn't need to. Surely, the New Democratic Party believes in democracy, and this is the basis of democracy. You can't say one thing one day and do something different the next. Well, you can and you did, and question period today proved that without a question of doubt.

Mr. Speaker, we will have the opportunity in the committee section of dealing with Bill 5 to get some answers and deal with some specific issues, and I look forward to that opportunity.

E. Gillespie: Hon. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce guests to this House.

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: I am pleased to welcome my friends from Alberta, Jim Connolly and his niece Sarah, visiting here in Victoria. Would members please join me in welcoming these friends.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers.... I'm sorry. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

I. Waddell: If I'm out of order, you'll rule me out of order.

I did want to comment when the hon. member, the Finance critic for the Liberals, introduced the senior minister from Ottawa. I think it's appropriate that he is welcomed from both sides of the House, and as an old friend of mine, I want to welcome David Anderson, as well -- someone who went from this House to that House. I'm someone who went from that House to this House, so I'd like to welcome him.

The Speaker: We'll treat that as a point of order, legitimately.

Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. A. Petter: I won't engage much in response to the member opposite, except that I think it's pretty obvious that the circumstances through which these special warrants were sought were ones that fully justify their use. There was a change in the Premier of this province that delayed the legislative session, and then there was an election call that, as I recall, was demanded even more vociferously from that side of the House than it was desired from this side. So I'm sure there's plenty of understanding.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 5.

Second reading of Bill 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	Cashore
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Ramsey	Kwan	Waddell
Calendino	Pullinger	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Giesbrecht
Walsh	Kasper	Orcherton
Hartley	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Sihota	Brewin	Randall
Sawicki	Lali	Doyle
Gillespie	Robertson	Farnworth
Smallwood	Conroy	McGregor
Janssen		G. Wilson
NAYS -- 32
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	Hurd
Sanders	Plant	Stephens
de Jong	Coell	Anderson
Nebbeling	Whittred	van Dongen
Thorpe	Penner	Barisoff
McKinnon	Masi	Nettleton
Coleman	Chong	Weisbeck
Jarvis	Abbott	Symons
Hawkins	C. Clark	Hansen
Reitsma		J. Wilson

Bill 5, Supply Act (No. 1), 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The Chair: Hon. members, could I please call you all to order. I thought, before we began the events, I might just outline a few of the things that will be happening and how, procedurally, it will work. So, if I might.... This is the first opportunity we've had this session to be in committee, and it will happen more frequently as we proceed. Here is the way we'll be dealing with the interim supply act this afternoon.

First of all, sections 1 to 4 will be called seriatim, which means each section will be debated and voted on individually before proceeding with the next section. Then, by agreement, schedules 1 and 2 will be discussed together, in tandem. You will note that they contain special warrants, and there is a duplication in them of Health and Social Services. Again, we will discuss those together.

An order has been agreed to for the discussion of the warrants, and I believe you probably all have that list. Finance is up first; then Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Women's Equality; then four Crown corporations -- B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit, B.C. Steamship Company, Victoria Line; then Aboriginal Affairs and the Attorney General. We will discuss those, and then we will look at the rest of them in alphabetical order.

Again, in the discussion of those, we will be having the discussion on each -- one after another -- and then we will vote on it altogether. That has been arrived at by agreement, as I understand it.

[ Page 29 ]

After that -- and this may seem an oddity for those of you who are new -- we will go back and vote on the preamble and, finally, on the title of the act. That's the way it works, oddly enough.

You may also be aware that standing orders limit speeches to 15 minutes each, but it should be noted that on any one section, you may talk more than once.

Of course, always, standing order 61(2) says that all comments by members must be strictly relevant to the matter under consideration. I suspect we won't have much difficulty with that today.

L. Reid: That's a new one.

The Chair: Well, we learned from the last time.

On section 1.

F. Gingell: Having done this four or five times now, I wasn't listening maybe as well as I should have, but as I understand it we are now just going to move straight into section 1, which deals with this government asking us to vote for $8.439 billion to pay for the expenses of government until the estimates have been passed. As we all know, we will have an opportunity during the estimates process to deal with the issues in some depth, so I just wish to touch very briefly on some items. Hon. Chair, with your indulgence, I am actually going to refer to the estimates themselves.

[3:15]

The first item that strikes one is the expense of the minister's office, which he would like us to fund. In previous years, the Minister of Finance's office has cost about $720,000. This year it is coming down to $348,000. There has been some major work done, obviously, in bringing down the expenditures in that office, and I was wondering if the minister could advise the House on how that has been accomplished.

Hon. A. Petter: First, for the benefit of the members opposite, I would just like to introduce Murray Crowther and Chris Trumpy, who are assisting me today. Mr. Crowther is director of the estimates and capital budget branch of the Ministry of Finance, and Mr. Trumpy is ADM, provincial treasury.

I think the answer, put into a capsule form, is that it's two ministers' offices becoming one.

F. Gingell: That makes eminent good sense. Maybe we could take 12 more of them and put them into one. It would be a good idea.

The Minister of Finance made reference during his budget speech to a review of programs that will be carried out. As the minister is aware, there has been an accountability enhancement report prepared by the deputy ministers' council and the auditor general, which talks about that and goes into a lot more detail than just a review of programs. I was disappointed that in your speech it got such short shrift.

I was wondering if the minister would assure the House that there is an intention to deal with this matter in a much more thorough, ongoing way, in a manner that has been envisaged by his own senior bureaucrats, and that there are sums of money included in this budget -- and therefore included in this interim supply act that we are dealing with now -- that will allow the process to get started where it hasn't got started and to proceed in an efficient and effective manner throughout this period.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I am aware of the accountability initiative, which government has endorsed. With reference to the statement I made yesterday, it is my intention as a new Minister of Finance, reflecting the public concern around the cost and size of government, to undertake a very comprehensive review of government programs; and as I said yesterday, to do so in a way that examines the necessity of each program; and, having determined the necessity of programs, to then go to the second step and ask whether those programs are being delivered in the most effective way possible.

I believe there are ways in which we can save taxpayers' dollars without compromising the value of government programs, and I intend to make this a major initiative. I think the public expects it. I think, as we face another round of severe cuts from the federal government next year, it behooves us to find as much as we can that can be saved in public expenditure without compromising programs and the kinds of services the government provides, on which people depend.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On schedule 2 -- Ministry of Finance.

F. Gingell: In the budget report documents, there is reference to the additional working capital that was required by the government in the 1995-96 fiscal year, which was one of the causes of your inability to live up to your debt management plan. I remember the words in the report saying something about diverting the proceeds from the B.C. Endowment Fund to look after the Vancouver Island gas pipeline cost settlements. I don't think that any good accountant or financial person would agree that they were diverted. Money comes into the consolidated revenue fund, and you decided to -- or had to -- pay out moneys that you did not expect to pay, which had previously not been budgeted for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. That fact, of course, affects all the financing that comes into this period.

Could the minister explain to the House exactly what was involved in the Vancouver Island gas pipeline settlement, how much money was involved, why it was paid in 1995-96 when it hadn't been budgeted, whether there is any amount to be paid in the 1996-97 fiscal year and whether any amount has been included in this interim supply bill?

Hon. A. Petter: I confess, being fairly new in the job, that my answer is going to be general in nature. But I'd be more than happy to either arrange a briefing or provide written material to the member in more detail, should he require it. Or we could have the opportunity to revisit this issue during estimates debate, at which time perhaps I can make sure that the information is closer to hand.

In general terms, though, I think the member is aware that a previous government -- previous to the last one -- entered into a multi-year commitment around the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, and the agreement was an attempt to both limit and extinguish the province's liability in a way that we felt was responsible in protecting the interests of the taxpayers. As to the precise numbers and details and how that was done, as I said, I'd be happy to provide that information to the member, if the member is prepared to indulge me in doing so either in written form or during the course of estimates debate.

[ Page 30 ]

F. Gingell: Yes, I would like a written briefing. I'd also like you to add to the questions the amount of the liability that was recorded in the accounts -- whether there was any gain or loss, or increase or decrease, from that amount in the settlement payment, how that was treated in the accounts of the province, and whether that appeared as a reduction of costs in '95-96, thereby reducing the deficit.

Hon. Chair, I'd like to move quickly, if I may, to the group under the minister's responsibility called the information technology services division, which used to be known, I thought, as B.C. Systems Corp. I was under the impression that B.C. Systems had been disbanded. But the explanation, the description, of the vote starts off with the words, "This vote provides for the delivery of information technology services, infrastructure and payments to British Columbia Systems Corporation, including...." and then lists a whole series of services that B.C. Systems Corporation provides.

B.C. Systems Corporation has been, to most members of the House, sort of on again, off again. It's around the corner and then it vanishes; it's down the drainhole and seems to come back through the taps when you turn them on. Could the minister please advise the House whether B.C. Systems Corporation is in fact dead and buried or whether it is still alive, and exactly what its status is?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that.... Well, my knowledge is certainly that the corporation is being wound up, and that the reference to the payments to the corporation is due to a payment that is entailed in that winding-up.

Some of the functions previously performed by the corporation have been transferred to government and to this vote, to continue to provide services to government -- which was, of course, part of the plan for the winding-up of the corporation.

