[ Page 1003 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Miller: I have the distinct pleasure of asking all members to welcome to the House -- or should I say grandpa's workplace -- my grandson Kyle Herman Rensvold. Kyle has been a bit of a handful for Gayle Ballard, my spouse, and myself over the last couple of weeks, but a joy and a delight. Kyle is, of course, a descendant of a long line of Norwegian fishers. His illustrious grandfather Boxcar Slim fished out of Rupert -- original Vancouver Island settlers. I would really ask the House to give my spouse and my grandson a very warm welcome.

G. Brewin: I have two wonderful chores to share with the Legislature. I want to welcome everyone who's here today to what the Globe and Mail describes as "Canada's Most Liveable City" -- Victoria. I'm very proud to be part of the representation of that.

Interjection.

G. Brewin: Occasionally I get to enjoy my own city.

I want to welcome here from Victoria High School in my constituency some 50 students, who are in grade 11 and studying social studies, the government process. Welcome today, all of you.

S. Hawkins: Today I rise to introduce a friend of mine who's in the gallery, Mr. Sukhi Sandhu. He's deputy chair of the Surrey parks board and a well-known community activist. He was a key member of my campaign team and is a very good friend. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'd like to introduce to the House my wife, Linda, who's travelled over here, so she's to travel home with me this afternoon. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Coleman: Seated in the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, Bruce Strongitharm, from Aldergrove. Bruce is a life member of the association of Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada. He's the manager of the specialty products division of Primex Forest Products, and he's a really dedicated volunteer community worker in my community. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. de Jong: In the gallery today are two extremely good friends of mine. Dave and Lee Holmberg epitomize the spirit of community involvement that all of us know is so important to the towns we come from. They have been particularly influential on me through my formative political years. I am going to reciprocate all they have taught me about politics this afternoon by teaching them a thing or two about golf. So please make them welcome here.

B. McKinnon: I would also like to welcome Sukhi Sandhu to the House. He was a great help in my nomination and election, and I would just like everybody to also make him welcome.

Standing Order 35 Motion

G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to seek leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

G. Campbell: The refusal by the government to implement Justice Gove's recommendation to establish an independent examination of the death or serious injury of every child in the care of the ministry or known to the ministry is of concern. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the estimates for the Ministry of Social Services have concluded, so there is no further opportunity to debate these issues. In addition, both during estimates and during question period, the minister has been slow and protracted in bringing forward the information we have asked for.

New information made available to the public yesterday by the Ministry of Social Services indicates that this issue is a matter of urgent public importance. The first document is a list of 49 children who have died in the past nine months, either in the care of the Ministry of Social Services or known to the ministry. The minister has confirmed that there has been no independent examination of these deaths. Forty-nine children have died, many of whom appear to have died in suspicious circumstances and none of whom have been examined by an independent body. A child has died every five days. We cannot let this situation continue one day longer. It is clear that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Second, the ombudsman, who was appointed by Justice Gove as a watchdog over this process, yesterday expressed her "profound concern" with the current situation and called upon the government to act immediately on the November 1995 recommendation of the Gove inquiry that an independent children's commissioner be appointed to review all deaths and serious injuries of children.

Third, the child, youth and family advocate yesterday issued a press release also demanding immediate action.

Fourth, the chair of the Child and Family Review Board, Bernd Walter, has also demanded immediate action.

Fifth, yesterday the voices of the parents of a child were heard in this House demanding immediate action.

To this date, the minister has refused, for whatever reason, to refer these deaths for independent review. Hon. Speaker, it is now time that this House speak with one voice and give clear direction to the Ministry of Social Services and to the Minister of Social Services. He must act immediately, today, to appoint an independent children's commissioner and immediately refer all 49 deaths for independent review. The people of British Columbia, the representatives in this House and the children of B.C. cannot wait another five days.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I will entertain a response from the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise without notes and would respond to the Leader of the Opposition's written statement.

In a technical way, it would be nice to challenge the Leader of the Opposition and say that there is nothing of an urgent matter to this situation under standing order 35, because of course that is the truth. The debates around this issue have occurred since 1994 in the debates of legislation, 

[ Page 1004 ]

estimates and interim supply. Those debates have occurred over and over again. The debate has occurred around an all-party committee on which the opposition parties sit. That's the technical answer. Therefore that the Opposition Leader wishes to stand down the House and now proceed in some phony, technical way under standing order 35 is disgusting -- absolutely disgusting.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

As is the practice of this House under standing order 35, I will reserve judgment. The issue is too serious to give an immediate response. I shall consider these submissions from both sides of the House very carefully.

I'm sorry. Was the Government House Leader not finished?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll keep my comments modified.

In addressing the technical aspect of it, of course, there has been ample opportunity for the opposition parties and for everybody in this House to discuss these issues over and over and over again.

[10:15]

I will use this as an opportunity to caution the opposition about what they are actually doing to the confidence of a very strong and a very important issue around the well-being of our children. Let me just say to you, hon. Speaker, on this matter, that if the opposition weren't using this for political advantage, they would be out there each and every day, every time a child does die, raising it on that level. In the meantime, they should be working with our government, supporting the processes in place, and doing everything possible to bring order into this House so that we can actually move on with the real business of the Legislature.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let me remind you that the issue is the urgency of debate, not the urgency of the matter. I shall therefore reserve judgment on this matter and report back to the House later today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, debate going back and forth across the way isn't debate under the definitions of this chamber. I would ask members to please not indulge in that. As I say, I shall reserve judgment. I shall report back to the House; I think I shall be able to do so this morning.

A. Sanders: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize that my title, Win, Lose or Cheat, caused you sufficient consternation for you to send me information regarding the protocol for private members' statements. I was concerned that you had not understood that I was not going to make a partisan statement, and that you were concerned it might be about NDP policy. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to address a topic that is as much a part of the 1996 Olympics as the rich history of the marathon: steroid abuse. Amateur sport will never be as it was prior to performance-enhancing drugs. In the Olympics, personal fortune is gained through endorsements, not participation. Society and government have formed an unholy alliance with sport: we do not fund athletes to do their best; we fund them to win. Sixth place can be the difference between federal moneys to your sport or cuts. Tenth place does not sell cereal, sportswear or tires. A medal, however, bridges the chasm between career endorsements and commercial oblivion. Sport is about money. And no longer is it win or lose; it's win, lose or cheat. To cheat is an accessible temptation for athletes. For elite athletes, the steroid is the apple in the garden.

Like many Canadians, I love the Olympics: the competition, the ceremony, the joy and the sorrow at the finish. I love the track and field athletes "ripped to the bone," a description often used for those with individual muscle-group definition. I love to see women compete at levels I never dreamed possible. I love to see the best, those at the peak of the physical pyramid.

Sport is a part of me, so it is a natural conclusion that I trained in sports medicine as a result. But the more I've learned about high-level competition, the more cynical I have become. Every winner at the Olympics wears a shroud of skepticism. Are they clean? Did they blood-dope? Are they on drugs in the off-season and clean now? Have they beaten the testing? Steroid use is pandemic, and it plants a toxic thought every time I watch the competition. Steroid use is cheating.

In Seoul, Ben Johnson was justly sacrificed for his dishonesty, yet I felt sorry for him just the same. As a doctor, I can tell you that there were many more in Seoul who stood on the winner's podium who were, or recently were, on steroids. How sad that the difference between the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat can be the quality of your pharmacologist.

Ben Johnson did Canadian society a favour. His disgrace alerted the general population to the widespread use of steroids in our schools, our gyms, in sports, and by our youth. Steroids are a part of an illicit, secretive underground economy. They are bought and sold illegally in gyms and school corridors and on the street.

The Canadian Centre for Drug-Free Sport published a study in 1993 that reported on a survey of 16,000 Canadian students between 11 and 18 years of age. One in five of the students knew someone who had used steroids. Among those 16 and older, it was one in three. Of those on steroids, three out of ten believed the drugs would not harm them. Youth involved in regular physical activity, endurance training and weightlifting were more likely than others to use steroids and also alcohol, painkillers, extra protein, caffeine and amphetamines -- or speed -- all to improve performance.

It is easy to see why the Olympians use steroids; it's about money and power for them. So why would youth endanger their health if neither were to be gained? The answer lies in the psychology of personality. Steroid users and those with eating disorders share common psychopathology. Both disorders are the end product of a distorted body image.

Young women who are at high risk for eating disorders are involved in disciplined physical activity where a certain body shape is considered a correlate of success. These include ballet, gymnastics, figure skating, modelling and distance running. Similarly, men who are particularly concerned with body shape and weight -- firefighters, police officers, security 

[ Page 1005 ]

guards and bodybuilders -- will use steroids to bulk up. Young men who are weightlifters, track and field athletes, football players and triathletes often use steroids to enhance performance.

Our kids are using steroids. They are vulnerable in a culture that marries physical appearance to perceived success. Steroid use, like eating disorders, is a guarded secret. Parents think their child's acne is due to hormones. Teachers think the uncontrolled rage is due to adolescence. Doctors may think that performance, strength and muscle gains are due to protein supplements, weight lifting or a new training regime. Beware. If you have children and you see them change, any sudden change in physical activity should always raise doubt and suspicion, especially if they are athletic. That kernel of uncertainty can make the difference between missing the diagnosis of steroid use and helping our kids.

The Speaker: I believe the member's statement had just a moment of time left, so I'll recognize Vancouver-Langara. On a point of order?

V. Anderson: I would ask members if they would do their conference outside so we could hear these important debates.

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Vancouver-Langara. I appreciate your point, and could I offer that caution, then, to members here that we do indeed need to hear the statement? Responding to the member for Okanagan-Vernon is the member for Comox Valley.

E. Gillespie: I welcome the opportunity today to talk about sports. We've heard about sports at the elite level, at the Olympic level, but I would like to talk about community sport and the value of sport to the community at large. Sport, from my point of view, is about community development. Community sport and recreation bring together all members of the community. Young people, parents, children and all adults who live around playing fields become part of that sporting flavour of the community. Community sport is a fine opportunity to learn about the value of participation, fair play, inclusiveness, team spirit, skill development, and pride and accomplishment.

Community sport offers the opportunity for a child to grow and to develop skill and pride in their sport. How many times have you walked by a ballpark this summer and seen families picnicking, people walking by with their dogs and stopping to watch and chat and the whole community participating in this very recreational level of community sport? Some children will grow and develop the skill and competitive drive to strive to go further with their team and their individual sport.

We have a fine example of that in this province right now. Only yesterday the B.C. Summer Games opened in Trail and Castlegar. The B.C. games bring together 4,200 participants, 5,000 volunteers in each community that hosts these games and $3.7 million to the local economy.

This government has an important role to play in supporting various provincial services in sport and recreation to British Columbians, and in part, that is delivered through the B.C. games family. The B.C. games family includes the summer, winter and northern games, the Seniors Games and recently, as we saw in Kamloops, the games for the disabled. The spirit of the games thrives on community pride, new partnerships and improved amateur sport and recreation opportunities for all British Columbians. Thousands of volunteers, proud of a job well done, become a new community resource.

With events like the B.C. Summer Games, the B.C. Winter Games, the B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability, the B.C. Seniors Games and the Northern B.C. Winter Games, everyone goes home a winner with the personal legacy that only participation in the games can provide.

A. Sanders: I appreciate hearing the comments of the hon. member.

Unfortunately, I think I must not have been clear enough, or the noise on the other side was too great. The importance of the statement has nothing to do with elite athletes. What I'm talking about is your average kid in a high school who comes into your home, onto your rep team, into your fitness club or gym, into the doctor's office, into the counsellor's office -- whatever. When we're looking at that average person, not the Olympic athlete.... The Olympic athletes have shown us the way in terms of increasing our recognition that there is a problem here.

There are very few of us in here who have not heard about eating disorders: anorexia, bulimia, obesity. There's lots of provincial and federal awareness of these issues. There's very little awareness of steroid abuse, but it is there in the young people that we see in our communities, to the degree that in looking at 16,000 of those young people between the ages of 11 and 18, it was found that one in three of the 16-year-old kids knew someone who was on steroids. Not only that, of the number who were on steroids, one-third were using needles to inject themselves with the steroids.

