The Speaker: I would call the House to order and advise that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will be joining us momentarily, so I would ask all members to please retain their seats.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:
Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1996
Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act
Income Tax Amendment Act, 1996
Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1996
Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1996
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1996
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996
BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act
BC Forest Renewal Amendment Act, 1996
BC Benefits (Child Care) Act
BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act
Disability Benefits Program Act
BC Benefits (Appeals) Act
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming the daughter of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Ms. Dalia Rabin Pelossof, to our Legislature.

Ms. Rabin Pelossof is accompanied by delegations from the Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University, who include Mr. Stephen Lipper, the national president of the Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University, and Mrs. Lipper, from Montreal; Mr. Mark Gryfe, the national executive vice-president, from Toronto; Mrs. Susan Quastel, president of the Vancouver chapter; Mr. Chuck Waldman, vice-chair of the Victoria chapter; and Mrs. Dvori Balshine, executive director of the Pacific region. Ms. Rabin Pelossof is also accompanied today by Dr. Moshe Maoz, an Israeli government adviser to the peace process and the director of the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The delegation has come to British Columbia to promote awareness of the Rabin Scholarship for the Advancement of Peace, a scholarship established in memory of one of the world's greatest leaders, of course -- indeed, a very courageous man -- Mr. Yitzhak Rabin. I would ask the House to give our visitors a warm welcome and our best wishes for a successful visit.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I rise to join the Premier in welcoming Ms. Rabin Pelossof to British Columbia. I've had the great good fortune of visiting the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, visiting Jerusalem and enjoying the hospitality of the people of Israel. I know that Ms. Rabin Pelossof will know that her father is a beacon of hope and peace for all of us who look for world peace and for peace in that particular part of the world so that we can have long life for Israel, long life for the people of Israel and peace for all people.

B. Barisoff: I rise today to introduce a couple of constituents of mine from Grand Forks: Mr. Abe Friesen, president of Pope and Talbot, and Mr. Randy Trerise, forest practices manager for Pope and Talbot. Would the House please welcome them.

C. Clark: I rise today to introduce a young man who is a constituent of mine about ten or 12 hours a day, when he's at Simon Fraser University. He's the president of the Simon Fraser Young Liberals. His name is Vince Haraldsen, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Having glanced in the members' gallery, I see with the delegation from Israel a former member of this House, a member who has contributed significantly, I think, in the city of Vancouver: Mr. Bernie Simpson. I would ask members to make him welcome.

P. Reitsma: I rise today to introduce a good friend of mine who is also an excellent ambassador for tourism; in fact, he is the president of the Parksville-Qualicum Tourism Association. But also he's the manager of our world-famous Island Hall Hotel. Would the House please make welcome Andy Larsen.

J. Sawicki: Hon. Speaker, this afternoon in the gallery my constituent assistant Barry Bristman is here. If the House would indulge me just for a few moments, his being here is perhaps significant for two reasons. This is probably his last visit to this House in his current position, since he has served as my constituent assistant for two years. As we know, it's a very high-pressure, front-line job, and he has certainly served both me and the constituents of Burnaby-Willingdon very well. So I want to publicly wish him well. The second reason it's significant is that in keeping with the dress code of this House, Barry Bristman is wearing a tie today. Would the House make him welcome, please.

J. Kwan: In the House today are two constituents of mine. One is not a stranger, I think, to anybody in the House. He is a devoted and tireless community leader, a fighter for equality and justice, and, really, is a person who taught me much of what I know in politics. That is Mr. Jim Green. The other person I'd like to introduce in the gallery today is Ms. Monica Hay. She is the treasurer of Four Sisters Co-op, a very special housing project in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Those of you who support housing will know that Four Sisters is a nationally and internationally acclaimed housing project in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Would the House please make them welcome.

[2:15]

I. Waddell: I too would like to add my welcome to the former member for Vancouver-Fraserview. He likes to be called Bernie "Singh" Simpson, and I have learned a great 

[ Page 1152 ]

deal from him. Someone said in the community: "Learn from Bernie, but be careful about the Punjabi he teaches you." Welcome, Bernie, and thank you for the advice.

I'd also -- while I'm on my feet -- like to welcome Mr. Kehar Sekon who is a constituent of mine, who is a retired teacher, who has always been a community activist all his life, and who is really, really one of the more energetic guys I've ever met in my life. I'd ask the House to welcome Mr. Kehar Sekon.

K. Whittred: I see in the gallery today a very old friend of mine, Lori MacDonald. Lori has worked very, very long years for those of us who sit on this side of the House, and I believe she is also a former candidate in New Westminster. Would you join me, please, in welcoming Lori MacDonald.

R. Thorpe: I would ask the House to very warmly welcome four representatives of the British Columbia grape and wine industry today: Steve Bollinger, Keith Davis, Don Woods and Ian Tostenson.

A. Sanders: I'd like the House to make welcome a very important person to me: my sister-in-law, Catherine McFadden.

M. Coell: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. On July 15, Kari Simpson, a member of the Child and Family Review Board, asked Chris Haynes, the director of child and family services to investigate the death of Elijah Thomas.

Neither the minister nor the ministry responded to this request. Can the minister tell this House what has changed between July 15 and yesterday, when the minister finally agreed to such an investigation?

Hon. D. Streifel: For members opposite, I would tell you that every time a child dies in British Columbia, there is a process. The information is brought forward to the coroner, and the coroner cross-checks references with the Ministry of Social Services to determine whether the child is in care or known to the ministry. These processes were followed in these cases. This file has moved its way through the system, and is to be one of the files to be made available to the review board. If the review board determines that further investigation or further review is required, I'll be taking that advice.

M. Coell: On Friday a ministry spokesman said that the audit division deals with high-profile child cases first. The death of a child in care of or known to the ministry always deserves investigation, whether the minister believes it is high-profile or not. My question again to the Minister of Social Services: in future will all deaths of children in the care of or known to the ministry be independently investigated irrespective of whether such deaths are raised in this House or are the focus of media scrutiny?

Hon. D. Streifel: The process has been outlined many, many times. They are investigated at this stage by the coroner. There are interim measures that we have put in place just recently to ensure that there is a further step. These files will be made available to this board. If the board determines there are further reviews necessary, this minister will be following that advice.

Hon. members, it's the safety of the children that is paramount in this issue. That's why we have the processes set in place, the protocols with Children's Hospital and with the coroner's office, and now the further step of this review board.

B. McKinnon: Last Tuesday Chris Haynes, director of child, family and community services, said that the review of the deaths of the 19 children mentioned in the Gove inquiry was on his desk for review. The last time a report was sitting on a desk in the Social Services ministry, Joyce Rigaux sent it back to be altered. Will the Minister of Social Services immediately today instruct his deputy minister to release the review of these 19 deaths before his ministry starts to alter this report, much like the original report on Matthew?

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, for the member opposite, when I was asked this question last time, I gave the information that it was on the desk of Chris Haynes and said that it would be available within a matter of weeks and that everything I could legally release in that report would be released. Hon. members, that report has been moved to the desk of the deputy minister. I expect to have that information in my hands by the end of this week or early next week. The process will be followed through.

B. McKinnon: Last Sunday the Minister of Social Services said the report on the 19 deaths will be completed in a few weeks. On Tuesday we learned that the review is done and sitting on Chris Haynes's desk for review. The ministry failed these 19 children and, without the release of this report, is ensuring that nothing will change as a result of their deaths. I ask the minister again: will he instruct his deputy minister to immediately release this report on the 19 deaths, now sitting on Chris Haynes's desk?

Hon. D. Streifel: I will just repeat the answer I gave the member the first time, because in fact I probably answered her second question the first time around. The question was put to me the first time; I committed to bringing this information forward within a few weeks. That was just last week, hon. members. This information has now gone to my deputy minister's desk. The deputy minister will bring this information forward to me by the end of the week or early next week. In fact, then I will release what information I can legally release out of that report.

C. Clark: This morning B.C. Hydro gave Fraser Valley residents some very bad news. They finally admitted that they would be cranking up Burrard Thermal within weeks. This summer has already been one of the worst for air quality in the Fraser Valley. Senior citizens last week, or even just the other day, were advised to not even go outside. I wonder if the Minister of Environment can tell us why he is allowing Burrard Thermal to be fired up at a time when air quality is already at its worst.

[ Page 1153 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, this question has been thoroughly canvassed in estimates repeatedly. The record of B.C. Hydro in acting on the BCUC report to clean up Burrard Thermal is well demonstrated, and the member knows that.

Hon. Speaker, I must say I'm amazed that this member, from the party that when we brought in the toughest emission controls on the continent said, "Soften them, they're too tough," would have the audacity to stand up and talk about this plant, which is operating under the permit and continuing to take steps to improve its record on the environment.

C. Clark: The minister well knows that his side of the House is the party that allowed Burrard Thermal to get away with the changes that they were making without going through a full environmental assessment. It's bad enough that he would allow Burrard Thermal to be fired up at the height of the summer, but it's also bad that he would allow Burrard Thermal to be fired up before they finish installing the pollution control technology that needs to be put in place. Can the minister tell the residents of Abbotsford, Langley, Chilliwack and Port Moody exactly how long they can expect Burrard Thermal will be spewing pollution down the valley?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess the hot summer is indicated more than anything else by that member's fire and really no substance to these questions. She knows very well what Burrard Thermal has been doing.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, obviously the members opposite don't want to hear an extended answer.

Burrard Thermal is operating within the permit issued by the Ministry of Environment and overseen by GVRD. It will continue to take steps to improve its record on emissions in the Vancouver area.

S. Hawkins: Yesterday, having not received the coroner's final report, the Ministry of Social Services instead released a social worker's report into the death of Elijah Thomas. In this document the social worker concluded that baby Elijah had been born drug-addicted. The conclusion was based on medical records obtained by the social worker after baby Elijah's death.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Why did the ministry obtain baby Elijah's health history and medical records only after his death and not when he was alive and in their care?

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for her question. It is exactly the same question I asked, as I didn't find it was good enough to wait that length of time. I've asked my staff to inform me as to why the delay in this case, why it took so long.

The Speaker: The member for Okanagan West on a supplemental.

S. Hawkins: The question is: how important were the lives of these kids to the government sitting there opposite? Every child's death is important; every child's life is important. Last week, the Minister of Social Services...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

S. Hawkins: ...released a breakdown by cause of death of 49 children who have died while in the ministry's care, or children known to the ministry, since last November. This document, dated July 25, reports no cases of a child dying in care that needed further assessment. However, baby Elijah Thomas was in the care of Social Services, and there is still no final coroner's report on his death.

My question is, again to the Minister of Social Services: is baby Elijah one of those 49 children whose death was revealed by the minister, or does the minister's report require revision here in the House today?

Hon. D. Streifel: Coming from the opposition, we hear these numbers thrown at us: 14, 19, 49. Hon. members, my concern is for the children in these issues. It's not for numbers; it's not for a scorecard. And in this instance, I have asked that I be informed as to why there was the delay in receiving the medical records on this case.

M. de Jong: In his report, Judge Gove included the observation that the coroner's juries rarely make recommendations aimed directly at the Social Services ministry. But, in fact, following the death of Bryan Lacroix, the jury did recommend some very specific things. They recommended that the ministry implement specific programs to assist frustrated parents in controlling their anger, and the jury also recommended that the ministry become more involved with cases where the well-being of helpless children is at stake.

My question to the Minister of Social Services having read that report, having referred to it, is: what specific steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of that coroner's jury?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, when I received that file and had the opportunity to review it, I understood and accepted a number of those recommendations from the coroner. In fact, I've asked my staff to get clarification on one of them so we could understand more fully what was referred to in that recommendation. I've asked my staff to do that, and I've asked my staff to take action.

[2:30]

M. de Jong: For the past number of days, this minister has excused his inaction on the basis of some new protocol that he's alleged to have signed with the coroner's office in cases of a child's death. That's been his excuse. But Judge Gove in his report said that's just the problem. He made the recommendation that the ministry has to do something specific -- and it hasn't done things specific in the past when these recommendations have been made; they've been ignored.

My question to the minister, given what he said today about studies, about examinations and about consultations, is: why should we be any more confident today that he will take specific action and that this isn't another case of the ministry and the minister saying: "We'll do something if and when we get around to it"? Why should we have any confidence in him and his ministry acting seriously with respect to this recommendation by Judge Gove?

Hon. D. Streifel: I've spoken at length in this House and outside this House of the interim measures that have been

[ Page 1154 ]

brought into place, about the work we've done with the coroner and with the Children's Hospital and other initiatives that we've undertaken.

To directly answer the member's question of why he should have a level of confidence.... When the office of the transition commissioner and the work that the all-party committee produced last year, which members of the Liberal caucus participated in and will participate in again... When we await the work and the report of the transition commissioner on this issue... That's when we'll know where it's going. I encourage the Liberal members opposite to fully participate in this committee, not take any more time to think about it and stall and delay, and get on with the process of delivering on this commitment.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the 1995 annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the House, they'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- and then Employment and Investment; Municipal Affairs; and Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In the House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations and Ministry Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

On vote 29: minister's office, $348,000 (continued).

C. Hansen: I have one very specific area that I would like to pursue with the minister this afternoon. It's an area that falls under the Purchasing Commission. I wonder if the minister could explain for us the procedures that are used in the disposal of assets that are the property of the provincial government. Specifically, I notice that in the estimates we have a line under the title of "Recoveries," where we're looking at $14 million a year recouped by the provincial treasury through the disposal of assets. Could the minister please explain the process that is gone through to dispose of those assets?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the line item the member is referring to is not from the sale of assets; it's the recovery from ministries for gasoline expenses related to autos.

C. Hansen: Granted, I may have the wrong interpretation of that. I apologize for that. I guess my question is still the same, and that is: when departments have surplus equipment -- furniture, automobiles or whatever it happens to be -- how are those assets disposed of?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that where there are assets that have some value, the first priority is to seek to reallocate those within government on a first-refusal basis for use by other ministries or agencies. If there is not a use found for them within government, they are sold by a variety of means, depending on what's appropriate to the item -- either by auction on a cash-and-carry sales basis or, for large items, occasionally by tender.

C. Hansen: Is there a standard policy that is followed by all ministries for the disposal of assets of this nature, and is it a written policy?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it's contained in government management operating policy.

C. Hansen: It's something that I would very much appreciate getting a copy of, at your convenience. I would also like to know if the disposal of assets is coordinated through the Ministry of Finance. Or does each ministry handle the disposal of this equipment and furniture on its own?

Hon. A. Petter: Staff have noted the member's request for information, and we'll undertake to get that to the member. The answer to the member's question is that disposal of assets is coordinated centrally through the warehouse and asset investment recovery program branch.

C. Hansen: I'll tell you where I'm coming from with this line of questioning. It's not a monumental issue, but it is significant in terms of the handling of assets.

The case that was brought to my attention specifically involves the sale of computers. My understanding is that the provincial government is now going through a phase where there are thousands of 386 computers available -- and I don't know what the total number might be -- which are fully loaded with contemporary software. These are very useful pieces of equipment. The computers are not being picked up by other ministries because there is no encouragement for them to do so, even though a 386 computer might be quite useful for their particular needs. As I understand it, these computers are being disposed of, and I'm wondering if the minister can comment generally on the disposal of computers and whether or not this would be done through auction or through cash-and-carry.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's understanding of the extent of this phenomenon is grossly exaggerated. As I understand it, surplus computers -- and we're probably talking about the 386s here in large measure -- that are not redistributed within government are transferred to schools through the computer recycling program. The computer recycling program is a joint initiative with the Science Council, Industry Canada and the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, with the goal of improving students' opportunity for access to computer technology by transferring those computers to public schools.

I can tell the member that between June 1995 and June 1996, essentially over the past year, 371 surplus computers have been transferred to this program. Public sales of surplus computers in the past two years, which would be 286s and some 386s, have been limited, with more funds recovered from the sale of computer parts than of complete computers.

To give the member a sense: in 1995-96, the number of PCs sold was only 16, with recoveries of $10,524; parts recov-

[ Page 1155 ]

eries, on the other hand, were $54,592. These are important dollars to recover, but it's not a huge amount of recovery, and whatever computers are disposed of are in large measure disposed of through the very laudatory program that's been established through the Science Council and Industry Canada in respect of providing students with greater access to computer technology.

