[ Page 1581 ]

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, they will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment; Municipal Affairs and Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 19.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which was enacted in 1989 and which implemented the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act provides for an independent, non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission to regularly review electoral boundaries so that they reflect the basic principles of fair and balanced representation for all British Columbians. Specifically, the function of the commission is to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly as to the areas, boundaries and names of the electoral districts of British Columbia. The commission shall carry out regular reviews after every two general elections.

This bill amends the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to provide that if in carrying out those functions the commission considers that the number of electoral districts should be increased, it may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 81. The present number of 75 electoral districts would be changed only if, as provided for in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, approves the proposals of the commission, upon which the government would be required in the same session to introduce a bill to establish new electoral districts in accordance with the resolution. At such time, amendments would be made to the Electoral Districts Act and the Constitution Act to change the number of electoral districts pursuant to the resolution of the Legislative Assembly.

This bill further provides that for the purpose of deciding and making proposals respecting increases in the number of electoral districts, the commission shall have regard to considerations of geography and population, including: the sparsity, density or rate of growth of the population in any part of the province; the accessibility, size or physical configuration of any part of the province; and communications and transportation between various parts of the province. These amendments will provide for an approach which will permit the commission's proposals to maintain electoral districts in the more remote and rural areas of British Columbia while meeting the needs for change in densely populated urban areas. These amendments will enable proposals by the commission in respect to increases in the number of electoral districts, so that we can maintain fair and balanced electoral representation for British Columbians in all parts of the province.

G. Campbell: I'm not going to speak long on this bill, but I think it is important that we speak to the bill and its introduction. I believe that this bill is nothing more than a traditional attempt by an old-fashioned government to manipulate the electoral commission and the electoral boundaries of the province for the government's own advantage. It is clear that this has taken place; there is no dispute that this has been taking place. In fact, in spite of all the words around this bill, that it's about "maybe they can" and "maybe they can't," we are already hearing from members of the cabinet, including the Attorney General, that in fact this is going to happen -- that the justification is at six because it has always been six, or that it has often been six. That simply doesn't work.

Let me be very clear. This bill is not about increasing or even maintaining representation for people from the north or the interior, in spite of what the government may say. Clearly it isn't. It is, once again, an act of deception from this government. A government that is known for deception is once again trying to deceive the people of this province. Frankly, it won't work. I notice that the Minister of Forests has said that this is about quality representation. Well, let's be clear about what quality representation is: it means saying what you are going to do, then doing it. It means that when the Minister of Forests stands up and says to his community, "We will protect Forest Renewal funds and make sure they come back to your community so that your community can use them to sustain their jobs, improve the environment and improve the land base," that's in fact what those funds are used for. Instead, the Minister of Forests goes after Forest Renewal funds and tries to gut them. It doesn't matter if it's Williams Lake, Cranbrook, Creston or Fort Nelson: people in those communities have not been represented by this government. It doesn't matter how many representatives you have on the government side if the government is not willing to act according to its word.

Even with the representation that we have now -- and I should say that there is greater representation today than there would be under this so-called amendment -- we have watched the ambulance service in the north be gutted. You can't go to a community in the north without hearing about them being worried about the ambulance service, and this government passed that. You can't go to Prince George, where they have a minister in cabinet.... The Minister of Health, in fact, stood by and presided over the destruction of the Prince George Regional Hospital and the elimination of services, so that people in Prince George couldn't even get their leg set if they broke a leg, so that people couldn't have a child if they needed to have special care. That's from a regional hospital that supposedly is represented. So representation is not represented by the number of MLAs that we have in this House supposedly representing regions of the province.

I think the Attorney has suggested today that this is about representation. It is not about representation. It's about a government that's worried about whether or not they may be able to hold the number of seats they have with an even smaller popular vote than they have today. I think people are tired of that kind of politics and tired of that kind of politician. This is not about solving problems for communities in the north. In fact, the north and the interior have said consistently that some of the goals and the objectives they've set, some of the opportunities that they'd like to have to make their own decisions in their own communities, this government has consistently ignored.

There has been a no more centralized government than this government. This government, with its Gang of Six, people who live in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, impose their will on every one on that side of the House.

[ Page 1582 ]

There can't be one person on that side of the House -- there is not one person on that side of the House -- who ran on the basis that they were going to strip Forest Renewal of its funding. Not one. Yet this government is going to strip Forest Renewal of its funding.

This is the same government that told us that they were going to rid Mr. Laxton of all of his connections with government. That would have affected everyone in the province of British Columbia. What did they do? They kept him on. In fact, they didn't just keep him on, they kept him calling the shots in some cases.

They said that they were going to balance the budget. Did they balance the budget? No. What people in the province want -- whether they're from the north or the interior, whether they're from Vancouver Island or the lower mainland, whether they're from the Kootenays or the Cariboo -- is a government that is true to its word.

Not once did this government say they were going to increase the number of people in this House. Not once as we travelled around the province were people clamouring for more politicians. If we could just have more MLAs, we'd solve all of our problems. That is not something that you hear. In fact, hon. Speaker, I'm sure that even in the last four or five weeks, you probably have thought that more MLAs would not solve very many of our problems. The fact of the matter is that you're right in that regard, hon. Speaker.

[6:45]

We have to understand, I think, that when the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act was passed in 1989, it was done after a royal commission. There were a lot of people that stressed that we should have more representation in this House. And what they came forward with was the number 75, and they said, "Let's try and remove this from the kind of political interference we've seen" -- the kind of political interference we are seeing now from this government. One of the reasons they did that was that they recognized the voices of New Democrats, who said that it was wrong for the government to try and manipulate boundaries, who said it was wrong for the government to try and manipulate representation. That's exactly what is happening here, and I believe that everyone will see through what the government is doing.

You hear ministers of the Crown calling, challenging people to say: "You stand up and say that you don't like this act." I can tell you, hon. Speaker, people in this province will not like the act, because they understand that it is motivated not by better representation, not by better government, not by better service, but by the government's desire, by the NDP's desire, to try to hang onto seats that they feel may be threatened in a redistribution. I know that, you know that, the government knows that. Even the Attorney General, I would suggest, knows that.

How can we as a Legislature, when we are talking about freezing hospital construction, freezing school construction, reducing the costs of government, say to the people of British Columbia that it's time we increased the number of politicians? Only the NDP think more politicians is the answer to our problems. It is certainly not something that the people of British Columbia are calling for, and it's not something that we should support.

We have a good act in place. It calls for 75 seats in this House. It calls for 75 seats to be properly aligned and properly distributed, properly balanced between what is known generally as communities of interest and the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote. There is very clear jurisprudence with regard to that, and it is possible for us, I would suggest, to appoint a commission that is capable of carrying out that task without pretending, as this does, hon. Speaker, that we are trying to protect representation either from the north or the interior.

If the government's proposal goes through, it is clear that what would happen is that representation in the north would go down, just as it has gone down in the past. What we have to do is something far more fundamental than changing the number of representatives in the Legislature. What we have to do is change the decision-making power and the decision-making authorities that this government has. This government has done everything it can to centralize -- not just centralize in Victoria, not just centralize in the Legislature, not just centralize even to the 39 members of the NDP, but to centralize into a small cadre, right in cabinet.

That's why people feel like they're not represented. That's why they feel, in Williams Lake and Quesnel and Port Hardy and Port McNeill, that they are not heard, that their voices are not considered by this government. Whether it's for health care, for education, for taxes or for the delivery of ambulance services, this government has not cared. This government has stood over the deterioration of services for people throughout the north and the interior, and I don't believe the addition of one MLA will do anything whatsoever to improve that situation.

We clearly cannot support the kind of bill that's been put forth. We don't support the process the government has gone through in putting it forth: the kind of backroom, last-minute decision where politicians ask, "How do we take care of ourselves?" instead of: "How do you take care of business and provide people in this province with the kind of services they deserve?" We want to work to provide people with better service and better value, not more MLAs.

G. Plant: I, too, oppose this bill; I say that this bill should be seen for what it is -- a cynical, crass exercise in old-style gerrymandering.

This is not legislation with any purpose higher or more noble than attempting to rig the next election. I have read the Attorney General's press release. The government justifies this bill on the basis that it will: "...permit the Electoral Boundaries Commission to maintain electoral districts in the more remote and rural areas of the province, while balancing the need for changes in the densely populated cities."

I have news for the government, and it may even be news for the Attorney General: the commission already has that power. Nothing in this bill changes the power of the commission to adjust the area and boundaries of electoral districts in order to balance the geographic and demographic realities of British Columbia, or to take into account the historical legacy of our province or the varying and differing needs of our communities. This bill is not about anything other than making more politicians. It's not about fair representation; it's about NDP representation.

I want to examine the history of this initiative for a moment. During the election campaign, did the NDP say that B.C. needed more MLAs? No. In the throne speech at the outset of this session, did the Lieutenant-Governor tell us that the government had under careful consideration a proposal to enlarge the size of this House? No. Has the government taken this proposal out for consultation? Of course not! Even the Premier agrees in public that people would rather see fewer politicians than more, and he says he shares that view.

So let's be honest about this bill. This bill is an afterthought. It's the product of a late-night revelation on the part 

[ Page 1583 ]

of some members of the government who see here a chance to manipulate the electoral process in a way which favours their interests at the expense of all British Columbians.

It is cynical for a government to promise restraint and yet deliver more politicians. It is cynical for a government to make cuts in other government services so it can increase the number of elected representatives. Government is about quality, not quantity. But I have a different view of quality than that expressed by the Minister of Forests. I say that quality is about doing an honourable job, quality is about delivering on commitments founded in principle. Regrettably, this government has no sense of commitment and no sense of principle. This is a bill without principle. I can't support it.

On a more technical point, I want so say that I think this bill confuses the whole purpose and function of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. In the current act, the commission is charged with the important task of making proposals to this House about the area, boundaries and names of the electoral districts of British Columbia. The commission has given criteria for determining the boundaries of constituencies, and these criteria have been scrutinized by the court and have met the constitutional tests established by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the electoral boundaries case.

Essentially the commission is given a set number of MLAs and is told to find the best arrangement for those MLAs within the province, accommodating and balancing the principle of representation by population together with the other factors that are important, balancing factors in order to ensure that we do have fair representation of all communities in British Columbia.

This bill contemplates conferring upon the commission an entirely new mandate, that of making recommendations about the number of MLAs. Reading the bill, I see that criteria for determining the number of MLAs are not in fact the same as the criteria for determining the area and boundaries of the electoral districts.

In this respect, the press release issued by the government yesterday is positively misleading. The whole tenor of the press release is that these are new considerations which govern the task of the commission in making recommendations concerning the area and boundaries of electoral districts. This is plainly wrong.

The new considerations introduced in this bill govern only the decision of the commission to make proposals about increasing the number of electoral districts. So the commission will now have two jobs: how many MLAs and where to locate the boundaries. They will have to apply different criteria to these two different decisions. Typical confusion, typical NDP -- a typically last-minute, not-well-thought-out, ill-principled and fundamentally deceptive approach to government. This is not a bill about increasing anybody's representation; this is nothing more or less than a bill that is intended to rig the electoral process at the expense of the legitimate interests of British Columbians. I oppose it. [Applause.]

J. Doyle: I'd like to thank the opposition for the big hand they gave me when I stood up.

Interjections.

J. Doyle: If they'd just listen for a while, maybe they'd learn something about the area of B.C. east of Hope.

I'm very pleased to speak in favour of Bill 19. Bill 19....

Interjections.

J. Doyle: I think they got reasonable respect when we listened to their lower mainland discussion.

Bill 19 is all about representation for that area of B.C. that those folks don't know much about -- still, after the election. When their leader spoke, you'd sure as hell have thought -- excuse me, sure as heck -- that he was still the mayor of Vancouver speaking about the ward system and that great democracy that he believes in over there. The opposition would deny their rural people the right to now and then meet or communicate with their MLA.

The riding that I represent, Columbia River-Revelstoke, is one of the largest in the province. I'm pleased and honoured to have represented that riding since 1991. I would just ask the opposition to see if they could find that map way out there in the eastern part of British Columbia.

In the last 20 years, that riding has roughly doubled in size -- maybe not in population but it has doubled in size. There has always been some thought given to the fact that rural MLAs should be allowed to get around their ridings and meet with their constituents now and then.

In the Fisher commission...at that time in 1991, a decision was made to increase the number of MLAs in this House from 69 to 75 -- six MLAs at that time. For instance, in my riding -- just to give those folks over there an idea; I know they do have some representation from the rural areas this time, and hopefully some of those people will speak -- it's four and a half hours from one end of my riding to the other on a good day.

Interjection.

J. Doyle: I can't afford an airplane or helicopter. Sorry, member over there who flies one of those things. I take many, many long trips, 400 kilometres end to end in my riding, and many, many overnight trips. For instance, when the session is on, I get back to my home town of Golden about 9:30 on a Friday night and many times leave there again, when the session is on, on a Sunday night. Unlike some of those members who can walk across their riding in 20 minutes, I don't have much of a chance to get around to meet with constituents with the size of the riding that it is today.

Interjections.

J. Doyle: Maybe, hon. Speaker, you should bring in some peanuts for that gallery over there. They seem to be making a lot of noise.

For instance, there are five municipal governments in my riding. There are three hospital boards. There are four school boards, and there are six regional directors. It's funny, all parties in this House agree, when it comes to federal representation, that we should have a fair number of MPs. They're even speaking in favour of us having a couple more MPs as our population increases in British Columbia. When the former Premier went off to Ottawa four or five years ago, they almost.... I don't know what they wanted to do to him. They thought he hadn't stood up fairly for British Columbians to get some additional MPs to represent this growing province of British Columbia. They spoke in favour....

Interjections.

J. Doyle: You should go out there one time to Golden. It's a beautiful place. It's a beautiful riding. On my way down 

[ Page 1584 ]

here, many times I ride into Calgary and fly out of Calgary down to Victoria. I don't just jump on the helijet like some people over there.

The opposition, as we know, ran in the last election with this great thought for rural British Columbia people -- as far as them having a chance to see their elected representative now and then -- of reducing the number of seats in British Columbia to between 50 and 60. That went over like a lead balloon. The people in rural B.C., by and large, turned down that idea of theirs. It didn't fly. You would think they would have gotten the message.

The opposition today, the way they speak, the couple who have spoken.... It doesn't take too long to see that 75 percent of their seats over there are still from those ridings you can walk across in 20 minutes. They still don't understand or know much about rural B.C. Hopefully, some of their new members from the rural areas will do a little educating and bring them up to date.

Let's just talk about the way the former mayor of Vancouver spoke, and their farm team over there in Vancouver....

Interjection.

J. Doyle: No, he's not here anymore....

Interjection.

J. Doyle: Yes, but we have another mayor here. I'm surprised he doesn't wear the chain of office to this building. I'm just surprised that the former mayor of Whistler....

[7:00]

Interjection.

J. Doyle: I think he should get a job in one of those lighthouses because he is so damn noisy when he speaks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Excuse me, hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke. I recognize that we have not had a second reading debate for some time, and there's some pent-up energy, but could I ask that we please extend the courtesy to members opposite so we can indeed hear the points they are making.

J. Doyle: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for trying to bring that crew over there to order. It's a big job. The opposition doesn't believe in representation. They don't understand rural British Columbia. Let's look back a couple of weeks, to a vote in this House and discussion in this House about the ward system in Vancouver which the former mayor thought was so great -- the lack of wards. Do you know that when they came to the vote on the wards, the Leader of the Opposition, I have no doubt, was in this House -- and the person who sits beside him, who speaks quite a bit -- but somehow or other they didn't come in for the vote. They were out there not too proud of gerrymandering for many years to keep that ward.... People voted in three or four elections for a ward system, and they still want to deny people representation.

You know, I really think that they would like to elect 75 -- or hopefully, 81 -- MLAs at large. That's really what they would like. Most of them, I'm sure, would be elected maybe from West Vancouver and would just love that. So that's what the NPA farm team believes in, the crew over there. That's what they believe in. They don't believe, they don't understand, and they know toot all about the interior of British Columbia.

Interjections.

J. Doyle: I'll remind them again that I'm really thankful.... If they ever had their chance to come over to this side of the House -- God forbid! -- they would like to elect the MLAs at large in the province of British Columbia. I say, hon. Speaker, that those people over there -- those city folk, by and large -- do not understand, and that's why they don't have much of a chance to represent the interior. I know they have about nine seats from areas east of the Vancouver area. People this time took a chance on them, but after listening to this debate and the way they are still thinking -- denying the people east of Hope fair representation -- I think they will change their mind come the next election.

Hon. Speaker, I'm sure they won't like this, but let's talk about some more facts.

Interjection.

J. Doyle: The member from Whistler, to me.... I used to work; I'm an electrician by profession....

T. Nebbeling: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is now the second time that the member has made a statement about my position or where I come from that is totally incorrect.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member, that is not a point of order.

T. Nebbeling: I am not the member for Whistler, and I think it is a point of order.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think, quite frankly, that that is a semantic quibble, but perhaps you can raise that later. It isn't a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, please, that is not appealable. Let me take this opportunity, however, to suggest that this kind of debate occurs only when we don't extend the courtesy to each other of actually listening.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Somebody says that it's more fun this way, and perhaps that's true. Given that we all seem to be enjoying ourselves, I will ask with alacrity the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke to continue.

J. Doyle: I was about to say to the hon. member, who just stood on his feet a minute ago, that my former profession is an electrician. I worked for CP Rail for many years, and I worked on phones quite a bit. And that member over there reminds me of a phone when it is not working: he sends but he doesn't receive very well. We have a bit of a problem.

Some of those facts, hon. Speaker....

An Hon. Member: Sit down, sit down.

[ Page 1585 ]

The Speaker: Phones can be out of order, too.

J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, maybe he has to go to the bathroom or something. Will you please let him leave the room.

Hon. Speaker, they don't like any more facts. The latest figures available on the per capita legislative costs in the province of British Columbia are from 1992. At that time, the population of the province of British Columbia was 3.2 million people. Do you know what those facts say, hon. Speaker? And listen up over there. B.C. has the lowest per capita cost of all legislatures in the country of Canada. It's $7.76 per person in the province. That's the lowest of any province in Canada.

Do you know something else? Since 1991, when this government came to power, many people have moved here to bring their dollars to this wonderful province that we live in. We've represented it from '91 to '95, and based on that great performance, we were re-elected again. Do you know that 553,147 people moved to British Columbia since those figures came out, so the cost per person, no doubt, has gone down a significant amount.

In 1963, looking again at some facts, the population of British Columbia was 1.7 million and there were 52 MLAs. In 1996 we stand here today with 3.8 million people -- more than double the population -- we have 75 MLAs. The fact is that with the population increase from 1963 to 1996, two MLAs now do what three MLAs used to do as far as areas and people to represent are concerned -- and especially in rural B.C., which those people do not understand. We all remember well when the Leader of the Opposition went out when we signed the Columbia Basin Trust and brought some autonomy back to the people in the Columbia Basin, and he said that we hadn't listened to the people. He threw one of these scodmussels -- missiles, excuse me, a scud.... [Laughter.] Now, I may be the only member of this Legislature....

Interjection.

J. Doyle: I'm glad to see they're still awake at least.

A scud missile. I tell many of my friends that I'm one of the MLAs in this House that speaks neither one of the official languages that well. But anyhow, you'll have to put up with that. He went out to say that we hadn't listened to the people....

Interjection.

J. Doyle: The hon. member over there with the bow tie is just waiting on his Senate appointment, I know that's what he really wants. [Laughter.] The Mike Pearson look-alike over there, that's him. He's waiting for his Senate appointment; that's down the road.

But, hon. Speaker, when he went out there he found out that this government, with the four really capable MLAs that we have -- including myself in there, if I could -- had listened to the people in the Columbia Basin. Part of the way we could listen to them was with four MLAs -- instead of the two or so that they would like to see, and having to have all the power and all the MLAs in this province down in the lower mainland.

I would like to say that when these folks get up in the morning, I hope they look in their mirrors, and that if they have a conscience, which I doubt they have, they will amend their ways, and when this Bill 19 comes up for a vote soon in this House, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other members will make it in for the vote. I am pleased and honoured to have spoken in this debate, and I'm pleased that the opposition -- even that far corner over there -- is still awake. Thank you.

Some Hon. Members: More! more!

The Speaker: Let the Chair note for the record how nice it is to have second reading debate again.

The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.

P. Nettleton: Thank you.

An Hon. Member: It's the first time he has spoken.

P. Nettleton: No, it's the second time. But I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that that gentleman's act is indeed a hard act to follow. All of the thunder that I may have had is completely gone. In any event, I enjoyed the good humour and the good-natured banter back and forth.

Interjections.

P. Nettleton: I don't know either.

In any event, hon. Speaker, I rise today in response to the introduction of Bill 19, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1996. I would like to state briefly that as the representative of Prince George-Omineca, I am strongly in favour of representation for the north in the Legislature. I should say, however, that I am opposed to this legislation that is presently proposed. As a northerner, I am not happy to hear that this act, first of all, was hatched, apparently, in some secret backroom meeting by three NDP backbenchers. In any event, this was before my time, but I don't think we've seen political interference of this sort here in British Columbia since Gracie's Finger, which was some time ago.

I believe that a more effective means of ensuring that northern representation, which we've heard a great deal about from the opposite side of the House, is not diminished would be to work within the legislation as it presently stands. Present redistribution recognizes the difficulties associated with representation in rural constituencies. As the member for Prince George-Omineca, I believe I speak for such a rural constituency. Arbitrarily expanding the number of seats, as this government proposes, will still reduce the percentage -- that is, the overall percentage of northern seats in the Legislature -- while at the same time increase the cost of government. Any voter in an NDP riding up north can tell you that having a northern MLA doesn't mean you get effective representation for northern issues.

I should add that I have here in my hand a press release from the Forests minister; unfortunately, the Forests minister isn't here. In any event, it says: "The changes to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act will ensure quality representation for rural communities." I can tell you that this act will not ensure quality representation. We're not getting quality representation now.

Interjections.

P. Nettleton: We're not. NDP MLAs from the interior don't understand that they are responsible for delivering quality representation now, not at some point in the future.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act is not going to restore funding for forest renewal. It's not 

[ Page 1586 ]

going to bring equity to health care delivery in the north -- and I can tell you something about health care delivery, for those of you that aren't familiar with Prince George and the regional hospital there. It's not going to ensure that our northern roads and infrastructures are properly maintained. It takes strong-minded MLAs to deliver quality representation, something we have not seen from our northern NDP backbenchers thus far.

For the Forests minister -- or any other NDP MLA, for that matter -- to suggest that quality representation is ensured is a farce. In my submission, it is totally inappropriate to increase the number of politicians at a time when capital spending is being restrained. The deficit is out of control. Health care, especially in the north, is under stress. How can this House be expanded when the government doesn't have its house in order?

[7:15]

I would suggest that the government should stop meddling with the process and follow the legislation that was passed unanimously in the Legislature in 1989. The public deserves better than to continue paying for more politicians.

B. Goodacre: I am pleased to be following one of the few Liberals that did get elected in our part of the world, and I am quite pleased that there is some rural representation on that side of the House. As that member gets used to his new home up in the north, he might come to realize a few more of the realities of living up there that those of us who have been up there several generations are quite familiar with. The difference between the rural part of this province and the city is a theme that's as old as British Columbia; we all know that.

I'd like to take us back now to the Fisher commission, because that was a hotly debated issue in our part of the world. My riding of Bulkley Valley-Stikine was created out of the Fisher commission. Previously we had the riding of Atlin, which was sacrificed to this god of 25 percent less than the median because they had 3,500 people living there, despite the fact that those 3,500 people occupied better than a quarter of the province. Fisher saw no good reason to use geography as an excuse for creating a riding lower than the 25 percent.

The situation we're facing now is that we're going to stick with that 25 percent rule. That hasn't changed. So this commission is going to be looking at redistributing the ridings in this province on the basis of plus or minus 25 percent of the mean. Now, census figures do come out, and they're probably available to anybody in the opposition who cares to track them down. It doesn't take a great deal of expertise with a calculator to figure out what's going to happen next, when that formula is applied.

Very clearly there are going to be seats redistributed, in the absence of increasing the size of the House, which will mean probably one less seat in the north of the ten that are there from Cariboo South up to Bulkley Valley-Stikine and Peace River North. The reconfiguration of those boundaries is the thing that you really want to look at, because when you go over the population changes, you'll find that Peace River North and Bulkley Valley-Stikine are quite a way below these averages. It would require moving Bulkley Valley-Stikine in some direction or another.

It would probably mean taking the Prince George-Omineca riding.... Just looking at the map, that's the riding that would be eliminated, because Bulkley Valley-Stikine would have to go down to Vanderhoof and Fort St. James. Then they'd have to reconfigure Prince George in such a way that they would no longer have three seats through Prince George, and move Peace River North down into Peace River South, and then rearrange those things.

Interjections.

B. Goodacre: Hey! One seat has to go. The thing is.... Take the time to look at a map up there. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out where the communities are, where you've got to find the population. They're not going to create a.... Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it is possible that they could create a noncontiguous riding, but it is unlikely that that would be done.

So the trick is that we've got to ask ourselves.... If we're going to stick with the 25 percent rule, which it would appear that members opposite are quite comfortable with, then we have to pay close attention to....

An Hon. Member: Where do you get the money? We're in a deficit.

B. Goodacre: "Where do you get the money? We're in a deficit." How many people here remember what the deficit was in 1991, when the last six seats were added?

Interjections.

B. Goodacre: At any rate, folks, the whole question before us is democracy. We're going to go through two elections on whatever comes back. The new boundaries are going to take us through the next two elections. Now, the question of fairness comes back. The thing is, the population growth in this province, we all know, has come to the lower mainland. Those of us living in the north have been experiencing far less population growth. There's nobody up there complaining about the fact that you folks decide to stay down here; that's not the issue.

The real issue that we're faced with is....

Interjection.

B. Goodacre: As my brother from Columbia River has brought to our attention, yes, the real trick is representation.

Interjections.

B. Goodacre: Hey! We're all a family. I consider you my brothers and sisters as well.

Hon. Speaker, let's not forget where the issue of the 25 percent came from. We heard mention of a court ruling. Let's go a step back to the civil liberties people who brought that court action leading to that result, and to the argument they put before the court. It was a Charter argument based on the idea that ridings should be the same size, more or less, because nobody should have more access to an MLA in terms of numbers, representation by population, and what have you. But the flip side of that coin is access to your MLA in terms of being able to talk to and meet your MLA, and to know what your MLA looks like.

The question facing people in the urban areas is not all that serious, because they're never much more than 15 or 20 minutes away from their MLA's office. But in a place like Bulkley Valley-Stikine, of course, I have towns in my riding that are 11, 12 or 13 hours away by road. Granted, there aren't 

[ Page 1587 ]

many people living there, and it doesn't take me all that long to visit them all when I get up there, but the question is: is it fair to them to increase the size of my riding one more time so that instead of taking 13 hours to go from one end of the riding to the other, it's now going to take 16 hours? It's not so much placing a burden on the MLA, because some of us like it. In my riding, anyway, travelling around there is a real joy. We're living in the most beautiful part of the province, and it's wonderful to travel around. But I can only get to these places three or four times a year, despite the fact that I'd like to go there 12 or 13 times a year. Is that fair to them? I think we really have to pay attention to this geographic argument, because the growth in population is going to continue in this part of the province, and I don't really think that we're doing ourselves any favours by creating larger ridings in the north.

Our recently elected colleague from Prince George-Omineca might want to talk to his colleagues about taking a closer look at the configuration of those ten ridings up there and actually trying to figure out what's going to happen if we don't increase the number of seats, and exactly where those boundaries are most likely to go and exactly what kind of a job we're asking people to do in order to service those areas. I think that upon reflection, they will see that it's a sensible thing to do. We're not going to get any more ridings up there. We're not asking for more ridings in the north. We're asking for it to be left alone.

I was in Burns Lake last weekend. A couple of old farmers were more than happy to share with me that they didn't support me in the election because they supported our Reform brothers, but that's life. But they were very happy to learn that I was going to come here and defend Bulkley Valley-Stikine from being made any larger than it is right now. Despite the fact that they haven't seen the wisdom of supporting the NDP, they still supported my stand on keeping Bulkley Valley-Stikine where it is right now.

J. Weisgerber: It's an interesting evening. It's one of those rare evenings when I wish all my constituents had an opportunity to come and sit in the Legislature. They don't have an opportunity to watch it on television, because the broadcast from this Legislature doesn't go to the Peace country. But it would have been really instructive for my constituents to sit in the members' gallery today and see how seriously -- and I'm being facetious -- this matter is being addressed in this House. I've got to tell you that I don't often find myself being angry in this House, but I find myself being angry today, because I believe we're dealing with a serious issue, certainly an issue that's serious to my constituents.

I want to start by commending the Attorney General for recognizing in his introduction in first reading the basic challenge, which I believe is to maintain representation in the northern and interior parts of the province. I commend him for doing that. I don't agree with the notion that you have to increase the number of seats to 81 in order to achieve that. But I believe very genuinely and very sincerely that the issue of rural representation, of northern representation, is one that deserves a bit more consideration than I've seen it given in this House tonight.

Before coming into this House, I looked at a couple of statistics. The average constituency in British Columbia is about 4,882 square miles. Some of the members that spoke earlier come from constituencies that are nine square miles, five square miles and some smaller than that. I say to those members: think a little bit about what it would be like to represent Bulkley Valley-Stikine, which is 200,000 square kilometres -- 77,306 square miles. Think about North Coast, 51,000 square kilometres or 20,000 square miles; Peace River North, 160,000 square kilometres.

An Hon. Member: There's Prince George-Omineca.

J. Weisgerber: And, indeed, Prince George-Omineca, which is 41,000 square kilometres -- about the size one-fifth of Bulkley Valley-Stikine, as a matter of interest.

The fact of the matter is that the four largest constituencies in this province are Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Peace River North, Peace River South and North Coast. Those are all in excess of 50,000 square kilometres. They happen also to be the constituencies with the smallest population.

[7:30]

I would submit to you, members, regardless of which side of the House you sit on, that that is an issue. If you simply follow the formula of 25 percent plus or minus from the norm, you are going to be obliged to enlarge all four of those constituencies -- three at least -- in order to comply with the existing legislation.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I would suggest, regardless of what the member for Richmond-Steveston believes, that to adequately service a constituency of 200,000 square kilometres represents a challenge, a challenge that is recognized by the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, a challenge that I've recognized as the member for Peace River South.

It takes four and a half hours for me to drive from Dawson Creek to Mackenzie. At that point, I am a seven-hour drive south of the northernmost community in my constituency. If I fly, and the weather is decent, I can get in there in a charter flight and back on the same day. If the weather isn't good, I've been in there more than overnight. Those are the harsh realities of representing the constituencies of the interior of British Columbia. And I might say that people who don't recognize that, rightfully pay a political price for that.

The suggestion.... I won't go through my response today without recognizing that the Liberals campaigned on reducing substantially the number of MLAs in British Columbia. We've heard three speakers from the Liberal benches tonight. Not one of those members has even acknowledged that campaign platform that they ran on. I believe that in examining it, they must have understood that it was poorly thought out, that it would have been a disservice to the people in the interior of British Columbia. Indeed, I would suggest that it was that issue, combined with the privatization of B.C. Rail, that caused the biggest single problem for most Liberal candidates in the interior of this province, including the one in Peace River South. What's the solution? What's the answer? I believe the answer is in examining this notion of a differential of plus or minus 25 percent. I've taken the trouble, not a great deal of trouble, to examine what other jurisdictions do, because I don't believe the plus or minus 25 percent has to be written in stone. Even though there was a decision here in British Columbia, I believe that events since that 1989 decision have quite dramatically changed.... The federal government uses a plus or minus 25 percent except for the Northwest Territories, where they ignore the rule. They give the electoral commissions the ability to deal with exceptions in extraordinary circumstances.

[ Page 1588 ]

The province of Ontario has adopted the plus or minus 25 percent but designated a minimum of 15 constituencies in the northern part of Ontario. There, one assumes, they are able to move away from the plus-or-minus-25-percent argument. The province of Quebec uses 25 percent with exceptions, for reasons undefined. Nova Scotia doesn't use 25 percent at all; it simply designates its constituencies on other criteria. Manitoba has a variance of 10 percent plus or minus for constituencies south of the 53rd parallel and 25 percent for constituencies north of the 53rd parallel.

British Columbia uses a base 25 percent plus or minus with no variations, and I suggest that that is the problem with this legislation. Saskatchewan has an average population in northern constituencies of 10,500 and an average population in southern constituencies of 17,300. Again, they have obviously moved away from the plus or minus 25 percent.

For those of you who are interested, I think that Alberta has probably come up with not the perfect resolution but the best resolution I've seen, along with Ontario. What Alberta has said is that no more than four electoral divisions may have a population that is as much as 50 percent below the average. They have set out some criteria for the four constituencies in Alberta that can avoid the norm.

Those constituencies have to meet at least three of the following criteria. They have to be in excess of 20,000 square kilometres. Bulkley Valley-Stikine is ten times that size; Peace River North is about seven or eight times that size. All of the constituencies we've talked about with large geographic areas and small populations exceed many times the Alberta quotient of 20,000 square kilometres. Those constituencies must be at least 150 kilometres away from the legislative building. Again, all of the constituencies that I've expressed a concern for are probably ten times that far away from these particular buildings.

A constituency in Alberta, in order to qualify for one of the four, must have no town with a population that exceeds 4,000. I don't think there's a constituency in British Columbia that would meet that particular test. They also must have either an Indian reserve or a Métis settlement within the constituency. Again, I don't think there are any in British Columbia that that would provide a problem for. They must have a portion of the constituency boundary that is contiguous with a boundary of the province of Alberta. In other words, those exceptional constituencies have to be on the periphery of the province.