This is why I rise to make this statement. The Olympics is just the background to provide us with the awareness that something is going on in our communities. It's not just the Olympics. That's where you see it for money. In some contorted way, that might even make sense to some people. But it's the kids that we have in our communities who are the ones on the drugs, the ones who are getting the drugs from their sporting areas for no other reason than a distorted body image, which concurs with the distorted body image that we often see resulting in women with eating disorders.

Why are these things so important? Let's look at what steroids do to people. Steroid use has a huge price to pay. Some users take the drugs orally, and that leads to pretty significant and early liver damage. You may have telltale signs. You could see it on Ben Johnson: yellow skin underneath the dark skin, but definitely yellow eyes. Others inject them and they share the needles. One-third of all the students who reported using steroids were steroid injectors. Hepatitis B, HIV and AIDS are the snakes that accompany the apple. Liver cancer is a long-term consequence of protracted steroid use. Steroids promote high blood pressure and high cholesterol. They accelerate hardening of the arteries. Heart disease and stroke can follow later on.

Youth who bodybuild with sudden onsets of severe acne and stretch marks should create speculation, and not just that they have a new weight program. Mood changes in athletes, and not elite athletes but the athletes who are competing on rep teams or in their own high school basketball teams....

The Speaker: Member, I must advise you that your time has expired, so would you please wrap up very quickly.

[ Page 1006 ]

A. Sanders: These are the ones in whom you may find depression or paranoid psychosis or just unexplained aggression. Young women are not exempt, and they may have quite significant body hair problems.

The Speaker: Member, I am sorry but I am bound by standing orders. The time has expired.

G. Bowbrick: I rise today to speak about a subject which is of tremendous importance to us as the human race, as humanity, and that's hate in its various forms: racism, sexism and anti-Semitism. It's always been a challenge to combat, and now unfortunately, the hatemongers have discovered a new and very powerful tool, and it's called the Internet. The forum which so many have said would be a tool to break down barriers between people around the world is now being used by some to try to erect barriers between people. Now the KKK and Aryan Nations and others have found the Internet as the place to set up a home page and spread their hate.

Every day new degrading, threatening, ugly and violent messages are being posted on the Internet. The question is: what can we do about this, and perhaps more importantly, what ought we to do about this?

[10:30]

So often this is framed as a free speech issue. And not only by the hatemongers; it's also framed that way by those who abhor the views that are being expressed by the hatemongers, but they feel that censorship is a greater evil. If we have absolute freedom of speech, they say, the right arguments will always prevail. This is sometimes referred to as the marketplace of ideas. Of course, some of us -- many of us -- question the merit of a completely unfettered free economy, and we would question the merit of a completely unfettered marketplace of ideas, as well.

This is something that I have wrestled with on a personal basis, because arguments about free speech do have a certain intellectual appeal: the notion that all we need is for right-minded people to engage hatemongers in debate and defeat them by simply employing the power of reason. However, I have come to believe that the appeal of this argument often depends upon where one stands. Its appeal is disproportionately greater for certain groups, I believe -- people like me, people like white men, who have never been, and probably will never be, on the receiving end of hate propaganda. I and other white men, I believe, view all of this from a position of privilege. We have the luxury of never having to face the ugliness and often the very real threat posed by those who spread hate propaganda. I have concluded that engaging hatemongers in debate, while useful, is not enough. We must do more.

So the question, when it comes to the Internet, is: what do we do? The Internet could be characterized in many ways. It's not entirely clear; there isn't agreement yet. Is it millions of private conversations? Is it many public discussions? Is it a forum where advertising takes place, an ideal forum for propaganda? As individuals, of course, we can do what some people have devoted themselves to doing, which is to use the Internet and simply engage in debate with hatemongers, to confront the hate propagandists whenever we come across them. There are those who devote considerable amounts of time to this.

But beyond that, the question is.... If we look at Internet service providers, for example, or telecommunications service providers, there's a role for them as well. Those who have the means by which messages may be spread have a moral duty, I suggest, to ensure that they do not become conduits of hate, to the greatest extent possible. A provider of telephone services, for example, can retain the right to deny services to those who promote hate. Section 8.2 of B.C. Tel's "Terms of Service" states: "Customers are prohibited from using B.C. Tel's services or permitting them to be used for a purpose or in a manner that is contrary to law or for the purpose of making annoying or offensive calls" -- and, I would suggest, even hate-filled calls.

An Internet service provider can simply refuse to provide service to those who use that service as a means by which to post hate messages. There are service providers, unfortunately, who buy into the free speech argument and simply argue that they should not be censoring persons to whom they provide a service. I suggest, hon. Speaker, that that's a copout. It's an abdication of responsibility. They have the obligation to not provide a forum in which hate is promoted in the same sense that a publisher of a newspaper does.

And what about our collective role as government in a democratic society? I think it's understood that we can't regulate the Internet, but we can still combat hate. This is a position that even Max Yalden, chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, has taken. There's always a role for education, and I'm very pleased that the provincial government has enhanced B.C.'s provincewide education curriculum to include anti-racism instruction and also has targeted funding to non-profit organizations to undertake projects which support good race relations.

But there is also the resort to statutory remedies. We can apply existing laws to a new medium. Whether they're human rights statutes or the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, these are the tools that are at our disposal.

There is currently a new provincial hate crime team with representatives from government and police, including special prosecutors, which has been set up by the Attorney General. This team is designed to investigate the nature and scope of hate crime in British Columbia, to coordinate responses to hate activities, to disseminate information about hate crimes and to liaise with communities to combat hate-motivated activities across the province. Already the Attorney General has stated that he is having his ministry look into how to combat hate propaganda on the Internet. Some say that taking these steps does nothing more than turn hatemongers into martyrs, and that's true to some extent. The fact of the matter is that if we think of the names Keegstra and Zundel, those are names of people who did become martyrs to a small number of people in our society as a result of the prosecutions. But I suggest that those prosecutions served an important educational role, because to thousands of other Canadians, those names symbolize all of the things that we stand against and despise as a society.

V. Anderson: I appreciate very much the member for New Westminster bringing this topic forward. Interestingly enough, although theoretically it's a concern that we all have and we all should have, it's taken for granted in a democratic society that we all stand against hate, and it still takes a great deal of courage to stand up and speak against those persons who propagate it in our communities. I think we have a responsibility to respond when these actions take place. One of the difficulties, as has been mentioned, is that many of us don't see it as affecting us directly. But if you've been to a synagogue which has just been burnt because of the actions of 

[ Page 1007 ]

hatred, if you've met with those who are trying to remind us of the outcome of hate in the Holocaust, or if you visit the Holocaust museums in Vancouver and other places, then you'll be reminded that this can happen here as well as in some other place.

One of the concerns that we've been raising lately in this Legislature is the concern for children. It is children and youth in particular who are the audience being attacked and confronted by those who represent hate in whatever form and in whatever medium it takes. We're often behind the general public in our actions in legislation. It is true that we've attempted to try to respond to and eradicate hate from radio and television. We've tried to prevent those who would like a 1-800 number or a 1-900 number in order to propagate their hate. The new medium of the Internet that has been brought before us today is one that we tend to overlook, because many of us are not acquainted with how it works and don't use it. But probably the greatest population that uses the Internet at the moment is our young people in our schools, and our children, who themselves are very proficient in this new mode of communication. So we must take seriously the challenge that has been placed before us today.

I think it is a significant topic, and one that we can use our all-party committees of the Legislature to tackle. We must work together, because it's a topic that all of us must face. But when we talk about hate, we also have to think about prejudice. And if we're going to deal with it, we have to deal with it not in the context of "them" and "us", because we all have prejudices. Listen to our conversations. Listen even to the debate in this Legislature, and our prejudices come out. The prejudices that we have within ourselves are the root of hate within our community, so when we begin to challenge those who would misuse the Internet or our communication systems, we have to begin with ourselves. I don't think it's good enough for us to say, "Thank God we aren't like them," because if we honestly listen to ourselves and look in our own mirrors, there is more of them in each of us than we would like to admit. Our first challenge in dealing, as we must, with the hate which is spread in our community, is to deal with the self-righteousness within ourselves. When we have done that, then we are in a humbler position to tackle hate, to understand the roots of hate and the cause of hate, and to challenge those who would promote it.

It's a very important issue, like the one that's been brought before us on the use of drugs. Hate is a drug of another kind -- not as easy to diagnose, not as easy to control, but just as important, because in the long run it probably affects more of our young people in their everyday actions than even drugs. It's a very crucial issue, and I appreciate the member for New Westminster, who has brought it forward to us.

[10:45]

G. Bowbrick: I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the member for Vancouver-Langara -- in particular, sentiments that we work together on an issue like this. But I am dismayed because it wasn't so long ago that the official opposition opposed amendments to the B.C. Human Rights Act which prohibited hate propaganda. I am very disappointed about that.

In my initial remarks, I mentioned that it occurred to me that all too often those who argue most strongly in favour of the notion of complete freedom of speech are white men. Unfortunately, that came across.... I was reading newspaper articles about Bill 33, and it occurred to me as I was reading them. I want to touch upon this for a minute. It's absolutely important. Too often, all we talk about in our society is rights, and we talk about rights in absolute terms. We do not talk enough about responsibilities. There are not absolute rights in this society; the fact is that we limit rights, because to have absolute rights means you must impose on the rights of others.

We do not have absolute freedom of speech in British Columbia -- or in Canada, indeed, or in any democracy on this planet -- because we have used the law for centuries to draw lines, to draw limits on rights. We accept slander and libel laws as reasonable limits on free speech. Our own constitution, in section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, states very clearly that all of the rights in that Charter, including the right to free speech, are subject "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In closing, I would like to emphasize a point I was making earlier about the importance of prosecuting those who promote hate. We may not eradicate hate by doing that, but it serves a vital symbolic purpose. I was beginning to speak earlier about the names Keegstra and Zundel. Certainly those are people who are now martyrs to a small minority in our society. But the fact is that those names have entered the Canadian lexicon; they're part of Canadian parlance now. So when we are talking about intolerance, when we talk about racism or homophobia or sexism or what have you, we can use those names symbolically -- Keegstra, Zundel.

I suggest that using prosecution, where appropriate, serves a very important symbolic purpose in combatting hate in our country and in our province.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

A. Sanders: I'd like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Sanders: I'd like to introduce a young woman, Catherine Saunders, who is in the gallery today. She is the daughter of a very good friend of mine, as well as a relative of the member for Saanich South. I'd like to welcome her today.

P. Reitsma: This is a non-partisan issue. Lighthouse: the very word conjures up an image of solitary, sweeping power, setting the mariner's infinite domain apart from the landlocked. As eternal symbols of hope, romance and civilized good, lighthouses fascinate almost everyone.

Some myths die hard. The childhood fantasies we all have about cowboys and firemen, nurses or train engineers, seldom survive kindergarten. But when it comes to lightkeepers, people never seem to grow up. We share a kinship of sorts with the man who took the helm during the golden age of navigation some two centuries ago. Cook, Vancouver, Quadra and the nameless seamen who trimmed and set their sails would have been as stirred anticipating daily ferry service traffic from Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert as we are by the prospect of transplanted towns on the plains of Mars.

Imagine if you can their task of charting a contorted coastline thousands of miles in overall length -- scarred and convoluted by countless fjords, channels and inlets, ringed by 

[ Page 1008 ]

buffers of breakers and foul ground with only a compass, a sextant and anxious eyes on the stars. Each time the cartographers unrolled their charts in their lurching cabins, they watched them grow in detail. If we take the same voyage for granted today, with only an occasional glance up from cafeteria trays, video games and newspapers, it is only because the treacherous has become so well defined. The north-south sea lane is a constellation of lighthouses, beacons, buoys and assorted markers, stretching from Race Rocks in the south to Green Island, on Alaska's doorstep.

The first Canadian light, hon. Speaker, was a private venture. In late November 1859, Captain Nagle, Victoria's harbour master, paid $100 for the lantern and placed it on McLoughlin Point at the entrance to Victoria's harbour. Half a year later, the tubes in Nagle's lamp overheated and melted down. He had no funds to replace it, and that precipitated the birth of the first lighthouse.

With the backing of Gov. James Douglas, construction began in 1860. Renowned architect H.O. Tiedeman -- who, by the way, also built Victoria's first legislative buildings -- oversaw the construction of Fisgard light. George Davies enjoyed the distinction of becoming the first full-time lightkeeper.