C. Hansen: The case that was brought to my attention was the disposition of a fair number of computers. I am aware of a private company that purchased five of them from a broker -- not from the government directly, but from an individual who was selling computers that had been previously owned by one of the ministries. This company was led to believe that there were many more available. The thing that disturbed me most in this case is that this particular company bought these 386 computers, fully loaded with contemporary software and colour monitors, for a total of $450 each, which is dramatically under the price these computers would be selling for on the secondhand market or, in fact, if they were put up for auction.

Meanwhile, the government is selling these to a broker. The broker is in turn obviously making a profit on these. I'm aware of the sale of five of them. The implication was that there were many more than 16 available from this one broker alone. My concern is exactly the point that the minister made earlier: these machines would be invaluable to schools around the province. I've talked to many schools that would dearly love to have these computers, and they're not aware of these being available to them.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me answer in two parts: one an offer and the other speculation. If the member wants to provide some of that information, we'd be happy to follow up to see if we can find out exactly what the facts are.

The speculation is... The only thing that staff and I can think of that might account for this, other than the five being part of the 16, is that ministries do, in acquiring new equipment, sometimes trade in old equipment. The expectation is that the trade-in value will be the market value, and it could be that some computers have found their way into the hands of brokers or equipment dealers by virtue of being traded in. That trade-in value then provides a credit against the acquisition of the other equipment and is done at market value. It's possible that more computers than the ones I've enumerated here could have been accounted for in that way. But if the member wants to provide the information -- if he's able to -- I'd be happy to follow up and find out whether that speculative thought explains it or there's some other explanation.

[2:45]

P. Reitsma: I would like to turn to the Purchasing Commission. To set the tone, I would ask the minister what his ministry is trying to accomplish in terms of goals and objectives. How do you measure the success, and how do you know that you're succeeding and have achieved the goals and objectives? Can you lead into that?

Hon. A. Petter: Let me share with the member some of the general and specific objectives that govern the operations of the Purchasing Commission. The general objectives are: (1) to provide best value and service to Purchasing Commission customers, government ministries, Crown corporations and other public sector agencies; (2) to develop economic opportunities in B.C. through aggressive supplier development activity to regional, provincial, national and international companies; and (3) to provide leadership in creating a clean, healthy environment by the purchase and use of environmentally sensitive products.

There are also some more specific objectives, which I'm happy to share with the member, such as: encouraging the expansion of business operations in B.C.; fostering new job creation enterprises throughout the province; promoting growth and stability for local regional suppliers in B.C.; encouraging research and development associated with contracts awarded to B.C. suppliers; and encouraging the use of environmentally sensitive products.

In terms of accountability measures, these include development and implementation of a branch business plan; planned performance reviews for all staff -- and I understand those are about 25 percent complete; monthly business reports that include performance statistics, comments derived from consumer or customer surveys, business volumes from central purchasing system, etc.

The branch undertakes public sector purchasing workshops for its government customers in how to sell government workshops for the private sector. Depending on demand, the branch may be involved in up to 50 such sessions per year.

Ongoing research implementation of new and improved purchase-related processes is also undertaken. The search for comparable benchmarks has proven difficult but will continue. I think that's something I talked about with the opposition critic -- the desirability of establishing performance review and of trying to find comparable benchmarks. The quest for those will continue. In the meantime, the branch will continue to develop discreet internal baseline measurements to gauge its performance over time. So that's the detail. I hope what the member gets from all of that is a sense that this commission has some very important objectives about fostering economic development and employment, while also acquiring equipment at the most efficient and effective terms, and that it has developed some fairly rigorous protocols for itself in order to measure its progress in achieving those objectives.

P. Reitsma: I wonder if the minister could elaborate a bit on the criteria to measure success.

Hon. A. Petter: I think I've already referred to some of the things, but I can elaborate a little bit. Some of the elements that are tracked on an ongoing basis to measure performance in key areas would be: performance statistics and comments derived from customer surveys; business volumes from the central purchasing system, including the number of transactions; regional spending patterns and savings; narrative details of significant events occurring in the reported months; and turnarounds.

P. Reitsma: The minister is satisfied, then, that he has achieved those goals and objectives.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm never satisfied, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to be satisfied, having been the minister for a little more than a month. But I am satisfied that the Purchasing Commission does have a fairly detailed set of objectives and a mechanism for evaluating. Certainly, as I familiarize myself with this ministry, I'm going to want to further immerse myself in the activities of the Purchasing Commission. In fact, I've already benefited from an extensive briefing.

I think there are opportunities in the Purchasing Commission in terms of gaining greater efficiencies for government, 

[ Page 1156 ]

but, as I say, also in fostering economic development, ensuring that we acquire in a way that promotes and recognizes the needs of regional economies within the province, etc. I'm not satisfied, but I do believe that the commission has taken some impressive and important steps in the direction that the member's concerns are pointing.

P. Reitsma: In the '94-95 annual report of the Ministry of Government Services, referring to page 23 at the bottom, are some of the results. The Purchasing Commission worked to introduce a B.C.-manufactured personal computer to government ministries. Could the minister please elaborate on that, and has the private sector been involved in this?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I'm advised that through the supplier development process, there has been considerable work done with private sector businesses here in British Columbia to assist them and prepare them to participate in opportunities that exist within government for providing computers and competing in the tendering processes, etc.

P. Reitsma: On the B.C. Buy Smart program, could the minister advise the committee what they're trying to accomplish?

Hon. A. Petter: The program is now known as B.C. Bid, and it's an effort to try to provide opportunities through electronic means for people and companies to participate in opportunities. There were four proposed phases: the government purchase card for low-value purchases to facilitate purchases around the province; the electronic bulletin board for distributing tender information; the electronic catalogue, permitting government employees to order commonly used goods directly from government warehouse and suppliers; and the purchasing management information system.

One of the benefits of this program, as I understand it, is that it opens the door to access to opportunities for people around the province through the web site that's been established for potential proponents to access information regarding government tenders and the like.

P. Reitsma: What are the criteria for measuring success -- if you are succeeding?

Hon. A. Petter: I suppose there are a number of indicators corresponding to the four phases, but the two principal ones relating to the web site would be the number of visits made to the web site on a daily or monthly basis and, to flip it around, the extent to which the web site is used by those who are trying to access the information upon which they base their tenders. My understanding from staff is that in the most recent tenders, that has been a 70 percent figure. So 70 percent of the people who participated did so based on information they obtained through the web site, which suggests that it is a very important point of access for those who are participating in opportunities that exist through the Purchasing Commission.

P. Reitsma: Going to the government air services... I know it was discontinued in 1994, but for my benefit as a new member and, I suppose, for the vast number of people who, rather than watching the Olympics, want to see the estimates in committee -- they are much more exciting, I suppose -- could the minister advise why the government air services were cancelled?

Hon. A. Petter: I will indulge the member and give him background, but this, of course, is a few years outside these estimates. The simple answer is: to save money.

P. Reitsma: I'll remember that. I'll weave that into some of the questions later: "to save money." I'm not at all unhappy when we can save money, and I think it's been a good move.

On the Travel Smart program, do I understand that the government uses the services of one particular travel agency?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm a little perplexed. The member's question referred to Travel Smart, but he then asked about travel agents, and I'm not sure that the two are exactly the same. I'll answer with respect to travel agents. My understanding is that with the exception of one ministry, which has, I believe, an agency of record, other ministries use a variety of different travel agents. There is no single travel agency that's utilized by government as a whole -- with the exception, I believe, of the Ministry of Health, which has an agency of record.

P. Reitsma: Since we are on the line of travel and travel agencies, I understand that with frequent flyer programs there's a bonus point system. Could the minister advise the committee how they handle the bonus point system in terms of personal or government use?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, this is sort of outside the scope of the Purchasing Commission, but for the member's information, there is no personal use or accumulation of bonus points by government employees. I understand, however, that some agencies or boards within government have perhaps negotiated arrangements so that bonus points that might otherwise go to personal use but can't, because of the policy, can be accumulated for corporate use, for the use of government. But that's done on an agency-by-agency basis, I take it.

P. Reitsma: I don't know if this is in the scope, but I know that in the private sector, with a commercial account -- and travel agencies would consider the government a commercial account -- there is a rebate or a cut in the commission. Secondly, often when there are ten, 15 or 20 people going to a particular destination, free seats are offered. I wonder if the minister could indicate what is done with the free seats and if there is any rebate or cut in the commission paid by the various ministries to the various agencies they use.

[3:00]

Hon. A. Petter: Again, the kinds of bargaining that might take place to try to achieve volume discounts, the kinds of things the member is referring to, would be done on a ministry-by-ministry basis, in accordance with the travel requirements of each ministry. The guidelines provided to ministries encourage them to achieve whatever savings can be achieved through volume discounts and other kinds of arrangements that would normally be made by corporations and others in the private sector. Ministries are charged with that responsibility and, hopefully, ministries aggressively pursue whatever opportunities exist to achieve savings in their dealings with various travel providers -- if I can put it that way.

P. Reitsma: The reason for the question is that I certainly hope that when volume discounts take place or free seats are extended, they are accrued to the government, not to a particular person; or if it cannot be given, that at least maybe the value of a particular free seat is spread over the total bill. This then would benefit the government, not particular persons in the ministry -- and no disrespect to those people, by the way.

[ Page 1157 ]

Hon. A. Petter: No, the standards of conduct that govern public employees within government prohibit employees from receiving any such benefits. The benefit, if it exists, has to accrue to government and not to the individual.

P. Reitsma: Thank you to the minister for his answer. On the Travel Smart program, what are you trying to accomplish in terms of the goals and the objectives?

Hon. A. Petter: The goal of the program is to achieve savings principally in the areas of accommodation and car rental. The commission, through this program, seeks to negotiate, with providers of accommodation and providers of car rental services, rates that reflect the usage of government, and to provide to government employees and therefore their ministries the benefits of that negotiation. So it's principally an attempt to try to negotiate the most efficient cost for government of the use of accommodation and car rentals.

P. Reitsma: How do you measure the success, and do you have a benchmark? Has the private sector been invited to at least bid or to advance their proposals? What's your benchmark and the measure of your success?

Hon. A. Petter: There are a number of measurements that are applied, but I'll give three obvious ones: the extent of discount against regular rates, the comparisons with other jurisdictions, and comparisons with other corporate rates that would be provided to private sector corporate clients by the same providers. Those will be three ways of measuring the success of this program in achieving savings on behalf of government. There are also comparisons with the federal government and the rates that they can achieve in similar areas.

P. Reitsma: Has the ministry asked the private sector to undertake this? I'll go back to the government air services, where the minister so promptly and proudly said: "We eliminated it because of saving money" -- which is a very admirable undertaking and achievement and a goal, of course. But has the ministry given an opportunity to the private sector to take over the service?

Hon. A. Petter: The whole objective of this program is to achieve savings through negotiation with private sector accommodation and travel providers, so I'm a little perplexed by the member -- unless he's asking: has the ministry looked at obtaining a private broker to negotiate this? The answer to this point is no. I think the brokerage function is done by one or two employees within the ministry. I guess, to impose that intermediary as a private function, I'd have to be persuaded there were some real savings to be had that can't be had through a direct relationship with the private sector provider. If the member has something to indicate that that would provide a greater saving, I'm certainly prepared to consider it.

P. Reitsma: It's no different from the travel arrangements done through a travel agency who really is the broker, and that particular agency, of course, goes to the major airlines, which the government can do directly. I hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that they should do that because it provides a lot of business for the various small travel agencies. I'm a bit biased, I suppose, because I happen to be in the industry and have been for the last 30 years. But they're using travel agencies as a broker, and I just wonder if they at least have undertaken the opportunity to invite the private sector for this particular function.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's comparing apples and oranges. The function performed by the Purchasing Commission through the Travel Smart program is to achieve savings through negotiation with various segments of the industry -- chains, whatever -- not the individual arrangements made by ministries. Those individual arrangements that are then made by ministries can be made through travel agents to rent cars or accommodation, or to book airline or other forms of travel. The function performed here is one in which there is the establishment, through negotiation, of certain rates and expected fee schedules within government that correspond to those rates, so that we can maximize the savings that are then realized by individual ministries in establishing their contracts for accommodation and for rental cars, which can be booked, if they so choose, through a travel agent where appropriate.

P. Reitsma: I understand there is a staff of two. Are any layoffs or early retirements anticipated in that function?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the staff in this case is a staff of one, and I wouldn't want to make the staff member nervous by suggesting there are any layoffs or early retirements anticipated -- not that I'm aware of any.

P. Reitsma: I just go by the results of the annual report. In '94-95 they had a staff of two, so obviously they have drastically cut the ministry.

Hon. A. Petter: I now understand the member's question. He's looking at the '94-95 annual report, and my understanding is that in fact the function has been downsized since then, to the point that it is now one staff member, not two.

P. Reitsma: Going to vehicle management services, which is either page 26 -- I've got '94-95 -- or page 144 of the estimates, vote 35... Could the minister please advise the committee what they're trying to accomplish and measure the success of?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I can probably do no better than just read the description of the purpose of vehicle management services, which is: "To efficiently and effectively manage and regulate the utilization, acquisition, maintenance, fuel and insurance programs associated with the fleet" -- referring to the government fleet. There are certain program objectives that flow from that, and they are: "to manage government vehicle fleet purchases, operations and maintenance services; to minimize costs by monitoring vehicle utilization, reducing fleet size and streamlining maintenance; to apply technology to reduce costs and duplication of administration; to ensure vehicle-related expenditures support local economies through fair, open, competitive bidding, without compromising cost to government." I think that summarizes it fairly nicely.

P. Reitsma: And how do you measure success? How do you know if you are succeeding?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, it would be the same basic techniques we've talked about before, but then imported into this area: through comparisons with other jurisdictions in the management of their fleets and through comparative data, obviously, given that one of the goals is to try to increase efficiencies -- to look at the per unit costs and compare those per unit costs against market prices that prevail for private fleet operators versus government fleet operators. So it's a

[ Page 1158 ]

measurement of relative and comparative data, internally and externally, to ensure that these goals are being met as best they can, relative to others in the marketplace.

P. Reitsma: The proposals for the acquisition of the light vehicle fleet -- the purchasing, the leasing, the financing, etc... Have those gone to bidding in terms of involving the private sector? Or is the private sector more expensive?

Hon. A. Petter: We do engage directly with the private sector. In the case of purchases, we go to manufacturers, through tenders. In the case of leases, that's done with leasing companies, through tenders. The goal here is to work directly with the private sector and to utilize the opportunities available to those private sector employees in order to try to maximize the savings to government.

Also, by going to manufacturers, as I recall -- and I'm sure my officials will correct me if I'm wrong -- and by negotiating a manufacturer's price, that enables the actual delivery to take place for local delivery agents so that the benefits are distributed equitably around the province through various dealerships.

P. Reitsma: How much is bought in B.C. versus outside B.C., and would you know the percentage of financing being used? Is it current rate, or is it above or below the prevailing rate?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member may have had a secondary question that I missed while I was trying to reach the answer to the first. If you look at the overall goods and services acquired by the Purchasing Commission, 82.5 percent of goods are acquired within the province and 95 percent of services are acquired within the province.

P. Reitsma: Okay, a supplementary on that: what were they in 1994? The second question was in regard to the financing: what rates are being used?

Hon. A. Petter: The financing is done through the working capital account. It's not done through private sector financing but within the realms of government financing.

If the member wants comparative data concerning in-province services and goods that are acquired through the Purchasing Commission, I don't have that data here. But I would be happy -- as I have indicated to other members in the past -- to try to get it in writing for his use, if he's interested.

P. Reitsma: What does the ministry and the minister find a reasonable target? What are they trying to target for in terms of the goods and services in B.C. itself -- mentioning 82.5 percent for the goods and 95 percent for the services. What's the ultimate target for B.C.?