I think there is a strong argument to be made for.... Instead of moving away from 75 MLAs in the face of very legitimate criticisms around expanding the number of politicians, there is an opportunity to instead consider maintaining 75 constituencies, and bringing in some change to our process that would be similar, but obviously not identical, to the process that has been adopted in Alberta, and in Ontario, particularly -- that is, to designate a finite number of constituencies with very clear criteria to move away from the plus or minus 25 percent which has been the bible in electoral reform, at least over the last decade or so in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the summer is going on and that members are feeling a bit feisty, but let me say that I think this is, and should be, more than a partisan political issue. It is something that very directly affects the people that I represent. It's something that, if it moves forward, has the ability to adversely affect my constituents and the region that I represent. I am not at all satisfied that simply adding six more constituencies and six more members to this House makes our northern voices, our interior voices, any more relevant in this House. Indeed, I think you could argue that the opposite would be the case: if you maintain the number of seats in the north and in the interior but were part of a larger group of people, you can argue that you have less influence on what happens.

With some reluctance, I'm going to vote against this legislation. I don't believe that the answer is in increasing the number of MLAs. I do believe that there is a situation here that is far more relevant to this province and to what this House is all about than some of the comments that I have heard tonight would indicate.

Mr. Speaker, with that I am going to thank you for the opportunity. I'd like to say to you again that this is an issue that I believe we should look at closely and carefully. It affects British Columbia, the balances in British Columbia between rural and urban, between north and south and between populated urban areas and remote rural areas, and I think that deserves some of our consideration tonight.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to commend the previous speaker, the member for Peace River South, on a very thoughtful presentation. It is in that vein that I'd like to follow up on some of his comments.

With this piece of legislation we are talking about democracy and how we apportion representation in this province. It has a long and colourful history. There are a number of key things that have taken place over the last few years that need to be addressed.

The first was the Fisher commission, which put this current Legislature into place. It did away with two-member ridings in this province. I speak from the position of someone who represents the second-largest riding in this province -- the member for Okanagan West representing the largest. There is not that much difference between our two seats. They are huge ridings, not in terms of geographic area, such as those of the member for Peace River South and the member for Peace River North, but in terms of huge populations in comparison to many, many seats. In the same way the members for Peace River North, Peace River South and Bulkley Valley-Stikine have unique problems related to geography, transportation, distance and weather... there is a flip side to that coin, and that is that members who represent constituencies that have large populations also have problems because services available to members are based on average constituency sizes, and the further you get away from that, the more that impacts on you. That is the perspective that I am bringing in my comments tonight.

In this province we had a history of two-member ridings, and it was a political football. The best thing that came out of the Fisher commission was doing away with the two-member ridings and replacing them with 75 single constituencies. The process that Fisher used was flawed in a couple of areas. The first was that it didn't recognize population growth as a criteria for determining boundaries. The second was that it dealt with the issue of 25 percent. That became the rule and is in fact the rule in this country, by and large, with some exceptions, as has been pointed out -- Manitoba, Saskatchewan and a couple of other provinces. That 25 percent, to many people, seems very reasonable, but in the context of other jurisdictions within North America and around the world, that is on the very high end. In the United States, for example, a typical variation is 2 to 1 percent. In this province, we recognize the importance of protecting representation in the north and in the interior -- remote geographic areas of this province. We want to ensure that representation is maintained, and we 

[ Page 1589 ]

want to ensure that the ridings can be serviced adequately by a member. We have that right now. It's not easy for the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine or the members for Peace River South and Peace River North, but it is doable. What would happen if we did not introduce this legislation?

This piece of legislation does not call for seats to be increased to 81; it gives a judge the power to increase them to 81. That's a point that has to be made. The Liberal opposition seems to have forgotten that the judge makes the decision. It's not the government; it's the judge. The second point that needs to be made, which the opposition seems to have forgotten, is that the judge draws the boundaries. It's not the government that will draw the boundaries; it's the judge, who has a commission, and that's the key thing. This legislation does not force the government to add six seats. It gives the judge and a commission the power to add up to six seats. That will protect northern interests. That's what we see as important, and that's what we're telling the judge.

At the same time, if we are to recognize that urban ridings.... You can't keep allowing the urban population to grow and grow and not recognize that growth, because then you take away from the fairness element of democracy, the fairness element of representation, and that's just as important as the geographical representation in the north. That's the challenge that we've had, and this bill accommodates both those things. That's why it's important to support it.

[7:45]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in this debate on behalf of rural British Columbia. It's particularly a pleasure to add my few modest words to those of some other rural members that have spoken here. In particular, I want to note the lively and very notable speeches of the hon. member for Peace River-Victoria and my good friend, the hon. member for Kicking Horse Pass. They were both excellent speeches, and I enjoyed them very much.

One of the first questions I think we have to ask ourselves is: does this province need more politicians? We have, actually, no less an authority than the Premier of the province on this particular question. He is quoted in the Vancouver Sun today as saying: "I think people would much rather see fewer politicians than more, and I guess I share that view." Regrettably, however, this is not the view contained in Bill 19. Certainly I have seen no evidence among the populace of this province of a desire to expand the number of politicians in British Columbia. At no time during the election campaign did I hear the Premier -- or, indeed, anyone from the governing party -- indicate that they were planning to expand the size of this Legislature to 81 seats. And I would suggest that now is entirely the wrong time to do so.

I should also note here that the legislation itself says that the Legislature could be expanded, I guess at the discretion of the commission, to between 75 or 81. But obviously the comments of the hon. member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine would suggest that the government has already concluded that the number should be 81, and they assume that in fact that view is going to be endorsed by the commission.

If politics revolves around the allocation of scarce resources -- and I certainly think it does -- I don't know how any member of this House can justify an expansion in our own numbers when programs are being cut and school and hospital construction has been frozen in this province. At a time when a lot of hard decisions need to be made, it makes no sense -- and, indeed, sends all the wrong messages -- to devote precious resources to adding politicians to this Legislature. If the government can freeze school and hospital construction, surely we should also be freezing the number of MLAs at 75 until there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.

Demographers tell us that the population of British Columbia will likely double in the decades ahead. Does that mean that we should have a Legislature of 150? If we followed the logic of this bill, we'd say yes, it would. That, hopefully, is not going to be the case. I think that to expand the Legislature to that size would probably not only pose physical difficulties, but it would be downright stupid to do it.

One of the previous speakers noted that Ontario was guaranteeing its northern representatives a certain amount of representation. That is not in fact the case. Ontario is currently moving to a new approach to boundaries and to redistribution, and they will be reducing the number of provincial seats by 32 -- from 131 to 99. The new boundaries in Ontario will follow federal boundaries. I'm not suggesting that that's necessarily what we should do here -- obviously it isn't -- but that gives you an example of a very large Legislature that's trying to deal with this issue of representation in a different way.

What we really need to do is break away from the notion that the solution to all problems in this province is through an expansion of government. The current government, as others have noted, certainly provides ample evidence that quantity is no guarantee of quality. The expansion of government is by no means a panacea for all the problems faced by the regions in this province. I see no reason why we should not lead by example by holding the line on the size of the legislative component of government.

The government's line from both the Premier and the Attorney General is that the purpose of Bill 19 is to protect representation in the north and in the interior. I guess I should feel flattered by the government's concern for my electoral welfare, but the amendments proposed by Bill 19 to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act are neither necessary nor justified. This act in its present form can achieve the stated goal of protecting representation in the north and the interior.

The NDP and Social Credit parties didn't agree on a lot of things back in 1989, but they all agreed to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The widespread support for this act reflected the solid foundation on which it was constructed. In subsection 9(b), for example, it provides the commission with the authority to deviate from the provincial electoral quotient by up to 25 percent, plus or minus. Based on the current estimated population of British Columbia of 3.8 million, and based on the current 75 seats, the commission could vary riding populations from just under 38,000 on the low end to just over 63,000 on the high end. As well, under subsection 9(c) -- and I think this is a very important point, because some of the previous speakers have missed it -- the commission is also permitted to exceed the 25 percent deviation principle where it considers that very special circumstances exist.

Solution? It's 9(c). The new commission will obviously have to weigh the public's advice and the accumulated evidence it gains in making difficult decisions about electoral boundaries in this province. As well, I'm sure we'll be seeing the very judicious use of subsections 9(b) and 9(c) in arriving at those difficult decisions.

In my view, the existing Electoral Boundaries Commission Act provides ample direction to the commission on how it should do its job. The principal question which members of this House must address is whether 1996 is an appropriate 

[ Page 1590 ]

time to add to the size and cost of government by expanding the size of this House. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, now is entirely the wrong time to contemplate such expansion. Now is the time to show real leadership by saying no to bigger government. I urge all members of this House to oppose this bill.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak in opposition to Bill 19. Having read the bill and listened to the debate so far, it's interesting to hear some of the viewpoints from MLAs with urban ridings and from MLAs with rural ridings. I think that it is all legitimate debate, one versus the other, but we obviously have some differences in B.C., with so many people living in the lower mainland, in the southwest corner of this province, and the rest of the province being far more sparsely populated.

Looking at that, and at the map, and starting to think about how we can have equal representation, it becomes difficult to do. That's why some provinces and territories have changed the rules to adapt their electoral system so there is better representation. I would think that the reverse would be true if we were going to double the number of MLAs in rural B.C. and reduce them in the lower mainland. That would finally give rural B.C. -- whether it's Kamloops-North Thompson, or Cariboo North, or the Prince George ridings, or Bulkley Valley-Stikine, or Peace River North or Peace River South -- their real due in this House.

You can have good representation from those northern or eastern rural ridings, yet it's hard to hear their voices, simply because of the way the system works. The votes are all centred in Vancouver. The difficulty is that no matter who's in government -- I don't care whether it's a Liberal government, or NDP, or Reform or PDA; it wouldn't matter -- the same difficulties would appear. How do you deal fairly with all the people in the province? That's the real issue, and that's the issue I'm speaking to. That's why I don't believe for one second that we have to try to push that wall further that way so we can get more members in this House. I think 75 is sufficient. In fact, if you talk to most British Colombians, they will say 75 is too many, and that we should probably be reducing that number. But we are at 75, and I think we should stay at 75.

We have issues that are going on now where I hear government members, the Premier and the Minister of Finance talk about how difficult it is to get British Columbia's fair share from Confederation because we don't count and because most of the time the votes are already tabulated and we know what kind of a federal government we have before we in British Columbia even finish voting. That's the unfair part of it, and that ought to be something that everyone in here understands, even if you're living in Vancouver. Having lived almost all of my life in the north, let me tell you that that's exactly how we feel where we come from. We contribute, contribute, contribute, and we don't get back nearly what we put into the system, simply because we don't have the numbers. We don't have the members; we don't have the MLAs.

Maybe we should take the province and divide it up into equal blocks -- per square kilometre -- and say that that's how we're going to do it. Or maybe we should have two members from Vancouver and have the rest from the rest of the province. But we're always going to be faced with these problems of how we get into the north -- and I'm specifically talking about the constituency of Peace River North -- and what is fairly ours.

I spoke the other night in estimates with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and I asked her whether it was acceptable with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that you have to have a four-wheel drive to drive many of our roads in my constituency when it's raining. I know some people in Vancouver drive them because it's a status symbol. For some, I guess, there is some frost and some ice and they need it. But in my constituency, they need it year-round. Not only that, they don't last very long. People in the north, it's often been said, are the best friends of car dealers that you've ever seen in your life because we wear them out in two years. And we don't get our due for our roads.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I don't know why the member for Delta South is heckling me a little bit, but I think he was. It's interesting. I've driven around his constituency a bit and, by golly, I drive over some pretty nice pavement. That's the problem; that's the whole problem in this House. It always has been and I guess it always will be. That's why I get pretty angry when people say some of the things that have been said tonight. It's unfair -- totally unfair.

I mean, even the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who's a Liberal member, knows exactly what I'm talking about; he lives in much the same kind of riding. I think what we have to look at is maybe what was recommended by the leader of the Reform Party: maintaining at least the ridings that are in place in northern British Columbia.

I don't know how many members in this House have travelled to the north, have ever been through Bulkley Valley-Stikine or through Peace River North or Peace River South. It would be interesting to take roll call and say: "How many have driven all the way through British Columbia?" How many? It's not many, hon. Speaker. Five hundred miles, or 900 kilometres, in my constituency -- one way.

G. Wilson: At least you can drive.

R. Neufeld: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast says that at least I can drive. He's right. I think he rides a boat most of the time. I don't know; I'm not familiar with his constituency.

But I can tell you that it's tough getting around my constituency. I've driven around the constituency of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I've travelled a bit in that constituency simply because it is a beautiful part of the country for a holiday. I can tell you that my family was afraid in some areas, specifically going into Telegraph Creek. Not many people know about that, but I'll tell you, that is an area that has to be serviced. You have to get in and out of there. It's difficult to do, and I would think that everyone in this House, regardless of where you're from, regardless of what constituency you represent, whether it's urban or rural, would know what northerners feel. It's no different going east-west with the federal government than it is north-south in British Columbia.

Travel for health care is absolutely deplorable. There is a program in place, but many people in the north just don't get the health care they should because they can't afford to drive the 1,200 miles to Vancouver for some of the care that they have to have. We have to start recognizing that, each and everyone of us.

The ones from rural B.C. understand what I'm talking about; they quite understand how difficult it is to get around the province and around some of the larger constituencies. I can tell you, you can stick New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island in my constituency and have room to spare.

[8:00]

[ Page 1591 ]

The Muskwa-Kechika -- in fact, there was a press release on it again just the other day -- was set a further two years for non-vehicular traffic in that area. It's the size of Nova Scotia, less than a third of my constituency. Try travelling around that constituency. There may not be many people there, but just try to get around.

Hon. Speaker, I would say that most people in Canada and most people in British Columbia would say: "If anything, don't add more MLAs." Let's at least stay at the 75. Let's at least keep it consistent at 75, because I don't know where we're going to put them when I look in here, unless we move in closer and put in a third row. As we continue to grow, if we're going to continue to get more MLAs, I don't know whether we're ever going to get anything done.

I'm not going to underestimate the job, because it's easy to stand here in opposition and say that it's an easy thing to do. But let me tell you, when you get into government, I think it's a totally different story. In fact, I know it is. I've listened many times to the member for Peace River South talk about it. That's when people start thinking: "My goodness, maybe you need more ministries rather than less to try and deal with the issues."

I think we all have to think seriously about redistribution. Bringing in a bill at the end of this legislative session that would add up to six more seats is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous. I look at the sheets. Some of them are seven square miles, three square miles, eight square miles. You know, hon. Speaker, I can't imagine that it's.... I think one of the cabinet ministers mentioned that he can drive across his constituency in five minutes. I can't imagine that driving ten minutes the other way that things are much different. I think you can represent more people in the lower mainland in a congested area. I don't think you have to have that magical number.

I think we should be looking seriously at the Alberta model. I agree with my leader that we should seriously look at it to at least maintain those large rural ridings at the size that they are -- or smaller, if need be -- but not larger. I don't have to be....

The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine talked about having the constituencies of Peace River North and Peace River South combined. I don't need that in no way, shape or form. On top of that, both of those constituencies are east of the Rockies. We have much more in common with Alberta than we do with British Columbia. I notice the Minister of Social Services frowned. That's the truth. Where do you think the oil and gas industry is headed? Where are the headquarters? They're not in Vancouver; not one bit. How about our grain farming and our agriculture? Much more in tune.... We don't have a bunch of dairy farms. In fact, we didn't have a road from Peace River North and South to the southern part of British Columbia until 1958. We didn't have a rail connection. Everything went to Edmonton. That was our normal course of events. In fact, at one time we were part of that area.

So it's difficult for us in the north to understand, sometimes, how we're treated. To increase the size of those ridings certainly is not going to make it better. To increase the number of MLAs in Vancouver is not going to make it better for us; it's going to make it worse. The least we can do, if there are.... The member for Port Coquitlam, if he's got 3,000 too many people, maybe we ought to shuffle them over and draw the lines so we can take 3,000 into one of the other ridings beside him that's a little bit smaller. Maybe that would work. Then he can service every constituent better.

I'm going to vote against Bill 19. It's obvious from our remarks that I think it's absolutely ridiculous. We're in a time of restraint. Every time I come to any one of the ministers and ask for something up north, just simple things like roads, something that we can drive on, there's no money. But by jiminy, if we want to stick six more people in here, we've got the cash.

That's ridiculous. It just doesn't wash. Go out there and try and tell someone in Dawson Creek or Fort St. John: "I'm sorry folks, we can't help you. You can't get a ride down south to look after your heart disease, but we're going to add six MLAs so you get better service." They'll laugh at you, and that's exactly what should be done with this bill. It should be laughed at. We should tear it up and carry on with what we've already got in place today. We should look seriously at Alberta and try some redistribution in those terms.

I thank you very much for my time.

G. Wilson: I've listened to this debate with a great deal of interest. It always is interesting to me when I see politicians of whatever stripe stand up and say, "I ask you, hon. Speaker, do the people of British Columbia need more people like me? The answer is absolutely not" -- of course, assuming that their representation is one that might be excluded from the characterization, fair or not, of what politicians are or not. I would think most politicians will stand up and argue immediately that the people don't need more politicians -- except when they are running for election, when they are there to tell the people just how much they do need them and therefore have to be excluded from my initial comments.

It's interesting. I have listened to this debate, and I want to read for those who may be following this debate -- I am always amazed at the number of people who while away their evening hours by actually tuning into this channel -- what this bill says:

"If the commission in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) considers that the number of electoral districts in British Columbia should be increased, it may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 81."

It essentially says that the commission has the opportunity to listen to the argument and debate that they have heard in this chamber and determine that in fact we should not increase beyond 75. If that's the case, then we'll be at 75, and much of the discussion that's occurred this evening with respect to whether we should or shouldn't go to 81 will be moot, because the commission will recommend against it.

One could argue, then, that what we are really debating about here....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who is perhaps one of the most vocal and most dominant of hecklers, making comments. I notice he hasn't yet stood up in debate -- perhaps he will. He has his opportunity.

What I find interesting about that is that one would assume, given that the commission in carrying out its function will determine whether or not we need more representation, that this commission is going to -- and if you look at the act, it is in fact bound to -- consult with the people of British Columbia so that they have some say as to whether or not we should go from 75 to 81. I am assuming that the people of British Columbia will make their representation -- one would hope, in large numbers -- to decide whether it should be 75 or 81. 

[ Page 1592 ]

It certainly is not the purview of this House, nor should it be the purview of any elected member, to determine what the size of representation should be.

All this discussion about going to 81 or not going to 81 is a moot point at this point, because it's up to this commission. Presumably this is an independent commission. One has to have some faith in the democratic system that this commission is going to make that determination. It does, however, put a ceiling on it at 81. One might ask the minister -- and I think when we get to the committee stage of this bill it would be interesting to know -- why 81 was selected as opposed to any other particular number. That's going to be interesting.

The second thing this bill says -- before we get into discussing a little bit of the principle -- is: "For the purpose of making proposals...." Let's assume this commission has done its tour of the province, it's had representation from regions, it's heard from the people and the people have come in and have demanded that we go to 81 -- because one could assume that only under those conditions would we actually move to 81; I certainly don't think it's going to be at the request of the Members of the Legislative Assembly. So if they have made a determination that we're going to go to 81, then the commission is bound by a certain set of criteria upon which it can make those representations. The proposals must have geographic and demographic considerations, including: the sparsity, density or rate of growth of population of any part of British Columbia; the accessibility, size or physical configuration of any part of British Columbia; and the availability of means of communication and transportation between various parts of British Columbia.

It doesn't say whether those considerations are to be given in the event of expanding in those areas or whether they are an excuse to reduce the number of MLAs who may represent a region at the moment. It's to that point that I want to spend a moment in discussion, because the representations we have heard, particularly and most articulately from the members for Peace River North and Peace River South, who talked about the problems of rural representation being acute in British Columbia, are absolutely correct.

I don't know the extent to which the average member here has had a chance to travel the province to meet with the people and listen to their concerns, but I can tell you that over the last six or seven years in my capacity as leader of a political party as well as an elected member of this House, I have had that opportunity. People in the interior of British Columbia very definitely feel alienated from the political process that takes place in what we might call the urban triangle: the area between Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo.

In that urban triangle, which is where the greatest density of population is concentrated, we have the greatest representation and power base that represents this province. In microcosm, it's precisely the same kind of alienation that so many people of British Columbia feel with respect to federal representation, where we have to struggle to get our voices heard in the Commons because of a lack of seats and representatives out of British Columbia, and the lack of a representative Senate that is determined by region. In the federal example, to try to combat that situation we argued that we needed to have some system of balance with respect to the Upper House.

[8:15]

In looking at this, I hope the Attorney General might be open to some amendments which this member will be prepared to put forward. If this bill is to have meaning, we need to have the opportunity to actually reduce the size of representation in some of the urban areas in order to expand representation in the interior and northern parts of British Columbia. That poses a very difficult philosophical question that needs to be talked about in B.C., because we have strictly.... We have heard the formula that has been used, and in various jurisdictions they use different formulas with respect to a representation-by-population model. As long as we are bound into a representation-by-population configuration, we are forever going to have that inequity in the distribution of seats in the province, because certainly for the foreseeable future the density of population -- indeed, that's one of the criteria that will used by this commission -- is likely to expand. Under this particular proposal it's quite conceivable that Surrey, for example, one of the fastest-growing regions in the lower mainland, will expand to increase their numbers of elected members to the Legislative Assembly. The Kootenays, the Peace, and possibly the North Coast, where population growth is less rapid, will not. So we will increase the disparity rather than decrease it, and I think that's the opposition we are hearing from those rural members.

I am an elected member from a very rural riding, except in the southern portion. The area from Langdale perhaps as far as Powell River or Egmont is relatively close to the urban centre and therefore does have a population that tends to travel into the lower mainland on a frequent basis and is rapidly growing. But I cannot get to the northern part of my riding by road. There is no access. In the last redistribution, under the Fisher commission, the area of Bella Bella-Bella Coola, which was at one point in the riding of Mackenzie, was taken away when I represented that riding. What came in its place was Powell River-Sunshine Coast, excluding Bella Bella-Bella Coola but drawing the line not very far south.

A very remote community such as Klemtu is an example -- or communities in the Kingcome Inlet, Simoom Sound, Echo Bay; I could name many -- of areas which have resident populations that are predominantly resource-based, forestry or fishing, and are areas that need representation. In order for their MLA to get up there, one has to get on a boat, usually during the more clement, better weather during the summer months, and get into those ridings to be able to talk with them. Otherwise we need to fly in by floatplane. As the leader of the Reform Party indicated, then you're really taking potluck, because you can fly in, and often the fog will come in, and you may not get out for several days. That's just a fact of life in getting into those regions.

I have used the opportunity to get up into the north area. I just want to let some members know.... I'll tell a very brief story of going into one of these very remote inlets; seeing a cabin that had obviously been well-established, judging by the degree to which various forms of vegetation, fruit trees and so on had been planted there; walking up to that cabin, having docked my boat at this rather less-than-stable dock; and knocking on the door. This individual who came was a very gruff sort of individual who obviously made a living more by his wits than anything else.

I indicated to him, "Here I am. I am your MLA," and said I represented him in the Legislative Assembly, to which he said that in the 40 years that he'd lived up there, he had never, ever seen a politician. He wasn't sure whether to invite me in or to shoot me, at which point, fortunately, he invited me in. Having then talked with him about the degree to which that individual had dropped out of the system but nevertheless was affected by the decisions taken by this House, it was a most enlightening situation. To those of us who think we're remote, let me assure you that there are many others who are equally or in a more remote situation. So remoteness is an issue, and time getting to those areas is a consideration.

[ Page 1593 ]

A greater consideration is the fact that those people who live in those remote areas often don't have power. Often they do not have communication facilities -- something as rudimentary as a telephone or even a radiotelephone. Where there is a radiotelephone, the frequency at which you can get through is often determined strictly by the weather and so on. So it's an acute problem.

A rep-by-pop model, frankly, I think is a problem. Where I have problems with this bill is that the bill constrains the commission to going up in the number of seats and doesn't provide for that commission looking at alternative options with respect to the process of electoral representation in B.C. It does not provide for the commission to recognize that a simple reconfiguration of boundaries and an increase in representation may in fact not be the answer to the problems that ail us with respect to our democracy. So I have difficulty with this bill, because by offering that constraint to the commission, we cannot have, through this amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, the opportunity, for example, to come forward and make an argument for the establishment of seats in this chamber on the basis of a proportional vote.

Rep by pop is an interesting concept. Proportional representation is an issue whose time has come, because more and more British Columbians can be equally as concerned about the fact that they are there in their rural area, feeling that they're not being particularly well served by their MLA as a constituent, but recognizing that if in fact we had moved to proportional representation, the number of assigned seats in the Legislative Assembly would be greatly different.

Some of us may lament -- and I know that certainly those in opposition all lament -- that we didn't get more seats than we actually did. Otherwise we would obviously be on the government side of the House, which would be more desirable. But when one looks at the proportion of votes cast.... If we look at the actual percentage of votes cast, we see a government sitting in a minority in terms of the number of votes cast, and an opposition -- in the case of the Liberals, in a greater majority than the government, certainly -- sitting, if you look at the collective vote of the opposition parties, with an absolute majority of the vote cast in British Columbia.

So the majority of British Columbians voted for those of us on this side of the House. The minority of British Columbians voted for those on that side of that House. Yet that side of the House has the majority and is able now to use that majority to effect the kind of changes that they want. That is where I have difficulty with this bill. It does not address that fundamental, anti-democratic process of first-past-the-post. Simply adding the numbers of seats in the Legislative Assembly will not address that issue, either, because what we have to do is remove the constraints within this bill to allow the commission to start to seriously consider not just the numbers of representatives but also whether or not we want to have an assigned number of seats by proportional representation.

If we were to use the European model, for example, I can tell you that the makeup of this House would be quite different. There would be more Reform members sitting, there would be more PDA members sitting, and this government would, in fact, find itself in the minority. We would have quite a different dynamic working in the Legislative Assembly, one that would reflect more accurately the actual outcome on a vote-by-vote basis with respect to the votes that are cast.

The second reason that we need to look at removing those constraints in this commission is that with respect to the proportional number of votes cast per riding, if there is an inequitable situation in terms of the numbers of people, it allows for the popular vote measure, in terms of the way it's recorded, presented and reported to the press, to be an exaggeration of the overall representation from within British Columbia -- i.e., if you have a lot of votes that turn out in the heavily populated ridings of Richmond, downtown Vancouver or possibly North Vancouver, if they're fortunate enough to get 81, 82 or 83 percent turnout, that is going to then alter the absolute representation of numbers in the reported documents as to how many people voted in the election. It will not take into account the degree to which maybe residents in Peace River, in the Kootenays or in other areas have a completely different dynamic with respect to their desire for political representation.

That's a problem, and I'll tell you why that's a problem. It's a problem because what we are dealing with here is a rather arcane situation that stems out of our commitment to the British parliamentary tradition, something that has been a subject of parliamentary reform in virtually every jurisdiction in the world except Canada. Canada is one of the last jurisdictions to seriously consider the parliamentary reform that is necessary with respect to proportional representation and a block of seats that are determined on that basis.

I would say that the other reason that we need to remove that constraint is with respect to parties who contest the election and who repeatedly take a fractional portion of the vote -- it could be anywhere from 2 to 5 percent to 8 to 10 percent, in some cases -- and not elect any member.

I think, particularly, of the Green Party. The Green Party has a particular philosophy, focus and direction. I don't agree with everything they stand for or everything that they speak of, although I think that much of what they put forward is something that's worth listening to and we should be mindful and conscious of. Many of their ideas are good. Yet under our current system, they do not have representation, even though they have consistently contested the election and taken ever-increasing percentages of the vote. In fact, in some cases, I believe, in this last election, they finished in the third spot. I know that certainly PDA members did and Reform members did, demonstrating that there is a growing number of people who wish to have their representation determined by that particular political representation in this chamber. We are unable to have that through the constraints that are placed here.

I just want to close by making a couple of other points with respect to this particular commission. The commission should consider the possibility of actually reducing representation and shifting away from rep by pop toward proportional representation. But it also should remove the constraint so that it can be allowed to weigh by region. The member for Peace River North, I think, made an excellent point when he said that the amount of wealth that's generated out of the Peace, just in terms of gas and oil revenues alone, is enormous; it's tremendous. Yet the decisions that are taken with respect to how that wealth is committed and spent are driven, in large measure, by people out of the lower mainland.

Rep by pop is part of the problem, but only part of the problem. It seems to me that we need to move to a process of regional weighting in terms of the determination of representation, so that those people in areas where there are large amounts of industry, where wealth generation occurs, are given consideration with respect to how those dollars are committed, if we are to see those dollars returned to those regions so that the people who are responsible for the generating of wealth in our province are therefore able to take benefit from it. The way that this is committed and the way this 

[ Page 1594 ]

commission is constrained, there is no chance that that's going to occur.

What I am suggesting may sound somewhat radical at the outset. It may sound somewhat unique or different, but I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that the time for proportional representation to be in this House, certainly a block of seats determined on that basis, has come. The people of British Columbia need to know that we are at least prepared to entertain that debate publicly, that we are prepared to take that to them publicly, so that when this commission travels and has an opportunity to hear from them with respect to how we want our political representation to be determined, this commission will not be constrained to the degree that it cannot hear that debate or argument.

Some would know, and certainly those who have read my writings will know, that I would ask that we go a step further -- but it's outside of the parameters of this bill specifically -- to amend the seating in this Legislative Assembly to be seated by region. What a very different House it would be if we were not seated, government and opposition, two and a half sword-lengths apart so that we have the confrontational style of politics that essentially evolved with the dynamic of politics in the days when you didn't have seats. If we go back to the days of Cromwell and the establishment of parliament in the history of British parliamentary tradition, you simply had the amassed members standing, whether they were on one side or the other.

It would be a very different House if people were seated by region and if their first consideration was not the party Whip, not the party dogma, not the doctrine that was being put to them by somebody in the back room of some political outfit, trying to put out the kind of political fodder they want that political party to adopt, but the very constituents who elected them to office.

[8:30]

What a very different House it would be, because we would then have people seated by region from different political parties who would have to stand united on issues that affect the people in their region. Hon. Speaker, I suggest to you that one of the strengths in terms of representation of the people of the Peace is the fact that both the member for Peace River North and the member for Peace River South are from the same political party and are able to give that kind of united representation and direction.

Where I would say we fail is when we start to look at the probabilities of getting that kind of representation in the larger urban centres. It doesn't occur, and it especially doesn't occur in the interior and the Kootenay regions, where we start to find that fractured votes occur as a result of our rep-by-pop, first-past-the-post system.

Electoral reform we need; parliamentary reform we need even more. I would say that the reason I have difficulty in agreeing with this in principle is that it constrains the commission to look in only one direction. It constrains the commission to look only at increasing the numbers of seats as an option. It does not provide the option that is necessary to alter the system by which we elect representatives and, for the first time, to start to introduce a very real and very honest discussion of representation as a proportional representation of votes cast.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the Premier saying: "Aye, aye." Clearly, he has heard my discussion. It has brought him into this House, and he is in full agreement that proportional representation is the way to go. I think that it's delightful to hear that.

We cannot accept a bill that constrains a commission to look in only one direction. We have to ask that this government, in the amending process, amend this Bill 19 to allow it to free up the commission to be able to look on a broad basis at both electoral and parliamentary reform. With that, I take my seat, and I anxiously await other speakers who may come forward and discuss this question in terms of a block of seats determined on the proportional representational basis.

The Speaker: I recognize now the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. [Applause.]

K. Krueger: I'll just wait humbly for that thunderous wave of applause to subside.

I listened with care to our colleagues from Bulkley Valley-Stikine and Columbia River-Revelstoke as they discussed the problems they have with the large geography of their ridings and purported to understand that there are few Liberals who represent rural ridings. But that isn't actually the case. There are many Liberal MLAs who indeed have a great deal of experience travelling and working in the interior, and I'm certainly one of them. I developed a large farm with my family north of Fort St. John in the riding of the member for Peace River North. I graduated from high school in the riding of the member for Peace River South, in Dawson Creek. I worked in Prince George, Smithers, Salmon Arm, Vernon and Cranbrook, and served the constituents of the member for Kootenay, travelling up the Columbia Valley and living in Cranbrook.

I know exactly what they're talking about -- the difficulties that people throughout the interior face because of this very problem that has been discussed so eloquently by the last several speakers. We are not adequately provided for in the interior by a government centred in Victoria, often adopting one-size-fits-all approaches in trying to solve problems and ignoring the fact that the wealth of the interior has for generations been mined and hauled down here and dumped into the coffers to benefit Vancouver and Victoria.

Anyone from the interior who believes that Bill 19 is going to benefit her or his constituents is dreaming. It's just not going to happen. All we need to do is look at a few recent events in British Columbia to understand that. For instance, when the Premier justified the West Coast Express by saying, "Not to be too crass about it, but we did win every riding north of the Fraser River," he was talking about exactly the situation that I and the other interior members have been talking about: that for the foreseeable future we'll be subsidizing every rider on the West Coast Express to the tune of $50 per rider per day on the basis of tax money that is collected from our constituents and dumped into general revenue.

I notice that instead of listening to me, the Premier is over here having a conference with the leader of the Reform Party, and that, I have to say, is just typical of the sort of respect that people from the interior receive from the Premier and his ilk. The ICBC premium freeze is another classic example of people in the interior having to subsidize people from Vancouver and Victoria, as our premiums are frozen at a level higher than they should be to subsidize drivers in Vancouver paying premiums much lower than they should be. The condition of our secondary roads has been discussed by some of the other interior members, and the fact that they just aren't maintained and aren't serviced. People die because of the condition of those roads.

[ Page 1595 ]

We and our constituents in the interior don't get respect from people such as the Premier, his cabinet and this government. Our ambulance services have been eroded. There are very few full-time ambulance attendants left in the interior of British Columbia. Massive unemployment is being created in our forests because of the policies of a government that centres its thinking in Vancouver and Victoria. The New Democratic Party has not been fair to interior B.C., and it will be even less fair with six more NDP MLAs from Vancouver, which is the target of this legislation. That, to me, is utterly certain. There will be six more NDP MLAs to override the interests of the interior; six more NDP backbenchers to file in here like sheep and bark like trained seals on cue.