In the early decades of this century, lightkeepers were required to polish reflectors, trim wicks on kerosene lanterns, change bulbs, wind clockwork mechanisms and turn on the important foghorns. In those days, ships were highly dependent on shore-based lights and aural signals for safe landfalls.

For 120 years on Canada's west coast, ever since the first light on Fisgard lanced through the night, no vessel went to wreck, nor was a single life lost due to negligence on the part of a lightkeeper. We might all stand a little taller today with a tradition like that behind us. Their gallantry, their experience and their commitment are legendary. Our keepers of the light could always be counted on. They were reliable; they were trusted. That was a great comfort. You see, they did one thing and one thing only, and they did it very well -- they saved lives. Our lightkeepers were there for us, preventing accidents and responding to SOS calls.

At this moment in history, it is they who need to be rescued and saved. It is now our time to respond to their SOS: "Save our Stations." If those men leave the lights, other men will die. Lightkeepers are situated in very strategic spots and are often the only eyes and ears for long stretches along B.C.'s coastline. An automated system as proposed will never, never replace or be a substitute for a manned system. Automated involvement is mechanical, devoid of any feelings and human understanding. Automation is an uncharted course that is being navigated. An automatic life station wouldn't detect boats experiencing mechanical difficulties or being swept out to sea. It wouldn't detect people overcome by carbon monoxide.

Time and time again, we have testimonies from those who were rescued because of the human touch. Those rescues speak of the immense value of the manned lighthouse stations. Time and time again, we hear from the keepers of the light how they made the difference and were the reason so many people are alive today, instead of having succumbed to the cold elements. Rich Bryant, the bureaucrat directing west coast automation plans, wrote: "Automatic stations, buoys, etc., are prone to failure during severe weather and are not quickly restored, as well as the fact that individual readings are often missed." The result is a total lack of confidence in the system. Flawed and erratic technology is intended to replace staffed lighthouses with a long track record of safety, reliability and dependability. Lightkeepers are trusted; automation is not.

A well-documented story is the one where some 50 boats of a herring fleet were heading south through the top end of Queen Charlotte Sound. The weather was ever so bad; it was a screaming, howling gale. Boats were dancing in the water; the rolling and pitching were frightening. The captain talked with the lightkeeper on Egg Island. She said: "I'll stay up all night if necessary, because I'm pretty sure there's going to be a break in the weather somewhere during the night; when it breaks I'll be sure to let you know, because tomorrow there's an even heavier storm coming." So at 4 a.m. she came on the air and told them the weather was coming down. She thought they could make it, and they did -- safely. They were sure the lady saved some lives that night.

Sometimes automated stations do not work, until found out, which could be days later. In the meantime, how can one defend a terrible accident? I'll continue on that theme during my rebuttal.

G. Janssen: I'd like to congratulate the member for Parksville-Qualicum for that insight into lighthouses and the history that he has mentioned of this vital service we have in British Columbia.

The threat to the safety of both mariners and aviators who ply our coasts, with the concerns that they have and the concerns of their families, who are at home waiting for their safe return.... Most small boat and small plane operators along the coast operate with no instrumentation and navigate using a visual method only. Lighthouse keepers keep an eye on those people. They also monitor the salinity of water, which is vital to the health of our oceans -- and the oceans, as we know, are under a great threat these days. They also have been checking into the effects of El Ni�o, which has brought the mackerel into our waters and devastated, of course, the health of the salmon stocks here. In particular, lighthouse keepers are there to monitor things like the tsunami that devastated the west coast, and particularly Port Alberni, in the early sixties. I believe that the member for Parksville-Qualicum resided in Port Alberni at that time.

We're going to automate lighthouses, and presently it looks like there will be no saving at all in the automation of those lighthouses. It has been estimated that the cost to automate is between $5 million and $5.5 million. Lighthouses presently cost $7.5 million, so therefore we're looking at saving of $2.7 million on staffing. But those staff will not be removed; they will be reallocated to other positions within the federal workforce, and therefore their cost will still be there.

These savings are very dubious in another manner, because signals are accurate to 90 percent. Now, a 90 percent accuracy rate may be a good statistic, but it is no comfort to boaters or aviators who get into trouble. As a matter of fact, we can look at reports about sensors and their accuracy, and particularly at the precipitation occurrence sensor that would be located in the new automated lighthouses. I will read from the "Aviation Notice" report: "Intermittent false reports, or P- or P--, indicating light or very light precipitation of unknown type, when in fact no precipitation is present." Further: "The laser ceilometer is vertically aligned and can detect only the cloud directly above.... The precipitation sensor is vertically orientated and will not detect weather in the vicinity that is stationary or does not pass over the sensor."

We have seen that the 30 lighthouses that operate on the coast over a five-year period aided 32,042 persons who were 

[ Page 1009 ]

in distress. Now, I ask the Liberal government in Ottawa, which is responsible for these devastating cuts, whether they, in fact, will be out there helping those boaters and those aviators and those people that end up in distress through their automated light systems. Cuts by the Liberal Party in Ottawa have been particularly devastating to British Columbia. We have seen cuts in education; we have seen cuts in health; we have seen cuts in social services; we have seen the closure of airports, the abandonment of responsibility. And now we are seeing the very health and safety of people on the west coast put in jeopardy. I'll bet, and I would place the bet, that if staffed lighthouses were needed along the Rideau Canal in Ottawa, this issue would have been resolved overnight. But then, of course, it is well known that there are already a great many foghorns in Ottawa.

I believe that the safety of people on the coast is paramount. Ottawa continues to try to offload onto British Columbia costs associated with various programs. B.C. should not and will not accept that responsibility and that burden. Ottawa has to recognize that that responsibility is theirs. Every member in this House should make sure that they live up to that responsibility and do not offload it again onto the backs of British Columbians. We don't need high-tech lights that only shine on clear days; we need the Coast Guard to start taking its responsibility seriously. We need a Liberal government in Ottawa to hear our voice not just on social services but on the very life and death of people who ply our coast.

[11:00]

P. Reitsma: As I mentioned, this is a non-partisan issue. And just for the record, although I didn't live in Port Alberni, I was privileged to be the mayor of Port Alberni.

Keeping on with the theme, how many accidents need to happen, spilling vast quantities of dirty bunker oil onto the beaches, with all the consequences; how many lives need to be snuffed out; how many watery graves will it take before we realize there is no replacement for the men and women looking out the window? It could be you they save. The range and quality of human observation, the delivery of services and the up-to-the-minute weather reporting cannot be matched by mechanical devices which are unreliable. Savings on automation are minimum at best. The potential cost in lives and disasters knows no maximum.

Hon. Speaker, some solutions. There are proposals to save those stations, to declare them as provincial marine parks, with a public-private partnership arrangement. Many provincial and federal departments, as well as private industry, directly or indirectly benefit from the services of the lightkeepers. Fisheries, Environment, Tourism, Transportation, Education, Manpower, Public Works, Employment: multibillion-dollar departments and industries chart the percentage of the cost to those that benefit. There are proposals to levy an insignificant marine and aviation fuel assessment and a boat licence fee, commercial as well as recreational. A combination of all those will save our stations -- the SOS. Do it simultaneously with the new fisheries, and a new harbour and ports policy. If we all truly want to, we can make it happen. This transcends all political parties.

As a former mariner for three and a half years, I have seen many manned lighthouses. I cannot describe the comfort and trust they gave me. Only lightkeepers can deliver safety and operate the lights to provide those rays of hope.

J. Kwan: Today, I rise to talk about a very significant issue, and that is the issue of participation and partnerships. More specifically, I want to relay this issue as it relates to the ethnic media.

In my inaugural speech, I referenced the ethnic media and the role which they played during the election campaign, and the importance of that role. The fact of the matter is that they were very involved in reporting the issues as they arose throughout the course of the campaign, ensuring that the public had access to information so that they had the opportunity to make informed decisions and, therefore, to engage in the process that is our democratic process.

In our chamber today, my colleague the hon. member for New Westminster talked about the issue titled: "Taking a Stand Against Hate in British Columbia." This is a very important issue for us. For me, what this also zeroes in on is the issue around communications. Some people say it is perfectly all right to engage in communication even though it inflicts pain on other people and promotes hurt. All of us have a role to play, and when those incidents happen, we as elected officials can take a stand But more than that: who else has a role to play in that? It is the media themselves. What is the role of the media in the context of our day-to-day lives and in the context of what is important to us? What is their role in terms of their participation in creating the partnership that is vital to the health of our community?

I have observed over the last number of years, especially as I engage in the political process, the role which the ethnic media plays, and I'm very pleased to say that they have taken a very proactive role. Sometimes, in reporting news, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position where the mainstream media are only interested in reporting news that has negative consequences. But equally important to our community is reporting news that has a positive consequence.

In the situation around hate, and in the situation around promoting multiculturalism, the spirit of multiculturalism and what it means, the role and the participation of the media are significant. The ethnic media has done an excellent job of reporting to members of the public what is happening in their local communities that is of positive consequence. That will contribute to the building of harmony among one another and will work toward the elimination of hate.

Very recently, I read in the newspaper about the participation and partnerships that the ethnic media had begun. Sing Tao Holdings Ltd. has begun a partnership with the University of British Columbia. They have contributed a gift to the University of British Columbia to establish a school of journalism, a school that will contribute to the field of journalism by ensuring that there are more new opportunities for all Canadians to learn and be exposed to the field. But their contribution by doing that raises the issue around what is happening in our newsrooms. What is the representation within those newsrooms?

You will see, as I have observed over the last number of years, that the newsrooms, particularly in the mainstream media, are very deficient in the number of representatives from the ethnic community -- deficient in terms of the reporters and the editors, and deficient in terms of their role within that field. I think that this does the community a disservice in the greater sense. The role of the community, when you have the participation of the ethnic community in all of the spectrum of our lives, can only add to the spirit of 

[ Page 1010 ]

multiculturalism and the development of harmony as we embark on the future health and development of our various communities.

I cite other examples which the ethnic media have engaged themselves in over the course of the last number of years. Another recent partnership that the ethnic media embarked on was with AM-1320, a radio station where they engaged with Simon Fraser University and their school of communications in developing a series of public lectures at SFU for people who are interested in learning about broadcasting. It allows them to engage in that field and learn about its ethics and the experiences of other reporters, so that they too can have more of an active role.

But outside this partnership -- the financial contribution -- while it is an important component, there is another important components as well: the volunteerism, the initiative of wanting to raise the issues and awareness in the community. There are many other significant contributions from the ethnic community in partnership with our various non-profit groups. For example, a couple of weeks ago there was a fundraising event, the Walk with the Dragon, in Vancouver for a group called SUCCESS. All the ethnic media were very active in sponsoring the event, and it was tremendously successful. Many of my colleagues, from across the floor as well as on the government side, were present at that event. There are other important and significant events to which the ethnic media has contributed and gotten involved in. For example, there are the Children's Hospital fundraising events and the Cancer Society fundraising events; the list goes on and on. I could list all these contributions until we end and beyond, but that's not the purpose. Today I want to highlight the spirit of that partnership and what it means for the community at large.

As an immigrant and as a former advocate in the community, I encountered many people who, because they were not able to access information, were not able to participate in our society or become a part of our society and the democratic process. We need to encourage all of us to continue in that spirit, so that we can engage in and be active in a democratic society, and be fundamental in our beliefs of what is equal and just in a society.

S. Hawkins: I listened with interest and appreciation to the comments made by the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Interestingly enough, I will probably mirror a lot of the comments she made. As a member of a culturally rich ethnic community and as an avid consumer, and most recently as a participant in and a subject of a series of stories in the ethnic media, I have had the personal opportunity to experience a greater awareness of the role and importance of the ethnic media.

The media is the backbone of our democracy. What members say and do in this chamber would not have the same impact if the media were not present covering the proceedings. The role of the media in the democratic process is unique. Media provide the forum through which we are all kept accountable to the electorate we serve. As the media does their job -- that is, as I understand it -- to report the news in an objective and unbiased way, we would expect that the general public would be well informed. A well-informed public will make intelligent choices and ultimately elect an honest and responsible government that will serve the public's needs.