[3:15]

Hon. A. Petter: Let me just speak personally here for a moment. My personal view is that we should try to maximize, in every possible way, the opportunities that exist to purchase goods and services within the province. But, of course, we're constrained to some extent by the agreements we have entered into and the expectations of interprovincial and, to some extent, international trade. That constraint exists. I know the Liberal Party has been a strong proponent of such trade arrangements and so one is tempered... But I think that we are very aggressively trying -- within those constraints and without abridging any of the agreements -- to ensure that British Columbia businesses and communities benefit from the opportunities that exist. I'm not satisfied if any dollar that could be made here in B.C., within the confines of those agreements, is not made within B.C., and will continue to push to maximize the economic benefits to British Columbia.

P. Reitsma: Just as a throwaway question: would the minister indulge in forecasting what the numbers might be for the next year -- fairly accurately, if possible?

Hon. A. Petter: If I've learned anything in the last few weeks, it's not to indulge in forecasting.

P. Reitsma: That was just a throwaway question. My last question on this particular subject -- and my colleague from Delta South has a question on it as well.... I'm still not satisfied with the benchmark in terms of the private sector. I'm thinking of, for instance, a leasing company. Has the component of leasing the vehicles been benchmarked against the private sector, or for that matter, other governments? Has that been or is it being used? Secondly, what is to prove that it's all cost-effective?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that we monitor the relative economies of our lease program versus our purchase program to ensure that we are achieving the most effective and efficient mix of lease versus purchase. The vast majority are purchased, as opposed to leased. At the same time, we then monitor both the purchase and lease programs of government against -- as I've already indicated -- other programs, other governments, the private sector, etc., to ensure that they are operated on a cost-effective and efficient basis. Again, if the member wants more detailed information on some of that comparative data, I'd be happy to arrange for a briefing or to try to provide him with the information. But I'm informed that this ongoing review does help to ensure that we are in fact providing these programs on a cost-effective and efficient basis.

P. Reitsma: The process, if indeed there is a process, of buying and selling the surplus equipment... Could the minister enlighten this committee on what the process is when it comes to buying and selling surplus equipment?

Hon. A. Petter: It's basically the same answer in respect to vehicles, which is probably what the question was intended to ask. As with the answer I gave earlier, generally, cash-and-carry sales in communities will be used where appropriate, and auction where the auction provides that opportunity to provide a sale, and occasionally a tender opportunity, if it were justified. All of those mechanisms that I referred to earlier, in respect of the general question asked by the member's colleague, apply in the case of vehicles.

F. Gingell: You stated that you use auctions to dispose of automobiles. Is that under some long-term or one-year contract that you have with one auction service supplier? Or do you auction them yourselves? Do you run the auction sales yourselves? Or do you just hand the auction contracts out differently from company to company? Or are they location-sensitive -- in Kamloops you use company A, and in Vancouver you use company B?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that we do not deal with a single auction house. Rather, throughout the year there 

[ Page 1159 ]

may be tenders posted for auction houses to provide services at various points in the province. Sales would then be provided through those auction houses, based on their favourable tender to provide those auction services.

F. Gingell: Do those tenders cover one specific auction, or do they cover the auctions for a given period of time?

Hon. A. Petter: To be 100 percent sure, we're going to have to check and get back to the member. But the best guess is that these tenders are probably done on the basis of a period or window of time, as opposed to a specific sale.

F. Gingell: You don't need to get back to me. I don't mean by that that the question wasn't worth asking, because it was. I am interested in the issue of whether the Purchasing Commission ever organizes and handles the auction themselves.

Hon. A. Petter: No, not to our knowledge.

F. Gingell: One of the issues that people are concerned with in the auction world is ensuring that the owner of the business is being treated fairly, that there aren't any special deals for friends and insiders of the auctioneer. What sort of actions or policies do you have in place to try and protect yourselves from those concerns?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that staff from the warehouse and asset investment recovery program go and work with the auction houses directly to ensure that the auctions are conducted in a way that corresponds with the objectives of the program and maintains the maximum potential for cost recovery, etc.

F. Gingell: I don't know why, but in 1995 I kept getting a lot of companies that wanted to talk to me. And when they came, I discovered that they were large financial organizations, mainly subsidiaries of large corporations, that are in the business of acquiring automobiles and supplying them on contract arrangements to large organizations, such as government. They pushed strongly that they could perform this function more effectively and more efficiently than the Purchasing Commission. I appreciate that we hear those kinds of claims being made about every particular subject.

Within that discussion, in the special account -- the Purchasing Commission working capital account -- where the expenditures, as I understand it, are the costs of automobiles acquired and automobiles leased by the Purchasing Commission for use within all areas of government, I'm not sure that included in their costs are the costs of the borrowed money, which I presume would be the effective rate of the provincial government's borrowings. Is, in fact, the cost of the money, the use of the funds to acquire the automobiles, included in the Purchasing Commission working capital account and thereby charged out to the various ministries for the use of the automobiles?

Hon. A. Petter: It's a two-part answer, hon. Chair. First of all, I understand that the working capital account applies to acquisitions of capital, not to the leases of vehicles. And no, the cost of borrowing is not reflected within the costs that are assigned to the ministries.

F. Gingell: The minister's budget announcement indicated that there will be some changes in accounting practice: we will for the first time be capitalizing land, equipment and fixed assets -- not highway infrastructure, but then we've discussed that issue many times. The issue here is: are automobiles going to be capitalized under this accounting change? And if they are, does this change the way you've been handling this through a special account?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is that the intention of the policy which the member refers to is such that it would include the capitalization of automobiles, yes.

F. Gingell: Will that change the way we're presently handling this issue in the estimates by use of a special account?

Hon. A. Petter: The advice I'm given is that it probably would not, because we'd still want to allocate the cost to various ministries through some kind of central accounting system.

[3:30]

F. Gingell: Going back to the previous question, I'm not sure that we dealt with it. We learned that no interest on capital that is tied up in the purchase of automobiles is charged to this account and credited to our borrowing costs. But I didn't get the answer on whether or not the Purchasing Commission has specifically gone out and looked at the issue of going to someone like AT&T Capital Canada Inc. or General Electric. These huge American corporations have very large finance arms that operate in Canada; I believe Bell Telephone has a similar finance arm. They have suggested to me, time after time, that because of their abilities to buy a very large number of automobiles, and because of certain tax consequences of the ability to write automobiles off faster than one depreciates them, there would be savings to the provincial government in allowing them to handle the automobile acquisition. Has the Purchasing Commission developed a tender, and put it out to see whether there would be savings?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that in the past three or four years there have been studies or inquiries made -- it hasn't been done through tender, because that sort of predetermines the outcome. There's been an attempt to ascertain what a tender would produce, to see if there are savings. I think the member's suggestion is worth reviewing again, and I think we should perhaps, given the passage of three or four years, take another look at whether such opportunities could exist to save the taxpayers some dollars.

F. Gingell: When the B.C. Purchasing Commission is evaluating the various programs whereby they acquire things, do they put a dollar value on the environmental advantages of using one particular formulation of gasoline in preference to some other formulation of gasoline and work that into their costs?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is that the Purchasing Commission seeks to promote environmentally conscious behaviour such as recycling, encouraging the use of propane vehicles and natural gas -- that kind of thing. But if the member is asking whether the Purchasing Commission has developed a "green" accounting system of the kind one sometimes reads about in the Economist and other publications, the answer is no. It's beyond the existing capabilities of the Pur-

[ Page 1160 ]

chasing Commission to have a complete green accounting system that would track the incremental costs and benefits of every potential environmentally friendly choice that might be made by them as a consumer or by their clients during the course of their activities.

Certainly the Purchasing Commission does have a policy which has been the catalyst for several successful initiatives. I can give the member examples: the Energy Star standard for computers, which requires all conventional personal computer equipment acquired by the government to meet the Energy Star energy conservation standard; the greenhouse gases action plan; Project Paper Push, which the Purchasing Commission initiated and which expanded into a government-wide paper-recycling project now run by BCBC; and re-refined oil -- the entire light vehicle fleet now uses re-refined, recycled oil, much of it supplied by Mohawk Oil of Burnaby. I wonder why that's in my briefing note? It's probably because Mohawk's so well known for having undertaken that responsibility. I could give some other examples.

So where opportunities are known to exist and they are clearly cost-effective and they make sense, yes, they're promoting them. But they're not pioneering some green accounting system that applies in each and every nook and cranny of their activity at this time.

F. Gingell: The challenge for us to move to truly low-pollution vehicles, which isn't gasoline... It's probably hydrogen and electricity, perhaps even natural gas and propane, using engines that were designed for their use -- the conversions aren't particularly good. The government runs a lot of automobiles, and for us to be able to get into some of the new technologies that will make substantial differences in reducing pollution arising from automotive travel, we need to get some bulk, and the provincial government can do something about that, as can organizations like B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro vehicles that go home every night to a central location tend not to travel far. Electric vehicles and natural gas vehicles will have substantial environmental pluses.

Does the B.C. Purchasing Commission feel that it's part of its mandate to help create some of the bulk to meet what may be unrealistic expectations of an earlier Minister of the Environment -- whose efforts I support, but you have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way you'd like it to be? Does the Purchasing Commission recognize or consider that it has a mandate to try and help achieve some of these very worthwhile goals?

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is yes. The goal of this environmental purchasing policy, which I referred to, is to encourage and promote the use of environmentally sensitive products and processes, obviously within a screen of efficiency and sensibility, etc. I understand that the commission has been working with the Ministry of Environment. For example, there are purchasing guidelines for clean vehicles and fuels, which were announced in September of 1994, to result in greater use of alternative fuels, lower noxious emission rates and higher average fleet fuel efficiency. To the extent that the Purchasing Commission, through its acquisitions, can be part of the solution, and to the extent that the solution is nonetheless economic and makes sense to government, absolutely. The commission sees itself as a catalyst for moving us up the environmental ladder while maintaining the other goals that the commission has with respect to economy and efficiency.

P. Reitsma: Just one or two more questions on vehicle management services. How many FTEs were there in 1995 and in 1996?

Hon. A. Petter: In '95-96 it was 38 FTEs, and in '96-97 the number has dropped to 37.

P. Reitsma: Are any layoffs or early retirements anticipated?

Hon. A. Petter: Not to my knowledge.

P. Reitsma: Certainly in my municipality, as mayor of Parksville, I deem it necessary and prudent to ask staff to take their vehicles home, for the sake of controlling damage and vandalism. Generally, we find the practice and the guideline is to take them home for quicker access, particularly when there are emergencies. What's the general guideline and practice for this government, in terms of vehicles?

Hon. A. Petter: The general guideline, which is contained in the general management operating policy, is that government vehicles are only to be used for official government business, not for travel between an employee's home and workplace, unless approval is given by the deputy minister of the appropriate ministry. To amplify on that a little bit, approval to use government vehicles portal to portal may be given in situations where the employee is subject to call-out to provide services after work hours -- social program officers would be an example -- or where it's necessary to conduct business away from their office and in those situations where less travel time will result if the employee drives directly from their home. That's the general policy framework.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. Of course, particularly when people live away from the storage place of the vehicles, it's often much cheaper to take the car home and proceed to wherever they have to go.

I'd like to change now to the Queen's Printer and publishing. Really, I wonder why the government feels it's necessary to have its own printer.

Hon. A. Petter: The historical pattern has been to narrow the scope of services that the Queen's Printer provides. The services it provides are ones that relate very much to the activities of this institution, the Legislature and government. The Queen's Printer obviously provides some expertise in that regard in publishing the day-to-day proceedings of this House, and security, and is therefore desirable.

I understand that 65 to 70 percent of many requirements go out to private printers. Queen's Printer functions very much focus, therefore, on the core dedicated activities: to support the activities in the Legislature and core government.

P. Reitsma: I really wonder why the government is in the business of printing. Has any cost-effectiveness analysis been done on farming out the whole thing? I'm certain that confidentiality is as much a top priority for private business as it is here in the government. Those assigned to do the printing are probably under oath, and no doubt the private sector could do the same if not a better job. Has the government done any cost-effectiveness analysis on that?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand there was a third-party review, done as recently as last year, looking at the cost-effectiveness of Queen's Printer. The conclusion of that review was that it was as cost-effective or perhaps slightly more cost-effective than private sector alternatives. But again, I think these are issues that government should review on an ongoing 

[ Page 1161 ]

basis. Obviously, the fact that this has been reviewed as recently as the past year suggests that this matter has attracted the attention of the commission and will continue to do so.

P. Reitsma: I began the line of questioning because of the Globe and Mail. They are in the news business and not in the printing business. They have totally contracted that function to those who know best, those in the printing business. Again, the private sector -- the area where I come from -- is, of course, generally much more cost-effective than the government sector. Belatedly, I suppose... What is the ministry trying to accomplish with the Queen's Printer, that particular function, and how do you measure success?

[3:45]

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I think I can't do better than read the purpose and program objectives of the Queen's Printer.

The purpose of the Queen's Printer's is "to provide printing, publishing services and office products to the Legislative Assembly, ministries and publicly funded agencies, with full cost recovery."

The program objectives that flow from that purpose are:

"To provide legislative and confidential printing and publishing services; to provide quality, timely, cost-effective print, stationery, office products and supplies, government forms and protocol giftware; to improve supplier development for quality print services in the private sector; and to provide environmental leadership for ministries and suppliers."

I just want to reiterate for the member what I said earlier, that these functions have been reviewed from an efficiency point of view, compared against the private sector, and, it's my understanding, have compared favourably against the private sector. That's obviously one of the ways in which success is measured, through that kind of comparison, as well as the substantive evaluation of the ability of the Queen's Printer to meet these objectives. Every time I pick up my Orders of the Day, they seem to be there in a timely way, so anecdotally at least, the Queen's Printer is doing a good job.

P. Reitsma: I much prefer a benchmark -- or at least try and get a benchmark -- in the private sector as well, because I need that opportunity.

In terms of the FTEs, may I ask how many there were in 1995 and in 1996, and are any layoffs and/or early retirements anticipated?

Hon. A. Petter: The FTEs for 1995-96 were 86 coming into the year 1996 and for the year we're now in, 1996-97, 84. The member asked a question about whether there were layoffs planned, etc. The answer in each of these agencies is no, not specifically.

I do want to reference for the member the fact that we have announced a program review of government. One of the stated objectives of that program review is to look at efficiencies throughout government wherever they may exist. Each ministry will be challenged to review programs, including, in the case of the Ministry of Finance, these programs. If there are ways in which the same level of service or a comparable level of service can be provided through lowering FTEs or contracting-out, whatever it may be, then we'll certainly review that as part of our program review. I just wanted to reference that.

That's a general answer, but there's no specific plans that I'm aware of in respect of these FTEs other than in the context of that general program review.

P. Reitsma: I'm aware of the review and I'm aware of the 5 percent. I guess we just want to help the minister along, for him to achieve that goal.

I have two questions, actually, on the Queen's Printer. I know that this government and, of course, this side as well are very keen to save and use as much recycled paper as possible. I noticed, going through the report here and the estimates as well, that I didn't see a notification or an indication that this was done on recycled paper. Is that possible? Particularly with the Queen's Printer and publishing, how much recycled paper is being used, the approximate percentage, and what kinds of cost savings are we looking at?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding of the policy with respect to both the Queen's Printer and private sector printers is that where it is technically feasible to utilize recycled paper, the government seeks to have recycled paper used, either by the Queen's Printer or by private sector printers who are providing services to government. I don't have the precise numbers or percentages. If those numbers are important to the member, we can certainly try to track them down for him.

P. Reitsma: Just approximately, are we looking at 10, 20, 30, 60 or 70 percent? Are there any goals and objectives in terms of percentages? Just some global amounts would suffice. If it's not possible now, then at your convenience.

Hon. A. Petter: I just don't want to speculate; I would just be taking a stab in the dark. We'll get those kinds of numbers for the member and communicate with him in writing.

P. Reitsma: If possible, I would like the minister to be fairly accurate in the forecasting on that. The opportunity is hereby extended, of course... The reason I used the example of recycled paper is that, to me, the estimates and the budget are simply a recycling of what was tabled earlier.

The last question. How many apprenticeship opportunities have been created with the Queen's Printer and how many of those can be labelled as lasting?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, the extent to which there are apprenticeship opportunities at the Queen's Printer I just couldn't say, but I'd be happy to include that in the information provided to the member.