F. Gingell: Moving on to the famous debt warehouse program, if you turn to page 227 of the estimates, there is some $64.4 million that is the interest on these funds while they sit in the warehouse. Deducted therefrom are recoveries in the amount of $64,399,990, to leave a net expenditure of $10. I appreciate that the first number is an estimate and that you wanted to leave $10 there so that it appears in the estimates -- and properly so -- and allows the opportunity for some debate. But could the minister advise the Legislature if that recovery number is basically correct, or will there be any cost incurred to the taxpayers?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that over time the experience has been that this does balance out. In some periods of time, with respect to some borrowings and reinvestments, there may be a discrepancy on one side -- a shortfall on one side or a surplus on the other. But over time the experience of the account has been that it does recover and cover the expenses in the way indicated in the estimates.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, a subject that we discuss in estimates every year -- and we will again this year -- is the ongoing development of the central accounting system. We may not get to Finance estimates for a couple of months -- or a few weeks anyway -- so I would appreciate a brief update from the minister. I see that in this estimate, in the funds provided under this interim supply bill, the amount of money that's going to be spent on the central accounting system has been increased by 50 percent from prior years. My memory tells me that we've been spending about $5 million a year for four or five years, and then it went up to $8 million. Now it's suddenly gone up to $12 million. Are we getting anywhere with CAS, Mr. Minister?

[3:30]

Hon. A. Petter: I'm happy to tell the member that this is one of the items which, no doubt, I'll be reviewing, because I understand that it was to be fully implemented by March 1997. It appears we will not be able to meet the implementation date, and therefore it is being reviewed even as we speak. That certainly will be in the next number of months.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, in last year's budget you remember the misty $250 million -- I say "misty" because with a little warm sun it vanished -- that was going to come from Bonneville under the Columbia downstream benefits. At the time that we were expecting receipt of these funds, the government passed a bill called the Columbia Basin Trust Act, and under that act were required to advance sums for economic development and social and environmental investments in the Columbia-Kootenay region.

As we all know, the money isn't going to come from Bonneville. Now, we may be taking the value back in electricity, but this isn't treated as an expenditure in the consolidated revenue fund; it's a financing transaction. I was wondering whether any amount was paid out under that act in the '95-96 fiscal year -- which would have been one of the causes for your failing to meet your debt management plan -- and whether you feel comfortable about paying out the first $45 million in '96-97 and not writing it off, treating it as an asset, treating it as a long-term value.

I see the Minister of Transportation has a great interest in this matter. We have been critical at times of the evaluation of some projects proposed under this plan on some reworking of and reinvestment in operating hydro-generating facilities on the Columbia River.

My first question is: was there any money paid out in '95-96 under the terms of the Columbia Basin Trust Act? The second question is: how comfortable do you feel treating this as a financing transaction? Or is there included in this budget somewhere else that I haven't found or put my fingers on yet an allowance for doubtful accounts or concessionary loans or amounts that you pay out that you don't anticipate getting back in the future?

Hon. A. Petter: I have to confess, hon. Chair, that there may have been a second question snuck in there while I was trying to get the answer to the first. But let me try to answer the first.

If the member turns to page 218 of the estimates book, I think he'll find Columbia Basin Trust. It is my belief, based on the advice of officials, that there was no payment last year. That seems to be confirmed here, but of course I'll check and make sure that's the case. It also indicates a disbursement for this coming year.

If there was another question smuggled in there, I apologize to the member and ask him to repeat it.

F. Gingell: This $45 million payment is not included as an expenditure in the consolidated revenue fund. It is not included in your budget surplus or deficit. It's what's called a financing transaction. I don't want in any way to, at this moment in time -- I may do in a few years -- suggest that the money is at risk, but it is an unusual disbursement, an 

[ Page 31 ]

unusual investment, for the provincial government. The provincial government, in my opinion, has laid down some rules about what it can be invested in. Some of us who had the opportunity to review the consultant's report on the economic viability of the particular projects would perhaps have suggested some different projects. I wonder whether there is any provision in these accounts for what we call concessionary loans -- loans that will not necessarily be fully recovered.

Hon. A. Petter: The answer to the member's question is that the disbursement is in the nature of an investment. Because in this case the investment is in an asset that has an ascertainable value that covers the amount, the determination by the Ministry of Finance is that there is no requirement for any contingency for the kind of risk the member refers to. In other cases, I am informed, where there is a risk associated, if such a disbursement were made, then there would be such a contingency. In this case, the asset seems well worth the price.

F. Gingell: My last remarks are not a question but a comment. I would like to suggest, hon. Chair, through you to the minister, that you keep your eye on it.

G. Plant: I have a couple of modest questions for the Minister of Finance, wearing the hat, as he now does, of Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations. In particular, my questions are directed to the expenditure budget for the Intergovernmental Relations secretariat, which appears on page 169 of the estimates book.

It appears that there are some modest increases in expenditures for this secretariat and that all of the expenses incurred by this secretariat are for salaries and benefits. My question to the minister is whether the appointment of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast as a special adviser on constitutional affairs will result in any change to salaries and benefits in the secretariat.

Hon. A. Petter: It's not only a modest question but a cheeky one. No, it will not result in any change to the vote indicated for salaries and benefits.

G. Plant: I'll see if I can continue the tradition of being modest but cheeky -- not a bad start.

Does the minister know whether the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast will in fact become a member of this secretariat?

Hon. A. Petter: If I were to be cheeky, hon. Chair, I would say yes and sit down. The answer is yes, I know, and no, he will not become a member.

G. Plant: My last question in relation to this issue is this, if the minister knows. I ask him whether there will be any staff appointments or changes made in support of the appointment of the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast as his special adviser on constitutional affairs.

Hon. A. Petter: At this stage, the relationship referred to by the member is one of an adviser to the Premier and does not carry with it any benefits or staffing or anything of the kind. If during the course of events it becomes desirable to revisit that issue, then that can of course be done. And if the member seeks some resources to provide him with information that would assist him in performing that role, then I guess we'll have to make that decision at the time.

D. Symons: I'd just like to ask the minister, regarding the comment during the budget presentation that there was to be.... One cent per litre from the gasoline tax apparently is going to shift over to the TFA, and that will leave a bit of a hole in the revenue side for general revenues. Is that a suggestion that's coming, or is that definite? In that case, has that money already been used in these estimates that we're looking at today, in anticipation of that change being made?

Hon. A. Petter: This matter is provided for in the legislation that I tabled yesterday, as well as in the budget. The original expectation or plan was to transfer that funding effective April 1. As it appears now, happily that will not be necessary. In the legislation, the member will note that there is provision for that to be proclaimed only when it does become necessary. So happily there is some upside news here that in fact the consolidated revenue account will continue to benefit from that portion of the gasoline tax for a few additional months.

F. Gingell: That was a fascinating response. Are we to understand that the numbers prepared in this estimates book for revenues from fuel taxes will now be increased because the 1 cent per litre which was being given, allocated or transferred to the Transportation Financing Authority will not happen on April 1, 1997?

Hon. A. Petter: The revenue number is a projection. I'm saying that happily it appears that the transfer will not have to take place on April 1 and may not have to take place for a few months thereafter.

F. Gingell: So basically that means the estimate isn't really worth the paper it's written on.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's jocularity. The fact is that in the period between the actual printing and introduction of the budget, there are changes of a minor nature that take place. Some of them are sometimes bad news. There are some delays in photo radar, for example, which suggest some downward pressure. Here we have another minor change that suggests some upward pressure. We would never get a budget in front of this House if we had to go back every time there was a minor change of this kind between the printing and the delivery of the budget.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if you could explain to me, with regard to the compensation for mineral tenures and claims that are coming against the government in the near future -- there could be as many as a thousand coming forward, class actions and all the rest of it -- where in the books we could find any allowance for these potential moneys?

Hon. A. Petter: I can happily inform the member that it is not within the Ministry of Finance estimates.

[3:45]

D. Jarvis: With regard to the motor vehicle branch, the Premier had suggested that it was going to be transferred to ICBC, and I see that now it's still with Transportation and Highways. But ICBC now falls into your purview, I understand, so I was wondering if you have any plans to move that motor vehicle branch into ICBC, and what type of plans you have for it.

[ Page 32 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the plan is.... It's still....

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: No, it's still under.... It's still intact and that transfer is in the process of taking place. In fact, I believe there may well be some legislation before this House dealing with that matter.

D. Jarvis: Would you not provide any funds in the budget for the movement of that department into another department?

Hon. A. Petter: The residual responsibility for motor vehicles exists within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. ICBC is not an entity of the Ministry of Finance or of government, and therefore the costs would not show up in the Ministry of Finance estimates.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour referred to the issue of claims for mineral tenures. The minister suggested that it was not an item that would be within his ministry. The only place I can think of within the budget that this could be paid from is the provision for contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, vote 58 -- minister responsible, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. So, from that, do I take it that if payments were to be required in this coming year as compensation for people losing mineral tenure rights, it would be charged to some account other than vote 58? If so, perhaps your staff could advise you which vote it would be charged against.

Hon. A. Petter: I think there is other provision where actions are brought against government and result in settlement or in a judgment. I believe that under the Crown Proceeding Act there is provision, and then the estimates provision for payment to resolve those kinds of civil disagreements.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate that the motor vehicle branch is now under Transportation and Highways, so you can't answer that question. But as the minister responsible for ICBC, and in view of the motor vehicle branch having about $42 million in expenditures, is ICBC preparing for that amount of money?

Hon. A. Petter: Based on my recent vintage in this multifaceted portfolio, the hon. member may wish to take this matter up with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. But as I understand it, there is a transfer of some function to ICBC, the intention of which is that it be paid out of revenues generated from the motor vehicle branch, and then the residual function -- the residual cost -- remains with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I'd be happy, during debate of my estimates or in another forum, to provide the member with more detailed information on that matter than I'm able to at this moment.