The past generation has seen a dramatic change in the demographics of our society. Canada has had a long tradition of welcoming others from abroad and making efforts to reunite families. This has resulted in a blossoming of ethnic diversity in our country, a trait which makes Canada unique in the world. In the context of explosive multicultural growth, the established media, the so-called mainstream media, have perhaps not been quick enough to respond to the changing needs of the changing general public. As a result, a niche has been created for the emergence of media serving the needs of newer Canadians and those Canadians wishing to preserve their ethnic links. By 1980, the National Library of Canada reported that there were over 200 ethnic periodicals published in Canada, claiming a readership of over two million people. Imagine how that must have grown over the past 16 years.

In Vancouver alone, in the ethnic media that I'm most familiar with, there are two 24-hour Indo-Canadian radio stations, at least nine printed publications, and half a dozen TV programs available to the public. The ethnic media, generally speaking, keeps the community it serves well informed of issues, and allows a forum for communication which otherwise may not exist. The ethnic media promote preservation of traditional culture and pride in the community by publicizing community events and recognizing the achievements of individuals.

I had a bit of fun doing the research into this area. I contacted members of the ethnic media that I am familiar with and we reversed roles, so that the interviewee, which was previously myself, now became the interviewer. The perception was that the mainstream media perhaps was lacking at times in sensitivity and perpetuated stereotypes. It was felt that there was not a great depth of understanding of cultural diversity on the part of the mainstream media. It was further felt that the focus of the so-called mainstream media leaned towards the darker side and sensational aspects when covering stories with primarily ethnic content. The ethnic media, it was felt, had a broader scope and focused on providing a more complex overview of news coverage and issues related to cultural diversity than takes place in the established media.

The role of the ethnic media is expanding as these publications and broadcasts are accepted ever-increasingly by the general public. Ethnic media continue to become prominent, as evidenced by the recent announcement -- as the hon. member from the opposite side said -- of the Sing Tao school of journalism, which will be located at UBC, and will include a new building and a permanent endowment fund for graduate studies in journalism. The school will welcome people from all different ethnic backgrounds. The public is well served by partnerships like the Sing Tao school of journalism, and well served by participation of all ethnic media outlets, as they grow to serve the democratic process more and more all the time.

I am proud to have risen in the House today to speak in support of ethnic media, which will promote the cultural integrity of the growing ethnic communities in which we live here in British Columbia, and which will preserve and foster cultural activity -- an identity -- for young people. It will ensure that our first-generation Canadians will share in building the hopes and future of British Columbia.

[11:15]

J. Kwan: I appreciate very much the comments from the member for Okanagan West. I absolutely agreed with many of her points, and I think this is one of the few times where we would be in absolute agreement.

I'm thinking about the role of the ethnic media, and the significance of the school of journalism, and of that partnership and what it essentially means for all of us. As the hon. 

[ Page 1011 ]

member across the floor mentioned, there have been times when the ethnic community has noted, especially in reports from the mainstream community, then lack of understanding -- or the dark side, if you will, of the ethnic community. These generate and fuel the hatred and fear that are sometimes unnecessary and counterproductive for the very essence of what we fight for and what we strive to achieve, and that is to be treated fairly and equitably, to be respected, and to ensure that our preservation of our culture and the language of our ethnicity are respected, so that we can truly celebrate each other.

I think about the ethnic community in terms of their participation. The role Sing Tao Holdings Ltd. has engaged in is significant for us, from an academic point of view as well as from an educational point of view. As we all know, throughout the course of the campaign, one of the most significant issues was education. This school of journalism will participate in developing academic excellence in the field of journalism -- which we all know we need, given the calibre that is out there today.

The other important component of this participation is the issue around community participation. I cannot emphasize that enough. Every one of us has a role to play, including the media, so that community members have the choice to be proactive in this democratic society. By their activism, because they do have access to a forum to disseminate information, they can positively incite the participation of the community at large, so that we can all benefit from their point of view.

Finally, I think there's an issue of social responsibility, and that is the essence for the ethnic media and the media at large to pay attention to. We all have a social responsibility in shaping the future and the health of our communities. That is the essence of my statement today, and I thank the member for Okanagan West for her statements and her reply.

With that, I would like to close. I wish all members a happy weekend, a safe weekend. We shall see you next week.

Hon. D. Streifel: I call Committee of Supply A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

In this House, I call the responses to the resolutions passed in Committee of Supply A, beginning with Women's Equality -- then the Attorney General; Ag, Fish and Food; and Environment, Lands and Parks, in that order.

Deputy Speaker: The process, as you may know, is a timed one: three minutes, beginning with the independents; five minutes for the official opposition; and then eight minutes for the government minister, who winds up those discussions. That's the process.

I gather that Women's Equality is up first. If there are no independents who wish to speak, then I will call on the hon. member for Langley.

L. Stephens: I would like to speak to the wrap-up of the Women's Equality estimates for this year. I would like to say that the official opposition very much appreciated the staff of the office of the Minister of Women's Equality for the briefings and the information that was sent over, and for the help in proceeding through the estimates again this year. So I want to say to the minister that I do appreciate the courtesies that her office has extended.

The ministry's budget has increased again this year -- and has every year since 1991. This is a result of the ministry having developed many worthwhile programs and services for women. I want to say that, because in many areas it's true. There are a number of initiatives that have come forward from the Ministry of Women's Equality that have contributed in significant ways to the lives of women. I believe the minister and myself share the view that advocating on behalf of women is important in British Columbia.

One of the areas that we need to work on is equitable services for women, and I would like to encourage the minister to pay more attention to this area. An example of this is funding and research for women's health. I'm sure the minister knows that there are inequities in that area, and that is one area that I would encourage her to pursue. Economic equity, equal pay for work of equal value, is another area that I would like the minister to pay a little more attention to, and also opportunities for education and training in traditional and non-traditional areas of work. There are many non-traditional areas of work for women in which I think we can provide more programs and encourage more women to take advantage of those opportunities.

Accessible, affordable and safe child care are desperately needed by lone-parent families and two-parent families, not only in British Columbia but all across Canada. It is unfortunate that there wasn't an opportunity for a national child care strategy to develop and take place, but the province of British Columbia, along with the federal government, does have the cost-shared child care strategy called child care initiatives, to come up with ways to make sure that there are some innovative programs and pilot programs done to provide safe, accessible and affordable child care for families in this province. This is an initiative that I think we can all support.

I am going to say that I'm very disappointed in the government's capital freeze. This has meant that about 700 child care spaces, which were announced by the minister in April, that would be occurring in schools around the province are not going to go forward. School-based child care is caught in the freeze, and that's something I would encourage the minister to seriously advocate within her government on behalf of families, to make sure that those spaces are available to teen parents, who, as we know, really do need that kind of service. So I want to say that this is something the minister needs to seriously consider.

The most serious concerns I have are those around violence, particularly violence against women and children. This government, in my view, is not doing enough to protect women and children. Indeed, the events of the past week with regard to the Social Services estimates and the Gove report on the protection of children clearly show that there is negligence on the part of the government on this issue. Equality can't be achieved when women continue to live in fear of violence simply because they are women. The ministry's Stopping the Violence initiative needs to have some big, sharp teeth. So I would encourage the minister again -- in fact, I would challenge the minister -- to advocate to her colleague the Attorney General on behalf of women who have been abused, to make sure that they bring before this House some legislation to deal with domestic violence in a more meaningful way.

There have been studies done that clearly show that the cost to society from domestic violence is significant in health care and through the justice system. Instead of dealing with this issue in a rather superficial way, what we need to do is come to grips with a very serious problem that costs a lot of money and affects a lot of lives.

[ Page 1012 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: First, I'd like to compliment the members opposite and, in particular, the critic from the official opposition. We obviously share a number of points of view, and I appreciate the words of support that come across around particular issues.

When it comes to child care, we are working with communities to create quality child care that meets the needs of families at a cost they can afford. Obviously, that is a challenge, especially under tight fiscal conditions. By creating more child care spaces, we are giving women and men access to training and the jobs they need to support their families. High-quality child care also helps to develop social skills and supports a healthy workforce in the future. Clearly, both myself and the opposition critic support that notion, and I hear her comments around the strategic initiatives taken by the federal government and this government. We know that we are charting new waters and finding new solutions to the challenge of child care.

I do want to come to one of the concerns she has outlined. Economic equality is a very deep concern of mine and for the members on this side of the House. It makes good sense that B.C. families and our economy support women in an equitable way. We know that many women and their families do live in poverty, particularly single-parent families. We are working on many fronts to address that. We've increased the minimum wage, implemented pay and employment equity in the public sector, and made child care a priority, as I've just mentioned. We've reformed pensions and benefits, and improved access for women to training in non-traditional, higher-paying occupations.

Women are key to the economy of B.C., and they're a key to the future and to creating jobs. They start small businesses at three times the rate of men and represent the fastest-growing segment of the small business population. So we have a very strong interest in getting out there and supporting women to find economic stability. I have said that I believe that, indirectly or directly, everything we do in this ministry in the end affects women and their equality in the economic sphere.

I'd like to close by just moving to the issue that was raised that is of particular concern: the issue around violence. Again, I agree that we cannot expect women to be a strong force or out there protecting their economic interests if they are victims of violence. The Attorney General and I have a very strong relationship and are working hard on this issue. Not only have we increased the number of transition houses -- since 1991, there are 15 new transition houses, six new safe houses and three new second-stage houses -- we have instituted counselling for women, and we have instituted the program for children who witness abuse. All of these programs have a preventative edge to them in the sense that we are trying to prevent the behaviour from recurring. But I hear the opposition member clearly and understand her concern that we become more aggressive in this area. To that end, we in the ministry have moved all of our grant money to this area and have increased our emphasis against violence.

In closing, the ministry has made significant gains on behalf of women, and I am very pleased to hear the ongoing support from the opposition.

[11:30]

Deputy Speaker: That completes Women's Equality. We move now to the Ministry of Attorney General. At this time I'm prepared to call upon one of the independents, the hon. member for Peace River South, for a three-minute presentation.

J. Weisgerber: I very much enjoyed the estimates of the Minister of Attorney General. I think the Attorney was very forthright and very earnest in listening to the concerns that were raised -- certainly by the independent members and I expect by other members -- as to the issues of youth violence, crime, law enforcement, the need for us to have more police officers, the value of police forces as a deterrent and the fact that a visible police presence tends to discourage crime. One of the biggest deterrents, I believe, to criminal activity is the expectation of being apprehended. It's not necessarily the fear of how much time you're going to do if you're caught; the knowledge that there is a high likelihood of apprehension is one of the best deterrents to criminal activity.

With that in mind, the commitment of the government for 100 new police officers is certainly a step in the right direction. I believe that with a modest investment by the Crown we could expand that considerably. There needs to be a focus on gang activities and organized criminal activity -- and we talked a little bit about groups such as the Hell's Angels, in Vancouver and in areas in the lower mainland, and the Rockers, who have become far more active and aggressive in northern parts of the province.

Some of the other areas we touched on were maintenance enforcement and the belief that people should fulfil their obligations and support their dependents, even though there may be a separation in the family. At the same time, we need to strike a balance and not be overenthusiastic about the use of remedies, such as liens on property, where there may well not be any default, any lateness in payments.

Finally, we touched on an issue of quite sincere interest to me, and that is the whole question of restraining orders and the difficulty that recent precedents, both in the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court, have raised for communities such as Dawson Creek, where women have found difficulty in getting restraining orders and have been forced to use far more clumsy ways of protecting themselves against possible aggression by their spouses.

In closing, I commend the Attorney again. I think he listened. We hope he will respond. I certainly have every expectation that he will.

G. Plant: I want to begin by picking up a theme of the remarks of the member just prior to me. I too am grateful for what I experienced as a sincere attempt on the part of the Attorney General to respond in a direct and forthright way to the questions that were asked during the course of estimates. It made the process, I think, not only easier from the point of view of a novice like myself but also ultimately more useful to the public as a whole.

There were a couple of areas I pursued during estimates which are of continuing interest and concern to me, and I do want to take this opportunity to touch on them.

First, it is my experience that throughout British Columbia, when you speak of the Ministry of Attorney General, the issue that seems to be foremost on people's minds is crime, policing, the perception that we're living in an increasingly dangerous society and not able to do much about that. I was interested, in that regard, to hear the Attorney General give some explanation about the initiative in relation to community 

[ Page 1013 ]

policing, about his attempts to lobby the federal government to increase certain aspects of the criminal law system which are outside this government's control but are in the federal government's control. I hope the Attorney General will continue to take a leadership role in that regard on behalf of British Columbians in his dealings with the government of Canada.