P. Reitsma: I would appreciate that, because certainly the mandate of government is to try and give apprenticeships, particularly in this type of business. We would like to know, if at all possible -- at the minister's convenience.

If I might, on page 141 of the estimates, in the warehouse and asset investment recovery section... Is it really the role of the government to own and operate an office products warehouse?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is yes, it is a valid function. I understand that in 1992 a Coopers and Lybrand study indicated that this kind of warehousing of goods assisted in achieving efficiencies in the acquisition and distribution of goods throughout government. So it is part of the government's effort to ensure that its purchasing policies and distribution policies are carried out in an efficient way -- as indicated through that review.

P. Reitsma: Anticipating the answer, how can the minister demonstrate efficiency and how to get the best bang for our buck? What proof is there that this is cost-effective?

Hon. A. Petter: The initiatives in this regard have been to try and consolidate warehousing in a way that provides for a 

[ Page 1162 ]

more efficient outcome, as contemplated by the Coopers and Lybrand review. The proof of the pudding is in the performance, which, as a result of this initiative, has shown a $2.6 million saving over the three fiscal years from '91-92 to '93-94.

P. Reitsma: I understand there are millions of dollars worth of products in the warehouse. Could the minister advise how long some of those products are there and what the turnover is? It's so extremely important in the private sector that you turn over products -- and, of course, the more the better.

Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps I can assist the member by distinguishing between two separate operations: the warehouse and asset investment recovery operation, and the product distribution centre operation. As I understand it, the warehouse and asset investment recovery operation is the storage of goods. The product distribution centre is there to provide government ministries and funded agencies with cost-effective products and services; inventory management and product warehousing and distribution services, including common-use commodities; and consultative services in areas such as emergency health, medical products, nutrition, safety, pharmaceuticals and uniforms. So they are two quite distinct functions. I think perhaps the member was, like I was just now, inadvertently mixing them up.

P. Reitsma: Perhaps I was. It's related somewhat, I suppose. In terms of the longevity or the long time of the products in the warehouse, and in terms of the turnover, what time of turnover are we looking at? What's the value at any time -- minimum or maximum -- of all the products contained in the warehouse?

Hon. A. Petter: This is a service that is provided to ministries. Ministries are therefore responsible for managing the goods that come in and leave the warehouse, according to their needs. Then cost recovery is achieved from those ministries. So the answer is different, I suspect, in respect of each ministry -- the nature of the goods, what's required and the nature of the program being offered. Again, if the member wants more detailed information on a ministry or a ministry breakdown, I suppose we could try to get that information. It really is broken down according to the ministries, which manage the inflow and outflow of goods from the warehouse.

[4:00]

F. Gingell: So I take it that you've got two types of goods in the product warehouse there. One is things that you're buying for the ministries. They've made the decision; they tell you what they want. You buy them, negotiate the best deal you can, hold them for them and deliver them to the ministries when they need them. So in this modern age of just-in-time delivery, what sort of ground rules do you put to the ministries about how many months' or weeks' usage they can buy -- i.e., if you go out and order a specific package of goods for the Ministry of Health, do you have any rules about what period of time that supply will service them?

Hon. A. Petter: I think this answer will get at what the member is asking, but if not, I'm sure he'll let me know. I guess there are two issues here. One is the actual acquisition, storage and turnaround of the goods. From the point of view of the ministry, the goal there is to ensure -- and this is obviously monitored -- that goods are acquired in a timely way, that they are stored safely and that the turnaround times ensure that there's an efficient operation.

The actual question of the quality of a good and whether it is suited to the purpose for which the ministry wishes it is the responsibility of the ministry. The ministry therefore engages in that form of quality control and assures itself. I would say also that there is discipline exerted on ministries, in terms of when they ask for goods to be acquired on their behalf, by the user-pay principle that applies in these kinds of operations. I think I've tried to separate out the various schemes behind the member's question, but if I haven't, I'm sure he'll tell me.

F. Gingell: I can't immediately think of the right kind of product that perhaps would apply. But, for instance, if you were buying bed linens for hospitals, you would have to measure the issue: how quickly this linen is going to be used up against what kind of discount you'd get for the larger purchases -- i.e., if you buy ten gross, you get a better price than if you buy one gross, but if it takes you two years to use up ten gross... You deal with that conundrum the whole time. Does the B.C. Purchasing Commission have any rules, or bring any discipline to the ministries about that issue -- like saying to them: don't buy more than three months' supply?

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is yes. The commission does monitor to ensure it gets the optimal efficiency in terms of the balance between achieving economies of scale on the one hand and the cost of maintaining inventories on the other, which is what the member says. I understand that is monitored, no doubt against the private sector, as well as what is optimal in terms of the arrangements that the commission makes with ministries.

F. Gingell: We hear a great deal about -- I'm trying to think of the term that's used -- March madness, when ministries go out and buy stuff up at the end of the year because they want to use all of their vote, because if they don't, they'll be cut down next year. I appreciate that the minister, particularly in his new role as Minister of Finance, doesn't approve of that kind of action; but nevertheless, MLAs hear about it time after time after time after time. I was wondering if the B.C. Purchasing Commission has any indication of this -- whether it is something that they see on a regular basis. As ministries get towards the year-end, do they start buying stuff that they'll need for the following year, but get it into this year's budget so that it's all used up?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure March madness is a retail concept, but maybe I'm wrong. I am certainly aware, however, of the phenomenon or the reported use of the phenomenon that the member refers to. I think that one has to distinguish between what may be a legitimate practice and what may be a practice that causes legitimate concern. The legitimate practice may be that ministries, in managing their budget, do hold back until the end of the fiscal year, to make sure that they can achieve certain necessary purchases within their fiscal plan. That may account for the fact there's a tendency to spend towards the end of the year. On the other hand, one wants to clearly avoid what I think the member is referring to: the notion that somehow ministries are out there spending to justify their expenditure levels for the following year.

The Purchasing Commission's role in this, as I understand it, is to assist Treasury Board in carrying out its functions in discouraging that latter activity. Treasury Board directives in recent years have in fact gone in the opposite direction -- have required ministries to claw back funds and to discourage 

[ Page 1163 ]

purchasing towards the end of the year. Certainly the Purchasing Commission has played a role in ensuring that those directives are carried out by ministries, through the activities of the Purchasing Commission that we've discussed here.

P. Reitsma: This March madness reminds me of the retail industry. So often, the moonlight madness selling -- hopefully, somehow, with werewolves and the moon -- might loosen up the cash in the pockets and get more sales, I suppose. It mystifies me -- just as a side comment.

Certainly, if you compare them to the private sector -- and I've been in local government for 12 years, and we know about balanced budgets and bottom lines -- with no disrespect, provincial and federal government departments, in particular, seem to scramble to buy in order to meet or beat their target set in terms of allocated funds. Of course, in the private sector if we do save -- and that's our whole aim, to save on expenditures -- we either throw a party, give a bonus to the staff or, above all, use those surplus moneys to pay off the loans and debts. Enough of that, I suppose.

I understand the FTEs in '95 were about 32. I just wonder what the FTEs are in 1996 -- and the expenses and recoveries for those two years, too.

Hon. A. Petter: Just in response to the member's observation, perhaps the difference between local government and provincial or federal governments is that we work on a system of annual appropriations. Because those appropriations expire -- the authority to spend expires at the end of the year -- there is a natural tendency to meet their needs within the year. Some of that's rational and appropriate. Some of it, and we discussed this in the last go-round, may have unintended and undesirable effects. We should work on trying to minimize those. There is an understandable difference, based on the pattern of appropriation that occurs, in the way in which ministries are held to account within that pattern.

Now, the second part. I apologize -- for which agency or agencies did the member want the FTE numbers for the last two years?

P. Reitsma: Warehouse and asset investment recovery -- I believe it was 32 in '94-95.

Hon. A. Petter: The best information I have is that it's 31 for each year, but we are just going to double-check that in case it is incorrect.

P. Reitsma: It's just that I'm quoting from the annual report for '94-95, which shows 32. That's fine, I suppose.

On the recoveries of money, I just give a local example. In their haste to meet or beat their target... There is a seed orchard in Bowser, and at the end of their fiscal year they were some $15,000-20,000 under budget. They went out and bought some attachment for their backhoe and the mower, about which they were told that if they didn't do that, their target would be lowered by just that amount. Incidently, they could have used that money on manual labour and put some people to work.

I understand from the '94-95 budget and report that the recoveries are about $211,000 less. That reflects the cost associated with operating new facilities in both Victoria and Prince George, which leads me again to the question: has the private sector been invited to bid, to give contracts to them? What analysis has been done in terms of the cost of the staff and of the distribution? Particularly, what steps have been taken and what are the benchmarks of the private sector involvement?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I can only build on answers I've given earlier. There was, I understand, a cross-government review done in 1989, which recommended the consolidation of warehousing. That was then validated by the Coopers and Lybrand study I referred to, all of which would have taken into account the relative costs and benefits of government proceeding in the way it did versus private sector alternatives. I am certainly open to looking at other options where they could be shown to be cost-effective. I don't want to discourage the member's interest in this, but all of this has come about through some fairly careful work and studies that recommended this approach.

P. Reitsma: I'll speed it up a little bit, because those were kind of the meat and potatoes, if you like -- although I do relate this to the pride and joy and the happy expression on the minister's face when he so proudly mentioned that the reason for the government air services demise or cancelling was to save money. That's what it's all about.

Does the ministry use the advantages of the Internet and include funded agencies such as hospitals, schools, Crown corporations, etc., to obtain bids and quotes from the private sector? Are they now included in the Internet?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I believe it's contemplated that the agencies and institutions the member is referring to can, in the future, make use of the electronic bidding network. We referred to it earlier as B.C. Bid.

[4:15]

P. Reitsma: That is the information I've been getting back -- and again I speak as a member of the private sector; I've got five small businesses. To be very competitive, the income of various sources is part of the overall income, of course. When dealing with the government, there is frustration in the private sector. They feel that the government, when going to the marketplace, has already made up its mind. Will the government use the private sector minds, talents and collective experience to create a window for them to advise what is the best product -- in other words, to open your eyes to ideas and innovations? I see that really as a partnership with private business, which ultimately, of course, will create jobs.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is yes. Government is always trying to seek opportunities to save money. If utilizing ideas and feedback from the private sector can assist in doing that, then we are certainly anxious to proceed on that basis. For example, the request for proposal and the joint solutions procurement are two purchasing mechanisms in which government actively seeks the supplier's recommendations for solutions as part of the procurement process. In addition, vendor debriefings occur after most large competitions to provide for an exchange of information.

We talked about this earlier, and the critic for the opposition, I think, made note of the fact that very often people who don't win competitions are dissatisfied, and perhaps they then visit that upon the process. Government, in trying to find efficiencies, will sometimes seek to use its purchasing power 

[ Page 1164 ]

in a way that may be beneficial to government but may not be seen as beneficial to a particular interest. I want to encourage the member that through things such as requests for proposal, joint solutions procurement, vendor debriefings, seminars and workshops, the Crown corporation purchasing management group and regional visits throughout the year, we are certainly very mindful of the need to keep a close working relationship with the private sector and try to build upon that interaction to achieve efficiencies. Also, I must say that something I'm very concerned about is providing the benefits of government purchasing decisions on an equitable basis, regionally and between small as well as larger businesses throughout the province.

P. Reitsma: I suppose, in the private sector, the sweetness or the bitterness of getting or not getting the contract makes us, indeed, very sharp. Of course, we cannot afford losing too many contracts. Before we know it, we would be on a government assistance program, although I don't necessarily believe in true corporate Darwinism either, for that matter.

Might I ask -- and this is kind of a small-business-friendly approach -- what could the government do in terms of preparing small business in how to deal with government contracts, particularly to keep the contracts in B.C.? This is a most friendly question in that, particularly when you start out in a small business and when you're trying to encourage the young and the youth entrepreneurs to get into private business... They do need help, as we all did from time to time when we started our own business. Not everybody has the luxury of taking over an established business from someone else who can be a guidance of some sort until they're set in. This is meant as an extremely friendly and sincere question.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, 82 percent of contracts go to B.C. businesses, which I think is a good starting point. As I understand it, the Purchasing Commission is very mindful and aggressive in terms of trying to work with small business. There are supplier development programs to try to provide one-on-one counselling and guidance to those who want to participate in opportunities that are afforded through government bids, etc. In addition, there are seminars and workshops for the supplier community put on by the purchasing services branch around British Columbia. The branch is participating in up to 50 sessions this year, sometimes in partnership with other public sector groups. There are also, I understand, sites on the Internet to assist those who wish to get better information in order to compete. With respect to small purchases under $5,000, these are delegated to local government offices, and these offices, then, can use a variety of means, including petty cash accounts, local minor purchase orders and the new purchasing card, to buy goods and some services below this threshold from local suppliers. So there can be a direct relationship within communities between local government agencies and local suppliers. In all those ways, there is ongoing interaction and development with the private sector to ensure that the private sector is prepared and ready and knowledgable in participating in these opportunities.

P. Reitsma: What are the general criteria to bid and to obtain contracts?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. Obviously, the basics are open, public tendering and, depending on the good or service being acquired, specifications by the ministry that would identify that good or service in a way that ensures it is the optimal good or service required by the ministry. In some cases, there may be, depending on the good required, some kind of prequalification or evidence of a bidder having the necessary qualifications to provide the good or service; but it would depend on the good or service that was being provided.

P. Reitsma: I guess the line of questioning really... And again, it's friendly. I know it's price and quality and, of course, delivery on time and things like that. I suppose the reason that I ask is really to focus in on local business, because I happen to think that although those are very important components -- the best price is one component -- best overall value in terms of service and giving business to small local businesses ultimately ought to be the long-term strategy for the government, to involve everyone. It's more of a statement than a question actually. For the last five minutes, we've heard about frustration concerning the high cost of doing business with the government. In particular, small companies seem to be giving up because they just don't have the marketing and the resources to compete and to bid. They don't have the inventory or don't want to buy the inventory, I guess, until they're successful in their bid. They don't want to do it, because they're not sure if they're going to get the bid. My statement really is to try and spread it around as much as possible.

I'm certain the Purchasing Commission cares about making it easier for small business to compete and have income from the government as a share of their business, because it is important to the local communities, for the local business community, simply because there are jobs involved -- local jobs. With those profits and with that income, they contribute to their respective communities in terms of supporting local sports organizations, charities, theatres, historical societies, Scouts, Cubs and Beavers in local dens, etc. My sincere plea is to make sure that this philosophy could be extended and used as much as possible. I think there must be a balance between the cost efficiencies and the consideration of the small businesses.

Last question before I end. Is there an internal, interprovincial trade agreement, and how is the province doing on that?

Hon. A. Petter: I take the member's suggestion that what we want to achieve is a balance. Obviously, one wants to get the greatest efficiency for government. At the same time, as I think I've said numerous times in the last hour, I am very mindful of the need to ensure that the distribution of benefits to business is fair and equitable regionally, in terms of small business. The key is to not do it in a way that becomes ad hoc or subjective, such that we start making judgments about this: "They're not the lowest bidder, but we think their product is better for this reason or that." And that's a tricky balance.

Let me give you some of the strategies that are used. The Purchasing Commission negotiates agreements called master standing offers for commonly used goods. Examples of that would be tires, fax machines and computer equipment. Those then guarantee that the government gets the lowest price available related to the volume of goods. However, to ensure that local companies are not left out of the supply chain, manufacturers are requested to include a list of their distributors in British Columbia, and government customers can then make their purchases directly from these local companies at the prenegotiated price. This ensures that local companies handling the product get the benefit that government derives from the master standing offer, but the local companies get the benefit in the sense that the acquisitions are made from local distribution chains. Approximately $50 million worth of MSOs are accessed annually, just to give you a sense that this is a fairly substantial investment.

[ Page 1165 ]

The same process is used for purchasing light vehicles. The commission negotiates the best possible price with the manufacturers but takes deliveries from local dealers located near the government users. So you don't get this phenomenon of all the vehicles coming from some central depot or dealership. I've already mentioned the policy of allowing purchases under $5,000 to be delegated to local government offices. Those are some of the ways in which that balance that the member is talking about is achieved. But it's not achieved through making ad hoc decisions that even though this or that bidder isn't the lowest bidder, somehow we think they provide a higher-quality service, which I think is dangerous, frankly, because it can lead to ad hockery.