They haven't protested their leader's allegations of a balanced budget, which had to be admitted as a falsehood two days after it was written into the throne speech. They haven't protested the Forest Renewal B.C. pillage that's contemplated and for which the mechanisms are being put in place as we speak. They haven't protested the freezing of capital projects, promised throughout the election campaign, that hurt people in the interior. They haven't protested the mismanagement of social services. They haven't protested the degradation and humiliation of our largest Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, with the misappropriation of its profits from international expertise and the funnelling off of that to friends and insiders. At least, they haven't protested it publicly. We haven't seen them stand up to their government. We don't see them protest the accumulation of debt or the $1 billion in interest that has to be budgeted this year for the first time in B.C.'s history.

So, do NDP backbenchers represent their constituents? I don't think so. They seem like nice people, they refer to each other as hon. members, but they're not allowed a chance to demonstrate that honour, to vote in the interests of their constituents, and they're treated like garden-variety yes people. There is no benefit to the interior in this legislation. It is a further dilution of interior representation in the larger total that will result.

Where do we go after 81 MLAs? Do we go to 87 in a few years, and 93 a few years after that? Where does this logic lead us? Will we one day cram 200 members into this chamber and somehow believe that in that way we are better serving the interests of constituents?

For one of the first times in my life, I saw the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast actually seeming naïve, talking about a ceiling of 81 members. Well, certainly we presently have a ceiling of 75 members, and that's not stopping this government from bringing in this legislation. They'll have no qualms about increasing the number again. The members have spoken of the difficulties they have in serving their large geographical areas. They could have assistance with that problem by being allowed some extra staff, some extra technology. We don't need more MLAs to do the job.

It's true that in the B.C. Liberal Party platform in the last election campaign, we included a commitment to downsize the number of MLAs in this chamber, because we believe in leading by example. We believe that if there are going to be reductions in expenditures in other areas, there ought to be a reduction of expenditure in our area as well. We're willing to work harder than people have worked before. We're willing to travel further. We're willing to bite the bullet and walk the talk.

In this photocopy I have of a brochure from 1994, under item 1.03 it says that a Reform B.C. government will reduce the number of MLAs by approximately one-third. The province will be divided into eight electoral regions, each of which will contain an equal number of MLAs. So it's surprising to hear the leader of the B.C. Reform Party argue against a reduction in the number of MLAs. Nevertheless, that is clearly not, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has said, what could happen with this legislation. It won't happen with this legislation. The only likely direction in the number of MLAs is up, with this legislation.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

So what has been the success rate of adding MLAs in the past, when we went from 57 to 75, for example? Well, if we measure by the results, what do we see? We see a doubling of debt over the first term of this government, the accumulation of interest charges that I referred to earlier, a decline in service, an apparent decline in respect for the constituents that we all represent in this House, and unparalleled and unprecedented mismanagement of this province's resources, Crown corporations and ministries. We have never seen the north and the interior ignored as we have with this rabble. We don't need more MLAs; we just need MLAs who are going to be allowed to do the job.

So I urge the government MLAs, and I particularly urge my colleague from Kamloops and all the government MLAs who represent interior constituencies, to vote with us and not against their constituents, and oppose Bill 19.

Deputy Speaker: To close debate, I recognize the hon. Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, let me just recapitulate and make a couple of points. Firstly, to address the issue raised by the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the commission, which would obviously be independent, would have at least seven choices. Those would be: 75 seats, 76 seats, 77 seats, 78 seats, 79 seats, 80 seats or 81 seats. The commission would, of course, have discretion. No one is indicating to the commission that they must go beyond 75 seats.

In that sense, while I agree with many of the remarks made by the hon. members for Peace River South and Peace River North -- because they support the gist of the bill; they have some reservations about it -- I think their concerns can be accommodated within the body of the amendment that's being proposed.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I was extremely shocked to hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the critic, the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, talk about manipulation of the commission and about gerrymandering. I just want to make this one point in wrapping up. In section 2 of the existing legislation, you have the makeup of the commission, which is as follows: "A judge or a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal who is nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; (b) a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government and who is nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly" -- now note -- "after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition, and (c) the chief electoral officer appointed under the Election Act...."

[8:45]

The question that I have, both for my friend the hon. critic from Richmond-Steveston and for the hon. Leader of the 

[ Page 1596 ]

Opposition, is: which one of those would not be independent in the eyes of this opposition? I find it extraordinarily objectionable for hon. members to prejudge the outcome of an independent commission appointed pursuant to the existing legislation. Somehow the members cast aspersions on the outcome even before the commission has been appointed. I find it extraordinarily irresponsible to do so in the Legislature, because it's really important that we do our work with dignity and with some consideration for the people of British Columbia.

There is no question that there are several views, but there are mainly two views in this assembly -- with the exception of three members of the third parties. One says, "Don't worry about people from the north and the interior," and the other says: "We want to give the commission the discretion to either stick with the 75 seats or increase the seats up to 81, as the commission might see fit in its wisdom."

I think it's important for us to recognize that that's what divides the opposition and the government. It's important for the people of British Columbia to recognize that. I think it's also important for them to recognize that long before the outcome of the deliberations of the not yet appointed commission is with us, the opposition has already, in haste, passed judgment on what is to come. I find that extremely, extremely distressing as the Attorney General of this province.

Let me conclude, hon. Speaker. What we are doing with this amendment is giving the discretion to the commission to increase the seats up to 81 or leave the seats at 75 -- anywhere between 75 to 81. We want the commission to turn its mind to the geography of this province, to the issue of communications and transportation, to the issue of population growth and all those kinds of factors that are important in considering what changes, if any, are to be made to the existing boundaries in British Columbia. I think that is entirely appropriate for us to do every eight years or so. This, I must say, is the first time that this is being done after the legislation was put in place. Once the legislation is in hand, the commission would be appointed. The Leader of the Opposition, I'm certain, would be consulted by the hon. Speaker in nominating the nominee that the Speaker is to nominate, and I look forward to the work that is to be done by the commission. I now move second reading of the bill.

Second reading of Bill 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	Cashore
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Ramsey	Kwan	Waddell
Calendino	Pullinger	Goodacre
Giesbrecht	Walsh	Kasper
Orcherton	Hartley	Priddy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Sihota
Brewin	Randall	Sawicki
Lali	Doyle	Gillespie
Robertson	Farnworth	Smallwood
Conroy	McGregor	Janssen
NAYS -- 34
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	Hurd
Sanders	Plant	Stephens
de Jong	Coell	Anderson
Nebbeling	Whittred	van Dongen
Penner	Weisgerber	G. Wilson
Neufeld	Barisoff	Krueger
McKinnon	Masi	Nettleton
Coleman	Chong	Weisbeck
Jarvis	Abbott	Symons
Hawkins	C. Clark	Reitsma
	J. Wilson

Bill 19, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply B in this House. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and Ministry of Labour.

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

On vote 20: minister's office, $460,000 (continued).

J. Weisbeck: Hon. Chair, I have a couple more questions on the freeze of tuition fees. We talked about the impact on students, and the minister commented that the students that he'd spoken to found the tuition fees to be a hindrance to being able to attend college. I would like to know if there has ever been some sort of analysis done on how many students are affected by the actual cost of going to college. How many people actually have to stay home because of the tuition fees?

Hon. M. Sihota: The last detailed, extensive and exhaustive study that was done was the Orum report, which I believe was issued in 1993.

J. Weisbeck: I guess the point I am trying to make is that freezing tuition doesn't affect everybody. There are certain members of our society who are capable of funding their own education and who would like to do so. I think that the impact of freezing tuition fees obviously gives the problem to the institution being able to fund themselves. Has the minister ever looked at possibly using some sort of grant or bursary system so that the people that really need funding to go to university are able to get a grant to allow them to go?

Hon. M. Sihota: We do have in place in British Columbia a grant and bursary system that assists people to overcome those financial impediments which do exist, because there are impediments over and above the matter of tuition fees.

[9:00]

J. Weisbeck: You've placed an ultimatum on colleges and institutes to get the number of students attending their facilities up; I'm using, as an example, Langara, which needs 400 FTEs or 650 part-time students. I find it a bit offensive that they are having to spend $38,000 to go out there and lure students into their institutions where that funding could probably be better used.

I am curious to know how this funding actually works. What is full funding? What happens if they don't reach this 4 percent increase? What happens to their funding?

[ Page 1597 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a number of points. We had a problem in this province whereby young people were turned away from colleges because there weren't enough spaces. We were criticized for the fact that there were lineups every September and students could not enter post-secondary training. We made a determination as a government that we would begin to deal with that problem and provide a space to every student that was interested in finding it. Therefore we have told the system that they must no longer have those kinds of lineups, but have seats available.

There is no immediate consequence if they do not fill all their seats, but they must go out of their way to attract students. As I travel around the province and talk to students, I am disturbed to see how many students themselves have ruled out that option in their mind at a very early stage. They repeatedly tell me that if only they had known there was space available, if only they had know fees were frozen and if only they had known of the scholarship and bursary programs available.... These are things that one would think people are aware of, and they are not aware to anywhere near the degree that they need to be; hence the need to put some money into promotion. There is no consequence if the institutions don't fill the full measure of their seats, at least on an immediate basis.

J. Weisbeck: Who sets the FTEs? Is there a standard for setting them?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is something that we will work out with the institution. We'll sit down and negotiate and talk to the institution as to what they may be able to digest within the system.

Just for your information, in the Langara situation we are asking for an increase of 185 spaces for students out of a base of 4,629, and that is why I think they can accommodate it.

J. Weisbeck: The Premier made a comment that the schools must operate at maximum efficiency. I'd like to know who determines when they are operating at maximum efficiency?

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll determine that with the colleges. I meet with them regularly. I just met with the college presidents recently, and they know the challenges before them. We want to make sure that every student who has a desire to get post-secondary training should have it. That's the basic philosophical approach, and that means we want to get every seat filled.

J. Weisbeck: Before the election the Premier made a promise that 1,000 mature students would each receive a $2,000 grant. I would like to know what happened to that grant, and when and if it's available.

Hon. M. Sihota: It will be implemented in September 1997, so it's not in this year's estimates.

J. Weisbeck: It would appear that the intention of the ministry is to drive fundraising into the private sector. My question is: are we not creating a two-tier education system by probably driving people into private colleges?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. I think we do have more private facilities than most provinces in the country, but we're not driving that agenda. They do provide some opportunities for people, but essentially, the public education system is recognized in British Columbia as one of the best college systems in North America. I encourage the hon. member to phone any college president and ask them if that's what they think, because I suspect they'll say yes, it is.

J. Weisbeck: Is there some sort of a reporting system from the business community for jobs needed so that we can determine where our education should be going?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. For example, at institutes like BCIT we have a business advisory committee that advises the college and the board to ensure that programs are relevant. We try to do that on a sectoral basis on different sectors of the economy -- let's say tourism and hospitality identify needs -- and they go to the institutions to have the programs developed. In addition to that, for example, the president of UBC and the president of SFU and, I believe, the president of Vancouver Community College sit on the board of the B.C. Business Council. In my mind, it's critical that there be those linkages so that there is as narrow a gap as possible with regard to relevance of the educational experience and the skills that are taught to the students.

J. Weisbeck: There was a report done by the B.C. Labour Force Development Board, Training for What? There's been some criticism of it, stating that we're really neglecting some of the academic programs in our universities and colleges. I wonder if the minister could respond to that.

Hon. M. Sihota: In my view, Training for What? is an exemplary piece of work. It is one of those pieces of work which for the first time says: "This is what we need to train our students for so that we can forecast where our economy is going and then tie that in with what we are training our young people for."

That Training for What? paper, of course, is an amalgam of a broad range of discussions. It takes into account that we know that some of the things employers look for -- commonsense skills, analytical skills and good communication skills -- cannot be developed in an exclusively technical or vocationally driven educational experience. We have to have academic and/or liberal arts programming to make sure that some of those skills that employers need are there. As a consequence, within the college system we have maintained a full range of programs: academic and, specifically, career-oriented. If we are going to respond to what the economy and business want, we have to have that range. On that basis I think the Training for What? report acknowledges it and that the criticism that some have levelled is unfounded.

J. Weisbeck: I appreciate that there are some concerns of accessibility throughout the province, but I think that having 90 campuses spread throughout the province is somewhat excessive. I cannot see that that could be an economical way to deliver education. The split campus, I think, is a drain on resources. We would be better off by funnelling some of our resources into more major campuses -- I'm thinking of Okanagan University College in particular. They've got a number of campuses spread throughout the valley and the main campus itself is really underfunded. I wonder if you could respond to that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was just asking staff a question on Okanagan, which I'll come to in a minute.

I disagree with you. I think we have to provide relevant educational experiences as close as we can to the commu-

[ Page 1598 ]

nities, so that the educational experience is real and so that young people don't have to travel great distances to get that educational experience. In Summerland we may need to develop programs that deal with the agricultural, fruit or wine industries, so we try to provide that training close to home. At the Okanagan campus within Kelowna we may need to provide more direct programming on public administration, business administration and academic skills. So there is a need to have relevance between the institutions.

I have not taken the occasion to visit the main facility at Okanagan; I'm hoping to do that this month. I want to visit those sites, and I will listen to what they have to say about underfunding, if that's a concern in their minds. I'm happy to discuss that with the hon. member when I'm in that part of the province.

My sense of it is that I would disagree with you. Having these educational opportunities spread out through 90 communities across the province allows us to really connect with the economic needs in those communities. The economic needs in Masset are different than what they may be in Prince Rupert; they are different in Summerland than they may be in Vernon or Salmon Arm, and I think we have to have that relevance built into the system.

It's important to note that those seats are full. If our system wasn't working, if it wasn't relevant, and if this theory of location was not operative, those students wouldn't be there. We have to think about accessibility issues: students don't have to incur the expense of relocating. They can stay at home; it's far cheaper to stay in Summerland or Trail than to move to Kelowna, so those additional financial burdens on students aren't ones that they have to incur. For all of those reasons I think that the system that we've got, which is known worldwide as the best in the country, is the way to do it.

J. Weisbeck: The concern is that the colleges feel as though they have stalled. Because of lack of funding, they can't build their library up; they can't expand into a full university. You've got to be concerned that you are getting a quality education as well, and that if you spread it so thin, you're not able to do that -- improper library, inadequate teachers, and this sort of thing. So I'm somewhat concerned with that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm concerned that you would take the view that we ought to have a more centralized system in terms of education. It might be worth our while to have a vigorous debate about that at some point, though I'm not inclined to do it tonight.

Quite frankly, I don't think there is the duplication that you refer to. I will give a theoretical case; I don't want you to believe that this is the actual case, because I haven't gone there. I have to take a look at it. One can make the case that we need to have a specialized library situated right in Summerland, dealing with certain types of agricultural products, so that it's available to the student getting that agricultural training, but it's also available for the community which may want to go in and look at, let's say, disease or fertilization issues. Instead of the individual in Summerland having to travel to Kelowna, they can go to their local facility because they know they've got that specialized library. In addition, with technology developing the way it is, the library as we have known it has changed. One's ability to go down the street and access the world is now commonplace. Therefore, it seems to me that we are better saying to someone in Summerland, a parent living in Summerland who wants to go and do some research on an issue: "Look, you can go to that community facility that we paid for as taxpayers and access the world there instead of having to drive to Kelowna."

J. Weisbeck: I think it was about January of this year that Okanagan University College purchased Cathedral Lakes Lodge. I would like to know where that directive came from and where the funding came from.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm aware of that. They did buy that facility. It was a consortium of groups that bought it, and they want to use the facility to further educational opportunities for students. For example, in the field of environmental sciences, as you know, in the Cathedral Parks area we do move from one distinct geographical area into a different geographical area. The knowledge in the environmental sciences that we can pick up there is actually much needed.

[9:15]

Let me give you an example. Down the road from there are the communities of Osoyoos and Oliver. One-third of the red-circled species in Canada that are threatened -- we call them red-circled -- habitate in that area between Cathedral Park and down to Osoyoos and Oliver. The more we can learn about those wildlife and their attributes, the better. Placing students on the site to do the biological and environmental sciences work is useful. The decision was made by the college itself. If you're concerned that it was directed by government, it wasn't; it was a decision made by the college with their own funds.

J. Weisbeck: If that's the case, I'm very curious, because the faculty at Okanagan University College, the biology faculty particularly, wasn't even consulted on this purchase.

Hon. M. Sihota: That may be; sometimes boards do that. They go ahead and make decisions and that may not have consulted the faculty. Fair enough, but I do think that the acquisition of that site is important.

We do it elsewhere. For example, in Tweedsmuir, in the other direction, there have been sites acquired by the province to study grizzly bear habitat. Again, this is a species that is threatened, and it allows us to accumulate information with regard to those species. Other areas we have bought include sites for analysis of salmon that help us make some of the decisions on allocations and breeding. In other cases, we have taken components of universities and relocated them in forest nurseries, to expand the knowledge base and the research base in forest ecosystems.

These are all examples of where we have relocated or acquired sites for educational purposes as a province -- some by the colleges or the universities and others by other sectors of government.

J. Weisbeck: One of the comments in the press release talked about purchasing these properties for the people of British Columbia. I'd like to know why this facility was leased back to the previous owner.

Hon. M. Sihota: I should point out -- because I don't think I made this clear -- that the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training did fund a portion of this project at Cathedral for minor capital. I wanted to make sure that was clear to you.

Yes, it did that, and I'm sorry I don't have the answer. I am aware of that; I suspect it is a temporary arrangement. Often it's acquired and then there's a leaseback arrangement. We'll try to get an answer to that for you.

[ Page 1599 ]

J. Weisbeck: Well, this temporary relationship is a 30-year lease. I don't call that particularly short-term. But I guess my concern right now is this: at a time of fiscal restraint, why are we spending $335,000 on a piece of property?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a good educational investment, and if it's a long-term lease, then I suspect the reason was that it's part of the business case. You get the return on revenue for the lodge. I don't think the entirety of the site is being leased back; I think it's a percentage.

J. Weisbeck: I'm curious to know what sort of impact the introduction of university colleges has had on secondary education.

Hon. M. Sihota: It allows for a broader range of programming to be available in different regions of the province. Therefore, again on a geographical basis, it provides access. It's far better to have a student educated in Kamloops at the University College of the Cariboo in that community, than it is to require that student to shift down to SFU, UBC or UVic and incur the costs. It's far better to have those kinds of programs in the community so that there's some continuity between community needs and the training that students get. These days, quite frankly, I think students would rather stay in Kamloops than have to go to Vancouver, for a variety of quality-of-life reasons.

J. Weisbeck: I just want to say thank you very much, and I'd like to talk to you after you've had your tour of Okanagan College. I'm complete with that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Sure, I'll take you up on that, and if you want to be part of the tour, so as to have a broader understanding of the facility there, just let me know and we'll be happy to accommodate that.

G. Wilson: I don't know what was more informative, listening to that exchange, discovering the estimates of this minister, or learning about the Liberal policy. It's the first time I've ever heard the Liberal policy ready to scrap funding of satellite campuses in favour of a centralized post-secondary educational system. My goodness, there's an awful lot of people in rural British Columbia who are going to be shocked to find that the funding of their satellite campus would, if this group ever became government, be jeopardized because we're going to centralize moneys into central systems of educational delivery. In fact, I think that's what the community colleges were trying to get away from originally. They were going to move education into the community, not just get those urban centres funded at the expense of everyone else.

My questions to the minister deal with an issue that actually revolves specifically around the reason we shouldn't be doing that. You'll just have to forgive me, hon. Chair. I'm just amazed that the Liberals have taken such a drastic step backwards in terms of their thinking about post-secondary educational funding. I want to talk specifically about Malaspina College's Powell River campus, the skills and training opportunities there and the extent to which those dollars can be maintained, given the fact that the Nanaimo campus obviously has some considerable problem with respect to ongoing funding.

The difficulty we have is that the people of Powell River are isolated. I think the minister knows that; I think he's been in the community, and if he hasn't, then he has a standing invitation to come there. But I think he has been there and understands that it's very difficult for people who are in job training programs or who are being displaced from traditional employment in Powell River to be able to move -- because of family constraints, all kinds of travel restrictions and a whole host of reasons.

Yet what's happening at the Malaspina campus is that we are getting funding on a semester-by-semester basis, so we have people who enter into a program and get the first portion of the program funded only to find that the second portion, the portion they need to complete their diploma or whatever it is, can't be funded because of a reallocation of dollars at the central campus in Nanaimo. This issue has been brought to the attention of previous ministers without a great deal of success, because the idea has been that those ministers want to leave it up to the Nanaimo campus as to how they allocate those scarce resources.

The problem is that unless there is some measure to say that a proportional number of these training dollars must go into those programs that are established there and, once committed there, that those dollars have to be committed so that the people who enter those programs have enough security to be able to finish them.... If we don't do that, then we find ourselves in a situation where people get enticed into programs, and then the program funding dries up. They can't complete their diploma, and they are worse off because they run into problems with income assistance as well.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the funding goes to Malaspina College in a general block. It is the Malaspina board that then allocates the funds to Nanaimo-Powell River. I'm not inclined to place a condition on those funds by saying that a percentage of them must flow to a particular community, for the simple reason that if I were to do that for Powell River, I run into problems with regard to other facilities.

But I do not get this concern expressed in detail with regard to other areas of the province to the degree that I have from Powell River. The hon. member has mentioned this issue to me in other venues, and I am prepared to entertain this. I am prepared to take a look at the composition of that board in order to see the degree to which it reflects the Powell River community. I am quite happy to extend the offer to the hon. member to provide me with names of candidates that he thinks would be appropriate to sit on that board, so that the needs and the priorities of the community are spoken to at that level when the determinations are made. That may be a way in which I may be able to assist the hon. member. If he were to do that, I'd be happy to accommodate him.

G. Wilson: That's a generous offer indeed. I guess we can't throw in the B.C. Ferries board at the same time and get some representation there as well.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Well, hon. Chair, you've got to try at every opportunity to get the representation you need.

I do appreciate that offer, and I would like to seriously consider that with the minister. It's an ongoing problem that we haven't been able to resolve, and I think we really do need to address and resolve it. That may well be the way to go.

I have only four or five other questions that I want to direct specifically to this minister. One has to do with formula funding in terms of the number of dollars that are assigned to campuses in the academic programs now. Again, I'm concerned about the allocation of those dollars with respect to the 

[ Page 1600 ]

formula as it applies to satellite campuses. The minister is probably aware that Capilano College in North Vancouver has campuses in the lower Sunshine Coast, in the Sechelt area. Of course, Malaspina College has campuses in the north. The further north we go, we also get into Vancouver Island and the North Island College, which has facilities that deal with the northern end. So my riding actually has those three jurisdictions.

The difficulty we have is that the formula can't be met most times in order to get a consistent application of dollars to the program. In particular, I am now speaking about the Sechelt campus, where from the very beginning the number of students that would enrol in those courses is less, obviously, than you would have at the main campus. Given that I'm sure the minister is not prepared to entertain getting rid of formula funding, which would be the preferable way to go.... That is a much bigger debate, which perhaps we won't get into tonight.

What I'm asking the minister to allow the colleges to do is increase their averaging component so that they can in fact have smaller class sizes in the satellites, which can have ongoing funding without impacting on the overall funding they have within the academic program at the main campus.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me say that there will be a review of the funding formula. I will make a commitment to the hon. member that a committee will be in place this month and will meet in September. I will take his comments that relate to the funding formula and make them available to the committee. We have had a review of the funding formula in the past, but I do believe there is some value in having the committee meet again. I don't think they've met much over the last year, so staff know that that needs to be done.

As for B.C. Ferries, the difference there is that I'm a nice guy, and the minister responsible isn't. Sorry, he's not as nice.

G. Wilson: I am tempted to remind this minister that he once was the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries at the time that appointments were made

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Oh, he's saying he wasn't. I stand corrected. It wasn't this minister; it was the Premier -- who, I assume, then, is not in that nice-guy category.

Let me come to another important issue that has to do with joint programming with first nations people in post-secondary education. I don't know to what extent this minister is able to discuss that, but obviously my riding is made up of many first nations peoples of various different bands. One of the issues that we are attempting to address is the degree to which we can get vocational training programs that are accessible on reserve and that are connected or tied into the post-secondary educational institutions. I wonder if the minister can tell us to what extent there is discussion under way, or if there's some kind of blending being done through moneys that are available through Aboriginal Affairs, and that would maybe be available through first nations funding from this ministry.

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, that is one issue I haven't yet put my head around, but I do recollect that in 1995 -- I believe it was -- cabinet approved a new policy relating to aboriginal education. As a result of that, a new set of facilities was created: one in Merritt and another facility, I believe, in the lower mainland, if I'm not mistaken.

As a consequence, we went a little bit further to have people from the aboriginal communities situate at our colleges so as to provide direct linkages between those communities and to further encourage involvement of native people. That is a new program, so it's too early to assess the success.

[9:30]

We have had discussions with the federal government, as you know. That federal government has provided -- and we believe should continue to provide -- funding for seats that are required for or that should be made available for aboriginal people: not that that's happening. The joint-partnership concept is one which we concur with.

G. Wilson: I wonder if this minister knows -- and if not, if he could find out and get the information to me -- the vocational and trades training programs that were directly established for first nations people. There were a number over the last year. I understand they are now being moved into -- in some cases, not all cases, but in some cases -- vocational and training institutions that are, essentially, providing the service with the funds coming from a separate source of revenue. What is the extent to which that's occurring, and does the minister have any idea about what kind of dollars are attached to that?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I don't, and we'll have staff give you that information. We'll correspond with you on that issue.

G. Wilson: My last question, then, to the minister has to do with co-op education funding and the extent to which programs are being encouraged. With respect to co-op education, as the minister, I'm sure, is well aware, many of the colleges and some of the universities are now moving toward co-op degrees, which are degrees that provide students with an opportunity to get both practical work experience and academic or, in some cases, trades training. In most instances, I think, these are tied to academic programs. These have been tremendously successful in some cases, adequate in others and in some not so. But I think the majority of these co-op programs have worked extremely well. I know that those that I have been personally involved with in my previous life as a professor at Capilano College worked exceptionally well. It seems to me that there is an opportunity now, a real avenue, for the government given its focus, its sort of directive, toward trades and job-end-result kind of education. I think most of us recognize that you have to be trained for something you're going to be able to get work at. This is a way to do it without compromising the academic portion of your education.

I wonder if the minister might tell us whether or not these programs are being encouraged. Are dollars going to be assigned or allocated to them? If so, does he have any idea how many?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I'm an advocate of co-op programs for much the same reasons as the hon. member mentioned. I think most people in society would be if they see intuitively the benefits of a co-op program. Our challenge is always to make sure that there is a strong promotion of these programs and to work closely with the private sector to develop and coordinate the development of these programs.

This year we have allocated $3.3 million for this purpose. That is an increase from $2.9 million in '93-94. From 1990 through to 1996, we increased, if I can put it this way, the head count in the co-op placements from 4,900 to 7,300 students, and the placement weeks have gone up from 78,000 in '90-91 

[ Page 1601 ]

to 117,000 in '95-96. So the answer to your question is yes, we are putting in money: $3.3 million to coordinate and make this happen.

G. Wilson: Stemming out of that are a couple of questions. Is that money fairly evenly distributed, or is it predominantly in the lower mainland universities?

Hon. M. Sihota: We have established a committee of people from each of the colleges in the province which gets together and then decides on the allocations.

G. Wilson: I should have actually known that, in retrospect. So it's going to be an internally directed process, and that's good.

My last question to the minister -- and I mean this, hon. Chair -- by way of discussions I've had with the graduate programs at both SFU and at UBC and people who were involved in the admissions, has to do with the number of university entrance seats available in graduate programs. The Premier is well-quoted as saying that anybody who wants to and is qualified to get into university will be able to, and this government is going to make those seats available. There's a list compiling in my office of qualified students, particularly graduate students, who are applying to get into university and finding that their space is not available because they do not have adequate resources to accommodate all qualified students. In fact, this Friday I'll be meeting with representatives from Simon Fraser University to see what we might do by way of a lobby to this government.

I take this opportunity to ask the minister: what is the situation with respect to those funds? Can we take seriously the Premier's comment that every qualified student will have a space? If so, where would those additional dollars be coming from for the universities?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think the Premier's commitment extended to graduate programs. However, we have increased the number of seats available in graduate programs. We can give you the number; we don't have it here. I also have to tell you that at the same time.... Demand has increased at a greater rate, and I think that underlies the point you made. We can give you the actual numbers if you want them. I assume that you do, so we'll make sure that they're made available to you.

G. Wilson: That was my last question. This is purely supplementary to that last question. As the minister will recall from his time in opposition, supplementary questions sometimes take a little while to get through. But I do accept the fact that we will get those figures. I hate to be pushy, but if I could have those figures before Friday, that would be really good.

Is a committee of this ministry going to review that increased demand in graduate programs? It is becoming quite a serious issue because of the popularity of B.C. universities with respect to some graduate programs, and also because we are now developing an expertise in some faculties that really ought to be encouraged. I wonder if there's going to be a committee to review that demand and to see whether or not we can be looking at different and innovative ways of funding that, possibly through a joint venture, private sector ventures, or other kinds of ways of developing those revenues.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, hon. member, my days in opposition were dark days indeed. It is far nicer over here. Second, we will have that information to you before Friday. Third, there is no committee, but I did discuss that issue with the university presidents when I met with them about a week ago. We may look at some other venue to examine that issue. We are actually considering a summit with our presidents and business leaders that would allow us the opportunity to discuss that issue.

K. Whittred: I have just one local matter to bring up at this stage of the debate, and that is the status of the marine institute which is located in my riding. I have had several sources call and tell me that the institute is being run into the ground. Apparently they are referring to scheduling that does not suit their particular vocations. It is my understanding that this institute has recently been turned over to BCIT. I wonder what the minister can tell me about this matter.

Hon. M. Sihota: There may be some discrepancies here, but I'd be happy to look into it. This facility was taken over by BCIT. It was heavily underutilized. It is now heavily utilized, and therefore it is not my sense that it is being run into the ground, unless you are saying that through heavy utilization, there are demands on the physical infrastructure. If that's your point, then clearly we can take a look at it.

That is my information, and that is the best information I can give you here tonight. I'd be quite happy, if the hon. member wishes to correspond with me on it, to have staff then prepare a response that may get into some detail. Alternatively, if you wish, I would encourage you to contact my ADM for post-secondary education programs, and we can follow up on that concern. But that is the best information I can give you at this time.

K. Whittred: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will be in touch for more information.

W. Hurd: I just want to engage the minister briefly this evening with a follow-up set of questions that are related to ones asked by my colleague from Okanagan East. With respect to the colleges and institutes, it is my understanding that part of the agreement with the government to accept the tuition freeze and to increase the number of spaces was that they were required to submit to the ministry a business plan, in essence, as to how they were going to meet the conditions of the tuition freeze, open up additional spaces and at the same time protect the existing programs at the institutions.

I am aware, as my colleague has indicated, that some are really struggling with the ability to protect existing programs given the fact that they are now being mandated to create an additional number of spaces in the province. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee whether those business plans have been compiled by the institutions, whether they have been submitted to the ministry and whether he has had an opportunity to review them.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the hon. member is mistaken. Those types of business plans were not required. We did require from them an indication or a plan, if you want to put it in that context, that would show to us in what program areas the new seats would be created. Those plans have been forwarded to the ministry from all but two institutions.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can tell us whether the government's targets in terms of increased enrolment spaces have been met -- and not at the expense of some existing programs at the colleges and institutes. I guess the reason why 

[ Page 1602 ]

I am asking the question is that in the time that I did serve as critic, I became aware of some colleges making some very difficult choices about continuing some programs that might have had a lower enrolment because of the new mandate they had to protect their funding by increasing enrolments in courses that feature a heavier enrolment.

I think this flow of information is important in terms of whether the colleges are meeting the enrolment targets, yet, on the other hand, reducing some programs they're now currently offering. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on what types of material information his ministry is receiving from the colleges detailing how they're going to create the additional spaces while at the same time offer the same level of programs they're currently offering to their communities.

Hon. M. Sihota: To answer your first point -- have they met their targets? -- we won't know that until we've gone through the school year. As you know, the Premier made that commitment a few months ago, and it's only now that the system is beginning to absorb the students.

The second point I'd make is that it is true that the boards, in making these allocations, may make a decision not to offer certain programs this year. But remember that this is an operative point here. These programs -- generally in colleges because of the responsiveness of colleges to the economy -- are market-driven. Because they're market-driven, if they are underengaged by students, that perhaps reflects the fact that they may not be in sync with the economy. That outcome would, in any event, have been inevitable given the gap between what is required by students and what was offered. So you can't assume that we're necessarily losing these programs in that fashion. It may well be that we would have lost them in any event because of market adjustments.

[9:45]

W. Hurd: Certainly I have no trouble with the rationalization of some of these programs if indeed they're being duplicated from one institution to the other. I guess the concern I have is related to the funding commitment that the government made. As the minister is well aware, the Premier's commitment was that you would retain your existing level of funding for the next fiscal year in exchange for meeting enrolment targets.

It's my understanding that some college boards and executives have gone through the budget-making exercise and have determined that if they are to retain existing programs, the cumulative impact of the enrolment increase is, in fact, a cut in overall funding. I think my colleague from Okanagan East got into this briefly earlier in the evening. I'm aware of some cases of the funding cut actually translating into a 4 to 5 percent cumulative funding cut as a result of having to increase the enrolment spaces. Is it the policy of the minister to encourage the rationalization of these programs to take up that slack, or is he at all concerned that some worthwhile programs may have to be sacrificed in order to meet an artificial enrolment target for the government -- when, again, the budget-crunchers deal with the cumulative impact at the college level and they determine that it translates into a funding cut, given the existing level of service they're providing to the community?

Hon. M. Sihota: We obviously watch this. To our knowledge, specialty programs, for example -- which is the way I would describe the hon. member's concerns -- have not to our knowledge, to date, evaporated from the scene in order to make these adjustments. This is something that we clearly need to monitor. If it's an unintended consequence of the policy that the Premier has announced, then we'll take a look at that.