I also noted with interest the fact that our estimates came shortly after the coming into effect of the Victims of Crime Act. He and I and others will, I'm sure, watch with interest to see whether that statute, as it is implemented, makes a difference for the victims of crime, who are all too often a silent and unheard-from sector of our community.

The other aspect, I suppose, of the criminal justice system is the question of corrections. I have to register here, as I did there, a concern about the capital spending review as it affects the development of corrections facilities. My concern is that in this case we are dealing with facilities that, clearly, someone who has thought about it -- and many people have thought about it -- thinks are needed. It's not, in my submission, appropriate that we delay these things any more than we absolutely have to. I hope the Attorney General will work hard to ensure that during the course of this review, corrections facilities remain on the list of things that are going to be done in the province.

A couple of other issues of concern to me and others, outside the area of criminal justice, are legal aid.... I must register my concern here that the government does not yet have what I think is an effective grasp of a serious problem, in relation to the control of the Legal Services Society. Adult guardianship is another issue. I look forward to the completion of the review which is apparently to be undertaken by the Attorney General ministry of the implementation of that legislation, and I hope it is completed within the timetable he has said it will be completed in.

Finally, one somewhat smaller point in terms of government expenditure. I note with interest that the government has moved enthusiastically to implement its policies on alternative dispute resolution. I'm following these initiatives with interest, and I will continue to do so. I welcome the government's full commitment to the pursuit of alternative dispute resolution across the board. I hope we will see evidence that that commitment is not just a commitment in words but is, in fact, a commitment in action and in deeds over the course of the coming months.

With that, I want to say once again that I appreciate the assistance I received from the Attorney and his staff during the estimates.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was indeed a pleasure to have the estimates in Committee A and to have the critic from the opposition, the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, pose questions.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I was thinking back to last year. We didn't reach Mars this time.

It was indeed a pleasure to answer questions and engage in some serious discussion with both the official critic from the opposition and the independent members, particularly the members from Peace River North and Peace River South. All of the members asked very thoughtful and probing questions. I provided answers to the best of my ability and agreed that we need to do more work in many of the areas.

The work continues, and right after the estimates were over I asked my staff to go through the estimates -- the answers and the questions -- and begin to do the work that I agreed we would begin to do in those areas. The areas are many, and I will mention just some of them: the adult guardianship area; the victims of crime, of course -- that's ongoing; the gang activity that the hon. member for Peace River South raised with respect to the Rockers, particularly, or the Hell's Angels. I've asked my staff to have someone from CLEU give me a thorough briefing on what is happening, so that the Attorney General can be seen to be taking a position on this in a very vigorous fashion. I've also asked my staff to brief the hon. member for Peace River South or any other member, to the extent that they can be briefed, with that information, so that they understand the extent of the problem as far as possible.

With respect to the area of crime, there was obviously a thorough debate. I indicated that over the next few years we want to proceed in two directions. We want to continue to deal with violent offenders so that they no longer pose a risk to society. But with non-violent offenders, we want to actually encourage all of us to try to deal with them in a fashion which facilitates their quick reintegration into society, so that they can begin to do productive work rather than costing us in terms of incarceration.

In terms of the capital freeze, of course, there's a review. I am anxiously awaiting the results of that review, so that the much-needed corrections facility or facilities can proceed. As I said in the estimates, it is my dream -- if it ever came true -- in the next three or four years that rather than building corrections facilities, we shut one down. That would really be my desire, because there are many non-violent prisoners: minor offenders that are languishing in jails, costing us money, while they could be under community supervision. They could be out doing productive work, while posing no risk, or minimal risk, to society.

I thoroughly enjoyed the questions and suggestions from the hon. members, and I want to officially thank the staff that assisted me throughout. That ministry is blessed with probably the brightest staff in this entire government. I'm partisan -- biased -- on that issue, of course, and I have thoroughly enjoyed working with them. With that, I look forward to the next few years.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, thank you for the Attorney General's estimate reports. Now we turn to Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

J. Weisgerber: The estimates in Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were interesting with a new minister, someone with some new perspectives -- perhaps not as much background in the ministry and in the affairs of the ministry as he will have in future years. Nonetheless, I found it refreshing that he came with an apparently open mind, willing to look at new solutions to old problems.

We talked about a whole range of things. Issues of particular interest to me, to my caucus, to Reform and to my constituents were questions around the agricultural land reserve -- the functioning of the commission. I'm disappointed to say I don't think I was successful in persuading the minister that there should be a far greater regional approach, a lot more local decision-making with respect to land use dec-

[ Page 1014 ]

isions. I will always believe that in a province as large and as diverse as British Columbia, you can't have one set of rules that make sense in the Fraser Valley, Delta, the Peace region, the Cariboo and the Kootenays all at the same time. There simply are too many differences, too many circumstances.

We talked a little bit about some local agricultural issues. A very wet year in the Peace is going to cause some real problems with the crops and with harvesting. Opportunities for diversification in agriculture are apparent all across British Columbia. Again in the Peace region, diversification into things such as bison and alternative field crops such as peas have real promise but perhaps not the degree of support from the ministry that we would like to see.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[11:45]

In the area of fisheries, one that's obviously of keen interest to British Columbians these days, I attempted to persuade the minister -- and I think I was partially successful, or at least met with partial agreement -- that, as I believe, the only answer in the long term for the fisheries on the west coast is for British Columbia to pursue full jurisdiction. As long as the federal government calls the shots with respect to fisheries, we are going to continue to have problems. It's amazing to me, at a time of crisis in the west coast fisheries, that we see substantial budget reductions in federal Fisheries. We see layoffs; we see reductions in expenditures; we see fewer people in enforcement. At a time when our fishery is critically in danger, we see the federal government cutting back on spending. Everybody knows you need to have economies in government, but there are times when the government, the people with the responsibility, have to stand up and take a position and make an investment. That will only happen on the west coast fishery with provincial jurisdiction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to outline briefly the discussions in committee on Ag and Fish.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased today to report to this House on our discussion in the budget estimates for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The minister and I had, I think, a productive discussion. We did engage in a bit of philosophy about the state of the industry. I think in particular of the discussion about an industry in transition at the farm level, in the fishing sector and in the processing sector in both. We talked about how the ministry and the government need to play a proactive role in assisting the industry in that transition.

I pointed out to the minister that B.C. farmers are probably the least subsidized in any jurisdiction in North America and that in turn the budget he has tabled for Agriculture is one of the lowest in those jurisdictions. Having said that, we need to be very conscious of being effective in how we use those funds.

We pointed out to the minister the very critical situation within all of our processing sectors in British Columbia and the impact that will have on primary producers, both fishermen and farmers. We talked about the need to incorporate the goal of a viable processing sector in the government's agrifood strategy, which the minister indicated would be reviewed this fall. We had extensive discussions with the minister about the agricultural land reserve and the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, and about the concern that we cannot continue to defend the preservation of good farmland without defending the ability of farmers to maintain a living on that land.

We talked about the concerns that the agriculture and fishing industries have about the ongoing proliferation of regulations and impacts, particularly from other ministries within government. We talked about the need for the Agriculture ministry to be proactive in dealing with those issues. One good example is the fact that farmers are expected to absorb the cost of damage to their crops by wildlife. Society sees a need to preserve wildlife, yet on their own private farmlands, farmers have to absorb that cost. We see that as patently unjust. There are a number of regulations the ministry needs to be proactive in vis-�-vis other ministries, to ensure the ongoing viability of agriculture.

We sought a commitment from the minister to fully implement the provisions of the farm practices act, which he indicated was subject to available resources. We expressed some concern about that, and we urged the minister to put those resources in place so the full intent of this progressive legislation can be implemented. We discussed ongoing issues within the fishing industry. I certainly concur with the comments by the member for Peace River South that there's a need for British Columbia to focus on a full takeover of the management of the west coast fishery. We see that as the only way to bring more effective local management to that resource.

In closing, I note the stability of the staffing and leadership within the Ministry of Agriculture, and I see that as a very positive thing. Certainly we've seen in recent days some of the difficulties when you have constantly revolving ministers and deputies. So I think the stability in the Ministry of Agriculture is very positive, and I look forward to an ongoing, constructive relationship with the minister and his staff.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to rise as the new minister, which both members mentioned, and tell you and the whole world that I survived my first estimates -- maybe the most bizarre cultural experience I've ever been through. I appreciate that it was made easier by the constructive nature of the dialogue with the opposition. Although at times I didn't understand the cultural implications, I certainly appreciated the nature of the friendly repartee.

I can only agree with the Third Party critic that we tended not to agree on everything, but I'm going to concentrate on a couple of things we did agree on. I thought he did a really excellent job on behalf of his constituents of educating me about an ongoing issue, which has been around for a really long time, of the growers of grass seed in his constituency trying to get various ministries in government to buy their product over the years. It's a fact that the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Forests and lots of municipalities.... Government is a consumer of the products of the hon. member's constituents, and we have apparently failed over the years to invent a protocol that we would buy the B.C. product first. It's somewhat of an embarrassment, I think, when we have made such a big deal of the Buy B.C. program. So I was pleased to learn from the hon. member and to try to make some commitments to work on that issue during my term in office.

I'm not sure I agreed with his contention in estimates, repeated here today, that the province wants to take over the entire responsibility for the fishery. I hope I will be able to stand here a year from now and report on the outcome of a couple of hundred days of very intensive analysis and planning and, ultimately, some negotiations with the federal government. I hope I will be able to come back and report what I hope is a constructive partnering, ending the management of our resource from thousands of miles away.

But I'm not sure that the people of B.C. want to accept immediately the thousand employees and the huge bill that 

[ Page 1015 ]

would go with accepting total management all at once, nor do I think that the people in the fishing communities want to lose all the expertise of those people they've been working with over the years. We are starting today to put the province on the map in the fishing industry, and we will attempt to do that at a rational speed, ensuring that we obtain from the federal government the transfer payments that are required to take up the slack and for us to play our full part.

Hon. Speaker, the opposition critic was speaking the truth when he said that we had a pleasant meeting of the minds. We had some philosophical discussions. I believe he is an excellent and articulate advocate for the agriculture sector, and I was pleased to take on some of the information that he, like the Leader of the Third Party, offered to get me up to speed in my new job. I appreciate that.

I didn't quite understand what was going on, though, when I say it was sort of a bizarre cultural experience. You'd have the hon. member stand up and defend the agricultural land reserve, articulately and maybe better than anybody I know, because he understands it. As a visceral issue, it's his community. As a technical issue, he understands it because he has studied and worked with these matters for years and years. Then, sitting right next to him would be another member from the same party, who'd get up and attack the whole idea and ask me why I didn't take this land out -- sitting right next to their brother, who was asking why I didn't protect the thing.

I shouldn't use the word "bizarre"; let me say "confusing." I wasn't sure how to respond. I wanted to say: "I'm doing the best I can. Ask your brother; ask the guy in your caucus." Look, on occasion maybe you guys could raise caucus from a noun to a verb and go away and actually do it. It doesn't just mean sitting together. It doesn't mean that at the moment of an election, you put the same banner on your office. It means you go in a room and caucus. You have a conversation, and you figure out what you believe in so you can go back and say you have some principles. You don't just put up 43 different points of view and every single one is as valid as the other and call that a party. That's not a party; it's a bag of opportunists.

I really want to grow in this job. I want to learn; I want to be as good as I can be. But I could use a little constructive criticism. It's tough to be government without an opposition. That's not the parliamentary system. You're supposed to have the guys that are the government, and they work over here. Then there's yourself, hon. Speaker, and you're the sort of neutral person. Then, in order for democracy to function and ideas to flourish, there needs to be a constructive opposition that believes in something, so that we can have it out -- and the people can see us, and we can work out these ideas and see what works. But you guys aren't holding up your end. I'm packing this board and nobody's holding up the other end of the board. You've got as many different ideas as you've got members. The third party knows what it stands for, and if it gets confused, there are only two of them, anyway. But you guys....

The next time we're going to have an election, we'll tell you a few months or a year in advance, give you some warning. Here's what old parties do, ones with history: they go away, they rent a hall, they have a big meeting -- they call the big meeting a convention. They put motions on the floor and they stand up -- they do. They have a debate, and one person says one thing, another person.... Then they have a vote, and they figure out....