Yes, there is an agreement on internal trade that has been negotiated. There are ongoing negotiations about the addition of additional sectors, such as the MASH sector. I and this government have expressed some concern about the inclusion of the MASH sector.

An Hon. Member: Mash?

Hon. A. Petter: Municipalities, hospitals, universities, and that kind of thing. It used to be called the MUSH sector. Now it's called the MASH sector. I don't know -- times change.

Frankly, the concern is that we do not enter into an agreement that simply provides better access to British Columbia from other provinces but doesn't provide us much in the way of commensurate benefits to compete elsewhere. This is always the tension, particularly for a province that doesn't have a large manufacturing base. We want to make sure that these agreements on internal trade aren't simply suction pumps to suck away benefits from British Columbia businesses by allowing large operators in central Canada with huge economies of scale to outbid us.

So I admit to some reluctance. I think the government has expressed some concern around the extension of the agreement. We'll continue to express that concern insofar as there's evidence that such agreements could undermine our ability to protect the ability of local suppliers, local manufacturers and local dealers to compete effectively for goods and services opportunities that exist within government. Those negotiations are ongoing, and I'd be happy to update the member on them as they unfold.

[4:30]

P. Reitsma: A last comment, hon. Chair. I simply would like to thank the minister for not having a question period approach to the questions, which is good. I do not like big government. I do not like big business. I'm from a small government approach and particularly from a small business approach with, as I mentioned, five businesses, one having six people only but the majority having two or three people. We depend on one another, but we also depend on a good business approach. Once again, I would like to thank the minister for the time today.

F. Gingell: Before the Purchasing Commission leaves, I'd like to ask them about the auditor general's report. The auditor general produced a report in something like 1994-95 on purchasing practices within school districts. There was a very good evaluation of three or four districts and lessons to be learned all around the issues of efficiency and probity. My question to the minister is: did the Purchasing Commission believe there were any messages in the auditor general's report for them? Did it cause them to change any of their practices? Did it create an opportunity for the B.C. Purchasing Commission to bring their knowledge, skills and experience to the assistance of other government-funded agencies, such as school boards?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the auditor general did in fact solicit the input and expertise of the Purchasing Commission in the preparation of this report, and used the Purchasing Commission as a model or a base for analysis of some of these practices. Indeed, the Purchasing Commission has been used, I'm pleased to report, by a number of public sector agencies and others as a model against which to measure their purchasing policies and programs. I think that's to the credit of the commission and should give us some confidence in the record of the commission.

F. Gingell: Thank you. That's all the questions we have for the Purchasing Commission.

I understand our schedule is now going to move to the B.C. Securities Commission. I will have some general questions while Doug's coming, if that's okay.

Hon. A. Petter: Maybe I'll use the opportunity to provide the answer that I undertook to provide the member earlier, and has now come to my hand. I hope I understand it. The question related to other miscellaneous revenue. The other miscellaneous revenue referred to includes recovery of prior-year expenditures. I understand these are expenditures that were... Well, I'll just leave it at recovery of prior-year expenditures. I can give the explanation the member wants, and I think he probably understands it. It also includes miscellaneous refunds and receipts -- that is, loans written off in previous years that subsequently recovered more than anticipated. In 1994-95 the recovery in this category was higher than expected.

The budget, I think, provided initially for $87 million. There was a revised forecast....

F. Gingell: 1995-96.

Hon. A. Petter: Sorry, this is '95-96. Correct. I appreciate it. Thank you, member. For 1995-96 the budget provided for $87 million; the revised forecast indicated an anticipation of $124.5 million -- reading the script here. As I understand it, based on preliminary public accounts, the receipts are in fact likely to be more in the range of $140 million. So I think the reason for the number in '96-97 is a reflection of the fact that there have been higher than expected returns over the past year, and of an expectation that that trend may well continue into '96-97.

F. Gingell: That's a lot of money to get in as miscellaneous, and sort of "Well, we recovered some loans that we'd previously written off." Are there any large sums that tell the story on it?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm told there are no large specific sums of which my staff are aware. It just goes to show that, if one takes care of the pennies, the dollars take care of themselves.

F. Gingell: We certainly wouldn't want to discourage the minister in any way from looking after the pennies.

Just to go back, we thought a year ago you were going to get $87 million in these miscellaneous revenues. We got to the 

[ Page 1166 ]

year-end and there were some extraordinary items, and the first revision suggested $124.5 million; now it looks like it might be up as high as $140 million. The $140 million is sort of 70 percent more than you'd originally estimated at the start of the year. In our estimates for this year, we're now talking about the amount going in at a fraction over $170 million. You must believe, or the people that prepare these revenue projections must believe, that there are more untapped sources of recoveries. Is the reason for the increase up to $170.5 million a continuum of recovery of items that had been written off in prior years?

Hon. A. Petter: Clearly, a part of this is a better record of recovery than has occurred previously. I guess what I can say to the member is that, as I understand it, this acceleration is representative of a trend that has now started to emerge over the last few years, and there's an expectation that the trend will continue. Like the same old forecasting, one forecasts based on the best information, and the forecasts are subject to change. We'll have to monitor this and see, but, based on the previous year's experience, there has been an acceleration in this category. Part of it, as I say, is perhaps due to better practices of recovery, and I can look into some of the detailed expenditure items coming into here if the member wants. But the anticipation clearly is that this is one source of revenue that has been increasing and is expected to increase in the coming year.

F. Gingell: One of the programs the minister is responsible for administering is the provincial home acquisition fund. The minister will know that, during the days not of the previous parliament but of the previous administration, the decision was made to privatize these and sell the accounts off. The province is responsible for buying back mortgage loans that become more than 90 days in arrears. Having sold them off, we get our own portfolio of loans back. Can the minister advise the committee of the gross value of loans that are still out there on which the government has a guarantee?

Hon. A. Petter: The number of second mortgages still outstanding is 983, for a gross balance of $9,476,472.

F. Gingell: So that's $9.5 million, and that's the value of the mortgages that are in the hands of the organization that bought them from the government and which the government is still on the guarantee for. Have you got the amount handy that gives us the value of the mortgages that you have had to buy back and are now back on our books?

Hon. A. Petter: I misread the chart, and I apologize to the members. The number I gave the member was in fact the answer to the second question he asked. The member in his usual gentle way nudged me to that conclusion by asking a supplemental follow-up question rather than telling me I was wrong. I appreciate that. Well, he can tell me I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and I won't take offence.

The contingent liability on the B.C. second mortgages, which is the first question the member asked, is roughly in the range of $18.25 million and the number of accounts is 5,573. I apologize again to the member for having gotten those numbers backward.

F. Gingell: I didn't know that it was high; it just seemed awfully low.

With these special accounts, you make estimates about what's going to happen each year: the interest you're going to collect on the mortgages you brought back into your account, the principal receipts and the amount of money you're going to pay out to the people you have given your guarantee for, for the mortgages that become 90 days in arrears. In the special account, on page 145 that you have open there, you'll see the bottom number on the left-hand side -- the difference between the 1995 estimates and "projected actual net cash source (requirement)" is $550,000. If I may put it in these terms, either the receipts were $550,000 less than they are shown, or the disbursements were $550,000 more than they were shown, or it's a mix of both. Can the minister advise what the mix was?

[4:45]

The Chair: I recognize the member for Delta South.

F. Gingell: Just to move things along, I believe that last year I brought up why this special account has a balance in it of $480 million -- which, in my opinion, is just a notational account and is meaningless. In certain other special accounts you actually reduce them, and we will come to that question when we deal with the provincial treasury operations. But when you start hearing the numbers that are involved in the outstanding balances, both those we have a contingent liability for and those contracts we are holding ourselves now, totalling somewhere in the region of just under $28 million, I would have thought that the move would have been to reduce this special account to that $28 million to represent that asset value.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll answer the previous question, which is that it was a combination of lower revenue and higher spending -- 70 percent lower revenue, I am informed. In ascertaining all of that, I caught the gist of the member's question, but not enough. So perhaps I'll hold back the answer on that till later, and move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recess until 6:35 p.m. and sit until adjourned.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 4:50 p.m.

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

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

[ Page 1167 ]

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

R. Thorpe: If the minister could give me a little bit of leeway -- I unfortunately wasn't here yesterday; I had to attend a funeral -- there are a couple of issues that pertain to my part of the Okanagan that I'd like to ask a couple of questions on. One of them pertains to Green Mountain Road. As the minister is probably aware, part of Green Mountain Road goes through the Penticton Indian reserve, and another part comes out near Yellow Lake. Can the minister confirm that, in fact, the ministry does have a completed set of plans in place to develop the new road from the Yellow Lake portion of Green Mountain Road through to the Apex resort?

Hon. L. Boone: We have no plans for a new road.

R. Thorpe: It's our understanding that you do have a new road, or plans for a portion of a new road, and that you do have arrangements with five ranchers to expropriate, buy, or however you get the land, from those ranchers. Is that correct or incorrect, minister?

Hon. L. Boone: It's incorrect. An alternative route was looked at a few years ago, but nothing has happened on that.

R. Thorpe: I realize nothing has happened. The thrust of my question to the minister is: are the plans in place for the immediate development of a road? In fact, is not your implementation plan to put through the new road in three weeks?

Hon. L. Boone: We have no plans drawn up. The member is saying that we have plans drawn up. We have no physical plans drawn up to implement a new road through there.

R. Thorpe: Will the minister confirm or deny that if you do not have blueprinted plans, you do have a plan in the broadest sense to develop the road and to put it through in a timetable of three weeks if the government deemed that it was its action plan?

Hon. L. Boone: We've looked in the broadest terms for alternatives, just as we look at alternatives for everything. But as for the three weeks, I can't confirm that.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister please advise us, then, if in fact officials from her ministry and other ministries have chartered helicopters and extensively toured that part of the area in developing their plans to put the road through to Apex?

Hon. L. Boone: About two years ago, a lot of work was done to see if there were alternatives around.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister confirm or deny that those plans in the broadest sense remain on the shelf for implementation, never mind that they may have been done two years ago, and that an implementation plan does exist?

Hon. L. Boone: There are alternative ideas out there as to what one can do, not drawn plans as the member talks about.

R. Thorpe: When I used the word "plans," I said in the broadest sense. I'm not talking about totally surveyed plans, blueprints and all that -- which I do understand exist, but that's beside the point. But does the ministry have a binder, several binders or a file folder -- whatever it is -- for an implementation plan for an alternative road through to Apex from Yellow Lake up Green Mountain?

[2:45]

Hon. L. Boone: There is probably something in the district office about that.

R. Thorpe: Is the minister saying that perhaps they're doing something in a district office in Penticton that you're not aware of in your office here? Is that what you're saying?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I've explained to you that several years ago we were looking at all alternatives. We've looked at them. There are alternatives throughout all districts with regard to plans, whether it be for the Lions Gate Bridge, or whatever it is. But I'm not saying that the ministry is doing anything out there that's without our knowledge.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please elaborate on how many different alternatives her ministry has studied and has considered for that alternative road through to Apex?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll take that as notice and get back to you with that information.

R. Thorpe: Referring to the specific estimates here, could you give us an indication as to how much money you have set aside in your budgets for the implementation of these broadest plans and various alternatives?

Hon. L. Boone: Nothing.

R. Thorpe: So if something has to happen, will we then hear from the ministry that it will not be done because of lack of funding, or is the ministry able to receive funding from other sources within government?

Hon. L. Boone: As I told you earlier, I'm not going to speculate as to what could or would happen. We have no plans right now to put through that road. I explained that to you earlier, and that remains my situation. Therefore we have no money put aside for that road.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise this committee how much money has been spent in chartering helicopters, getting surveyors and talking to ranchers on studying this alternative through to Apex?

Hon. L. Boone: That was a couple of years ago. We would have to get that information for you. There's nothing in this budget for any of those costs.

R. Thorpe: We will attempt to shift gears here, but we'll stay in the Penticton area. I tried to look at Hansard just to see if anything had been asked on it, but it wasn't out. So if there was some discussion, I apologize for that. It has to do with 16-foot-wide manufactured homes in British Columbia. Could you please advise myself and working people in Penticton what the current thoughts are from your ministry with respect to the 16-foot-wide manufactured homes, please?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, as you know, they have been banned. I advised the member for Peace River North yester-

[ Page 1168 ]

day that I was asking my parliamentary secretary from Malahat-Juan de Fuca to review the situation, to talk to people in the industry in both your part of the country and the Peace area, and to bring back some information and some recommendations.

R. Thorpe: Is the minister aware of the former Minister of Transportation's announcement on April 1, 1996, with respect to this issue?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Thorpe: So what has changed from April l to July 29, to conduct yet another review?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I'm taking a second look at this, and I have had discussions with the members from the Peace River area. I'm a new minister in here, and so I'm not averse to taking second looks at many things. In fact, your members have asked me throughout the past couple of days to take second looks at a number of different things. I'm not averse to doing that, hon. member. I think it's an issue that has some effect on the people in the Peace, and I'm willing to take a look at it.

R. Thorpe: I don't believe anyone's averse to that... Perhaps I didn't understand. I don't think you're insinuating that anyone would be concerned about people taking a second look, but second and third looks on this particular subject in a matter of months is reasonably astounding. Could the minister, then, advise what the principal thrust of this review will hinge on? Is it affordability of housing? Is it safety? What will be the thrust of this review?

Hon. L. Boone: This will be a very low-key review, with only my parliamentary secretary going out and talking to people in the industry to find out what their concerns are, talking to people in the industry in the Peace area to find out what their concerns are, and bringing some recommendations to me. There will be no public hearings. It will be low-key meetings, and that's what I've asked him to do.

R. Thorpe: Will the minister undertake that our particular company, Moduline, in Penticton -- on which the minister stood up and made a pre-election promise and statement -- be directly consulted in this process?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Will the union executive and union membership that applauded the decision of the former minister also be consulted on this issue?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Will the minister also allow this member to have input into this review with your staff?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Thorpe: In the Okanagan right now we seem to be fairly concerned, as the minister no doubt knows, because, for whatever reason, there are no sitting government members there. There has been wide speculation in the community about recent decisions that could have political overtones. Would this minister please assure the people of Penticton, and members on this side that there will be no political overtones in this review; that it will be based on the facts and only the facts?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. We, too, have no members in the Peace area.

R. Thorpe: Thanks for your commitments on that item.

With respect to reviewing the highways in the Okanagan, we talked about the finance authority and about the project that goes through to '97. Can the minister advise whether pullouts have ever been considered in the Okanagan, as our traffic continues to be congested?

Hon. L. Boone: The ministry tends to not want to put in pullouts in high-volume areas. The opportunities for accidents are greater because they pull out and then have to pull back in to the traffic. What they have looked at in the high-volume areas is either four-laning it or putting in passing lanes.

R. Thorpe: I can appreciate, to some degree, that concern and that observation. The minister has pointed out to this side many, many times before, and goes to great lengths to talk about, the fiscal responsibility that comes from that side. I'm just wondering, looking forward -- and given, no doubt, the financial difficulties your government's going to have in going forward -- if pullouts tend to be more economical versus major construction. Do you have any comments on that?

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously, as the member can see, the pullouts, of course, would be more economical. But in high-volume areas such as you have down in your area, you can't jeopardize safety at the expense of saving a few dollars. If, in fact, it would cause more accidents, then that would not be cost-effective at all.

R. Thorpe: Yes. We're all concerned with safety on the highways -- safety everywhere, as a matter of fact.

Can the minister advise whether she or her staff have studied some of the pullouts in Washington State? They seem to have them in some fairly high-volume areas and fairly curvy parts of the road. Have you studied that as an option?

Hon. L. Boone: We have looked at it. We haven't studied it in Washington; we have looked at it in other jurisdictions in Canada. That's what we are basing the decisions on that we have made with regard to the high-volume areas.

R. Thorpe: Switching gears yet again, can the minister advise if, in fact, the ministry will achieve its FTEs for the fiscal period '96-'97?