F. Gingell: I promise this will be the last question. I went to vote 18. Yes, there's the Crown Proceeding Act -- one and a half million dollars, or $1,740,000. Not very much. I would suggest to you that it's another account that you, being responsible for the total finances of government, may well like to revisit -- their anticipated expenditures.

On schedule 2 -- Ministry of Agriculture.

J. van Dongen: I'm certainly pleased to participate in this debate today. I want to welcome and congratulate the member for Nelson-Creston, the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I want to make just a few general comments first, and then I'll have a few questions with respect to the Agriculture budget itself. My first comment is with respect to the revenue projections in the budget of $20.6 billion. A lot of the experts and my own experience in talking to people suggest that those revenue projections may be tough to meet. I raise that as a matter that is relevant to the discussion of agriculture. I think there are some opportunities in the industry, particularly on the fishing side. We also need, in terms of our operations in the ministry, to work to maintain existing commodities that have proven their success in the past.

I look at a budget comment that we're cutting spending in two-thirds of government ministries. I'm concerned about that a little bit in that 75 percent of the budget is in the three large ministries, which is where the greatest demands are. Agriculture, Fisheries and Food represents the second-smallest ministry. Its budget of roughly $66 million is less than 1 percent of the largest ministry, Health, at $6.9 billion. That's a relatively small budget to support an industry which, when you include both the farming and processing sectors, is a multimillion-dollar industry. So I think it's particulary important for the minister and his ministry to lever those dollars effectively and support that industry.

I also want to note what I think is something of a disparity that comes to mind when I look at the budget. There is a disparity between the general economic conditions faced by farmers and fishermen, and the processing sector.... All of the players within the responsibility of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are facing difficult market conditions, the whims of nature in terms of weather, the whims of government policy and ongoing costs driven by government decision-making. I compare this situation to the situation faced by a lot of government employees. We've seen, in the last three months, the conclusion of some significant collective agreements: the health care collective agreement, the teachers' collective agreement and, one that is really irritating, the Workers' Compensation collective agreement, some months earlier. These agreements are all characterized by stable or increasing incomes and very strong job-security provisions. Those conditions simply don't exist in any of the areas of responsibility in the ministry.

Now I'd like to turn to the estimates themselves. I'm not going to have a lot of questions in terms of the numbers, but I want to ask the minister about the salaries and benefits budget in the minister's office, which increases by about $68,000 -- a 21 percent increase from last year. Maybe he could comment on that and explain that increase.

Hon. C. Evans: Maybe I could just start by introducing these folks who came here with me. This is Lorne Seitz, the deputy minister; Karen Wilk of the financial branch; and Michelle Poirier, who is a senior policy analyst and who hopes that somebody will come back in to ask those trust questions again.

In answer to your question about the increase in my office budget, I'm real pleased about that increase, because it means there's now a person to assist us on the fisheries side. The hon. member was right on when he said that this is a 

[ Page 33 ]

relatively small ministry and is sometimes a little short on assets to stand up for the people. In this case, this ministry's fisheries side is being engaged in incredibly important work involving the well-being of the people of B.C., and also in negotiations and conversations with other ministries internal to government, coastal communities, people who work in the industry, Ottawa and a couple of American states. I'm sure the member will agree with me that it's high time the minister's office was staffed up by at least one person. In this case, the number you suggest is a one-person increase in order to deal with this issue.

With all due respect, I'd like to say that I wouldn't be embarrassed to stand here next year and say that we have been staffed up by another person, because the workload related to the issues and crises on the fishing side of the ministry need the attention of all members, as well as my own.

J. van Dongen: How does the minister differentiate between the decision to hire an additional staff member within the ministry -- within the public service -- and hiring an additional staff member within the minister's office?

Hon. C. Evans: I think I understand the question. The hon. member wants to know why you wouldn't hire a civil servant if the ministry's workload gets bigger instead of somebody in the minister's office. Well, the job of the minister and the workload in the minister's office is on a climb -- it is being ramped up -- and it is in the minister's office that those resources are required. I'd like to invite everybody to come and join me there. Hang out for a little while, look and see how much work these people are doing, and then come back down and ask the question.

J. van Dongen: I'd now like to turn to page 63 in the estimates, where we set out the expenditures of the Fisheries, Food and Agriculture sections of the ministry. I want to focus in particular on the operating costs of each of those sections versus grants and contributions. I've seen significant increases in operating costs and declines in the area of grants and contributions. I'll have a few questions about that, starting with the operating costs. What's the nature of the increases in those costs?

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, maybe you could help me a little bit to obtain some clarification. Does the hon. member want to know about the operating increase in a global sense, or is he asking specific questions broken down into programs of the ministry?

[4:00]

J. van Dongen: I'm asking the question both generally and particularly. I'm wondering what types of costs are included there and where the increases were. I'm not trying to go on a witch-hunt here; I'm just trying to get some sense of the types of costs and why the increases.

Hon. C. Evans: I think the gist is that you've got it wrong. It's gone down by about half a million dollars -- from about $22,800,000 to $22,300,000. With all due respect, a specific breakdown, program by program, might be more appropriate during the estimates debate than here.

J. van Dongen: I'd like to point out that I'm looking at page 63 under vote 12. The reason I'm asking the question, particularly under the section dealing with grants and contributions.... Does that include programs like Partners in Progress and some of the incentive programs that have been applied, say, in the fishing industry?

Hon. C. Evans: The contributions include the Green Plan, Partners in Progress, the revenue protection plan, crop insurance and NISA.

J. van Dongen: In terms of Partners in Progress, as I recall, there have been some significant dollars committed to projects in the fishing industry. Could the minister comment on what the allocation is for this year for Partners in Progress? Last year I think it was about $2.5 million. Is it budgeted at about an equal amount this year?

Hon. C. Evans: It was budgeted last year at $1.9 million, and this year it's down to $1.725 million.

J. van Dongen: I'm wondering, because of the really serious transition taking place in the commercial fishing industry. I note that the minister's predecessor appointed the job protection commissioner to review the impact of the reduced salmon harvests on small communities. Is there any intent or any consideration within the ministry budget, whether it's in Partners in Progress or any other part of this budget, to provide for some form of transition assistance within the commercial fishing sector?

Hon. C. Evans: Transition funding is unlikely to come from the ministry budget. Transition funding usually comes with the job protection commissioner serving as a sort of search committee and looking for the appropriate funding source when an industry is in transition. That's the way it was in Cassiar; that's the way it was in the forest industry. Transition funding didn't come from the Ministry of Forests, and so it is in this ministry.

J. van Dongen: I want to question the minister a little bit on support, in terms of the operations of the ministry, particularly for the sport fishing industry and aquaculture. Starting with the sport fishing industry, is there any intent within this budget, particularly the operational side of the ministry, to be more proactive in terms of supporting the sport fishing industry?

Hon. C. Evans: There is significant funding going into the sport fishing industry right now through Tourism B.C., but the role of this ministry and this budget tends to be in the area of advocacy and policy generation, and not direct support for the industry.

J. van Dongen: I want to turn to aquaculture, and the potential in that industry is equally as great as in the sport fishing industry. I should say that I think both these areas of the Fisheries portfolio have been neglected by this government. We've certainly seen an emphasis on the concerns of the commercial fishing sector, and I think those are legitimate. But I want to highlight the sport fishing industry and aquaculture because of their increased revenue potential, their potential for more jobs within the province of British Columbia, and their potential for greater economic activity and, in fact, a further contribution to the revenue of the province -- for which, as we noted earlier, the projections seem optimistic.

Speaking to aquaculture, we've got a $165 million industry this past year compared to $70 million in the commercial 

[ Page 34 ]

sector. I want to ask the minister again what kinds of activities he anticipates in the next few months covered by this interim supply bill, particularly with reference to the environmental assessment review that was announced quite a number of months ago, but is hopefully in process right now. I wonder if the minister can comment on the status of that and on what level of activity his ministry will have in that process.

Hon. C. Evans: The environmental assessment review that the member speaks of is to begin within days. I believe the target is July 1. My ministry is neither paying for it nor sitting on it, but it has been, with the Ministry of Environment, a participant in establishing the terms of reference and the time frame, and will work with the process all the way through.

I think there was a question within the question about the status of the industry during the time of the review. To clarify that, this ministry will not be accepting new applications for new fish farms during the review. However, staff will remain actively engaged, both with the review and with the fish-farming industry, in their normal function of assisting in expansion, regulation, marketing and the like.

J. van Dongen: The last item I want to focus on a bit is on page 10 of the budget speech. This is the announcement by the government that it's going to do a comprehensive review of all government programs. I wonder if the minister could comment on what form that review might take within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Hon. C. Evans: Well, it's a global question that the hon. member is asking, and one which I'd love to respond to with a little bit of humour or even -- dare I say it? -- politics. But in the interest of the decorum in the room, let me simply suggest that you might more appropriately ask that question of the Minister of Finance, since it's his review.

J. van Dongen: I'll accept that answer from the minister. I suppose that's fair at this point. I would simply like to ask the minister if he will be proactive in involving himself not only in the review in his own ministry but more so in the review of programs within other ministries that affect agriculture. I note that he has a new deputy from other parts of government, and I think that will serve him well in terms of being proactive. There's a real need for agriculture -- and it's a critical need even in the short term -- to have better service, better support, and to reduce costs of operation to farmers and the processing sector, as a result of impacts out of other ministries. I wonder if the minister could just comment on whether or not the Ministry of Agriculture might consider using some of its resources to be proactive in the review in other ministries.