[12:00]

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, it's okay; it's all right. Just let them go, because I know the people at home hear this microphone.

They figure out what they believe in before they run for office, and that's called their platform. If they win....

The Speaker: Minister, I regret to advise you that the time allotted has expired.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Thank you for the good time we had. See you again next year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: For the quiet conclusion to the estimates of the Minister of Environment, I now call on the.... I'm waiting for the first speaker in response to.... I'm sorry, member for Peace River North -- my apologies. I think it's the colour of the tie; it blends in with the marble. My apologies.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, now I understand why we never get a question in question period: you need some glasses. I know it's difficult to be heard from down here -- the member for Kamloops-North Thompson certainly brings that out very well -- but the difficulty with seeing.... We shall send you a pair in the near future. But I'm not here to talk about the Speaker and his glasses.

Briefly, I want to talk about the Ministry of Environment. I hope he gives as great a wrap-up to his ministry debates as we just witnessed from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Just a note: I notice the minister has gone. I wonder if they rented that hall in Nanaimo when they went out to get their policy straightened out.

We talked about a multitude of things during the Ministry of Environment estimates. I did not attend them all, but for the part that I attended, I want to thank the minister and his staff for the answers to the questions. The minister was very amiable in supplying anything that we required, and I appreciated that from him. I expect that in the next while, we'll be getting a package that is fairly big.

We went through different areas under the minister's control, such as the difficulty some people have with hunting regulations in the North and South Peace -- the difficulty that people in my constituency, specifically, are having with a herd of bison owned by the province of British Columbia that are destroying crops, and those kinds of things.

Predator control: electrifying the dumps around the province so we can keep bears out. The idea is to get the bears to move to the food when it's a little fresher, and that's within the community. I still think it's the wrong way to go about it, but obviously we weren't able to convince the Minister of Environment that we really don't want them in the cities, and we don't want them in the communities at all. We would rather.... If they have to be in the dumps, at least they're out of the communities. We hope the minister will look at that a little closer.

[ Page 1016 ]

We talked a bit about water and air quality and solid waste. Solid waste is an issue in my constituency, where we haul solid waste 300 and 400 miles. It's fairly expensive. We canvassed extensively the Peace River, the W.A.C. Bennett Dam -- the issues around there with the level of the dam being reduced -- the water flows in the Peace River and some of the damage that that's causing to fish habitat and all wild game habitat, and also the issues surrounding human beings and domestic cattle -- those kinds of things that are taking place in the Peace River valley. I also went briefly with the minister -- because I thought we were going to wrap up that evening, but it went on another day after that -- about the approval process in the northeast for well authorities. The minister has assured me that he will live up to the last minister's word that no well authorities will be held back.

C. Clark: I'd like to start by thanking the minister, his staff and the members from the official opposition who attended the estimates debate, and the members from the third party, too, who played an important role and asked a lot of thought-provoking questions.

I know that on the official opposition side of the estimates debate, the room was almost always full. There was a great deal of interest expressed by the Liberal members, and I think that speaks to how important environmental issues are, not just in our community, our society and our constituencies, but also to the Liberal Party in general. That's one of the reasons, perhaps, why we managed to go on for a little longer than we had originally anticipated in the estimates process on Environment. It was a very thought-provoking process. We learned a great deal, and the minister's staff proved themselves to be marvellously professional, with an impressive background and understanding of what the ministry does.

We talked about fish habitat a great deal. I talked a little about my family's history in the fishing industry in this province, and then about how important we in the Liberal Party believe it is to our province and to our economic and social fabric in British Columbia. It's also important that British Columbia pick up the responsibility that it already has for fish habitat and that British Columbia take the responsibilities it has in that area in nurturing fish and ensuring that we have a healthy industry very seriously. It's not an area that the government has focused on as much as it could have in the past. I think the minister indicated that we might see some change in direction on the part of the government and a lot more focus on the responsibilities that we already have, as we ask for more responsibilities in the area of fisheries from the federal government. I applaud the minister and the ministry for making that undertaking.

We talked a bit, too, about the Fraser Basin Management Board. We on this side expressed our very profound disappointment that the government has decided not to carry on funding for that board. We believe it's a really critical link in the management of our fisheries, as the Fraser River is our most important river resource in the province, and the Fraser Basin Management Board is the only body that brings together all the different stakeholders: all the municipal governments, the provincial government, the federal government, industry and environmental groups. They are all brought together to discuss and to resolve these problems in a really workable manner, and it's a real shame that we're not going to see that carried on. We on this side of the House are going to continue to work to ask the government to keep funding for that in place so we can keep these very important initiatives on the front burner, and keep our care for the fish habitat in the Fraser River on the front burner, as well.

We talked a little bit about B.C. Hydro -- actually more than a little bit -- and its impact on the environment. One of the things we examined in estimates was the relationship that the Ministry of Environment has with B.C. Hydro. I think one of the things we discovered in estimates is that this relationship in the past hasn't been quite as solid as it could have been. We noted that the water licences are issued by the Ministry of Environment, but that only 7 percent of the water licences issued to B.C. Hydro have any environmental conditions attached to them. There really needs to be much more vigilance on the part of the ministry in overseeing B.C. Hydro to ensure that they do live up to at least some very minimum standards on caring for the environment. As our society has evolved over the last 30 or 40 years, our standards and requirements and the balance between our economic needs and our environmental concerns have shifted. So we need to think a lot more about where our concerns with the environment lie, and one area to do that is to look at B.C. Hydro and its operations very closely. The minister undertook to do some review of licences that have been issued, and I think, in the case of seven or eight dams, to go and review their water licences to add some environmental conditions, in cooperation with B.C. Hydro. We would of course like to see a closer relationship between the ministry and B.C. Hydro. We on this side of the House would like to see the ministry playing a lot more aggressive role in monitoring the corporation.

We talked about groundwater, how important it is in British Columbia and how important it is that we bring in groundwater legislation. It's something we campaigned on in the election, something the government promised a few years ago. Now, I think, the minister agreed in estimates that they would indeed be following up on that old commitment they made. It's a very important issue, particularly in light of some of the issues we raised with regard to the dumping of sludge from mills and other issues that would affect groundwater.

We talked about Burrard Thermal. We were gravely disappointed that the government doesn't list Burrard Thermal as an environmental concern. We talked about air quality, and we expressed our disappointment that the government doesn't seem to have any accurate measurements to ensure that air....

Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. It was a productive process. I look forward to doing it again next year.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you to the opposition critic and the member from the third party for their comments on what was, I would say, an extensive, perhaps exhaustive session of estimates for this ministry. Just by the comments by the opposition members you've heard, hon. Speaker, I think you recognize the wide range of issues that was canvassed -- everything from bear control to individual issues around stream reparations to licensing of foreshore leases and structures. Truly, Environment is a ministry as big as all outdoors. We tramped through a lot of interesting corners of the environment during estimates.

If I had to sum it up, I'd say the estimates focused on two things: reviewing the excellent record that this government has had in environmental protection in the past, and providing the opposition members with some concrete measures of where we are now on announcements that we have made and further work that needs to be done.

Whether it's on the protected-areas strategy, where we're now around halfway toward our announced goal of protecting 12 percent of the land area and have created over 200 new parks that are 9 percent of the province's land base in the 

[ Page 1017 ]

protected area; or whether it's on our goal of reducing the solid waste that goes into landfills in this province by 50 percent, and reporting on the cooperation we've had from municipal and regional governments -- and we are now again well on our way to achieving that goal by the turn of the century; or whether it's reporting on the effect of actually putting into place the toughest pulp mill effluent regulations of any province in the country, which has resulted in dramatic improvements in quality of aquatic habitat for crabs and in water quality in the streams and rivers of the province; or whether it's talking about how we have led the way on bringing in some of the toughest air emission standards in the country, which now the federal government fortunately has seen as the model they wish to adopt.... We were able to report on those to the opposition and talk about the next steps we are going to be taking.

We also moved on to look ahead to what the next set of priorities must be. I want to say the Liberal critic has captured those priorities well in her summary. Clearly one of our main priorities has to be to deal with the growing pressures on clean air and clean water of a burgeoning urban population in the lower Fraser Valley. The stresses on those must be addressed, both on the air quality side and on ensuring that we have safe, clean, adequate supplies of water. The member opposite spoke about the clean water act, which we'll be working on and bringing in at the next session. We spent a good deal of time talking about next steps to be taken to ensure that air quality continues to improve and that we continue to drive down the level of pollutants we release into our environment.

The other theme that tied a lot together was concern about quality of water. The member talked about the importance of water for fish. If water's good for fish, it's going to be good for other uses, because they're among the most sensitive users of that resource. We talked a lot about what has already been done through salmon habitat restoration, through the urban salmon habitat program, and through the work that the ministry is doing with B.C. Hydro to ensure that we've got the right balance between fish values and hydroelectric production.

I guess, in summary, I would say that this was a productive session of estimates. I think that the extent of participation did show, as the member said, that environmental concerns are widely held by members of this House. I think one of the phrases that got used a fair bit during estimates is one that I used in my introductory remarks about why the environment is so important. I think we will be judged as legislators, as those responsible for the environment, not by the uses we make of it ourselves, but by the quality of the environment we pass on to our children and to their children. In the words that the chair of the Fraser Basin Management Board has often used, it is our goal, our role, to become good ancestors so that future generations will look back on us as the ones who preserved and passed on a safe, sustainable environment for them.

[12:15]

The Speaker: The minister's comments conclude the reports from Committee A on estimates that are now completed, and I will now ask for a report from Committee A.

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

The Speaker: I now want to return to the matter of the standing order 35 motion. Earlier this morning, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition sought to raise a matter under standing order 35; namely, that the information received yesterday with respect to the death of 49 children in the care of the Ministry of Social Services was known to the Ministry of Social Services. First, with respect to this matter, I wish to acknowledge that the member gave me written notice of his intention to raise the matter, a courtesy which complies with practice recommendation No. 8.

Standing order 35 provides an opportunity to set aside the normal business of the House for the consideration of a matter of urgency. In his application, the member indicated that this matter has been discussed on other occasions, and the Government House Leader also pointed out that on a number of occasions, the matter has been previously discussed. I note from the record that during the last two weeks, the House has spent some 15 hours in consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services, and that a considerable portion of that time was devoted to discussion of the Gove commission report, the Matthew Vaudreuil case and numerous other issues in connection with child deaths.

In addition, I note from the record that during the past two days, a considerable amount of time was devoted to discussion of the same matters in connection with bills before the House. I also note that yesterday, the bulk of question period was concerned with this issue and that a ministerial statement and responses were received by the House on the issue. This matter is clearly of an ongoing nature.

I wish to make it abundantly clear that from the Chair's viewpoint, the subject matter of the application is of a most serious nature and that the Chair views it in that light. As I said at the conclusion of the submissions of the member and of the Government House Leader, it is not, however, the urgency of the matter, but rather the urgency of debate which must be considered in applying the rule. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition, page 365, indicates that the matter must be urgent, of recent occurrence and raised without delay: "The fact that a grievance is continuing is not sufficient if it is not of recent occurrence." Further: "The fact that new information has been received regarding a matter that has been continuing for some time does not in itself make that matter one of urgency."

For examples of Speakers' decisions in this House which have applied the foregoing principle, I would refer members to Journals, 1982, at page 18, and 1992, at page 194.

Accordingly, standing order 35 cannot be applied in this particular case.

Hon. J. Cashore: I wish everybody in the House a very safe, secure, enjoyable and refreshing weekend. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:20 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

[ Page 1018 ]

The committee met at 11:23 a.m.

On vote 53: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).

D. Jarvis: It's late; isn't it? Or is that clock wrong?

I guess last night I started off asking a short question, and I found out that for a lot of what I was asking about, the gentleman that would have been able to answer it wasn't here. So I guess I'll start off again. It's not that I'm trying to belabour the point, but I think that it's necessary for me to make a few statements with regard to the Second Narrows Bridge that I think that the Highways ministry should be aware of, because you never know when the situation is going to occur again. The way things are going and what I've heard from the last news broadcast, it may not be over by August 15. The torture that we have gone through on the....

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Sorry to interrupt you. It sounds like we're again getting into a Ministry of Highways area.

D. Jarvis: That's what we're here for.

The Chair: No, we're still with the Transportation Financing Authority, I believe.