Hon. L. Boone: There will be some delays in achieving our FTEs because of the delay in the transfer of the motor vehicle branch to ICBC. We will have to advise you at a later date as to when we achieve those, because the FTEs are very much based on the transfer of those personnel.

R. Thorpe: The Premier indicated that the government would reduce staff by approximately 2,200 additional people. How many of these FTEs are in your area? Are they already reflected in these numbers, or will there be further reductions?

Hon. L. Boone: There are 360 -- 60 from motor vehicles and 300 from the ministry -- and they are reflected in the numbers there.

[ Page 1169 ]

R. Thorpe: So, 360 was the first number I heard, and then 300?

Hon. L. Boone: A total of 360 -- 60 from the transfer to ICBC, and 300. But these numbers are already reflected in the total.

[3:00]

R. Thorpe: Do those numbers that you just mentioned form part of the government's total of 2,200?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise how many layers of staff there are between the deputy minister level and, for argument's sake, the district manager in the Penticton office?

Hon. L. Boone: There is the deputy, the ADM, a regional manager and district manager.

R. Thorpe: Does your ministry monitor its budget on a monthly basis?

Hon. L. Boone: Don't we wish! I've just been told it's by the hour. We are very concerned, and we do so far more frequently than on a monthly basis.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister confirm that the minister does receive, or is part of, a detailed review where actual expenditures are compared to the budget expenditures on a monthly basis?

Hon. L. Boone: It's been about a month, I guess. I've received one report -- the deputy receives it -- on a monthly basis, but we are very careful and review numbers on a regular basis to make sure. That doesn't necessarily come through in a written report form except on the monthly basis, but we are on top of things to make sure we can keep our budget in line.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please advise, then, after the close of a month -- let's say after July closes...? When would the minister be advised of the actual performance against the budget for the month of July? I would assume it's on a year-to-date basis. How many working days would that be?

Hon. L. Boone: Two to three weeks.

R. Thorpe: How often during a fiscal year would the minister update the budget? Would you update it once, or do you just live with your original budget? How often is there a review process to update the budget?

Hon. L. Boone: I think it's fair to say that we would probably do it quarterly. Treasury Board often does a review as well, and that could be quarterly or every six months or so.

R. Thorpe: So there is a periodic review throughout the year. I guess I'll take that as a yes from the minister. I notice you have a fair amount of recoveries. Does that review include not only your expenditures but also the recovery process?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Thorpe: So then I guess it's fair, based on the comments of the minister, for us to conclude that this ministry and this minister pride themselves on being on top of their fiscal responsibilities.

Hon. L. Boone: We do our best.

R. Thorpe: In such a review of your monthly results and projects going forward, how far down into the organization is the participation? Does it go right down to the district manager in Penticton, for argument's sake, or does it just stay at the top of the organization?

Hon. L. Boone: The district managers review their budgets on a monthly basis.

R. Thorpe: Does the minister have any idea how many different statutes and regulations impact on the operation of the ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: If the member wishes, we can get that list to him.

R. Thorpe: Yes, I do wish, or I wouldn't have asked the question, quite frankly.

Do you believe that your ministry has too many regulations and statutes to work with and that they should be streamlined?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't say that I believe we've got too many statutes and regulations, but I'm always willing to see if there's some we can do away with if they're not necessary.

R. Thorpe: Does your ministry then embark upon a routine review of how regulations or statutes could be streamlined as part of your regular planning process?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. If the member is interested, the current legislation this ministry deals with is: Commercial Transport Act, Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act, Ferry Act, Highway Act, Highway (Industrial) Act, Highway Scenic Improvement Act, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Riverbank Protection Act and Transport of Dangerous Goods Act; and portions of the Land Title Act, the Railway Act and the Build BC Act.

R. Thorpe: The Premier has indicated that there will be a review of programs, and my take on that is a streamlining. Has your ministry received any direction on such a process at this point in time?

Hon. L. Boone: Not yet.

R. Thorpe: I have just a couple more questions here. Could you advise us what the total communications budget within your total area of responsibility is?

Hon. L. Boone: It's $2.5 million.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister also advise how many FTEs are dedicated to communications within the ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: Twenty-one.

[ Page 1170 ]

R. Thorpe: If I understand correctly, there are 21 people managing a communications budget of $2.5 million. Maybe the minister could explain what's included in her definition of communications.

Hon. L. Boone: It's informing the public on all aspects of our projects and programs. The bulk of the budget is aimed at direct communication to the public through open houses, site tours, information offices, special events and public drop-in centres. These activities support one of the ministry's prime objectives, which is to ensure that all our projects meet high standards for public consultation and public information. In the past, we've conducted key public information activities related to major projects such as the Vancouver Island Highway, the Lions Gate Bridge and the Oak Street Bridge. So those are the types of things that are covered in the communications budget.

R. Thorpe: Does that budget of $2.5 million also include their salaries?

Hon. L. Boone: No, it doesn't.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please advise what the salary and benefit costs of those 21 people would be, related to the activity we're talking about?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't guess what the salaries are for these people or their benefit packages. We'll get that information to you.

R. Thorpe: We have 21 people looking after about $2.5 million in communications, so that's on average just over $100,000 per person. Is that correct? Have I got the right numbers? I just want to make sure.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Those are the right numbers. So we've got 21 people looking after a budget of $2.5 million. That's correct?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know why you're dividing it in terms of how much per person, because it's not divvied up per person. As I said, some of them have to do with public meetings. Some of them are to deal with the media in the regions, but they don't all have a $100,000 budget that they're given to just go out and spend in certain areas. These are employees of the ministry, and they do a variety of different things to get the information out to the public about highways.

[3:15]

R. Thorpe: Yes, but I did ask the question: how much was spent in communications? Then I asked the question: how many people were in communications? So do these 21 people look after communications or is that a part-time job for them?

Hon. L. Boone: I just told you that there are 21 people, but you can't divvy up that amount of money and say that each of them is responsible for that amount of money. They do different things; some may not have responsibility for any of that money. That's the communications budget for the ministry. These people may, in fact, be responsible for going out and holding public information meetings in a community. But they don't each have $150,000 that they can spend in whatever way they want. That is the communications budget. So yes, we have 21 people and a communications budget of $2.5 million.

R. Thorpe: Would the minister undertake to have her staff meet with me and brief me in detail on this, so that I can understand it and not take up any more time on this particular issue in estimates?

Hon. L. Boone: My staff would be more than happy to meet with anybody from the opposition to brief them on issues.

J. Wilson: First, I'd like to commend the minister on having the patience of Job, something we could all work on.

I have a few questions -- some concern my riding and some are all over the board, so I'll be as brief as I can. Today when you get in your automobile and head north on Highway 97, after you've hydroplaned for some 500 kilometres you come to a sign on the side of the road that says: "Another highway improvement project." Would the minister be kind enough to be specific and tell me where this improvement project ranks on the priority list?

Hon. L. Boone: I would imagine you're talking about the Quesnel bypass. As the member knows, that's part of the capital freeze and is under review by the Minister of Finance and his committee, along with all other capital projects.

J. Wilson: I realize that it is under a capital freeze and that nothing will happen until the freeze is lifted. Once that freeze is lifted, what priority will the project be given? Will it be No. 99 on the list, No. 299 or No. 2?

Hon. L. Boone: I can't prejudge the review.

J. Wilson: Is it a priority or is it something that was just brought up at a convenient time to talk about?

Hon. L. Boone: It wasn't, as you know, something that was just brought up; it was announced by the former Premier, Mike Harcourt. I don't know what the outcome of this review will be. All projects are under review. There are projects in my riding under review, and I'm not sure what is going to happen with those, so we just have to wait and see, hon. member.

J. Wilson: I believe that a study, or some planning, has just been completed. Would I be able to get the dollar figure that has been spent in studying this project?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we'll get that to you.

J. Wilson: The reason I would like to know this -- and it's fairly important -- is that back in the late sixties, this became an election issue and a fairly important issue to us. We were promised a bypass, and in almost every election since the late sixties, the same thing has kept rearing its ugly head. Every time there is an election, it's: "Oh, you'll get your bypass." It has never materialized in 30 years. We needed it then; we desperately need it today. The money that has been spent studying this through each successive government could have built the thing more than once. That is why I would like to know what the figures are, and I would like to know if you can give it a priority rating in the construction of some of your projects that are coming up.

[ Page 1171 ]

Moving on....

An Hon. Member: What about the Lions Gate Bridge?

J. Wilson: It's in the wrong part of the country.

There is a small issue that a lot of truckers in this province are a bit worried about. Has the ministry received any concerns about the S-curves in the canyon on the Thompson River, this side of Spences Bridge?

Hon. L. Boone: I haven't heard about any, and neither of the deputies have heard anything, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been brought to the attention of district managers or the local ministry people.

J. Wilson: This particular curve in there is very sharp. If two 53-footers happen to be coming along that section of road, they cannot pass; one has to wait until the other one goes through. That's how bad it is. It's an issue that has been brought to me by several trucking companies and truckers, not in my riding but in various places. It is a very serious accident waiting to happen. If you get strangers on the road who don't know this, there could be a major pileup there. I'm just wondering if the minister is prepared to look at that and maybe budget some money to correct that situation.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't promise that I'll budget some money, but we'll certainly look into the issue.

J. Wilson: There is a bit of road construction that went on in the Miocene country last year. A right-of-way was put in, and the ministry paid the landowner for the amount of land that was taken up to build this road. At that point this road was a private road, and it accessed four parcels of land owned by four different people. Highways came in, bought the right-of-way off the landowner and created a public access to these four parcels of land against the wishes of the four people who held the rights to access their property. They had restricted access, and they were happy with that. Then it became public access, and no form of compensation was offered to any of them for removing their access privileges. Could the minister explain why this wouldn't happen?

Hon. L. Boone: This is a very complicated matter. If you could get that issue on paper for me, with the exact location, the names of the parties involved, etc., we would be happy to respond to you. It's very difficult to deal with one-on-one issues like that through a venue such as this. If you could do that, we would endeavour to get back to you with an answer.

J. Wilson: I would be glad to do that, and I would like an answer. But what I'm asking at this moment is: is it policy to remove rights without compensation?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what you're talking about in terms of rights there. I would really like to get the information from you so that I know exactly what you're talking about.

J. Wilson: Okay, let's jump around a little bit here. We have a situation with log haulers to the local mills. It would appear that if you are moving wood from one side of town, each and every load crosses the scale; but if you're moving wood from the other side of town, you're not required to cross the government scale to get weighed. For those that have to cross the scale two, three or four times a day, it's time-consuming, and the log haulers feel it's unnecessary and that it is a bit of harassment on the part of the ministry to force them to do this. Has the minister considered any alternatives?

Hon. L. Boone: Again, you're talking about a specific area. I'd need more information on that before we could comment on it. This morning one of your colleagues was demanding more controls on vehicles and trucks, so he'd be very upset if we took those off. We need to make sure that we have the necessary levels there so that vehicles are weighed. Some may think they are getting weighed unfairly, but the reality is that it's the other ones that are getting away with not being weighed. We should find a way to enforce them so that they are being weighed, rather than the other way around.

J. Wilson: Perhaps I should explain what system we had in the past that's been taken away by the Ministry of Transportation. When you haul wood into a mill you are weighed. The loads may be averaged over a period of a week. If you exceed your weight on one load, you have to haul that much less on another load. It was a rule that everyone worked under.

The ministry decided they could come in every day and pull your ticket to look at what you're doing with your weights. They are printed out on the computer any time they wish to get them. They can get every weight-load that was hauled in the last month, week or year, if they wish. It's all accessible to them. They are asking that you go back to this system, which will allow them to go out there and get the job done in less hours, with less hassle, and you are still controlling the weight on the axles on the highway. Will the minister look into this and try to change the policy back to something that works better?

[3:30]

Hon. L. Boone: If the member would like to put that issue down for me, I'd be happy to look at it and review it with ministry staff to see if there's something we can do about that.

J. Wilson: What is the current fee for an interprovincial licence for hauling?

Hon. L. Boone: You won't believe this, but in all this paper, that's not here, so we will have to get back to you with that regulation. It's on a piece of paper that's not here, and we'll get back to you with it.

J. Wilson: There's not enough paper around here.

The reason I asked the minister this question -- and I think it is relevant to the estimates because it is income for the ministry, and I believe it is substantial income at this point... I would request that fee. I have a figure that's been given to me, and I have been told that the amount that is in effect this year is $1,500. That has gone up something like 1,500 percent in the last year. Can some of your people help you and maybe give me an answer?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess there are numerous fees and licences, and we would need to know more precisely which one it is. But we do not believe that any fee has gone up to the extent you indicated.

J. Wilson: I guess I'll have to get the figures from the operator who has been doing the complaining, and I would be more than happy to bring them.

[ Page 1172 ]

Could the minister give me any idea of how much of a fee increase there has been on an H plate, which allows you to haul from here to Alberta? Each province has a different rate, and as you go from one province to the other, the rate changes. It can be a different rate from this province to that province or from that province to this province.

Hon. L. Boone: An H plate is $100 per year. It went up about two years ago from $85 to $100.

J. Wilson: I believe what you're referring to there would be an H plate within B.C., if I'm not mistaken.

Hon. L. Boone: It's the same price for the out-of-province plate.

J. Wilson: Now that we're on the subject of H plates, what is the reason for the change in policy last year with regard to the allotment of H plates?

Hon. L. Boone: We have not changed any policy with regard to H plates in the past year.

J. Wilson: Last year or the year before that, if I had a fleet of five gravel trucks, my work would come seasonally, in spurts. I may have a good year or I may not have any kind of year. If I normally carry five plates for my fleet, I may take out one plate or two, and I would purchase the additional five when I needed them. I believe there has been a policy change in this regard.

Hon. L. Boone: I understand this was a decision by the Motor Carrier Commission, which is an independent body. They have made a decision to cancel unused plates during the year, and then you have to reapply back to them. That was a decision made by the Motor Carrier Commission, not by the motor vehicle branch.

J. Wilson: Then the Motor Carrier Commission is not under the control or direction of the ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: I wish it was under their control. No, the Motor Carrier Commission is totally independent. I encourage you to speak to Mr. Johannessen; he will tell you just how independent the Motor Carrier Commission is. They make their decisions without consulting and without any direction from government, and will not in fact be controlled by government.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

J. Wilson: Where do they get their funding to operate?

Hon. L. Boone: Their funding comes from government.

J. Wilson: Could you be more specific?

Hon. L. Boone: It's within this ministry's budget. It is given to them to administer.

J. Wilson: In other words, you're funding an organization that won't pay any attention to you and that does not have to answer to the minister?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

J. Wilson: Hon. Chair, this sounds like bureaucracy at its best.

Some of the problems that we are faced with today are serious problems. One of the main things is that the Forest Practices Code has moved the logging industry into a seasonal employment situation. Most of the wood is now produced from October to March -- a very short window. We have a lot of H plates out there all summer, but come October, you can't find a truck to move anything -- they're all busy.

We have a lot of small operators, small contractors, in this province that put out small volumes of wood. They are critical to the economy because the money they generate is spent here, and they create employment. They may go from one load a day to two or three loads a day. These people are faced with a situation where they can have a truck anytime they want if they phone them from June to October. When October comes, they have to shut down because they can't operate; they can't get a truck. They are told to get a permit to haul their own wood. These are people that are logging independently on private land. They come in, do the logging for someone, take that wood and ship it. They probably have a skidder, a loader and a cat -- just a little bit of equipment. They are independent contractors working on private land.

If they wish to work through the winter, which is what they would like to do, they must go out and purchase their own truck in order to move that wood. They cannot get a truck with an H plate that will haul, because they're all too busy. Come June, they have to park their truck and make payments on that truck all summer while they hire someone to come in and haul the wood for them, until such time as they can't get a truck and then they can get a permit to haul their own wood again. In the meantime, they have to make those payments year-round, which they cannot do, and hire the wood hauled by someone else. In effect, it is putting a lot of people in a very... It's jeopardizing their future in a lot of cases.

These people aren't asking for an H plate. When they have the machinery and they're putting out small volumes of wood, be it private wood... A big outfit goes in, buys the wood, does the work. They buy their own trucks and haul it; it's no problem for them. It's really hurting the small outfit that cannot buy the wood outright. They have to log it for someone and then move it.