Hon. C. Evans: I think the questions are excellent, the member's vision is excellent and, in the interest of.... And the answer, of course, is yes. But let me enlarge it to suggest that in the interest of people getting along, how about if the hon. member and I engage in that process together for however long you've got that job and I've got this one.

J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to accept the minister's offer, and that concludes my questions. I'll certainly take him up on that, and we'll be very active on it.

R. Thorpe: Mr. Minister, with reference to vote 15, could the minister provide the details of the increased funding for the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority?

Hon. C. Evans: I think this is a great question, because it gives me an opportunity to celebrate farmers and the kind of bookkeepers and managers that they are. The people who started the OVTFA -- including the gentleman on my left and a bunch of people who live in the hon. member's area and mine -- set that institution up differently than most of government. They decided that when they had a budget, instead of deciding to rush right out in January and spend everything excess in their budget so that they got rid of it by April 1, they would carry over surpluses from year to year in order to save the government money. Last year they decided to draw down that surplus so as to require less money from government. They did that, and then this year we had to fund them at their normal level.

[4:15]

So the question isn't whether this year is anomalous in terms of increase; the question is a bit of a celebration of their efforts last year to use their own funds -- their own historical surplus -- to manage day-to-day operations.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister assure this House that the prudent financial management which has resulted in these funds is going to be truly directed to the necessary replant programs, not to unnecessary bureaucracy and increased overhead costs?

Hon. C. Evans: You bet.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please advise us as to where the funding for the quality grape and wine program is budgeted, and as to the budgeted amount for 1996-97?

Hon. C. Evans: The quality wine and grape development program is under the Fisheries and Food section, and it constitutes $500,000.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please advise us as to where the program funding for Buy B.C. is budgeted, and also provide us with the comparable numbers for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 years?

Hon. C. Evans: It's also under the Fisheries and Food section. The question also included the comparison of this year to last year, and I'm actually going to give you three numbers. Last year the budget was for $2.015 million, but the actual expenditures came to only $1.897 million. This year the budget is set for $1.814 million.

The Chair: Is there further discussion on the agricultural warrants?

D. Jarvis: I'd just like to ask a question about fisheries. Would the minister have the information as to how many salmon and/or fish -- let's make it fish in itself -- are spawning in the rivers and creeks in my riding of North Vancouver-Seymour?

An Hon. Member: Sit down.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? I recognize again the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Madam Chair. I assume the minister didn't know the information. But would the minister be free to supply me with that information in the near future?

[ Page 35 ]

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister, seeing that he still doesn't know the answer and doesn't know whether he can get me the information or not, could inquire through the Environment ministry. It seems to be putting money into the fisheries on the North Shore by supplying them money for fish habitat. If he could answer me as to what amount of money is being spent on the creeks and rivers in my riding which have fish habitat in them, or is expected to be spent in the near future....

Hon. C. Evans: I heard a question. It referred to the Ministry of Environment, I'm pretty sure. I suggest that the hon. member ask that question of the Minister of Environment when he gets a chance.

D. Symons: On the same topic, Richmond is very important and has a history of being involved with the fishing industry, and that is certainly being curtailed with the drop-off in the salmon numbers, so the question from the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was very important to our area as well. So I'm just wondering -- you have a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries -- if the minister might explain just a little of the nature of what the Fisheries aspect is. Or do you simply leave it up to DFO?

Hon. C. Evans: It's a good question and a confusing one, I'm sure, for many people. The federal government maintains responsibility for fish. It's a constitutional situation which limits our ability to manage our affairs here in British Columbia, and one which you might be aware of and which we could maybe work together to change. It maybe limits our ability, in some respects, to manage and improve our destiny.

The relationship between this ministry, the federal government and the Ministry of Environment is made more difficult by that constitutional situation. It pretty much looks like this. The federal government is responsible for management of fish stocks and allocation. The Ministry of Environment is responsible in British Columbia for habitat, in the main -- freshwater habitat. Also, as you know, under the Forest Practices Code the Ministry of Forests has some responsibility for habitat protection as well.

My ministry is responsible for policy, for the regulation of fish farming and all sorts of aquacultural activities. It's responsible for assistance to the industry itself in marketing and in organizational structure. It is responsible as the advocate for the industry internally to government, and at this moment is working as advocate for resolution of the crisis in terms of the federal government. We are also responsible for the licensing of buying stations and processing plants.

L. Reid: In my question to the minister I simply ask the minister perhaps to keep myself, as the member for Richmond East, apprised of the status of the mid-island dike for Richmond. As you know, it's absolutely imperative that cranberry farmers in that area have access to improved drainage. I know they've been in discussions with your ministry in the past, and again we are waiting on an answer. If the minister is able to update us today, I would be delighted.

Hon. C. Evans: I don't, of course, have the information here -- or the folks who are looking after the dike. But I would like to extend to you the same offer I extended to the hon. member down at the other end about working together. I'd be pleased to help you get the information you require and to do so on an ongoing basis.

L. Reid: I, too, will accept the minister's offer, and I look forward to resolving the issues for cranberry farmers in my riding. Thank you.

The Chair: Further discussion on agriculture? Then, according to our list, we are to move on to Women's Equality, and we need to have a minister here who can handle Women's Equality issues. They don't appear to be here, so we'll pause for a moment. I believe the minister is arriving as we speak.

On schedule 2 -- Ministry of Women's Equality.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill 5, Supply Act (No. 1), 1996. I would first like to congratulate the Minister of Women's Equality for her appointment to that ministry in February of this year. I look forward, as the opposition critic for Women's Equality, to carrying on these debates, and I look forward to the continued estimates debate for her ministry.

The current mandate of the Ministry of Women's Equality is to make a positive difference in the lives of women and to deliver programs which expand choices and promote that well-being. The key issues in Women's Equality are violence against women, economic equity and child care.

The majority of the ministry funding is in the programs divisions, in the funding management and administration of the three branches of child care, Stopping the Violence and community programs. These are the three issues that I hope the minister is today going to talk to us about -- the money that has been spent in those special warrants of $64.5 million.

The official opposition is very interested in the results of government spending -- in whether or not the money spent on women's programs is in fact making a positive difference in the lives of women. And today I would like to take the opportunity to begin by asking the minister to lay out where that $64 million was spent -- what programs and whatever other information is relevant to the spending from April 1, 1996 to April 30, 1996.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to thank the ministry's opposition critic for her words on the ministry.

I'd like to begin by introducing my staff who are here with me. I have on this side Valerie Mitchell, the acting deputy minister and assistant deputy minister of policy, planning and evaluation. Behind me I have Judy Cavanagh, who is the assistant deputy minister of programs in the ministry, and beside me is Lesley Ewing, executive director of management services, including finance.

To go directly to your question: we in this ministry are dedicated to investing in things that make a difference in the lives of women. We've invested in affordable, quality child care; worked toward the elimination of violence against women; and improved skills development, job opportunities and economic security for women.

As for the amount that you questioned, I will give you specifics: $100 million has been spent in the day care subsidy; $2.5 million in special needs day care; $2 million in transition houses; $2 million in child care support programs; $6.5 million in the wage subsidy supplement initiative; and $2 million in operations. That is....

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: Sorry, did I not say $10 million to begin with? My first comment should have been $10 million in day care subsidies, for a total of $25 million.

[4:30]

[ Page 36 ]

The next amount is $39.5 million. Of that, $20 million is in the day care subsidy program; $5 million, again, in the special needs day care; $4 million in the transition houses; $6.5 million in the wage supplement initiative; and $4 million in operations, for a total of $39.5 million.

L. Stephens: Minister, could you provide us with the details of the $10 million in the day care subsidy: whether in fact that subsidy went to the non-profits and the for-profit day care centres, and what amounts?

Hon. S. Hammell: The $10 million that I mentioned in the day care subsidy goes to the parents, and it is approximately $1 million or one month of spending.

L. Stephens: Of those parents who received the subsidy, what is the percentage of parents whose children were in for-profit day care and in not-for-profit day care?

Hon. S. Hammell: The program is not broken down into profit and non-profit. It's broken down into the setting, and there are a variety of different settings, such as family day care, group day care, in-home care, out-of-school care and preschool.

L. Stephens: It was my understanding that the ministry has classified the day cares around the non-profits as well. When the wage supplement was initiated, at the beginning the wage supplement was available only to day care workers who were employed in non-profit centres. As a result of a significant amount of lobbying on behalf of the for-profit day care owners, the same subsidy was available to their workers. I'd simply like to know the percentage of workers in non-profit centres who received the supplement and the percentage of workers in for-profit centres who received the supplement.

Hon. S. Hammell: I think the problem lies in the definition of some of the terms. The subsidy goes to parents who are subsidized for their day care. The wage supplement goes to the day care worker who is in either the non-profit or the profit, so my staff will just take a minute to pull together that information.

Perhaps the member would like to continue with another question while the staff finds that information.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

L. Stephens: I'd just like to ask a question about the transition houses and the $2 million from April 1 to April 30. I believe there's $6 million in total. Could the minister tell us what that money was spent on? Was it building new centres or was it wages for workers there? What was that money spent on? If I caught the minister's numbers correctly, it looks like it was $6 million in total.

Hon. S. Hammell: The $2 million was for operating grants in April, and the $4 million was for operating grants in May and June.

L. Stephens: So these were just simply operational; nothing here for capital at all. Thank you.

The $2 million in support that the minister spoke of -- could the minister define where that money was spent and for what purpose?