Hon. L. Boone: We have an agreement with the critic that we were going to deal with the Transportation Financing Authority first, and the critic advised me that he still needed the Transportation Financing Authority people here this morning. If we are finished with Transportation Financing Authority, then these people can go back to do their jobs, and we'll get into the Ministry of Highways. If that's agreeable with you, then that is what we'll do. Otherwise, I'd really like to stick to the Transportation Financing Authority aspect of the ministry. But if you, in fact, feel that we've canvassed that area well enough, then they can go back and do their jobs, and I'd be more than happy to get onto your questions.

D. Jarvis: That's fine. No, I think we have a problem right at the moment in that our critic is not here because it was never announced, but he is here now. In view of that, until such time as he gets settled, maybe I could ask a question that I asked last night that wasn't answered.

Is there any new construction proposed -- capital cost construction, that would be -- to put an access road or a bridge at the north end of the Second Narrows Bridge where the cloverleafs and the upper levels intersect, so that traffic from the Seymour-Deep Cove area cannot be inhibited in going into Lynn Valley-North Vancouver and continuing on across the North Shore?

Hon. L. Boone: No, there's not.

D. Jarvis: Is there anything planned in the future for that?

Hon. L. Boone: I just said no, there's not.

D. Jarvis: I wanted to ask the minister, under capital expenditures, about the Lions Gate Bridge. I appreciate that the construction stage of this crossing is under review and actually has been frozen. But what, if any, are the future plans for a bridge that is becoming more and more unsafe and unsightly? I would like to almost warn the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that the liability aspect is getting to be considerably evident. We were told that it only had a life span of about five years, and now we are approaching, before anything can be done other than repair.... Our five years is almost up. Heaven forbid if we have any problems on that bridge.

Hon. L. Boone: You almost answered your own question, hon. member. Yes, it's frozen. Yes, we're reviewing it. We're continuing to review it, but all of these things add to the debt. You have to understand that. When you're reviewing the debt, and when we're taking into consideration all aspects of reviewing the debt, there are no projects that are outside that and that don't actually add to the debt. Every single project that has been mentioned here by individuals requesting on behalf of their constituency would add considerably to the provincial debt.

We are well aware of the concerns around the Lions Gate Bridge. It is not unsafe. Maintenance is done on it on a regular basis. But we will be reviewing it, and reviewing the plans around that. As you know, it's not one that is without controversy as to what is the right thing to do on that whole bridge, so we will be making a decision on that in due course.

D. Jarvis: If the minister will recall back to the time when it was first announced, there was a committee formed to look into the bridge. They said that the life span of the bridge was only five years. We're going back to 1991. This is '96. From '91 to '96 is five years, I believe. To rebuild a bridge is going to take years and years and years. Now we are talking about being into the 1998-99 period. It is not a matter of money; it is a matter of liability at this stage. I appreciate the fact that the towers and the struts are still the same, but the decking is not safe. I don't know if the minister has been underneath that bridge, but there are times when you can hear the popping of the rivets. The decking is unsafe and costs us a lot of money to maintain. We are not asking for money -- no one is asking for money. It was this government that came up with the idea that it was required within five years and that five-year period is now up. Can the minister tell us what the annual cost of maintenance for that bridge is? Has it gone up in the last few years?

[11:30]

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, those questions will be asked by the Ministry of Transportation. This is capital. You are asking me about the capital. There is nothing that indicates that this bridge is unsafe. We know that we do have to do something with that bridge, and we will be making a decision forthwith. And it costs money. So don't say it doesn't cost money, hon. member, because it does cost money and it costs big money.

We will be making a decision whenever we can as to how we are going to do it, but, as you know, it's a controversial issue. The decision that is going to be made as to what is done with Lions Gate Bridge is not one that is going to be well received by a number of different groups no matter what decision is made. It's not going to be an easy one. We will be reviewing all those things. It is part of the capital review, and we will be making a decision later. We can get to the decision on the rehabilitation or the maintenance of that bridge when we actually get into the ministry stuff.

D. Jarvis: The minister seems to think that money is the answer to everything. Well, perhaps it is. It is not that we are 

[ Page 1019 ]

asking for money, or that we are asking them to spend more money. They are the ones that came up with the problem, and if they changed their philosophy on how to create wealth in this province, perhaps we wouldn't be in the jam that we are in now.

B. Barisoff: Just going along with my colleague here on money and where money might come from, I am just wondering whether the minister has thought of putting any tolls anywhere throughout the province besides the Coquihalla?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we would be considering tolls on.... With regard to tolls, I went through the policy that we'd be looking at for future developments, whether it's the Lions Gate Bridge or other future developments.

B. Barisoff: Would tolls be considered on the Island Highway, or is there any specific areas where tolls would actually meet the criteria of what's out...? Maybe you could read out the criteria for what would take place for tolls.

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated last night, the criteria for tolls are that untolled alternatives must be available, so you cannot put a toll someplace where you have no other option. It must result in an improvement in service. It would be effectively used with a toll in place. That means that you're not going to put a toll in place of something where everyone is going to go somewhere else and nobody will use it. So those are the criteria for where a toll could be, and we will be reviewing various options around where tolls could be applied.

B. Barisoff: But my question was: are tolls being considered on the Vancouver Island Highway at this point?

Hon. L. Boone: I just read out the criteria. We'll be reviewing everything with regard to tolls, but at this time no decision has been made on tolls for any particular place.

B. Barisoff: What kind of revenue is generated by tolls on the different highways throughout the province? Which ones have tolls?

Hon. L. Boone: That's in the ministry estimates.

B. Barisoff: I want to get back to the situation in Osoyoos, and the fact of.... I think we've had some quotes on what the actual cost was. I think we started with $1.3 million and then we went to $3.2 million. I'm really interested in the actual cost of that project, from start to finish.

Hon. L. Boone: I think we told you what the TFA costs were. Those are the only costs that I can give you. We said we'd do a review and get back to you on the costs of the whole project, which would include other areas as well. But the only figure that we have here is a TFA cost, and you know what that is. We will get back to you with a report on the other.

B. Barisoff: That was the TFA costs for the '94-95. Was there any cost to that project in '95-96?

Hon. L. Boone: It was $1.8 million in '95-96.

B. Barisoff: So now we've got $1.3 million plus $1.8 million, plus the SHIP program from the federal government that was added into it. So that would be the total project cost of what that amounts to?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said to you last night, that would be -- unless there were costs before the TFA was created.

B. Barisoff: Just moving along in some of the projects that have taken place in the Okanagan, one of particular concern -- I wonder whether it's under review -- would be what I think is probably known as the McAlpine Bridge north of Oliver. It's probably one of the few wooden bridges left crossing Highway 97. There are chip trucks hauling through there on a constant basis, making probably one of the most unsafe situations in existence. I'm sure that it's not long before the thing is going collapse. I'm just wondering whether that's the only wooden bridge over a major highway.

Hon. L. Boone: Any decision on all of those things there would be included in the Okanagan transportation planning that's going on. We have a number of wooden bridges. They're all maintained, and none of them are unsafe. If they were unsafe, we would not allow them to be open.

B. Barisoff: I don't know if the Transportation Financing Authority has actually looked at that bridge over the last number of years. I have the opportunity to cross it almost on a daily basis when I'm in the riding. I wonder whether there's a possibility of having some kind of a review done on that particular bridge.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, as I told you, we are having the Okanagan transportation study. If you have concerns about that particular bridge, you can give your input to the study that's taking place.

B. Barisoff: I just want to move to a couple of topics that we discussed last night. One was the HCL -- the hiring practices and the fair-wage practice that takes place with, I'm led to believe, projects over $250,000. I did have some chats with people from Osoyoos who were put in a position where the local residents couldn't actually bid on part of the project because they weren't union. And yet, in turn, last night you indicated to me that the HCL was formed to make sure that locals on Vancouver Island were employed. In the case of the interior of British Columbia, and in particular the Osoyoos project, there were a lot of contractors who couldn't actually work on the project simply because of the same kinds of problems -- in reverse, almost, of what you were indicating last night.

I'm just wondering if you could indicate to me whether these kinds of things take place on a regular basis throughout the interior of the province.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what the member is arguing here. Are you arguing that you'd like to see HCL extended to the rest of the province, so that we could apply the same criteria for you there? If you are, then we'll look into it, because that sounds like a good idea.

B. Barisoff: I'm not at all arguing that point. What I'm telling you is that what takes place in one part of this province is not taking place in another part of the province. That fair-wage act has cost a lot of people in the interior, some of the smaller contractors, the ability to bid on projects like that. I 

[ Page 1020 ]

think, if you were to check with staff, you would find that a local landscaper in Osoyoos was not allowed to bid on a particular portion of the contract because he wasn't part of the union and couldn't bid on it. As it turned out, they ended up having someone come from Vancouver at a substantially greater cost.

Hon. L. Boone: Any company is allowed to bid, and welcome to bid, on any project, as long as they bid the fair-wage price, regardless of whether they're union or not. Some 60 percent of the contracts that were given out on the Island Highway went to non-union companies. And we found, throughout the province, that there are non-union companies bidding for and receiving contracts for government work. Everybody can bid, but they must bid the fair wage.

As I said, that legislation and that whole debate took place in the last term, hon. member. We're not here to debate whether or not we're going to be paying fair wages; fair wages are paid, and we're here at this particular time to discuss the Transportation Financing Authority.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, the minister is quite correct as to the usefulness of this sitting this morning. So could we stay within the boundaries of the estimates that we're discussing.

B. Barisoff: I think that the usefulness comes in in the fact that.... My concern is the extra costs that are being imposed on the province in some of these projects. I will follow up on this particular instance and bring it back to the minister to show her what takes place and the extra costs that are brought to bear because of the fair-wage policy.

Moving on to other projects, another concern I have is the Vancouver Island Highway project. You might indicate to me which sections of the project have been put on hold, and what the implications are to continuing with the rest of the project. Are there areas that have been put on hold that actually impede the progress of what's taking place?

Hon. L. Boone: There is a section north of Ladysmith and planning for the South Courtenay connector that are on hold; they are part of the freeze. The majority of the work on the Island Highway is continuing, as contracts had already been let and agreements had been made.

B. Barisoff: Maybe the minister could indicate to me.... I think last night she indicated a set amount of money that is given to the Transportation Financing Authority. These projects must have been budgeted projects that are ongoing kinds of things that would be part of the TFA's annual budget for the coming year. If the money is set for projects to take place, and if the TFA works independent of the government in where the funding comes from, I can't understand why these projects would be put on hold.

Hon. L. Boone: TFA doesn't work independent of the government. Government collects the taxes and passes the bill to allow TFA.... The board members are members of the government; they don't act independent of the government at all. They put in place the ability to finance those things, but they follow the directions of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance said that all projects were on hold and all projects would be reviewed. That meant all projects, not all projects with some exceptions. As soon as you put in exceptions, everybody wants their particular project to be exempt. So it was a blanket freeze, and they will be starting to review those projects within the next month or so -- once we finish here -- and making some decisions as to when projects will proceed or if projects will proceed.

B. Barisoff: I understand that some of the projects have been lifted from the freeze in the fact that if they do affect.... For instance, if you have two pieces of road on either side, and it's a connector kind of thing, I'm wondering whether there are some that have fallen into that category -- and have been lifted from the freeze and are actually going ahead.

[11:45]

Hon. L. Boone: There were established criteria for projects that would not be frozen: a legal commitment; if they had health and safety issues around them; maintenance of capital assets -- the project is essential to maintain the provincial capital asset base; avoiding increased land costs, whereby perhaps you need to purchase a piece of land before the price goes up on it; and functional integrity -- the project is essential to maintain the overall functional integrity of a project and/or to complete projects that are already under construction.

B. Barisoff: What I was actually asking is whether any of the projects that have been lifted since the freeze are actually going into place. I know the ones that would not have been put into the freeze because of the criteria that you gave me, but I'm just wondering whether there were any that have actually been lifted since that point in time, that are actually going ahead at this time.

Hon. L. Boone: There was one that was listed as frozen when in fact it shouldn't have been, and that was the Duke Point access road. That was because a legal commitment had already been made, so it is proceeding. But that was an error in listing it. It should never have been listed as a project to be frozen.

R. Masi: This is in relation to the NorDel completion project in Delta North. It runs from 116th Street to 120th Street, commonly known as Scott Road. I'll just give a bit of background on this. NorDel Way is considered an integral part of the Highway 91 system and was constructed to 112th Street in 1986. Over the years, because of the increased volume of the commuter traffic between Delta, Surrey, Langley, and the Fraser Valley, there's been a heavy volume of traffic into this area. The major problem here is that it's not complete. It goes as far as 116th Avenue, and then it disperses into the neighbourhood roads of Delta.

I believe there was a commitment by the former minister to complete NorDel Way, but there was never a particular time frame established. The previous extension of NorDel Way -- this is the second phase -- between 112th and 116th streets was completed in 1990, so it's slowly creeping up the hill toward Scott Road, but it does have a major leap to undertake yet.

The corporation of Delta provided the necessary road right-of-way in 1988 at a cost of about $460,000. The construction costs, a total of $2.2 million, were shared with the province in that case. Delta's share of the construction cost was approximately $365,000. The total project cost was approximately $2.7 million, of which Delta paid $825,000.

The current project to complete NorDel Way to Scott Road is estimated to be between $12 million and $15 million. Being a citizen of Delta North, I feel that the municipality 

[ Page 1021 ]

should be involved in a cost-sharing agreement that doesn't include the total expectation here because of the high volume of commuter traffic that comes from Langley and the Fraser Valley. After that long explanation of the situation, I'd like a progress report on this, indicating where we are on it and what the expectations may be.

Hon. L. Boone: We're still studying it right now. We know that it's the highest priority for the Delta council. We're reviewing all the expectations there, but it costs money -- as you say, between $12 million and $15 million. That's a lot of money.

Maybe you should write to the Fraser Institute and tell them that you really do want more money spent on infrastructure for this province and that you don't mind if the debt is increased as a result of that, because that would make it a whole lot easier on this minister to meet all of the concerns of the members opposite. You know, it's amazing. I'd love to spend the money on every bridge and every road and every highway out there and fix them all up. I'd like to see a couple a bridges in my area twinned, but reality is I'm going to have to wait for a long time. I can't give you a commitment at this time that any particular project is going to be proceeded with.

R. Masi: I'm not sure I'll accept the advice of writing to the Fraser Institute. It's never been one of my outstanding sources of information in my political history. I think what we're looking at here is not a commitment to a specific date but an indication from the minister that the project is not totally on ice.

If we want to refer back to the election campaign, there was almost a guarantee from the former MLA for Delta North that no matter what happened this thing was on board and going, so I sort of view this statement with surprise now that I hear that it's not as far along as he indicated to me.

Hon. L. Boone: That's not what I said. I said we would be reviewing it all. We know that it's a priority of Delta council. We will be reviewing all projects, as we are, and making the decisions within the fiscal reality of the province. I'm sure the hon. member would respect that.

B. Barisoff: The hon. minister keeps mentioning that this side of the House is so willing to continue to spend money; that is not really where we're coming from. I don't think the intent is just to go there and ask for every project. I think we're wanting to find out which projects are priorities, and we seem to have difficulty finding out which are the high-priority projects in the province and which aren't. These are the kinds of things, I think, that this side of the House is actually interested in. It's not a matter of spending money willy-nilly everywhere in the province. I think there's a lot of infrastructure in this province that has to be carried out, and if we were to look at the different projects.... I think that what we're here to do is to try to find out which projects are the priority items and which ones aren't. I think my colleague was indicating that.

Just going along in the same vein of a March 20 news release, I'm just wondering about the Little Fort bypass on Highway 24 and what the status of that project might be.

Hon. L. Boone: It's one of the projects that's frozen. Do you have that list that was in a news release, hon. member, of all the projects that were frozen?

B. Barisoff: Yes, hon. minister, I must have it somewhere. I think my concern here is the fact that I'm just looking at some of the news releases of different projects that were announced by different MLAs during the election period. I was looking at what their status might be, because some of them are coming forward and some of them aren't.

Moving on to some of the other projects that exist through the province, when reading last year's Hansard I noticed that now-Premier Glen Clark indicated that places on the Coquihalla -- like the little connector between Merritt and the section that goes off to Kelowna -- might be an opportune area for tolls. I'm just wondering whether this is the kind of thinking that is going to progress along the same lines, or whether that project is actually on goal as one of the projects that might be looked at in the near future.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess it would be possible to toll, but what we're really looking at is tolls to finance new projects so that we could in fact have some ability to raise funds from that to actually proceed with projects.

D. Symons: I'm looking at the quarterly report -- April to December 1995, so that will be a third quarterly report.... You had the estimated expenditures for the TFA of $15.477 million. I'm wondering if you might be able to tell me what the actuals were for that.

Hon. L. Boone: Do you want the actual breakdown for the quarter, or the actual breakdown for the year?

D. Symons: For the year up to the end of 1995. It would be '95-96, actually, the fiscal year.

Hon. L. Boone: About $17 million.

D. Symons: Thank you. Could you give me your revenues at the same time and break it down to dedicated and other revenues? I would suspect most of it is dedicated, but there may be others. Could you explain where the others come from?

Hon. L. Boone: From taxes -- the gas tax, the car tax, the rental tax -- $62,277,000; and $900,000 from other sources, such as Finlay Navigation Ltd. and Mt. Washington.

D. Symons: Could you give me, then, for the Island Highway project, the total the debt owing on that project up to this point -- or up to whenever your figures are for?

Hon. L. Boone: The overall debt for the corporation was $590 million. It's a whole debt for the whole province; it is not done on a project-by-project basis.

D. Symons: So that's the whole debt that currently the TFA is holding for all transportation or highway infrastructure improvements, etc.

That would be primarily the Island Highway, I would suspect. So this would indicate to me, then, that as far as payments go for projects on the Island Highway, you are less than halfway on that project.

Hon. L. Boone: We are about halfway finished.

[ Page 1022 ]

D. Symons: You know, there has been a great deal of shortfall over the years -- and this is historic for the last decade pretty well -- in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in the spending of money for rehabilitation projects on provincial highways. In essence, what we are doing is losing highways year by year. You're building a highway in the Island Highway, but we are losing infrastructure each year because of the shortfall. We're spending somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 percent of what a report called Good Roads Cost Less said should be spent for rehabilitation processes.

Traditionally rehab has not come under the TFA; rehab and maintenance have come under the ministry. But you know, if your mandate is to provide transportation for the province, and the province is not providing the funding appropriate to keep our current infrastructure there, is it in the purview of the TFA to start putting money into rehabilitation so at least that gets done?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't say that I would be averse to that, but that's not within the mandate of the TFA. I think that you'd require Treasury Board approval and.... You wouldn't need a change in legislation, but certainly Treasury Board approval to do so. I'd like it. It would be kind of nice for me.

D. Symons: Yes, more money off the books if we'd do that. But I have some serious concerns. If you look back through Hansard over the years that I've been critic for this ministry, you'd find that I keep going back to it all the time because, to me, it seems a little bit -- what's the word I want, not irresponsible.... I can't find the word I want here, but to be going out and building more highways when, at the same time, we are underfunding the maintenance and the rehabilitation of the current highways we have.... So on the one hand we're building more while we're losing. . .which seems to be a bit of a conundrum here that the province is getting into. If we can't look after what we currently have, do we have any right to go out and keep putting more in and allow it to go into deterioration? I wonder if the minister might comment on that as a philosophical process for a ministry.

[12:00]

Hon. L. Boone: It's an interesting question, and I appreciate that. I recognize that we need to spend more on rehabilitation, and any rural member certainly acknowledges that. But you know, the Island Highway was something that had been neglected and was required for safety's sake for many, many years. People were travelling it, and we were losing lives as a result of that. Just fixing that highway up would not have done the trick with regard to servicing the entire Island.

Sure I'd like to see more money in maintenance and rehabilitation, but I don't think you can stop building new structures at the same time. It's just not possible. There are certain things that are absolutely required and essential. We will try to keep up our rehabilitation. We'll do our job at Treasury Board, trying to see if we can convince them to give us more dollars, but cost pressures are there from everybody. So we do the best we can.

B. Barisoff: Just touching a little bit on that, those are some of the items I'm going to bring up under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, but I'm wondering, with the new structure, the TFA, where the responsibility lies in the actual maintenance, the looking after, of the new highways that are coming under their jurisdiction, when they've just been built.

Hon. L. Boone: With the ministry.

B. Barisoff: That will come back to the Ministry of Transportation, then -- looking after the highways that are in existence, that kind of thing. Then our 30-year plan of amortizing the highways.... There is certainly going to be maintenance that is going to take place with that 30-year plan. So that section of money to maintain the highways that are being built by the TFA right now will then revert to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?

Hon. L. Boone: It will be part of the operating budget of the province, as it is now. New structures are built. They're financed by the TFA, and then they are turned over to the Ministry of Highways for maintenance and rehabilitation -- you know, just general upkeep.

B. Barisoff: I'm sure there are a few others that wanted to speak this morning, but they were under the impression that estimates were going to be cancelled, so I think some questions will probably come up on Monday. I hope they don't refer to the TFA.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: My colleague has one more, so I'll just defer to him.

D. Symons: We thought the agenda for today was slightly different than it turned out to be at the last moment. So that is what the member was referring to.

Again dealing with the issue of the Island Highway, which has been a main one, a lot of the problems that I think caused some cost escalations on that were the acquisitions of property. There seemed to be a lot of properties where.... They made the news, and all the rest of it. People weren't going to move. They didn't feel they were getting what their property was worth. The Highways ministry wasn't dealing with them appropriately. Can you give me an idea of what you had estimated the cost of property acquisition to be and the final result? I'm basically after how much your estimates were out by.

Hon. L. Boone: You're right. The escalation of land prices in that area, particularly around Nanaimo and some of those areas there, was incredible. Approximately $50 million was the difference between that.... We have taken measures as a corporation to address those concerns. We've made reductions in other areas so that we can make sure that the project does come in on budget.

D. Symons: The previous wearer of the shoes that you wear made comments about being on budget, and I just have some philosophical problems with the use of the term. I guess it's theoretically correct when you say that we are maintaining the same budget, but if you're doing that by reducing the concept and the scope of the project, somehow it makes me think that there must have been cost overruns. So to say that you've got cost overruns -- and indeed, real estate seems to be one of them -- yet maintain you're on budget seems to be a little bit contradictory. But you're on the final bottom line, I would agree, by making four lanes into two, and interchanges and intersections, to achieve that goal. You could end up with a goat trail at the end, and say: "We've maintained our budget."

[ Page 1023 ]

I notice that the minister did not say what used to be one of the favourite terms of this government, and that was: "On budget and on time." You didn't say on time because some of those time lines have been changed back as well.

To go back to the property acquisition, can you give us a figure of how much liability you are putting aside for unsettled claims right now, where they are going to arbitration and we haven't yet settled the problems?

Hon. L. Boone: An amount is set aside every year for every project. We will have to get to you with that amount, and we would be happy to do so later.

Hon. member, I just wanted to mention to you, with regard to the TFA, that if we are finished with them today.... If people will have questions on Monday.... I would very much like to have the staff go back and do their duties, but I would make a commitment to you or your members that we would take whatever questions they have and get back to them the answers in written form later on. Would that be acceptable to you?

B. Barisoff: I appreciate the fact that you will allow us to do that. I do still have a few more questions. I don't know if Doug has any more.

D. Symons: Just one or two.

B. Barisoff: They will be back? I know some questions will happen on Monday, but if you would accommodate on that, it would be perfect.

D. Symons: One term I was looking for that didn't come to me at the time was "contingency fund," which I think is what it's referred to as -- the money you would put aside for unsettled claims.

The other comment I have ties into what I was asking before about property acquisition and the fact that prices went up. One of the problems in this seems to be that the building of the highway itself probably caused a great increase in real estate prices along the route the highway was taking. So it would have seemed prudent to take that into consideration when you were doing your assessment of how much you were going to need for property acquisition -- that the highway was indeed going to increase property values because it's going to make it more attractive for people to get to various destinations along the Island more quickly. So it just seems surprising that maybe the TFA didn't take those into consideration in their planning. If you had, you wouldn't have had these sorts of increases in expenditures; instead you had to decrease the size of the project. It just seems like poor planning.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess it would be nice if we could all plan ahead, but I don't think anybody really expected the increases that took place around that particular area. We'll try to do better. What can I say, eh? We'll try to do better.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:11 p.m.

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