They're not asking for an H plate; all they're asking for is a permit to move their own wood on a year-round basis, which will allow them to make the payments on their trucks so that they can buy themselves a job. It has reached a point where it is going to put some of them out of business. Right now what they do is run at night. They run late and they run the gauntlet to haul the wood, hoping they don't get stopped and get a ticket. It's the only way they can survive.

I would ask the minister to look into this and to make recommendations as soon as possible, if she would, because what it's doing is... It's not going to hurt any other commercial outfit out there; all it's doing is putting these little operators out of business.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you for your comments. I'll take down your comments and pass them on to Mr. Johannessen so that he's aware of your concerns.

J. Wilson: I have one last question for the minister: was your ministry in charge of the issue we had with dead bunks?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there is a report being done on that. I understand it's nearing completion, and it should be coming to me very shortly.

[ Page 1173 ]

J. Wilson: Could the minister tell me the outcome of the report?

Hon. L. Boone: Of course.

[3:45]

J. Wilson: At this time, do you know what the results are or what the report is saying?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I just told you that it was being completed. It's going to be given to me shortly, and I'll be reviewing it. At that time we'll certainly advise you as to what the outcome is.

P. Nettleton: I have a couple of questions for the hon. minister which impact not only my hometown but the hon. minister's back yard, in that we are neighbours. So I know that this is an issue that you probably have some familiarity with. It's one that certainly keeps coming up, particularly from the residents of Fort St. James, where I now live. The moneys collected in total stumpage, including the Forest Renewal moneys... Last year the moneys generated in that region were somewhere in the area of $100 million; that was the Fort St. James area alone.

It's the position of the people, particularly the residents of Fort St. James and people involved in the forest industry, that some of those moneys, at least, should go back into infrastructure, specifically Highway 27. I am aware that your ministry has been looking at the resurfacing of Highway 27 for some time prior to the hon. minister's involvement in this particular ministry. My question is: given that Highway 27 was paved in 1966, and the life expectancy in the north is somewhere in the range of 15 to 20 years, I believe -- dependent upon weather, traffic and so forth... It means that the highway is some 30 years of age. I'm just wondering what the position of your ministry is on dealing with this problem we have with the resurfacing of Highway 27.

Hon. L. Boone: You are correct about the age of that road; however, it is holding up relatively well compared to some of the roads around. If you were here last night, you would have heard about the member in North Peace who has mudholes and needs four-wheel drives to get through there. It is holding up, they've done some sealing of the cracks that were there, and rutting is not a major concern. The strategy is to divide the total length into three segments and then to devise an approach that addresses the specific problems in each section. Its probable schedule would be spread over five years, with some preliminary work beginning in 1997.

P. Nettleton: So on the one hand -- and this is not intended as an attack on the hon. minister at all -- you seem to be saying that everything is okay in terms of the conditions of Highway 27, and then you go on to talk about a five-year plan. Perhaps the minister can give me some detail in terms of when that plan would be likely to commence and what the residents of Fort St. James can expect in terms of resurfacing. There has been some discussion of possible seal-coating as opposed to repaving. Perhaps the minister can give me further details.

While I'm up, I should draw to the minister's attention some correspondence which, if I'd been thinking, I would have had photocopied for the minister. In any event, I'll refer to it briefly, if I may. It's addressed to the Fort St. James Chamber of Commerce and dated December 6, 1995. The minister at that time was Jackie Pement. She says: "Thank you for your letter of October 27, 1995, concerning rehabilitation work and resurfacing on Highway 27." She says first of all: "Highway 27 does require resurfacing and associated rehabilitation work." She talks about this work being "subject to the availability of funding." This was back in 1995, as I pointed out, which, of course, is not very reassuring to the residents of Fort St. James and those impacted by Highway 27. It goes on to deal with the difficulties in funding, and I wonder if the minister could address some of those concerns I've raised. Again, will this involve repaving, and when is this timetable likely to commence?

Hon. L. Boone: Maybe I wasn't too clear. We recognize that there are some problems with the road. But we're saying that they're not too severe, that the actual base of the road still remains, and therefore we do not believe it's necessary to be repaving that section. We would be looking at possibilities of seal-coating, and what is currently being considered is doing it in segments over a five-year period starting in 1997. This would be for seal-coating, not for repaving that section.

P. Nettleton: I guess this is little comfort to the residents of Fort St. James. There had been some concerns that the approach would be a band-aid approach or a piecemeal approach involving seal-coating rather than resurfacing -- namely, paving -- of Highway 27. As I say, the position of the residents of Fort St. James is that it's not an unreasonable request, given the moneys and the traffic -- particularly the logging trucks -- that are generated in that region. I don't know what the factor is for logging trucks, but I understand that it's somewhere in the range of a thousand motor vehicles for every logging truck. Having driven that highway for some time, I know that the traffic of logging trucks is rather heavy.

I understand that an assistant deputy minister involved in the hon. minister's ministry was recently in Vanderhoof, which is the neighbouring town -- Highway 27 running, as the minister is aware, from Vanderhoof to Fort St. James. One of the reasons for the trip, as I understand it, was to reinspect Highway 27. I'm wondering if there was anything that arose out of this most recent inspection in terms of the overall approach to Highway 27.

Hon. L. Boone: That was Deputy Minister Dan Doyle, who is sitting to my right. After looking over the road, he agrees with the strategy. He advises me that I wasn't quite accurate; some parts may need repaving, but generally speaking, the majority of it would be seal-coating.

P. Nettleton: For my benefit as much as anything, what is the life expectancy for a road of this sort that is seal-coated as opposed to being paved?

Hon. L. Boone: We can extend the life by five to ten years by seal-coating it.

P. Nettleton: In terms of seal-coating as opposed to repaving, what cost savings would you anticipate on Highway 27, given that there must have been some analysis done in terms of those portions of the highway which are to be repaved, as well as those portions of the highway which are likely to be seal-coated, with the view, of course, of this whole question having to be readdressed at some point in the future, and given that the life expectancy of seal-coating is somewhat less than that of repaving?

Hon. L. Boone: That is $18,000 per kilometre as compared to $60,000 per kilometre.

[ Page 1174 ]

P. Nettleton: Has any study been done in terms of the long-term potential cost savings for seal-coating, given that this issue will have to be addressed once those portions of the road which are seal-coated have to be repaired or replaced?

Hon. L. Boone: We use seal-coating when we've got a very good base with no rutting, and that is what we have in that area. I know why the people don't want seal-coating. Highway 16 between Prince George and Vanderhoof was seal-coated not too long ago. It's not nice when it happens, because you get rocks in your windshield and rocks in your headlights. But, ultimately, you end up with a good highway, and I think you would agree that Highway 16 West is in good shape, and that was seal-coated several years ago.

C. Hansen: I have one minor subject area that I'd like to raise with the minister before these estimates conclude. I'd like to ask the minister about the disposal of surplus vehicles and furniture and other surplus equipment in the ministry. What is the ministry's policy, and how would it be disposed of?

Hon. L. Boone: That's done through the Purchasing Commission.

C. Hansen: The case that I want to specifically ask about is the disposal of used computers. Would they be disposed of through the Purchasing Commission?

Hon. L. Boone: They are usually done through the Purchasing Commission. We're not sure whether we did this through the Purchasing Commission or with the Purchasing Commission's approval, but we believe that some were given to schools.

C. Hansen: I understand the Purchasing Commission has a policy -- I believe it's set up through the Science Council, but I'm not 100 percent certain -- whereby computers do go to schools. Over the course of the last year, is the minister aware of any other computers from the ministry that may have been disposed of through any other means?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

C. Hansen: I am aware of a company in Vancouver that recently bought five 386 computers with colour monitors at a price of $450 per set. When they were delivered, they were all stamped "Ministry of Highways," including asset numbers or whatever the appropriate numbers are. I know that there are schools around the province in desperate need of these machines, and when we compared prices that secondhand machines of this nature would go for, it was in the area of about $600. These were being disposed of at a price of $450 after they had gone through a broker. I wonder if the minister could shed any light on how that came about.

Hon. L. Boone: That would have been done through the Purchasing Commission. They probably would have had the Ministry of Highways stamp on them, but it would have been done through the Purchasing Commission. In Prince George, for example, we have a disposal warehouse where the public can purchase a number of things that are gathered there from all government ministries. There are a variety of means of doing some of these things. Sometimes they are done through auctions; sometimes they are done through weekend sales. The Purchasing Commission uses a variety of methods of disposing of things, but I'm not sure... The Minister of Finance is now responsible for that, so I would suggest that you question him during his estimates.

[4:00]

C. Hansen: Can the minister assure me that the only two ways that equipment of this nature would have been disposed of is either as a gift through the program that goes to the schools or through the Purchasing Commission?

Hon. L. Boone: That's the only way we have of disposing of things. If you have any knowledge of somebody doing otherwise, please let me know, because that should not be taking place.

C. Hansen: Do the minister or the officials with her today have any idea of approximately how many computers may have been considered surplus by the ministry in the past 12 months?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that information for you.

C. Hansen: I would appreciate it. It's an issue of interest to me, and any information you could provide would be much appreciated.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to some of the Motor Carrier Commission....

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: Okay.

J. Weisgerber: Not realizing that we were going to have the opportunity to examine individual road issues when I was here last, I am pleased to have the opportunity to come back with a couple of items I overlooked when I was here last time.

One is an issue that was shown in the project's plan for this year, and that is the installation of a traffic control light in Dawson Creek at the corner of 8th Street and 116th Avenue. It's the site of a recent fatality involving some young people and is very much a concern in the community. I checked with officials of the city of Dawson Creek. They said they believed the planning was going ahead, but they couldn't give me any assurance that the control light would be installed this year. I was hoping that the minister would be able to give me some assurance on that particular issue.

Hon. L. Boone: It is listed and is going ahead.

J. Weisgerber: I can take it, then, that the minister will at least contact me if there's any reason that the actual installation is not going to take place in the current fiscal year.

The other issue that I want to raise with the minister is the question of Highway 49 east of Dawson Creek, commonly referred to as the Spirit River road. There is a river crossing at the Pouce Coupe River that has been the scene of a number of serious accidents recently. There has been a lot of push in the community to get some realignment of the highway in order to take out a couple of nasty S-curves at either side of the bridge. To the best of my knowledge, it's not indicated in the projects from the ministry. I wonder if any planning or any studies of that particular situation are anticipated?

[ Page 1175 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I'll look into status of that and I'll get back to you on it.

D. Symons: I have just a very few questions. The member from Vancouver-Quilchena was asking some questions about surplus property and so forth. This is somewhat similar to that. The head office of Transportation and Highways has, I'm sure, automobiles that are dedicated to some of the upper echelons there. I wonder if the minister might be able to supply us with a list of who has automobiles and what automobiles they are driving, so that we can have an idea, and whether these are leased or purchased by the ministry. I'm sure you may not have that at hand, but I would accept it if you can get it to me.

Hon. L. Boone: There are only two vehicles. The minister and the deputy have vehicles.

D. Symons: If you could supply that information as to what the vehicles are, I'd appreciate it.

I was going to ask some questions on full-time-equivalents. I think those were asked during my absence, so we'll leave those. I have just a couple of questions to do with the Island Highway again, through the Transportation Financing Authority. You may again want to take these basically on notice, because I see the gentleman isn't here today. I should have asked them last night, I guess. I'm looking at the training program through YMC on that highway project. I gather that the ministry is renting some equipment from YMC. I also gather that YMC basically is leasing that equipment and then renting it to the ministry. It doesn't seem that this is a logical way of the ministry getting equipment, by basically leasing it from a group that is renting from somebody who's leasing it in the first place. I wonder if the minister could confirm whether that's indeed what's taking place with the YMC and whether this is the appropriate way to give assistance to aboriginal people to get training in highways building.

Hon. L. Boone: We'll get that information for you.

D. Symons: I gather there is a sum of money, about $1.8 million, at YMC that Highway Constructors Ltd. has put aside to train people for jobs in the project. I wonder if the minister can confirm that that figure is there for training purposes?

Hon. L. Boone: There is money for training purposes. I'd have to get that number confirmed by those who have the records. I don't have it here.

D. Symons: Fine, I'd like that if you can get it. I gather that through the collective agreement, that is also independent of moneys in there that go for union training. I think 25 cents an hour goes to the operating engineers, is deducted and put into union training funds. Teamsters get 22 cents an hour, and so forth. Is that figure I referred to earlier independent of that, or is this $1.8 million the sum of all the per-hour amounts that would add up over a year? I'm wondering if there are two separate training things: a per-hour arrangement on the contract that goes into union training funds, separate from a training program that the ministry is setting up. Is that the case?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll take that question and get back to you. If you have a series of Island highways that are under Transportation, then if you could list them all off, we can get that information for you later.

D. Symons: No, that's pretty well the series. Just a couple more to go on that, and I'll read them into the record and you can get back to me. It's easier than me writing it all out and passing it on to you.

I'm wondering how many trainees have gone through the Teamsters training for trucking -- again, this would be through the YMC program. I'm asking how many aboriginal people have gone on to that program, and I'm wondering how many have actually graduated and become full-fledged Teamsters as an outcome of the training program they've had. Those would be my questions.

J. van Dongen: I just have a few more questions about AirCare. First of all, I'll just confirm with the minister that the 12 staff who were working for her ministry on AirCare are being transferred to ICBC.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the increase that was approved by Treasury Board, could the minister tell us when that increase was approved?

Hon. L. Boone: It was in the spring.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister advise: was it upon an application by Ebco-Hamilton that that action was taken by Treasury Board?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

J. van Dongen: Were there any conditions attached to the approval, or was the approval intended to take effect on September 1, irrespective of the events in the intervening period?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

J. van Dongen: One last question: could the minister advise the House what the amount of the increase is?

Hon. L. Boone: It's a $1 increase, from $18 to $19.

B. Barisoff: Just a few questions. If the government is giving the Motor Carrier Commission $690,000, it seems to me there should be some accountability to government -- because we pay it. Who appoints the commission?

Hon. L. Boone: It's by order-in-council.

B. Barisoff: I would imagine it would be the same people who have the ability to change the commission if they didn't adhere to some of the things that the government wanted to do.

Hon. L. Boone: The current appointment of the chair is until next July, I think, so there would be costs involved with changing that chair.

B. Barisoff: To carry on with just a few other things... One of them is that I'd just like to know if a time has been set for the weigh scale to be opened in Osoyoos.

Hon. L. Boone: No.

[ Page 1176 ]

B. Barisoff: I noticed, when driving past weigh scales by the Port Mann Bridge, that they're now allowing empty dump trucks and logging trucks to go by. I'm just wondering whether that same policy will start to take place in the rest of the province. In particular, I'm mentioning it because the Okanagan is getting to that point where they have to cross the highway and then cross back again. If they are empty, it seems to me that it's causing a traffic hazard.

Hon. L. Boone: The general rule is yes, empty trucks are allowed to go past.

B. Barisoff: If it's a general rule, you'd better tell the people at the weigh scales. Because I think if you happened to go by with an empty dump truck, you'd soon be hauled back, for whatever reason. If it is a general rule, it would be nice if they all knew about it.

Hon. L. Boone: It is assessed at a regional level. I take your comments seriously, though. But with logging trucks, you can obviously tell they're empty. Assessing whether dumptrucks are empty or not is a little harder, unless they go out with their dump up: "I'm empty." That would be a little hard.

I do take your comments, and we will make sure that people understand what the regulations are.

B. Barisoff: It's my understanding that the ministry is going to go into a pilot project where they're going to allow three trailers hooked onto tractors on the Coquihalla Highway or in British Columbia....

Hon. L. Boone: No, there's no pilot project being considered.

B. Barisoff: That's great.

Another one I just got a letter on is the long combination vehicles and whether we're going to extend the actual length of trailers that are allowed on B.C. highways.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not intending any pilot project in that, either.

B. Barisoff: There's one other question here on the Sea Island connector that I got from one of my colleagues. I don't know if that's for here, or....

Hon. L. Boone: We canvassed that yesterday.

B. Barisoff: My apologies. Some of these intersections and whatever else they talk about on the lower mainland are hard to keep track of. I think there are a few other questions on the Motor Carrier Commission from my colleagues.