Hon. S. Hammell: The $2 million is for the child care support program, which is the operating money which provides information and referral for parents looking for child care.

L. Stephens: The special needs of $2.5 million and $5 million are the numbers that I have here. Were those operating grants as well, or were there any special needs facilities that were provided money? I'm thinking particularly of one in Langley that we've been waiting very patiently for approval for that funding for a couple of years now -- the Kiwanis developmental preschool. Have there been any decisions made and allocations made around that one in particular, but also any of the other special needs facilities? And does this $2.5 million, at one point, and the $5 million include any new facilities?

Hon. S. Hammell: Both of the figures are for operating. We do not have capital in these figures.

L. Stephens: It appears that all of the money that is here -- the $64.5 million -- is strictly operating money, and those are grants to programs. Is that correct, minister?

Hon. S. Hammell: Largely, except there is the ongoing operation of the ministry as well.

L. Stephens: Could the minister give us the numbers for the ministry operations? Have there been increases or decreases in personnel? If so, what were the numbers?

Hon. S. Hammell: There were the two figures: $2 million for operations for the month of April, and $4 million for the months of May and June. There have been no increases. They are just the operating funds being brought forward.

L. Stephens: I have no further questions.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to go back to the question you asked. In 1995-96, a total of 1,300 child care facilities applied for the wage supplement funding. These facilities equate to 82 percent of licensed group child care in the province. In 1995-96, the Ministry of Women's Equality distributed $8.17 million through the wage supplement initiative to non-profit and private licensed group child care facilities. If you want further breakdown, we'd be happy to provide that offstage.

L. Stephens: Thank you, minister. I will make a request to your office for those numbers.

The Chair: It now appears we have finished the discussions on this estimate, and we'll be moving to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries.

Hon. D. Miller: I've got some staff out in the hallway, and we'll get them in here. Perhaps my hon. critic might want to proceed. Am I correct in assuming he wanted to start on Victoria Line? Is that...?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Go ahead -- whatever.

On schedule 2 -- B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: I'm not quite sure, looking at our list here, exactly the order in which things are being done. I gather we 

[ Page 37 ]

are coming back to these ministries at a later time as well, but right now we're simply doing some of the responsibilities. Is that the minister's understanding also?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I'm completely in the hands of the opposition, as it has always been.

D. Symons: We'll start, then, with B.C. Ferries, since I see you have the CEO of B.C. Ferries with you there now. I'm just noting that the estimated contribution this year for B.C. Ferries is approximately 50 percent of what it was last year. I know B.C. Ferries is -- at the urging of the government and, I suspect, as the desire of the corporate organization -- moving toward not having subsidies and becoming self-sufficient. In light of the fact that B.C. Ferries seems to have had a bit less revenue than they anticipated for the last year, I'm wondering if this would be the time that we end up still reducing the subsidy. If that subsidy is not there in the amount it was last year, are we somehow going to have to increase fares or reduce service in order that B.C. Ferries meets its economic requirements?

[4:45]

Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct. In fact, over the last number of years the contribution from government has declined roughly by half. The objective is, obviously, to have that be self-sustaining.

As to the question of fares, that is something we'll deal with in the future.

D. Symons: On that matter, B.C. Ferries was anticipating a 2 percent growth in ferry revenues last year. It turned out to be somewhat less than 1 percent, particularly with cargo-carrying vehicles, the large trucking ones, which were considerably less.

One thing I note is that B.C. Ferries has embarked upon a very ambitious $800 million ferry improvement program, including three fast ferries -- over $250 million for those. If the revenues aren't there.... The reason I was given when I was asking questions in the estimates last year was that B.C. Ferries, through growth and all of the other things -- growth in the economy, growth in vehicle ridership and all the rest -- wouldn't have vast increases in ferry rates other than normal cost-of-living increases. Well, it would seem right now that the growth that B.C. Ferries was predicting in its first year of this ambitious program is not what was expected. Can we then expect quite large increases in fares if that trend is to continue?

Hon. D. Miller: Not necessarily. With respect to the issue of fares, clearly the member appreciates that it is something that's in the future. I just want to say that generally the member is correct: the revenues were off forecast. There are some reasons attributed. I presume the member saw the release of the 21st. Generally speaking, vehicle traffic is down and passengers are up. Vehicles produce about 75 percent of the revenue. Surely the member would appreciate that over the long term there will be continued expansion. The population of this province is growing and will continue to grow.

I think there are some broader issues with respect to the corporation that need to be looked at and addressed, but I'm fairly confident that we're on the right track with respect to providing the kind of service.... In fact, B.C. Ferries is acknowledged as one of the world leaders in terms of providing ferry service.

D. Symons: Well, I can certainly attest to the speed at which they load ships and get them away from a dock in comparison to other jurisdictions. I've been on ferries, particularly in Europe. It seems that they manage to take their time, and they don't seem to adhere to any schedule at all. So that part is true.

I'm wondering now if B.C. Ferries has entered into this ambitious program of $800 million in spending, as I mentioned earlier. Yet the Minister of Finance indicated that we're going to be putting a freeze on all projects that haven't been basically approved yet or had contracts let. Does that apply also to this $800 million project for B.C. Ferries if the contract has not been let for the fast ferries themselves? I do believe you are building the building to build them in. Will that also be covered under this freeze?

Hon. D. Miller: No, the ferry that is now or will shortly be under construction is proceeding, and the shed is proceeding as well. All other issues are captured by the capital review that we're undertaking. I think it's incorrect to.... I don't think we can draw any conclusions at this point. Obviously, that's the point of the review.

D. Symons: In the event that the ferry construction goes ahead, which I assume it will, then all the debt associated with the purchase of that -- the building of Duke Point and the other ferries that are also being upgraded or replaced -- accrues to B.C. Ferries. There's no capital donation, shall we say, from the general revenue to pay for that, or to offset the costs of the borrowing taking place to build those ferries.

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct, Mr. Chair. I had occasion to be at Duke Point, prior to the election being called, to participate in a groundbreaking ceremony. Certainly that's an ambitious project -- it's about $100 million for the terminal and the road connectors. I was quite struck.... In fact, I talked to the mayor of Nanaimo -- I believe the person was a Liberal candidate in that constituency -- who I thought really had the luxury of being a severe critic of the government in terms of capital spending and the level of spending. And yet, when I asked the mayor at that ceremony: "Do you think we're doing the right thing, spending $100 million right here in your backyard?" "Oh, this is good for Nanaimo." And I said: "No, no, you shouldn't have the luxury of saying that it's okay to spend $100 million here in your backyard and feel free to be the critic of every other expenditure of government, whether it's capital or operating." Now, I must confess that the mayor didn't respond. He sort of retreated into his shell when I posed that very simple question to him, and maybe that's why he's not here today. I don't know.

D. Symons: Well, I would hope that the last comment by the minister isn't the correct reason, because it would seem that the government was making all sorts of promises before the election, and now they're making other statements after the election. So if what the minister was saying was true, then I guess he wouldn't be here, either. That's obviously not the case.

But anyway, I note that the figure budgeted as a contribution to B.C. Ferries for this year is roughly $4.5 million, down from the $9.35 million in the previous fiscal year. About five-twelfths of our fiscal year has now passed by. That leaves about a $2 million figure, which, theoretically, has gone to B.C. Ferries. Is it paid in that way? Or is it paid in a lump sum at the end of the year, when B.C. Ferries knows what its costs have been and how they've managed to balance their books for the year? Do they get it bit by bit or month by month? How is that money paid?

[ Page 38 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Quarterly, Mr. Chair.

D. Symons: I don't have a great number of questions on B.C. Ferries. I'd like to save a lot of the ammunition, so to speak, for the estimates. I simply ask, then: can you give me a rough idea how much of this $4.7 million has gone toward the fast ferries and other projects? I'm curious how much has gone toward capital expenses of B.C. Ferries, rather than operating expenses.

Hon. D. Miller: It's all gone to operating, Mr. Chair.

D. Symons: Now, this is where the jurisdiction comes in, because the next questions I want to ask relate to Victoria Line. And that comes somewhere else, but still....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: There is no appropriation in the budget, but I want to say that I'd be happy to try to answer questions the member might have with respect to Victoria Line. But from a technical point of view, there is no appropriation in the budget.

The Chair: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on a point of order.

G. Wilson: I'll take direction from the Chair. Do you wish to canvass the Liberal opposition on all of the points agreed to and then come back to other members who may wish to canvass issues on B.C. Ferries, or do you wish to deal with B.C. Ferries and complete them first?

The Chair: We'll go to all members with regard to each section. So if you have questions on B.C. Ferries, you could proceed.

G. Wilson: I'm curious to know how much of this particular allocation has gone into the creation of a wholly owned subsidiary, this new corporation Catamaran Ferries International. What is the authority that essentially the management staff of that corporation has? How is it funded, and how has it been funded in its initial stages? What was the thinking of the government in terms of the establishment of a wholly owned new Crown corporation which has received absolutely no debate in this Legislative Assembly at all?

Hon. D. Miller: The organization is a wholly owned subsidiary of B.C. Ferries, and its purpose is really the construction and marketing of the fast ferries.

G. Wilson: Coming back to the first part of my question, could the minister tell us what proportion of funding, in terms of this particular allocation we're debating now, has gone into the establishment, creation and staffing of that corporation -- and, possibly, how the corporation is staffed vis-�-vis the overall assignment of moneys to B.C. Ferries with respect to personnel?

Hon. D. Miller: None. It's capitalized in the fast ferry program, so it's none of this money. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, this allocation is operations only.