There isn't a cut in funding. Everybody gets the same amount of funding they got last year. But there is more stress on the system. I think this is where your 4 or 5 percent comes from. They may be seeing a stress of 4 or 5 percent in terms of the increased numbers of students that will be coming into the system, so that one could argue that having a 4 to 5 percent increase in students with no increase in the budget is a 4 or 5 percent reduction. I guess that's one way to look at it. I'm not sure if I buy that. But I do buy the fact -- and they've made it clear to me -- that they believe that they can absorb these students into the system without any significant consequence.

I want the hon. member to know this. I met with the college presidents last week, and they did not raise this concern with me. I think that's important. In fact, it wasn't just the presidents I met with; some board representatives and the association that represents all the colleges also met with me. They didn't raise that concern, and that tells me something. If that alarm bell was ringing within the system, clearly they would have articulated that when they met with me. So I put some measure of faith on that.

W. Hurd: I can't say whether it translates into a funding reduction across the system at every college, but I certainly have been advised that some existing programs will have to be sacrificed. I guess what I'm asking is whether the ministry intends to monitor the programs which are disappearing and perhaps express some concerns to the institutions if indeed they feel strongly that the programs being sacrificed are quality programs that just don't offer the opportunity to meet your artificial enrolment targets. I think the concern that was expressed to me before I moved on from the portfolio was that the colleges were concerned that some very worthwhile programs might have to be sacrificed by virtue of their relatively low enrolment. I'm just seeking assurances from the ministry that they intend to monitor how the colleges intend to meet their enrolment targets and the strategies they may adopt to do it in the hopes that if programs are eliminated that are worthwhile, the ministry can at least be aware of it.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, hon. member, we do that monitoring, and that's one of the reasons why you've asked for the plans. We will monitor during the course of the year to see what happens. Needless to say, once the House adjourns, I'll be spending a fair amount of time at various institutions. So I'll start to hear and see on a firsthand basis what the different administrations and boards have to say as I meet with them. You have that assurance that we will do the monitoring.

W. Hurd: Just a final question on this particular issue. If the colleges and institutes do not meet enrolment targets, for whatever reason, I wonder if the minister could explain the strategy formula by which the budgets of the institutions will be revisited, because I am assuming that in terms of the provincial fiscal year, we will be sort of midway through in September. I wonder if he could just explain what type of recriminations or results might occur, if indeed the enrolment targets can't be reached for whatever reason.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me answer the question by saying that we have no immediate intentions in that regard. We're going to watch to see what they do. We anticipate that they will all be part of this process. If institutions show a chronic

[ Page 1603 ]

inability or an ongoing desire not to participate in the challenge the Premier has laid, yes, there may well be consequences. But at this point we're just starting off, and certainly the tenor of the meeting I had with the institutes was that they readily accept this challenge. To date, we haven't noted anyone who is saying: "Well, I'm not going to play along." But if that does happen, there will be some consequences.

At this point, I think they realize that this is a victory for them in the sense that they are not faced with the same kind of funding cutbacks as are happening elsewhere in the country. They are having their budgets kept whole and, in return, they believe that they can find the efficiencies necessary to absorb these students. They're appreciative of what the government has done in terms of not passing on these federal cuts. As a consequence, they are very desirous of proceeding to implement the government's plans. The goodwill is there, but if that evaporates and people don't play ball, then clearly there will be consequences.

W. Hurd: One final question comes to mind. I wonder whether colleges getting into distance education courses and increasing enrolment through teleconferencing initiatives or perhaps dealing with distance education opportunities around the province is an acceptable method of determining the enrolment allocation that each college has to go through.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, it is.

W. Hurd: I want to now address a brief series of questions about the Labour Force Development Board and the impact that the recommendations may have on colleges and institutes. It's my understanding that the board is in the process of developing a plan for colleges and institutes that will recognize some key components in their performance in terms of creating additional opportunities and recognizing where their graduates are going and taking some sort of proactive steps. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee where the Labour Force Development Board sits with that plan and whether there is any intention during this fiscal year to implement a plan for colleges and institutes or whether it's still in the developmental stage.

Hon. M. Sihota: I understand your question, but I'm not too sure if you've got the source right. Let me explain, and if I've got it wrong, I'm sure you can respond.

We started the process of developing a strategic plan for the colleges. As I heard the hon. member, I think that's what he was referring to. It is a document that lays out a strategic plan for our colleges. That strategic plan has not yet been made public. It is my intention to make that public in September, and it will outline the future course and direction of colleges in British Columbia. I do not anticipate any major implementation this year, but there will be some implementation this year.

The Labour Force Development Board has issued another report. That report is the one the hon. member referred to, which is Training for What? It is a very useful report in terms of giving us some indications of the kind of training that we should be providing for our young people. In my experience in government it has certainly been one of the best reports that I have seen. That report has been made public, I have met with the Labour Force Development Board with regard to that report, and we are going to proceed with the operationalization of that report.

If I am correct in my initial comment, the Labour Force Development Board -- and the hon. member may be referring to this -- is in the process of preparing another report called Training for Whom? It is to build on Training for What? by identifying those groups in society that require the training. That work is in progress, and I expect that to be completed for me in the early spring. Therefore, the potential for that being implemented in this fiscal year is not there.

I think the hon. member was probably referring to a strategic plan and assumed that that was developed by the Labour Force Development Board. If not, there are those two reports, Training for What?, which is public, and Training for Whom?, which is still being developed.

W. Hurd: As I review the documents I have, it actually is a... I quote from a letter that was sent to the minister's predecessor: "The ministry has been developing a new accountability system for post-secondary education. Among our accountability and evaluation processes we have a nationally recognized, comprehensive and reliable longitudinal time series survey" -- easy for you to say, hon. Chair -- "of graduate educational outcomes." I think that was what the minister was referring to with the Training for What? document, a strategic plan. But the Training for What? document, as the minister well knows, has not been without controversy in the institutions. The minister earlier in the debate made reference to college courses that were market-driven, that survived and fell based on their ability to attract students and to provide or identify a niche in the marketplace and succeed. As the minister knows, the Labour Force Development Board -- he'll correct me if I'm wrong -- envisages a system whereby funding may in the future be tied to some specific measurements that the colleges may be able to achieve.

I wonder if the minister can clarify his remarks. On the one hand, he is saying that he supports a market-driven system of colleges developing their own opportunities and their own graduate programs -- or least their own initiatives with respect to the economy. Yet, at the same time, the Labour Force Development Board seems to envisage a system whereby the government will be identifying whether or not colleges and institutes are succeeding in meeting the needs of the workplace. I wonder if the minister could perhaps clarify for the committee where he's coming from in terms of this fundamental concern that exists.

Hon. M. Sihota: My sense is that right now there is a strong and positive partnership with these agencies, and there is mutual agreement with regard to these different reports. As a result, I don't think that there is the kind of conflict that may possibly be. We may well agree at the end of the day to tie in some funding with broad and/or specific economic objectives that we may have for this province. But, again, my sense is that there's a willingness on the part of colleges to work with us in crafting a system that allows us to direct funds in a more targeted way.

[10:00]

I think, fundamentally, it is very important that we develop a system where we are training our students for the jobs out there. The training opportunities, therefore, are commensurate with where the marketplace is going. That is, to me, a fundamental and inviolate point of view.

Having said that, I have to tell the hon. member that it is of secondary concern to me how we get them to agree to fund to meet those objectives. My sense is that all parties agree that we must meet those objectives. If they are concrete in agreement on the objectives, I don't anticipate a material problem.

W. Hurd: The reason I had asked the minister whether they are determined to evaluate the programs that might be 

[ Page 1604 ]

sacrificed as a result of the enrolment targets is that I really think the colleges and institutes are getting a conflicting message from the government. On the one hand, there is an initiative to increase the number of spaces in exchange for protecting your existing funding; yet on the other hand, the Labour Force Development Board seems to be saying that we have to follow the lead of other jurisdictions in North America where we are identifying the outcomes that the colleges achieve.

In other words, if you identify a niche in the market, if you develop a program at the college and if you graduate 100 percent of the people into high-paying jobs, that somehow should be rewarded or recognized in the funding formula for the institution. I think that's the direction that the Labour Force Development Board was heading. There seems to me to be two contradicting policies there. On the one hand, there's the drive to enrolment, to get people into the spaces; on the other hand, you want to measure the outcome.

Could the minister advise us where he sees the Labour Force Development Board headed? He has indicated that the strategic plan for outcomes in colleges and institutes may not be implemented this year. But what is the mandate for the Labour Force Development Board during the coming fiscal year in this set of estimates?

Hon. M. Sihota: The mandate for the board for this year is to work closely with myself and begin to look at a number of things -- do some surveys as to what it is that employers want from graduates, what they see as being provided for graduates and what they see as being deficiencies. They have a mandate to complete the Training for Whom? report, and then they are going to meet with me again -- because that work should be completed by the spring -- and we will decide whether or not we will keep the agency ongoing. That's one option.

The other option at this point would be to take a look at the work they've done to date and say thank you very much, but given the way in which this is evolving, there might be some value in folding up the agency, having done the work it has done, taking the benefit of its background and applying it in a different way. There are some options there.

We've had a very open discussion with them about some of those options that may be available to us. The mandate currently is the first, but I don't want the hon. member to assume that the structure of the board will remain exactly the way it is. I may tinker or tamper with the mandate over the next few months just to make sure that some of these potential areas of conflict don't become just that.

W. Hurd: That represents progress, I have to say. I know there was a concern on the part of previous ministers that in fact this was the blueprint for the future for colleges, institutes, and universities, that it would be driven by a group such as a Labour Force Development Board and that there would be some funding repercussions in terms of colleges and institutes that didn't meet the outcomes-based initiatives. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I'm glad to hear the minister say that there's been a step back from it and a review of the implications.

I also wanted to address in this set of estimates a series of questions about the whole private post-secondary field in British Columbia. I was certainly aware, during my time as a critic, of some existing private post-secondary, tuition-based institutions which were doing a tremendous job of identifying those niche markets for jobs, graduating 100 percent of their people and having them move directly into jobs. They found extreme frustration dealing with the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission in the province and felt that rather than being a body promoting excellence, it was a body that collected fees and was more regulatory in nature. I just wonder if the minister could advise us whether the ministry intends to review the role of the private post-secondary commission with more regard, perhaps, to better evaluation of the institutions out there that are doing on-the-ground training, and whether he feels there's any need for the commission's mandate to be changed.

I think there really is a wonderful opportunity in the province for these entrepreneurial-driven systems, some of which are getting funding from other government programs. Certainly they work with Canada Manpower, for example, and do achieve funding based on performance in that particular case. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether the government has any plans to review the role of the commission to perhaps make it more meaningful and productive to foster the development of these private post-secondary institutions in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have not had the time to put my head around that issue. I've listened very carefully to what the hon. member has had to say because I haven't had the time to put my head around the issue. I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to have a meaningful exchange on that. There's just too many other issues that I've been dealing with to be able to give you something more than simply just a reflection of what staff tell me. It's something I'll have to think about.

If you want to make some points in terms of things you think we should consider, I'd like to hear those, because I'll factor them in. They do impact on my thinking.

W. Hurd: I won't pursue the issue, then, other than to say that the commission, of course, does have a regulatory responsibility to deal with these institutions -- I think quite correctly -- to determine that they're financially viable and that they offer what they say they're going to offer. I think the commission could play a tremendously positive role in accrediting these private post-secondary institutions and in promoting excellence. Right now, I understand that very little of that happens. They in fact charge an annual fee to the institutes, for which there appears to be very little value for money that is allocated. So I would just commend the minister to perhaps review the whole private post-secondary field in British Columbia, which costs the taxpayers no money, because they're tuition-based. Many operate out of very modest facilities. They don't have large university lecture halls; in some case, they operate out of hotels. They are very good ways of getting people back into the workforce.

As my last comment on the topic, hon. Chair, perhaps I will just tell the minister about a unique graduation ceremony that I attended in Burnaby at Uncle Willy's Restaurant. It was for a group of people who were being trained in home security through grants from Canada Manpower. They had achieved a 100 percent graduation rate, and all of them had been relocated in jobs, which was a condition of the grant being allocated from Manpower. So there is a type of performance-based job placement that is occurring in the private post-secondary field. I would just commend the minister that the commission that deals with them is badly behind in terms of recognizing the role that they play and the potential role they could play.

Finally, I want to ask a couple of questions about two other institutions. One is about the technical university in 

[ Page 1605 ]

Cloverdale, which, as the minister indicated earlier, is now part of the capital freeze in the province. I just wonder what the mandate is of the current planning committee. It was my understanding that they had needed an act or a bill in the Legislative Assembly in order to begin the process of hiring additional people and to continue the planning process. I just wonder how the ministry has gotten around that problem, because they do appear to be proceeding, and I'm not sure on what basis they are continuing the planning for the technical university.

Hon. M. Sihota: They have submitted a report to me. They are carrying on with further planning. I will respond to them in the early fall with regard to the interim report that they have given to me. In addition, I know there are some concerns about the proposed legislation. There is no intention now, during this portion of this session, to introduce new legislation. That's not to say that this session may not reconvene, at which point we would consider that. I know the ministry has flagged for me the fact that we will ultimately require legislation, but I don't think we need it at this point.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us where the capital cost of the institution is at the moment? I'm certainly aware of the announcement of the capital cost of $100 million that was made two years ago. Has that been adjusted at all for inflation, or is that the amount of money that's being carried forward? Obviously it's not being carried forward in the budget, but it is being carried forward as a target for the construction of the institution. I wonder whether the minister could advise the committee of where we are in terms of the projected capital costs for the technical university in Cloverdale.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, the number has not been adjusted for inflation. I don't think they've quite finished their plans, so we'll have to see what the real numbers are at the end of the day with regard to the facility. We haven't arrived at the point yet where I can say that we need to begin to do that work. There are some allocations that they will need between now and the time of the.... They aren't really up and running, and they'll get those allocations, but at this point we haven't done those inflationary adjustments. But I agree with you. Two years ago, the guesstimate was $100 million. It may have been calculated in a way to take inflation into account. But, you know, these things do change. But we haven't made those adjustments.

W. Hurd: I wonder, then, if the minister could advise the committee of exactly what the planning committee is going to be doing in the next fiscal year. It is my understanding they were going to continue to develop sort of a global curriculum for the institution that would try to position it between what is being provided at, say, the B.C. Institute of Technology and what may be available at other institutions. I wonder if there is going to be that kind of exchange of information between the commission and the ministry to set forth a mandate for what the institution will be providing for that rather large capital cost.

Hon. M. Sihota: They are to submit to me by late fall a detailed educational plan. They are to advise me as to what mode they will apply for the delivery of those plans -- in other words, how they will do it -- and which groups they target for the provision of their programs. I understand and share the point that the hon. member made with regard to BCIT and other technical institutions and overlap.

W. Hurd: Again, I'm just unclear as to what exactly the ministry is expecting the commission or the committee to do during the current fiscal year. Do they have a time frame to present their final recommendations on the curriculum makeup? I'm just unclear, hon. Chair, on what the commission will be doing. I believe some $2 million has been allocated to the planning process for the university for the current fiscal year. Perhaps the minister could clarify, as well, what dollars have been devoted to the planning commission for the technical university in this fiscal year?

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: The amount of money that is allocated is $850,000, not $2 million. They have to submit to me a detailed educational plan, they have to advise me by the fall how it is that they are going to deliver it, and they have to advise me by the fall as to what groups they've targeted for the facility. At the conclusion of that, we will then move to the next phase -- namely, taking that plan to Treasury Board and seeking approval for it. At that point, then -- I'm going sequentially through the course of this year -- they may be in a position to be allocated some capital to begin to do some preliminary work from a capital point of view. I would see, towards the end of the fiscal year, as to when they would be required to have their legislation.

[10:15]

W. Hurd: I want now to shift my attention to the status of Royal Roads. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he feels the current mandate of the university is consistent with the vision that was put forward when this initiative with the federal government was first discussed. I am sure the minister is concerned that the program seems to now consist of mature students from, as I understand it, the University of Victoria, which is somewhat removed.

I wonder if the minister could just describe where he sees Royal Roads going in the next fiscal year, and perhaps the next couple of fiscal years, given the fact that I'm unclear myself where exactly the institution will fit in in terms of the post-secondary needs in the province.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think Royal Roads has developed a number of niches that they will start to fill over the course of this year. First, there is a need for community-based programming that applies and responds to the needs of the community. So the facility will offer a series of undergraduate programs for the community at the same tuition fees that are paid at UVic. They will offer at that site programs like anthropology, economics, psychology, sociology, math, English, philosophy, history and computer science at the first-year level.

In addition to that, it will offer a diploma program with Camosun College in the environmental sciences and, I believe, also one in business management. So that's one broad niche, responding to community needs and offering programs that are required within the community at tuition fee levels that are set by those institutions, be they UVic or Camosun.

Secondly, they have developed -- creatively, I think -- another market niche -- namely, students, let's say, at a mid-career point who require intensive, short-term training to upgrade their skills to be able to move along in the workplace. That includes the kind of business and leadership programming that is currently available. There is a master's program that is being taught out there now.

Since those programs are market-driven and provided for more mature students, they are tailored to meet those needs. 

[ Page 1606 ]

For example, they have taken students this summer for a five- or six-week intensive course program. During the summer it's possible to move families down and for people to have a focused educational experience here in Victoria. Then they go back to their workplace settings, do some work through distance education, come back next year and get further concentrated work leading to a master's program. Therefore it's occurring in a very focused way.

The fees at those levels are higher, because those are market-driven programs, and we can deal with them in that fashion. It also allows us to have our cake and eat it too: community programs and programs that are more cost-recoverable are dealing with a market niche that requires upgrading and training in the province. In my estimation, the institution is starting to develop in a thoughtful way, and the board actually has done some good work. I think there is some regrettable misinformation out there with regard to it only serving the last sphere I mentioned, when indeed it's serving both.

W. Hurd: I'm aware that there is a federal-provincial agreement in place for Royal Roads that, I think, envisages $20 million over five years. I guess the question is: since the initial placements at the institution are being handled, as the minister indicates, through UVic and Camosun College, how is the financing being arranged? Are the students that are attending the institution being dealt with through the FTEs at the other two institutions? Or are they being charged off against the operating budget of Royal Roads? As the minister knows, that's a joint initiative of the two levels of government, with the federal government providing the bulk of the funding over the next five years.

Hon. M. Sihota: The FTE students are allocated on a joint basis between UVic and Royal Roads. The feds are not providing the bulk of the funding. They are putting in around $4 million, and we're putting in $3.75 million.

W. Hurd: If I have it correct, and I'm looking at the budget allocations for '96-97, the $3.75 million is the provincial allocation and there's an additional $4 million being provided by the federal government.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's $3.75 million.

W. Hurd: So it's a matching system. Can the minister tell us, then, to his knowledge how many students are being funded for that expenditure of $7 million? If the FTEs are being partially offset at the two existing institutions, it seems like an inordinate amount of money for a relatively few students. I wonder if the minister could advise us whether the FTE allotment is factored in, in terms of assessing the costs of the institution.

Hon. M. Sihota: You're right. The per-unit cost, if I can put it that way, is going to be higher for the students there, largely because the allocation this year makes provision for getting the facility up and running and for administration and curriculum development. So there is an unusually large amount of money that goes into that, which, as the institution gets ramped up, will give the impression that the per-unit cost was higher at the beginning. It will then start to decrease as time goes on. It will be out of sync with the per-unit cost at UVic.

W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that, in fact, Royal Roads was required to pay Camosun College and UVic for the FTEs being allocated? Was there an agreement to pay the institutions? The information I had was that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700,000 to UVic and Camosun to locate 100 FTEs at Royal Roads. I wonder if the minister can advise us whether there was a transaction of that nature that occurred and what amount it might have been.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have that number. I can certainly agree to give that to the member by correspondence, but I don't have that number.

W. Hurd: One further clarification. The minister has indicated that the federal allotment for the current fiscal year was $3.75 million and for the past fiscal year it was $5 million. Is that...?

Interjection.

W. Hurd: Okay, that's interesting.

I wonder if I could just turn my attention with respect to Royal Roads to the existing makeup of the university administration. I wonder if the minister could clarify what role John Walsh is playing at the institution at the present time. Is he an interim senior appointment? Is he still seconded with the ministry? What is his classification or his standing?

Hon. M. Sihota: He's not seconded by the ministry. He is seconded from Ontario by Royal Roads, an arrangement that Royal Roads has made for that institution, which I believe is Guelph University in Ontario.

W. Hurd: I may be getting him mixed up with someone else. He's not...? He never was an...? He's not linked with...?

Interjections.

W. Hurd: Fair enough, then. I wasn't sure when I ran across the name. He's been recruited from Ontario so serve as the permanent president.

Can the minister tell us then how many other...? Are all the appointments at Royal Roads now permanent appointments? Is anyone from the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training acting in an interim capacity at all? Or have they all basically been hired from across the country, in terms of a normal hiring procedure at Royal Roads?

Hon. M. Sihota: There is one senior person from the ministry -- that's Nick Rubidge -- and a clerical person. Those are the only people from the ministry.

I just want to make sure that the hon. member didn't make a mistake about John Walsh. I think he referred to him as president of the facility. He is not president; he is the vice-president academic at the facility. But the confusion may arise because he was acting in that capacity, awaiting the arrival of the new president.

W. Hurd: So is Mr. Walsh, who is vice-president academic, an employee of the ministry? No, he's not. I'm just trying to clarify.

Hon. M. Sihota: He is seconded from Guelph University in Ontario, to Royal Roads, but he is there now in the capacity of vice-president academic. The hon. member referred to him 

[ Page 1607 ]

as the president; he is not the president of the facility. That's the only point I was making.

W. Hurd: I have one other question related to Royal Roads, and it was again about the funding allocation. I'm just trying to clarify it in my own mind. The minister has indicated that there would be a higher per-student cost in the first few years, and I didn't quite catch the precise explanation of why that should be. It seems to me that if students are being transferred from another institution, they become the charge and responsibility of the institution to which they transfer. I wonder if he could clarify the business arrangements between the three institutions.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll again give you the explanation that I gave you. The facility is ramping up, and therefore money is being provided this year for administration, curriculum development, planning, and getting the facility up and running. Therefore a larger than normal amount of money is allocated to administration and to ramping up. If you count in the number of students, which is not as great in the first year as it will be in the fifth year, then the per-student cost will be out of sync with the per-student cost at other institutes, like UVic.

W. Hurd: I have just one further point. Can the minister tell us when the institution will be entirely tuition-based? Is that essentially after a five-year period, when the federal commitment runs out? Or is that going to be phased in as well, in terms of the provincial commitment to the institution? I mean, are we dealing with the grants that go beyond the tenure of the federal-provincial agreement?

Hon. M. Sihota: They're making available a business plan to me. That should be in, and when I have it, I can answer the question. I don't have that business plan yet. I know they're working on that.

[10:30]

W. Hurd: I want to ask the minister a question now about the matching-grant program at universities and colleges in British Columbia. I note from the estimates that matching grants for the current fiscal year have actually declined over the estimates for '95-96. I wonder if the minister could perhaps first clarify the role that he feels the ministry can play in attracting private sector capital with a matching-grant program and tell us why the amount is being reduced in this fiscal year -- I believe, if I'm reading it correctly -- from $7.6 million to $6.5 million. I wonder if he could offer an explanation for that.

Hon. M. Sihota: The explanation for that is that there was initially a plan with the institutes so as to.... It was a plan developed in 1993, and the matching component would decrease, so the decrease that you see is reflective of the plan. Everyone knew that was coming. As opposition often ask, we provided a multi-year commitment there, and it decreases from $7.6 million to $6.5 million in accordance with the plan that was developed with the ministry in consultation with universities.

I should also say to the hon. member, in response to your earlier question, that I believe there is great value to society in these matching grants and in private sector involvement.

W. Hurd: I'm aware that many colleges and institutes in British Columbia are going through a strategic planning exercise and, based on new information technologies that are evolving, new ways of delivering programs. I'm certainly aware of the opportunities that exist in matching grants programs -- matching funding from alumni, from the whole range of sources. I wonder whether the ministry is preparing to review its policy on matching grants and whether it feels that there are opportunities to offset the spiralling costs of post-secondary education. Getting back to the technical university, I'm aware that there's a strong feeling on the part of the planning committee that there are many opportunities to raise money from business and industry. I'm certain the minister is aware that Dr. David Strangway at UBC has been very successful in acquiring commitments for capital funding for that institution. I wonder if the time is right for the ministry to review its current programs and whether there is any way they can tap into this desire on the part of the private sector to invest in buildings, in new technologies and in matching grants at our post-secondary institutions.

Hon. M. Sihota: Your comments about UBC are correct and well taken. They can get more money from the private sector than what we'll match, and I have no difficulty with UBC continuing along those lines. We did develop a plan with them that saw it go down to $6.5 million this year. I had not really give any thought to whether or not I wanted to revisit that. I'll think about what the hon. member has to say.

Again, I haven't arrived at the point of detail in terms of my experience in this portfolio to look at this issue in terms of whether a review is warranted. My general inclination is that it works well right now. We did have an agreement, and if people anticipated this in the agreement, then we would probably start to talk about a review of it -- not this fiscal year, but probably two fiscal years from now -- when the amount starts to drop off dramatically.

W. Hurd: I also want in this set of estimates to revisit the student loan program in British Columbia, which I've certainly had representation on, and I'm sure the minister has as well. It's about a system that does invite reform and change. I wonder if the minister could tell us, or perhaps his staff can tell us, whether there is any effort being made during this set of estimates to thoroughly review the student loan program, and the work being done elsewhere in Canada and around North America to improve access to post-secondary education through a more innovative student loan program that makes it easier for students to pay back the amounts involved. I'll ask that question first and then move on to another series of questions about the student loan program.

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer is yes. One of the first instructions I gave to my deputy when I took over this portfolio was that I wanted to process the data with regard to the student loan program. I am awaiting an options report to come back to me; it has not yet come back. But you can anticipate that within this fiscal year, there will be some changes.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can tell us how many spaces in colleges and institutions -- in post-secondary education -- are currently being funded by the B.C. government under the student loan program.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the universities and colleges system, 50,000 students.

W. Hurd: I'm not recognizing that figure. What percentage would that be, then, of the number of students that are 

[ Page 1608 ]

enrolled in post-secondary institutions? Is that a percentage that's going up, or has it remained relatively stable in the last few fiscal years?

Hon. M. Sihota: About 30 percent of the students are funded in the system. As to the degree of fluctuation, we don't have that data here. We can make that available, though.

W. Hurd: I also want, in the context of the loans program, to briefly revisit the tuition freeze issue. I am certainly aware that some institutions have historically done a better job than others of keeping costs down in terms of the fees as a percentage of the total cost of education. I think the University of British Columbia expects that 17 percent of the total tuition cost is actually paid for by students. In some institutions, it's a much higher percentage. I wonder whether the ministry intends to review the impact of the tuition freeze on those institutions that have historically been doing a better job of cushioning students from the fee increases than other institutions. I'm certainly aware that at UBC, for example, the percentage is about 17 percent and that at others it may be higher -- 20 percent, 23 percent. Is there going to be any recognition that some institutions have historically done a better job than others, or are they all going to be lumped into the same pot as far as the impact of the tuition freeze goes?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I had not considered doing that.

W. Hurd: I guess all I can do is point out that the impact of the freeze will almost inevitably not hit institutions equally. Obviously some that have made a concerted effort, like the University of British Columbia, to acquire outside private capital for capital construction projects and to keep their fees down as a percentage of the total cost of a student's education are going to be penalized to a certain degree by the freeze. There's no question that will occur, and what I'm looking for from the minister is an acknowledgement that the freeze will hit institutions unequally and that maybe he'll at least take the matter under advisement. In a future set of estimates we can check back to determine whether any progress might have been made or whether he feels any progress should be made.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll think about it, but I'm not going to be any more definitive than that. The hon. member can pick up from the comments I've been making that I'm not being purposely evasive. I see his point, but I'm not too sure if I intend to do anything about it.

W. Hurd: I don't want to belabour the point, but I do want to point out that if there were an incentive system for institutions that can acquire outside funding -- getting the Honda corporation, for example, to come in and build a building at no cost to the taxpayers -- and therefore keep the cost of tuition for university or college education down, there might be some recognition on the part of the ministry that that's a worthwhile endeavour by the institution and that in terms of funding, there might be some way of recognizing it. I know, as I say, that some institutions have done a fairly exemplary job on a national basis of cushioning students from some of the dramatic increases in costs, with some very innovative partnerships with the private sector. In some institutions the cost of tuition is actually 25 percent or 30 percent of the total cost of the education. I'm looking for some recognition that we have a dilemma there and that there might be some willingness on the part of the ministry to deal with it at a future date.

Hon. M. Sihota: I recognize your point. I'm not going to make the commitment to you that I'm going to do anything about it. I haven't sat back and looked at the public policy implications of doing anything about it, so I'm not going to make that commitment.

W. Hurd: I have another couple of questions about student loans. I wonder if the minister could perhaps describe the nature of the review that the ministry will be doing. Is it an in-house review? Will they be accessing experiments in other jurisdictions about repayment schedules, default rates and those kinds of things? I wonder if he could elaborate on the nature of the review. I think it's really part and parcel of a strategy for improving access to post-secondary education. It isn't just about tuition freezes and creating spaces; it's also recognizing the fact that university, college and institute graduates are net contributors to the economy and generally contribute taxes immediately. Maybe that fact should be built into a recognition of changes to the student loan program.

Hon. M. Sihota: I agree with those points, and we are looking at those types of issues -- as is the federal government, fortunately, and we're going to piggyback on some of their work. But it will be in-house; I'm not going to have a roving commission and all that kind of stuff. We are going to take a look at what's happening in jurisdictions and also at the broader economic implications about the value of graduates to the economic system and try to make some determinations with regard to the loan program. I don't know when I'll be making an announcement with regard to any policy outcomes, but I do anticipate that during the course of this year, some significant work will be done in that regard. I hope to make some policy announcements this fiscal year. I can't commit to that, but I can commit to telling the hon. member that that work will definitely be done.

W. Hurd: Can the minister give us an idea of the current default rate with the student loans program in the province? What percentage of the loans might be written off as uncollectible? Is that trend up or down, or has it remained relatively stable?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is about the same rate as it has been for the last two years -- around 19 percent.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can describe for the committee the formula that is used. In terms of when the ministry makes a decision to write off a loan as uncollectible, are we dealing with a period of years? Are we dealing with percentages that are uncollectible? I wonder if he could just elaborate on the formula that is currently being used.

[10:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: With the new arrangements with the banks, essentially it's the banks' call now.

W. Hurd: I don't have a lot more material to go on here.

I want to ask a couple of questions, however, about the Nelson University Centre Education Society proposal. I did have a chance during my time as critic to tour that facility in Nelson. I am aware that they have struggled on for the last number of years and have actually linked up with other institutions in Canada and the United States, and they are having great difficulty having their courses accepted at other institutions in British Columbia. I certainly think we could engage the minister in a long debate about this issue, but I realize there might not be the time to do it tonight.

I am certainly aware that there has been great difficulty on the part of private post-secondary institutions in getting 

[ Page 1609 ]

their courses accredited and transferable to other institutions. In the case of the Nelson University Centre, I think they have a partnership with Gonzaga University, and they deal with institutions in other parts of Canada. Their courses are fully transferable to those institutions but are not within British Columbia.

I wonder, again with respect to the whole issue of private post-secondary institutions, whether there is any willingness on the part of the ministry to study the applications to accredit the courses from those tuition-based institutions and break down some of the barriers that currently exist between institutions in British Columbia. Certainly the barriers between colleges and universities, I think, have been broken down to a great degree. That is to the benefit of students, who can now get a university degree and never leave their hometowns in British Columbia.

Again, there needs to be a better method of accrediting courses from every type of institution. I wonder if the ministry has, first of all, looked at the Nelson University situation, whether or not their desire to have a charter would be something the ministry would consider in that instance and whether it might consider chartering other private post-secondary institutions as a means of providing additional spaces at no cost to taxpayers.

Hon. M. Sihota: Some of those issues will be dealt with when I release the strategic report that I referred to earlier on. I'm going to release the college strategic report in September. Some of those issues will be canvassed at that point -- not the totality of them. But I want to emphasize that some of those issues will be dealt with at that time. I think it would be instructive for the hon. member to see what is going to come out of that strategic report and then comment back to me with concerns that he may have.

B. Penner: I'm rising today to ask the minister a question concerning Fraser Valley College -- I suppose it's now more accurately referred to as the University College of the Fraser Valley, since they received their degree-granting status. An ongoing issue at the Chilliwack campus of the University College of the Fraser Valley is the completion of what is known as phase 3. I'm just wondering if the minister can confer with his officials and find out, first, whether they're aware of that project referred to as phase 3 and, second, whether they can advise us of its status.

I'll just provide the minister with a bit of background. The Chilliwack campus of the University College of the Fraser Valley was first established just over 20 years ago in what we were told was a temporary building. The building was originally built and designed to be a motel. To my understanding, it never actually operated as a motel, but it was taken over by Fraser Valley College, as it was then referred to. Over the years, of course, enrolment has grown greatly, and classes have grown in size. The building has definitely become inadequate for its intended purpose. There have been plans on the books for several years to build a new facility to house the classrooms, the library and various faculty offices that are required at the Chilliwack location.

This spring, immediately prior to the provincial election, I had an opportunity to meet with officials from the University College of the Fraser Valley and was joined in that meeting by the NDP candidate for Chilliwack, Rollie Keith. Mr. Keith explained in the meeting with the college officials that final approval for phase 3 was imminent and certainly would occur by the fall of 1996. I'm just wondering if the minister is aware of the project known as phase 3 and what its status is in terms of possible funding.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's frozen, and it's part of the capital review.

B. Penner: I'm wondering if the minister can give us any indication when the government will reach its conclusion about phase 3. That is, when will the freeze be completed, and when will the review be completed about projects caught in the freeze?

Hon. M. Sihota: That will be done over the next four months.

B. Penner: Just to wrap up on this topic about the facility at the University College of the Fraser Valley in Chilliwack, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the status is of the plans. How far advanced are they? How far along was the project before it was caught in the freeze? I continue to receive numerous calls from people at the college in Chilliwack, and they're just wondering whereabouts in the process the University College of the Fraser Valley is in terms of phase 3.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's frozen. It will go to a committee of cabinet; cabinet will take a look at it. Those determinations will then be made public after cabinet has dealt with those debt-related issues, probably towards the middle of winter.

B. Penner: I'm not going to belabour this point, but maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question. Have actual drawings been completed? Is the minister aware of any schematics or detailed plans that are completed? I'm just trying to get some sense of where we are in the project design.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the plans have been drawn up.

The Chair: Shall vote 20 pass?

W. Hurd: Just on a point of clarification. Traditionally the votes have all passed together. I have no further questions on post-secondary education, nor, I believe, does our critic on Education, so we are interested in moving on to Labour. Perhaps, in the interests of keeping the votes alive on the order paper, I could move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: There is a motion before the House. The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I recognize the member for Surrey-White Rock on a clarification.

W. Hurd: I'm not sure whether the Ministry of Labour appears as a separate vote; if it is the same ministry, I think that traditionally the votes have passed one after another.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's two separate ministries.

W. Hurd: Fair enough.

The Chair: Does the member withdraw his motion?

W. Hurd: I do.

The Chair: The motion is withdrawn.

Vote 20 approved.

[ Page 1610 ]

Vote 21: ministry operations, $5,794,217,000 -- approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.

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

The committee met at 6:41 p.m.

On vote 22: minister's office, $374,615 (continued).

D. Symons: I wonder if we might ask about the vessel that is being built for the new northern run across the Queen Charlottes, and how far along that construction project is. Do you have a launching date set, and is it on time and on budget? I'll wrap them all together, and you can answer all that.

Hon. D. Miller: It's in the design stage after consultation with the stakeholders.

D. Symons: I thought the contract for the design was awarded a year ago. Is it still being designed?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is. One of the issues that had to be considered is the disaster that took place in the North Sea, so that's being incorporated in the design.

D. Symons: I found what I was looking for a bit earlier in the afternoon, which has to do with the refit of vessels. I notice that the Queen of New Westminster was built in 1964 and that it had some hull modification done. The minister responsible at that time, I believe, said: "The Queen of New Westminster has at least another 30 years of service left, and therefore it is well worth the incremental investment we're making." So I guess I come back to the question I asked earlier; I said 20 years before dinnertime, and here they say 30 years. I guess the statements are by Mr. Ward, the senior vice-president, engineering and construction; he seems to be making the quotes in this particular one.

If that's the case -- and I congratulate them on being able to extend the length of service of these particular vessels -- it does seem that some of our $800 million construction program that we're now embarking on could be avoided if we were to do some upgrading on some of our current ships. I think you answered that earlier, so I don't think you'll want to respond again.

Hon. D. Miller: That vessel underwent a major modification in 1990 -- new hull, new engines -- at a total cost of $51 million, to extend that life for another 20 years.

D. Symons: I have some information here on the conversion that's being done to refit the Queen of Chilliwack. Apparently one yard gave a lower bid, yet the tender was severed between two companies, and I wonder if you could maybe give an explanation as to why that particular severing of the contract was done, when the lowest bid didn't seem to be accepted as the bid for the project.

Hon. D. Miller: That's a vessel and a service I'm particularly proud of, as it serves people on the midcoast, many of whom had not previously had any scheduled service. In fact, it's been an amazing success -- I think I had an article from the Seattle newspaper last week, which has a readership of about 700,000 people. But at the final, if you like, end price, the decision was made to split the tender in two: the steel and the passenger work. The result was a lower end price for that work.

D. Symons: I guess I'm somewhat confused, because if you put out a contract for bids and the lowest bid isn't chosen, I'm not sure how you're saving money on that. But maybe you are, on the various portions of it. You may want to explain that in a moment.

I'm wondering if you might give us an idea of the total cost of the docking improvements that must have been done to the seven stops along that particular Discovery coast route that is now in service?

Hon. D. Miller: We initially constructed the dock at Bella Bella. All the other docks at Bella Coola and Shearwater are being paid for by the communities through one means or another. So really the total capital for the docking and berthing facilities probably exceeded $4 million. As well, Klemtu paid for their own.

[6:45]

In fact -- again not to take too much time in the committee -- it's a remarkable story in terms of some of those small communities obtaining the kinds of resources necessary. I was in Klemtu prior to the inaugural sailing during the election campaign, because it is in my constituency. I want to say that for a very small aboriginal community on the coast, quite isolated, the kind of entrepreneurship and their ability to access some federal funds and some of their own and put that facility in place were truly remarkable. I think they've been very aggressive in trying to provide opportunities for tourists on that vessel. It really was a significant event in their lives to have that facility there and have that ship call in on a regular basis to their communities.

D. Symons: Prior to initiating this particular service by B.C. Ferries, I think you had Coast Ferries Ltd. operating 

[ Page 1611 ]

a freight service, and to some extent maybe a passenger service, to some of those communities. I wonder, then, when B.C. Ferries moved into this, had you done a business plan or a cost-benefit analysis before you entered into the project and decided to do it? Again, like the other question I had on the fast ferries, would it be possible to get a copy of the business plan or cost-benefit analysis that was put in place, whatever information was used to make the decision to set up this particular route?

Hon. D. Miller: There is a strategy document called Go North 96, a remarkable document in that it was put together by stakeholders, people from the communities, all from the midcoast north -- some very, very able representation. I'm thinking of Russ Helberg, the mayor of Port Hardy, Percy Starr from Klemtu, people from Shearwater and all the way along who put together that strategy with B.C. Ferries. We provided the initial discussion document and more or less designed the system that suited their needs. Yes, there is a plan, and it is available.

Just for the information of the committee, to date there are reservations for about 7,500 people, 1,600 underheight vehicles and in excess of 500 overheight vehicles. It's opened up one of the most magnificent areas of the province. It appears, as we've said right from the beginning, that we're going to have to monitor that. It's only a summer service at this point. Ideally, we want to take it to year-round service, over time. It's got to prove itself.

I was delighted when I was in Bella Coola -- again, a community in my constituency -- to see that while the dock was under construction, the local hotel was undergoing a complete renovation of all the rooms. I understand from conversations I've had with people in Bella Coola that the traffic there has resulted in.... You can't find a hotel room in the summer season. It's providing new economic opportunities. It really is something that we're all very proud of at B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: Yes, I'm sure there are many people on the highway route between there and Williams Lake that will also appreciate that. I know that the mayor of Williams Lake was quite supportive about the ferry service coming in there.

I was going to ask something on ridership, but going back to your response about the business plan that I asked about, what I didn't hear.... You talked about the various stakeholders there. Was there a financial plan in there as well? There seemed to be a lot of interest on the part of people there, but I don't know whether these people were necessarily the people who could do an appropriate business plan, from an economic viewpoint, in setting up that ferry route. Could you assure me that in this information you are going to give me, there will be the financial plan as well?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we will. I should say, in the early days.... The stakeholder committee is a new process, and we did have some difficulties. I recall the former mayor of Williams Lake -- I'm not sure if he's the current mayor -- aggressively demanding that we go out and spend a million and a half dollars without tendering or any other thing. It was a bit difficult. We had a few stakeholder meetings, and we had some of those things to overcome, but in the end, we did make the right decision with respect to that service.

I forgot to mention the Cariboo. When I started working on this project, I'd never even thought about the Cariboo. But in the end, some of the biggest boosters of this service are people from the Cariboo. Brian Gunn, who was formerly head of the Cariboo Tourist Association, did a lot of very good work. It's opened up a circle route potential across the Chilcotin plateau.

Mr. Rhodes advises me that he gets a lot of these forms that are filled out by customers on the vessel. Just to illustrate -- these are certainly nice to read -- here's one from some interior people from 100 Mile House: "This new service offered us the best holiday we have ever had." That's not bad, the best holiday they've ever had. "The crew was fantastic." "Thank you for great service." "The customer service rep was just the best." This is another one from 100 Mile House: "I wish to tell you how absolutely thrilled I was to travel this ferry. Staff were friendly and helpful." These are the kinds of things that, as the minister, I like to see, and I know that the administration, senior executives and others in B.C. Ferries are thrilled to get this kind of response from the public. It indicates that we are doing our job and doing it well, and that's always very gratifying.

D. Symons: Thank you. I'll wait eagerly for that business plan, then.

Hon. D. Miller: Take a trip.

D. Symons: Oh, I'd love to. If we weren't tied up here, I'd love to take a trip on it.

From what I gather, though, passenger ridership has not been that great yet. You gave me some numbers earlier. I was under the impression that it would be possible to get on the vessels at any time at all. As a matter of fact, I actually contacted the reservations and found out that, anytime I wanted to go, there would be no problem. I didn't identify myself, so it wasn't that I was getting special treatment. There seemed to be room on every sailing.

I wonder if we can just move on a little bit, because during the business of inaugurating that particular route, of course, Coast Ferries lost some of the business that they normally had given to the coast there and were in the process of litigating against the government over their loss of business. I gather that the person from Coast Ferries approached the Premier, and Mr. Kerley was asked to come in and do some mediation. I wonder what the result of that may have been.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, with respect to the ridership, I did read the numbers earlier, and I should tell you that our projection at the end of three years is 15,000. It will be 10,000 this year. I think that is amazing. This service was put into place in a very, very quick way. It was moved very quickly. We talked about splitting the shipyard contracts. I don't think there's ever been a service that's been initiated in that hasty or speedy a manner. The opportunity for marketing was limited. Notwithstanding that, there have been feature articles in the Vancouver Sun, in the Victoria Times Colonist, in the Seattle Times, in the Washington Post. Word is spreading. I haven't talked to a single person who's familiar with the route, who either has gone on it or has heard about it who has said they don't want to go.

I would appreciate any support the opposition might give, and I would highly recommend that all MLAs take an opportunity to travel on these routes, for a couple of reasons. One is that, it seems to me, it gives MLAs an opportunity to look at various parts of our province that they may not be familiar with. As the MLA for the region, I can tell you that it's pretty tough getting around sometimes. You've got to take floatplanes, mostly. You know, I've had my experiences flying 

[ Page 1612 ]

into Ocean Falls in 40-knot winds in a Beaver. You've got to think of British Columbians and what they have to experience in their normal lives. It's not what we experience down here in the lower mainland, where you hop on the freeway, and you may not like the traffic, but it's a heck of a lot different, I can tell you.

This service to the midcoast is absolutely something they've been after for so long that I know they're tickled about getting it. But I know Bill New, and I want to say he's a gentleman in Coast Ferries that I have a lot of respect for, because Bill is the second generation -- it was his father before him -- that has provided service on this coast. Bill was, quite frankly, in my view, the victim of a decision made prior to us becoming government, and that was the decision made by Ferries at the time to drop the subsidy to Coast Ferries and instead to allocate it to a tug and barge company out of Campbell River. That was really the problem that Bill had.

Notwithstanding that, we've tried to work with him, and I think we have, in extending contracts to make sure that he continues to provide that freight service that's valuable to communities up there. This service is only a summer service; there will be an ongoing need for private sector service. We have referred the issues that Mr. New is concerned about to Doug Kerley. I understand that that process is moving along, and we hope to reach some resolution that's satisfactory both to the Ferry Corporation and to Mr. New.

D. Symons: I gather there are some people that aren't happy. I'm happy for the service, just to have it on record. I guess my concerns are, maybe -- looking at Victoria Line and the government seeming to move out of that particular service and get somebody else to take it over -- that now when you set something up like this, there might be a bit longer-term commitment to it, particularly making sure that at least it's not going to be another drain on the taxpayers of the province beyond what was there prior to it.

One of the owners of a store in Ocean Falls says that the cost of her freight, to get goods to her store, is going to pretty well double, because B.C. Ferries now has that particular service, which used to go by Coast Ferries. It was delivered then in a sort of consolidated delivery fashion. Now they have to take smaller amounts in, and they're going to have to pay twice as much. Unless they get a large volume of sales, it will cost them more. I suppose that will happen in the other communities as well -- that there can be costs to the community beyond the costs of putting in the docks. The cost of supplies might go up now that B.C. Ferries is doing it, rather than down.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think that that story is exactly accurate. I don't want to get into it, necessarily.

I want to deal with the issue of Victoria Line compared to the midcoast. Victoria Line is an operation that runs to a foreign country. It provides significant benefits. I don't want to get into that, although we have people here, and that may become an issue we can canvass in these estimates.

[7:00]

But the comparison with the midcoast is completely inappropriate. It's a service to British Columbians who have not had much service to date. They've only had a subsidized private sector carrier, with the exception of Bella Bella, which has seen the northern vessel from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert call in only at dockside, unable to off-load or load freight or vehicles. The midcoast has been ignored for well over 30 years. I can tell you that as an MLA for the last ten, I have pursued this for five years in opposition and then, to my pleasure, as a member of the government and finally am able to see some improvement in that service.

We are challenged. The corporation is challenged, obviously. We talked about the issue of the operating loss and the subsidy that's required -- in the study by Mr. Waters, I think -- for some of the routes. There's no question that some routes, the Gulf Islands routes, are subsidized very heavily. But surely the member is not arguing that British Columbians who happen to live in Ocean Falls or Klemtu or Bella Bella or Bella Coola or Namu or Shearwater aren't entitled to some consideration when it comes to having some minimal service with respect to their communities, whether it's for freight and passengers or the tremendous tourism opportunities that this service now provides.

Link Lake up behind Ocean Falls has some of the biggest trout you will ever land. I recommend to the member that if he wants to go up there, I can give him the names of some people, and they'll take him up to Link Lake, and he'll catch a fish that he'll just be thrilled with. Word will get around, and he'll tell his friends, and they'll want to take the service. The next thing you know, those communities will actually have a bit of an economic base. So you have to look at all of those factors in assessing the value of this service.

D. Symons: I'm glad. I share the minister's enthusiasm. My comment about the cost-effectiveness is simply that what B.C. Ferries is putting in is no more a cost factor to the taxpayers of British Columbia than it was before. The routes before were subsidized. So as long as B.C. Ferries can end up maintaining the service -- or improving the service, as apparently they are doing -- and we don't end up greatly going further into the red in operating that service, I'd be delighted to support it.

I wonder if we can just move to a few different topics now and away from that particular route. A year or so ago a voyage recorder was being tested on B.C. Ferries, and I haven't heard what the outcome of that was. There was one being tested on one of the ferries, I believe. Was it working? It's basically a black box for ferries. Did it work out, and is it being installed on all the ferries?

Hon. D. Miller: That's still in the development and testing stage. The theory is to develop a black box, similar to what's used in aircraft, that would record all of the information that would be required in the case of an accident. That would really, in some ways, develop international standards and might provide the opportunity to market technology developed here in British Columbia.

D. Symons: It seems that's the answer I got a year ago when I asked the questions. I thought maybe the testing had been finished, and it was.... So you're taking your time; you're doing a thorough job, I would hope.

If we can just go back about a month's time -- I think it was July 15 -- one of these Spirit-class vessels had some trouble docking at Swartz Bay. From what I gather, it couldn't do its cat walk sideways to get into the dock and then back in. There seemed to be some difficulty. I gather it circled a few times, and they got a line on it and pulled it over.

I am just wondering that we had that happen. A year before -- back in September before -- there was also a problem with the Spirit of Vancouver Island. It was out of service for, I think, two weeks. I just want to see what the problem was; I think I wrote it down here -- I didn't. Is there some 

[ Page 1613 ]

inherent problem with a mechanical difficulty in the Spirit of Vancouver Island? It was a bearing in the sealed casing, apparently, a ball-bearing problem on the Spirit of Vancouver Island. Was it a similar problem that happened more recently or a different problem, and is there an inherent problem in that particular vessel?

Hon. D. Miller: No inherent problems. I believe the record of B.C. Ferries with respect to their maintenance and operation of vessels is outstanding. The two problems are unrelated. One was a bow thruster. The Spirit of Vancouver Island was a steering gear seal. It could have been run, but out of abundance of caution a decision was made not to.

D. Symons: We get into a few unpleasant little incidents here, and this is the one that involves the Bowen Island accident last November. I guess the biggest issue at that particular time was the fact that apparently the ferry captain, after he backed into the wharf nearby and damaged the boats, simply took off and headed across to stay on the run. It shows bad judgment on the part of the captain at that time, but also I wonder if the captain wasn't pressured by B.C. Ferry Corporation's insistence on being on time and keeping to schedule. That might have been one of the causes of his lack of good judgment at that particular time.

Hon. D. Miller: No, it's not because of the schedule. It was a mechanical malfunction in the steering leg. The issue's been dealt with, with respect to the actions of personnel.

D. Symons: I'm shocked at the minister's answer, hon. Chair. If there's a mechanical malfunction, then the man puts out to sea after? It would seem logical that if there was some mechanical malfunction, indeed they would not proceed. What's going to happen at the dock on the other side when they get to Horseshoe Bay? What could happen halfway across? It would seem only logical that if there was some sort of mechanical malfunction, you would end up holding back to find out what the problem was. If it's human error that's one thing, but mechanical malfunction is not predictable.

I gather that the captain was disciplined for his action there. Was that simply because he left the dock, or was that because there was some human error in what was done that led up to the accident?

Hon. D. Miller: It's not that I'm not easily shocked, but suffice to say that the issue was dealt with.

I suppose it's easy here, sitting in this room. I think the incident occurred because the feeling was that the crew.... Obviously, in a ship -- I've been a mariner myself, briefly -- the skipper has responsibility for that ship. They thought the problem was overcome. They shouldn't have done it. Appropriate action was taken with respect to dealing with the crew, and I wouldn't make too much out of it.

D. Symons: I had the joy -- it wasn't much of a joy for a young lad, when I was a very young lad -- of steering HMCS Ontario out of Esquimalt Harbour a long time ago. I didn't do a very good job of it; they took me off the helm. I had a little bit of a thing going across there. That's why the Ontario is no longer there, I suppose.

The information I had was that there was some problem in transferring control from the helm at that time. That was more of a human error, I think, than a mechanical error, on the part of the crew of the vessel.

We'll get into another incident, where the crew of the Queen of Cumberland basically failed their safety drill. There was a comment that the officer didn't adequately ensure the training of the crew in their respective duties as outlined in the "B.C. Ferry Corporation Manual of Administration" dealing with crew responsibilities. This is a summary of the findings on that particular event. I guess I have a concern that having a manual is one thing, but seeing that its requirements are followed is quite another. It seems that maybe the training process for the crews on our various vessels in the B.C. Ferry Corporation isn't what it could be.

Hon. D. Miller: No, that's not a correct characterization. The Coast Guard has an SIC-16, an annual certification. It's not uncommon for the Coast Guard to ask for a retest, and in fact we welcome that. We want to have the very highest standard. It would be improper to characterize that as a failure. The process, I think, is working, and we're working well with it.

D. Symons: I gather that one of the steps taken was that the captain of that particular vessel was demoted, and he felt that he was treated unfairly in the process. I think he's quoted in the newspaper as saying that he complained that the training department of B.C. Ferries is basically defunct. The training, especially on minor vessels, is virtually non-existent. He comments that there are hundreds of ferry workers who are sent on board without the Coast Guard marine emergency duty certificate, because B.C. Ferries has a waiver. I think those are quite serious comments by that person. One thing we know is what happened to the captain. But can you tell me what additional training the crew received? Apparently they weren't following orders or weren't sure of what to do. As a crew, there seemed to be a lot of uncertainty of what to do. Can you give us some idea of what remedial work was done with that crew to bring them into line?

Hon. D. Miller: This is just really a caution. You talk about bringing the crew into line and about a failure, and you cite an individual who apparently has some problems. This is a bit of a caution in terms of using that as an authority, whether it's a newspaper or wherever the information comes from. The fact is that the crew were retested and passed. B.C. Ferries does spend a considerable amount of money on training, about $4.6 million or $4.7 million. Really, the bottom line is that we have a very good safety record. It is the top issue with B.C. Ferries.

There was a very unfortunate incident a number of years ago in Nanaimo, and steps were taken to address the issues that were identified as a result of that review. We have a top-notch service. We have dedicated crew, right from the lowest deckhand up to the captains, and they take that responsibility extremely seriously. I don't want any aspersions cast on B.C. Ferries and the very dedicated staff in terms of their commitment to safety in the operation of the ships, with the passengers, and the rest of it.

We run a very large ferry fleet. Occasionally incidents do arise -- we talked about the Bowen Island incident -- but steps are taken to address those when they do. I can assure the member -- and I am sure that the member is not really wanting to cast any aspersions -- that safety is number one with this corporation.

[7:15]

D. Symons: We heard those words after we had an accident in Nanaimo and when we had an accident at the 

[ Page 1614 ]

Tsawwassen terminal with a coal ship, as well. So it may be number one, but accidents occur. There are a number of them that have occurred. I think we should work on anything we can do to improve that, and that was the reason for my questions.

I am wondering if the minister might tell us a bit about the memorandum of understanding you have with the union for an operational senior joint safety and health committee. I wonder if the agreement with the union sets up an umpire that can be used, and if you have an umpire chosen. How many committee meetings have there been in 1995, the past operational year, and in the year before that?

Hon. D. Miller: There hasn't been the need to use an umpire. The corporation and its employees have resolved the issues they have in common. In respect to safety, there are regular meetings on a monthly basis, and I think they are doing their best with respect to safety issues.

D. Symons: This is a difficult one, since no issues have been referred to that particular joint committee. That seems to be what the minister was saying, because they haven't had to have an umpire chosen. Could you give us an idea how many issues might come up over a year, when the committee, minus the umpire, meets? You say they have been resolved, but could you give me just a rough figure of the type and number of safety issues that might be discussed in a year?

Hon. D. Miller: We do have in Capt. Harry Martin, vice-president, one of the very best people with respect to marine safety; he has extensive experience in the Coast Guard. I think our program is second to none. The issues that are discussed with the employees are really ongoing issues that in some degree reflect my own experience in an industrial background, where there were monthly meetings. Current issues -- or issues that we on the union side felt had not been addressed properly -- were brought up at those meetings, and there was a process to try to resolve them. So it's pretty difficult to catalogue or itemize the issues, the numbers, or that kind of thing; safety is an ongoing, dynamic process that really requires full involvement. Anybody, particularly in industry, understands this. It only works if both management and unionized workers feel that they have common goals and mutual interests in respect to these questions -- and they do. When they realize that, and dedicate themselves, it works.

D. Symons: Would some of the difficulties in dealing with safety issues relate to the union contract you have? Some of the safety issues that management would perhaps prefer to deal with might involve more flexible hours or sailing arrangements than the union is willing to accept. Will those be discussed during those meetings?

Hon. D. Miller: No. Safety is not at all compromised by trade union agreements.

D. Symons: I want to move on to a slightly different, but related, topic. A little more than a month ago, I noticed a headline of a newspaper article in the Times Colonist that said: "Top Skippers Promised for Fast Ferries." The article said that you were going to use the best skippers on your fast ferries. I thought I would just make the comment that I would hope that all your skippers are the best possible and that you wouldn't have a problem in choosing the best ones, because you have them already. I don't know if you want to respond to that, so I'll just carry on.

I wonder if the workforce has been hired, because you've started cutting material and so forth for the construction of the ferries, I believe. That's going to come up fairly shortly. I believe someone indicated that if the Liberals were elected, it would mean termination notices on that project, and 350 people would soon be out of work. I'm trying to find out who made that comment; it was one of your members. It looks like it might have been Mr. Ward who made that comment, as he's the only one quoted in this paper. Maybe Mr. Ward would care to respond. What I want to know is: did you have 350 people on your workforce who would have been out of a job if the Liberals had been elected and they had terminated the fast-ferry project?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the headline, I can say with complete candour that we didn't write it. But I believe the article does talk about our very high standard of training, and obviously all of our people are top-calibre in that respect.

I've been known to indulge in a bit of politics from time to time. I think I recall that even I said that once -- or maybe two, three or even four times -- but I think it was quite appropriate. To put the member's mind at ease, the Liberals didn't get elected, so the crisis is past.

D. Symons: In that case, maybe we can all breathe easier -- I never said that, mind you.

I wonder if we can just look again at a comment made a year ago about the results of that rather tragic accident in Nanaimo. Apparently, the conclusion of the hearings was that the rushing ferry and this business of keeping to schedule actually led to the deaths. Basically, the captain pulled out a little too early, before the full loading procedure had been done. I've mentioned this before, and in past estimates too. I see that you're bringing in fast ferries and that you're still very time-conscious, so I wonder what you've done. I think that people appreciate the fact that ferries are basically ready to go -- on the hour in the summer or on odd hours in the winter. But are schedules so tight that there isn't enough flexibility in your time, such that if something untoward happened or if a full load was there, then it would put pressure on the captain to somehow make up the time? They may end up, as seems to have been the case here, putting lives in jeopardy by trying to keep to schedule.

Hon. D. Miller: This is a very, very serious issue. That was not, I repeat not, the conclusion of the investigators -- the Coast Guard and others, in that instance. It's very, very important that this is on the record and that we be absolutely clear. Those reports are public, I assume. The schedule was completely exonerated with respect to that incident. I think that that should be absolutely crystal-clear. The fundamental cause was the lack of adherence to the clearance procedures required prior to embarkation. So let nobody make any mistake that somehow we are driving these ferries to maintain a schedule and that that is compromising safety. Again, I don't want to overstate this. It's very easy to say, but it is fundamentally and absolutely not true.

D. Symons: That particular concern, though, seems to raise its head quite frequently when accidents occur, so I think there may be some concern, whether it's founded or not. It's certainly an issue that seems to come up almost every time an accident occurs, that there was that particular aspect involved in it.

In that particular incident, there was a lawsuit involved. I believe the minister responsible at the time indicated that they 

[ Page 1615 ]

would be settling.... I don't think he used the word "generously"; I forget the word he used at the time. It was certainly indicated that there would be a substantial indemnity paid to the victims that remained. You did reach an out-of-court settlement a few years later with the person. Would you be able to tell us what the figure of that was?

Hon. D. Miller: That issue was settled, Mr. Chairman. There was no litigation, and there is a confidentiality issue with respect to the families which we will respect.

D. Symons: I have some concerns about the last phrase there -- the confidentiality agreement -- because I'm aware that when a good number of the people who left the upper echelons in B.C. Transit were ushered out the door with a golden handshake, basically part of the agreement of the golden handshake was that you would not disclose what particular figure they were given. So my question here is whether the confidentiality is because of the Askew family seeking it, or whether this was part of the agreement that B.C. Ferries made with them, to make a settlement of that case. Where did the initiation for keeping it confidential come from?

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's somewhat offensive to try to put those two issues together: the issues around senior management at B.C. Transit and the very tragic events that occurred in Nanaimo, and the commitment of B.C. Ferries and this government to reach a settlement that was appropriate and to respect the confidentiality of family members with respect to that settlement. I find that, quite frankly, offensive, and I don't know why the member would want to put those two issues together. He may want to take the opportunity to clarify that he wasn't trying to compare the two. It really is.... Well, perhaps the member may want to try to clarify it.

D. Symons: I guess my question -- and it wasn't answered in your response -- was about where the desire for confidentiality originated. If it was from the Askew family, I can quite see the reasoning there. If it originated with B.C. Ferries, I think there's quite another story to it. That was the reason for my question, and you very nicely danced around giving an answer to it.

Hon. D. Miller: I never danced around anything. I said, "With respect to confidentiality to the families, at their request," so let's be clear. I think it's quite offensive to try to compare issues around senior management in another corporation with a tragic accident.

P. Reitsma: I'm going to ask a friendly question, so relax. I too have been a mariner, by the way -- about three and a half years or a little bit longer on the nice ships, the cruise ships. One of them, the old Rotterdam.... I think they're making Datsuns out of them now, actually. She's been retired -- 37,000 tonnes. I've traversed, in fact, all the oceans.

On what my colleague mentioned, in terms of the ferry service, I've been on many of the ferry services in Scandinavia and Russia and through the Channel, when I was hosting tours. I do think we have a good system and a good crew. But I would like a statement of comfort. Although I think my business is the best and I've got the best staff, I do send them to training seminars and upgrading courses. I want them to be on top, in terms of their business approach and marketing, as much as possible. I certainly would like a statement of comfort from the minister that staff and crew stay on top in terms of safety and that they're vigilant. Keep in mind, of course, that although things may be good, there's always room for improvement. I think a statement of comfort is not only good for us but for the employees as well.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's remarks, and we do. I don't think any operation should rest on its laurels or think: "We've been doing a good job; therefore we are continuing to do a good job." There has to be an internal process. I talked about the money we spent on training, the independent audits we do and the review teams. I was really quite pleased, actually, to read the comments of a couple of British Columbians from the interior on the new service, the Queen of Chilliwack, on the midcoast. I've been mostly connected with the northern run. I don't take the Vancouver-Vancouver Island run very much, but rather the northern vessel from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. I must say that in the times I've been on there, the passengers, I think, are always very pleased with the efficiency of the operation, whether that's on the food service side or the general relationship between staff and mostly, but not exclusively, foreign visitors. I think the testimonials the corporation gets are proof of that.

It is an important service. We realize that in addition to providing service to British Columbians, it also provides important tourist opportunities in this province. We think that's a very vital role in contributing to the economy of this province, and one we take seriously.

P. Reitsma: I think there ought to be only one aim or one goal, and that's no accidents.

I ask the minister: are any layoffs anticipated, or a reduction in staff?

Hon. D. Miller: No. There are obviously the seasonal complements that change as the summer season ends and we go on reduced sailing times on some of our runs, but nothing major.

[7:30]

P. Reitsma: I live on the Island, obviously, and many of us on the Island see, of course, B.C. Ferries as an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. I was not here earlier when my colleague might have asked some questions with regard to subsidies. If I'm repetitive, I hope the minister bears with me. Are there are some subsidies to us? Are there any ongoing negotiations between the B.C. government and the federal government in terms of perhaps seeing the extension of the Trans-Canada Highway onto the ferry system?

Hon. D. Miller: No. We are in receipt of a federal subsidy that has a long history. I think I did detail that previously, going back to the time the federal government arbitrarily removed the subsidy for Northland Navigation back in the early 1970s, around 1974. As a result of that, we have a subsidy that's indexed to Vancouver's CPI, I think, which was originally $4 million and now is in the $21 million range. Quite frankly, our primary effort is to ensure that the federal government, which has already tried to cut this -- we fought them successfully on that -- does not eliminate this subsidy. It's there for a specific purpose. It's an agreement between the federal government and the provincial government, and it's obviously important to our operations.

P. Reitsma: I understand that in terms of the cost recovery, there is a net loss per year of $3.4 million and a net depreciation of $40 million.

[ Page 1616 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I've answered that.

P. Reitsma: How does that compare with the subsidies per head, per ride, with, say, the light rapid transit system?

Hon. D. Miller: Any particular system?

P. Reitsma: Fair enough.

Are rate increases anticipated? If so, how much and why?

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect to the member, I have covered this fairly extensively.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might go to the auditor general's report to do with the B.C. Ferry Corporation and its fleet and terminal maintenance management operations. I just have a couple of questions on that particular report. It seems that in their overall conclusions, which I'm reading from on page 14.... In spite of itself, the maintenance program has been very good. When you read through here, that seems to be the case: "The corporation's maintenance program lacks several elements required to enable the corporation to ensure that vessels and terminals are being maintained in a cost-effective manner." It goes on later to indicate that that, indeed, is happening, but not because the Ferry Corporation seems to have anything in place to do it. Further down, it says: "...the corporation does not currently have an adequate information system by which the costs and results of maintenance activities can be measured."

Maybe I can finish off the whole thing all at once here, and then the minister only has to get up once. If we skip down a little further on that same page, it says:

"The corporation has determined that most equipment on vessels should be subject to preventive maintenance. Over time, engineers on each vessel have developed adequate maintenance procedures...."

"We noted, however, that preventive maintenance procedures are not consistent throughout the fleet, or even between vessels of the same type."

"Much of the maintenance is scheduled on the basis of individual memory and informal records rather than through a systematic approach."

At the bottom of page 15, it goes on:

"The corporation lacks assurance that the optimum amount of maintenance is being done in a cost-effective manner. Until recently, cost-effectiveness of maintenance has not been a major issue for the corporation. However, we found evidence of a growing awareness of the importance of cost-effectiveness."

I think that's the part that I want some reassurance on -- that besides the awareness, you are moving in that direction.

They make a recommendation at the end. Can the minister tell us what steps have now been taken in that regard since this has been brought to your attention?

Hon. D. Miller: That's very interesting. We at the corporation try to address the issues raised by the auditor general. It's apparently a fairly new field -- having auditors determine whether or not you have a good maintenance or safety or other program. Quite frankly, I wouldn't count myself a skeptic, but I think we should always be cautious about sort of blindly accepting any findings that we receive. I think the obligation of any prudent corporation is to analyze and to be critical where they think that's appropriate. Certainly the corporation has tried to do that in working with the auditor general. I think it's clear that the report concludes that the vessels and terminals are well maintained, that adequate preventive maintenance is carried out and that in every respect we do an outstanding job. We will continue to work with the auditor, in terms of the kinds of findings and conclusions that he might come up with, to ensure that we are fulfilling our mandate of having a very safe, efficient operation to serve the travelling public in British Columbia.

D. Symons: I just would have been a little more reassured by the minister's answers if he had indicated that they were putting in something more than the memory of some of the particular maintenance staff on ferries. Indeed, if a man who has a good memory is away ill or retires or something, maybe a lot of that recordkeeping might go with him, if it's only in the head. I think we do want some sort of regular scheduled maintenance procedures in place that everybody would know about, so that we do not depend upon individuals doing a good job. Indeed, I agree with the minister that we have been very fortunate and that you've had some good individuals looking after that. But I think the auditor general's comments probably are germane to the issue: we can't depend entirely upon the calibre of the people we have. We must have other systems in place to make sure that it carries on. So you might want to respond.

Hon. D. Miller: I think we have an adequate system. That's why we have the computerized maintenance management project.

Perhaps it's my blind faith in my fellow man, if I can use that term. I and other members have mentioned that we've been at sea. I wasn't way out there in the ocean, but I was on the coast of B.C. in a tugboat. I've got to tell you that the corporate memory of the people who were running those tugboats was quite valuable to me. In fact, the corporate memory of some of those people saved people's lives. So don't ever discount that factor. If we think that computers and systems are going to solve all our problems, then I think it's a pretty sorry day. It's human beings, using systems. That corporate memory and that experience that people accumulate over time are pretty important and should never, ever be sold short.

D. Symons: I'm not at all differing with the member -- except the one thing I would say is that you mentioned that it's human beings using a system. Indeed, the auditor general implied that there wasn't too much of a system there for them to be working with. That was my concern.

Just moving on a bit, I referred earlier to, and asked the minister if he could supply me with, the business plan for.... I notice in the Howe Sound-Sunshine Coast advisory committee minutes of April 29, 1995, this action item: "B.C. Ferries will provide to the advisory committee an executive summary of the fast ferry cost-benefit analysis." If we skip ahead to the next monthly meeting, we find: "Len Roueche explained that the corporation does not yet have a suitable executive summary of the fast ferry cost-benefit analysis." I was asking for something similar to that, and it still was in the works. This was as of May 27, 1995. Has the particular one they were asking for been supplied to the Howe Sound-Sunshine Coast advisory committee?

Hon. D. Miller: I was just checking to see whether the summary was too long, but.... No, I understand it's been sent. We'll provide a copy to the member.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that.

I wonder if we can go on to the fast ferries now, since I'm asking a question on that. I'm reading various articles and 

[ Page 1617 ]

releases and so forth dealing with it, and there seems to be some confusion in my mind over the horsepower involved in the fast ferries. I read something where Mr. Ward is quoted as talking about 33,000 horsepower, and somewhere else the minister responsible at the time was talking about 37,500 horsepower. You've made a deal with Detroit Diesel. I wonder which horsepower these ferries will be powered by.

Hon. D. Miller: It's a question of how you tune them up. The maximum is 37,000 horsepower; we're going to take 33,500.

D. Symons: It's the same engine, but by fine-tuning it you can do something of that sort. At what percentage of its output capacity would you be operating those engines to get to 37 knots?

Hon. D. Miller: The low 90s.

D. Symons: I wonder if you might give us an idea of what happens to fuel consumption when you operate an engine at that degree of its output, because I gather that in automobile engines when you get much past 60 miles an hour -- that is 100 kilometres per hour -- and you go up another ten, your fuel consumption begins to climb quite rapidly, and you get a logarithmic-type graph. What would happen with these diesel engines involved in the fast ferries as you get up to 90 percent output?

Hon. D. Miller: Fuel use is directly proportional to the horsepower used.

D. Symons: If you were operating at 80 percent capacity of the engine, and you upped it to 90 percent, by what percentage would your fuel consumption increase?

Hon. D. Miller: I did say directly proportional.

D. Symons: The minister seems to be implying to me, if you're saying it's directly proportional, that diesel engines operate differently from gasoline engines, as far as output goes.

Hon. D. Miller: From 80 to 90 is ten, so that's....

D. Symons: It would be just another ten to get up to 100 percent, if you had it going flat out; that's what you're saying. So obviously diesel engines operate differently from gasoline engines. I'll have to check that out with my experts in that particular field. That's not what I believed to be the case.

Anyway, I wonder if the minister might tell me how you can get by with either 33,500 or 37,500 when there seem to be similar vessels built recently that require considerably more -- up to 20 percent more horsepower -- in order to get them up to even a lower speed than you anticipate that these ferries will be operating at. I believe there was one constructed just recently in Norway. It's 88 metres, and it's going to carry 900 passengers and 165 vehicles. That's a smaller capacity than our ferry is going to have. It has a cruising speed of 40 knots, slightly higher, but it will require 44,000 horsepower. Have you got some magic hull design that's going to give it that increase?

Hon. D. Miller: A different hull design is the answer to that question. It's a semi-SWATH and requires more horsepower. Hull form is really the issue, and the catamaran is really much lower than the SWATH.

D. Symons: I gather that Incat has been in the forefront of design. What you're saying about the fast ferries that are now being designed for B.C. Ferries is that they have made some further breakthroughs in hull design that are going to allow them to operate at that lower horsepower.

[7:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I think the answer to that, to some degree, is yes. There have been various modifications to hull design, obviously looking at trying to reach.... I guess I could use the term "optimum" with respect to horsepower requirements, fuel use, speed -- all those kinds of things. The answer to the question is that this hull design is one that requires far less horsepower.

D. Symons: When B.C. Ferries first gave the contract, I guess, partnered with Incat, we were told that this was a world leader and the most experienced leader in the building of fast ferries. That's why we did a partnering with Incat. I wonder now why we're bringing in what appeared at that time to be an also-ran, Finnyard, as an adviser to B.C. Ferries. Indeed, you took the top person already, yet Finnyard seem to be the people that built the very ferry I was talking about a moment ago that requires more horsepower than B.C. Ferries is putting into theirs.

Hon. D. Miller: It's Incat's design and Finnyard's construction. That's the simple answer.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might tell me whether the tank test done on the design model tested those models at the equivalent of the 37 knots in a fully loaded fashion?

Hon. D. Miller: I think they did even better than that, but the answer is yes.

D. Symons: Therefore, when we get on the water, we're going to see that indeed it's going to perform as we've been told. I wonder if we might take a look at the shed that's being built. I think I've asked elsewhere.... During the estimates for Environment it was discovered that that particular property had some contamination on it. I gather that the Vancouver Port Corporation is responsible for cleaning that up. The shed is costing $9 million. I wonder if you might be able to tell me whether that $9 million includes the equipment needed to build the ships, the welding equipment for aluminum-welding and other special equipment, scaffolds, cranes, etc. Is that going to be a fully operational shed when it's finished, for the $9 million?

Hon. D. Miller: We've completed, I think, most of the contaminated-material removal. It was a former asbestos loading dock for Cassiar Asbestos. The cost is between $9 million and $10 million, and it will be a fully equipped dock for construction.

D. Symons: Have you a tentative date when that will be in operation? Because right now I gather they're simply putting the foundations in.

[ Page 1618 ]

Hon. D. Miller: The end of construction is the end of September, and it will be fully operational at the end of October.

D. Symons: When the cost of the fast ferries was put at $210 million -- $70 million per ship -- was that $9 million incorporated into the overall cost, so that it's being basically amortized over the three ships?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

D. Symons: We have a capital freeze on right now, and apparently only one of the three vessels is going ahead for the time being, until there is a review done on all capital projects. I gather it was said recently that there has been $150 million already spent on or committed to the ferry program. If you stop at only the first ferry.... If, by chance, in this freeze we have a problem, in that you've already spent twice what one ferry should cost.... You're halfway through your total already, and you haven't got any ferries built yet.

Hon. D. Miller: Some of those costs were to prepurchase machinery and materiel -- for the second and, I think, the third as well. Notwithstanding that, I do believe we did canvass this issue reasonably well the other night.

D. Symons: Not this particular issue. If you've spent $150 million already, and you don't have any ship even started, with the keel laid and so forth.... You know you've only got roughly $60 million to go for the actual construction of those ships, outfitting and all the rest, and you've used up the total amount that's been set for building these ferries. Are you going to be able to build three ferries for $60 million?

Hon. D. Miller: We're on budget.

D. Symons: I guess we'll have more fodder for questions next year, then, when we go through this.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps, or we might get a lot of the same.

D. Symons: I guess the next question -- and I did canvass this a little before.... The time that's going to be saved in crossing the straits is, I believe, slightly less than half an hour. The problem is: are the costs of this whole program of putting the fast ferries in there worth the few minutes we're going to shave off that particular route?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I was about to feel my wrists, because the whole issue is summed up in one word: pulse. Really, it's the question of trying to deliver traffic, or traffic management, that's at the heart of this strategic decision. As opposed to having a huge slug of traffic arriving in a very short time and having absolute chaos and congestion, the fast ferries will take a slightly different approach and deliver traffic in a much more manageable way. In conjunction, particularly on the Vancouver Island side, with the developments at Duke Point, which will allow for better management of the conventional traffic.... Things should improve significantly both on the Vancouver Island side and on the Horseshoe Bay side, where anybody who has travelled in either place knows that there are some very, very horrendous traffic management problems.

I certainly know from my recent trip up Vancouver Island that there are certain times when you don't want to hit Nanaimo. Anybody who has to drive, and I see the member for Parksville.... I don't do it that often. I do it because I've got a grandson up there, but I now know that there are certain times and certain days when you just don't want to even try it. It's a nightmare.

An Hon. Member: You're too young to have a grandson.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member over there who says that I'm too young to have a grandson, but I won't get into that.

But just remember that word: pulse.

D. Symons: I can appreciate the minister's answer, as far as it goes, for the fast ferries. A small, conventional ferry would do the same thing. Maybe it's not quite as fast across, but you could end up staggering out the loads that are going to be dumped on either shore at the same time, so there are other ways of addressing that problem. I suspect, then, that when I get the business plan that you're going to supply me, in it will be some discussion on this issue of the time saved versus the cost of putting the ferry in.

Also on the cost, I wonder if you might be able to give me some sort of breakdown of where that $150 million that's either committed or whatever has gone. I know I don't want you to read off a whole pile of figures now, but if you could supply that to me in the next little while, I'd appreciate that -- not tonight.

The shipping journal Fairplay had some comments about our fast-ferry program and indicated that we couldn't possibly put these three ferries in the water for the price that B.C. Ferries is saying they're going to do it. This seems to be a reputable magazine, so I'm just wondering why there is a discrepancy between what this particular industry magazine is saying and what B.C. Ferries is saying.

Hon. D. Miller: I was kind of curious about the title of the magazine Fairplay. It sounds interesting. I don't know how much applicability it would have in British Columbia, but.... There was some question about whether or not the detailed information that the member has.... I don't think we have it here, but I appreciate the member's interest. I was a bit concerned. I thought we had it stored on the sixth floor of Fort Street over here, but I gather we've got copies. The article in question was submitted by a B.C. writer. It's not an opinion of the magazine, as I understand it.

D. Symons: Then I can suspect who the writer might be.

I wonder about one other thing to do with the fast ferries, or with ferries in general. It seems that B.C. Ferries opened an information office last fall in Nanaimo. I wonder if you might give us an idea of the costs per year that you are budgeting for the operation of that particular office, and whether you're doing it only in Nanaimo, and why you're opening an office there when the program probably speaks for itself.

Hon. D. Miller: We don't have the dollar.... It's rent for the office, and one person. I go back and reflect on the time that I went up to participate in the groundbreaking on the terminal, or on the road, at Duke Point. It's obvious from my conversation with the mayor that the office has not really worked very well. But I think there is a lot of curiosity in Nanaimo about this, both the new terminal and the.... Obviously we've tried to design it in a way that's appropriate to the setting. I think if anybody's been in my office lately, 

[ Page 1619 ]

you've seen the conceptual design and the kind of park.... I'm not sure how much, but we put a fair amount of money into park areas adjacent to the terminal. So we tried to do a really nice job, and I'm sure the citizens of Nanaimo are just going to be thrilled when we have both the conventional ferries running to Duke Point and the fast ferries running into Nanaimo. I look forward to that day.

D. Symons: Next time I am in Nanaimo I will visit your office there and meet the one person that's operating it.

I've got a news release from B.C. Ferries dated June 19 of this year, and it talks about the fast-ferries training as being underway. It seems you're rather a long way off from having crews operate these ships. Are these people now on staff, or are you training them but they're going to be on unemployment after the training process? How are you managing to have people train now, and to hang on to them for the time when those ferries are finally floating?

Hon. D. Miller: It kind of makes you have second thoughts about the auditor general's report. But I gather one master and two chief engineers are engaged in some appropriate training; I'm not sure if it's full-time. We obviously want to be ready for this new vessel.

D. Symons: When I look at a news release like this: "Fast Ferry Training Underway at B.C. Ferries...." I was surprised to hear now that it's only two people -- that you put out a news release to indicate that two people are...

Hon. D. Miller: Three people.

D. Symons: Three people. I'm sorry, I stand corrected. I can see why you put it out if there are three people involved.

Anyway, another aspect of the fast ferries -- and I'm coming to the end of the fast ferries in a moment -- was the anticipation of selling fast ferries offshore. This is certainly something I remember as being one of the big selling points for the superferries. You know, we find that the same players are involved in telling us.... One was going to be a great success, and people from offshore were going to beat a path to our door, and we were going to be building superferries for Hong Kong and other places around the world.

That didn't happen, and I wonder why, with the competition in building fast ferries.... Indeed, there are shipyards that are already up, built, and that have built fast ferries and that are waiting for jobs to come their way. I wonder why you have this great faith that we're going to put this amount of money into training and all the rest of it, in a facility where we're going to compete against the world, and we're going to win out. I wish us luck on this, but I wonder where you're getting your information that indeed we're going to be able to pull it off from.

[8:00]

Hon. D. Miller: I think you have to proceed with more than just blind faith. I think faith is a necessary ingredient, but not blind faith, and I think we've made a very solid business case. Earlier this evening I talked about my faith in the ability of British Columbians, corporation workers, etc., to carry this off. Certainly it would be nothing ventured, nothing gained. Obviously, we have enjoyed -- I did canvass this in the mini-estimates some time ago -- the kinds of benefits that have been realized for the consortium we put together on the superferry, and the marketing that was done. Considerable benefits were realized. I can't recall the exact dollar figure, but it is in the tens of millions of dollars, and work has been spread around to the private sector in British Columbia. I think, all in all, any economic analysis of that will show that we did exactly the right thing, and we have confidence in our ability to succeed at this venture.

D. Symons: I'll move off the fast ferries. I think the minister has answered quite well.

I wonder if we can just take a look at some of the more difficult routes to service as far as B.C. Ferries go, because of the costs involved and the number of riders involved. One that doesn't have the best of riders versus revenue -- costs versus revenue, anyway -- is the Gulf Islands service, and other minor routes. I guess the people in those communities are very concerned that they are going to suffer in the process. There seems to be a renewal of shipbuilding, and they are concerned that their ferries are going to have to absorb the costs of building fast ferries but that they will remain with the same service they have -- only with higher costs because of the overall higher costs for the building program the Ferry Corporation has taken on.

I wonder if we might look at that. I have some information from a Galiano group that have been meeting with the government and have made some recommendations. They have a joint transportation committee. I can't agree with some of their arguments -- I gather this is something that has been passed on to the minister, and I am sure you can't either. What we do have are people who have moved onto these islands and have concerns about their ferry service. What assurances can you give these people that their ferry service will remain the same or increase as their communities grow, and that they won't see, in the near future, huge increases in their fares?

Hon. D. Miller: There have been new ships deployed. I think of the Queen of Cumberland. Did we talk about that earlier? I think we did -- a brand-new ship in the southern Gulf Islands. The issue is somewhat challenging, and I don't think there is any reason why the people in the Gulf Islands should feel that their service is jeopardized by capital programs to improve service generally in the fleet. In fact, the more efficient we become, I would assume the more comfort they may take.

I don't think the issue is necessarily the sparsely populated regions and low ridership. It seems to me that the more pressing issue is the heavily populated, high-ridership, low- return areas. You know yourself what will happen there: start talking about fares and I can predict what the reaction will be. I have a fair amount of sympathy for the extremely low-populated, remote and isolated communities who have none of the benefits, none of the weather, none of the amenities. They pay huge freight costs for ordinary goods that you and I get relatively cheaply.

It seems to me that we have to concentrate on where there is a reasonable population but where the return for the corporation is. Well, there is no return; it is heavily subsidized.

D. Symons: I'd like to move onto various topics here. I think we could put a few of these under the area of complaints -- maybe not the specific one I'll read here -- about how the Ferry Corporation responds, how things went awry in this particular case, and whether they are trying to adjust procedures so that these types of complaints won't happen again.

This involves a senior citizen who is writing from the Ashcroft area and is on one of these oxygen tanks. When they 

[ Page 1620 ]

got on the ferry, the ferry person noticed that they were using an oxygen apparatus and the ticket taker asked if they would like to be next to the elevator. They replied that they would, but that they would really rather stay in their vehicle. The ticket taker made a phone call and apparently assured the person that they could stay in their vehicle. The problem was that the vehicle was put on the lower deck along with a lot of trucks with refrigeration units that were apparently operating. This person was very ill from the fumes on that deck and had to get out of their car with difficulty and up to the upper deck to get away.

Having had that experience, the girl attending the tickets asked again when they came back, and they said that they did not want to be placed in the hold again. They were told that would be fine, and they were put in a line that, lo and behold, put them back in the hold.

Somewhere the communications broke down. I am wondering if there is some explanation as to how a procedure that would normally work didn't work this time. What would the procedure be for a person who has those special needs when they go to the ticket booth? Is that when they are supposed to announce what their needs are? Then they are put into a certain lane? How is the person directing traffic onto the ferry aware of which car has what needs?

Hon. D. Miller: It is extremely difficult, based on the circumstances outlined by the member.... Certainly if there was correspondence.... I don't know if that correspondence has gone to the corporation. We certainly endeavour to meet customer needs, particularly in the circumstances outlined by the member, where people have disabilities and require some special attention. I can't tell you why certain things happened on that particular sailing and why people never got to that position. I really don't know. When anything like that comes, we take it seriously. If the member wants to relay that information, we can certainly see if there are individual circumstances relating to that particular incident. But we do value our customers, and we want to treat them well and pay attention of any special circumstances they have.

D. Symons: It was a letter apparently to the Minister of Transportation and Highways and to the Tourism minister. They were the carbons, and it was addressed to the then Premier. But my question wasn't quite on that specific instance. If you noted the end of my comment on that, I asked: "What are the procedures that one would go through if they had special needs?" So it wasn't this particular special need. Do they notify the person who sells them the ticket at the booth? Then what are the procedures B.C. Ferries goes through from that point on? In this case, they had an oxygen requirement and wanted to stay in their car, in a reasonable atmosphere. How is this information conveyed along the lines so that a need is taken care of -- and not this particular need?

Hon. D. Miller: The ticket agent would relay that information to the tower. I had occasion to go into the tower out at Swartz Bay a couple of weeks ago, and I was truly impressed. The technological capability out there is truly amazing. Again, I would recommend it to members who have talked about safety and efficiency issues. I forget the young gentleman's name who showed me up there, but he's a very able person. A couple of women were manning the computers, and believe me, they were working extremely hard, not stopping for a minute. They just managed to say hello to me, while keeping count of the traffic. They can monitor the vehicles going on the ferry and count them at any moment. It's a very sophisticated operation; I was really impressed.

Let them tell the ticket agent. We'll get it to the tower. If it's on a smaller, more informal route, I'm sure it's probably sometimes easier to handle in a personal way. But we want to do our best by the travelling public, particularly people with certain needs. If they've got certain disabilities and we can accommodate them, we want to do that.

D. Symons: The minister's answer, then, is that it goes from the ticket agent to the tower, and the tower coordinates that, obviously. I would maybe let the minister know that I'm glad to see that he went up in the tower. I had an offer from the CEO of B.C. Ferries a year and a half ago, when I made the request to go there. He was more than enthusiastic in responding: "Certainly. If you'd like to, just let me know any time." You know, it always seems that after a long week in the environs of the Legislature, I want to get home to my wife and family. When I get to that terminal at the last moment, I don't have time to, or else I decide not to, take the extra hour to spend in the tower there. But one of these days, when we aren't in session, I will take him up on that offer, because I'd be most delighted to watch how that operations works.

Another one deals with the same sort of issue, but it's a little different. It deals with hand baggage. I gather that this person, if he had hand baggage, was a pedestrian on the ferry. He had a golf bag, actually, and found out that B.C. Ferries doesn't handle golf bags. He got a little notice stuck on there as a courtesy: "We have carried this item; however, we cannot guarantee that it will be carried in future." Then they have four little items down there, and one was checked off. It said: "Baggage carrier driver does not carry golf clubs." I'm just wondering. You know, airlines and other organizations carry golf clubs. As a way of discouraging people from taking their cars and encouraging them to ride as foot passengers.... It's much more economical that way for both B.C. Ferries and the public. Maybe I could put in a plug for golfers. I'm not one, but maybe you could make some accommodation for people wanting to check golf clubs.

Hon. D. Miller: That certainly got my hackles up! You can't put your golf bag on the ferry? I mean, what's going on?

There are some issues around liability and baggage. If you start to throw people's fairly expensive golf bags on a baggage cart and the next thing you know a toolbox lands on top of them, there may be some liability issues. But fair enough.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious. I know these estimates are an important occasion. We want to canvass fully these kinds of issues. But, this is not the complaints department for B.C. Ferries. I'm not treating the issues the member raises lightly. I think I've tried to respond, but surely there are more appropriate venues. We could just get a list of letters from people who may have had some problems with B.C. Ferries, read them and say to ourselves: "That's the estimates." Surely it's not. While I don't mind responding to questions, I just don't know that it's really appropriate here. If it's filling time, that's one thing, and I understand that; time occasionally has to be filled. If it's not, then surely we could move to more productive discussions.

D. Symons: I don't want to go back and discuss B.C. Hydro, so we'll move along. This question is a little more philosophical in nature than the previous questions, but it deals with the lawsuit that involved B.C. Ferries and the firing of a gentleman who had been with B.C. Ferries for quite a long time. It involved the purchase of some drapery material or something, and it was thought that the bill had gone the 

[ Page 1621 ]

wrong way. What seems to be the case, because the courts decided in their favour.... Maybe we could get into a little discussion of how corporations can use their very deep pockets to basically stonewall somebody who feels that they have a grievance against a large corporation like B.C. Ferries. B.C. Ferries has much deeper pockets for keeping the case going in the courts, and for going to appeal and so forth, and the other person will eventually run out of funds to fight them. It seems that that may be what was going on in this particular instance.

Hon. D. Miller: I understand that the issue may be before the courts. But surely the philosophy.... That's a wonderful topic. I've whiled away many hours, mostly in places that were far more relaxed than this, talking philosophy. I don't mind doing that, but I don't know that I really want to do it here. It's such a wide-open topic that we may end up offending the rules.

The Chair: Yes, we have had cautions about talking about philosophy; we've had lots of philosophy. So I would hope that we could stay within the estimates.

D. Symons: I just have concerns, because apparently these people won the first trial and B.C. Ferries basically challenged it. My concern is that if the courts decided, why should you challenge, when you have that ability to go on and on?

I have a couple of final questions. One involves Duke Point again. Will the Duke Point-Tsawwassen traffic be for commercial vehicles only, or is it going to be mixed, as it currently is?

[8:15]

Hon. D. Miller: I really have dealt with that question, as I think the member should well know. He's the critic for B.C. Ferries; he knows the answer to that question. He knows we're attempting to move the commercial traffic. It's not exclusive, but we want to move the commercial traffic. He knows that. I've responded to that question here.

D. Symons: I was asking whether it is exclusively commercial, and I really didn't get an answer; I don't know the answer to that question.

My next question, so you can answer that as well: what provision is being made for foot passengers, assuming that foot passengers will be there along with private vehicles? Is that not the case? What provision is made at the Nanaimo end? Duke Point is outside of town for them. Are you coordinating with B.C. Transit?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we are. I apologize if I'm showing some impatience, but I really think that there is an obligation here. We have been at this for some time. If it's an exercise in spinning wheels and filling time, fair enough. But let's not go through a charade here. These are questions that are so routine, it's baffling. I'd be ashamed to ask these questions if I were a critic.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: We had a pretty rough go-around for four days on Hydro issues; that's fair enough. Nobody is quarrelling with that, but surely there's some desire by members to make progress and not just deal with customer complaints or those kinds of questions. This is a two-way street we're on, not a one-way street. So I would simply ask that we try to make some progress. Surely other members.... There's a huge list of topics yet to be debated in my estimates. The member indicated the other night that he had about another hour or an hour and a half. We've done it. So I really ask for some assistance from the Chair with respect to what appears to be a bit of a charade.

D. Symons: Thank you for that tirade. We'll just carry on, thank you.

I wonder if you might give me some information about the apprentice programs that are in place at B.C. Ferries. There's a joint apprenticeship advisory committee, I gather, and the program operates for the operating engineers and deck officers. Can you give an idea of how many people are involved in that particular program currently and how many have gone through that program in the last year?

Hon. D. Miller: We have a trades apprenticeship both for engineers and conventional trades. I don't have the number.

D. Symons: Would the minister be willing to share that number with me when he gets it?

Hon. D. Miller: You can get it any day of the week, my friend.

D. Symons: How many summer students are hired under the government's various summer programs with B.C. Ferries?

Hon. D. Miller: We'll have to get the number. If the members want to ask questions, staff will write them down. I have to excuse myself for a minute.

Interjections.

D. Symons: We're very near the end. It's too bad he got angry at the end, but that's fine. Just dealing with the summer student program, then, if one of the gentlemen could note these down and get the information to me, I'd appreciate it. How many summer students have they under the government's various summer job programs for B.C. Ferries? What was their original target that was set? Has the target been increased in the last few months through various other policies that the government has initiated?

The other one just involves, I think, some innovative marketing procedures that B.C. Ferries has used, and I'm just wondering if you can give me the flavour of some of the other ones that might be a consideration. I gather you are trying to run what may have been called the "Bear Boat," to get people to the Vancouver Grizzlies game from Vancouver Island. I'm just curious as to how these programs work. Do you contract out with somebody to buy so many places on the ship beforehand? Or could they just approach B.C. Ferries and say they would like you to run one, and if they try to convince you, you have numbers? Or do you have to have a guarantee of so many numbers before you would put on an extra sailing?

Interjections.

D. Symons: I'd be happy to have Mr. Rhodes respond to the question if that's acceptable to the people here.

[ Page 1622 ]

Interjection.

D. Symons: Not acceptable?

Interjection.

D. Symons: Not without the minister. Well, you see, that was our problem before, so he can keep taking notes. I think we can leave that one.

I just have a note from somebody in Powell River who's a critic of B.C. Ferries, and if I were to name the person, I'm sure the minister would.... This particular person feels that B.C. Ferries is spending good money at the Westview terminal on an old facility, when years ago there was talk of moving the terminal closer to the MacMillan Bloedel site there. This person felt that rather than spending more money on a terminal that isn't in the best location and is run-down, it might be better to open a new terminal in a better location. Is there any thought of doing that? I don't know if those can be answered now.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Rhodes, the deputy minister, to respond to those penetrating questions.

F. Rhodes: With respect to Orca Bay, we have been approached by a number of organizations that have sought to either joint-venture with us or to charter with us, and we do both. We have run promotional sailings for our own commercial purposes, as well as trying to provide charter revenue to the fleet. So it's been done on both bases, and we will continue to do that.

The Powell River terminal relocation was a question that was asked. We have no plans to relocate that. It is under discussion as part of the Powell River stakeholder process.

With respect to the summer jobs, I will return with that information through the minister, Mr. Chair.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, I wonder if the minister could respond to the concerns that I have expressed to the president of B.C. Ferries with respect to public access to the north and south sides of the ferry causeway in Tsawwassen -- a big issue, locally.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Rhodes will respond.

F. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the question relates to public access to our terminal, both on the north and south sides. The south side of the terminal has been used for a number of years for camping and boat-launching purposes, and the north side is now largely used for windsurfing. One of the problems we're encountering is with pedestrian safety and vehicle safety, and also vandalism. I talked as late as this afternoon with the mayor of Delta, and I will be meeting with the mayor, her manager, the director of parks and the police to discuss the issue of providing public access while maintaining security.

D. Symons: I'm prepared to go on to the next topic, which would be the Victoria Line. I wonder if we might run through a history of the Victoria service. I believe the Princess Marguerite had the run for quite a long time. Stena Line abandoned its run in 1990, and we had proposals soon after, when asked by the government, from Sea Containers and Gokstad. Both had different proposals that were not acceptable to the government. Then we found that B.C. Ferries eventually took on that particular task.

It seems at the time there were different opinions expressed. Certainly the Victoria Chamber of Commerce was a very strong proponent of reinstituting the connection to Seattle, because it brought business to Victoria. But at the same time, I notice that the Times Colonist, on November 25, 1993, said that "in B.C., perversely, our government is turning back the clock with a highly questionable piece of marketplace meddling," in their reference to the Seattle service from Victoria.

In a further article -- and again, it's an editorial -- on November 16, 1993, they say that, "the 'unless' qualification above is this: if the tourist industry will take care of the annual operating losses, most British Columbians would probably support a ferry-to-Seattle refit of up to $4 million," which I believe is approximately what B.C. Ferries paid for the refit. So there was not wholehearted support for this. The Times Colonist, being a local paper, seemed to at least highlight some concerns that might have been held by some people regarding that particular ferry.

I'll just skip ahead very quickly to the minutes of the B.C. Ferries board meeting of May 25, 1994. I'm reading from page 2, where it says:"Concerns were raised as to the appropriateness of this venture. It is noted that the new effort would absorb managerial time and expertise out of proportion to its revenue impact or potential. It was also noted that the service will probably incur additional administrative costs which will not be readily identified or allocated. Notwithstanding that fact, the current proposal is reasonable, and the corporation could position itself satisfactorily by obtaining a subsidy guarantee from the government."

I'm just wondering, on the basis of those cautions, if the government did have a business plan for operating the Victoria Line and a cost-benefit analysis, and again, like with the fast ferries, whether that would be available.

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is yes. I don't know if the Liberals ever took a position, but it certainly shows that when you do anything in this life you get a variety of opinions.

D. Symons: You would be passing that business plan along to me, I would assume, then, from that answer.

There were comments from the tourist bureau that the revised service would bring in $8 million of tourist revenue to British Columbia, and particularly Victoria, each year. The Employment and Investment minister at that time said that service was expected to break even by the third year and turn a profit in subsequent years, yet we find that B.C. Stena Line lost $10 million during two years of operation. You seem to be in a position now where, for one reason or another, you've decided to extricate yourself from the operation of this particular service. So maybe the minister could give us some flavour as to what decision the government has made in regard to this. Why do you now seem to be looking for a purchaser for this particular ferry service?

Hon. D. Miller: We aren't looking for a purchaser.

[8:30]

D. Symons: That's interesting, because obviously there is some difference of opinion between what the press says and what the minister is saying. Not that we can always believe the press.

There seemed to be a commitment on the part of the minister at the time, now the Premier, that there would be a five-year commitment to this. As a matter of fact, again, in an 

[ Page 1623 ]

article on January 18, 1994, the Employment minister responsible for the new ferry said that the government was prepared to underwrite costs for five years. It seems that after year two there may be a change in the ownership of that particular run, although the minister basically has denied that. Would the minister care to deny that there is any possibility of the B.C. government moving out of the Victoria Line service?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I've been quite forthright publicly. We did not look for buyers. We received unsolicited requests from the private sector who are interested in purchasing the operation. I've said, as the minister -- and I can confirm it -- that we are interested in looking at those if we can find a private sector operator to take that over, run it and provide significant benefits to the lower Island -- about $11 million annually and climbing -- and eliminate any subsidy over the remaining two years of the original commitment. It seems to me that that is something that every member of this House would wholeheartedly support. Certainly, Mayor Cross, Mark Scott and Lorne Whyte of Tourism Victoria and I had an excellent meeting where they fully supported and will be involved on an ongoing basis in exploring these private sector initiatives.

D. Symons: In the 1994 year, I think, the ferry operation lost, according to their figures, $717,000. I don't believe that included the debt charges on it. When you added those in, it was over a million dollars. I wonder if you might give us those same figures, including debt-servicing charges, the vessel upgrade, and all the rest for the succeeding year, '95, and also what is projected for '96?

Hon. D. Miller: Projected for '96 is $386,000; for '95, $1.4 million. Does the member read $750,000 for '94?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: That was restated to $1.4 million.

D. Symons: The projected figure for this year, which seems to be roughly a third of the previous two years.... Is it calculated in the same way, including the same costs, operating and capital? There's a huge drop. I wonder if the ridership has increased so much that there can be that huge drop in your operating expenses.

Hon. D. Miller: The 1995 $1.4 million figure includes about $400,000 for collision costs, which were around $400,000. So it's about a million, realistically, for '95, had it not been for that.

Revenues are up, particularly on bus tour ridership. It's growing. Our commitment was to review it at the end of three years. We're still living by that commitment, but if it's possible -- given this expression of interest, which I think is very promising -- to have the private sector operate that service, I think that's highly desirable, and we will proceed with that.

D. Symons: The news report at the end of the previous month talked about four parties interested in Victoria Line Ltd., which the ferry chief said. This would be an indication that somebody's interested in looking at the line, anyway.

It was Mr. Peel who said business is up substantially, particularly over last summer, and the minister seemed to indicate that now. Mr. Peel said tour buses will number 600 this year. He forecast that the operating loss to B.C. Ferries, including payments on the vessel, the former Queen of Burnaby, will be under $500,000 this year. The minister has indicated slightly under $400,000, so that would indicate that. The capacity of the vessel is approximately 900 passengers and, I believe, 193 vehicles. If you have, during your operating period, about 120 days -- as I figured it out -- between the May and September dates, and you take the number of vehicles that this vessel carried last year and divide it by that 120 in the past years, and so forth, you get almost capacity. I guess that's half-capacity, because that's each round trip. You get about 400 passengers on average per trip and about 100 vehicles on average per trip. Would that be approximately correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Passengers to July 29 are up. In '94 it was about 44,000, and this period was 48,000. This year automobiles are about the same, but RVs are down slightly. I indicated buses. We had about 39,000 at this point, and 60,000 for the full year in '94. We will be around 600,000 by the end of this year. So there has been a substantive increase in ridership. Obviously, we said at the outset that it takes time to develop the marketing and the ridership.

There are some interesting numbers with respect to where people are coming from in the United States: California, 13 percent; Washington, 11 percent; the rest of the U.S., 30 percent. There are some good numbers there. It's obviously attracting riders from across the United States. The origin of most riders here is the greater Victoria area, but others are from Vancouver Island, the rest of B.C., Alberta, the rest of Canada, as well as a smaller portion from Europe and Asia. So it appears to be growing and fulfilling the mandate originally given to it.

Notwithstanding any of that, I have said that we will act on any legitimate offers from the private sector to keep the ferry going, and we have involved local Victoria people from tourism and civic areas to assist us in that process.

D. Symons: Figures I would like to have, if the minister could get them for me -- probably not tonight, because it will involve a little calculation.... What is the daily average of passengers and vehicles for last year? At the beginning of the season and at the tail end, I suspect, your ridership is going to be fairly low. But in the high season, it will be high. If you average it out, what would the average be? Could you work that out for what it is until now? Those are not figures that I think you're likely to have.

The other figure I'd like you to get me at the same time would be.... What percentage of people purchase round trips compared to one-way trips. I'm curious how many people might be making a circle route, because I gather that the circle route is something the competition that operates the fast ferry out of Seattle is managing to market very well. I'm just wondering if Victoria Line is doing the same type of thing, where people are using a round trip, using a ferry as that source of transportation. I'll leave those questions, because I don't expect you to have those answers with you.

I'm going on now to a news release of July 24 of this year. It says: "Miller Meets with Victoria Mayor and Tourism Officials Regarding the Future of Victoria Line." In it he is quoted as saying: " 'We have said from day one that Victoria Line had a five-year business plan' " -- and that's the plan you're going to share with me, you said -- " 'but that its performance would be evaluated against that plan in year three, this year,' said [the minister]." I'm curious.

Hon. D. Miller: "Said Miller."

[ Page 1624 ]

D. Symons: That's what it says here; I wasn't going to say that. The minister's name is mentioned there, and we're not allowed to say that.

Hon. D. Miller: I did say that.

D. Symons: You did say that.

I'm just curious. Looking back at all the records and information I have from when this ferry was announced, I didn't see anything about re-evaluating it in year three. So I wonder if the minister might have his staff go back through the various documents they put out and just find that statement back then about re-evaluating the situation in year three against the business plan. I didn't notice that, and I'd just like to have a copy of that.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the member read Hansard from about two minutes ago. I think I just said those very words.

D. Symons: I was asking to see the news release, the documents from two years ago, that indicated that it was going to be re-evaluated in year three. I know you said that now, but when people say they were going to do it in year three and they say that that was the case at the beginning.... I want some evidence that indeed that was said at the beginning and not just dreamt up as a way of excusing what they're currently doing.

You had some difficulties with the labour union, I gather, over salaries, particularly in operating the Victoria Line. I wonder if the minister might be able to give us some indication as to how the wages for the Victoria Line operation compare to the wages for comparable job descriptions on B.C. Ferries. Are they on a par now?

Hon. D. Miller: Less.

D. Symons: Would it be fair to say that on average it's about $5 per hour less?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know. They're less. We can try to get that information.

D. Symons: It's a question of a government that seems very stuck on fair wages. It seems that when it comes to operating a ferry service, they can have different wages for similar types of service. It's just an interesting comment.

Hon. D. Miller: They are union collective agreements, Mr. Chairman. This is ridiculous. I mean, we signed a collective agreement with a trade union.

D. Symons: The minister gets upset at that. But when it comes to building the Island Highway, they put in a fixed wage. We didn't negotiate wages in that at all.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we did.

D. Symons: Not union by union. It was a fixed agreement on the whole project and for the length of the project.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the member doesn't know what he's talking about. It's patent nonsense. Do I have to do the research for the member? He's asking me for press clippings from three years ago. This is not a serious exercise.

The Chair: On the minister's estimates, member.

D. Symons: The minister is getting testy. Indeed, the minister said something that was supposedly decided three years ago, and I simply asked if I could see something that indicated that was the case. He's testy about answering that, and maybe there's a reason.

I wonder if we might look at one last topic here, because I was winding up with the Victoria ferries before he went off again. It happens to involve booze on the ferry. I'm just curious: I thought the ferry to Seattle had a bar arrangement on it. Were there plans for using it as a conference centre and for charter services, as Mr. Rhodes was saying earlier, for B.C. Ferries in local waters? Is there a problem?

Hon. D. Miller: Three bars. Yes, we do charters -- catered charters -- and we've got licences for on the water and dockside.

R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, are we in a position to move on to BCBC at this time?

Interjections.

R. Coleman: The first place I'll start out, then, with BCBC....

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Shall we wait a minute?

Hon. D. Miller: Let's try it.

[8:45]

R. Coleman: Actually, I have a systematic level of questioning I'd like to go through this evening to basically take us through BCBC. First of all, I've done a review of the corporation with the private sector; I've done a review of the corporation with previous members of the board of directors. Frankly, the corporation comes up smelling very good as far as its operation and the way the corporation conducts itself are concerned. Rather than get into discussions of little things, I'll do an overview of the corporation and deal with its future and its present.

In the beginning of its 1995 annual report, the corporation outlined what are referred to as major projects. Basically, that was about six or seven projects. There was a law courts building in Kelowna, the perimeter security for eight regional correctional centres, the health centre in Creston, a youth custody centre on Vancouver Island, courthouse renovations in Vancouver, a new courthouse in Delta, a Highways sign shop in Kamloops, a regional forests office in Nanaimo and property rezoning in Victoria. I'm just wondering what major projects the corporation undertook in 1995-96 that would be relevant to these.

[ Page 1625 ]

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the member's question, I understand Mr. Truss is on his way here, and he would have that detailed information. I don't have it with me, so we could just stand down for a few minutes.

The Chair: We'll just have a short recess.

The committee recessed from 8:47 p.m. to 8:58 p.m.

[C. McGregor in the chair.]

R. Coleman: Maybe I can open up by just reposing the question, because the president of BCBC wasn't present when I asked it. In the last annual report, which is the 1995 annual report, you referred to the '94-95 fiscal year. You completed a number of major projects representing a total of $66.5 million, and you listed the projects on page 15 of the annual report. I'm just wondering what major projects you did in 1996.

Hon. D. Miller: I have with me to my right Dennis Truss, the president and CEO of the B.C. Buildings Corporation; Sharon Halkett is to my left, VP of human resources and corporate services; and behind me is Denis Racine, director of corporate communications. I ask Mr. Truss to respond to the member's question.

D. Truss: The major projects that we completed in the 1995-96 fiscal year were an expansion to the Kutenai Place office building in Nelson, a regional correctional centre in Prince George, a new courthouse in Port Coquitlam, a replacement of the veterinary laboratory in Abbotsford, a new courthouse in Masset, a new health centre in Penticton, and a motor vehicle office in Burnaby.

[9:00]

R. Coleman: In your annual report of '95, there was some mention of the Oaklands project in Burnaby, which is a 29.5 hectare redevelopment of a former regional correctional centre. The project was going to ultimately contain 560 townhomes. In last year's estimate, in June 1995, the total revenue expected to be realized from the Oaklands site in the last two phases was about $45 million, and the net revenue to the government would be somewhere in the range of $25 million. Could you just tell me the status of the Oaklands project?

D. Truss: The total proceeds last year might have been mentioned at $45 million; it's actually $35.6 million. The total costs of the development were $17.1 million. The net proceeds -- the gain to the government through the corporation -- were $18.5 million.

R. Coleman: Just to continue on that line of questioning, is the project now complete? There was mention of the other two phases to be done. They were going to be done in '95-96. Have they been completed? Are those the phases you're referring to?

D. Truss: No, the figures I gave you were for the total project, for the total redevelopment of the Oakalla lands. The total gross revenues received were $35.6 million, and the net proceeds were $18.5 million.

R. Coleman: Would I be safe in assuming that this total project was done in a joint venture, in some sort of public relationship with the development community?

Hon. D. Miller: Essentially, the corporation did the site prep -- servicing and invited proposals from the private sector for the development.

R. Coleman: So then, basically, once we did the site prep and got it ready, we made it available by piece in some sort of public process -- a presentation, a public proposal call or tender. Was it a tender or a proposal call?

Hon. D. Miller: A proposal call.

R. Coleman: I want to move on briefly now to Riverview. You were proceeding last year with the planning process and with full public participation in the coming year on 98.7 hectares of property. Could you tell me the status of the Riverview process?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: The Riverview project is proceeding through the preliminary stages of the public consultation process. There have been a good number of meetings and public forums held, and we expect to be continuing that further during the current year.

R. Coleman: Could the minister please tell me what you are trying to accomplish, in general terms, on the Riverview property?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, as the member alluded to, it's the kind of downsizing, in terms of the health plan, to move people closer to home. It's a 244-acre site. The facility, as I said, is downsized. The long-range plan of the society is to concentrate the special services in a new 340-bed hospital, with more on-site residential facilities. I think we have indicated that the planning process has commenced. The plan for the future of the review site has always been intended to be multidimensional, with a range of social, environmental and economic benefits for the local community and the provincial taxpayer. We expect that in '96 we will see the planning process gear up.

R. Coleman: Could the minister maybe tell me who they anticipate will be the end user of the first portion of the project? He mentioned a smaller residential component in there.

Hon. D. Miller: That's under the Ministry of Health, and I believe it's psychiatric.

R. Coleman: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether the transfer of the 230.7-hectare site formerly known as Colony Farm to the greater Vancouver regional district, as part of the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy, has actually taken place.

Hon. D. Miller: It's very close, but apparently it's not finalized at this point.

R. Coleman: Would I be safe in assuming that this transfer is to take place in order to create a green space on the lower mainland that the greater Vancouver regional district will use for a nature legacy, as it states, rather than for any other type of development?

Hon. D. Miller: The proper use is in the ALR. A land use plan has been signed by all committee members except the 

[ Page 1626 ]

Kwayhquitlum Indian band, which apparently has indicated it will not sign because of some treaty rights or aboriginal rights. Their view is that they don't want to participate. A land use plan has been approved by both the Coquitlam and the Port Coquitlam councils, as well as by the Agricultural Land Commission.

R. Coleman: Could I get a copy of that report?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I think this information is available, and I would certainly endeavour to get it to the member. In addition, the plan is for a 70-acre section of the site to be set aside for a new forensic psychiatric institute, which is now under construction. The remainder, as the member discussed, is included in the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy.

If there is any other information that we haven't passed on, we certainly are prepared to do that through the corporation.

R. Coleman: If you could just pass on the information on both the Riverview and the Colony Farm sites, it would be appreciated, because I think they are neighbouring each other. If I am not mistaken, the native band has some land in the floodplain adjacent to the Colony Farm land in the Coquitlam or Port Coquitlam area, which has been under some discussion. I believe there is a sewer line that runs through there that the GVRD has some problems with, as well.

I have another set of questions I want to touch on. As for projects that were under planning, it was determined in December 1996 that Woodlands, a 27.1-hectare site, was surplus to the needs of the Ministry of Social Services. They were going to do a land planning process that was expected to be complete in May 1996. I'm just wondering how you are doing with your May 1996 land use planning for Woodlands.

Hon. D. Miller: It is taking longer. I'm advised that it is desirable to have more consultation, particularly with the city, so the May date is probably not realizable.

R. Coleman: There is no probably about it. It was May '96, and that has already passed. I would have been surprised, to be honest with you. I don't think even BCBC does that good: get something zoned and set up that fast in anybody's timetable, the way land processes work today.

There was some future planning for the Jericho lands; the property was awaiting some resolution of aboriginal treaty settlement issues. Is that still the case?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: That one could be a while.

There was one other site, and that is Glendale, in Saanich. It says: "The public land use planning process has been completed, and rezoning should be in place by the end of the 1995-96 fiscal year." I wonder if you could tell me what the status is and what that project is.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: This planning process also took longer than we thought it would. However, we have reached some understandings with Saanich council and are working through some negotiations with the Agricultural Land Commission for use of part of the site. We hope to be able to conclude those discussions in the next several months.

R. Coleman: In reviewing the background and the future of the corporation, there were a couple of things that I came across. One is an organization called the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation. I don't know if it is related back to BCBC or back to Housing. There seems to be a board of directors that has some land-ownership, but I believe it's with Housing. If it is, we could probably deal with it under Housing, for which I am also the critic. The board of directors appears to be employees of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I wonder if it has any relationship to BCBC.

Hon. D. Miller: It's under Housing.

R. Coleman: As an aside, perhaps I could ask the minister if he would be willing to deal with that corporation under the Housing estimates at the same time, because they seem to be interrelated.

Hon. D. Miller: Sure.

R. Coleman: Thank you.

I have reviewed the long-range plans and the roles and mandates of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, and there are a number of questions I have related to that. They are basically to take you along a track to find out how you are doing and where you can get from here.

My first concern, as I go through it.... Any business knows that owning something is usually better than leasing it, because the long-term capital return is usually there if the real estate viability is there. I know that the corporation appears to have clearly defined criteria for decisions, but there are some things that affect that. One of them is financing being available for all economic projects; the other is that there be no constraints to market-surplus owned space, and own-versus-lease analysis uses the same capital costs. My biggest concern about that is: is sufficient capital available to the corporation to enter into proper real estate investments on the own-versus-lease options?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond, Madam Chair.

D. Truss: Before any new project of a commercial nature is undertaken, the corporation undertakes a lease-own analysis of the opportunity and looks at a number of considerations, and in many cases will recommend a decision to the board of directors that a lease is more appropriate, depending on the needs of the ministry in question and the availability of space in a given community.

Institutional properties -- corrections facilities and the like -- have all been owned by the corporation, and the capital budgeting for them is developed by the corporation together with the Attorney General ministry. It goes through the rigour of the capital planning process within government and then funds are allocated. So there has been adequate funding for institutional projects.

With respect to commercial projects of a larger nature, to some degree they are dependent on the availability of provincial funding. We are starting a large office project in Victoria which is being done by the private sector under lease to the corporation for a 20-year period.

R. Coleman: There are some major challenges that evidently face the corporation. One of the challenges is responding effectively to a changing operating environment, and the most critical challenges seem to be cost control, financing of 

[ Page 1627 ]

capital projects, maintaining your market and integrated planning. According to a report that I reviewed which was done as a review of your role and mandate: "These challenges are threats in the short term, but with appropriate strategies and direction by BCBC and the government, they could be converted to long-term opportunities." How do you see yourself converting these short-term problems into long-term opportunities?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: The report to which the member refers is one that was done by the Crown corporations secretariat. That report did make a number of observations about the corporation and highlighted some challenges for the corporation. The corporation subsequently undertook a rigorous strategic planning process, the product of which was a three-year strategic plan. The items that were raised in the CCS report have been addressed in the strategic plan and are being actioned by the corporation through the strategic plan and its annual business plan for '96-97.

R. Coleman: I have the strategic plan. We'll get into that, as well, shortly. One of the comments in the report, however, dealt with financing. With funding targets the way they are, and the way financing is, and what have you, that you are going to have some declines in possible capital in order to carry out your functions. It would seem to me that Treasury Board had to clarify BCBC's position on what it was allowed to do, what its role and mandate was, and what it was allowed for borrowing or entering the private market for money. I'm wondering if Treasury Board has analyzed your capital plan and has recognized or looked at your mandate, to allow you to go outside for additional funding.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

[9:15]

D. Truss: Any of the borrowings that the corporation requires must be done through the Ministry of Finance, because the Minister of Finance is designated under the Financial Administration Act as the corporation's fiscal agent.

The decisions on capital.... The corporation does submit a capital plan, which is aggregated with other parts of the government's capital requirements. A rationalizing process is undertaken by Treasury Board, with input from the Ministry of Employment and Investment's capital project coordination branch, and that in turn is used to formulate the capital targets that each of the Crowns and ministries work within.

You had another question that perhaps you could elaborate on so I could answer better.

R. Coleman: It seemed from the reference material I read that there has to be a clarification of your role of being allowed to go out into the marketplace for additional funding for other projects. Maybe I can elaborate a little bit.

One of the comments in the report, in the comparative analysis of the availability and cost of financing from various sources.... It does make reference to the fact that in addition to various private sources, you might be wanting to look at two public sources, one being ICBC and the other the public service pension plan. ICBC has $4 billion in investment, most of which is in bonds and money market equities; and, of course, the pension plan is always looking for a reasonable return on long-term and safe investments. I take that reference to mean that you need to develop a mandate for being able to allow yourself to do that as a corporation, because up to this point you've been controlled by Treasury Board exclusively, from what I can gather. It says:"A mandate to develop the capacity to seek non-government sources of financing for its projects will present the corporation with numerous opportunities. The most immediate benefit to BCBC and the government is to allow them to make decisions on own-versus-lease based on the merits of the case, rather than on the capital availability."

That's funds from the government. I just wonder if you could comment on that mandate.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to reply.

D. Truss: The CCS report did contain a number of recommendations regarding financing for the corporation, and there were recommendations or comments included that we should consider accessing the provincial pension fund or ICBC. I think those are options that we will consider in the future. In a recent project, we actually undertook a different kind of financing, in the sense that, through a proposal call process, we got the private sector to commit to build an office building for the corporation to lease for 20 years, with the corporation having an option to buy. It's another form of alternative financing, but it was using private sector money under a lease rather than a direct borrowing by the corporation from another public source.

R. Coleman: Hence the largest real estate holding company in the world, called McDonald's, has done 20-year leases with buyback options at the end of 20 years.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: The operation of McDonald's on a whole really doesn't have a lot to do with hamburgers.

That mandate has not been established, then, I take it. You have not been able to establish that mandate either with Treasury Board or with the government. It was not clear in the report whether the BCBC act needed to be amended to allow the corporation to provide broader public sector services. Have you clarified that point as to whether the act would need to be amended in order for you to provide those broader public sector services?

Hon. D. Miller: Those are issues that, certainly, I have not turned my attention to as the minister responsible for the corporation. I will in the coming months. So at this stage, it's internal.

R. Coleman: I would encourage the minister to do so, because from what I can see, the corporation already does some limited services for some outside agencies, and if you look at their management history, obviously they are competitive in the marketplace.

I'll skip over my next section, which really deals with sections 3 and 4.1 of the act. When you do your review, you can come across that particular section and deal with it.

The one thing that concerned me in the report was that BCBC will either have to expand its marketing to the broad public sector or risk losing a large share of its current market. When a commercial-based company in commercial leasing starts to lose its broader base of the market, it starts to go inside and implode. I'm concerned that the corporation be given the mandate to go outside and expand its mandate for being able to be a successful company.

[ Page 1628 ]

There was some discussion about decentralization -- health and social services, and what have you. I know we'll get on to the strategic plan in a minute, but I'm just wondering if the board has had a look at, and has a concern over, that statement about its current market share versus its future market share.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: The corporation was certainly aware of the fact that some of its traditional, if you will, client ministry base would be evolving. Depending on the final outcomes and decisions to be made on New Directions, there is a portion of the Ministry of Health business that the corporation currently looks after which could be devolved to communities. In such a case the corporation would seek to retain that business by making business arrangements on a market basis with these local communities, and so forth. We would seek to preserve much of that kind of business and, in fact, opportunities to grow that business in the health sector, once having established relationships with regional health boards and the like, as one major example.

R. Coleman: The next issue I'd like to deal with is in the area of planning. In planning, it appears that the solutions that are outlined as strategies for BCBC are very strong. BCBC has strategic accommodation planning, where they do long-term solutions, master facility planning, customized studies, and what have you. The reason I bring that out is that I was reviewing a report on a school district in the province recently, which was done, I believe, by Ernst and Young, with regard to the construction of schools. My concern is this: through the mandate of BCBC, through the material in the brochures that you put together, through your annual reports and what have you, you seem to have a formula for the proper construction, construction management, and tendering and management of projects. One of the criticisms of the Ernst and Young report is that school districts don't have that capability. They have a secretary-treasurer who really doesn't know construction, and they don't have construction managers on staff. They go to a tender process that they usually get bogged down in, and they basically end up with late delivery of services on the school being constructed. The experience of construction management versus the tender process has provided better time frames for them, because of the games that are played with the extras and what have you. I'm sure we're all familiar with that.

I just want to know if there has been any consideration given to BCBC stepping in and becoming the construction managers and consultants with regard to construction of facilities like schools in the province.

Hon. D. Miller: There is currently an exercise that the member alluded to earlier, and that's the review of capital spending. There had been a previous ongoing exercise with respect to capital planning, where we tried to centralize the plans from each of the ministries into one unit, housed under the Ministry of Employment and Investment, to look at issues around efficiency. One of the announcements shortly after I was sworn in as minister was as a result of that exercise. The credit really goes to B.C. Buildings Corporation, which has come out with a standardized tendering document, something you would think that government would have done some time ago but had not done. In fact, each of the facilities branches within the capital ministries really had their own operating style.

There have been ongoing attempts to achieve efficiencies with respect to standardization and those kinds of questions, and that work will be continuing under the capital review. We want to take a harder look at this. I think the difficulty that all governments face, with limited resources and with debt being such an issue, is that they clearly have an obligation to provide facilities across a range of ministries. How do we get efficiencies? How can we continue to deliver, whether it's schools or whatever the capital needs are, in the most efficient way possible?

I didn't speak earlier to this, but we are also expecting a report soon from a P3 committee chaired by the private sector. I think I spoke about it briefly in the earlier part of the Ministry of Employment and Investment estimates, specifically looking at the potential for private sector-public sector partnership, in an attempt to achieve efficiencies in the marketplace and have some of that debt off the books or held by the private sector. We want to look at a range of those.

Mr. Truss has just passed me a note advising me that they are currently working with the Ministry of Education on ways in which the corporation can help with respect to the issue you identified around school construction.

R. Coleman: That's actually very good news, because the projects I reviewed were six or seven months late and over budget, or they had left school boards with funds that they had to spend out of capital funds that they didn't have. It all came directly back to construction management and control at the school board level. I think that sometimes it's a little too much to expect someone to handle the management of a $9 million or $10 million construction project when they don't have the expertise, and they're more geared to the administration and the operation of schools.

On that same note, we have a number of management entities in the province with regard to property, one of them being the B.C. Housing Management Commission, which has some self-owned stock. In your review, I wonder if BCBC is looking at whether they want to get into the management of housing at the same time and from the same office operations as they do on the commercial side.

Hon. D. Miller: Not at this point, but I don't reject any suggestions made along those lines. The member has canvassed the issues in the CCS document and identified some of the issues, and Mr. Truss has responded to some of the issues that the corporation has to deal with. My general view is that I don't close the door on any useful suggestion that might lead to any kind of productivity improvements and, hopefully, cost reductions.

R. Coleman: I'm actually off the CCS document now.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh, I'm sorry.

R. Coleman: Okay. My other concern is relative to -- and this is not a concern of BCBC -- the use of what I view as a viable service to the citizens of British Columbia, in that BCBC has real estate portfolio analysis capability, strategic planning capability and ability for financial planning that deals with everything from tenant acquisitions to commercial phases for rezoning, appraisals, environmental issues and what have you. One of the things facing us in the province is a number of.... We'll either receive some older lands from CMHC or have some older projects that we actually own in the province. My concern is that the capability of BCBC to do 

[ Page 1629 ]

an analysis on the viability of those sites would be looked at, just like they did with the Woodlands site. I wonder if there is a working relationship at this point, on those older sites, between BCBC and the Housing Commission.

Hon. D. Miller: There have been some preliminary discussions between the two entities.

[9:30]

R. Coleman: I would encourage those to continue. There are number of issues that face us with land use, not just on commercial land use but also on residential land use. It's obviously to do with our land use -- our planning, the best use of the property for what have you. I don't believe that the capability exists in a number of other agencies in government to make that analysis, and it does with this corporation.

The next thing is that you did mention earlier that you were going to sort of standardize the tendering process -- standardize some of the documentation and processes. Has BCBC been given the mandate to do that for other areas of other various ministries, such as corrections, etc.? Or is that mandate still to come?

Hon. D. Miller: No, that really came out of the capital planning process under the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I was simply acknowledging that I think a lot of the work had been done by BCBC. The review people in my ministry looked at that work and at the issues around the other capital ministries, and really took a great idea from BCBC and used it across the others.

R. Coleman: Is BCBC providing environmental services to schools and hospitals at this point in time, with its in-house people?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: For a good number of years the corporation has done a lot of energy management consulting -- I guess energy is part of the overall environment issue -- and has had a lot of success in helping different public sector organizations reduce their energy costs. We've certainly tried to take, and I think we've succeeded in taking, a leadership position on a lot of environmental issues. We've shared a lot of our ideas in various ways with the other parts of the public sector. In fact, there is the Crown Corporations Environmental Committee, which we chair and use as a forum for sharing ideas, promoting recycling and waste reduction programs, and so forth. So we've been doing a lot of that in the public sector.

R. Coleman: The reasons I have some height on BCBC's capabilities, maybe outside the present mandate, is the number of communities that their reports say they actually touch on. There are something like 180 communities in the province. I don't think any organization has that type of capability to understand weather and soil conditions. They must have tremendous files on all the environmental concerns, the soils concerns, the status of infrastructure and what have you in these particular areas.

BCBC has also developed some full-service leasing management programs. I wonder if you're selling those or selling your services to other agencies in government with regard to that.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: Yes, we have provided a number of leasing services for other parts of the public sector, particularly several Crown corporations, the Commonwealth of Learning and organizations such as that.

R. Coleman: This next line of questions is not to embarrass the corporation, but I do know that you have some cost-effective management and some cost-effective designs and some good use of space. I just wonder who is responsible for the breakdown in the layout of the space in this particular precinct.

Hon. D. Miller: I think we'd have to direct that question to the Speaker. It's an interesting topic, if you go back some ways. I recall the Minister of Public Works from '72 to '75, Bill Hartley, who was largely responsible for rehabilitating these buildings. They were in a deplorable state in 1972. I remember Bill going up in the attic and tearing chunks of wood off with his bare hands. It was a magnificent endeavour and brought back a lot of the craftspeople, because this style is not exactly something that is common. The magnificence of the buildings you see today is really due to the work of Mr. Hartley in the '72-to-'75 period. But I think the Speaker is the guy you've got to talk to about space.

R. Coleman: Does BCBC provide advice to this precinct with regard to the layout of its space, its technology, its wiring, etc.? Or is the Speaker's office operating in isolation?

Hon. D. Miller: The decisions are made here; the corporation provides technical advice and carries out the work.

R. Coleman: Could BCBC please tell me what type of technical advice they've recently given to this precinct?

Hon. D. Miller: That's a fairly general question. Maybe the member has a specific issue that he'd like to canvass.

R. Coleman: BCBC participated with a number of other Crown corporations in a systems furniture report to the Crown Management Group, and it has also participated in providing basically what would be turnkey-type floor plans for particular projects and what have you -- which I think is excellent. Basically, in this particular report, they say that space is money, and "significant savings can be made by proper planning and design and by reconfiguration of workstations in order to utilize existing building utility grids." There are actually seven points. I won't read all seven points, because I'm sure you're familiar with them.

If one tours this particular precinct -- we'll use the word "ergonomic," because you use it in this particular report -- this particular precinct is anything but ergonomic for the operation and productivity of the people that work here. I just wonder if there is any way that BCBC might want to sit down with the Speaker's office and discuss the proper use of space in this building, and how the proper technologies that enter into the twenty-first century could be utilized. They give advice to other corporations and other ministries. Maybe we would like to bring some of this technology home to this particular precinct.

[ Page 1630 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I find that to be rather a shocking prospect; this is an institution. There may well be inefficiencies with respect to design and utilization of space and ergonomics, but I suspect there may be other inefficiencies. In fact, we probably shouldn't complain about them too much, because they are a central feature of democratic systems. I think we've known the suggestions of the member with respect to space utilization. It's challenging because of the very nature of the changes that occur in terms of the size of caucuses. I think I've been in most parts of this floor at one time or another, and downstairs in various cubbyholes. I've had very small offices and very big offices; I think my current space is adequate.

I know the member from Delta has had occasion -- not in the last little while -- to occasionally visit me and exchange pleasantries, and certainly that invitation is open to all members.

R. Coleman: I'll save that jealousy for later.

My concern isn't to change the building. I wouldn't want anybody to think that we would change the architecture or what have you. But I think that in this particular precinct, if you look at the office layout, the furniture usage and the planning that's been put into it, it's probably been somewhat weak. I'm just wondering if the minister would consider having BCBC sit down with the Speaker's office and discuss the precinct, as for efficiencies for members and for office space and for utilization of that office space.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly. We certainly will take that suggestion under advisement. While I find the architecture and the appointments generally pleasing, I must say that after four or five days here, it fails to impress me anymore. We will take that under advisement.

R. Coleman: I don't think it would impress me if I stayed in one room all the time, either. At least it's not a 9-by-5 cell or something like that.

The only other question I had with regard to your property management solutions -- because you have a number of them -- is that you have put together a series of property management solutions in a brochure-type format, and I suspect that's for a client base. I'd like to first of all know whether that's a client base that is outside, as well as inside, government and whether you're preparing to go into the marketplace to expand your portfolio with this type of summary of your services.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: The brochure to which the member refers is a range of property management services that we provide only to public sector organizations. We do not provide any services to the private sector.

R. Coleman: I always like to know the good things, so could you explain to me what your international-award-winning energy management is?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: Yes, with considerable pleasure. The corporation, through its energy management program, has won a number of awards through an organization called ASHRAE, which is an acronym for the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. Through ASHRAE, we've won awards for individual projects where we have actually achieved very significant energy savings. However, since the early nineties, another group called the Association of Energy Engineers hands out an annual corporate award internationally to the organization that has demonstrated particular success in this field. We were selected in 1991 or 1992 for that. It was the first non-U.S. organization to ever receive that award.

R. Coleman: Congratulations. I have a question with regard to the estimated revenue. You projected that $20 million will come from contributions from other government enterprises through B.C. Buildings Corporation. Is that achievable this year?

Hon. D. Miller: Could I have a clarification on that question?

R. Coleman: It's about the estimates for the 1996-97 fiscal year revenues. Last year you achieved revised revenues of $12 million, over the estimated $10 million, and this year you estimate that British Columbia Buildings Corporation will contribute $20 million to revenues.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: Could you just give me a brief synopsis, versus last year's annual report, of how you're going to achieve the extra $8 million in net revenue? That's an increase of a substantial amount, and I'm just wondering if you have something up your sleeve that we don't know about.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to detail that.

D. Truss: The major portion of that increase was expected to come from regional health boards and so forth. A lot of that increase would actually be, if you will, a transformation or reallocation of revenue -- it was previously from the Ministry of Health -- to regional health boards. We were expecting some of that to happen this year in our budgeting, so a portion of that would certainly relate to that.

R. Coleman: Could you tell me what proportion, and whether you are still expecting to achieve that revenue, given the review process that's ongoing?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: We expect that we will achieve our total revenue target for the year. If there is a delay in the development of the regionalization of health care and we do not wind up entering into separate agreements with regional health boards, then we will retain the Ministry of Health as our client, if you will, for this business. In total, we expect to achieve the revenue targets we have. If we fall short on some of the non-ministry portion, we expect to pick it up elsewhere.

R. Coleman: If you don't pick it up out of revenues versus expenses, would you be picking it up out of reserves? If you don't achieve your goals -- the $20 million -- would you achieve that out of reserves?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is no.

R. Coleman: Could you tell me what you anticipate your capital cost will be to provide services to regional health care?

[ Page 1631 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there is essentially no capital requirement; it's transferring leases and the like. They don't anticipate.... In fact, I gather there's no capital budgeted for that.

R. Coleman: Just so I'm clear, you're going to transfer leases that are already being leased by somebody else over to BCBC for management, and that's where you're going to achieve your additional revenue and profit? Are you adjusting your leases on square-footage costs? Are you adjusting any of the triple-net costs upward to achieve a higher profit on the regional health care offices, or are these actually existing offices and existing leases that are already set up?

[9:45]

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: We expect to do several things -- in fact, probably all the kinds of things that you talked about. For example, for space that we have leased to the Ministry of Health now, we would expect to sign separate agreements with the regional health boards to become the tenant, if you will, for a number of those leases. So a portion of leased space would be covered in that fashion.

Another service that the corporation would seek to provide -- and, I think, could provide economically -- for regional health boards would be to look at their existing leases and try to achieve greater economies for local agencies that would become part of the new regional health boards but which are not now part of the Ministry of Health business that is currently served by the corporation.

R. Coleman: Who does this space presently get leased from? You refer to the Ministry of Health. It's being transferred to regional health boards. Who presently...? I got the impression that you set up the leases for these particular facilities. Are you not their landlord at this point in time, when you're transferring space within your own corporation?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: What the corporation does now with the portion of the space that is occupied by the Ministry of Health is that we re-lease the space from the public sector and, if you will, sublet it to the Ministry of Health. For those kinds of leases, where we were acting on behalf of the Ministry of Health, we expect to act on behalf of regional health boards in the future.

At the same time, there are a number of agencies that will become the responsibility of the regional health boards. We would be able to provide some help and assistance to them and perhaps save them some lease costs, in meeting their office and other accommodation needs.

R. Coleman: I don't know whether I'm missing something here, but to me, if you're transferring leases that you already manage, they're revenue-neutral. How could you achieve a higher level of revenue, versus your bottom line, of an additional $8 million over last year's estimates through that type of arrangement? It indicates to me that you're upgrading this lease space and that you have a capital cost for upgrading it. Because you then want to get higher delivery on the cost to rent, on your triple-net versus your cost, so that you can get some net dollars out of it back into your revenues -- which, frankly, is very good business. Bat the same time, if we're doing that, are we not just moving dollars from one ministry to another and then increasing revenues to a Crown corporation? That's my concern.

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's really additions, as Mr. Truss was trying to explain. Regionalization of services that may be provided at the community level and may be housed separately, with no involvement through BCBC, would come under the umbrella of the regional health council. Mr. Truss was trying to indicate that in those circumstances we would be in a position to provide those kinds of lease services, etc. So it would really be in addition to the current direct Ministry of Health business that the corporation has.

R. Coleman: Just so I can be clear, I'll just give you an example. This may not be the proper example agency-wise. If you have a regional health council that is setting up an office, and you're now going to bring in other services.... Let's say you've got your hospice organization, or your schizophrenia organization, or what have you; you're going to encourage them to move out of their present lease space into space in BCBC, to expand your portfolio of clients. That's where you anticipate picking up the extra revenue?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct. As members are aware from their own communities, a variety of health services are provided through non-profit organizations and the like. Under the regional approach, many of those will fall under the umbrella of the regional health council. There is, therefore, probably an opportunity for a lot of efficiency. I don't think the majority of them have had the benefit of the kinds of services that the corporation currently provides to the ministries.

R. Coleman: Basically, by the regionalization, we're attempting to attract more clients; and if we're attracting more clients into existing space, I assume the space has to be expanded -- because it meets a certain need today. Or do you have additional space in all these regions out there that, because of regionalization, will all of a sudden become vacant? If it becomes vacant, is that where you're getting your space from, or do you actually have to have a capital cost to expand some of the space to accommodate these additional clients?

Hon. D. Miller: No. As I tried to indicate, a variety of services that are currently offered fall under the broad ambit of health care services but are not direct services delivered by the Ministry of Health. They may be funded directly or indirectly in conjunction with non-profit organizations. They occupy space.

I'm just thinking of one example in my constituency, in my hometown of Prince Rupert. The Prince Rupert Community Enrichment Society provides a variety of fundamentally integral health care services in the community. Most of them, I would think, are properly described as preventive, or are services that essentially keep people out of acute care facilities. They're very valuable. It's funded by grants through the Ministry of Health and probably the Ministry of Social Services. I think the Ministry of Attorney General also contributes to some of the services that this society provides. The building they're in is, quite frankly, less than desirable. They're struggling as a non-profit society to operate in that building and to look at issues of safety. The fundamental issue they're dealing with now is a back stairway that goes into an 

[ Page 1632 ]

alley which is a hangout for street people. In those circumstances, as that presumably comes under the umbrella of the regional health council, the corporation could offer its services to that society with respect to their building needs.

Given the professionalism in the corporation, I think it's a good fit. Those societies will benefit. I use that as one example to describe the kind of business that would come to the corporation through the regionalization process.

R. Coleman: I understand that, but they're not presently occupying BCBC space; these organizations are occupying other space. As you alluded, these non-profit organizations are always struggling financially; they're always having difficulty. Are we presuming that we're going to move these people into better space, which BCBC either has to build or has under management now, and that when they move into this better space, they can all of a sudden afford better space? Or are we giving them a discount on their space in order to subsidize their non-profit organization?

Hon. D. Miller: We're operating in a bit of a theoretical vein here. Quite often, you have a non-profit society that, quite frankly, doesn't have the experience that BCBC has in terms of management. It's not a question of higher cost. We're not proposing to increase costs to that client group but rather to manage it in a more efficient way. If, for example, societies are housed in inappropriate buildings and the corporation, working with the society, can find more appropriate space without increasing the cost, then that would be an improvement. Those are the kinds of areas where the corporation's expertise would come into play.

R. Coleman: I understand that. It's like portfolio management; it's like assistance in finding the location and space. I don't understand where BCBC gets to increase the revenue, which was the largest portion of your increase in profit for this year from regional health councils, by doing that for non-profits. Are you charging them a fee to find them the space? Are you charging them a premium on space that you already own? Are you charging rent on space that's not bringing you revenue, and that's why it drops directly to your bottom line? I'm just wondering where you get the revenue from that side, which actually comes to your bottom line.

Hon. D. Miller: I've failed. I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: One of the services we wish to provide to a number of the agencies that will comprise the new health boards is to look at their existing leases and, in many cases, take over those leases to see if we could, in so doing, strike them a better arrangement with the landlords when those leases come up for renewal. To the extent that we took over those leases, we would then be in a position to gain revenue from that. We would charge a small fee on the way through and would earn some net revenue. But I think the main objective in that process would be to try to achieve some benefit for the taxpayer and to lower costs for the health board and for the society that is part of the health board.

F. Gingell: I just had a chance to look at the financial statements for the first time. It kind of reminds me of the jokes people make about taxation. The British Columbia Buildings Corporation has had an overdraft for the last couple of years, and at the end of 1995, for the first time in a couple of years, they had $21 million. You had $20 million in investments and the equivalent of $21 million in the bank -- actually, in the hands of the provincial treasury. So I guess what Treasury Board said was: "How much have you got? Send it to us." That would seem to be the case.

It kind of surprises me, listening to this, that you suddenly see an increase in activity and need to provide facilities for a whole bunch of new provincial organizations that are coming on stream. You have some cash to help pay for acquiring leases and investing in leasehold improvements and whatever to make the facilities available for these organizations. The government -- this year of all years -- is requiring you to double the dividend that you previously paid. Having said that, I wonder if B.C. Buildings Corporation, through the minister, could advise us whose idea the $20 million dividend was.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: The annual dividend process that the corporation has is generally based on a debt-equity formula of 80-20. So the corporation, with the provincial treasury people looking through the budgets, would estimate what its position would be at the end of the year, its income for the year, the results of its operations for the year and the amount of debt it will have taken for the year. It will calculate an 80-20 debt-equity ratio, and that would derive a net dividend. That is generally the method by which the dividends are determined and paid by the corporation.

F. Gingell: I have one other question. Earlier this week -- in fact, yesterday -- we had a discussion about the capital costs of getting the Four Corners bank into the property at Main and Hastings. The minister and I had a disagreement about whether the original business plan meant anything. The minister suggests -- I think I'm being fair in saying this -- that it didn't and that all we should consider is the new business plan. Well, the old business plan, on which the Four Corners bank approval was given, showed that the capital costs of getting into that property and furnishing it were going to be somewhere around $407,000. BCBC took on that project for them, and it finished up costing in excess of $1.1 million -- more than two and a half times the original cost.

Can the minister advise me if BCBC was asked to give an estimate of the capital cost of getting into that property, which was used in the original estimates and was part of the Ross Montgomery report?

[10:00]

Hon. D. Miller: No, but the discussion we held the other day indicated -- at least as I recall it -- that the document the member was referring to, the feasibility study, was three years old. We pointed out that there had been a business plan, I think, the following year, and that the initial forecasts on capital and asset acquisition had been revised and a new business plan had been approved by Treasury Board, which, if I recall the numbers, was in the neighbourhood of $950,000.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. And the project actually came in $100,000 less than that. On the asset acquisition -- I can't recall the numbers -- again, the project came in significantly lower than the projected asset acquisition figures in the approved business plan. Notwithstanding that, I was somewhat disturbed to read a little sidebar in the clippings this morning, which I thought was not very helpful with respect to the bank and fairly inaccurate. That's my recollection of the discussion.

[ Page 1633 ]

R. Coleman: I'd like to go back to the regional health boards and how this is affecting the bottom line of BCBC, just so we can clarify a couple of things. Did BCBC do a projection of space and of cash flows that allowed them to come to the revenues-versus-expenses they would be deemed to receive as additional revenue and profit, which would go to the bottom line of the 1996-97 estimates?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: That obviously forms a portion of a business plan for that period of time. Is that available?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, there is general information available from the corporation with respect to that issue. I would ask the corporation to provide information they may have to the member. But I guess the question goes to the veracity of the numbers in the budget projection. I assume the corporation's got a fairly decent record. I see nods, Mr. Chairman, so I think there's some reason to have some confidence in the work done by the corporation. I certainly appreciate the remarks made earlier by the member with respect to the performance of the corporation.

R. Coleman: That's correct. My concern, though, is that those projections were based on the implementation of something that may not be completely implemented in the time frame that has been given to the corporation. They're relying on that for a base of revenue. That base of revenue goes to the bottom line. It then affects the overall budget of the province of British Columbia, in that the corporation may not be in a position to send $20 million out of this year's budget to the revenues of the province. I'm just wondering if I can get some assurances. The comment was made earlier that we would find it somewhere else. If it's not going to come from there, I'd like to know where we're going to find it in the revenues and expenses of the corporation in order to achieve the goal, or whether we should be aware that this goal may not be achievable in this particular fiscal year.

Hon. D. Miller: The member, I think, raises an interesting point. Certainly, in terms of sequence, the decision on the review was, I think, subsequent to this projection. Notwithstanding that, obviously every corporation that pays a dividend to the Crown -- and we've canvassed some of those issues in other areas -- will do their utmost to meet the projections that are outlined in the plan. At the end of the day, you can only account for that, I guess, at the back end instead of the front end. At this point, there may be some issues with respect to time, but I think it's much too early to suggest that the projections the corporation has are not achievable.

R. Coleman: I don't think it's too early. We're three or four months into the fiscal year. This is not like we're doing estimates in February for financial projections that start in April, to run through from April to April. We're now in August. Surely the corporation has some feel as to how this revenue-and-expense projection is falling into line with what they were anticipating happening in this particular fiscal year.

Hon. D. Miller: There will be a report forthcoming to CCS in the regular quarterly reviews of the business plan, so we certainly will look at those very closely.

R. Coleman: I would assume that is for the months of April, May and June, as a quarterly report.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: So my question to the minister would be: in the quarterly report.... It's now August. We have computer accounting, and we have a basis of accounting and formulas, as for being able to handle the books of the corporation. Given the efficiency of this particular corporation, I'm sure they know where they stand today. I'm just wondering if they're able to tell you where they stand today.

Hon. D. Miller: The advice I'm getting is that they have not forwarded to me any quarterly reports. I haven't canvassed the issue prior to these estimates, but did I indicate in my answer that they would be forthcoming very shortly.

R. Coleman: I don't want to belabour the issue. Is it possible that with the staff here we could define "very shortly," as to when those reports would be available?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have an exact time frame, but I think it's very soon.

R. Coleman: Let's go back just briefly, then, to the $20 million that we're going to give the province from BCBC this year. An indication was that the regional health boards, the regional health councils and the expansion would be part of the revenues that would provide the additional profit. Could the minister tell me where the other profit, in addition to that, is coming from to make up the $8 million difference between last year's funds and this year's?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that it's business growth and anticipation of higher net incomes for the year.

R. Coleman: In which sectors are we anticipating the growth?

Hon. D. Miller: I'd ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: The revenues would be higher from a number of different ministries, largely due to capital projects that have been completed, have now come on stream and would become part of the revenue base for the corporation.

R. Coleman: Do any of the frozen capital projects have any effect on your particular business plan for revenues that are anticipated?

Hon. D. Miller: No, they wouldn't. They are essentially projects that are defined in a number of ways but not legally committed. So they wouldn't come on stream, in any event, for some time.

R. Coleman: Just moving off this for a few minutes, I did notice that the president of BCBC made reference to some figures in his book. Perhaps he could make those figures available to me, as to how he came up with those projections. That would be very helpful to me; I could just see it in front of me and not have to belabour the point as to where your additional revenues and expenses are coming from in this particular fiscal year.

Your report, as for the mechanisms for measurement and what have you, stated that you conduct studies on a regular basis that compare your organization's performance with the private sector: cost analyses, those sorts of things. I notice that 

[ Page 1634 ]

you have performance-reporting now for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which is basically coming through some relationships with other ministries -- I think it's the deputy ministers' council. You're trying to establish some performance requirements for the corporation that you can measure yourself against quarterly or annually in different sectors. Is that performance requirement now in place for the corporation?

Hon. D. Miller: My advice is that yes, it is, with respect to financial and cost-avoidance issues.

R. Coleman: The costs would be financial and operational? You haven't put into place the ones relative to customer service, or the social ones with regard to employment equity and employment practices, or the environmental ones? Or are all four now in place?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, they are in place, but they will be developed further.

R. Coleman: Staying along that line, then, basically we have a reporting frequency for total revenue, expenditures and net income that is quarterly. It's now August. Obviously, it's a month after the first quarter, and I would hope that we will get those figures with regard to your anticipated quarterly revenues. When you present those figures, do you present them basically...? Do you have a cash flow budget that says: "In the first quarter of 1996, we expected to get a net revenue of this and a revenue projection of this, and this is what we achieved"? Is that what your quarterly report will include?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is yes. The information with respect to quarterly reports is provided to the Ministry of Finance.

R. Coleman: I have a couple of concerns, then, with regard to the performance-reporting requirements of the corporation, in particular the portion of your performance requirements where you're going to review annually. It basically says "increase revenue from new public sector business and report expenses" and contribution margins in your financial statements. I wonder if that should not be in there, seeing as you haven't really received the new mandate with regard to public sector involvement in other projects.

Hon. D. Miller: I just wanted to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I think it was indicated when the information was provided. It's been indicated by Ms. Halkett that this is a first year. It's still very much in the developmental stage, so the corporation is busy working on these issues.

R. Coleman: I should be clear on the fact that this wasn't provided.... I didn't receive this from the corporation. Just so you're aware, I received it from another source, which is fine.

Basically, we're not in a position to discuss the performance of B.C. Buildings Corporation, reporting those requirements, until the spring of 1997. Would that be correct?

Hon. D. Miller: For the record, that information was made available to the Public Accounts Committee and the Crown Corporations Committee. No disrespect, but government made the information available, that's all.

[10:15]

R. Coleman: That's fair comment. You're right. But it wasn't made.... I thought you were referring to it as being made available directly to me.

Basically, we're going to be able to look at this reporting requirement in 1997 when we get the annual report for 1996. Will the 1996 report address these performance requirements? Will it bring it back to this particular performance requirement? Are we actually going to see these performance requirements being compared in the 1998 year?

Hon. D. Miller: It will be in the next annual report.

R. Coleman: Basically, the challenges to BCBC, then, are strengthening cost control in capital projects, developing project finance capability, expanding the market to the broad public sector, and strengthening planning capabilities and processes. I had a concern, because earlier there was a shortfall of capital. At some point you should address that, with regard to expanding the mandate for outside capital for BCBC, before you run into a massive shortfall and end up only being in the lease business and not being able to be in the real estate business.

There were some recommendations that came out of the CCS report. I'd like to quickly go through them and see if they've been implemented. Recommendation No. 1 is: "BCBC and CCS prepare a planning board submission which addresses the key challenges and major issues discussed in this report, articulates a definitive vision..." for the corporation, and "...obtain alternate sources of financing on a project-by-project basis." Has that recommendation gone any further than this report?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think we're in a position to report implementation. A lot of these issues are still being discussed between government and the corporation. I gather there is some implementation that has taken place, but again, I stress that it's probably at too early a stage to get into any kind of extensive discussion with respect to implementation.

R. Coleman: The other recommendation was basically that BCBC would enter into discussions with Treasury Board -- as you can see; I know you've got the recommendations in front of you -- to start what I brought up earlier about trying to get the costs of other projects from other ministries -- i.e., Education, Housing, Health, or whatever. Have those discussions been initiated?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I also indicated that there had been ongoing capital planning under E & I, and now the capital review, which will take some of that work further.

R. Coleman: I'm going to go on the assumption that we're working on the eight recommendations of this report in some phase or another. Would that be a safe assumption? On the eight recommendations of the CCS report, I'm going to ask the question, and maybe we can wrap all these recommendations.... We're working on all these recommendations?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I think we've sort of touched, perhaps obliquely, on some of these in previous discussions. But, yes, I think that's a fair summation.

R. Coleman: I'd like to move on to just a brief overview and discussion and a quick analysis of the success of the various components of the Victoria accord. How are we doing with the 11 acres of the legislative precinct project?

Hon. D. Miller: I've never been a great translator, Mr. Chairman. I'll let Mr. Truss answer.

[ Page 1635 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Take your time; I'll be right back.

D. Truss: Under the Victoria accord, a number of projects have been completed. The Belleville terminal was done a couple of years ago. On the property known as Q lot, there are currently 40 housing units under construction, and for a future date, another 20 market housing units will go in place there. Projects like that have been undertaken. The major office developments have not yet been undertaken. Rezonings have been achieved, and densities have been achieved through negotiations with the city of Victoria. The projects themselves have not been that....

R. Coleman: Thank you. You might consider becoming a politician. You were able to draw that out just long enough for the minister to get back for the next question.

You refer to the Q lot. I don't have a Q lot; I have a Y lot. Is that the particular piece of property we're discussing?

Hon. D. Miller: I ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: The Q lot is the property immediately opposite the armories, fronting on Menzies Street, between Kingston and Superior. The Y lot property is a 2.2-acre parking lot basically behind the Executive House Hotel, between Burdett and Humboldt.

R. Coleman: Would the Q lot, then, be part of the legislative precinct project as a whole?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: Were the 40 subsidized housing units done through a proposal, or were they done directly by the Housing Management Commission as a subsidized project? Or is it a co-op?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: It's funded by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. A range of associations are involved. The Capital Mental Health Association is undertaking five of the units. The Women's Shelter Society is taking a number of units, and other societies are working in conjunction with the B.C. Housing Management Commission, which is actually doing the project. We in fact sold the land to the B.C. Housing Management Commission, which in turn has made it available to various societies to undertake the development of the 40 units.

R. Coleman: Just to clarify, so it doesn't get into Hansard wrong, you sold the property to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation, I would assume, which then signed a lease with the societies for a 30- or 60-year period through B.C. Housing Management Commission. I don't believe the commission itself actually holds the land.

Hon. D. Miller: We'll attempt to clarify that.

R. Coleman: I think I already have. I think if you check it out, that's the correct process with regard to that.

Is the Y lot project the one you have achieved the densities on but you haven't begun the development of yet?

Hon. D. Miller: I ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: We actually have achieved densities on the Y lot of 5 to 1 as part of the rezoning process. We also did achieve density rezonings for the Q lot and the property immediately to the south of us, where the temporary buildings are, called the south lot.

R. Coleman: I won't get into the current statistics of rentals in Victoria. I think that if any of my colleagues wish to, they can basically read those statistics and understand why you're developing these properties: because of the 1 percent vacancy in commercial space in Victoria.

I have come to the point where Kew Court, as it's referred to.... The one question that came to me.... I know I asked it when we were in discussion about this prior to the estimates, but I've heard it a couple of times from other people within the precinct, and I think it's good for clarification. Is it the academy that is presently under renovation at this point in time? Would you clarify how much that portion of the Victoria accord is and what the overall dollar figure of the Victoria accord is? As I said to you before, there is some confusion as to what we're actually spending, and where.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: The renovations of St. Ann's Academy are currently underway. Our current forecast is that they will be done for approximately $15.7 million to $15.9 million -- in that range. With respect to the office building developments of the Victoria accord, over the total build-out period -- and recognize that over time, these projects could comprise about one million square feet of space, for which you obviously have to have a very long build-out period -- the total estimated cost would be in the range of $200 million.

R. Coleman: I have just a couple of questions before I move on to the strategic plan. I know that you provided me with this, but I'm just going to clarify for people that BCBC is not storing and does not store furniture. Could I just clarify that? There are a number of people in our precinct who believe you have warehouses full of furniture. I want to make sure that it's on the record that you do not.

Hon. D. Miller: No, we don't store furniture. There is, I understand, a very small stock with respect to this building, but it's here.

R. Coleman: With regard to full-service accommodation.... This comes back somewhat to this precinct, but it also comes back somewhat to the services you're offering your clients. You say BCBC will manage the following aspects: space; quantity; quality; furniture design; supply and setup; and technology, including voice and data requirements. What data requirements do you advise your clients on?

Hon. D. Miller: I guess it depends on what business they're in, what their requirements might be.

R. Coleman: If we could just move on now to a quick discussion with regard to the strategic plan, I think the strategic plan for BCBC is basically its vision and its future. The fact that BCBC looks at the taxpayers and at the corporate community of the government, for argument's sake, as being the client of the services they provide....

I just wanted to deal with technology and what have you. You're right, hon. minister, that they do provide a number of 

[ Page 1636 ]

technologies. But I was really looking at whether they ever thought of providing technology where there might be access through computers within this building to certain things that everybody else can access. But I won't get into that at this point in time.

Hon. D. Miller: You can come and use mine; it's not used very much.

R. Coleman: I understand it's a pretty good office to work in, too.

There are some comments in the corporate strategy.... I'm concerned about how you plan to implement them and how you plan to impact on the marketplace to meet these strategies. The first one is that you're going to: "Reduce the cost of government accommodation by influencing demand, developing creative alternatives and making more efficient use of existing facilities. We will shape the customer requirements into more cost-effective accommodation solutions." I would take it that a portion of that comes down to your set design and being able to do workstations and boilerplates that you can produce for the marketplace. I'm more concerned about "by influencing demand," in the first part of your statement. You're only referring here to influencing the demand of government in its need for space. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: I think your other objectives are probably able to be achieved. I just want to get a feel for how you plan to achieve those objectives within your business plan; I'm more concerned that you're being provided with the latitude and the funding in order to accomplish your objectives. It's great to have a business plan, but if objectives can't be achieved because you're being restricted, I'd be very concerned about that.

Objective No. 1 is: "Reduce the cost of government accommodation." You have some fairly high goals here to achieve this, I think, looking at your previous annual reports. First of all, using '95-96 as the base year, you're saying that you're going to: "...achieve a $30 million annual saving to government by 1999 through space reduction, cost reduction, cost avoidance" -- I don't know what cost avoidance is -- "and efficiency initiatives, approximately $23 million of which will result in reduced occupancy costs to our customers." How are you going to reduce the occupancy costs to your customer? Are you planning on paying down your debt, reducing your interest cost, in order to reduce your costs and pass them on to the customer? Or is there another formula that you're using to try and reduce them?

[10:30]

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: There are a number of initiatives we have underway to achieve the $23 million. In some of them, we will try and work with ministries to get them to use less space, to look at alternatives to space, to share space. They are concepts we're working with called alternative workplace strategies or integrated workplace strategies. We will try to get ministries to make do more with space, to avoid building or expanding space, and so forth. We also will be more aggressive in managing the costs of servicing and looking for ways that we can reduce service levels, such as two-day-per-week cleaning instead of daily cleaning in some facilities, and other cost-reducing measures we are taking throughout the corporation.

R. Coleman: That would just basically take care of objective No. 1 and the six points. Are you referring to that or just to the first point of objective No. 1? I like No. 1.5, but on mine it reads that you're going to reduce the amount of office space for the minister by 500 square feet. Would that be correct? That's tongue-in-cheek, of course.

Let's assume you're using No. 1.2 there: "Decrease the cost of accommodation per person for our ministry customers by 6 percent by 1999." Are you seeing that through a cost in the actual number of people within the civil service? Or are you seeing it by reducing the amount of your new office space, as you say in 1.5, down to a use-per-person to get your ratios in line?

Hon. D. Miller: It's the cost per employee, so it follows.... It's not based on the number; it's the cost per employee.

R. Coleman: I'd like to take you to page 11 of your strategic plan. There's a comment with regard to working with the Ministry of Attorney General "to achieve a reduction in the overall cost of housing an inmate through a comprehensive review of the corrections program as well as a reduction in the capital cost for new corrections facilities." There are a number of other things you say.

First of all, I'm just wondering how you're going to plan to achieve that. Going back to last year's estimates, there was one thing that was not in this year's plan. It was asked by the previous critic for BCBC, and that was the status with regard to a corrections facility that was under negotiation -- finding property for them, I think, in the Coquitlam area. Maybe you could deal with the two.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: I could answer the second question first. We concluded the acquisition of a site in Port Coquitlam, which will be the location for a new corrections facility in that community.

With respect to the first question, we have an ambitious goal which we have set jointly with the Ministry of Attorney General, in particular with the corrections people, to look at all aspects of the delivery of corrections services. The cost of corrections facilities is very expensive on a per-bed basis and on a per-square-foot basis, by their very nature. In looking at how we can work with them to either reduce the costs of the facility or enable the ministry to achieve economies in its staffing or other service requirements, our goal is to reduce the cost per inmate, if you will, by 20 percent. That would be a combination of looking for facilities savings as well as service savings within the ministry itself. We are working on that together, because the two work very closely together between the facility and staff levels.

R. Coleman: Would you be able to tell me what the cost per inmate is now?

Hon. D. Miller: We don't have the figure here.

R. Coleman: Could we go on to your second objective: "Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the BCBC model." Your financing is based on appropriate business criteria to undertake five capital projects by 1999. When you make that statement in your objectives, I would assume that those five capital projects do not include the Victoria accord.

[ Page 1637 ]

Hon. D. Miller: They could.

R. Coleman: Five capital projects by 1999 is a very conservative projection, then, because I would assume that there would be more than five capital projects in most years. Would that be correct? Given what is contained in the annual report, I think there were seven major projects done and completed at the end of 1995.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps. Again, it's the desire to use alternative financing, so I think it's appropriate.

R. Coleman: Just to be clear, then, are these five projects an alternative financing objective outside of the normal projects that BCBC would be involved in on a capital basis? Is that what I understood you to say?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I'm advised that, really, it's looking at new approaches to financing traditional projects.

R. Coleman: It's 1996 now, so between now and 1999, you're going to do 1.25 projects per year.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: Our objective is to do five projects using alternative financing. During the planning period, the three-year period, we expect to do more than five projects in total. But we have given ourselves the target, the goal, if you will, of doing five of them using an alternative financing methodology.

R. Coleman: This goes back, then, to your hope to implement some of the recommendations, to get into other forms of financing, to do projects in addition to existing government facilities and capital projects.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I think we stated that they will be traditional projects, government facilities. But I think that looking at the alternative financing is the key.

R. Coleman: I understand the alternative financing concept. I was just concerned that BCBC, with basically the number of projects that could be defined just within the Victoria accord, wasn't planning on doing any other projects in the province in that same period -- that the five are isolated from the normal course of business of BCBC. Or are you going to get alternative financing for five out of the number of projects you're going to do in that period of time? Is that what it is?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Going back to the series of questions, we've said that some projects in the Victoria accord may be part of the five. But it certainly wasn't confined. There's no exclusivity to this.

R. Coleman: I've reviewed the information with regard to improving the satisfaction of all four customer dimensions, and I see them as achievable objectives that don't need to be canvassed here tonight. The corporation can move forward with these and can probably achieve them, given their past performance. I see no reason to get into them.

Objective 4 is: "Expand our services to the broader public sector...." Basically, there are two points in this particular objective. One is to price all core products and services at market competitive rates by March 31, 1997. Would you give me a short explanation of what you refer to as core services?

Hon. D. Miller: I'd ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: It would be the services provided in all the areas of property management, whether they be cleaning or other kinds of maintenance activities, leasing services or project management services -- everything like that.

R. Coleman: The second one is 4.2, which is: "Increase the total amount of revenue derived from new public sector business from $45 million to $65 million by 1999." Could you give me a brief explanation as to what that private sector business is anticipated to be?

Hon. D. Miller: Just to illustrate, we did discuss the issue of health regionalization and the additional customer base which that might provide.

R. Coleman: I have a couple of other questions, and then I think we can wrap up shortly. But I do know my colleague from Cariboo North has a question that he would like to canvass before we close off the estimates this evening.

J. Wilson: This is something that came up in my riding, and I was asked to gather some information on it. We've recently had a new Social Services building constructed in the city of Quesnel. Could the minister give me the costs of rental per square foot on this building?

Hon. D. Miller: We don't have that information here. We will get that information to the member.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh, it's the private sector. Sorry. There may be issues of confidentiality, but I'll certainly determine if it's information that can be given out. If it can, I'll make sure that the member gets it.

J. Wilson: You could consider the money paying this lease to be taxpayers' money. To this point, all efforts to get the exact cost for the rent per square foot on this building have been foiled by this government. What I would like is a commitment from the minister to provide that information, considering the fact that it is taxpayers' money that is being spent by BCBC.

Hon. D. Miller: Just in trying to get a sense of where there may be an issue here, it's one thing to ask about the costs, but are there particular problems that have been identified? Are there issues in the community about it? I don't quite get the context, perhaps, of your question.

J. Wilson: I guess the concern that people have expressed to me is that they would like to know what the lease on this building is per year. There is a lot of feeling in the community that it wasn't necessary to build this huge building, yet it went ahead anyway. Then when people inquired as to the cost of this lease, the figure was denied to them all along. They would like to know what the lease fee on this building is.

Hon. D. Miller: That information is not released for reasons of confidentiality with respect to that issue, which I understand has been thoroughly canvassed. So it's not just in Quesnel that that issue may arise but also in other communities.

[ Page 1638 ]

[10:45]

J. Wilson: If we as the taxpayers are going to lease a building through the government, that information should be made available to us. We don't know if the lease that is being paid on this building is in line with the rest of the lease space available in the city. Is it less? Is it more? We would like to know the actual cost. When the minister tells me that this is not available, I'll take him at his word, but I don't believe that it is something that can't be acquired and that he can't release this if he wishes to.

My second question is: who is the owner of this building? We have been led to believe that it is owned by a company. Would the minister give me the name of the company that owns this building?

Hon. D. Miller: That sounds like a practical request. But again, going back to the issue of costs and the issues we've just canvassed with respect to the strategic plan, which was to reduce the cost of government, that's BCBC's mandate, and I think their performance has been fairly decent in that respect. It's not as though anyone would have any reason to think that we would go out and look for the highest-cost space; quite the contrary. There are issues of the confidentiality of the private sector involved in this, and because of that we do not release the conditions of the contract we have with the private sector.

J. Wilson: If the minister's quite proud of the record of his government in reducing the cost to the people, I fail to see the significance of releasing some figures to prove that he is actually doing as he claims to be doing. On my second question: will the minister be able to provide me with the name of the company that owns this building?

Hon. D. Miller: I did answer in the affirmative, I believe. With regard to the member's first comment, I was really trying to capture not just my opinion but, I think, opinions that have been expressed by your colleagues with respect to this corporation.

J. Wilson: I can get back to the minister, then. The explanation which we have received from our past MLA was that the nature of the lease may not be what other merchants in town are getting for rental space, so to keep everything on an even keel...that was the reason they don't want these numbers floating around. Back to the company: would the hon. minister also be willing to provide us with a complete list of the shareholders of this company and the number of buildings that they control?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know what brief the member is carrying with respect to people who are unhappy about the situation of this private sector building that we lease for a specific purpose, but it sounds to me like somebody's unhappy and like somebody may own property that they'd like to lease to government. I'm not going to get caught in that kind of play.

J. Wilson: Quite the contrary. We simply would like to know the facts of this case and if you would be willing to provide us with the facts as I've requested. There's no hidden alternative here; there's no hidden agenda. We'd simply like to know the facts that are pertinent to this building.

Hon. D. Miller: I indicated that we would try to come up with that.

R. Coleman: I have just a couple of quick questions to wrap up the estimates on BCBC. I don't know whether you then want to adjourn or move to B.C. Rail.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: I have no idea. If it is, I have very impeccable timing, wouldn't you say?

I would, first of all, like to deal with financial projections in your strategic plan -- just briefly, mind you. I note that in the year 1995-96, you anticipated an 8.9 percent net income, in profit; then it drops to 7 percent. In 1997-98 it jumps another percentage point then drops back to 7.1 percent again. Given your revenue.... I am looking at the net income figures of $32 million, $29.435 million, $35.683 million and $33.224 million. All the while, you are maintaining that your debt-equity ratio is somewhere between 83 percent and 81 percent. In your business plan, you obviously have a reason for those glitches. I just wonder what they might be.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: I would like to offer an explanation. If you look at the summary you have before you, I agree, yes, that the net income is subject to some volatility. It is entirely due to the gains or losses on the disposal of property. The corporation has a program of either redeveloping property, such as the Oaklands, or selling other kinds of surplus property. The amount of that property that is available for sale in any given year will go up and down a little bit. That's why you'll see the gains line jump around a little bit.

The line above it, the income from running the core business, if you will, of the corporation, is going up in a nice, steady manner from $18.2 million to $20.5 million, $22.3 million and $25.4 million. It is going up steadily. I think that is a more manageable and controllable part of our business. The gains in disposal are somewhat volatile, as it depends on property that we have available for sale.

R. Neufeld: I have just a few brief questions about BCBC and maintenance. I am talking specifically about my constituency again, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. Can the minister tell me how the maintenance is carried out? I know BCBC has an office in Fort St. John. How is maintenance carried out on the buildings that they have to maintain in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and Hudson's Hope? Is it done through a contract? Is it done in-house? Is there a certain dollar figure when it goes to contract? Maybe you could explain to me a little bit how that's done.

Hon. D. Miller: Primarily contract.

R. Neufeld: So no maintenance is done by BCBC staff at all on any of the buildings that they own or rent in the constituency of Peace River North?

Hon. D. Miller: A very small portion would be in-house -- I gather two or three staff in Fort St. John may be engaged in that.

R. Neufeld: Can the minister tell me what criteria are used in tendering work that has to be done -- minor capital upgrades or those type of things -- through BCBC? Is that done by a formal tender or by invitational bid? Is it a certain amount? Is there a threshold for them to go to a formal tender? How is that process carried out?

[ Page 1639 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Truss will respond.

D. Truss: We use all the various methods you've described. For relatively small jobs, we would use an invitation to quote from a select number of people with whom we've done business or who we believe to be competent in the community. For larger projects, we would advertise for public tenders to bid on certain work that we require. That would be mostly for capital upgrade work; but we also request price quotes from different service organizations or individuals in the north and in other parts of the province to provide cleaning services, landscape services, snow removal services, and so forth, for the corporation.

R. Neufeld: One last question. I understand the discretion is left totally to the manager -- who would be stationed in Fort St. John -- as to whether to go to formal tender or just get price quotes and make the decision on his or her own as to who would get the contract.

Hon. D. Miller: I will ask Mr. Truss to respond.

D. Truss: We do have a manager based in Prince George and a superintendent in Fort St. John. These people would make the decisions, and there are some corporate guidelines we adhere to in terms of the various services or construction work that we need to have tendered and in terms of which method of procuring that service should apply in each case.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister supply me with those guidelines? I don't want a stack of documents but some fairly basic guidelines as to what the superintendent and the manager are supposed to abide by.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I'd be happy to provide the member with written material. Or perhaps someone from the corporation could discuss it in more detail with the member.

R. Coleman: I would like to conclude my questioning under the estimates for BCBC by just reiterating that I think the strategic plan is indeed a dynamic document. You're on track for the future. I hope you are provided with the tools to standardize procedures and provide the services legitimately needed by other areas of government. I look forward to working with you as the critic for BCBC over the ensuing year or for however long that period may be.

Given the lateness of the hour, I'd like to move that....

Hon. D. Miller: I'll just respond. I'll move the motion.

R. Coleman: Okay.

Hon. D. Miller: I wanted to take just a moment to thank the member for what I thought were good questions. Obviously he's researched the subject extremely well, and I certainly appreciate this approach to estimates. I'd like to thank the member for what I thought was a pretty valuable series of exchanges. I can tell you that I learned a lot sitting here listening to some of the answers.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:57 p.m.

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