[4:15]

J. Weisgerber: I'm actually raising a couple of issues: one relates to North Peace and one to South Peace. The concerns are around the delays in getting responses from the Motor Carrier Commission on applications. I would refer the minister to a case in Fort St. John. A company called Swanberg Trucking is involved in a number of activities, mostly related to oilfield rig-moving. In 1994 they applied for eight additional licences. There was a hearing held in February or March of 1996, and the company still doesn't have an answer. It seems to me that it really doesn't serve anybody very well to have delays of that extent in getting a response to a commercial application. I suppose if we start to get into examples, we could have a lot of evidence of unique situations. I don't think this one is; I think, unfortunately, that it tends to be consistent with the process. Can the minister tell me how comfortable she is with those kinds of time frames and whether there are any activities between the ministry and the commission to try to expedite applications?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not comfortable at all. I would urge the member to put that particular case down in writing and send it directly to me. I will raise it with the commissioner. I met with him last week and raised concerns regarding the length of time on those issues that I have heard from a number of my colleagues, both on my side of the House and on the other side of the House. I will draw it to his attention again and see if we can try to move some of these along. You're right; it's not acceptable to have that lengthy a waiting period.

J. Weisgerber: I gather from the minister's comments that there is no representative of the commission here for the estimates. I'm wondering if that is the usual practice. I had, perhaps naïvely, anticipated that in the time set aside for the Motor Carrier Commission, there would in fact be somebody here that one could question, at least indirectly, about....

Hon. L. Boone: I understand that there has never been anybody from the Motor Carrier Commission at the estimates. He takes his independence very seriously and would not take too kindly, I think, to having us request that he be here.

J. Weisgerber: In one of your conversations with the commissioner, suggest to him that it might add a new dimension to his life and also to the estimates debate to in fact have him here. Independence is a wonderful thing. I won't use the word that first comes to mind, but lack of knowledge doesn't seem to be in the interest of anybody in the process. Anyway, as we broaden the scope of our estimates and bring more people into this committee process, it may well be appropriate even for someone as independent as the commissioner to come and hear some of the concerns that members have raised. It is a very hot topic in most communities.

I spoke recently with a person in the community of Mackenzie who had applied for a plate for a low-bed. He'd applied for a permit, an H plate, for a low-bed, on the rationale that in Mackenzie -- which I know the minister is familiar with; she served as the MLA there -- there is no low-bed in town. This person thought: "There's a business opportunity. It would make sense; the person who had the low-bed has gone out of business." He applied to the commission and was advised that it would take several months for them to consider the application, but the person handling the call suggested that he apply for an interim permit. The fellow thought it was a wonderful idea, but when he got to Prince George and applied to the commission there, he was told: "Look, you have to have a customer who's demanding your services or needs your services and can avail themselves of them. Otherwise we can't give you an interim permit."

I wound up speaking to the commission and to people involved, trying to explain to them that if you're a two-hour drive away from the nearest low-bed, there is an ongoing need for short hauls that isn't well served. The response from the commission was: "Well, we licensed someone in Prince George, so if you need to move a tractor or a piece of equipment from one side of Mackenzie to the other, phone the two 

[ Page 1177 ]

low-beds in Prince George. They'll drive the two and a half or three hours, load the equipment, move it across town and go back." You know what the bill will be. At the end of the day, I think everybody probably threw up their hands in frustration and wound up having to go through the process.

I raise that last example only as an argument that perhaps the commissioner would benefit directly from having an opportunity to hear, "Here are these examples," and perhaps even respond directly.

There are two other points. The member for Okanagan-Boundary raised the question of long combination vehicles and triple trains. I've had that debate with other ministers in other venues, and I won't bring the question of Rocky Mountain doubles back for consideration, as tempting as it is. I'm genuinely seeking information -- not that I would ever do otherwise.

The situation arises particularly in Dawson Creek, where tourists are often travelling through the province from Alberta or Saskatchewan and on to Alaska -- the issue of allowing combination recreational vehicles, the most common configuration being a fifth-wheel trailer pulling a boat trailer, which is permitted in some jurisdictions. I wonder if the ministry has ever studied that and what the rationale for allowing or disallowing that combination might be.

Hon. L. Boone: We haven't studied it, but I'd be happy to look at that issue and review it. So if you would like to have input, please draw it to my attention, and we'll take a look at that.

J. Weisgerber: I only say that I believe there's a very real rationale in perhaps all of the province, or even in regions of the province, for that kind of configuration, simply to accommodate people who have the ability to use the vehicles in that combination in other jurisdictions. If the minister will undertake to forward information after there is some consideration given within the ministry, I'd be happy to look at that and perhaps then comment along the way in that forum.

Finally, one of the issues raised by the groups which my colleague from Peace River North had meetings with in Dawson Creek and in Fort Nelson, with officials from the motor vehicle branch, was around the possibility of doing away with the weigh scale at Pouce Coupe and operating a combined scale house at the Alberta-B.C. border. The province of Alberta has a very large new weigh scale in a good geographic location immediately adjacent to the border.

Hon. L. Boone: We have looked into it -- you're right -- but there are funding issues and difficulties around some jurisdictional things, so it's not actively being reviewed right now. We'll certainly look into it, because there is some merit to the whole issue.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed there is, and I think the scale at Pouce Coupe is badly located from a highway configuration. It's on a downhill approach to a bridge crossing. It's a scale that represents some traffic hazards, and it has a unique reputation in B.C. You can talk to truckers in any part of Canada, and they all know the Pouce scale. None of them have anything kind to say about it. So I think that from a public relations perspective, a move back out to the border might well be a good one.

In addition to that, I would suggest that the minister might want to consider, when reconsidering this issue, that Alberta now has entered into protocols with Montana, I understand, to operate joint border scale operations. I think there's an opportunity here. I think it cuts down on the amount of interference with the trucking industry if you only have to stop at one scale. There's an opportunity in this case to have shared staffing, I believe. There are opportunities for economy, from the government perspective -- a kind of one-stop shopping on a major highway -- so again I'll make the pitch. I don't know all the answers. There may well be fairly logical reasons that it shouldn't go ahead, but I would conclude by encouraging the minister and the ministry to study it with a kind of open-minded approach.

D. Symons: I'd just like to say to the minister that as a lower mainland person, it will seem unusual that I might agree with many things raised by the member for Peace River South. I've watched rather large vehicles in the streets of Richmond and Vancouver having great difficulty negotiating turns -- upsetting traffic for a long way, to make a wide swing to do them -- and taking out lamp standards in the process.

But I think the Peace River is a different area of the province. The mountain range and everything else separates it more from B.C. and makes it more an integral part of Alberta. I believe there are situations in that particular area where... Long combination vehicles, or 16-foot-wides, are something that we should seriously consider for the Peace River area. That's just a comment I'd like to make, to reiterate what that member has said.

I'd also like to say that his comments about the Motor Carrier Commission are right on, as far as the experience I've had as critic for that is concerned. The delays that take place seem to be unexplainable, really, as for why they take so long. Really, a firm that's wanting extra plates, because they've got the business there, can't simply tell a customer: "Well, you have to wait six months till I can start carrying your goods because I have to wait until the Motor Carrier Commission gets around to adjudicating my application." Likely as not, the application will be denied. You can't build a business while waiting for the Motor Carrier Commission to come down with a ruling on something.

There is a man who had the business lined up. He wanted six extra plates in the interim, because he wasn't getting any response to his questions. He put in for six interim plates and got three interim plates. Nowhere along the line did they inquire about his original request; nowhere along the line did they explain to him why he got three, rather than the six he requested. He simply got them in the mail, and that was it. He's still waiting for his original request for six plates. What happened to the business he had lined up for those extra vehicles? It evaporated. It's no way for a business to run in British Columbia. We have to do something about getting the Motor Carrier Commission to be more user-friendly and to do the job it is supposed to do -- that is, making sure that we have properly registered vehicles on the road and that they meet certain safety requirements. But the procedures and the hoops they go through now are outdated and have to be changed.

[4:30]

If we can move, then, from those comments -- unless the minister cares to respond -- to just a few others... I'm going to jump all over the place, with a variety of little questions. It will take no time at all to do. I'm reading from a news release here, back in November '95, when a Burnaby car dealer was ordered to cease and desist. Apparently this particular car dealer was selling cars on a lot without a licence, and apparently he was warned about that, as I read here. He was 

[ Page 1178 ]

operating as an unlicensed dealer, and eventually he was warned... They gave him a $250 ticket for the offence. Somehow we have to have a more serious fine involved, because that's basically the cost of selling one automobile -- that's the profit they have on it.

A lot of this -- I know you're going to tell me, and you're quite right -- comes under the Ministry of Housing. But somehow, because it's a motor vehicle, I think your aspect of it... Motor Vehicles are going over to ICBC, so you won't have to deal with that for very long. But it is an issue that I think we have to watch. The fines that we put on offences, whether it be this or driving offences, have to be serious enough that people take notice and don't just use them as a cost of doing business.

Something else you may care to respond to... Apparently, the government in Ontario, through the motor carrier branch, is going through -- what's the term I want here? -- approval of a firm... If they meet certain standards of safety, and other features, and they have an excellent safety record over a period of time and an excellent accident record, then they're able to bypass the regular inspections and highway spot checks. This would give an incentive. Of course, if you're caught breaking the law sometime, as for the load you're carrying or your safety record or being in an accident, you have to go back and be regulated by all the various inspections that take place at the weigh stations and all. I'm just wondering if your ministry has looked into what Ontario is doing, seeing as this is a way of spending more time and energy on those whose records seem to need improving and less on those who have excellent records.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we're aware of what's taking place. We will be reviewing what's taking place in those jurisdictions to make sure that safety is not put at risk as a result of these things.

D. Symons: In the United States now they basically have zero tolerance for alcohol, and they have mandatory drug tests. What is British Columbia doing? We have a lot of drivers that drive south of the line. How are we handling that in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: What you're talking about is a federal regulation in the U.S. that was brought in to do drug testing. The trucking industry across Canada has put together a consortium to do drug testing.

D. Symons: I would gather, then, that your ministry supports those efforts on the part of the United States to bring safety to our highways.

Last September, the government announced some of its ten-year plans, and certainly the one on transportation seemed to rely heavily on HOV lanes. As a matter of fact, the map they put out of what the government was doing loaded the whole lower mainland with HOV lanes. I'm wondering if the minister has considered -- besides the number of people who will be in a passenger vehicle -- licensing commercial vehicles to use HOV lanes. Basically, you pay a premium and get to use the HOV lane.

Hon. L. Boone: No, we haven't considered that.

D. Symons: Are you also considering that the HOV lanes would only be in force during rush hour; that during non-rush hours, off-peak hours, anybody could drive in the three lanes -- one HOV and two regular lanes; and that all three would be for regular traffic, say, after eight in the evening until some time in the morning?

Hon. L. Boone: On highways, it's 24 hours. On arterial routes, it's for peak periods, and then it reverts back either to parking or for use as a regular lane.

D. Symons: Has the minister considered -- because I've brought it up over the years -- allowing motorcycles in the HOV lanes? It seems that this would be a way of moving motorcycles away from other traffic, keeping them in one lane, and it would be advantageous to both sides -- to the motorcyclists and to regular traffic.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might give us some ballpark figure of when such regulations or signs will be changed to allow that to take place.

Hon. L. Boone: When we make our announcement with regard to the HOV lanes.

D. Symons: Again, is that in the near future -- this year, next year...? I've had people from the B.C. motorcycle association asking questions. They were under the impression that this was going to happen imminently. That was a few months back, and they're still waiting.

Hon. L. Boone: In the near future.

D. Symons: As vague as the other answer, but I thank the minister for that effort.

Just a couple of other questions here dealing with photo radar. I support the concept of photo radar, but I do have concerns -- if we look at what's happening with Forest Renewal right now -- that the intent which sounded very good at the outset could be subverted somewhere along the line due to government's need for more funds to balance their budget.

I'm wondering, in that respect, if you can give us something more than the guarantee in these nice newspaper ads you're putting out that, indeed, the camera locations will be identified. I remember -- and you're too young to know -- that when regular radar started the same assurances were given to us that we would be notified of the routes the radar was going to be used on. It worked for a year or two, and the public got used to it. Gradually you found that the areas where they were using radar got wider and wider, until the city of Vancouver simply had signs at the entrance that said: "Radar used in Vancouver." Now, basically, it's: "Radar used in the province of British Columbia" -- the area where you're notified it's in use expands. So I just want to know if you can give us some assurance that that's not, indeed, in the plans here and will not happen in British Columbia -- that when you say there will be notification within a certain distance of where photo radar is placed, that will be it.

Hon. L. Boone: We're working very hard with the police to make sure that they understand the intent of government. I can tell you quite candidly that cabinet is determined that the sites will be known and that site selection will be based on the criteria I mentioned in my original remarks here yesterday when I read all the criteria, so that we do not get into the situation where it can be put up anywhere in the province.

[ Page 1179 ]

D. Symons: My question deals with the speeds in those areas where photo radar is to be used. When we were debating the bill that brought this in, I emphasized that what we should be doing is monitoring the speed in an area to see if the speed limit there is appropriate for the road conditions. I'm wondering if the ministry has any sort of formal way of doing that, rather than somebody just going along and saying that it seems about right. Do you have a formal way of measuring what the actual speed limit should be in an area? There seem to be no changes taking place that I am aware of in the last short while since photo radar has come on the scene.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they have done an assessment of the speeds. They find out what 85 percent of the population does; they talk about "the 85 percentile" or how 85 percent of the population is driving. If they find that 85 percent of the people are going considerably higher than the speed limit, and if they're doing more than 19 kilometres over the speed limit, then they go in and reassess the speed limit. In fact, there have been two locations where they have increased the speed as a result of the assessment. There is an assessment that's done, and it is based on the speed that 85 percent of the people are driving safely.

B. Barisoff: Before we wrap up here, I have just a couple more questions: has there been any thought of a performance audit being done on the Motor Carrier Commission?

Hon. L. Boone: In my discussion with the Motor Carrier Commission... You may know that there is a need to move toward deregulation. That was an agreement signed by the government some months ago. The Motor Carrier Commission understands that we will have to do a review at some point, and we will be determining how and in what form that review takes place in the near future.

B. Barisoff: On commercial vehicle inspections and whether more direction should be put toward driver education, a lot of accidents are totted up to truck defects. If you really look at it, most of the time there's a lot of driver defect in what takes place. A lot of the commercial vehicle inspections should maybe focus a little more on brakes and steering and a little less on some of the other things. That way, I think that a lot less complaining would go on from the trucking industry. I wonder if you've considered anything of that nature.

Hon. L. Boone: I believe that we do focus on brakes and steering. If, as somebody who is involved in the trucking industry, you have some suggestions as to ways we can improve the safety inspections, I would appreciate hearing from you. We'll pass those on and see if we can incorporate some of your good ideas.

B. Barisoff: I appreciate that, because if some common sense is brought back into that area, I think you will get a lot more cooperation from the industry itself.

I guess with that, looking at everybody slowly but surely leaving, I'd like to wrap up the estimates completely for this term. We got through an awful lot of business; even last night a bit of business took place.

I really appreciate the staff from the Transportation Financing Authority and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and yourself, hon. minister, for answering all the questions. I think it was a job well done, and after each session, when talking to my colleagues, I know they were impressed with the answers they were getting. I'm sure that some of the comments will go a long ways toward bettering the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Going back to thinking of the staff and stuff, I really, truly thank them for a job well done. I must say that in all my phone calls throughout the province, the comments I got were that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was probably the best-run ministry. That's not because I'm the critic and you're the minister...

[4:45]

Hon. L. Boone: Could be!

B. Barisoff: ...and that's not my devious mind working to get any extra favours here or anything. It was a comment made to me throughout the province -- that this was a well-run ministry -- and I think we can see that from some of the things that took place with your staff. I appreciate their efforts and your effort. Thank you for the time spent, and we hope that we can work together in the coming years.

Vote 53 approved.

Vote 54: ministry operations, $629,623,000 -- approved.

Hon. L. Boone: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose 4:47 p.m.

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