G. Wilson: So am I led to believe, then, that there are no personnel who were formerly with B.C. Ferries who have given up that salaried post and have now been hired back on a consultancy at significantly increased costs to the corporation, as they are now consultants to this new corporation where they were previously on salary with the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there are some B.C. Ferries employees who were seconded to the organization at their same salary level, and that there are also consultants employed for the duration of the contract, but it's time-specific.

G. Wilson: So are the employees who have been seconded, then, paid for out of the capital that has been set aside for the project and therefore no longer on B.C. Ferry's books, or are they still paid for through the B.C. Ferry Corporation but in fact their time is seconded to the new corporation?

Hon. D. Miller: They're paid by B.C. Ferries, and the money is collected back.

G. Wilson: I just want some clarification. When you say that the money is collected back, back from whom? If it's a straight secondment, is the money that's paid in simply a part of the overall budget of B.C. Ferries, or is it considered as part of the budget of this new Crown corporation? And will we get a chance to look at the overall budget for this new wholly owned subsidiary?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we will bring that forward, but normally, as the member would appreciate, in a secondment arrangement.... I suppose you can do it in a variety of ways, but in this case, as I indicated, I'm advised that employees are paid by B.C. Ferries, and B.C. Ferries is made whole by payments back from Catamaran Ferries International.

G. Wilson: I just had one other set under this particular issue that we're debating here, and I'll pick up the balance in the larger estimate. It has to do with the purchase of aluminum in the capital plan. Can the minister tell us whether or not there was a problem with the gauge and whether or not, as a result of the aluminum purchase, the gauge was found to have been either inadequate or insufficient? Was there a cost incurred with respect to that particular acquisition?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I'm advised that the aluminum was purchased below market price because we bought it in advance, and that it fully complies with international specifications. There have been new specifications introduced since the purchase, but we are not obliged to do anything. The aluminum still meets those new specifications.

[5:00]

G. Wilson: Could the minister advise whether or not the aluminum was purchased from Canadian aluminum producers -- in fact, British Columbian aluminum producers? Or was it purchased offshore? If so, in terms of the actual cost of the aluminum, what was the cost saving with respect to the gauge purchased, as opposed to that which is now, I understand, accepted by international standards?

Hon. D. Miller: The material was purchased through a Canadian distributor from one of three worldwide companies. Apparently it's marine grade, and that grade was not available in Canada. As to the detailed question with respect to the financial question you asked, I don't know that we are capable 

[ Page 39 ]

of giving that answer. I'll certainly endeavour to get that to you, either ahead of the full estimates or as soon as we possibly can.

D. Symons: I'd just like to continue on that chain of thought. I've noticed two or three things the government seems to do, and maybe the minister has alluded to one inadvertently here. That is, when they built the West Coast Express, they bought the engines, the locomotives -- they made lease arrangements with Bombardier for the rail cars -- while they were still negotiating with CPR for the use of the trackage. It would seem to me that if you were a good business person, you would arrange the trackage first and then get those capital costs after. Because this put CPR, I think, in a rather strong negotiating position -- when they know you're on the hook for all those purchases and now you're trying to negotiate the use of their track bed. It would seem that you've done somewhat the same thing with the B.C. fast ferries here, in the sense that you bought the aluminum and everything else in advance of having a commitment for building the ships -- because you haven't got a contract laid for those ships yet.

Hon. D. Miller: I submit that governments are probably far more conservative than most businesses and that that kind of entrepreneurship, which I happen to really like.... If you want to see some people who take risks in the private sector with literally billions of dollars, it would make your hair stand on end. If government started to act the same way, I'm sure the members opposite would be the fiercest critics.

I think there's a balance, quite frankly. I think government can act in a somewhat entrepreneurial way. Certainly, looking in terms of a project of this nature, securing aluminum at below market prices -- engines, those kinds of things.... When you do that, I suppose you do run the risk that if it doesn't work out perfectly, you're going to stand up here and the opposition are going to say: "Why the heck did you do that? You shouldn't have done that." If it works out, I guess you can stand up and say: "Well, we were pretty smart."

I don't know what the numbers are on the agreement with CP on the trackage; we don't have anybody here from that branch. Maybe it was pretty good; I don't know. I think you have to examine everything. Sometimes in hindsight.... I'd be the first to admit that in hindsight, throughout my life, I've looked back and said: "I wish I hadn't done that." But, you know, I think it was on balance. I appreciate that the....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't want to get into that here, hon. members. I don't want to start reciting some of the errors I may have made in my life -- not many.

I am also well aware that there appear to be some conflicting views within the Liberal caucus with respect to the fast ferries. I know that my hon. friend, the critic, seems to be taking one particular line; I know that the Finance critic seems to go off on another line. It's unclear at this point what the real position is. I think I read something during the election campaign that suggested -- in fact, said unequivocally -- that should the Liberals be elected, they would scrap the fast ferries. I know that was a terrible blow to the people working on that project. I'm sure it was probably a terrible blow to the mayor of Nanaimo, who clearly thought it was a good move, a prudent move, to have a new system of delivering traffic to that terribly congested area in order to relieve the city of Nanaimo of some of that pressure. Certainly I think that was received with some favour.

So it was pretty clear that even within the Liberal caucus, there occasionally are discrepancies in positions. But no doubt we'll get into that in a deeper way as we pursue these estimates when we get into the real House.

D. Symons: I'm sure the minister realizes that when you're in caucus, everybody is unanimous. There's none of these differences that he implies at all, and we all speak with one voice, I'm sure. I wonder if we might move on, if there are other questions on B.C. Ferries from other members.

Seeing none, then, I will move on to Victoria Line. The minister mentioned that there were no provisions for funding Victoria Line. That was the very thing that bothered me, because I didn't see it anywhere in there, yet Victoria Line is a money-losing venture up to this point. How is it paying for itself? How are you managing to fund a ferry that's losing money if the government is not subsidizing it? Where is the money coming from?

Hon. D. Miller: The organization has borrowing authority, hon. member. I do have a sheet of statistics, but I didn't bring it with me. The member is correct: it is losing money. We made a commitment at the time it was originally put in place that we wanted to review it at the end of the third fiscal year, and we will do that.

In the meantime I think it's important for members to note, even if they don't come from this part of the province, that it currently, by our estimates.... I have some numbers, and actually some fairly good news in terms of the kind of traffic that the ship is carrying. Just to give some comparative numbers, looking at the period of June 15 through June 21 in three consecutive years, automobiles, for example, increased from about 463 up to 476 last year. We see an increase in buses: zero in the first year, seven in the second year and up to 14 this year. So there are some reasonably good increases in some of the traffic, but we clearly have to analyze that operation. It was put in place.

The member may be aware that there was a ship that transported tourists primarily from Seattle to Victoria. It contributed significantly to the economic and tourism base of this region. That ship was taken out, and it was turned over to the private sector prior to this government. We looked around to see what we could do as government to assist and eventually made the decision to put that ship into operation. It does bring in around $10 million worth of economic value to the Victoria region when it is operating. I presume that's important to members from Victoria, and I presume it's important to municipalities and the business people -- at least that's what they tell me. But we will be looking at that operation, as we said, at the end of the fiscal year, to examine it. Quite frankly, my view is that we have to be prepared to be tough. If, in our review of it, it doesn't seem to make fiscal sense over the long term, then I'm prepared to take a pretty hard-nosed attitude toward it.

D. Symons: I'll be asking more questions during the regular estimates debates regarding Victoria Line; I have quite a few more questions. I think it's more appropriate to ask them at that time.

The other item we have here is B.C. Transit. Are you prepared on B.C. Transit as well?

Hon. D. Miller: Sorry?

The Chair: We are finished with that section, I guess, and we're looking to see if you are ready to go to B.C. Transit.

[ Page 40 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Sure.

The Chair: We'll just be a moment, then, members.

F. Gingell: I was busily working in my office, and through the airways came the words that the minister said -- that you saw a definitive statement by the Liberal opposition during the election that we would scrap the fast ferry program.

As a person who has been primarily involved in this exercise, I spoke on it publicly and said that that was not so, that we would certainly look at it and try and bring a lot more focused, searching questions -- relevant questions -- into this issue. As the minister knows, I don't think that you are doing the right thing. I think there are better solutions that will be economically better for the people of B.C. and, more importantly, Mr. Minister, for our health.

This government keeps talking about the environment. Yet, through the fast ferry program, you are going to put three to four times more oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, all the pollutants -- the greenhouse gases, CO2 -- into the air than you would with some other modern engine, using the same modern fuels and the same modern engines.

It's an easy calculation, Mr. Minister. Just weigh the amount of fuel that it takes to move each passenger or each unit of freight from point A to point B, and if you use three times the amount of fuel, you'll put three times the amount of stuff in the air. That's the way the world works. That's just the way it works. God made it that way. So the one opportunity to really look at this issue again and to think the thing through.... Can that be done under this sudden stop you've come to in your capital expenditure program? Or are you too far along? Have you made too many commitments of the poor taxpayers' resources?

As the minister may not know, I have had some correspondence with the previous Minister of Employment and Investment, copies of which have gone to Mr. Rhodes, and I'm not comfortable with the answers. It's not partisan. It's just that I don't think you're doing the right thing, and I really think you need to look at it again.

Hon. D. Miller: I want to say that the opposition Finance critic and I have a lot in common, because I think it's important to be quite critical. But to some degree, I think the die is cast in terms of fundamental decisions, and it's not my sense that the review would be an opportunity to take a total look -- in other words, say, to look at that quite specifically in terms of the engines and all those other kinds of questions. At the end of the day, I think we're just going to have a difference, certainly a respectful difference, but that's the way of the world. I don't know if that's ordained or not, but I do know that is the way of the world. Sometimes with all the best technical information that you can glean, well-informed people arrive at different conclusions.

From our point of view, and from my point of view, we certainly would not want to take decisions with respect to the fast ferries that were sort of consciously or deliberately detrimental to the environment. I'm interested in this kind of broader look at these kinds of questions. I think a total review of environmental issues often leads you to a better, more balanced conclusion. So I think we may end up disagreeing, but perhaps we can explore the sort of level of detail with respect to that in the full estimates. And to put a short answer to that, I don't think that review is that fundamental in terms of some of the decisions we've already taken.

[5:15]

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, you have probably heard -- I'm trying to think of the right word -- of the western marine project. It's not quite the right word, but it was the building of a Coast Guard vessel for Mauritius. B.C. Trade played a major catalytic role in making this happen, creating a lot of super jobs for people who make the Cadillac of vessel control systems in Burnaby. Polar Design Associates of Vancouver did the design, and it worked out to be a very good project. I believe the vessel has at least been put in the water and is in the process of being completed.

When they were doing this on a competitive basis and really having to do the work as well they could, they did all the design, all the good stuff, in Vancouver. Finning brought all the equipment. But when they came to build the hull, they went to Chile, because they were able to get it at a substantially lower cost for the standards that were required for the contract.

That is clearly a commercial operation. What bothers me about the fast ferries exercise is that I don't have the feeling you've looked at all those alternatives. As I understand it, they sent welders down to Tasmania instead of to Washington State, where they could have been given some help and assistance in training in the art of welding aluminum structures, which I understand is not a simple exercise.

Mr. Minister, my question to you is: did the Ferry Corporation and your ministry look at the possibility of doing the design here but having the structure built in a country where they have some experience in aluminum welding? One knows that that's a highly technical issue, and maybe it could have been done at substantially lower cost.

Hon. D. Miller: I recall reading an article some years ago by the Swiss manufacturer of the Swatch -- I think that's what it's called; it's obviously kind of a decorative watch. And I've always remembered, if not the exact detail, the words of this industrialist. What he really was saying in the article was that he thought that he was capable in Switzerland of competing with any country in the world -- not in every sphere of activity, but that he and his organization and his workers, etc., were capable of competing with any country in the world.

I kind of feel the same way about British Columbia. I think that we can and will develop that kind of expertise, a competitiveness that will make us internationally the best. I think it's quite within our ability to do that, and that should be the kind of approach we take to anything. Never say that we cannot do it.

I don't think that it would have been serving the interests of the citizens of this province for us to conclude that we couldn't play the game -- that our shipyard workers and our shipyard administration didn't have it in them, didn't have the capacity, to develop the expertise to compete on an international basis. You know, if you want to put one on this side, saying, "Let's go somewhere else, whether it's Chile or wherever," or "Let's take the time and trouble to develop it here," I'll always wind up on the side of "Let's do it here."

In the long term, it seems to me, looking at the history of the shipyards in this province.... I said this when I was over in North Vancouver when the Premier did the first ceremonial weld of one of the ribs on the fast ferry, which, by the way, passed the inspector's test, I think. As a very young boy, I remember going down Lonsdale Avenue when we had the old North Vancouver ferries. They were used quite well in 

[ Page 41 ]

those days. And when the shipyard workers got off Burrard, hundreds and hundreds of men were coming out of there with those tin lunchbuckets under their arms.

An Hon. Member: That was in the thirties.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, no, it wasn't -- not that long ago. I'm talking about the fifties, and it's not that long ago.

Surely all members of this House would agree that we are far better off challenging our ability to do these things than simply accepting the fact that it can be done cheaper somewhere else. I think my friend, the Liberal Finance critic, would be the first to agree with that.

I know that the workers in the shipyards who are now employed -- who have the prospects of employment, looking at new opportunities to train apprentices -- look at the economic spinoffs that flow. Look here on Vancouver Island. It wasn't huge, but three small companies managed to get some of the work -- Point Hope Shipyard, a small company in Alberni.

I hear criticism about the lack of employment opportunities in this province. Sometimes I hear that criticism coming from the other side. It's good to be critical and to ask these kinds of questions. But it's very important that all of us dedicate our efforts to creating jobs and that ability to be internationally competitive here in British Columbia.

F. Gingell: Thank you for that lesson in basic economics. The minister knows that protectionism is a mug's game. It caused the Depression.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not talking about the Depression.

F. Gingell: Yes, you are. We have to ensure that British Columbia businesses can compete and can get this work based on quality and price.

We had the same story with the superferries. Oh, we're going to build these wonderful superferries! And super they are indeed. I travel them all the time, and they're very nice. How many of them have you sold to someone else?

An Hon. Member: Probably zero.

F. Gingell: Zero. And why? Because every country takes the same attitude that the minister does. Every country says: "We'll build them here. It doesn't matter about the taxpayers' money. It might cost more, but we'll build them here." What we've got to learn to do, Mr. Minister, is to focus on those things that we do best.

When Motorola were going to build a new computer factory at a cost of $8 billion, where did they go? Did they go to Thailand or the Philippines or Mexico, where wages can be less than $1 an hour? Hell no! They went to Osaka, Japan -- the highest wages in the world. Why? Because all the people who work in that plant have to be mathematically literate, and so they pay them $35.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: When the member for Vancouver-Fraserview wishes to enter the debate, we'll be happy to see that place stood.

They went there even though the wages were high, because the workers were mathematically literate. We have to build on our strengths, and we mustn't spend taxpayers' money on special deals. It's like building the Island Highway with a union-only deal, spending far more money than is necessary. We've got to do what we do well.

The Western Canada Marine Group project, which B.C. Trade was so involved in getting started, proved that, by golly, we've got some good designers. We've got people who can build superb control systems -- electronic, hydraulic, the latest thing in the world. Maybe if we had used a shipyard somewhere else on a competitive basis, that country would have looked to Canada to bring some of the skills that we have. In British Columbia we have boat design people, ship architects, naval architects and people in the control business who are world leaders, and we've got to build on those things.

If we can get the shipbuilding going on a competitive basis, wonderful. But I'm not sure you even went outside and looked for that. My question was: did you? But you gave me a little lecture in return. My question was: did you?

Hon. D. Miller: Here's just one small example. As a result of our decision to proceed with the fast ferries, the Western Canada Marine Group was formed. Do you know how many B.C. companies received contracts as a result of that vessel you talked about, which was built for Mauritius and Chile? One hundred and four contracts for B.C. companies -- B.C. jobs, $20 million worth of economic activity here in British Columbia.

The member talks about protectionism being a mug's game, and I actually fundamentally agree. But I'm not a mug, and I realize that other countries play the protectionist game. They play it. My view is that I think you're fundamentally right. As a former Minister of Forests, for example, I was on the industry and, quite frankly, the workers, saying that we can't hide behind whatever it is -- tariff walls. We've got to be able to go out there and compete internationally, and we can.

Last year I was actually very pleased to read an article that showed that British Columbia forestry companies were net importers of roundwood. We imported wood from Alaska, from Alberta, from Saskatchewan and from Manitoba. We beat the pants off the competition because we have developed a very sophisticated industry here in British Columbia. We can do it.

But I've got to tell you, I'll play the protectionist game -- and I think the government should play the protectionist game -- that our competitors play. I'm not going to go in here and, you know....

So we have made a strategic decision to proceed with the construction of fast ferries here in British Columbia. The member has some quibbles with respect to the engines and the rest of it. We've also, as part of that strategy, worked with the private sector, and I've just cited one of the significant benefits that flowed from that participation with the private sector. We are hoping to develop the kind of expertise here in British Columbia that other countries.... I mean, if Australia and New Zealand can do it, and if the Scandinavians can do it, can we not do it? Of course we can. So let's put all our efforts into ensuring that we are successful. The resulting jobs and economic activity are going to be good for everybody here in British Columbia.

D. Symons: We've extended the debate on to the ferries, haven't we? But I might point out to the minister, if we go back to the superferries, that the bids that came in on the 

[ Page 42 ]

superferries.... There was a Japanese firm that bid, I believe, about $90 million. We ended up paying $137 million for each of those ferries. So there's about a 40 percent difference by not having it built in Japan and having it built in British Columbia.

You were mentioning earlier that this money, the $800 million and what not, that is being spent by B.C. Ferries on upgrading their ferry facilities is all part of the debt that somehow the passengers of B.C. Ferries are going to have to pay in the future. Indeed, as for any of these extra expenses we have for building it in B.C., the passengers, the taxpayers of British Columbia, are going to be paying that.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the member goes exactly to the point I was trying to make about protectionism -- exactly. I assume that if that member were the minister and that party were in office, they would have blithely sent those ship contracts over to Japan. The work would have been done in Japan, and British Columbians -- quite frankly, in my view we have an unacceptably high rate of unemployment -- would have lost that work.

Does the member not realize, did he not dig deep enough to understand, that that Japanese contract was subsidized? It was a bought contract subsidized by the government of Japan, and under those circumstances there's a member of the Liberal caucus who would say: "I don't care. It's cheaper. Let's send it over there and forget and abandon B.C. workers." You've got to look at the whole piece, and we made exactly the right decision to do that work here in British Columbia and have those people at work and the resulting economic benefits that flowed to all British Columbians.

The Chair: The committee is moving on to B.C. Transit.

On schedule 2 -- B.C. Transit.

D. Symons: I note in the schedule of Bill 5, which we're looking at here, that contributions for debt servicing in transit went from $131 million in 1995-96 to $142 million this year. The debt servicing hasn't changed so much; the contributions have gone up considerably. That's an 8 percent increase in contributions, from $131 million to $142 million. I'm wondering if the minister might tell me whether that is including the cost of the "west coast excess" -- or maybe the West Coast Express.

[5:30]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, in part, hon. member. The other factors were SkyTrain vehicles, the full-year impact, pay-out of phase one debt...sorry, no. SkyTrain and West Coast.

D. Symons: As I was mentioning before, with the Victoria Line not reaching its objectives of being self-sufficient, certainly the west coast excess has also been short of ridership to make that a success. In fact, prior to the operation of that, the figures the government was giving on the projected ridership were considerably higher, to this point in time, than has actually happened.

So I'm just wondering if the minister can give us an idea.... You apparently have a cost-sharing arrangement with communities along the serviced area of that rail. Since you have not met your objectives, does that mean that taxpayers in those areas are going to be picking up the shortfall as their percentage of the operating expenses of West Coast Express?

Hon. D. Miller: Just a couple of statistics relative to the member's questions. Ridership to downtown Vancouver is strongest and has reached 93 percent of the 12-month projection after only five months, which is not bad performance. To March 31 of this year, the West Coast Express was 26 percent under budget.

D. Symons: I find those figures somewhat difficult to comprehend, considering that the figures supplied to me indicate that the ridership is considerably lower than that. I'm wondering if the minister might.... Again, this might come more during estimates, but I would love to see a ridership figure as well as a revenue figure that goes with that ridership, so that we can evaluate it in an effective way, rather than possibly having -- as is sometimes done with SkyTrain -- some fanciful figures given to us as to the number of people that are riding it for free and not paying the fare. So if those figures could be supplied, I'd certainly appreciate it.

I used to listen to the traffic reports in the morning. Prior to West Coast Express, you would hear daily from the northeast sector that we had backups to the Harris Road intersection all the time. After West Coast Express was running, what do we hear every day? Traffic is still backed up to the Harris Road intersection. It doesn't seem that what was said would happen with West Coast Express -- that we would alleviate some of the traffic problems along Highway 7 -- has happened. We tried to change the Pitt River Bridge and other things, but primarily I don't know how much traffic -- and maybe the minister can enlighten me -- the West Coast Express managed to alleviate in that northeast sector.

Hon. D. Miller: Prior to my responding to the member's questions, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Miller: While I was Minister of Labour, I was associated with the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, which is headquartered in Port Alberni. It is a partnership between trade unions and private sector companies primarily in the forest sector which has as its objective looking in a much broader way at how we might get people back into the workforce -- people who have suffered injuries on the job. Quite frankly, it's one of the most important fields of research that could be undertaken. It hasn't received a great deal of attention in this province, but it is indeed a marvellous institute and is doing significant work.

The institute has a number of guests here in the gallery, and I want to take the opportunity to illustrate the importance of this institute and the kind of attention it's attracting internationally, and to introduce to the members: Lex Frieden from Houston, Texas; Jean Sherrell-Alexander from Brisbane, Australia; Graham Hughes from Brisbane, Australia; Gavin Robins from Wellington, New Zealand; Norman Hursh from Boston; Don Galvin from Tucson, Arizona; Don Shrey from Cincinnati, Ohio; and Hartmut Haines from Bonn, Germany. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

I'm just, as I like to say, a millwright from Prince Rupert, and I live in a small town. I can walk downtown in about ten or 15 minutes, and I kind of like that. And I was recalling.... Your question kind of brought back a trip I had. I was out in Mission to open the skills centre out there -- an initiative that has really done some significantly good work around the province.

My spouse was with me, and we had to get to the airport in Vancouver in time to catch a 6:30 flight. I left Mission and ran into a wall of cars, and it just never ended -- all the way to 

[ Page 43 ]

the airport. I got to the airport at 6:29, and it's the only time I've ever tried to impress somebody with my title. I said: "I've got to get on this plane." They let me on, but it did strike me.... It's incredible, looking at that traffic, how many people are so fiercely committed and wedded to their automobiles, and they will suffer incredible trials and tribulations to drive their cars.

I can't, quite frankly, understand it, and I don't think anybody can. It doesn't make any sense in the world. It makes absolutely no sense when you can get on a train and get downtown and do your business and maybe read a book or a newspaper on the way. But you keep trying, and you keep fighting this.

I noticed that with the Second Narrows in some of the television coverage I saw -- it's the same thing. People are grumbling and complaining but driving down there on their own, with nobody else in the car. By the way, ridership is up dramatically on the SeaBus and on transit as a result of that.

Clearly the member has got questions about the West Coast Express and ridership, and all those things, and certainly we'll try to answer any questions the member might have during the full estimates.

D. Symons: The minister expressed, maybe unwittingly there, the reason why the people are in their cars. You were going from Mission to the airport, and West Coast Express didn't go there. So you took your car. And many people who are driving into Vancouver aren't going where West Coast Express goes. That was the reason the GVRD, when they brought out their short- and mid-term plans for transportation around the lower mainland, didn't have West Coast Express up there as one of the priorities. But this government chose to put West Coast Express in. That's why the ridership isn't there, because it wasn't the preferred route. So, unfortunately, you put the wrong technology in the wrong place, but we'll leave that for the moment.

We can take a look, maybe, at transit in general. We have a ten-year plan that was announced approximately nine months ago by the then Minister of Employment and Investment -- now the Premier of this province -- and he extolled wonderfully the marvellous transportation initiatives this government is going to introduce. We now learn, nine months later, that rather than having the birth of these plans, we're basically having the freezing of these plans for at least a six-month period.

I'm wondering if the minister might also tell me: are all those announcements that were made at that time -- the Broadway line, the rapid bus line that's supposed to go to Richmond and out to other areas -- also affected by this hold? Can we expect another year's wait, at least, on the time lines we were given until those projects will be on line?

Hon. D. Miller: The plan, I believe, was supported quite strongly by the member municipalities in the transit region, and the member will appreciate that some of the infrastructure issues that we have to deal with -- indeed, that all governments have to deal with -- are incredibly costly. Look at the sewage issue, and at the sewage treatment facilities and the kind of costs that are contemplated to deal with that.

So I'm assuming that the member thinks that some degree of public expenditure is necessary in order to improve the transit system. We do too. But we did listen to the voters during the last election. They did express concern about public spending. We listened, and we are taking a prudent view of examining those plans. As the Premier indicated in question period earlier today, we are still spending about $1.2 billion in capital expenditures this year. So those projects, yes indeed, are the subject of a review.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I'm just wondering, though, whether the minister will tell us whether a nine-month delay or a six-month delay.... Or, in fact, since it will move into the fall session, will it indeed be a full year for some of these projects starting to move that should be moving at this time? I wonder whether they'll be any cheaper to do in the future, and whether by postponing it we're going to somehow alleviate the problems that are currently there today. I'm curious why this government in the last two or three years has seemed to be moving in a certain direction -- indeed, they moved very rapidly there during the last few months leading up to the election. Now at this particular time they find it prudent to step back and take a look at all these projects that they've been announcing but haven't really got going. That they decide at that point.... It bothers me somewhat. A cynical person might say: "Well, those are all election promises, and that's all there is to it."

I would hope that the people of British Columbia deserve better and would be having some projects taking place. But has the minister actually, rather than postponing and doing a six-month freeze on them while they re-evaluate it...? Because I think many of these projects don't need to be re-evaluated; they're necessary for transportation in this province. Has the minister looked very seriously at public-private partnerships as a way of getting them moving this year rather than next year, or two or three years hence?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the answer is very simple. I'll give a very simple answer: the answer is yes. But I'm a bit puzzled here, because the member seems to be saying -- and perhaps I'm incorrect, and perhaps the member might want to give me a simple response -- that we should not subject these expenditures to a review. He seems to be saying that we should proceed to spend even more money. Mr. Chair, I am indeed puzzled. Perhaps the member could stand up and without equivocation, yes or no, say it's his view that we should not review these and that we should go ahead full steam and spend that money.

D. Symons: I guess the minister -- and maybe I was being too indirect to say it.... But I guess I'm saying that if the government has gone ahead with all of these plans up to this point and with these promises of projects to take place, then indeed they've been terribly irresponsible in the past and now have really realized their responsibility, and they're standing back and taking a look at it. So what I'm not saying is what you are suggesting; I'm saying, rather, that what you seem to be doing is admitting your irresponsibility in the past.

I would explain, for the minister's education, that if you open them up to public-private partnerships, then indeed that project is worthy of carrying on. There will be some private company out there with deep pockets that would be willing to fund it and to see that project go ahead, and the people of the province of British Columbia -- the lower mainland area or any area that needs it, be it ferries or transit -- could have that there at no public expense, in the sense of no taxpayers' dollars going into doing it.

[ Page 44 ]

The minister indicated he is willing to look at that; I commend him for doing that as quickly as possible.

The Chair: Are there any more questions on this section? Any more questions from other members?

Then we perhaps can move on to B.C. Steamships. No questions? No further questions from members -- Victoria Line, B.C. Steamships, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit?

Members, the next warrant we'll deal with is Aboriginal Affairs.

[5:45]

Hon. D. Miller: That's fine, we can proceed. But just looking across the House, I think there is some general sense that perhaps we may recess at this point and come back at 6:30 p.m., say. I move that we 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.

Hon. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until later today at 6:30 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:46 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada