[ Page 4833 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; for the benefit of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 49.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1997
(second reading continued)

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak on the interim supply bill. We are here debating this bill tonight because we have a government in power that has little regard for parliamentary procedure. Last March, when we debated into the wee hours of the morning -- on the eve of a very important religious holiday -- we saw what this government thinks of parliamentary procedure. Had this present government any foresight, they would have called the House back earlier so that estimates could have been completed, and we would not have to have this interim supply bill debate tonight.

This government does not give the opposition any notice as to what is happening in the House. We have no idea when the session will end. If we in government would try to work together instead of having the confrontational attitude that this government is forcing on this side of the House, things would flow in a much smoother fashion. A parliamentary calendar would be beneficial to both sides of the House. I do not know what this government is trying to prove. Maybe they have no agenda themselves and don't know from one moment to the next what they are doing. The members opposite must enjoy being here and having no family life. Maybe they feel they are punishing us. Cooperation works both ways. It is time the government stopped playing their games and got on to a willingness to work towards a positive working environment for the benefit of the people of this province.

We need to take a look at the way this Legislature is run. We need a government that has a vision of where they are going and how the business of government is carried out. We will always have a difference of opinion, and we will always be debating issues. Those are not reasons to continue the way we are doing business in the House today. The people of this province expect us to do the job that we were elected to do. We need to have set election dates. Elections should be held every four years, so that no government can manipulate the dates to suit their purposes. Budgets should have to be balanced, just as municipalities have to balance their books each year. The way it is running today, this House is in chaos, and it is up to this government to start to bring some order to the way things are done around here.

This government has just brought forth a bunch of controversial bills, just as people and children are going on holidays. They think that no one will be paying any attention to what is happening, and that the bills will go through with little fanfare. The people of this province are a lot smarter than this government gives them credit for. British Columbians demand more from government. If British Columbians could turn back the clock, this government would not be where they are today, because this government doesn't have any respect for the people of this province.

Every time this government brings forth a bill for us to debate, I really have to question what the bill says. What will the government actually do after the bill is passed? They say they will do one thing; then they do another. We have continually heard this government say one thing and do another. So it begs the question: why should we trust anything this government tells us?

One thing that really disturbs me, that is really a good example of this government saying one thing and doing another, is what the Ministry for Children and Families is doing to alternative schools. The Minister for Children and Families has stated emphatically that children are being put first. Her aim is clear: there will be no more children at risk. While she says that in one breath, she is taking away funding from alternative schools that would pay for badly needed counsellors.

These schools are for teenagers who have dropped out, or were kicked out, of school. These kids have been addicted to drugs, have been raped, beaten. They are confused and suicidal. These kids need someone to listen to them, someone to care for them. They need to wake up in the morning knowing that someone is there for them. The teens that go to these schools say that this is their last chance: "there is nowhere else to go from here."

The minister says she wants to put more money into intervention and prevention in elementary schools -- something I applaud. But not at the expense of teenagers in these alternative schools. These schools are doing a tremendous job with these teenagers. What is so appalling about this decision of the ministry is the amount of money it is taking: from Victoria, for example, it's $150,000. Hon. Speaker, $150,000 pays for 4.5 counsellors, with wages of $27,000 for ten months. Teachers' union counsellors get upwards of $55,000 per year. I challenge this minister. She is putting these children at risk by taking this pittance of money from them so that the Premier of this province can waste $1 million of our taxpayers' money for a photo shoot in Prince George.

I do not have any confidence in this government. I don't believe that this government has any intention of protecting children in this province. It is so hard to approve this bill when the government doesn't respect the money it collects from the people. It is appalling that the Premier has so little regard for parliament that he shuts it down for two days. Then he spends $1 million of our taxpayers' money to fly to Prince George to make an announcement that could have been made here in Victoria -- doing the business of the House.

This government is obviously out of touch with what is really happening to this province. They should stop and assess their priorities and calculate the true savings to the people of this province. When it comes to protecting children, education, health care, gambling addicts -- and we could go on -- this government is a dismal failure, because their first concern is their political skins.

This interim supply bill that we are debating tonight begs another question. We have waiting lists of people that are in desperate need to have operations, and yet the government doesn't have the money to clear up those lists. But turn on the TV or the radio, and the government has unlimited funds to tell the people of this province what a good job they are doing.

We are continually seeing businesses leaving this province and going to Alberta or across the border. The members on the other side are ignoring this, and they wonder why people don't have jobs. We don't see investors lining up to come to British Columbia and create jobs here. Our credit rating has gone downhill because this government cannot balance its budgets.

[ Page 4834 ]

I could go on and on about why we can't trust what this government says or does, or why we shouldn't support this supply bill. I will now turn it over to one of my colleagues, who also wishes to speak on this bill.

B. Barisoff: I too rise to speak on Bill 49, the interim supply bill. We came here in March of this year. The House could have sat much earlier; we could have had a lot of the estimates done. But instead, we came in late March, and we've had to go into an interim supply bill once already. We're now into the end of June. We're going into an interim supply bill again. This isn't right for the citizens of British Columbia. We have to have honest debate of what takes place in this House, and the government side must allow the opposition time to debate all the estimates to make sure that we canvass every area for things that we might find that affect different parts of the province in different ways.

What took place at the beginning of the year was shameful. We should have started sometime in January, so that at this time we wouldn't have had to look at a second interim supply bill. I don't know for sure, but this might be a record: a second interim supply bill in one year. I haven't checked Hansard or the records to find out, but I'm sure that there are problems. . . .

Why do governments insist on doing this? The NDP criticized the Socred government in years past for engaging in special warrants and working on interim supply. This is wrong. This is not the way government should operate. Government should operate in a manner that best serves the people of British Columbia. We shouldn't be looking at waiting till the last minute. Here we are again, a few days before the long weekend -- Canada Day, which is an important day for most people in B.C. and in Canada. What are we doing? We're here again, debating an interim supply bill, because the government wasn't prepared or didn't have the House sitting. We found days when we've taken time off. We weren't working; we were just taking time off. We should have been doing the debates on the estimates so that we wouldn't run into this interim supply bill. For what purpose? When we look back to the end of May, the beginning of June, we took a few days off. What for? We took a few days off so some of the members from the opposite side of the House could go campaigning -- campaigning federally. Is this the way the residents of B.C. should be treated?

[6:45]

When the government was embarking on the forest jobs announcement, it was another few days off, hon. Speaker. They went off, and we shut the House down. We went off on this big escapade, flying around the province. I think we were in Prince George, Williams Lake, Kelowna and on Vancouver Island. In fact, a constituent -- not one of my constituents -- from Kelowna phoned me today, wondering why a committee that I was on, on the Motor Carrier Commission, that had made recommendations a month and a half ago to the minister to enact. . . . He's been waiting all this time. He actually left the lower mainland to set up business in Kelowna. He's going broke because the government hasn't performed its duties in exercising some of the things that we put forward. In our response to the minister -- which was two members from the opposite side -- it was indicated that it would be immediate. We wanted it to happen immediately, but it didn't. Here we are at the end of June. This gentleman is probably going broke today.

This is not the way to run government. This is not the way to help the people of British Columbia, the taxpayers, to survive. We're not. We're driving more and more people to Alberta because of the way this House governs its business. We don't govern the business, because we don't get anything done. This government has had a real tendency to say one thing and do another. The opposition said: "Not a dime without debate." That came from the members opposite when they were in opposition.

All we're asking from this side of the House is honest debate. But what's taking place? We get these bills put out at the last minute, with no time for the general public of British Columbia to have a really good look at them. The sectoral bargaining bill that came forward today is wrong. What should take place in this House is that those bills should come forward, and then we should have time to go throughout the province and canvass the people of British Columbia -- the taxpayers -- to find out exactly what they want to see in some of these things, so we can come back and have honest debate.

But what are we doing? We're here at the end of June, and this government is looking for another supply bill to be passed. We haven't even finished the estimates, and we've got lots to do yet. We're looking at estimates that probably could run in excess of another month or so, and here we are, trying to put through another supply bill. Are we going to go for a third supply bill, hon. Speaker? It's wrong; it's really wrong. It's just irresponsibility. There are no other words for it. It's irresponsibility on the part of the government to do something like this.

I just want to quote from when the Premier was in opposition: "We have seen repeated attempts by this government to stifle debate on taxing and spending of this administration. The main purpose of members of the Legislature. . .is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House." This is, today, the Premier. But instead, what does he do? He allows us to go on and on, and we don't get anything done. He's not allowing the opposition to really debate. He sat on this side of the House and said, right in Hansard, hon. Speaker, that this is what should happen. But it's not happening. It's a "ram forward" type of government that just keeps pushing, pushing, pushing and not really caring what British Columbians have to say. That's wrong.

As is the Attorney General, so should the Premier of the government be accountable for such things. This government seems to have forgotten what it used to say to the naysayers on the other side. A lot of things happen: they take days off; they spend. . . . I can't even begin to imagine the kind of money that was spent on advertising. I'm sure it's in the millions and millions of dollars. Those on that side of the House say that all we want to do is spend, spend, spend. This side of the House doesn't want to spend, spend, spend. We want some accountability, and that's really lacking over there.

The minister can make his jaunts up to Prince George, or the Health minister makes all these great, grandiose ads on TV. I can't even begin to imagine what these are costing. There are waiting lists at hospitals. There are schools with portables. 

[ Page 4835 ]

We're not building any new schools. What's taken place in the last little while. . . . What we've found is that there are no schools being built.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: There aren't. You tell me where there are some schools being built. The few that are being built are being built in NDP ridings. They're built for right now; they're not built for the future. What we're doing is building crackerbox things; by the time they get them put up, they're already looking at portables. I think what we should be doing. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I think the member from the opposite side should be thinking about what I just said. I was indicating to you what kind of money we are wasting in this province. We're not telling you to borrow more money; we're telling you to be more efficient.

We're not being more efficient. The government isn't being more efficient. When we have to sit here and not debate the bills. . . . That's why we're asking for debate. We need debate in every area of government, because the inefficiencies of this government are so predominant that it's scary. That's why we can't build schools; that's why there are waiting lists at hospitals. It's simply because of the fiscal irresponsibility of the government of the day.

They sat on the other side of the House and said all kinds of things. I think the government lives on the three Ps program: pay, perks and promises -- all of which have been abused by friends and insiders. We brought up the other day in question period the issue of a former cabinet minister getting paid a thousand dollars a day. That's wrong. I don't care how you look at it, that's wrong. I think that when we figured it out, we figured it was $32 a word. Is that efficient spending?

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: The member from over there all of a sudden decides he's going to read now.

When we figure out that there are areas where we can save a thousand dollars a day. . . . We could put a lot of money into schools if we started using some efficiencies with government.

An Hon. Member: What does that thousand dollars cover for a consultant?

B. Barisoff: At $32 a word, I don't know what it covered. That's a pretty poor investment. For that kind of money they've got to be very good words, because it's hardly worth $32 a word. I wonder sometimes why we have all the people that work in all the buildings in Victoria, if we have to go out and spend a thousand dollars a day to hire extra people to give an indication of what's taking place. That was from regionalization -- another boondoggle in the former government that has probably ruined health care in British Columbia, never mind helped it along.

I just want to keep going on a few other things. It really bothers me when I see what takes place with this government. It's almost unbelievable. I have a quote here from the member for Alberni: "If they operated in any business sense at all, they wouldn't be putting this forward. We would have been debating this two months ago, but they were lost in the political wilderness, trying to get their members to come back on side. . . ."

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I'd like you to take your seat, please. We have an intervention from Delta South.

F. Gingell: I was just checking. I don't think we have a quorum in the House. I was wondering if the Speaker would call for a quorum, please.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

B. Barisoff: I guess that's a real indication -- to think that the government on that side of the House has a $20 billion budget, and they don't have the decency to have a quorum in place when we're discussing a supply bill. That's really wrong. Hon. Speaker, when you think that we're discussing a $1.5 billion supply bill, and the government can't have a quorum on the other side. This is wrong.

An Hon. Member: It says a lot about your speech, eh.

B. Barisoff: I think the members from the other side should be listening to some of the speech. They should figure out. . . . I see them rolling in now. They're rolling in, just steady, one after another. They thought it was a vote, but it really isn't a vote. They are coming to listen to me speak. Thank you, hon. Speaker, for ringing the bells to bring more in. That's what we like to see.

I think I was partway through a quote here that I'd like to quote, from the member for Alberni. "If they operated in any business sense at all, they wouldn't be putting this forward. We would have been debating this two months ago, but they were lost in the political wilderness, trying to get their members to come back on side, trying to prop up their Premier and their Finance minister." That's out of the April 23, 1990, Hansard. I think they should think about that. Yes, there he is, right there. I think they are words to live by.

It's now seven years later, and what are they saying? They're doing exactly the same thing. They're trying to prop up their Premier. That's exactly what they're trying to do. They're trying to prop him up, keep him going.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Well, I've seen the polls lately. The member asks if have I seen the polls. I have seen these polls, and if you look at the three leaders that are in the House today, I think the Premier is ranked at the bottom of the polls. That's not a lot of class for the Premier of the day when he's ranked at the bottom. The member for Alberni wanted to hear it; he's got it.

Earlier, the Minister of Labour stated: "The opposition said in 1992. . . ." It was wrong; he didn't do his homework. Well, I've done my homework, and this is what this Minister of Labour had to say seven years ago: "I think that the Socreds would just as soon shut down the House and say that for them it would be 'business as usual.' " Seven years later, shutting down the House is business as usual for the NDP. We went through all the little episodes that we went through. I've mentioned them all -- the little jet-sets, quitting early on Fridays. You know, we're travelling all over, but years ago, when they were sitting on the other side of the House, that 

[ Page 4836 ]

was wrong. This is really hypocritical -- to think that when they sat on this side of the House it was wrong, but now that they sit on that side of the House it's all right.

[7:00]

The supper hour must be over; we all had 35 minutes. We're all equal in having the same amount of time for supper. But what were they doing? I don't know what they were doing. They weren't paying attention. The question I ask when I read over past Hansards is: what were the NDP doing all those years when they sat on the opposition benches? Have they forgotten the many speeches and debates? They've got to remember that those are put into Hansard. Those speeches and debates are all there, all there for us to look at. Now we find that once they've got the power. . . . As the member next to me says, power corrupts, and I think that he's absolutely right. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson says that power corrupts. Power has corrupted those people over there, because they're not doing. . . . Morally, it's corruption.

An Hon. Member: I'm still a virgin.

B. Barisoff: I think the member over there said. . . . I won't repeat what he said, but I think if he looks down a ways, the other day. . . . Earlier in the House, the member for Matsqui indicated to him, with some of his sarcasm and wit, that he'd probably be a real candidate for cabinet. I think he should be in there soon, because he seems to be able to manipulate things pretty good there. So I think that with his comments, he's probably gearing up for that quick trip into cabinet. We all understand that there will be a cabinet shuffle coming up pretty soon, and rightfully so.

I wonder -- when you read over some of the old Hansards and you look at when the NDP was in opposition -- why some of these principles weren't carried forward. They sat on this side of the House and they said one thing; now they sit on that side of the House and they say something else. That's wrong. The effect that it's having on the people of British Columbia is truly wrong. It's affecting everybody. It's affecting the people from the Peace River in the north, over to Cranbrook in the east, over to Vancouver Island here in the west and into the interior. It's affecting everybody. This is the kind of stuff that I think the people of the province are really fed up with. They really can't stand to think that what's taking place is that the government keeps saying one thing and doing another. Who cares about the people in the Peace River? That's there attitude.

I happened to take a trip up there with the Motor Carrier Commission, and the roads were deplorable, just simply deplorable. It was unbelievable. I was thankful to the member for Peace River North for taking me for a ride, but the roads were just utterly deplorable. Then the other day in the House I brought up a petition from the people on the Queen Charlottes. The roads are the same there. They sent me about 25 pictures, and if you looked at those pictures and saw the condition of those roads. . . . They are simply deplorable.

This government has got to start doing something about governing, rather than forever saying one thing and doing another over there. The people of British Columbia don't believe anything they say now. They claim that they've had a couple of balanced budgets. But what have we got? We've got more debt. We've got people leaving the province, going to Alberta. Businesses are leaving everyday, and they are on their way to Alberta. Why? Now, as soon as they start reading this new sectoral bargaining that's going to come up in the next month or so, we're going to lose more business. More businesses are going to leave. They're going to go to Alberta. Is that really what we want?

It's hard enough for the people in British Columbia, the taxpayers, to make a living. But we keep going further and further into debt. There was a cartoon in the paper the other day of the vision of the present-day government, looking at the hill. But they didn't turn around and look behind them, and there was a hole so big there that they could have buried half of Canada in it. That's how big a hole they're digging. They're putting us right down into the bottom of the hole. They look at the vision, looking up at this mountain, while we're going deeper, deeper and deeper into debt. That's wrong. That's absolutely wrong.

I could go on -- I just don't know how long I could go on. . .

K. Krueger: Days.

B. Barisoff: . . .for days, speaking of what's taking place in this province. I keep wondering, when you look across Canada, and you see the legislative sittings that they have throughout Canada. . . . They've got some legislative sittings that serve the people. Are we really, truly serving the people when we sit here at 10 p.m. or 2 o'clock in the morning? Is that really when the business is being done? Some of us don't live here on Vancouver Island, where we can get up at 8 o'clock, shower, go whenever we want and be down here at the Legislature, and have the weekends off or whatever. Some of us live in the rest of the province. We live all over the province, and we get on planes on Monday mornings to get here. We don't get here until noon or whatever. But the government of the days says: "Well, we're going to sit until 10 o'clock at night or until 2 o'clock in the morning." They don't have any consideration for people who are coming from other places. What they're saying is: "Well, too bad. That's fine. We're not really concerned about the rest of the province."

It's really scary to think that this is taking place. We've heard all the members from outside this area complaining about what's taking place. When you look at what is taking place in Manitoba, the schedule of hours. . . . Monday, 1:30 to 6:00, 6:00 to 10:00; 1:30 to 6:00; 1:30 to 6:00; 1:30 to 6:00; 10:00 to 12:30. You know, there are all kinds of standing orders in Ontario. When you look at all the legislatures throughout the country, they're not like us. They know what's happening the next day. We have no idea. We simply have no idea. The worst part about it is that it's because the government has no idea what's happening. They really don't know what's happening on the next day. We come to work here every morning. What takes place? We find out that we might be debating a bill or might be doing some estimates. We have no idea.

B. McKinnon: We might get a holiday.

B. Barisoff: That's right. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale just mentioned that we might have a holiday, but we don't know. Some of us have rented places to stay. We 

[ Page 4837 ]

don't know whether we're going to be there tomorrow or the next day -- or next month, next week, next year. At the rate we're going, I think we're probably going to be here until Christmas. I sure hope that we get some time off at that time of the year, because there is so much to do. Some of us have families, and I think that the members from that side of the House should consider that there should be some time off in the summertime.

We should have started early. We don't start a week before the interim supply budget in March is to be prepared. That's wrong. That's simply wrong. The government of the day can't do whatever it wants. I think the people of the province are going to rise up and say: "Listen, NDP government, it can't happen that way. We're not going to allow this to happen." You know, when you start seeing the polls. . . . The member mentioned earlier that we should have a look at the polls. Well, yes, the Premier of the day is the lowest on the polls, and rightfully so. The government of the day is the lowest on the polls, and rightfully so.

You really wonder when you look at some of the bills. I mentioned earlier about being morally corrupt. There are times when. . . . I know the member for Kamloops-North Thompson spoke for hours and hours on gambling, and I know that there are members on that side of the House, members who are sitting in this House right now, who are against gambling -- really against gambling. But when it came time to vote, what did they do? They voted with the government. That's wrong. They should be entitled to vote with their conscience. They shouldn't be put into a situation where they have to morally sell themselves. That is wrong.

These are the kinds of things I begin to wonder about. I say to myself: "What am I doing here?" I came here because I thought I could contribute something to the province of British Columbia and to my constituents of Okanagan-Boundary. I was the last person here, with the closest vote in the province. I know how important those votes are and how hard they are to work for.

K. Krueger: All 27 of them.

B. Barisoff: All 27, as the member for Kamloops-North Thompson says. That's what it is. When you think about some of this stuff, you really wonder. I was thinking to myself: "Twenty-seven votes. I came here to do something." I know I've got to work for my constituents, but what I find is that, first, we get here. . . .

On May 28, we get elected. For me, of course, it's a little later because we count and recount and recount again. It's a little later before I get here. We go through the summer not accomplishing a lot, and then we wait. We wait month after month. We're waiting and waiting for the government to call the House together. I'm anxious, new, excited and I want to be here. What happens? We don't get here. We don't get here until all of a sudden everybody tells me we have to have a budget by April 1 -- March 31 is budget day. So I'm anticipating that we're going to be here, and I don't plan a holiday for January, because I assume that any government that knew what they were doing would be calling the House back together, probably in late January or early February, because we have to have the interim supply budget and have to approve the budget.

But what happens? The days tick by, the days tick by -- and somebody says: "Well, we can't come now. It's spring break." It's this, it's that or it's whatever. We are always finding an excuse, and we're not here. So we come in the last week, and then we debate for a week. We debate into the most religious holiday of the year -- into Good Friday.

To me, that was wrong, really wrong. I believe strongly in Good Friday, and it was really wrong for me to be sitting here debating on Good Friday when I should have been home with my family. Now we go another three months, and we don't have the budget ready again. We're into another interim supply for a billion and half dollars. A billion and a half dollars, and I understand, hon. Speaker, that this is only good for a month.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Well, I think that if the members from government think that the estimates will be done in a month, they'd better think again. They won't be. The estimates won't be done in a month. There are all kinds of things that we have to canvass. And why do we have to canvass them? Because we can't trust the people on the other side. We can't trust them. We have to find out what's happening, because we've got to know. We've got to canvass each and every little part of this, because we don't know what the government's going to bring in next.

We look at all these bills rolling in now, one after another, and here we are, getting close to summer. The government thinks: "We'll do these guys in, and they'll just pass all these bills through." You start looking through them, and you find all kinds of little things in there. They're pushing things this way, and they're pushing things that way. What they're really doing is pushing this province into the state of bankruptcy.

An Hon. Member: Just remember the Lord is listening.

B. Barisoff: I am listening and I know the Lord is listening. I know he's listening, and I know that when the Lord is listening he'll look after us.

But I'll tell you, the members from the other side of the House better think, very much, about what's taking place. What's taking place here is that we're driving. . . . We're looking at our children's future. It's gone. It's completely gone. We went from the two so-called balanced budgets to a $385 million deficit.

We get worse. We get worse and worse. As the member said, the Lord is watching. I'm sure he's watching. The thing we've got to be careful of is that we all want to be truthful in this House. We all want to be truthful and do what's best. As I said before, we all came here with the right intentions -- at least, I thought we did. I find now that some of us didn't come here with the right intentions, and some of us don't vote with our conscience.

Most of us want to be here for the right reasons, but now I see the direction we're taking with some of this stuff, I begin to wonder. I really, really wonder. Here we are on June 25, and we're waiting again for another interim supply budget. We're going to have members speak. All kinds of members from this side of the House are going to speak, because we're concerned. We're genuinely concerned with what's taking place. We can't put up with this kind of stuff anymore. What's wrong is wrong. It's really wrong.

I see that the red light has come on. I had intentions of speaking a little longer, but I guess if that's the end of my time, 

[ Page 4838 ]

I'll thank you, hon. Speaker, and I'll turn it over to my colleague. I don't know who's speaking next, but one of my colleagues will be speaking.

[7:15]

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know I like to think that I always confine myself to the matters at hand, but I certainly will take that advice under advisement for the comments that I offer today, and I'm pleased to be able to offer these comments.

It is with a great deal of concern that I and my colleagues on this side of the House consider this bill by the government to get more money -- to ask for interim supply so that they can keep paying their bills. The reason that is a source of great concern to me and to my colleagues is because this government would not be in that position had they respected the traditions and principles on which our system and our House is premised and called this House back at a decent time. If this House sat the months of the year that it should -- if this House met as regularly as it should in order to consider the public's business on a regular basis -- we wouldn't be here today debating whether the government should have more money at the last minute because they've run out and they didn't plan their session and year very well.

Perhaps I shouldn't put it in exactly those terms, because I think that serves the government's purpose very well. They might like the public to believe that they just stink when it comes to planning -- that they just don't know what they're doing. That might be preferable for them to having the public recognize that what this government is trying to do is keep this House from sitting as long as they can -- until they are absolutely forced to present a budget -- so that they can ensure that the House goes into the summer when they think the public won't be listening. And then, if they can sit into the summer, maybe -- maybe -- they can get the opposition to get fed up and leave. And if the opposition gets fed up and leaves, then there won't be a session in the fall.

We all know that British Columbians are frequently busy doing other things in the summer. They're not putting their full attention to politics -- and why should they? Why would they? The government knows that if they do things in the summer, or if they do things when the House isn't sitting, their ideas, legislation and operation of government will not be subject to the same level of public scrutiny that they otherwise would be. And that, I believe, is what the government is trying to do, although they are very cleverly disguising it as though they don't know what they're doing at all.

I suspect that it's maybe a little of each. Maybe they really don't know what they're doing; maybe they don't have a legislative agenda. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe they don't have a legislative agenda; maybe they're completely disorganized; maybe they are world-class bunglers. Maybe that's what's going on here. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

But you know, I suspect there may be another agenda at work, and that's an agenda that I think we should be very, very concerned about in this House. I want to read you a quote from a great American historian: "If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism, and if our government is to function, it must have dissent." Well, the chief forum for that dissent and the chief forum for that criticism is surely this Legislature. That's what this Legislature was begun to do; that's why we're here. That's why the people elect government members, opposition members and third-party members. That's why we have a mixture of ideas in here -- so that we can subject the government to criticism.

I know that the Premier doesn't like being criticized. I know he's very sensitive every time he hears any criticism. But nonetheless, this government doesn't operate, this House doesn't operate, to serve the Premier's interests; this House operates to serve the people's interests. That's why we're here. That's why we're elected. We're not here so that the Premier can shove any legislation he wants through, which he has to do when the House is sitting, and the rest of the time try to pull one over on everybody, because the House isn't sitting, there isn't as regular media scrutiny and there isn't an opportunity for question period. That's not what this House is here to do.

There have been so many legislators in the past who have respected the tradition of parliament. There are Prime Ministers and Premiers I can think of who would rather present their ideas and bills in the House than anywhere else. But what have we seen with this Premier? We've seen a Premier who would rather make all his announcements in Vancouver because then, he thinks, perhaps he'll get a little less scrutiny.

But I guess Vancouver got a little hot. Maybe there were a few people who started paying a little too much attention. Maybe he ran out of fans; he ran out of the cheering crowds in Vancouver. So he decided to pack up the bus and move the family up to Prince George to make his announcement. He packs every fan that he can move in his plane up to Prince George in the interior of British Columbia so he can make his announcement, rather than doing it in this Legislature, which is the traditional, honourable and respectful thing to do.

But the Premier would rather avoid that. He'd rather avoid the messiness of having people question his ideas -- of having reporters come and talk to him in a free and open way and ask him questions that he might not like to answer. He would rather avoid going into question period and having questions that he doesn't necessarily expect to come. That's messy. It messes up his day. It makes his agenda really tough to manage. Besides, he can shut down the Legislature; he can give all his friends a plane trip; he can get all his fans. . . .

F. Gingell: Both of them.

C. Clark: My friend from Delta South suggests "both of them." But I would suggest, based on the well-behaved, constant support that this Premier gets -- the unending support, the unending votes in favour of everything he does, the adulation -- from his backbenchers over there. . . . His backbenchers claim to come into this office with some principles, which they're quick to throw out the window whenever the Premier says they should -- all of them. He can pack all of them into a plane and fly them around, and when they arrive at their chosen destination, he can make an announcement and know that there are some smiling faces in the crowd. I would suggest that if he doesn't travel with a full plane of people, he's not going to have any smiling faces in the crowd.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, Bill 49, please.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I was getting to that.

[ Page 4839 ]

Deputy Speaker: Interim supply doesn't have much to do with airplanes.

C. Clark: Well, actually it does. Because my point today is that the reason the government has to ask for this money -- the reason the government is in this position of having to come to the Legislature and get this supply bill through -- is because the Legislature doesn't meet frequently enough. The Legislature never meets early enough in the year, and I would suggest that that's something that they chose to do intentionally so that they can go late into the summer.

When I talk about the way the Premier flies around the province and packs his instant fan club with him, what I'm suggesting by drawing your attention to that, hon. Speaker, is the fact that the Premier doesn't have any respect for this Legislature. He lacks basic respect for the traditions of this House. And if he isn't here meeting with the Legislature, if he isn't here answering the tough questions every day, our democracy will not flourish and our government will not function. It's important that we uphold these principles.

That's why I make the point about the Premier flying around. The reference I'm making, of course, is to the fact that the House had to rise for a couple of days in order for the Premier to do this. I think that speaks to his lack of respect for the House, and I think the two issues are very clearly related. You know, we're going to sit into this summer, when the Premier hopes that people aren't paying a great deal of attention. And what are we going to be discussing? If the Premier has his way, we are going to be discussing the most controversial piece of legislation that this government has yet to table in this session -- maybe in the life of this government -- and that's sectoral bargaining.

Sectoral bargaining is a piece of legislation which is going to cause untold controversy in British Columbia. But the Premier hopes everybody is on vacation. The Premier hopes that we sit into the summer and nobody pays any particular attention, because he isn't prepared to pay the political price. Now, I would suggest that if he didn't want to pay that political price, he would have undertaken that consultation that he promised. He would have gone out and he would have talked to people outside of the B.C. Federation of Labour. He would have gone out and talked to other union members. He would have gone out and talked to non-union members. He would have gone out and talked to employers. You know what? He could even talk to the committees of this Legislature; he could even have talked to this Legislature.

There could have been a whole process of consultation that would have gone on. But the problem with that, I suppose, from the Premier's point of view, is that the end result of consultation is usually change and consensus and giving a little here and taking away a little there. And I would suggest that the Premier isn't interested in trying to find consensus on any of these issues. The Premier just wants to do what the only people he's consulted with have told him to do, and that's: "Get on with it. Give us the goods, give us the best deal you can. And we don't want it watered down by anybody else's interests. We don't want it watered down by the broader interests in our society. We don't want it watered down by trying to find a consensus in our society. Oh no, we just want our interests represented in that legislation." That's why there was no consensus. And that's why this Premier wants to go into the summer: because he knows that without having consulted on that bill, without having reached any kind of consensus, he is going to end up with an explosive situation. And that's what he's going to try and avoid by making us go into the summer.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, it's Bill 49, not the other bill.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate you drawing my attention back to Bill 49, because that's the point that I'm trying to illustrate here. Perhaps I should draw a clearer link for you. I'd be happy to do that. When I talk about the Premier wanting to sit into the summer, what I'm really speaking to is the fact that the Legislature didn't start sitting until far, far too late in the year. And that's why he's asking for interim supply today. That's why they need more money.

As I said earlier, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt: that they're just a bunch of bunglers, that they just don't know what they're doing, that they just can't plan even a couple of months in advance. But I don't think that's the real reason. I'm speaking to the government's motives in bringing forward this bill. I think that's. . . . I hope that's a legitimate form of debate in this House. It certainly has been in the past. Because it is that basic democratic principle of allowing democracy to thrive.

I'm going to make another quote here, if I can, from William O. Douglas, who was, I think, really one of the most pre-eminent participants in public life in the United States. He said: "The great postulate of our democracy is confidence in the common sense of the people and in their maturity of judgment, even on great issues, once they know the facts" -- once they know the facts. If this House isn't meeting regularly, or if the Premier is drawing this House together at times when he knows the public isn't paying attention, how is the public going to get the facts?

You know, we all saw what happened in the last election, when the government -- I think -- hid the facts from the people. They took the facts, and they distorted them, and then they hid them, and then they really misconstrued them. We ended up in a situation after the election where 75 percent of the people of British Columbia said they didn't believe anything the Premier said. Or you find over 30 percent of the people saying: "I voted NDP, but I would never do it again. If I'd known then what I know now, if in fact I'd been given the facts. . . ." It's people's access to the legislation of this government, it's people's access to the ideas of government, to the debates of this government, that makes democracy possible. That's what the whole thing is premised on. So when the government attempts to manipulate the process to ensure that as few people as possible are paying attention, or to have the House sit as little as possible, so that they don't have to enter into difficult debates, it's denying people that very basic right.

[7:30]

F. Gingell: Never?

C. Clark: Never.

An Hon. Member: How about Education?

C. Clark: No. You know, the Education Committee hasn't met.

[ Page 4840 ]

An Hon. Member: How about Health?

C. Clark: Health hasn't even met -- never. It has never met. When I go out and talk to my constituents, they cannot believe that we do not sit regularly. They don't believe that this House doesn't come together so that we can discuss issues. People bring me petitions, and they say: "Would you present this in the House?" And I'll say: "Well, maybe eight months from now, if the Premier feels like calling the House back. If he's forced to deliver a budget or something, then I'll certainly be able to present it in the House." But until then, this Premier's decided that he doesn't like having the House sitting. It's too messy. This democracy thing, this dissent thing, this criticism thing, is too hard to take.

The Premier must have pretty thin skin, because there are a lot of Premiers and a lot of Prime Ministers who have had the backbone to have this House sit, who have had the backbone to go through question period on a regular basis, who have had the backbone to be able to accept criticism. Because that's the way the system worked. If we had a fixed sitting schedule, we wouldn't be in this position today. The government would certainly be able to plan better -- or at least they wouldn't be able to pretend that they are such poor planners. If we had a fixed sitting schedule, the people that participate in this process -- or the people that all of us on all sides of this House are trying to encourage to participate in this process, because of the valuable contribution they can make to public life in British Columbia. . . . It would be easier.

I'm thinking particularly about encouraging women to run for office and to be a part of this chamber. I spent a great deal of time before the last election -- as I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the House did -- trying to encourage more women to run for office. And it is a very hard thing to do. It's hard, because women, whether they're New Democrats or Liberals or Reformers, are concerned about their children. They're concerned about their responsibilities as caregivers in their families -- and women are still the primary caregivers in their families most of the time. They're concerned about trying to juggle their time in that respect. I met a lot of women in the last election who said they weren't prepared to run because they were worried and they were concerned about the impact that that would have on their families' lives. I would suggest that if this House operated in a more civilized and more predictable manner, we would be able to encourage more women to be a part of this chamber, because then they would be able to balance their family lives. But the unpredictability of this job -- which I don't complain about, because I don't have children -- is, perhaps, too much for those many women and those men who are the primary caregivers in their families. That's a challenge for all of us to overcome.

I would suggest that if there is a government that should jump on that idea, grab it by the lapels and say, "Yeah, we want to encourage more women to be in politics," it is that group over there, because they're the ones that say they're interested in it. Now, I know they say they're interested in it. The fact that they just don't do it appears to be a different matter. Paying lip service to an idea doesn't make it true. Saying you're going to do it doesn't make it happen. Saying the budget's balanced doesn't mean the numbers add up. Saying you're creating jobs doesn't mean there aren't more people on the unemployment lines. That's the way this government operates; those are the principles that they appear to operate under.

But I would ask them today on this issue -- on which we can all surely agree -- to encourage more women to get into this political process to run for office and to get elected, because of the enormous contribution that women have to make, so that we can ensure that women's voices are heard and women's perspectives from across the spectrum are heard. Surely one of the best ways to do that is to offer a fixed sitting schedule for this House, to say to a woman who's running for office: "You know, if you get elected, you're going to be expected to be in Victoria from February to June. Then you're going to have the summer off that you can spend with your children. Then you are going to be sitting again from, say, September or October, until December" -- or whatever the numbers are we choose.

Then when they're in, once they're elected, they'll know when their estimates are coming up. The critic for Health will know when the Health estimates are going to be discussed. That surely would be easier for her and all the government backbenchers and all the opposition members that want to participate in those debates. They can ensure they are there. . .to give some planning to their lives. If we had a new regime, maybe the government backbenchers might want to participate. I can live and hope. I know there's lots of opportunity for change in this House, and maybe that's one of them -- allowing the government members, the backbenchers, who aren't honoured to sit in the cabinet. . . . I think my colleague from Matsqui made an excellent comment today, which reflected the fact that some of the ones who aren't in cabinet might take that as a compliment. Given the qualifications one appears to need to get into cabinet -- the ability to be duplicitous -- maybe the backbenchers should take that as a compliment. And they may. But you know, if they're the best of the bunch, we should be encouraging them to participate, too. We should be encouraging them to come to the estimates debates, participate, ask questions, work on behalf of their constituents and represent the people that elected them in the first place -- not just the Premier, from whom they may hope to gain some favour. They are the people they should be listening to -- the people we should all be listening to. We should be allowing people that route to be able to be heard. Surely that is principally through this Legislature.

You know, someone shouldn't have to be in an organized group to be heard. You shouldn't have to be in a big union. You shouldn't have to be in a coalition of people who are opposed around a single issue. Everybody should be able to be heard in our democracy. That's why the House should be sitting more regularly, because we are their conduit in many ways. Certainly people can make themselves heard outside this House, but this is a way for us to focus the debate. It's wrong for the government to come here and ask the Legislature for more money just because they didn't do their planning -- just because they want to avoid the tough questions and the public scrutiny of this Legislature. That's just not right.

I have people ask me all the time: "Well, I thought you were sitting right now. Why aren't you sitting right now?" Well, we're not sitting because the Premier doesn't feel like having us sit. We need to have a fixed sitting schedule for this chamber. I offer that to the government members in the hope that they'll take it -- that they'll recognize that that's the right thing to do. I offer the government the opportunity to have a fixed schedule of business in this House so that we can put some predictability into the system, not just for us but for all the people who are being paid to run the government. Having 30 or 40 civil servants on call -- the most senior civil servants -- every day for every debate because they don't know when their business is going to be done in the House is clearly unacceptable. It's clearly not the way we should be running government in British Columbia.

[ Page 4841 ]

When we look at the record this government has had over the last year for when they have decided to make their announcements, that's when my suspicion begins to grow. When are we going to be discussing sectoral bargaining? It's going to be in the summer. When did the government announce that it was going to hack and chop away at municipal budgets? It was in the fall when the House wasn't sitting. If the House had been sitting in the fall, would the government have to ask for interim supply today? Would Bill 49 be before us today? I don't think it would, because if the government had been doing its planning properly, they wouldn't be asking for that money today. You know, going out and deciding that you're going to announce the raid on the forest renewal fund, or you're going to make the municipal cuts, or you're going to tell everyone that your budgets weren't really balanced is much harder to do when the Legislature is sitting.

I don't believe that the public is well served by this. It is certainly true. . . . Well, no, perhaps I won't raise that quote. But I will end by repeating for the members opposite the quote with which I began and which I hope they will take to heart as they start their discussions with their House Leader about why we're doing this -- about why we're sitting late every night, why we're sitting into the summer, why the government is here asking for more money because they didn't plan well enough, or because they pretend to be such bunglers. Well, of course, we know that they're not such bunglers -- oh no.

I want to end by repeating that quote for the members. It is: "If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism, and if our government is to function, it must have dissent." That is the essence of democracy, and that's why this House exists. That's why each of us is elected here. We are not here to serve the whims of the Premier. We're not here to just follow lock, stock and barrel the wishes of the cabinet and the whims of the House Leader whenever she might decide to bring something forward. We are here to give voice to the people that elected us. That's why this chamber needs to sit, because if we do not sit, our ability to do that is severely hampered.

I would ask the members on the other side of the House to consider, as a result of this debate -- as a result of the fact that the government has brought forward Bill 49 for us to think about and debate -- the fact that we should have a good, fixed sitting schedule. We should have a schedule of bills that will go through the House and a schedule of estimates that will go through the House so that we know that there is some predictability to what we're doing. That seems to me to be the civilized, honourable, democratic way to have this House operate. I certainly hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House will agree with us as we work towards that goal. So thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments.

I. Chong: I too am pleased to rise this evening to participate in second reading debate of Bill 49, Supply Act (No. 2), 1997. For the benefit of our viewing audience, as a reminder to the members opposite and even for members on this side of the House, I would like to just clarify why we are here now in this House engaged in this debate. The necessity for an interim supply bill is to allow and enable the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for this particular year, 1997-98, have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The government needs interim supply, and we all know that. It needs to continue to pay its bills beyond this weekend, and we can appreciate that.

But the idea of an interim supply bill is not new. Many of the members opposite are not new to this Legislature, either. In fact, many of the members opposite were in opposition for five years before they became government for five years. So many of them have had ten years to understand the rules of this House and how a legislative calendar and agenda would benefit participation in debate on very significant pieces of legislation, on the very important process of spending estimates and on the very important process of debating motions. In fact, if we had a legislative calendar, we should also be able to ensure that private members' bills would be afforded the respect that they deserve.

To pull this stunt today, June 25, 1997, when we have been here since March 24, 1997 -- a mere three months -- I find appalling. Not only do I find it appalling, but it's totally hypocritical. On April 23, 1990, about seven years ago, the Premier, who was then in opposition stated: "The main purpose of the members of the Legislature -- everyone should agree -- is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House." I believe the words that the Premier spoke at that time were right, and I believe they are still right now.

[7:45]

It is extremely distressing for those of us on this side of the House, those of us who believe that we can put principle above politics, to be here this evening -- at about 7:45, for those who have just tuned into watch -- having to discuss interim supply. We were all elected and have been charged with the public trust for the functioning of the democratic parliamentary tradition of government. That means sufficient time must be afforded the debates on the very important issues that come before this House. What that means and what that takes is very simple: it just takes a little planning.

So often we've heard in the last few weeks that ministries, agencies, boards and commissions and Crown corporations must all prepare business plans. Some we have not seen yet; nonetheless, business plans must be prepared. I wonder why this government can't prepare its business plan, which would have a schedule: a schedule of times of sitting, a schedule of times when clearly and definitely we will be debating spending estimates for various ministries, a logical calendar that would show when we will be debating legislation, and a logical and appropriate method to determine when and how we would be debating pieces of legislation and, again, private members' bills. So that would be the first step we would have to reduce the cynicism and the apathy that exists in the public's mind.

Several of my constituents have noticed this and have mentioned to me that this House appears to be operating rather dysfunctionally.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, another member is standing. I recognize Okanagan-Penticton.

[ Page 4842 ]

R. Thorpe: Point of order, hon. Speaker. There's no quorum in the House.

Deputy Speaker: I thank you for drawing that to my attention. Hon. member, under standing order 7, it is at the discretion of the Chair whether to ring the bells on a quorum issue. At this point, seeing that a quorum call was made just within the last hour, I think it borders on being frivolous. So I'm going to carry on the business of the Legislature and ask Oak Bay-Gordon Head to proceed.

I. Chong: It is a disappointment that in such an important debate as interim supply members don't choose to listen to this important issue. My colleagues will be speaking on this at length, as they're able to. It's very distressing that the members opposite don't find that this is as important an issue. I hope that when they return to their constituencies, they can explain that to their members.

As I stated earlier, many of my constituents have approached me and asked why this House has become so dysfunctional. I've told them that it's very clear: it's because this House has no legislative agenda. It does not know from one day to the next what will be coming up in the orders of the day. They do not know what bills will be debated or what ministries will be debated. That just creates an illusion of inappropriate behaviour.

When is this government going to lead by example? We do need a government that is prepared to set that example and offer to the people of this province some confidence in the work that we are carrying out for them. We would not be here tonight -- on this evening of June 25 -- if a legislative calendar was in fact prepared and if it indicated the time required for debate of bills, the time required for the debate of estimates and the time required for the debate of motions and private members' bills.

Last year we were rushed through. It was the first session for many of us on this side of the House. We accepted that necessity to conclude business to allow the government to proceed. When we adjourned in mid-August last year, neither I, for one, nor many of my colleagues expected that we would not return until March 24 -- some seven and a half months later. In fact, people were quite amazed that we were not here debating important pieces of legislation -- pieces of legislation that I know are not introduced yet but that are rumoured to be coming in for introduction. That caused a lot of concern for our constituents, as I'm sure each member received. Legislation such as gambling expansion, no-fault insurance. . . . We certainly have seen the Labour Code bill that came in today. These are all issues that can be developed while we're out of session and then brought in for a first session during the year to allow the public to provide input and to have some consultation with stakeholders, so that in the end when we come back again in the fall, we can then properly debate them and properly ensure that those most affected will have had their voices heard.

The way that we are currently operating does not afford people that luxury. In fact, all it allows is for a bill to be introduced, and everyone is rushing around at the last moment to find out whether or not their views have in fact been heard or have been removed because another special interest group -- perhaps friends and insiders, as we know from the members opposite -- have been able to persuade the government to change pieces of legislation prior to introduction. Hon. Speaker, that is not democracy; that is not how the people of this province expect us to govern.

Legislation is made for people. If that is the case, people should have that opportunity to provide their input and opinions and recommendations and even amendments. We as legislators should give them that opportunity and the time to listen to their proposed amendments and to listen to how we can better change legislation that affects their future lives.

We always keep talking about the future generations. We all talk about youth, but when have we really given them the time? When have we given time to the small businesses we need so much in this province to hear their voices when legislation is about to be introduced? It is always after it's introduced -- and as we know, because of the majority that is here and because of caucus solidarity, there is never any opportunity to amend or to oppose and therefore defeat a government bill, even when we know clearly that that government bill is dangerous and offensive to many people in this province.

We have to wonder if this process of an interim supply bill is actually beneficial for the people of this province. We know that there are scarce dollars available for our precious health care system. We know that we are in financial difficulty, and we know that there are financial challenges ahead. We have all recognized that, and we can appreciate that government in its own way is trying to reduce expenditures without harming the people of this province. However, are we being fiscally responsible? How are we showing that we are taking up the financial challenge, when in fact we have our estimates taking up the time they do? They are not properly scheduled, so that we do not know if there are going to be additional staff overtime costs or last-minute travel costs to have ministry officials in place.

How would we be able to better manage that? We would be better able to manage that if we had a legislative agenda, if we knew the times and hours that we sat, so that staff would not be brought over at the last minute, and we would not be incurring additional travel costs that we do not need to have. If we sat earlier, if we came back in mid-February or even in late February -- even one month earlier -- then perhaps those of us who are critics and those of us who would like to participate in the very important process of spending estimates would be able to have a better in-depth briefing from ministry staff. At the present moment not all of us have had the benefit of briefings from ministry staff because of timing, and also because the staff themselves aren't aware of what it is the government wishes to introduce. So if we allowed more time, so that we could do our work, then perhaps we could be more effective and spend less time in handling the spending estimates for the various ministries.

I wonder what it is that we are expecting to tell people in this province when we adjourn for three days so that members opposite can help their federal counterparts in an election. I received a number of calls in my office, and I could not explain why we needed to take three days off. Surely those members who wish to take. . . .

An Hon. Member: Were all their offices open?

I. Chong: Well, that's another question. I don't know if all those offices were open. I would have hoped so, because the idea is that when you're not here in the House, you should be in your constituency. I certainly know that I was, along with my colleagues; we were working on behalf of our constituents. For those members opposite who say that they were doing that, I applaud them, because they clearly know what their responsibility is to their constituents.

But I wonder how many people did take the time to spend helping their federal counterparts, when we are paid. . . .

[ Page 4843 ]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, Bill 49, please -- interim supply, not federal elections.

I. Chong: The reason why we are here at interim supply is because we've lost three days. We lost three days when we took them off -- or the Premier asked to have them taken off -- so that we could help our so-called federal counterparts in the election. Also, we're here tonight because we just lost two other days in the last week so the Premier could attend around the province and make announcements.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I realize the importance of making announcements. I realize the importance of the Premier attending to those things. But the entire House need not have adjourned. If the Premier so chose, he should have left and conducted his business, and we should have been here conducting our business, as we were elected to do. You have to wonder what respect is shown to this House when the Premier pulls those kinds of pranks. Five days off in less than a month -- five precious days that we could have spent on debate. We could have perhaps resolved a number of other ministries so that we wouldn't be here tonight debating interim supply.

I realize that the bills that were introduced early in April also require debate, but surely a legislative calendar could schedule which of those bills needed to be debated first, to allow for them to be made retroactive to the dates that they were intended to come in.

The one that I'll refer to is the Tourism British Columbia Act, which is Bill 9. That's retroactive to April 1, and the tourism industry is certainly waiting for that. It was introduced in April, but it wasn't until May that we started to debate that. If it was as important as it was, why did we not start debating that immediately?

[8:00]

Earlier this session, as was mentioned by my other colleagues, we debated the first interim supply bill. That was brought forward just before a long weekend -- as we are approaching this weekend. That was brought forward on the Thursday before Good Friday, which many view as an important holiday. It was brought forward for debate on that very last day. The importance of it required that we had to debate that interim supply bill, and it took us beyond midnight.

Many people did not know that. When I went home to my constituency and was looking rather tired the next morning, people asked what had happened, and I explained to them that we had to debate an interim supply bill. The response I got was a bit of laughter, because they could not believe and could not understand why we could not have planned to come back the week earlier to bring forward the budget, the throne speech and the interim supply bill, and also to allow the time to debate it.

As I've mentioned earlier, surely many members opposite have been here for ten years, and they know how things run. They know what is required. They know when the money runs out, and they know when we have to request interim supply. When this government was in opposition, it said that that was an inappropriate way of governing.

Hon. Speaker, we have been here for just over three months. As I understand it, we've never actually had a full week. Even on our Fridays, on private members' day, we have oftentimes sat until only 11 o'clock. I understand that in the past, the normal time has been until 1 o'clock. When did this change? I suppose it changed when the House Leader decided that it should change. There, again, comes back the action that government seems to live by: the government can do whatever it wants.

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

I. Chong: Well, someone over on the other side said that. I think it was the Minister of Forests. But it's been used so often by so many people, and their actions have spoken louder than words, that at this time we believe they've all said it.

I would like to read a quote from a previous debate, when members who sat in opposition were debating interim supply. In fact, it's fitting that the quote I have here is from the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head -- the riding that I now represent -- who, when in opposition and referring to the then government, said:

"They've been in power over there for so long that they don't think they have to come before the Legislature to discuss how they raise money and how they spend money. They have so little respect for our parliamentary traditions. That is one of the most fundamental principles: that the government come into the House and justify its taxing decisions and its spending decisions."

We know how important it is to discuss and debate legislation. It is important that we examine important legislation and allow sufficient time to do the job properly. Today we heard a very significant piece of legislation being introduced: the Labour Code changes. We have already received a number of calls from concerned groups, individuals and small businesses -- small businesses that this government has so clearly set its focus on.

Everyone has agreed that small business is the engine of our provincial economy, yet they seem to have been forgotten when this piece of legislation was introduced. If they are not going to be given the opportunity to come forward and present their views, then I'll ask this government to allow for amendments. Because this government wants us to rush that piece of legislation through, it will surely show that we have so much disrespect not only for this House but also for the people of this province.

Earlier the member for Saanich North and the Islands spoke, and I listened to him. He was talking about confidence and trust, public trust, and saying that the need to restore that is very important at this stage of our political life. There has been so much, I suppose, deception and misleading informa-

[ Page 4844 ]

tion that the public has lost the trust that they've empowered us with. If we do not stop and hear them and change the way we are proceeding now, I fear that we will be at a point much too late to allow us to make the necessary changes in the future. People will just not believe that politicians can tell the truth, and I know politicians can tell the truth. I know there are members on both sides of the House who have that ability, and I would encourage them to do that. But if the public continues to be misled, and when 75 percent of British Columbians do not believe that they were told the truth about the budget during the election, then how are we going to give them some comfort in knowing that in fact they will be told the truth and that they will be told the truth in the future?

I also want to quote from the throne speech of June 25, 1996, when the Premier was elected. There's one very important sentence that he had in this throne speech that just resonated with me and, I'm sure, with all members on this side of the House: "British Columbians have sent a clear message that they expect the people they elect to work together to find solutions." When the Premier said that, I believed him. But I have to say that I do not believe him now, as many other British Columbians do not believe the Premier now. It is because he has never shown that he wishes to work cooperatively with this side of the House. He has never shown that he is willing to share information. He has never shown that he is prepared to allow this side of the House to help him set a legislative agenda, a legislative calendar, which I do feel that we so much need. We are lacking the control that is needed for this House to operate.

It's fitting that Nova Scotia has a much more regimented way of running its legislature. The House in Nova Scotia has a schedule as to duration, as to sessions, as to time of sittings, as to quorum, as to attendance, as to adjournment, as to prorogation, as to dissolution and as to the course of the session. I think we would all be well served, as would the people of this province, if we could adopt similar guidelines. I don't suggest that we adopt identical guidelines, but certainly it would help to ensure that we would know when interim supply debate would have to occur. Clearly, if an agenda like this were prepared. . . . I'm not suggesting that it would be so tight that we could not alter it. Surely adjustments can always be made, but they would be made given that we had tried our hardest to ensure that we would in fact stay with the agenda that was provided. We need that agenda; we need that kind of a calendar to help us. We are going to be here for another probably four sessions, four years, and I hope between now and then. . . .

Interjection.

I. Chong: I hear some hon. members saying: "Please, no." But if we are realistic and pragmatic about it, if that is to happen, then we have three opportunities, three other years -- perhaps four -- to introduce a legislative calendar which would ensure that this House functions properly and that those who watch us in this House can do so knowing that we are here and that we have guidelines and that we carry on the business which they have allowed us to carry on.

Before I close I do want to speak a little bit more about the reason we're here tonight. Again, it's because of the lack of an agenda in this House. When I was told about two weeks ago that we had to conclude the spending estimates for a particular ministry that I was critic of, I was told it had to be done that evening because there was more urgent government business to follow. Imagine my shock when the following week I was told that we would take two days off.

I had numerous questions that I wanted to propose to the ministry and to the minister, but the reason I didn't propose those at the time was also respect for the staff. The staff had been there since early that morning, and by 11 o'clock, when I looked across the House, they were tired. I felt that there was no need for that lack of respect for their personal lives and for the fact that they are dedicated civil servants: they were here to do a job and they would stay until it was done. But it wasn't necessary. We could have continued the following week -- we had two days extra, supposedly, because the Premier adjourned that week.

I want to say once again that perhaps we would not be here tonight -- perhaps we would have started this two days earlier -- if we had not lost those two days a week ago. Perhaps we would have been here a week earlier if we had not lost those other three days. With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this very important issue, and I know that there are other members on this side who would like to continue with this important debate.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I remember well the first time that I came to Victoria -- well, maybe it wasn't the first time, but it was the first time that all members of this House were coming to Victoria after we had been elected in '91. It was early in 1992. I was on the ferry, and there was someone I'd known for many years whose name I can now say -- Norm Lortie, at that time the member for Delta North. With him were quite a few others -- I was the only Liberal on the ferry. I believe the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was on that ferry trip; I believe the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows was on the trip; I know for sure that the member for Yale-Lillooet was there; and I believe Barry Jones, then the member for Burnaby North, was on it.

It was an interesting time. Here we were, not all of us newly elected -- I think Barry Jones would have been the only one who was a returning member -- but we all had stars in our eyes, and we were going off to a new experience. Norm came and talked to me, and I think the others looked at me with a bit of suspicion: "Why is Norm talking to him? He's the enemy." Anyway, by the end of the trip -- it was before the Spirit-class vessels had been built -- we were on the car deck and all chatting by our cars.

[8:15]

When you're in opposition, you see things differently, I'm sure. I'm sure that all these members in opposition -- we have the member for Surrey-Newton and we have the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who served in the Legislature, as you did, Mr. Speaker, and so have had the experience of being in opposition -- all believe that the time is long past due. Other legislatures have taken the opportunity to review and look at their practices.

We in the Public Accounts Committee have had an opportunity to look at some issues to do with accountability and the best way of having those issues dealt with in the Legislature. It's not for partisan political reasons but so one can have honest debate, try and come to useful conclusions and give good guidance from both sides of the House to government.

[ Page 4845 ]

This process of estimates and the way the House has behaved in this past three months is the worst example that we've had in the years since we, the class of '91, were elected. Things have happened that are just not normal. Things happen that make you realize that the government is not organized; that is, the people who are responsible for organizing government business are not organized. And so we are at the end of June having Supply Act (No. 2).

The government has to have money. We have to pay our bills, doctors have to see patients, nurses have to be in the hospitals, and the teachers have to be paid. It's important that there are income support systems on July 2, just as it's important that they're here on June 30.

The passage of this process is an opportunity for us to sit down and seriously look at the opportunities to change the way we do things. As we have a government that was in opposition for many, many years -- from 1975 to 1991, a period of 16 years -- they must surely have some very good, thoughtful ideas as to how the processes in this House can be changed, which would include such items as interim supply. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that they're going back into opposition for a long, long time after the next election.

So let's think about the way this House has worked this year. First of all, when the new government was elected in 1996, the Premier said: "We are going to make the committee system work better." The committee system hasn't worked at all. There has been nothing sent to the committees. The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain was talking about the committee that that member sits on, and nothing has been sent to them. The Health Committee, the Education Committee: on the important issues that we are responsible for in this House, the only form of debate around those subjects is opposition versus government, instead of all of us sitting around the same table, in committee, leaving our partisan issues at the door, looking for the right solutions.

I'm fortunate since I got elected to have chaired the Public Accounts Committee, which in fact does meet -- one of the committees that does meet. But do you know what happened this year? There happened by accident to be a report from the auditor general's office that fell through the cracks, and this government has refused -- refused, Mr. Speaker -- to refer that report to this committee. And if the Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee thinks that my statement is incorrect, I will listen to that. I believe that it is true.

Why has it not been referred? Well, it hasn't been referred because it happens to deal with revenues that accrue to the government through alcohol, gambling and tobacco. I would have thought, after the statements of the Minister of Health and the Government House Leader in these past ten days or a week about the tobacco industry and the consequences of smoking and the effect of smoking on our young people and the actions that this government wants to take to try to slow that addiction down, that they would have sent the report to the committee with a bow around it, and said: "Please, Public Accounts Committee, hold some public hearings, find out what members of the health industry think, find out what doctors and psychologists and psychiatrists who are experts in addiction think about the issues that relate to gambling, alcohol and particularly tobacco." But oh no. And it was purely and simply for one reason: the word "gambling" was in there -- this is what I believe -- and this government was afraid to have a public discussion on the issue of gambling.

So the committee system doesn't really work. At the moment, the B.C. Ferry Corporation is in estimates in Committee A, in the other room.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, would you ask the barrackers to speak up a bit? I'll put my hearing aid back in.

An Hon. Member: All of your members are leaving.

F. Gingell: Well, I don't blame them. It's understandable. They know that as I am the designated speaker on Bill 49, they're safe for two hours, and I can. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me. I see the member for North Vancouver-Seymour rise -- on what point?

D. Jarvis: A point of order. I see we haven't got ten members in the House here, Mr. Speaker. I think we should call for a quorum.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, for your intervention. I would point out that standing order 7 is indeed permissive. I would perhaps be more inclined to consider calling for a quorum if in fact that member's side of the House had its 50 percent currently in the House. In the absence thereof, it does not seem to me appropriate to call for a quorum at this point. However, I thank the member for his intervention, and perhaps those listening and watching will hear the call, and members on his side will rush to be here.

Having said that, Delta South continues.

F. Gingell: Well, I don't understand why the benches across the House aren't crowded.

Bill 49, the interim supply act, is an opportunity for us to think about the way this Legislature works. There was a very interesting report done by the auditor general on special warrants. Now, it is fascinating that when anyone is in opposition, they strongly oppose the use of special warrants, make all kinds of statements: "I swear that I will, when I am government, get rid of special warrants." But when they become government, it never happens. Of course, that particular issue -- the expenditure of funds without authority, without vote or with authority that comes through the back door -- is relevant to this particular subject.

We've been talking about changing the way we do things, and nothing happens. One of the members on this side of the House spoke earlier this evening -- I think it was Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- and said that just saying it is so does not make it so. That is, in my opinion, so true of this government. They say something is going to happen. They have a press announcement. They even send us home and stop us doing our work in this Legislature. They make a statement, and they believe that it is so. It does not happen, as day follows night.

Government takes work. Government takes discipline. The debate this evening has really focused around the issue of discipline. The citizens of this province expect us and pay us to do our work. Our work requires us to be here, to go through the estimates process and to ensure that the votes are passed and that government can get on with its work -- not go home to be involved in a federal election.

We're provincial politicians, yet this House was adjourned for three days while members on the other side were encouraged, as I understand it, to go to their constituencies and work in the federal election. Now, I would have thought that those who did that would all have voluntarily 

[ Page 4846 ]

given up three days of their pay. If that were the case, it would be appropriate, I would think. They didn't work on provincial matters for three days. They went and worked on the federal campaign. We could have reduced the amount of money that was called for in Bill 49 for interim supply for this ongoing period because of the refunds of salaries from the 39 members -- sorry, 38 members, because I'm sure the Speaker didn't get involved in the election. The 38 members of the government were not looking after the interests of their provincial citizens; they were looking after the interests of their federal NDP compatriots.

This is really an opportunity, and I will be disappointed if this debate this evening doesn't result in some change. I have in fact spoken to the Government House Leader and suggested that it is time for us sit down quietly and think about the practices and procedures that happen in this House. If the government will agree to do, then we will quickly assign some members from our caucus to join them.

The complaints that the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head mentioned when she was speaking are so true. I was advised early on in this session that Finance estimates would be held in this room, not in Committee A. I was also advised at the time that Finance estimates would be virtually last -- that they would be coming up at the end. On a Thursday afternoon, very late, two weeks ago, I guess, I was suddenly advised. . . . It was when the Minister of Finance came back from his trip to Toronto and New York. He arrived back and was immediately advised that Finance estimates would be on Monday. Even the Finance minister had not had a briefing. A briefing was offered to us on Friday afternoon, hurriedly pulled together -- not planned, not done, because the schedule had been dramatically changed. That's because this government has no plan at all. They go from crisis to crisis, yet they get bigger all the time, just like the fish the member for Alberni supposedly catches.

[8:30]

F. Gingell: There you go.

There are ways of doing these things properly. If there are proper briefings, we would be able to focus in with greater certainty during estimates on the issues and not spend a lot of time going over issues that can quite properly be dealt with in briefings.

So where are we, Mr. Speaker? We're almost at the end of June. I wonder how the government's doing. They're asking for $1.6 billion on this interim supply, and yet when one reads the papers, one quickly becomes concerned about the state of issues in provincial financing. We've heard recently that the government is going to reduce the stumpage rates on pulp logs virtually immediately, and I wonder what consequences that has had on the revenue of the province. We also see in the newspapers that B.C. Hydro has been threatened with the imminent loss of their market in the United States, which even a B.C. Hydro executive says could cause significant financial harm to B.C. Hydro and its ratepayers -- the poor old ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.

It is of interest to go back and look at the amount of money that governments have taken out of B.C. Hydro. In the year 1990, the dividend from B.C. Hydro was $101 million. In 1991 it was $114 million. Surprisingly, there was no dividend from B.C. Hydro in 1992. That was the year, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that this government or its predecessor NDP government tried to make the books look as bad as they possibly could, so there was no dividend in 1992 -- zip, nothing, and in 1993 they doubled it. It had been $114 million in 1991. It had originally been budgeted by the Socreds to be somewhat similar in 1992, I believe, but I don't have that number. When the Harcourt government came to 1993, they more than doubled it -- $114 million to $237 million -- and that caught on. That became of interest to them, so from that point on, the dividends went up and up. The spending plan that this government has is based on B.C. Hydro paying a dividend this year of $373 million, which is more than three times the amount paid in 1996. How did they do this? Of course, they had to go back to cabinet and get special direction No. 2, which sets limits on the amount of B.C. Hydro dividends that can be paid.

This government takes no notice of what has happened to the threats to their U.S. markets for power, and we see no indication of any intention of them reducing their spending estimates to provide for that. So if B.C. Hydro's income is down, I guess they'll put it onto the backs of the poor taxpayers and increase our rates. No, they can't: they've put it in a freeze, haven't they? I guess they will be short in their revenues, but I haven't seen any adjustment. I presume that just means it adds to the debt.

Another item in this year's revenue plan, which, of course, is relevant to the spending plan, are additional revenues anticipated to come from gambling. But what does Professor Lipsey say in his study? The estimated increase in gambling revenue announced by the government of $464 million drops to $163 million as money spent in the new casinos cannibalizes existing lottery sales. This doesn't just decrease income from lottery sales; it ripples through the economy. It means that people spend less in the grocery store or in their local hardware store. They spend less money on services being provided by businesses that presently exist in the province. We all know what kind of consequences flow from those actions.

We were all very pleased, because we had felt great concern for people in our community who are handicapped and were having their income support payments reduced by $96 a month. Talk about a social democrat or socialist government -- their first act in trying to reform income support systems was to cut the income of those people who are on welfare, who are handicapped, by $96. Of course, the people spoke. There was an outcry, and the $96 has been returned for nine months. It's just $1,000 a year times 15,000 people. There's $15 million in additional expenditure -- quite properly made, in the opinion of this member, but not provided for in the government spending plan. One wonders what is happening to us.

Then we look around. The latest news from the north is the closing down of Skeena Cellulose. The friend I play golf with occasionally at the weekends is a man who handles these huge fans in pulp mills. He's been advised to be up there Friday; the fan is going to be turned off. You just don't flick a switch and allow it to slow down. It's a much, much bigger job.

How many jobs are going to be lost in the forests of this province by the closure of the Skeena Cellulose mill? What kind of effect will that have on the economy of the Bulkley Valley area and Prince Rupert? What does that do to the government's revenue plans? What does that do to their intention for the spending plans that we're now being asked to vote for? That's a huge, huge difference.

[ Page 4847 ]

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have no problem following my logic -- how all these things come back to Bill 49, the request of this government for $1.6-something billion to continue their business. I hope that the opportunity to speak this evening about the organization of government, for us to express our concerns that the government simply isn't operating in a fair manner to its citizens by continually closing the House for reasons that, to me, simply do not stand up. . . . It slows down the whole process and causes the government to bring in a second interim supply bill. Whereas if they had called the House to work, if we had dealt with continued estimates on Fridays, if we hadn't been sent home for federal elections, if we hadn't been sent home for photo ops in Prince George to announce programs that should have been announced in this Legislature, if we had been called back early in February instead of late in March, there wouldn't be any need for interim Supply Act (No. 2), Bill 49. We wouldn't be here at 8:40 on a Wednesday evening. We'd be able to be moving forward, perhaps finalizing the estimates in the closing days of June, perhaps getting on with important legislation. But what is this government's position? This government leaves it until late June. We've been in for three months, and only now do they start to table the bills that are of concern to British Columbians.

That's no way to run a ship, no way at all. This government needs to give us a proper calendar. We need to know beforehand when the House will sit, when the House will be called in, when there will be breaks. There are all kinds of calendars. There are calendars which could allow members from more remote areas of the province -- the members from Prince George, Prince Rupert, Skeena, the Kootenays, the far eastern portions of the province -- to get home to their communities, to deal with their constituent's concerns, to be able to have office hours, by us sitting Tuesday to Thursday, perhaps, having an extended calendar, having known breaks so that we don't try to deal with our constituent's concerns only over the telephone. That's not fair to them, and it's not fair to us.

In the end Bill 49 will pass. We are just as concerned as the government that welfare recipients get their income support, that the schools are open and our children are taught, that our hospitals are open and patients are treated. It's the citizens who should come first in this province, instead of the disorganized manner in which this government operates.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. It's surprising how the time slips by, but it has slipped, and so shall I.

D. Jarvis: Well, I, fortunately -- no, maybe unfortunately -- have to get up and speak to Bill 49, the second interim supply bill that we've had since late March. That's less than three months and we're up debating again on a supply bill, which only goes to show us that this government really does not know what it is doing. This supply bill is ostensibly what the government requires to pay its bills for the next period of time, until such time as we finish our estimates.

The estimates have been going on and on and on and on since early April, and we're still not there. Now the government would turn around and say that we are stalling the process, by saying that it's our fault that things are running so slow. That really isn't so. We all know that the debate here in this province is limited; we're only allowed to speak for 30 minutes per person, and then we go on to the next person. For example, we have now been here since about 2:30 debating this bill -- this bill that the government feels is necessary because it has run out of money.

[8:45]

What has been going on is a shame. We know that this government and their House Leader obviously do not have control over what's going on. Everything's in chaos; we're running back and forth. The basic rules that we've always worked under in this House -- and which the present government worked under when they were in opposition -- were that you called the House to order, the session would start, and you would have a six-day debate on the throne speech. Then you'd have a six-day debate on the budget and pass the budget and things would proceed into the estimates system.

What happened this year? The Government House Leader was obviously so confused that she and the Premier called the House together on about March 24, leaving about five days in which to have six days of throne debate and six days of budget debate. We were debating the throne debate way after we finished passing the budget. Now we're into estimates. They asked, I think, for about $5 billion the last time we were up, just about three months ago, to talk about supply. Supply is necessary to run this government and pay the bills. We wonder why we should even pass it. Well, we know that we have to pass it. People have to be paid; our bills have to be paid.

But that's no reason why we should be forced to have the situation we have now where it's necessary three months later to pass another supply bill. They're asking for $1.6 billion at this time to run this government. This is a government that for years and years and years complained about the Social Credit government operating on warrants. You can go back through all the Hansards, and you will find out exactly how they whined and complained and stalled and all the rest of it. Yet as soon as they get into office, it's exactly what they're doing.

We need a change, Mr. Speaker. There's no question that we need a change in the system. We need perhaps a specific calendar as to what we intend to do. I see now that we're not the only ones asking for it. Many provinces in this country have either a legislative calendar or some type of a structured system in which they can run their parliaments. They have one in Ottawa; California has one. Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta all have some type of a structure in which they know exactly what they're doing. For example, I think it's in Alberta, the Lieutenant-Governor reads the Speech from the Throne on the opening day of each new session -- essentially the same as we do here -- outlining the government's plans for the session. That's exactly what happens here. However, that's where it changes, because the members then discuss the throne speech over the next several days in a wide-ranging debate about its perceived merits and flaws. Well, we do that to a certain degree. But then their budget comes in within two weeks after that. We do not have any type of a calendar. It's in chaos. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to say that the applause is for me, but it's because our leader just came in -- and somehow the biggest applause is by him.

[ Page 4848 ]

Nevertheless, we have a system here in this parliament that's really in chaos. The Government House Leader has got this place in chaos. No one knows what we're doing. I mean, it's bizarre. Here we are going on for nine at night, with hardly anyone here -- on the government side, next to no one here. In fact, a few minutes ago I called for a quorum, although you refused to follow standing order 7 because of. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. I know that the member has no wish to violate the rules of the House, but I want to remind him of two things. Firstly, rulings of the Chair are not subject to appeal, nor are they to be made the subject of debate. Secondly, the member is quite incorrect in his reading of what standing order 7 actually says. So I ask him to take that cautionary note in the spirit in which it is intended and to carry on, please.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I always take your rulings in the spirit that they are intended.

This is a very undisciplined House, the way it's operating, and it's necessary that we have some type of a change. This government has long had an opportunity to make these changes. As I said before, they complained when they were in opposition, and they whined and cried. But still they haven't done it. So we know that this government is really run by a gang of four -- two of them are elected, and two of them aren't -- and I guess they're making the decisions. They are running this province the way it shouldn't be run. The people's business is not being done the way it should be. Under these circumstances, we feel and have said before that we should have a structured calendar, we should have a set date of opening and a set date of closing. We should have a set day for the budget so that people are aware of when the budget day is. This is not being done.

I had intended to speak for quite a bit longer on this, but as we've been here since 2:30 this afternoon -- which is some time ago -- speaking on this subject, and there are other members of our caucus that wish to get up and have an opportunity to tell the government how badly they're running it. . . . I would be remiss if I didn't allow them to have that opportunity. So on that basis, I wish to tell you that I am doubtful whether I am in support of this bill -- this Bill 49, this second supply bill that you've brought before us in the last three months. And I'm against what you're doing.

S. Hawkins: Well, here we are, over three months into the session, and the government came into the House today, crawling on their knees, begging for money. We're three and a half months, perhaps, into the session, and here we are, into the second interim supply bill, Bill 49, to allow the government to operate. They come in here begging us for money, but the question is: should we give it to them? Do they deserve it? Do they deserve a penny? What have they done? What have they done in the last year that would make us support this bill and vote to give them a penny out of the public purse?

I wouldn't trust them with my wallet; I wouldn't trust them with my niece's piggy bank. Here they are, coming in here and asking for more money to mismanage some more, to show us how much more incompetent they can be. Well, I'll say it right off the bat: I'm not going to support it.

Are you surprised? I don't think any of my constituents are surprised. I don't think any member sitting on this side of the House is surprised. I don't think so.

They're begging for us to support this bill. There is no way! I will be the first one to stand up and vote against this bill. People expect the government to be responsible, to function on some kind of a reasoned agenda and to do the people's business in a way that they can be accountable. I don't think any one of those members knows the meaning of accountability. They've certainly shown us that.

We came here last year. I was a new member and -- as one of the members previously spoke of in coming to the House -- was quite bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking: "Government's great, and we're going to do the people's business. We're going to do it in a spirit of cooperation and responsibility and mature consideration." Well, do you know what? I was very disappointed when I came here last year. When I came here last year -- and I think I mentioned this before -- I heard the Finance minister table a budget, and within a week we found out that the finances of the province weren't as they said they were in the budget that was tabled.

They promised a balanced budget. In fact, they promised two balanced budgets and a surplus. They campaigned on that last year and tabled that budget in the House last year, and we find ourselves in a predicament this year with an $800 million. . . . It's almost a billion dollars, which I think is a lot of money. There's a billion-dollar deficit and a huge debt, and they're coming here tonight asking us to approve more money -- more money that they can mismanage and squander. I don't think the public wants us to do that. The public wants them to keep their promises.

Let's just talk about some of their promises. What did they promise us last year? Before I ever came to this House, we heard we were going to spend -- spend on schools and spend on hospitals. We had a surplus; we'd balanced the budget; we were going to build in every community. What happened? We came here, and within a week, the Finance minister admitted that his budget wasn't balanced and that the province was in dire straits. What have we seen in the last year? We've seen credit downgrades and jobs lost in this province. The Premier flies around the province, and we've been taking days off here and there. The Premier flies around the province trying to prop up his image and saying: "There are going to be jobs here. There are going to be jobs in the forest industry. I'm promising 40-thousand-odd more jobs."

Do you know what we've seen? We've seen 5,500 jobs lost because of the policies of this government, because of their mismanagement and because of the onerous Forest Practices Code they implemented. They did it, and now, all of sudden, he's going to be a hero. He's going to be this big hero -- you know, Mighty Mouse flying around the province -- promising all these jobs: "I'm going to change that code. I'm going to promise jobs."

Well, you know what? We don't believe you, and neither do 75 percent of the people in this province. Seventy-five percent of people in this province think the Premier is a liability. They think he is a big liability to this province, because we can't trust anything he says. They've shown us over and over again that the Premier says one thing and does another, over and over again.

What have we seen in this session? We got called back at the end of March. Had they had an agenda, a timetable or a plan, we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be here tonight debating whether we should give them more money for the next few months. We wouldn't be here doing that. I heard speakers before me talking about the need for a parliamentary calendar. They were talking about doing the people's business, the House's business, in some kind of reasoned way that would improve the operation of the House.

[9:00]

[ Page 4849 ]

I heard members before me talking about. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: I can't hear the member. If he wants to get into the debate after me, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview should stand up and speak.

An Hon. Member: Big mouth.

S. Hawkins: Absolutely. Someone said "big mouth" over there. I didn't, Mr. Speaker. He said it himself. Well, he can judge himself.

We heard members talking about doing the House's business in some kind of an organized, reasoned way, using members effectively and using the House time effectively, talking about enhancing cooperation and putting forward ideas in non-partisan ways. I heard members talking about committees in this Legislature. I sit on the Health Committee, and I've been there for a year -- on a list.

R. Thorpe: How many meetings?

S. Hawkins: The member for Okanagan-Penticton asks me how many meetings I've been to. I'll tell him: I've been to zero. And you know what? Health is a huge issue in this province. We've been through some drastic change. We see a lot of important issues out there. We see patients on waiting lists, we see patients in hallways and we see hospitals screaming for funding. But has the Health Committee convened to discuss any of these issues? No, they haven't.

We see another huge issue with education. We see schools screaming for funding. A school in my own riding, Kelowna Secondary School, is barely being held together by paint. For ten years that school has been on the planning blocks, and for the last six years that this government has been in power, they've promised a brand-new school. That school does not meet the Fire Code anymore and has been condemned by the fire commissioner. It's not a new problem; it's an old problem that has never been managed.

Now, when school is out and we've got eight weeks to get this school into shape for 1,700 kids to go back this fall, all of a sudden we're in a crisis situation. What are we going to do? We've spent over $2 million in the last few years -- $2.1 million or $2.2 million -- planning for this school. Now we're going to spend half a million dollars to kind of band-aid up the school so we can get it up to some kind of standard the fire commissioner will accept and so we can put the kids back into this school until this government decides what they're going to do with it. We've got kids who are at risk if there is a fire in school. There was a fire, and the kids had to be evacuated. It was not a safe situation.

They're not prepared to deal with it. What have they done with our money? We've seen them squander money on all kinds of things. We've seen deals being made all over the place. We have not seen that money spent in a responsible, accountable manner. We have not seen that. The people don't see it, and they're angry. I get letters from all over the province, written to ministers or other members and copied to me so I can see what's going on. I wonder how many of those members actually read those letters, because if they did, maybe they would act on them -- but they don't. We have problems everywhere.

Hospitals. Let's just talk about a few hospitals. We have a hospital in Port Alberni, the West Coast General Hospital -- again, barely being held together by paint. Only 20 percent of the hospital meets the Fire Code. Patients are at risk there. Wires are hanging off the ceiling, and patients are in hallways. That is not good patient care. That is not reflecting concern for patient safety. But what are they doing about it?

Where are they putting their resources and energy in planning? It certainly doesn't seem to be in the two big issues they keep saying over and over again they're concerned about: "Health and education are a priority." Health and education are screaming all over the province. But you know what? I don't think the Education Committee has sat this year, either. I don't think so. If I recall, I don't think I've seen our Education critic or any members of that committee actually being called to a meeting.

I have to question how this government is actually running the business of the House. Why are we here for the second interim supply bill in this session when we had plenty of time to call the House earlier, to have good debate, to have agreement between the House Leaders on how the House business would be done and how it would be run? We don't even know day to day what's going to be called or who's going to discuss what. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I remember our Small Business, Tourism and Culture critic talking about how she was forced to take her estimates late one night because there was urgent business coming up the next week. That's what she was told. And do you know what happened the next week? The next week the government decided to take two days off. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to how this House operates. We go to 6 o'clock one night; we go to 10 o'clock another night; we take five days off for the NDP to work a federal campaign; we take another two days off so the Premier can fly around the province and prop up his image. To me it just does not seem to be any kind of reasoned way to run the people's business. It doesn't.

I've heard other members talk about how there are fixed parliamentary calendars, or some kind of plan, in other Houses across the world, and certainly across Canada. That allows for a good debate; that allows for a good judgment on debate. I think we debated the last interim supply bill that was passed here -- I believe it was at the beginning of April -- until almost 2 o'clock in the morning. To me, that just seems a little ridiculous. Some of these debates do go on and on, late into the night. Who knows how long we're sitting tonight? It's 9:10 already. I've heard people call it legislation by exhaustion. How is that doing the people's business responsibly? It's not.

I also heard the member for Shuswap talking about private members' days. Houses across Canada have private members' days, where privates member advance bills and they debate private members' bills. But you know what? There have been some private members' bills introduced into this House, and they have been good -- they've been very good. There have certainly been private members' bills that have been tabled from this side of the House. And you know what I've seen this government do? Last year, there was a food donation act tabled on this side of the House. It was 

[ Page 4850 ]

totally ignored; it died on the order paper. But you know what? They pulled it out this year and claimed it as their own -- which is okay; at least it got done. The idea came from here and they took it. But you know what? Why wouldn't it have been okay to have debated that bill last year on a private members' day or whatever? If we could set an agenda like that, wouldn't that be great?

We also heard members talking about crisis management, and to me, that's what seems to be going on in this House. It seems that everything has been managed crisis to crisis. There doesn't seem to be a plan. You know where the Government House Leader is on that side, because they're the ones running with the fire extinguisher, putting out the fires. If there are estimates up and the minister is in trouble and can't answer the questions, that one is pulled and there's another one put in; the ministers and the estimates switch from House to House. It just seems to be kind of silly. There just doesn't seem to be a plan.

I also heard talk about there being very little accountability from the members opposite.

I also heard that perhaps if we had a fixed schedule, if we knew when we were coming and going, we could do better service to our constituents. That is really why we're here: we're here to serve our constituents. When we don't know when the House is going to sit and when we're not going to sit, it really is hard to make commitments back in our own ridings, to keep those appointments with our constituents, to work for our constituents, to go to the events that are important to them, and to speak on behalf of our constituents -- when we're stuck here.

All of us have commitments back in our ridings. I know I do. This is the time of year when schools have graduations, and I think it's kind of nice to go and honour the students who are graduating. But you know what? Because the House is sitting so late in the year. . . . Because they didn't have a plan, the House is sitting so late in the year that a lot of us can't get back to some of those very, very important events in the lives of our constituents. And I think that's a real shame.

Certainly after next week we're going into July. I know that I've heard a lot of the members opposite saying: "Oh gosh, we're sitting through another summer." Well, do you know what? Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that we're going to sit into another summer? There is a lot of House business to do. It's not the fault of this side of the House that they didn't know how to manage it or plan for it or call it. It's not. It's absolutely incredible that I hear complaining from that side of the House that we're going to sit through a summer.

There is work to do. Had they called the House sooner, had they had any kind of a plan or agenda, we wouldn't be sitting into July. Perhaps -- and this could be a long stretch; I don't know -- they'll take a lesson from this. Maybe next year they will call the House in time. Perhaps, if there is a break between this session and next session. . . . But who knows? It could run into the next session, for all we know. Perhaps, if there is a break, they might sit down, look back and actually take a lesson from how things were run, or not run well, this session.

We can only hope. I like to keep my hopes up for that side of the House. I actually had someone give me a few lines that they had used when describing how this session was running. Somebody said that it was an experiment in artificial stupidity. I think that's well put. It's very well put, because frankly, when we don't know from day to day or from week to week what we're doing -- which days are going to be on, which days are going to be off, which days are going to be long, which days are going to be short, or even how long the session is going to run -- it is kind of stupid.

I must say that it's rather frustrating, and not only for the members opposite. It's certainly frustrating for families, for constituents, for people in general. A lot of people tell me they turn on the TV and can't believe that we're sometimes sitting here at 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. And in the summer. . . . They can't even believe we sit through the summer.

You know what? If there was a plan, if there was some kind of a parliamentary calendar, some kind of a schedule with some kind of predictability, maybe we would be able to do the people's business in some kind of reasonable way. Perhaps we would be able to work together and organize legislation debates, estimates and the day-to-day business of the House. But this is my second session, and I haven't seen it happen. I always say that I judge future performance by past behaviour, and -- I don't know -- it doesn't look very good here.

[9:15]

I must say that changes aren't made overnight. I know that. I think that sometimes it takes drastic measures to bring people to reality and to think about change. Perhaps last session and this session might twig the government into thinking about how to change so that we improve the way the House functions and so that we can do the people's business in a better fashion.

I think I'll close by saying I'm very, very disappointed that we're back here on Bill 49, the second interim supply bill. It's necessary because estimates aren't complete and the government needs more money to operate. I'll be very clear. I'm not going to support it. I don't think they deserve another penny. They have mismanaged, they've been incompetent, and I will not support this bill.

L. Reid: I'm sorry to say that I'm again entering into this interim supply debate, because this debate has gone on under this government for the previous six years, and there's no end in sight. We on the opposition benches are not convinced that these individuals know how to balance any budget appropriately, and frankly, how to report out on any budget seems to be lacking from their skill set. We've been inundated with budget misinformation, with budget mistruths, if you will, and it falls flat when this government simply never achieves mastery around presenting a budget. That's where we are today.

We have a huge, huge debt in this province, a great percentage of it brought forward by this government, that will weigh down individual citizens of this province for the rest of their working lives. As long as they are taxpayers in this province, they will bear the brunt of this government's mishandling of the finances of this province. I don't believe that's an appropriate way to proceed.

[ Page 4851 ]

Frankly, it alarms me that very few members opposite will get to their feet. This needs to be a debate that they understand and they feel and they believe, because I tell you that every single taxpayer in my riding does not appreciate this level of undue, unnecessary mishandling of the funds at the hands of this government.

At every single podium during the last election this government said: "We're on your side." Well, whose side would that be, when every single British Columbian is going to be paying more and more because these individuals continue to mishandle the finances of this province? That's a significant concern. We know for a fact that these individuals opposite are responsible for increasing the debt load in this province to $30 billion. If you had to take that by a percentage, that's 78 percent. That's nothing to be proud of; it's not a record that is a shining example to anyone, not even to a group of five-year-olds learning to manage their first allowance. This is a shocking deception when it comes to this government going forward and analyzing, with any kind of accuracy, the spending of this province.

That's the reason we're debating interim supply this evening and why we will continue to debate this bill, not just in this sitting of this Legislature but probably in every single sitting of this Legislature, which, again, is frankly alarming.

This discussion should be about representation. We are here to represent the individuals who reside in British Columbia. This Legislature is not representative of people in their own lives having to manage their resources much more effectively, having to be more fiscally responsible, more prudent planners. That's not represented here. It's like, when you run out of money, you just go back to the public purse and get more. It's not a decent way to treat the taxpayers. They deserve some accountability around the dollars they submit to the coffers, and there is none today. That, again, continues to alarm me.

The majority of British Columbians, more than three-quarters of them, believe that this government misled them about balancing the budget. I believe that's a certainty, and I believe that the fact that they've now been misled twice is nothing to be proud of. It doesn't speak to integrity; it doesn't speak to honesty. Here we are, yet again, where they're back at the public coffers asking for more dollars. This says to me that they don't know how to manage the budget appropriately. It says to me that they're not decent money managers, and I have some very, very serious concerns.

The deception inherent in the budget documents is simply moving items in the columns on the ledger. Again, it's not a model that is reflective of how people in this province do business and is not a model that I would wish students that I have taught to somehow undertake because they saw it here: that if it works for this group of individuals, somehow it's best practice. It absolutely is not the best practice.

An Hon. Member: It's a bad example.

L. Reid: It's a hugely bad example.

There was misleading information that came forward around Forest Renewal, where dollars that were promised to be returned to forest communities somehow ended up in general revenue. Those dollars aren't being returned to those communities. Another promise not kept. That's hugely alarming to me.

I believe the people in this chamber are here to represent the best interests of their constituents and to do it from a position of integrity. I believe there are individuals in this chamber who have compromised that level of integrity. What alarms me and what I don't often understand the other members to appreciate to the same extent is that their activity tarnishes every single member of this chamber. It is about demoralizing the public's perception of what a politician is. In the very best light, those people should be the best solution-providers, the best decision-makers, bringing forward their views and being prepared to stand up and be counted on the really tough questions, not people who behind the scenes mismanage the books and then deceive the public about how those dollars are being spent. That is not the goal of this legislative chamber, and frankly, it shouldn't be the goal of any single member sitting here. The fact is that members opposite stay in their seats and don't rise and take a stand on the fact that they know a lot of this information has not been presented in an honest and factual way. That's a fact. The comments of the Minister of Finance and the Premier -- "Well, I need a little bit of wriggle room" and "I don't expect you to believe me" -- tarnish every single politician, and it's not appropriate.

This House is not run in a professional manner by the members opposite and, again, I find that alarming. I think there are ways that this House can become accountable, and we indeed need to put those mechanisms in place. Many of my colleagues today have talked about fixed election dates and fixed sittings, so that people can actually make some plans about how best to represent their constituents when they're home in their ridings. Needing to know when that time might be is just one issue. They need that information to make some reasonable planning decisions. That information has been denied to them for no good purpose. The only rationale we receive from the members opposite is that they're not organized enough to present a calendar and that there's somehow some merit in misleading the House as to what might come next on the orders of the day. There's no merit in that. What it suggests to me, frankly, is that they're disorganized and that indeed it is not a win-win situation for any member.

The public might like to participate more fully in some of those debates, and they shouldn't have to learn that the debate has occurred and concluded when they watch the 11 o'clock news in the evening. There needs to be some proper communication where people are aware of the kinds of items that will appear on the orders of the day on any given day so that they can interact effectively with their representatives.

I began this debate talking about representatives. We're here to represent the people who live in our ridings, and these individuals opposite deny that level of representation. Unless you're a mind reader, a soothsayer, you have no idea what's going to be uttered from the mouths of the members opposite in terms of when they call for orders of the day on any given day. It's not fair, it's not decent and it's not appropriate. Again, it speaks to a huge level of disorganization. Frankly, I have some serious problems with that.

One of the things we've always said on this side of the House is that it should be. . . . Let's use question period as an example. It should be an opportunity to represent issues that are pertinent to an individual MLA and his riding and to a particular constituent. There should be ample opportunity to ensure that a constituency question receives attention from the floor of this chamber. Indeed, the entire focus should not be condensed into a 15-minute block of time, denying reasonable and adequate representation. Again, for what purpose, other than to muzzle the opposition and to somehow suggest that this government can continue to do what they will when they 

[ Page 4852 ]

will without any consultation, without any consideration for other British Columbians who may wish to know that their issue is being addressed in the Legislature and when that might be, so that they can convey their sentiment directly to their representative. . . ? Those opportunities are willingly denied by the members opposite. Again, it causes me great, grave concern.

I too stand with my colleagues when they talk about a fixed legislative calendar. I think that's vitally important. I think it makes good sense for the people who might wish to participate in debate. It doesn't bode well for government when they scramble constantly, when they call for the Government House Leader and each of them looks at the other, wondering who knows what's going to happen in the next two or three or four hours.

It seems to me that there are better ways to deliver reasonable government, and it seems to me that these folks have now been on a training program, a practicum, for six years. It's time they arrived at some level of mastery, and the time would be now from my perspective. I don't believe this House uses its time wisely. I don't believe there's a real level of efficiency around delivering the legislative service. I think the fact that this House sits Mondays for four hours, Tuesdays for six hours, Wednesdays for four hours, Thursdays for six hours and Fridays for three hours, for a combined total of 23 hours of debate, is not the best use of the time of this Legislature. It's probably the most expensive way to do government in terms of having this Legislature open and this level of service available to all hours in the night. It's 9:30 p.m. tonight.

There needs to be some real commitment on behalf of government to condense that sitting schedule; to put people in their ridings, even on Monday or Friday; to allow the representation that is absolutely critical to the future of democracies to continue. There's not an option now. This Legislature may sit for three months, it may sit for six. There's no ability to plan how best to represent your constituency, because you never know when you're going to be there. That, again, is an appalling lack of planning evident by the members opposite.

There are some things this government could do, and I would trust that they will continue to make some decent choices around that. They've had ample opportunity over the last six years. I can assure every member of this House that this is not a new discussion. We have never been impressed with their lack of regard for the taxpayer. We've never been impressed with their lack of planning around a legislative calendar. They've had six years of learning the ropes. I can only surmise that if they haven't arrived at some kind of reasonable juncture at this point, they're simply not going to. They're going to continue to abuse the taxpayer, continue to mislead the public, continue to be willy-nilly in terms of planning this legislative session. It serves no good purpose and is mighty costly to the taxpayer.

My colleague from Delta South often speaks of accountability and talks about performance and benchmarking. That's a useful tool, and it's certainly not new to this Legislature. It's something that the entire Commonwealth is grappling with. But it's still at the discussion stages here in British Columbia, because very few people are willing to take a definite stand and put it in place. I give full marks to the committee that is looking at it. Under the chairmanship of the member for Delta South, Public Accounts has made some great inroads into examining how valuable a tool that is.

He leads by example, and he needs some support. This is something that any legislature could aspire to. It would be a good thing for this Legislature to come clean and say yes, we are firmly committed to accountability mechanisms so that when the public trusts us with $20 billion-plus in annual spending, we are going to return a reasonable product and we are going to report out, in a factual and accurate manner, that these are the dollars we expended and this is the product we delivered to them as a result. That doesn't happen today, and again, that's alarming to me.

There are a number of legislatures across this land that do a better job today than British Columbia. There are a number of legislatures that have a greater regard for families, where they don't sit their legislature five days a week. The province of Alberta sits Monday to Thursday -- by the notes that they were kind enough to send on. They manage to accomplish their business. They manage to put their MLAs back in their ridings so that there's some direct contact at least one or two days a week when the Legislature is sitting. Members don't have to rush home Saturday afternoons -- like the members who live in remote parts of this province -- to try to have constituency appointments, to try to regroup for the next week, to try to get their preparation in place and rush back to Victoria.

There needs to be some plan put in place that allows people to at least have lives that are fairly reflective and representative of their constituents. This current scenario, where we're here Monday to Friday. . . . Some of us are lucky enough to get home on Friday afternoon or Friday evening. Some of us don't get home until Saturday afternoon, and leave again on Sunday afternoon to return. That doesn't make for good constituency representation. People need to have direct contact with the members they elect, and that's currently being denied to them. Again, it's not a new idea; it is something that has often been put forward by members opposite. It's high time this government took the bait and said yes, we will put some of these plans in place, because there are some very good plans.

[9:30]

We have people who come to this Legislature and say that they know best how to interact with families, how to provide child care and how to do all of those things. Yet they're not with their own families. There's a bit of hypocrisy in that. So indeed there needs to be some recognition that other provinces continue to do a better job than we do in British Columbia.

I wish to quote directly from the Nova Scotia document: "When the Committee of the Whole House on Supply begins its deliberations on the estimates, the ordinary sitting hours are suspended and the House may sit for a maximum of six hours a day for the first five sitting days and after that for a maximum of eight hours a day." That is the province of Nova Scotia, which is far more professional in its handling of its legislative business than this Legislature is.

[ Page 4853 ]

I have sat in this House many years and sat here till 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning debating this very subject. The practicum has gone on far too long. I would trust that the Government House Leader will take into account these very valid recommendations. It's not new information. We're not asking her to process this information quickly. This information has been out there for many years and needs a response.

It needs a reasonable, reasoned response, because this is good information that makes good sense. It doesn't make good sense just for the MLAs; it makes good sense for the system of representation that we have in British Columbia, that we have in Canada. We want to be in our constituencies, working directly on behalf of those individuals who wish to have access to their elected member. It's not possible under this current regime to put that in place.

The members opposite need to recognize that that would be a very useful thing to do. Frankly, they would be finally perceived as having some professionalism when it comes to structuring government. Their ability to govern is questionable, in my view. Their ability to budget is, frankly, non-existent, and their ability to be honest when it comes to conveying that information to the public is also non-existent. So if there are some ways to create a framework for the debate that needs to happen in this Legislature, so that everyone has an ample opportunity to share their time equally between this chamber and their constituency, that would be a reasonable direction. I would encourage this Government House Leader to move in that direction.

One of the other issues that the official opposition takes very seriously is private member's statements, private member's bills and private members' day. We do believe that individuals come -- in our case, from 32 ridings representing a myriad of different interests across this province. . . . Indeed, little time is granted to the topics deemed by those constituents to be most important. It's a travesty, because those individuals are the ones who tune into the legislative channel and who pay attention to what government is doing. They believe that they can impact on the process. They believe that somebody will listen to their voice. They're denied again by this government, and frankly, it's not appropriate.

Those individuals are engaging in a trust relationship with government, that if they do what they need to do as responsible citizens, government will indeed meet them halfway. It doesn't happen. This government has the audacity to get to its feet and talk to us about consultation. It simply doesn't happen. It sends the wrong message. Frankly, it's horrible that they would continue to treat constituents in this province in that way. Promises must be kept. This is a discussion about integrity. Consultation is not something that is practised by the members opposite, and I'm not convinced that it is well understood.

Again I come back to the point of how it tarnishes every single politician in this House. People tend to see politicians after the election as being there to do public service. That's why I'm here. That's why my colleagues are here. I'm not convinced that that's why members opposite are present in this House. I'm not convinced that they truly appreciate the nature of representation: that they are MLAs representing thousands of voters in their ridings. They never get there to hear their issues firsthand. That's not an appropriate way to do government.

I would also make the case very strongly that question period should be extended. Fifteen minutes is not a reasonable amount of time in terms of constituency issues being brought forward on a regular basis. Those are the people who believe most dearly in government. And again, their ability to access this chamber is denied to them on a regular basis. It's not appropriate.

One of the issues that concerns me, and that has for the previous six years, is the use of select standing committees in this chamber. There are pressing issues that don't reach that level of deliberation. We have debated a number of issues over the last six years in my time in this chamber. I was appointed to committees that never sat. Of all the committees I've been appointed to, I think one of them actually held a committee meeting, and the only business they conducted was to appoint a Chair. That is an abuse, and it's misleading. When the public reads this, they think yes, there is a structure in place where items will be considered in great detail and people will absolutely have an opportunity to debate those issues across party and across region. It's only a paper promise. It doesn't happen beyond. . .

S. Hawkins: It's not worth the paper it's written on.

L. Reid: . . .what's written on the paper.

My hon. colleague is absolutely right: it's a paper promise. And that's alarming, because what it says from the members opposite is: "Let's put it down on paper. We have absolutely no intention of fulfilling any of the requirements; we're just happy that it's there. We'll continue to let people believe that we actually consult, actually refer items to select standing committees -- that they do their work, deliberate and reach some kind of consensus -- and that the debate that comes back to the floor of this chamber is somehow more informed and more reasoned. More analysis has been engaged. . . ." That's not the case.

All of these items that we have asked for over the years as opposition are easily addressed by reasonable, responsible governments. They could be put in place with very little difficulty. This would make this chamber a very professional place to do business. And we are conducting business. We are conducting the business of the people of the province, and I'm not convinced that they would appreciate some of their most serious issues being debated at 11 o'clock or midnight. I'm not convinced that they'd be happy learning the next day that the item that they believed to be most important happened while they were asleep and that they missed it. They weren't able to participate in the debate; there was no notice the debate was coming. Reasonable people don't behave in that manner.

No reasonable professional, whether it be a teacher, physician, lawyer. . .

S. Hawkins: Nurse.

L. Reid: . . .nurse. . . . There is some order to their day. They have an ability to make some plans, to set some priorities, to make some reasonable decisions. It's not just awash with what might come without any planning. People's productivity is valued, people's time is valued in other professions. Here it's taken for granted, and that alarms me. There need to be some ways to ensure that this House operates in a professional fashion.

For me, the biggest issue is around resource allocation. People have to know that their dollars are being spent appropriately and that the funds that go into keeping this place open at midnight are based on a time- and cost-effective decision. I'm not convinced of that today. I'm frankly alarmed at the hours this House keeps and the very little business it actually accomplishes some days.

[ Page 4854 ]

I would also speak in favour of a fixed date for the delivery of the budget. In terms of my comments about fiscal responsibility and fiscal prudence, I think that people have every right and obligation to participate actively in that debate -- not to learn about it when it's reported the day after in the Sun. There needs to be some planning that goes into that, and that speaks to me. . . . I think people who take their jobs more seriously actually do a little bit of planning and deliver a better product as a result -- in this case, to the taxpayer. I would like to see those things happen.

I'm a strong supporter of fixed opening dates and closing dates for parliaments. Most parliaments in Canada have that. They know that they'll return the second Monday in February, as an example, and conclude the last Friday in June. They know they'll return the second Monday in September and conclude the last Friday in November, as an example. They have some ability to manage their time effectively on behalf of their constituents. That is an opportunity that is denied to members of this chamber. Every other province can manage it -- why not British Columbia?

The excuses that we hear from the members opposite are, frankly, lame. They are not prepared to commit to making some reasonable changes on behalf of their constituents. Frankly, they need to. If there were reasonable requirements in place in this Legislature, we would not yet again be debating interim supply. We would have advanced well beyond the shoddy representation that we have today.

One of the other issues that we've often touched on on the opposition benches is the need for regional committees -- to look at this province as being a collection of regions and not just to continue to see governance happen only in southern Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. There needs to be a commitment on behalf of all members of this chamber to put in place regional committees that bring together representatives of all parties if they represent a particular region. This is about being a reasonable solution-provider. This is about finding decent solutions. If that can indeed be done, it will only be done if people are prepared to work together. That is a definite possibility. It's never been an idea that's been supported by the members opposite.

Again, it alarms me that they are prepared to settle for so very little when it comes to professionalism, when many opportunities exist to ensure that this chamber does rise to the occasion and do some very fine things. We haven't seen that. I know I've not seen it in the six years that I've been present here.

The fact that I'm still debating interim supply under the New Democrat government six years after one would have thought they would have learned to balance a budget, to balance any one item appropriately. . . . What interim supply says is that they don't have the ability, the skill set, to budget appropriately, to look at expenditures appropriately, and to plan appropriately. It speaks to my entire discussion this evening of professionalism. Professionals know how to do that. These individuals have access to some very fine minds in the public service. What -- they disregard the best advice of the day? Obviously that's the case, because the advice is simply not put in place.

It seems to me that those are easy things for this Legislature to accomplish, and it would be a good thing for them to rise to the occasion and say: "Yes, we believe that these things are vitally important to future representation in this province." We have 75 MLAs. They represent close to four million people in the province of British Columbia, and that population is growing on a daily basis. This Legislature is not keeping pace. It's not vibrant. It's not responsive. Lots of these things haven't changed in many, many years, and the world has changed; people's lives have changed in their own homes and their own communities. Their sense of fiscal responsibility has definitely been heightened. Not here.

We continue to abuse the resources, fritter away the dollars, report out inaccurately and, frankly, mislead. Why is that anything anyone could be proud of? Yet these individuals take to their feet with self-righteous indignation that they are indeed doing the job well enough -- not by my standard, and not by the standard of anyone who does any kind of performance evaluation, any kind of benchmarking. They will know that this situation has not changed dramatically in six years, other than to get worse. It certainly has not improved. That should be a serious consideration for every member of this chamber.

I'm not convinced that the members opposite take it seriously, but I know as an MLA that our future in terms of governing this province is based on credibility and integrity. These individuals opposite are giving it away -- giving it away on a daily basis. That is not the way to respect a democracy, and that is not the way to manage a province. I have some serious concerns that indeed there is much to be done. There is ample opportunity. What's missing today is leadership and the political will to do the very best job possible for the citizens of this province.

[9:45]

Briefly then, if I may. . . . The government has asked that we accept on behalf of our constituents their demand for $1.68 billion, that amount representing a mere one-twelfth of the total of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. This request -- or demand, if you will -- for additional moneys falls ultimately, of course, on the taxpayers of this province. Certainly a portion of this amount falls upon my constituents, those constituents being from the region of Prince George-Omineca. And my constituents, like most British Columbians, are hard-working and frugal, and in their personal affairs they are accustomed to not only working hard but also to planning and budgeting. To fail to do so would, for them, lead in most cases to financial ruin. That's something that they're accustomed to doing on a personal level.

What is discouraging to my constituents and to other British Columbians, I would argue, and what is generally a tremendous disincentive for people to work hard, save and budget is the knowledge that regardless of their management of their personal financial affairs, this government -- their government -- will lay at their feet a debt, hon. Speaker, so unmanageable, a debt so vast that they in their lifetimes can never hope to repay such a debt.

Not only has this government burdened them with this colossal debt, but it has gone on to mortgage the very future of their children and grandchildren. I know as a parent that this is something which is of tremendous concern to me -- that is, the future of my children. I'm sure that there are a number of members here that have grandchildren as well and that have similar concerns in terms. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 4855 ]

P. Nettleton: That's right. A number of members have similar concerns -- that is, concerns as to the future of their children and grandchildren and future generations.

This government could be commended, I suppose, if it were addressing a fiscal mess it has found itself in -- that is, if the mess were created by some previous government, previous party, which it has been left to repair. That is not the case, however. This current NDP government has shamelessly proclaimed two back-to-back balanced budgets -- alleged statements of fact which proved to be false. This same NDP government, having promised British Columbians the sun, the moon and the stars during their election campaign, having done so in a desperate bid to gain re-election knowing full well it did not have the means to live up to the promises that were made. . . . It seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable. There's really no excuse, hon. Speaker, for the position we find ourselves in and that the government has placed us in, in terms of their fiscal incompetence, their fiscal mismanagement and the deceit and the deception in and around the whole question of budgeting.

In talking, as I have, with not only my constituents but British Columbians generally, I'm convinced that people are of the mind or of the view that this government has betrayed them, this government has deceived them. They're quite anxious to see that there be a change in government. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position where we're going to be faced with -- it appears, at least at this point -- a number of years of fiscal incompetence, mismanagement, deception and deceit.

This government, this very same government that now asks that we grant interim supply, has set the tone, as I say, in terms of the expectations of British Columbians. The expectations have been lowered considerably, I should say, since the last provincial election, in which we saw a Premier who travelled from region to region proclaiming various promises in what has proven to be a string of broken promises.

As I say, the expectations of British Columbians have changed. What we now see in terms of the expectations of British Columbians is an expectation for more debt, more deceit and more deception. That summarizes the expectations of British Columbians. That is certainly our expectation in terms of those of us who are members on the opposite side of the House. It's incumbent upon us, given the expectations -- be it debt, deceit or deception -- to be vigilant in terms of holding this government to account as best as we are able.

So the electorate, having been deceived by this government, is faced with an ever-growing debt threatening the very future of our province, our society and our way of life as we know it; and threatening health care and education -- the two areas in which this government had committed itself so vigorously, so vocally, so publicly.

An Hon. Member: Did they keep that promise?

P. Nettleton: They didn't keep that promise, unfortunately. While claiming to be fully committed to both health care and education, this government has mismanaged the economy in a number of ways, which has had the effect of jeopardizing, putting at risk, our health care system, and increasingly making it difficult and out of reach for ordinary British Columbians to provide post-secondary education for their children and, as well, impacting the quality of education at the level of K to 12. Clearly we find ourselves in a position where we need some kind of reform in terms of how it is that government conducts its business.

In closing, I would like to make a few comments in terms of how we -- those of us in opposition -- would propose to make government more accountable. The criticism has often been that we are very negative in terms of our approach, that we're continually tearing down, continually criticizing, and we have no creative solutions, no ideas as to how we could do things differently and better than the current government. That, however, is certainly not the case.

To summarize very briefly some points that were made by the Leader of the Official Opposition in his response to the whole question of reform, the first thing we would do, of course, is to introduce effective and workable recall-and-initiative legislation. Much has been said in terms of recall.

J. Dalton: Some of them are going to find out later this year.

P. Nettleton: That's right. As the hon. member indicates, there may be some members on the opposite side of the House who will be faced with recall, in one form or another. Certainly it is our position that there should be workable recall legislation put in place, so that if constituents find themselves very unhappy with their representation, they can do something about it -- and do something about it in a manner that works.

The other thing that we would be moving towards, in terms of reform, would be providing free votes in the Legislature on all issues except budget and throne speeches. Again, that provides the kind of freedoms that we, as members, would look for in terms of representing our constituents. I think that would go some distance to addressing the concerns of constituents.

There are a couple of other things that perhaps I should mention before I close. Establishing a fixed parliamentary calendar with a fixed budget date is something that's been mentioned. It's been discussed in some detail over the course of the past few hours -- that is, the benefits of having a fixed parliamentary schedule. I know that there are members on both sides of the House that would benefit from having some sense of where it is they're going in terms of a fixed parliamentary schedule. I know, from a very selfish point of view, I would certainly benefit, and it would certainly help in terms of planning not only my personal vacation and my personal life, but also planning in terms of meeting with constituents, planning in terms of public appearances and doing my job at the constituency level. That's a job that's important for all of us. After all, that's why we're here, isn't it? We're here to represent our constituents and work hard on their behalf. I think at times we fall into the trap of doing things that aren't particularly productive. But in any event, I think we all recognize that the reason we're here is to represent our constituents.

Something else that could be done -- and we would suggest that it be done -- is set fixed elections every four years. That would go some distance to having some sense from the point of view of the electorate as to when it was that they could look forward to again making their views known in terms of the performance of government -- in particular, specific MLAs from the various constituencies.

Another thing that we would be moving toward is restoring freedom of speech by repealing the election gag rule.

Lastly, we would be requiring full disclosure of all election donations, including donated labour. That impacts particularly on the side of the government. But having said that, what we would be moving towards is fairness, not only from the point of view of government but opposition as well.

[ Page 4856 ]

I would admonish my colleagues on the opposite side of the House to consider that we move towards reform in one form or another to address the concerns that I am sure are apparent to all of us here in this House and do so on behalf of the constituents that we represent so that we are able to do our job more effectively and more efficiently.

Hon. L. Boone: It's a pleasure to stand here and finally end this debate. The House has heard many good ideas on the reform of this Legislature, and certainly we will take those into consideration. However, I'm sure most of us recognize that at the end of this month, when it comes time to pay the bills for hospitals and schools and welfare cheques, that this province. . . . I'm sure the members opposite would not see the ability to pay those bills. . . . So we do need to have this bill in order to pay those things. I would be very concerned if the members opposite in fact voted against this bill and voted against having people have the ability to pay for hospital bills and for medicare in this province. That would truly be a shame.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 49.

[10:00]

YEAS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Pullinger	Farnworth	Kwan
Waddell	Calendino	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Giesbrecht
Walsh	Kasper	Orcherton
Hartley	Priddy	Petter
Miller	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Cashore	Ramsey	Brewin
Sihota	Randall	Sawicki
Lali	Doyle	Gillespie
Robertson	Smallwood	Janssen
NAYS -- 28
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	Plant
Sanders	Stephens	de Jong
Nebbeling	Whittred	van Dongen
Thorpe	Penner	J. Wilson
Hansen	C. Clark	Symons
Hawkins	Abbott	Jarvis
Weisbeck	Chong	Coleman
Nettleton	McKinnon	Krueger
	Barisoff

Bill 49, Supply Act (No. 2), 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:06 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 6:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT
(continued)

D. Symons: I hope we'll finish this evening, if we can. I've got a number of questions I'd like to canvass with the minister.

There are times when there's a conflict between the management and the union regarding non-union personnel working on Ferry property. We had an instance of that recently, with the people that were contracted out to give advice on how to best market the items within a ferry news-stand. I think there was another issue a few years ago, where a group was going to open a money kiosk at the Tsawwassen terminal. These issues of non-union personnel working on Ferry property come up periodically and seem to cause some work dislocation sometimes.

I'm wondering: does the corporation have a union closed shop as far as all property goes, or is it possible that you can have non-union shops -- other than these small craft shops that seem to be at the Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay terminals?

Hon. D. Miller: Those issues are normally the subject of discussion and negotiation. They're guided, to a degree, by the collective agreement. I think, fundamentally, the union's position is: they don't want to see their existing workforce displaced.

In the case of the news-stand the member referred to, in fact six new union positions were created as a result of that.

D. Symons: The minister used the term "displaced." I would gather that the function of this person, so far as the news-stand was concerned, wasn't a job that had been there, so it wouldn't involve displacing a member, nor would the bringing in of a money exchange thing displace any workers. So I'm wondering if the minister might explain, in regard to my first question, whether it is permissible that these sorts of new operations on ferry terminal property or on the ferries themselves could be performed by non-union personnel.

Hon. D. Miller: As I said, these issues are normally ones that are discussed between the union and management. There's no absolute right in the collective agreement to prohibit management from looking at a variety of options with respect to additional services for the travelling public.

[6:45]

What was the total cost of that May 13 five-hour job action that took place over the news-stand issue? I'm wondering what we might have as the lost revenue for that. We may have the overtime that was paid to employees -- because I 

[ Page 4857 ]

gather the ships ran till around midnight to take the backlog of passengers and vehicles across -- and any other factors that might be taken into account because of that particular shutdown of the system for a while. Was that evaluated as to the cost of that particular shutdown?

Hon. D. Miller: There's no absolute number. I think there's some ongoing work with respect to that issue.

D. Symons: I'd be happy with a ballpark figure rather than the absolute costs, if that's available.

Hon. D. Miller: We've not had the preliminary report in terms of that, so I'm afraid I can't offer any number.

D. Symons: The corporation this time has -- and I believe after the '92 work stoppage, as well -- invited people to come forward with loss claims. I'm wondering if you could give us an idea of how many people to date have come forward with claims for compensation, whether any claims for compensation have been paid and what the total cost of those claims might be.

Hon. D. Miller: There were 73 complaints. Again, the member appreciates that it's very difficult to put a dollar figure on that because of the nature of complaints that arise under these circumstances.

We clearly weren't very pleased about it. I don't think these kinds of activities should be condoned or excused, and I don't. They do occur from time to time. It's not something that's peculiar to B.C. Ferries or, indeed, to any particular operation. They do occur, and we try to deal with them very quickly. We did in that case. I hope that's not something that's a recurring pattern.

By and large, while there has been the odd incident at B.C. Ferries, it's not been endemic; it's not been something that you see on a weekly or monthly basis or anything else. It's something that occasionally does happen in the workforce for reasons that sometimes are not always clear. So we try to deal with it but it does happen. We deal with it expeditiously; we did in this case. We had this minor interruption, and it's been clear sailing ever since.

D. Symons: The clear sailings seemed to have caused some real concerns among many of the passengers. I hear it was close to mayhem breaking out at the terminal by discontented passengers who were not terribly happy when the ferry was struck.

In 1992 a similar situation occurred. The corporation again asked for people to come forth with claims for compensation. I wonder if the minister might give me an idea of how much was paid out then in compensation to people that were either inconvenienced or actually had losses in the value of the goods they were carrying or other losses that were attributable to the fact that the ferries were off for a longer period of time. That might give us an idea of how you are going to handle this particular situation. What happened in '92?

Hon. D. Miller: That is something that happened some five years ago. We don't have any numbers relative to that. I don't know that any claims were paid. I think there were generally fewer complaints. But it is something that happened five years ago.

D. Symons: Were any of those who took part in the job action on that particular day, the five-hour shutdown, able to finish their shift? Also, there was a backlog. As I mentioned earlier, I believe shifts went into overtime past the 9 p.m. regular sailing time that would end around 10:30. Were any of those employees who had been involved in the work stoppage earlier in the day able to move into overtime by working to take care of the backlog?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that all employees completed their shift, and no one was paid for the time that they were on work stoppage.

D. Symons: That didn't completely answer the question I asked. I was also interested in what happened when their normal shift would have ended. They were off for five hours, so basically to continue their shift, they were only working two and a half more hours. What happened in the remaining time that ships were operating that evening to carry people back and forth to take care of that backlog, which I understand the Ferry Corporation did? Were any of the people who had been on that five-hour work stoppage allowed to continue working that night, past their normal shift time, and receive time and a half, double time or whatever?

Hon. D. Miller: It does appear that no overtime was paid to people who participated in that.

D. Symons: So just to be perfectly clear on this particular issue, the crews that came in and took the ferries past their normal operating hours were other crews that were brought in. And they were not brought in at overtime; they were paid regular time. There are two different groups that I'm asking about here. So would they have been. . . ?

Hon. D. Miller: I think the answer is no. Because of the interruption, the hours were not paid, were not counted as paid hours. Therefore any additional hours would have been added to the first section of hours worked. So no overtime was paid.

D. Symons: So if the Ferry Corporation operates extra sailings and a crew is called in -- because you're saying that the other wasn't receiving overtime; they didn't get the opportunity of doing that -- these crews that are operating out of the normal operating hours, which the crews obviously were doing, are receiving regular time. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: No. Let's say your normal work day is eight hours, as an example.

D. Symons: Seven and a half hours.

Hon. D. Miller: Fair enough. If you interrupt that. . . . In other words, let's say you work three or four hours, and it's interrupted. Those interrupted hours do not count. You then resume at some subsequent point. The total is. . . . So there's no overtime pay.

D. Symons: So I gather you're saying that they work their seven and a half hours with a five-hour break somewhere in the middle and therefore will receive the regular time. Because it was past a certain hour, the Ferry Corporation doesn't have shift differentials involved. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: No, for a.m. and p.m. watches -- regular pay.

D. Symons: Were there any penalties involved, then? They seem to have got their full day's salary in spite of the fact 

[ Page 4858 ]

that they took five hours off in the middle of it. Were there any penalties involved for those who took part in this illegal work stoppage? Is B.C. Ferry Corporation seeking any damages from those who were responsible for that work stoppage?

Hon. D. Miller: There has not been to date. Those are discussions between management and the union.

D. Symons: I'm given to understand that when this work stoppage takes place, the corporation does not necessarily follow through with any sort of penalties or sanctions against those who do the illegal work stoppage. It's a negotiation thing. Often, I suppose, in negotiations, the union gets negotiated away as part of some agreement on some other issue. Would that be the case? There was a case, I believe, in '92.

Hon. D. Miller: The normal kind of relationship that exists in any entity between the employer and the trade union also exists in this environment. Those issues are dealt with. Management has the right at the end of the day to exercise discipline if, in their opinion, it is something that ought to take place. But we normally allow -- and in this case, I demand -- the employer to deal with the situation. I don't attempt to, nor will I attempt to advise the management of the corporation how they should deal with their employees on a daily basis.

These situations arise throughout our society. I've been involved in those throughout my life. I expect that those kinds of things will continue to be things that happen periodically in a free society. Management has the responsibility to deal with it. I'm sure they will deal with it in a way that's appropriate.

D. Symons: A Vancouver Sun article on May 16 prompts me to ask questions. I know this administration doesn't think I should have faith in newspaper articles. I get it thrown back at me that I use newspaper articles for some of these things periodically, but it's an interesting headline in this particular one. It says: "Minister Offers No Assurances Strikers Will Not Be Disciplined." There's a bit of a double negative in there, and I'm not quite sure if I thoroughly. . . . I know what they're trying to say, but it isn't what they say, if you take a proper English course. That's the concern here -- that if there is not some consequence for illegal work action taking place, it somehow gives the impression that when you get a little ticked off at the corporation over this thing or that thing, there's no harm in going ahead and having another illegal stoppage. I'm just trying to canvass that.

I gather from the '92 situation that there was no pay-out to people for compensation for inconvenience or whatever for that particular work stoppage. There was no consequence to the employees individually or collectively for the action they took. I'm just concerned that it seems, from what the minister is saying so far, that that will be exactly the same case in this situation.

The Chair: Just before we recognize the member, for the members' benefit, that was a quorum bell in the main House. It was not a division.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, again, I repeat: the practice of labour-management relations is not a science. It deals with human relations. From time to time, issues do arise that parties are unhappy about -- in this case, an illegal work stoppage which nobody was happy about and nobody is prepared to tolerate. Dealing with that is an ongoing issue that any group of management and labour people have to deal with, and it will be dealt with in that manner.

I realize that when the issues are in the public realm -- when they involve a public carrier, an interruption of service to the public -- the interest is heightened. It's often the subject of some fairly bold and dramatic stories in the newspaper. From my limited experience over the last 35 years, a newspaper never contributed in one tiny way to the resolution of these kinds of issues, and my prediction -- I'll make it here tonight -- is that it never will. We'll deal with the issues as they arise and in the way that we think is appropriate.

D. Symons: I would somewhat agree with the minister, because the newspapers are in the business of selling papers. Often they dramatize things in such a way that it maybe even compounds the problem. Maybe though, on the no-fault insurance. . . . The newspapers seemed to take hold of that particular issue and the gambling issue. It will be interesting to see whether they have had some positive effect or not.

There was an advertisement in the April 4 newspapers around the province for a request for expression of interest regarding a marketplace and/or revenue-generating initiatives at the Langdale ferry terminal. I would gather now that all those things came in at the end of April. I wonder: is this simply to put in the crafts-type shops that we see at the other terminals, or is this more expansive and looking for more innovative ways of revenue-generating? Who is it revenue-generating for, when you use that term? Is it for the individuals who are coming forth with these proposals, or is it the Ferry Corporation that gets a substantial rake-off?

Hon. D. Miller: Both the individuals and the corporation. There was an approach made to the corporation. As a result of that, we did go out for requests for interest in terms of benefits. I dealt with that with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. We'll work with the local government in terms of their community plan and those kinds of things. It's clear that if there are opportunities for revenue enhancement on a non-tariff basis, then we want to pursue those.

[7:00]

Hon. D. Miller: We'll see what comes in as a result of the advertisement, but I think we ought to be open. The member is aware that the municipalities of Port Hardy and Prince Rupert have both written to me, saying that they would support some form of gaming on the northern vessel if that revenue could assist in enhancing the kind of service that is available. I don't think we ought to close the door on any of those kinds of ideas that do come to us.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might just take a look for a moment at some of the items that the auditor general raised a little more than a year ago. I know we raised some of these questions last year, and I'd like to just revisit, to maybe ask, what the result has been in the intervening year since then.

[ Page 4859 ]

I guess if I do it by the page number, that might make it handy. I see the minister has a copy there. I'm looking at a different page, but page 42 brings up the interest that I'm after -- and the recommendation on that page, I believe, if I flip to it and just make sure that I'm cross-referencing this correctly. Yup. It's the recommendation at the top right-hand corner of page 42, where it says: "The corporation should establish clear, measurable results-based objectives for its maintenance program and include performance standards relating to those objectives." I think that pretty well covers what I was going to ask. There's some background, but I think the minister will get the flavour from that particular question.

What I want to know now is: what has happened in the intervening year? I got an answer; they were doing that last year. Is everything in place so that we basically have a systematic approach to the maintenance records, and so forth, and that you've got these clear, measurable objectives and standards set now, all in place?

Hon. D. Miller: The first stage -- inventory and purchasing -- will be in place and complete by August. So yes, the corporation is acting on the recommendations.

D. Symons: The next one, if we can skip to page 47. . . . There's not too many questions in here, hon. minister. There's a recommendation that "the corporation should periodically evaluate its maintenance program to determine if it is achieving its intended results and if the corporation is obtaining value for money from its maintenance." During the break I believe the CEO was saying something to the effect that this is in place now, but I wonder if we might just check. Have they got this in place, and how is it working?

Hon. D. Miller: That's being put in place. We talked earlier about a vessel that is from the 1960s and is still sailing, still providing good service.

D. Symons: I know I'm going backwards a little bit here, but it's the order in which I was picking things out of the book. I started at the front, and then the questions came later on in the recommendations. On page 37 is a recommendation that "the corporation should develop an appropriate budgeting process that clearly allocates financial accountability." It sounds like an excellent recommendation, as the minister has said, because financial accountability is something we all should practise in every aspect of government. How is that one coming along?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that's all done and in place.

D. Symons: I will ask at this stage, before I go to the next one, then. . . . I know the auditor general usually does a follow-up after he makes his report, and the corporation makes their responses to it. Has that follow-up taken place with this particular auditor general's report? Will there be another report coming out in the near future on the follow-up that the auditor general has done?

Hon. D. Miller: I understand he's been there about a dozen times -- and he was invited back, too.

D. Symons: On page 40 there's a recommendation regarding productivity. It's in the first column, halfway down the left side. "The corporation should address without further delay" -- there seems to be some urgency in this particular one -- "the loss of productivity associated with having staff who perform terminal maintenance at Horseshoe Bay and Tsawwassen terminals assembling at Deas dock."

I raised this issue last year, and to be honest, I can't remember what the minister's answer was then. But the concern was that to do maintenance work at Horseshoe Bay, they start and report in in the morning. Although they may live in Vancouver, they drive to Deas dock -- which is the wrong way -- and then they drive all the way back to Horseshoe Bay.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't necessarily agree that that's as simple as the recommendation states, but notwithstanding that, the corporation was acting on that. I don't know -- this is perhaps an idle thought that that might apply to estimates, but I put that out of my mind.

D. Symons: The question may be: can you put in some sort of small-scale maintenance facility at Horseshoe Bay, since you have a fair number of ships that go into Horseshoe Bay? That may be one way of alleviating this problem -- have that as a starting point for at least some of the members. Then the remainder who are needed could work out of the Deas dock and go as the jobs required.

Hon. D. Miller: I've always been fascinated by the various approaches taken to management and productivity and those kinds of questions. I don't want anybody to suggest that I'm being critical of the auditor general; I'm not. But if we were to simply accept anything that was ever put before us as being the gospel, then I don't think we'd be doing our job. So reasonably, one ought to consider a report, do one's own analysis and then conclude whether or not, from an operational point of view, it actually makes sense.

To that end, I'll use an illustration, if I don't take up too much time. In a book by Philip Roth, which I read many years ago when I was young -- it was called Goodbye, Columbus or something like that. . . . Anyway, the story goes like this.

This fellow owned a manufacturing plant, and they manufactured ceramic toilets. When it came time to load these toilets. . . . The workforce was big, burly -- I think they were black in the book. They were pretty efficient at loading these rather heavy objects. They'd have somebody in the truck, somebody down below and somebody over here, and they'd virtually throw them and load up the truck. As their schedule went, when lunchtime came, everybody took a break. They stopped and went for lunch.

The boss's son was working there in the summer. He was watching this operation and concluded that he could get more efficiency. So he instructed these workers to divide into groups and to keep working. One group would go for lunch, and the other would keep working, and then the other group would come back from lunch. He had this idea that he could spot a way to make this operation more efficient. So one group went for lunch, and the next thing you knew the group that was there was throwing a toilet. And what do you know? It dropped and broke. This carried on for a little while, until finally the father came back and said, "What the heck are you doing?" and put things back the way they were. These people work hard. They take their lunch break. They do a satisfactory job.

I only say that to illustrate that sometimes you have to understand the human side of the equation. While the auditing side can measure things in some ways, it is unable, from an operational point of view. . . . And that's what the failure of the audited approach, quite frankly, is: to understand the 

[ Page 4860 ]

human factor, the nature of the kind of work that's being done and the human relations issues that accompany that. That's why we rely on people who have those management skills, who understand the operations, to make choices that they think are smart choices with respect to the operational requirements and the human resource utilization of any operation.

So just a little caution. I understand the nature of auditor's reports. I believe that when I was in opposition, I used to do the same thing: If the auditor says it, it should be done. That's not necessarily so. We have to respect the reports. These are objective analyses, accounting-driven. But I like to rely on the people who have actually been doing the work, have a sense of the work and understand those dynamics.

D. Symons: I find the minister's story interesting, and the point is well taken. Because I'm asking what's happening with this does not necessarily mean that I'm endorsing what they've said. I hope the minister realizes that. Your story illustrates a very interesting point. We might come back to that when I'm asking you some questions later on regarding the staffing of ships, where the people who are working on those particular ferries think that they have something that management doesn't understand about it. It's exactly what you were saying, so we'll come back to that in a few moments.

Another recommendation was on page 48: "Senior management should regularly report to the board of directors on the extent to which it is achieving the intended results of its maintenance program." Looking at the back of the corporation's response, I discovered they indicated that there are reports going in quite regularly and that the board is kept up to date on what's going on.

Basically, my request is -- rather than responding, but you could on that: would it be possible that I could get the last two reports that have gone through to the board of directors on its maintenance program? If those reports are going ahead, as the corporation says, could I get the last two copies of it?

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah. Certainly I'll check with the corporation. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't happen. It's not for me to tell the member what his reading should be. I wouldn't ask for them, but we'll see if we can get them for you.

D. Symons: I have been absolutely amazed in the last six years at the things I read now that I would never have thought of reading before. So I agree with you on that one. Nevertheless, sometimes there are interesting things to glean out of some of these government documents.

On page 78 -- this is where I get the different conclusions -- there's the comment: "The corporation should also review the impact of changes in crew continuity on team cohesion and emergency response to establish the effect, if any, on safety." I believe this deals with the staffing of ships -- ferries; I guess I should use that term, because some in the system are not ships. The crews are required, I believe, on a biweekly basis to have a safety drill. I gather that at the time of that safety drill. . . . If in the intervening two weeks 25 percent or more of the crew has a changeover from the date that safety drill took place, there must be another safety drill.

This seems to be something, when they talk about "crew continuity on team cohesion and emergency. . . ." Somehow the auditor might be hinting at the fact that somehow the crew that's on the ship is not the crew that had the safety drill. The first question, then, is: when we hit that magic 25 percent figure, does a new safety drill take place on the ship? I'm told that, basically, the day after the drill has taken place there's often quite a number of changes in crewing on the ships and that quite often that number exceeds 25 percent.

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I want to say that in terms of safety in the corporation, that's really the highest. . . . In terms of the operation of this corporation, the safety of the travelling public, etc., is the highest priority.

With respect to that issue of continuity, the model is -- as opposed to continuity -- one of competency. In other words, the individuals have to have competency. The member will appreciate that this is important, because on a daily operational basis you may have relief crew. In other words, if there were a real incident as opposed to a drill, that might take place where you don't have continuity for a variety of reasons -- illness, holidays, you name it. Therefore the approach that we take is a better approach, in our view. We conduct over 2,500 drills each year. So we try to stay right on top of those questions. But you have to be prepared. Each individual has to understand their role, even though they may not be a normal part of that ship's complement.

[7:15]

Hon. D. Miller: That very rarely happens. We do comply with the Canada Shipping Act.

D. Symons: Can the minister tell me, because I believe it came up in the auditor general's report. . . ? I haven't found it at this moment. But it's in there that there is a distinction between a drill and a muster. In a muster, the crew simply go to their particular emergency station that they're to go to. They appear there. The captain, or whoever the officer is, sees that they've arrived at this muster station. But they don't go through the procedure of carrying out the emergency drill or whatever drill it is. Quite often -- too often -- these drills are not drills; they're musters.

Hon. D. Miller: Under the broad heading of drill, there could be a variety of levels of that drill. It could be simply a muster, a station drill. It could be a complete execution of abandoning ship. In other words, it's all a drill, but you have some options with respect to how much of that you carry out.

D. Symons: Are those options that the B.C. Ferry Corporation gives? Or are those options that are in the Canada Shipping Act and in the Coast Guard regulations? I gathered that after the two weeks you must have a drill, not a muster. I gather that some of these are not drills within that time period.

Hon. D. Miller: We fully comply with the Canada Shipping Act.

D. Symons: Then I guess the minister is saying that the observations of the auditor general were incorrect.

[ Page 4861 ]

Can you tell me whether the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going after a lower licence requirement on route 2, what that lower licence requirement might mean in the way of staffing and why they're seeking that particular designation?

Hon. D. Miller: The licence is variable. In other words, there is a ratio between the passenger load and the crew size. We're not doing anything different than we have done.

D. Symons: So, then, the minister is saying you are not seeking a different licensing requirement on that particular vessel. Somebody, obviously, has told me incorrectly.

The corporation has two safety committees. One is an occupational committee, and the other is an operational committee. You told me, I believe, last year that they have regular meetings. Or I guess not; it's a question I have here. Do they have regular meetings? Or are the meetings held just as issues arise? At those meetings, are minutes taken?

Hon. D. Miller: There are many committees, and they meet on a regular basis. There are some mandates out of WCB with respect to that. I hope that responds to the member's question.

D. Symons: I have been given the impression from the union side of this -- and that's only one side of the equation here -- that they feel some of the incidents, which are not major in nature themselves, are glossed over. What's really happening is that these incidents that may be occurring, which are glossed over by management's side, could be indicating that there's a problem there, and that problem basically is being ignored. Basically, some of the issues that come up from the union side of these safety committee meetings aren't really addressed, they think, in a serious way.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think that's the case. I think there may be -- as there are, particularly if I can refer to a ship as one, in any industrial kind of workplace -- issues that are pressed by the employees as requiring attention. That doesn't automatically mean -- just as we talked about the auditor general -- that there's always a happy meeting of the minds on those kinds of questions. But I don't think the union is a shrinking violet with respect to safety issues. Certainly the corporation places that very high on its priority list.

It does appear to me -- and I think that's statistically been proven -- that while there has been the odd incident on B.C. Ferries and some of those have been very traumatic, by and large, given the number of nautical miles that are sailed and the volume of passengers that are carried, the safety of both the travelling public and the ships' crews is exemplary.

D. Symons: Yes, your figures are right. You know, the airlines say the same thing, but it takes just one airline disaster to raise a great deal of concern by the public. Certainly one ferry disaster would do likewise. We have had some accidents that have occurred. Maybe there, as was suggested to me, these accidents were a result of other smaller incidents that have not received the attention they should have.

In case of some logjams, I guess, in these committees, you have a provision for an umpire. I'm just wondering whether that provision -- it's, I believe, part of your memorandum of understanding with the Ferry and Marine Workers Union -- or that particular issue has been raised, where you've gone to an umpire. Has that occurred over the last year?

Hon. D. Miller: I've never had to do that.

D. Symons: There is a disagreement, I believe, on the new ferry, the Queen of Skeena, on the manning of that particular ship. Am I allowed to say that word anymore? The crewing of that particular ship.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Yeah. So I better be careful of my language here. Hon. Chair, I remember my first experience in 1992 in this legislative chamber. I referred to the previous, long-ago Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. I said he was man enough to admit when he made a mistake. You would be surprised what a member on your side called over to me. I didn't know if he knew anything about the gentleman's gender, but he certainly implied that I should not be calling W.A.C. Bennett a man. So I have to be careful of the language I use with this particular government. I want to be very politically correct.

Anyway, about the crewing of that particular ship. I wonder if you might be able to tell me the gist of it, because I gather they claim there's some safety issue involved, and the corporation is holding only to the requirements of the Coast Guard.

Hon. D. Miller: Those issues are mandated by Coast Guard, and we have an obligation to comply with the Coast Guard mandate with respect to the size of the ship's crew.

D. Symons: Those crewing sizes, I think, are contentious issues between the corporation and the union on many of the ferries within the system, because they feel they want more members on there. From a union standpoint, I can see that. But can you tell me: when you say they're mandated by the Coast Guard as to what size they are, does the Coast Guard mandate the crewing of ships based only on the number of passengers only that are carried on those ships -- passengers, cars, whatever? Or do they also take into consideration the duties other than safety duties that those people might be performing as far as services to the customer on the ferry? Indeed, if they are mandated to be there to meet certain safety and fire evacuation requirements, the Ferry Corporation has them doing something other than standing there waiting until some incident occurs that they must respond to. They've got them busy serving food, guiding cars on and off the ferry and doing a variety of other jobs. Do the requirements of the Coast Guard take all that into consideration?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, but I should also add that if there are occasionally differences between the corporation and the union relative to crew-size issues -- those kinds of things -- I can tell you one thing: we will never solve those issues here. They'll solve them between the corporation and the union.

D. Symons: I was looking for the issue that I raised there -- whether the Coast Guard regulations take into consideration the things that crews perform other than just simply that.

Hon. D. Miller: I said yes.

D. Symons: You said yes; thank you.

I wasn't trying to solve those here. Thank you for the suggestion that it might be entering into negotiations on behalf of both sides simultaneously; such is not the case.

We had some incidents happen recently. I've got a series of them here at Swartz Bay and Fulford Harbour. We had an accident in August '96 which was basically an operator error, I 

[ Page 4862 ]

gather. They flicked the switch the wrong way. I'm told they were doing a safety practice and it went wrong. On January 20, '97, we had a car dropped. Again, it was operator error. He moved the ramp the wrong way. During an investigation or drill of the Queen of Cumberland, the Coast Guard found the crew to be incompetent. There seem to a lot of things in that respect going on -- ill-trained or something or other. Maybe I used the wrong word there, but certainly there were some problems with the drill which that crew performed in front of an investigator who was examining them.

There seem to still be some shortfalls as far as appropriate training and following through to see that everybody is able to do their job and do it in the best, effective way. Are these things monitored to the degree they should be monitored, and is the training going on to the degree it should be?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Going back, I did refer to the volume: 22 million passengers, nine million vehicles.

Any drills or anything else observed by the Coast Guard. . . . If they're not done properly, their job is to point that out. It's our job to respond and do them again until they are done properly. That's the normal kind of thing that would happen under any circumstances. I repeat: safety is a top priority with the corporation -- extreme top priority -- and that seems to be borne out in terms of the statistics. From time to time do incidents arise that might be attributable to human error or those kinds of things? Do accidents happen? Yes, they do every day in our society. One must view this in a relative context. Again, I repeat: the record of the corporation and its employees is outstanding, and we work very hard to maintain that.

D. Symons: Going back onto our northern route, the two northern vessels -- the Queen of Prince Rupert and the Queen of the North -- are both single-hulled vessels. There is a problem. I believe the Canada Shipping Act requires that the watertight doors within those vessels be closed while the vessels are at sea, and yet there is a period of time during the voyage of each of those vessels when those doors are opened to give the passengers access to the lower compartments. I'm wondering. . . . It doesn't match. From what I understand from the Canada Shipping Act, it's a practice that is not permitted, and yet the B.C. Ferry Corporation continually permits it with ships that have this single-hull configuration.

[7:30]

D. Symons: Having been one who has gone down through those doors while the ship has been moving, I'm aware of the situation there. I also gather that there is a difference of interpretation between the corporation and some of the regulatory bodies on that particular clause, where you're saying there is some room for interpretation or. . . . I forget the word you used a moment ago. I gather that there isn't unanimity, that there isn't that sort of oneness of interpretation of it. The corporation is interpreting it one way, and others are suggesting that maybe that's not the interpretation of it they mean.

I'm just wondering if you can confirm that indeed you are interpreting it in a way that suits the corporation's interest at this time and that it may not be the interpretation that others from those regulatory bodies are placing upon that particular clause in the act.

Hon. D. Miller: Look, I believe the language allows for the master's discretion. There may be some differences. Those issues are being worked through with the authorities. I think it's routine business, quite frankly.

D. Symons: I guess the minister's answer has basically confirmed what I was asking -- saying there are things to be worked through. That would imply, as I was suggesting, that maybe it isn't as cut-and-dried as was suggested earlier.

I think we'll just leave the other issues for a moment. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano has a few questions.

J. Dalton: Thank you to the member for Richmond Centre. I just have two issues about Horseshoe Bay I want to ask about. One is the traffic mess, particularly on Argyle Street. I'm sure everyone over there is aware of this one. The district of West Vancouver has had meetings with the residents of Horseshoe Bay about it. We're coming up to another holiday weekend. The last holiday in May really caused a mess. People in Horseshoe Bay literally could not get out of their driveways because of the overflow.

I wonder if the Ferry Corporation has met with West Vancouver over this. What might we expect as a resolution to this problem? I understand it has been there for a long, long time but boiled over last May holiday weekend.

Hon. D. Miller: The corporation has met. There is a commitment to a double-laning of Keith Road. The member, I hope, would be supportive of the fast ferry program, given that it has the ability to move traffic in a faster pulse. As well, the Duke Point terminal and the diversion of commercial traffic to Duke Point from Tsawwassen will, it seems to me, have a positive impact with respect to that congestion issue. So yes, it is being addressed in a variety of ways.

J. Dalton: I'll just make a comment in response. I am sure we will all be carefully monitoring the Argyle Street and Keith Road situations this weekend.

The other issue actually deals with the Nanaimo run into Horseshoe Bay. I appreciate that Duke Point is now open. Has the Ferry Corporation given any consideration to a longstanding, simmering issue as to whether the terminal for the Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo run might be moved out of Horseshoe Bay? If so, do they have any possible locations in mind?

Hon. D. Miller: No.

J. Dalton: The reason I'm asking is that I've been lobbied by certain people in Horseshoe Bay, in particular a West Van councillor who happens to be a friend of mine. I don't live in the riding that's affected; I live in the next-door riding. I'm asking on behalf of West Vancouver people and on behalf of a person like myself who uses the ferry quite often to go up to Langdale, to my summer property. But that's not the reason why I'm concerned about this. I'm concerned about the heavy volume of ferry traffic in and out of Horseshoe Bay.

We have three terminals: Bowen Island, Langdale and Nanaimo. Certainly over the years the Nanaimo run, it has been suggested. . . . I've heard suggestions about Point Grey. In fact, just recently -- and I'll throw this at the minister -- I've heard that the airport authority would not be averse to a 

[ Page 4863 ]

consideration of Iona Island as a possible destination. So you would take the mess out of Horseshoe Bay and move it to Iona Island. Has that any merit?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't really know. I haven't looked at it. I think it was a notion advanced by a former member of this House some years ago -- Dr. McGeer, I believe.

Notwithstanding that, while I don't have personal knowledge of it and can't comment on the merits or lack of merits of the proposal, it does raise the issue of capital spending. The member might appreciate that even if it were a notion that had some merit, one would have to include any idea about that movement in a capital planning process. Right now I can't foresee that that would happen.

I don't say that never is never. We have now made some decisions that ten years ago people didn't think of -- Duke Point. So we're constantly looking at the system in terms of efficiency and those kinds of questions, and obviously if money can be invested that produces a long-term saving, then those are ideas that we will constantly look at.

D. Symons: Two things, just to go back to safety for a minute or two, and then we'll move on to my last set of topics on B.C. Ferries.

I'm reading on page 67 of the auditor general's report, for reference sake. Under "Findings," I'm finding that theirs may be a little bit contradictory, and maybe you can explain why and what has happened as an outcome of their comment. It's at the bottom left-hand column; it starts off under "Clear Objectives."

"The corporation should have clearly written objectives that describe and establish corporate direction for achieving operational safety. These objectives should deal with the prevention of injury, loss of life and loss or damage to property. They should ensure that operational demands do not compromise safety."

"We found that the corporation has recently articulated clear operational safety objectives which are consistent with the Canada Shipping Act and the International Safety Management Code."

But they did talk about clearly written objectives to begin with, and later on they said that you have "articulated clear operational safety" ones. So do you have clearly written objectives? That seems to be the objective here. I'm just wondering. You might explain why there seems to be a contradiction there.

Hon. D. Miller: My reading of page 67 is that the auditor is saying what the corporation should have, and it goes on to describe what it is, and then in the second paragraph it says that the corporation has it. So that's pretty good -- good detective work.

In addition to that, we have recently adopted the ISM Code. Other employers, apparently, are looking at it. Perhaps we could pass a copy to the member to illustrate our commitment to safety.

D. Symons: Back to the watertight doors. I did find something I was looking for. I believe Transport Canada, under the ship safety branch, does insist that the doors must be closed on the ships. It's an opinion I was given that that's in their particular mandate, so that must be the case.

I'm wondering on that as well; I hear that the Queen of the North basically has a leak in it and that this ship also. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Is it on top or on the bottom?

D. Symons: No, a water leak. Indeed, this ship isn't licensed to cross Hecate Strait, because it is a single-hulled vessel. Is this correct?

Hon. D. Miller: It can go anywhere in the world -- right around the world. The answer is no, no and no.

D. Symons: Okay. I'll have to go back and have a talk with my source of information. They're obviously not very reliable.

Hon. D. Miller: I hope they don't work at Ferries.

D. Symons: You hope they don't work at B.C. Ferries, do you? It wasn't Mr. Rhodes that passed that information on to me.

Can we deal for a little while with the apprenticeship programs, the summer students program? I had some questions regarding those last year, and I'd like to just carry on with this year's participation in those programs. Does the collective agreement include within it any payment to the union for training or apprenticeship programs?

Hon. D. Miller: Programs are run by the corporation.

D. Symons: What I was after there. . . . There isn't something like the HCL agreement, where there's so many cents per hour from the payment that goes into a program. Obviously not. Thank you.

How many were on an apprenticeship program last year? I wonder how many are on this year. So how many have you either programmed or planned for this year throughout the year, and how many were on an apprenticeship training program last year?

Hon. D. Miller: The apprentices are generally in the maintenance trades -- Deas dock. The corporation is looking at the potential for additional training programs -- a kind of cadet program on the vessels themselves. They have about 22 or 23 apprentices in total; the intake is about six per year. Most apprenticeships are four years. You'll get a graduating group. . . .

D. Symons: I think that answers my next question, which was to ask if there is a policy in place dealing with apprenticeship programs. So basically, you have a policy that you're going to bring in about six and rotate them through the programs year by year.

How many students, then, have been hired by B.C. Ferry Corporation on various government job creation programs for students? How many are hired by B.C. Ferries, and can I again ask for last year? Maybe for this year you might have a target figure that you haven't yet reached because the public schools aren't out yet.

[7:45]

[ Page 4864 ]

some of the expertise that they need with respect to working on board the vessels. There are no students explicitly, as a result of a different government program.

D. Symons: Your last response answered my next question, which basically is: are they part of any other government programs where there is some other government funding going into subsidizing that program, as there is in some of the student programs that are currently in place? The minister says no, that isn't the case.

I wonder if we might move on, then. Unfortunately, the member for Saanich North and the Islands is unable to be here, but he had a number of questions relating particularly to service to the Gulf Islands. I think he did ask first about the scheduling of the changes in service there. He was somewhat concerned about that. I think that has been covered reasonably well.

Another issue that came up, though -- and I think it's important that it be covered, too -- is the business of weekend reservations to the Gulf Islands out of the Tsawwassen terminal. I gather that now, to take that Gulf Islands trip, you must have a reservation; there is no standby and no driving on at the last moment. If you don't have a reservation booked in advance, you're not on the ferry.

Hon. D. Miller: The issue is really complicated to explain. The ship is loaded to discharge to four separate locations, and operationally that requires some of the automobiles to be facing in one direction and others to back on. It is a complicated loading schedule because it is going to four separate locations. If we were to wait for last-minute passengers, you can appreciate how that would make it impossible to load the ship for those operational requirements. The request to have reservation-only in fact came from the stakeholder groups in those locations. To just leave it open would, I think, create a bit of chaos and make a lot more people unhappy.

D. Symons: I met last week with a group that was, apparently, some of the members of the stakeholder group, and they were the ones that were complaining about it. I don't know if this was just a subgroup of it. It will be interesting for me to look back at. . . .

The Gulf Islands advisory committee spoke to me -- some of them, anyway. This was one of the issues they raised because they were concerned. They say that if somebody doesn't turn up -- and this is where you mentioned that the person turns up late -- then that space on the ship really stays vacant. The ship can go, and apparently. . . . I was told that one day somebody went along and counted, and there were 32 unoccupied spaces for cars that they felt should have been utilized. But you're saying that the problem of getting them on in the right order to get off at certain locations is the reason why you must do it that way.

Hon. D. Miller: What if the late arrival was in the first batch of automobiles that were facing in a certain direction? You appreciate that you could not begin to load the vessel. The only result of waiting is that you would have a delay -- and even there you would have to have a cutoff point. You couldn't begin to load. If you didn't have a cutoff point, how could you do that? It would be physically impossible, logistically impossible. It goes back to the scheduling. While I'm convinced there will always be complaints. . . . There will always be complaints because there are people out there. But the scheduling is done through a scheduling committee of 18 people from the stakeholders, from the locations themselves. You do your best in these cases, and the best often means that there are still people who might not like the result. Sometimes that's the way it goes.

D. Symons: I gather that what you do on the tarmac is arrange the cars in the order that they are going to go on, depending upon the location where they're going to get off. If indeed you allowed people to come on at the last moment -- and I'm not suggesting the last moment is after they have started loading. . . . If there is somebody on a wait-list prior to loading, they could fit into the appropriate line and be loaded with that particular group of cars. Is that not a possibility?

The other question, just to roll these into one thought. . . . I understand that when you end up getting your full complement, at that point, as far as the reservation system goes, there's basically no tally kept of how many people phoned or how many people were rejected, unable to get loaded on that. So you have no idea of what market you're losing because of this particular one. I'm wondering why, if you're planning for the future in servicing the public, you wouldn't want to know those particular figures. Somehow you should end up keeping track of what customers you're losing because you're not able to service them at that particular time. This would allow you to plan for the future.

Hon. D. Miller: We'll continue to evaluate this system. If there are improvements that can be introduced, we're certainly open to that.

D. Symons: Thank you. I would take that as maybe a commitment from the minister that you will have the corporation carry on with that reservation system past the point of those who have confirmed reservations and keep track of the others and do a little tally. Then in the future you would sort of know what the demand is and maybe would be able to adjust service to meet that demand. Would that be an outcome of what the minister just said?

Hon. D. Miller: That's right. We'll continue, as I say, to evaluate those ideas and others that might come forward to have an efficient service. It does take half an hour to load the vessel, you can appreciate, with the complications. So we'll do that.

D. Symons: There are a number of options for service to the Gulf Islands that have come up. I think option 3 is that everything is going to go through Swartz Bay; that you would basically cut out the islands service from Tsawwassen, ship them totally into Swartz Bay, and then have them take the ferries to their respective islands. Are all those options still open at this time? Have no decisions been made?

Hon. D. Miller: I understand that originally there were about 23 options on the table. It's been reduced to eight, so all those options are open.

D. Symons: I suppose my next question would relate to that as well, because I think two changes have been suggested for Saltspring Island. One is that the ferry not go into Long Harbour. The second one is that the ferry end up at a point; instead of Fulford Harbour and going all the way in, they would go to the point -- and I've forgotten the name of the point at the southern tip of Saltspring near Fulford Harbour -- to make it a much shorter trip from Swartz Bay. Are either one of those still under discussion or consideration? Have they been rejected or accepted?

[ Page 4865 ]

Hon. D. Miller: My goodness, I have three ferries running into Saltspring. Wow! I believe that Isabella Point is the point. Yes. I think it's an ecological reserve, and the islanders, stakeholders, rejected it.

D. Symons: Was there any comment regarding the Long Harbour service?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I think it's important. . . . I have dealt with other members, and this member -- the critic -- on the issue of the stakeholder process. I guess if it's going to have integrity, and if people have to deal with the issues at hand, then we've got to let them do that.

It's not a question of me or the corporation prescribing what's going to take place. Obviously we are players in that. We're not going to accept any foolish notions, but to the extent that the stakeholder process can come to grips with these issues, it's preferable that they do.

D. Symons: In talking with the members that I did, I'm not too sure that they are, because they certainly have divergent views on how these services should go in. That may be the solution, because if you impose one you're certainly going to get knocked at. So I tend to agree -- if I were in your shoes -- with that.

Gabriola Island is another area of concern. The concern, of course, is now that Duke Point has been opened. . . . There's been the suggestion that the service from Gabriola Island into Nanaimo would go into Duke Point rather than into Departure Bay. In so doing, you would be taking a fair number of foot-passenger service from Gabriola and placing them in an area where there is not the transit system or where it's not in the sort of centre of town that they currently go to. Again, is that one of these issues that still has to be resolved? Or has there been a resolution to that particular issue?

Hon. D. Miller: No, there's not. Again, stakeholders. . . . I understand there's a meeting this Friday; Mr. Rhodes will be present at that.

D. Symons: I think, you know, that basically I've come fairly close to the end. We have another member who wants to get in on this in a moment.

Of the various options that are looking at servicing the Gulf Islands, I've seen a suggestion that the ferry that currently services those do a triangular route -- it does Tsawwassen, Galiano, Mayne; it hubs out of Mayne, then, from the other islands to Saltspring and Saturna. Basically what you would have is a ferry that would do Saturna, Mayne, Saltspring to Long Harbour -- that is on Saltspring -- and another ferry that would basically do Swartz Bay, Pender and Mayne, back and forth.

I think it's a version of option 5, and I'm wondering if that seems like something that might be a solution to many of these problems.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I would refer the member to my previous answer with respect to the stakeholders and the various options.

D. Symons: We've introduced a reservation service on the Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo route, and I would gather on that and on the other reservation services you have throughout the system now that these are all a specified number of spaces reserved for reservation, and that there still are. . . . Have you a proportion? How do you work the reservation system so that those who turn up have a chance of getting on?

For instance, I noticed that in the assured-loading line coming over on the 7 a.m. ferry on Monday that line was the longest I've ever seen in the years I've been travelling on B.C. Ferries, so there are obviously a lot of people that are purchasing assured loading or doing reservations. I'm not sure that they fit into that line or where they fit in. Do you have a certain proportion of the ferry that is reserved for that sort of loading, compared to the people that come in and just get on as space allows?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. The reservation system available on the three major routes is 25 cars, notionally. The requirements are much the same as assured: arrival 30 minutes prior to sailing. Those two lines are merged -- the assured and the reserved. The premium is $20 on assured and $15 on reserved.

The committee recessed from 8 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

D. Symons: I wonder if we can run into fast ferries. I'll try and go. . . . I suggested that I was finished here, and I wasn't.

I'm wondering if there is any funding stream for Catamaran Ferries International. Or is it currently, for both operating and capital, all being done on borrowed money?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, through B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: So all the funding at the present time is borrowed money through B.C. Ferries.

I thought Catamaran Ferries International was a wholly owned subsidiary and they would be having their own credit line. Is that not correct?

Hon. D. Miller: It's through B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might tell me how much to date has been spent on the administration and management side of operating Catamaran Ferries International.

Hon. D. Miller: No, we don't have that discrete figure. We can provide it, but we just don't have it with us.

D. Symons: I was going to ask the other part of that -- so I'll take it at some future time, if you could forward that to me. How much has been spent on the actual construction? I was going to ask the next question, on which maybe you can give me an answer: is there a cap, then, on the Catamaran Ferries International debt that they may run up through B.C. Ferries?

Hon. D. Miller: The advance is $75 million from B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: Is there a cap on the borrowing that B.C. Ferries has set, or the government has set, regarding the money that can be spent on CFI? I'm asking, basically: is that cap the $210 million that was initially to be given to that particular program for the three ferries?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll say $230 million.

[ Page 4866 ]

D. Symons: It sounds like a cap that has just been set, but maybe not. You said: "I'll say. . . ."

Hon. D. Miller: Rounding it off.

D. Symons: That's fine; I don't mind rounded figures. I just didn't want that sort of figure. . . .

I gather from the most recent information I was given. . . . I find it a little bit difficult to understand, because when I asked a year ago how much had been spent so far on the catamaran program, I was told it was $150 million. When I asked the same question just recently, I was told it was $150 million. So in the intervening year, nothing seems to have happened, and I was curious about how nothing has happened in that time. I wonder if you might be able to give me a breakdown -- again, at some future time, because I'm sure you won't have it here -- of exactly how much has gone into construction and the various aspects of that particular figure. We hope the number will come out to around $150 million, or thereabouts, that supposedly has been spent. Is that $150 million accurate, or was last year's $150 million accurate?

[8:15]

D. Symons: There is another thought out there by another supposed expert in this field who has indicated that the degree of accuracy that you are talking about is not the degree of accuracy that's used in the airline industry, as far as tolerance for pieces joined together, and that the welding process we're using and the gaps that are there wouldn't fit for the airline industry -- suggesting that that's the type of tolerance you need for B.C. ferries and that using a cutting torch, rather than a grinding procedure, for getting the accuracy you need won't give you a ship that's going to be seaworthy for any length of time, and you're going to have problems built into it.

Hon. D. Miller: That really is preposterous. I suppose if there's one thing I learned, it's as you attempt to do something -- particularly something new -- there are no end of critics standing in the wings, wailing and moaning and gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out, saying: "You can't do it; it won't work. This is not good enough." Every critic has been proved wrong -- dead wrong.

I think we ought to have a little faith, quite frankly, in our ability both on the technical side and in the competence of the workforce to take on a project of this magnitude and do as good a job as can be done anywhere in the world. And they're doing that.

While I occasionally get vexed by critics, I realize that's simply the price of doing anything. There's always somebody standing in the wings trying to stop you, saying: "We can't do it." If we listened to all those people, we'd never do a darned thing.

D. Symons: Last year, I asked for a business plan to do with the CFI project, the fast ferry program and a cost-benefit analysis program, and I haven't yet received them. Is there a business plan that has now been made, and would it be possible to get a copy of that business plan as well?

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, there is. If there are documents on this, we'll make sure that you get them. There's also a strategic plan, and some people seem to miss the connection here. It's not just about building a ferry. It's much broader, and more comprehensive in terms of the linkages with the B.C. shipbuilding industry.

I mentioned the two companies here on Vancouver Island that are getting some of that work and spreading it around. I mentioned that they in turn -- because of the expertise that they're developing -- are obtaining other contracts. In fact, the spinoff benefits are going to flow, particularly right into the marine sector in British Columbia, in a very, very beneficial way. We have interest expressed offshore in terms of potential purchases.

I'd like to see a little bit of a positive attitude in terms of our ability here in British Columbia to compete, as I say, with anybody in the world. Objectively, looking at the numbers, looking at the statistics, looking at the quality, it appears we're doing just that.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

D. Symons: The interior design of fast ferries. . . . I mentioned this to Mr. Ward a short while ago while coming across on the ferry one early morning. I gather there's a Richmond firm that is down for getting the contract. But at that time, that contract had not actually been awarded. So I just wonder if the minister might tell me whether the contract for the interior design has been awarded. I assume it's simply for the first ferry that's it's being awarded.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it has. It's to Avcorp -- again, a very, very good, competitive firm. We've done a fair amount of work with Avcorp in other fields. We're anticipating, as a result of a separate deal that we've done with Avcorp, the addition of 200 to 300 or even more high-quality, high-skill, high-paying jobs. That's for the one, but with an option on the subsequent vessels.

D. Symons: I'm glad the minister brought up the subsequent vessels, because they've been caught in this freeze that the government put on a year ago now. I wonder: has that freeze now been lifted, and will those other two vessels be built?

Hon. D. Miller: I have made that commitment; the Premier has made that commitment. This is part of the strategic plan, and it's one that the government will follow through on. There may be more specific announcements at some point in the future.

D. Symons: I'm glad to hear that, in one sense, although I've been a bit of a knocker of the fast ferry program. Indeed, I think a single ferry for the strategic plan of changing the thing in Horseshoe Bay isn't going to work too well with one fast ferry and two or more regular ferries; we'll see. If it all works as well and they are as cost-effective and as trouble-free as the government is suggesting, I will be there saying that I was wrong and you were right. I will be delighted to say that, because when we form government, I don't want to deal with 

[ Page 4867 ]

the problems that I'm anticipating you may have. So if I'm wrong, we'll all be winners on that, including us on this side. Let us hope, then, that you are right and I am wrong on that.

There are, as you say, naysayers. Certainly, since they know the government is carrying forward this program, they tend to come to the opposition and tell us all of the things that are wrong with it. They're not likely to come and tell us all the things that are right with what the government is doing. You must realize that sometimes the information we get may be biased one way or the other. I think that when you were in opposition, you may have found that also. But you deal with those things. We argue them out here, and I listen to you -- and I hear you, which is the important thing. I think you must realize that I also hear what's being said from that side, not just what's been said in my ear from some other source. I think that's important, too. I treat this as a learning exercise, and I enjoy learning; it's been my life.

On the other ferries, the two remaining ones, I gather that for a while you were looking at the possibility of having a shipbuilder or some other person come along and basically put the money up front to build those remaining ferries and use a leaseback arrangement. When you were saying you were committed to completing the remaining two ferries, is it a possibility that you're looking for other avenues of financing them? Or is it going to be strictly the way the first ferry is being built?

Hon. D. Miller: As a general policy, I did say earlier in these estimates that we are looking at all of those kinds of potentials. There's absolutely nothing concrete in that regard. But where innovative ideas are developed and where they stand the rigour and test of auditors and tax people and the like, then we're certainly going to take a close look at them.

D. Symons: This is a question I asked of the minister responsible for starting the fast ferry program a few years ago. He talked about the fact, and I was pushing the fact, that the ferries are more expensive to operate. If you've got to get them up to that speed, you have those engines going and drinking the fuel quite quickly. And for the half-hour reduction in time. . . . I'm curious whether people are going to find that half-hour of value to them or not; we'll find that out. But he was implying that because of those increased costs of operation, people would be willing to pay a premium fare.

As we're getting closer to the finishing time of the first ferry -- in fact, I think the sea trials for it will be this fall -- can you give me an idea, as far as pricing goes, if you have come to any decision as far as this new, innovative technology that you're introducing? Will there be premium fares on that particular route?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, but no decisions have been made relative to that.

D. Symons: I take it from that, then, that it's still under consideration, rather than that it's being rejected.

Can you give me an idea? There's been some concern about the noise level and pollution level of the Detroit Diesel engines that are going to power these. They're going to be going at 90 percent of their capacity, I gather, to reach the horsepower needed to get the hull up to the 37 knots that they're going to be doing. Has there been a decibel-reading run on those engines? What would that reading be, so we can compare that to other sorts of noise levels that might be ambient in the harbours that the ships will be in?

Hon. D. Miller: The testing on the bed that has been done indicates a reduction from the conventional of about six decibels, so we're satisfied that noise is not an issue. Additionally, on the NOx we are anticipating testings results about 4 percent below the IMO recommended standards.

D. Symons: You're using a sulphur-free diesel, I suspect, to achieve that.

I was doing some calculation. I want some confirmation that what I'm doing -- what my calculation is based on -- is reasonably correct. I read somewhere awhile back that the person responsible for the program had said that about 60 percent of the cost of the program would go to labour and the remaining 40 percent would be non-labour items. So I'm just checking first whether those figures are approximately in the right ballpark.

Hon. D. Miller: Labour is about 40 percent. You'll appreciate that in developing the program, the upfront costs are higher. In other words, you'll have to. . . . Over the full life of the program -- the construction of the three vessels -- is where you'll get a more accurate accounting, but about 40 percent is on the labour side.

D. Symons: That sort of reverses the figures I had here, because I had the labour at 60 percent in what I'd worked out. I was going to try and quickly do the math. I'm not that fast at it here. But I worked out that 40 percent of the $210 million, which was the initial price given for the whole program, would be $84 million. So, I guess, if I work out the difference between that and $210 million, that might be an easier way of doing it than what I was about to do. So we're going to get somewhere in the neighbourhood of. . . . What's that going to be? Then $130 million would be the figure, you're saying.

I'm having some offer of a calculator. Thank you very much. I actually have one; I don't have it on me.

Anyway, that should work out to about $130 million. I gather, then, that would be the cost of labour. I'm asking that, because if you take the figure that's been spent so far. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Two times four.

D. Symons: I have trouble with that figure, too. Non-Euclidean geometry I can do, but this modern math confuses me.

Anyway, if we can go on to what I was saying here, you know, I worked out before that 40 percent of $210 million is $84 million. So basically you're telling me that $84 million will go into labour. The remaining part will end up being non-labour. So that's about $126 million.

Interjection.

D. Symons: If labour is 40 percent, then we're going to have. . . . The $84 million will be labour, and $126 million will be materials. Would those figures be approximately correct? If you take your labour and non-labour components of the $210 million. . . . I'm trying to just work out that.

Hon. D. Miller: The member, I think, is confusing himself and me. But we'd be happy to provide a full breakdown in terms of the various components -- labour, material, etc. -- that go into the program.

[ Page 4868 ]

Really, I just want to make the broad point. It's about 40 percent. That's a reverse; in the conventional ferries you'd find about 60 percent labour. So labour content on this project is lower than on a conventional.

D. Symons: What I was working out. . . . I might have to reverse the figures slightly, but it will still make the point that you've spent $150 million so far.

The total program was going to be $210 million -- but the minister is saying maybe $230 million now. But working on the $210 million figure, if you take the labour component and work out that fraction -- the 40 percent of it -- it works out to about $84 million.

The other is $126 million. But you've already spent $150 million. Therefore there's not going to be enough money left for the labour portion alone to build the remaining two and one-third ships that have to be built, let alone the materials, which you have some of.

Hon. D. Miller: You know, I actually was pretty good at math in school, but you've got me a little twisted here. Look, we'll provide. . . .

I did say, with all due respect, that the $150 million represents committed; $75 million is the cash draw. So I think the member is mixing those two up and, with those two figures, then trying to figure out on a percentage basis. . . . I've tried to do lots of things in estimates, but I've never tried to do that.

We are happy to provide an absolute accounting of the kind of breakdown on the cost side -- where it's apportioned to, etc.

[8:30]

Hon. D. Miller: No, I said. . . .

D. Symons: . . .$150 million, because it was $150 million a year ago you had. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: No.

D. Symons: It's $150 million a year ago -- you told me a few minutes ago -- that you had committed to. Now you're telling me that you'd spent. . . . It hasn't changed in a year's period, in other words. You're trying to tell me. . . . If it was committed last year and also committed this year, one of those figures must have been wrong. Then what I was trying to say was that if you've spent that much already, and the ratio between labour and non-labour is a little different than 50-50 but not far off, you've got a lot of building to do with not that much money left.

Hon. D. Miller: No. I'm getting more confused by the moment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: So am I.

Hon. D. Miller: We did send you a letter May 27. That letter said that we have commitments of $152 million, which includes the aluminum main engines for vessels 2 and 3. Those are commitments. On the other hand, I did say earlier that in terms of the draw from B.C. Ferries it's $75 million. So you should keep those separate when you're doing your calculations. That's all.

The other thing is -- and I tried to address it -- that we've preordered. There are savings over the three vessels, but they'll only be realized over the three vessels. In other words, there's a front-end-loaded cost in terms of the preordering that we've indicated. But you'll see, once we've done the whole program, that those costs are allocated over the whole program.

So it's very difficult to try to do what you're doing, I suggest, which is to try to do a breakdown of the labour versus non-labour costs and try to come up with some numbers at this point. From a technical point of view, if I could be so bold as to suggest, it's not exactly the right way to proceed. I'm not an expert in these fields technically, but I did pass math in high school.

D. Symons: I won't tell you what my former job was. But anyway. . . .

An Hon. Member: Yeah, he's a math teacher.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, if I'd had you, I wouldn't have passed it.

D. Symons: Probably not, but for other reasons.

What you're suggesting -- total program, $210 million -- we are agreeing with, plus or minus $20 million, now that you're hiking that. . . . Let's just say for the sake of argument that the figures given before were 50 percent labour and 50 percent non-labour costs.

In that non-labour cost you've got the construction shed -- $9 million. You've bought the engines; I think they were $42 million. You've bought the aluminum for at least the hull construction, I gather -- a fair amount of that for all three vessels. So those all are either purchased, paid for already or committed. They're committed figures.

So I'm wondering, when you talk about committed, if you can just tell me what some of the other figures. . . . You haven't let the contract for the interiors. Are those counted in your committed figures? What else is counted in your committed figures, other than all the labour for the first two-thirds of the first ferry that you've paid for?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm really trying to make a simple point that when you make a commitment. . . . For example, you order aluminum. That doesn't mean that next week somebody shows up and all the aluminum is dumped on the dock. Right? It means it's a commitment you've made with the company that supplies that. Similarly with engines. I'm not up to date on exactly how much of the material. . . . Nor do I want to know. I'm not the material-checker on this project -- right?

But I am trying to tell you that we're prepared to give you as good a breakdown as you want on this -- all the numbers, all the figures, what we have in inventory. But the point is simple: you don't always have cash flowing for a commitment that you've made. If you're a big organization and you do a deal with the aluminum supplier in France -- I think it is 

[ Page 4869 ]

French -- and they say: "Well, we're dealing with the B.C. Ferry Corporation here or Catamaran Ferries International. We want to check up front before we even give them one piece of aluminum. . . ." It doesn't work that way. That's all.

D. Symons: Okay, I'll look forward to the figures you're going to give me, but what I would like, then, is what has been committed to or paid for and also what the labour costs have been up to this point in constructing the first ferry. Of course, there won't be many labour costs for the second; I assume some of those will be amortized, though, in the training that you're involved in doing for the first ferry. If I could have those figures at some time, I would appreciate that.

I think we're just about at the end. That's got this part on the interiors. You have had some interest shown in purchasing the ferries and you mentioned this earlier, so we might have a fourth and fifth coming off the weighs some year down the line. I would assume that all of these expressions of interest in purchasing ferries will be determined by the performance of the first ferry and that nobody's going to commit themselves to a purchase until they actually see one in the water. Would that be true?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I would say that's probably true, but I think we should, at least in terms of the indication from international companies. . . . Those expressions of interest -- serious expressions of interest -- are a very positive sign. We'll continue to follow up on that.

D. Symons: Just one last question on this particular topic, and then I'll turn the floor over to somebody else. Just going back to the superferries, because the same sort of rationale was used for superferries -- that we were going to be selling those worldwide -- did you have expressions of interest? I think we were told that back when the superferries were being built, and we know none of those materialized. I'm just wondering if we're going to repeat the same procedure.

Hon. D. Miller: No, in fact, that's not true. There was not an expression of interest with the superferry. There was, however, an expression of interest in the technology that was developed around the ferry, and the member might be delighted to know that those very suppliers have sold $80 million worth of goods related to that technology around the superferry. So it shows that it's good business.

Okay? Are we through? Oh, come on, we had a deal. . . .

G. Wilson: I'm not sure what kind of a deal we had, but I. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, the minister shouldn't be so fearful of my questions. I'm sure he's well armed and prepared to answer everything that I have. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: I can assure you that it has nothing to do with your questions.

G. Wilson: I won't even get into that part of the debate, because we'll be here all night. Let me just say I would like to accept the offer that the minister made to the official opposition critic with respect to those numbers. It will greatly expedite my questions here tonight if I can have those in a timely manner -- and one assumes that a timely manner means within the next few days if not weeks, that we're not talking about waiting until the launch.

I do have, actually, three questions that I would like to pose and, depending on those answers, that might be it. Last year we had, through order-in-council, a borrowing authority for B.C. Ferries of $800 million. I'm curious to know: how much of that borrowing authority did B.C. Ferries actually commit on? Of the money that was borrowed, how much of that went into the creation of the new corporation and/or the construction of the new ferry?

Hon. D. Miller: The cap was $730 million; $650 million was borrowed up to the end of March '97. I previously indicated that $75 million was advanced on the project itself and $20 million for ancillary. I assume that means the assembly shed and those kinds of things.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister. . . . He may not want to answer this, and I'll understand if there is some concern with giving me an answer. He may not be able to give a precise answer. The finished cost of the first ferry. . . . I understand that as we build three, the amortized cost of each ferry goes down because of all of the things that we've just been talking about. What is the corporation's estimated finished cost of the first ferry? Let's assume for the moment that we're not building two more. What would be the finished cost of the first ferry?

Hon. D. Miller: I can't give you a number. The member is right, you could impute a cost. I would suggest that there are some variables in there that perhaps you can calculate.

In other words, my sense of this kind of project is that over time you become more efficient. I'm thinking particularly of the kinds of procedures. . . . While you train your workforce -- and we spend a lot of money training that workforce -- the experience they gain actually working on the first one, I think, creates efficiencies on the second one and even into the third one. What we're tracking, and I think this is. . . . Again, I don't have the number with me. What you have to be sure of, because you'll only know over a period of time how you perform. . . . You've got to track things like the testing or statistical units they use to evaluate competitiveness or efficiency -- labour costs per pound of aluminum. They use a variety of factors in this.

Again, anecdotally, what I'm advised is that we are performing very, very well. When we look at the sort of major competitors around the world -- Australians, Finns, etc. -- we have done quite a good job in terms of the logistics on this project, the training, the assembly yards and those kinds of things. So it's something that I think all people involved in the project are quite cognizant of, and they ought to be. Because given that this is more than just building new vessels, like a one-time. . . . This is an integrated proposal, strategic in terms of the revitalization and opportunities for offshore exports and those kind of things. If you don't perform, then you're not going to be in the game. So I think everybody understands that, right down to the worker in the shop.

I know I visited, and I would urge all members to if they have the time. . . . Phone ahead, and I'm sure that CFI would be delighted to showcase what's happened so far. I know that when I toured the yards in North Vancouver, I saw a lot of people, both on the technical side and the work side, who were quite proud of what they were doing. Really, I would urge all members -- and I extend that invitation to everybody 

[ Page 4870 ]

-- to take a look, see what's being done, talk to the people involved and get their sense of the project and how they feel about it. As I say, I think it's something that British Columbians ought to be proud of. Now, we're going to prove ourselves here, but I think we are well on the way to doing that.

G. Wilson: I don't want to get into a long protracted discussion on the merits of the project. Frankly, my comments and concerns are on record, and I don't think that I need to restate them here. If I'm wrong, as I publicly stated today, I guess -- in fact, I said -- I would be prepared to eat crow. And being the gentleman that he is, Mr. Rhodes has said that, no, he will serve me pheasant -- which is a great offer. But I think time will tell how successful it is.

I wonder if it would be possible if I could actually see some of those projected costs. Far be it for me to argue the case for three. It is useful for me to be armed with the information that clearly B.C. Ferries is going to be taking to Treasury Board in the event there is any dispute as to whether we have two or three. It would strike me that one of the strongest arguments for the construction of three vessels is that amortized cost, and one of the best ways to present that argument is to demonstrate what the cost of one is versus two, versus three. I am sure the corporation has done that; if they haven't, I'm sure they must be in the process of doing that. If I could get a copy of that information, I would greatly appreciate it.

I just want to ask two more questions. Who owns the information that has come out of the tank testing, the design testing and the design information? Is it owned by B.C. Ferry Corporation? Is it owned by Incat? Who owns that? Who has title, if that's the right word, to it?

[8:45]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Okay. But apart from that, all members should feel that they can approach Ferries -- I've made that offer here, and I'll make it again -- to get the kind of information you're seeking.

G. Wilson: I fully understand that, and I'm not trying to work out a sale price to see how much you would flog it for if you had a buyer -- although it might be an idea if you got a buyer.

I'm really curious about this ownership question, because if B.C. Ferries has ownership of that design and the testing and all of the information that goes into that, does that constrain Incat from using that design and that test material or from constructing a separate vessel, perhaps slightly different in size or in scope, and putting that into the marketplace directly in competition with what we're building here?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I said, and I'll repeat, that B.C. Ferries has the ownership. We own the intellectual property, but we are in a strategic partnership, as well, with Incat. So there's no compelling reason for what you are suggesting could conceivably happen. Mr. Rhodes advises me that they took particular care in terms of constructing this so that the intellectual rights are owned by B.C. Ferries.

G. Wilson: In the event -- and one always hopes, of course, this doesn't happen in a partnership. . . . However, my own experience has been that partnerships sometimes dissolve -- sometimes unhappily and sometimes with a great deal of expense. So let me just say that if a partnership does dissolve, who will essentially be able to have ownership of that property? Will Incat be able to take that information and repartner with another producer and be able to use that technology? Or will that be exclusive to the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

Hon. D. Miller: This design, this vessel, came out of a history of design of vessels. So Mr. Hercus brings that expertise from his work. We are strategically partnered together. With respect to this project, we own the intellectual rights, and we are working in concert. We are together as strategic partners. Partnerships do break up, presumably, and the knowledge that the individual has is presumably his own. So he's brought to us, if you like, from his previous experience. With respect to this, it's intellectually owned by us. I'm not sure what more I can say to. . . .

G. Wilson: This might seem like a purely academic question, except that there has been some history offshore where companies have broken and where governments have been involved. Essentially, there have been some very costly legal disputes with respect to technology and design materials that have been paid for by government but that are now deemed to be the property of the private company. I think it's a worthwhile question to ask. I'm hearing the answer that B.C. Ferries has exclusivity to it, and that would give some comfort to us.

I wonder, just by way of the last question, whether or not the contract we have is something that would be available for review and if we could take a look at the design contract that exists -- simply to put to rest those arguments from those critics that might deem that in fact B.C. Ferries has not built in the necessary protections against the use of this design in a competing enterprise, if this partnership should dissolve.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, subject to any interests of commercial confidentiality.

D. Symons: Just a very few questions regarding Victoria Line, and then we'll be complete. The first question I am basically asking is for information that the minister might get to me in the next short while. I have a statement out of the quarterly accounts for Victoria Line a few years back. It had the estimated revenues, expenses, operating income, loss, etc., -- the usual thing that comes out in those quarterly statements from the Finance ministry. I'm wondering if I might have an updated one that would include the actuals for '95 and if now we could have the actuals for '96-97. So if I could have that, that would be my first request.

Next I'd like to ask for confirmation of these figures, and then we'll carry on from that point with just a few questions. I gather that the losses in '94 were $1.4 million. That's including the debt charges. In '94-95 it was roughly $1.4 million again; and in '96, from the estimated figures I have, $386,000 was projected at that time. Assuming that the projection was correct, we have about $3.2 million in losses occurring over the three years of operation. Am I somewhat in the right ballpark on that?

[ Page 4871 ]

Hon. D. Miller: To use an old expression, you're in the ballpark.

D. Symons: The book value of the Queen of Burnaby to B.C. Ferry Corporation at the time, I think, of the transfer over was $3.5 million. The equipment costs were $860,000 with backup, terminals were about $1 million, and the vessel refit was about $6 million. So the capital outlay, then, for the ferry was somewhere around $8.16 million, give or take a couple of thousand.

Hon. D. Miller: Still in the park.

D. Symons: If we add up the two figures, we're getting somewhere in the neighbourhood of a $12 million outlay relationship to the ferry operation. I'm wondering: did the Victoria Line have a borrowing cap?

Hon. D. Miller: There were, at the devolution from B.C. Steamships, funds on deposit. There was also a borrowing limit.

D. Symons: Had that borrowing cap been reached? You didn't give me a figure on the borrowing cap, so I'm wondering if you could tell me what the figure was and maybe how much rolled over. I thought B.C. Steamships was a shell company with basically nothing in it at the time that it changed to Victoria Line.

Hon. D. Miller: No, somebody had salted away almost $2 million. And no, the cap wasn't exceeded.

D. Symons: I was still searching for that cap figure, which the minister is avoiding there. A year ago I was asking these questions about the possible sale of Victoria Line, and I got rather evasive answers from the minister at that time. Very soon after I asked the questions, the announcement was in the press that indeed they had found somebody to show an interest in it. Now I can imagine, because they were in negotiations, why he was evasive at that time, and I can appreciate that. But you have an agreement now with Victoria Clipper. Just to confirm that I have the right figures here also, they are paying $120,000 a year in a lease arrangement for three years, and they have an option to purchase it at the end of those three years for $1.5 million.

Hon. D. Miller: It's for five years, but I should say that the other numbers are correct.

D. Symons: But we have a ferry now with a book value of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8 million if we consider the outlay that's been put into making that, and the figure you're giving me that could be the purchase price at the end of this particular time is somewhere closer to $2 million. That's including, I guess, the amounts they're paying over that five-year period. They're going to be giving the corporation somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 million for an $8 million vessel.

Hon. D. Miller: The point is: that's the market value of the vessel. You have to look at the deal in its entirety in terms of the obligation to maintain the operation, the annual payments, the end purchase price, those kinds of things as a package. Also consider that if you simply had the vessel. . . . Let's say you decided that you were going to stop the service, shut it down and see if you could sell the vessel. What would you get for it? Looked on that way, it seems to me a good deal, particularly in light of the fact that it brings this portion of Vancouver Island a considerable amount of revenue.

D. Symons: Of course, the last point by the minister is the reason why I think B.C. Ferries or government took on the task of bringing in Victoria Line: to bring that revenue and the tourism that's attached to it into Victoria.

Basically, what I think you've said is: we're going to get the best deal we can on this. We've spent $8 million in putting the ship together; we'll have to accept whatever we can get on the market for that $8 million investment. So the answer seems to be, then, that we're basically writing off the remainder.

I'm wondering, just going back to business plans that I seem to be fixated on. . . . There must have been a business plan for that particular ferry and a cost-benefit analysis of putting that in, including the social costs and benefits to Victoria that you mentioned a moment ago. Again, if I could have a copy of that particular document to evaluate whether the government indeed had taken a wise step in initiating the service to begin with, considering that we seem to be taking a bit of a hit and a loss between what we spent on the vessel, the operating losses for a number of years and what we're likely to get in return in the sale or leasing of the vessel.

Hon. D. Miller: Fair enough. I don't know, quite frankly. It's not that I don't pay attention to the opposition, but I don't know that the opposition has ever taken a position on this -- whether it ought to have been done or not. I would be delighted to hear if they do have an opinion on that question.

It seems to me that when I look at things like the Victoria MLAs from another party showing up at the ceremony to transfer ownership to Clipper, I somehow conclude that they place some value in the service. And no wonder: almost 300,000 passengers carried, 70,000 vehicles, a six-fold increase in tour buses into the Victoria region. No wonder they support it.

I don't know why the member would want a business plan. That's the last thing I'd want. It's gone, right? It's in the private sector now, where I think it's going to have a good operation. The Clipper are very smart operators; I'm very impressed with the way they run their company. They have the opportunity to market now across a broader range of transportation alternatives, and I expect that they'll continue to do a good job here for the people of the city of Victoria.

I know that at the ceremony we held over at Ogden Point, the family from Seattle was up, and I think the relationship is very good. I know that we were, and I certainly was, strongly supported by the prominent people in the city of Victoria. The mayor of Victoria, the head of Tourism Victoria -- all of those people were involved with the management group that I put in place to divest ourselves of this operation. I think all of them were unanimous in terms of this deal being a good deal. There was strong support from Mayor Cross, Mr. Scott and others in the community of Victoria.

So I just think that it's a classic example of government stepping in, taking action -- sometimes in the face of critics who say, "Oh, you shouldn't do this" -- putting a service in, over time devolving that to the private sector and continuing with those significant economic benefits to this region. As far as I know, it's fully supported; everything we've ever done has been fully supported by members of the party opposite -- and I could be wrong. The member might like to clarify that, but I'm certain that is the case and that they support what 

[ Page 4872 ]

we've done in terms of this devolution to the private sector. Maybe I might not have to deal with this next year. It would be nice.

[9:00]

The reason I'm asking -- and I assume that the minister would have no objection. . . . He sort of made fun of me for asking for a business plan of a corporation that's not there. But I'm sure he'd have no objection to passing it on to me since he said it's of no use. But really, what I'm after -- and I'll be quite up front with you -- is that there were two other offers to start a ferry service to Seattle back in '92. For various things that they were asking, they weren't given the option of going ahead, and B.C. Ferries took over the process.

I think it might be instructive for the future to take a look and compare now, in a sense, the losses we're facing on changing this over to the private sector -- to look back now and see whether those offers might have been viable after all, since there would have had to be, in one sense, government money put into those. We have indeed put government moneys into the Clipper operation that's currently going, in the sense that they're getting a very good bargain in the ferry that's being supplied to them.

So that was the reason for the request, and I'd appreciate it if I could have that document. I would also like, if I could, the staff costs on this side. Is Mr. Peel still on salary? Or has his position, as it was transferred over to Victoria Clipper, disappeared? Or is he now an employee of Victoria Clipper? So, if I could have the staff costs and maybe the salaries of the senior staff people who were attached to the last few years with Victoria Line, I'd appreciate that as well. That would be my last question, unless you have any comments.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I'll instruct my staff to send everything that might be germane. If there is some additional piece of information the member might require, then I've asked them deliver that as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my hon. critic in terms of the estimates process here. I think it's been a reasonably productive evening.

The committee recessed from 9:02 p.m. to 9:16 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

C. Clark: The minister and the committee will be aware that I am not the opposition critic for Hydro, but I am the opposition critic for Environment. The minister, I'm sure, will also be aware that we have expressed some interest in the work that Hydro is doing on environmental issues. Certainly Hydro has done some work on environmental issues; there's no question about it. I know that Hydro does devote some revenue and some time -- certainly it's part of Hydro's corporate structure -- and has turned its mind in many cases to protection of the environment.

However, I am interested to see the extent to which that interest has been put. . .because the government has talked a great deal about its interest in the fisheries issue, protection of fish habitat and protection of fish in British Columbia. The Premier has seen fit to declare another war on the United States about fish. It's been a big issue on the front page of the newspaper for this government. It's something I think the government has reaped the benefits of, in a lot of ways. I want, from my perspective on this side of the House, to ensure that the government is indeed serious about its commitment to protect fish and fish habitat, given how important it is to our economy and to the fabric of our society in this province.

I won't go on about my history with the fishing industry, because I put that on the record last year. But I am interested, I guess, to find out from the minister and his officials from B.C. Hydro how they see or assess the impact of the Fish Protection Act on their operations. I imagine that B.C. Hydro has done some work on that. The government has said the Fish Protection Act is a major piece of legislation. Indeed, the Premier has referred to it as one of the building blocks of his fish protection strategy as he embarks on his war with the Americans.

So I'm interested to know what. . . . You know, the Premier, of course, made B.C. Hydro a central feature of that in his legislation. He specifically laid out in the legislation, to a great deal of fanfare in the Legislature, that under the new Fish Protection Act no new bank-to-bank dams would be built in British Columbia. Of course, that's a reference to B.C. Hydro's operations. I know that the folks at Hydro will have done some work to try and assess the impact that the Fish Protection Act will have on their operations. I'd ask the minister if he could give us a rundown on how that's occurred.

Hon. D. Miller: The act has certain specifications. The member is not completely correct in terms of no new dams. It's on designated rivers only.

Notwithstanding that, I believe she characterized Hydro not that long ago in the House as only wanting to kill fish. I was pleased that she seems to have shifted her position somewhat, and that's positive.

But in fact, I did say that Hydro takes its mandate seriously in terms of trying to manage for fisheries values. It spends about $5 million annually -- potentially more in the future. It has a board that understands that and has a prominent member of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union on the board. I think Hydro has done some very good work and will continue. So if there are specific questions, I'll try to answer.

C. Clark: I thought that was a specific question. I should clarify, too. I am aware that B.C. Hydro doesn't just kill fish. It also produces power; I'm aware that B.C. Hydro does a lot of other things in British Columbia. But among the things that B.C. Hydro does do is have an impact on fish and fish habitat in British Columbia. I'm sure the minister wouldn't go so far as to deny it. My specific question on the Fish Protection Act is: has B.C. Hydro assessed the impact that this act will have on its operations?

Hon. D. Miller: B.C. Hydro does comply with the law and will comply, with any impacts. I can't produce any definitive statement relative to the act vis-�-vis Hydro operations here. But we will comply with provisions of the act.

C. Clark: Perhaps the minister can further clarify for the committee: is he saying that B.C. Hydro has not done any work to assess the impact that the Fish Protection Act will have on its operations and, I assume, on its revenues? Is it 

[ Page 4873 ]

correct that B.C. Hydro has done no impact assessment, put no thought into, produced no studies on, exchanged no paper on the impact that the Fish Protection Act will on B.C. Hydro's operations?

I think it's a legitimate question, because the Premier has presented the Fish Protection Act as a piece of legislation that will certainly impact on B.C. Hydro's operations. That's the way he has presented it, and if fish protection is something the government wants to address and if B.C. Hydro has an impact on fish and fish habitat, surely this act will have an impact on B.C. Hydro -- unless, of course, the act is essentially meaningless and isn't intended to have any impact on B.C. Hydro's operations at all.

Hon. D. Miller: If the member has specific questions about the operations of Hydro, I haven't heard one yet.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the member, I should caution members about discussing legislation in committee.

C. Clark: My question is simply this: has B.C. Hydro done any impact studies at all? What does B.C. Hydro think the impact of the Fish Protection Act will be on its bottom line? How much money will it cost B.C. Hydro to comply with the new laws?

B.C. Hydro says that it has cost them $400,000 to change their flows on the Alouette. B.C. Hydro says that it's going to cost $2 million to comply with DFO's minimum flow order on the Cheakamus. So I imagine that the corporation -- as, I'm sure, a forward-thinking, responsible corporation -- must have figured out what impact that's going to have on its bottom line. So I'm asking the minister if he can tell this committee what impact those changes that will be required under that act will have on the bottom line of B.C. Hydro.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll take your guidance, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to answer specific questions, but I haven't heard one yet. This is a generalization that fails to understand even the basic characterization of the Fish Protection Act, which primarily deals with the impact that resource extraction and those other things have on fish habitat. We don't do that. We have unnatural systems that were created some years ago when people built dams. We operate them for power generation, and in doing that, we do our utmost to also manage for fisheries values.

C. Clark: B.C. Hydro operates, among other principles, according to fish values. It takes fish values into consideration when it figures out how it's going to operate. That's what B.C. Hydro tells the people of British Columbia, that's what the briefing notes tell us, and that's the way B.C. Hydro has always operated. That's supposed to be one of the principles under which they operate.

Surely, if the government is tightening up the regulations and the governance around protecting fish habitat, that's going to have an impact on B.C. Hydro's bottom line. That's a pretty obvious outcome, as far as I'm concerned. If the minister is telling us that they haven't put any thought into this at all, if they haven't done any assessment, I can assume -- and I think the committee can assume -- that the Fish Protection Act won't have any impact on their operations; that the Fish Protection Act, for all intents and purposes, is meaningless to B.C. Hydro's bottom line. I suppose if that's what the minister wants to tell this committee, that's his prerogative.

I know that B.C. Hydro does use a multiple account evaluation when it figures out its costs, and I wonder if the minister can tell us how that multiple account evaluation works, the principles on which it relies and the balance and weight it gives to each of those components.

Hon. D. Miller: We're engaged in planning. We did do a major overview plan with respect to our systems and the issues of fisheries. There were some reports -- I think the Ward report was produced as one of those reports. We do work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in terms of developing a management regime to manage to the best of our ability for our fisheries values.

C. Clark: I asked specifically about the multiple account evaluation in the system, and I think that's a specific question about the way B.C. Hydro operates. It's a specific accounting question. It would be, I think, quite within the realm of this committee to discuss it. I understand that is the system that B.C. Hydro uses when it figures out what its impacts are going to be.

Specifically, my question is. . . . And perhaps if I'm going in the wrong direction on this, maybe the minister could enlighten the committee about why a question about the system isn't relevant to the committee. But as far as I understand it, that's a pretty basic question about the way Hydro does its accounting methods. So I'd be interested if the minister could tell us how the system works and what weight Hydro gives each component in that system.

Hon. D. Miller: We work in conjunction with the other agencies, as I indicated. One of the things that we do think is important is trying to manage the systems for fisheries values, and we do that in cooperation with the other agencies that I mentioned.

C. Clark: Well, I appreciate that. I'm glad to know that fisheries values are one of the values that they use. But I guess implicit in the title "multiple system" is that there's more than one. So I wonder if the minister could tell us what the other ones are.

Hon. D. Miller: This is B.C. Hydro.

C. Clark: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the answer to that question. I know it's B.C. Hydro. Does that mean that in B.C. Hydro a multiple account evaluation system means that you don't have multiple numbers of things that you consider, that you only consider one principle in that evaluation system?

You know, I think it's fair to ask what principles B.C. Hydro uses when it does its cost-benefit analysis, and when it figures what the costs are for making certain changes to its system. We certainly know -- well, I assume so -- that the government is going to be asking some changes of B.C. Hydro. I know that Hydro says that they're considering making changes for themselves.

They are facing a world where deregulation is coming into play, a world potentially. . . . Who knows? if the people who the minister refers to as environmental imperialists have their way, B.C. Hydro may face a world where environmental standards get imported from other jurisdictions.

Now, I know that these changes would change B.C. Hydro's world dramatically. And with those kind of changes facing the system, surely it's important to find out where B.C. Hydro gets its numbers and how it comes to the conclusions 

[ Page 4874 ]

that it does. Fish values are certainly one of the principles on which they make their evaluations. What are the other principles, and what weight does each of those principles get in the evaluation system?

[9:30]

The member knows full well. . . . I presume she knows that in the past there have been dams constructed for water retention for reservoirs and that water is used to generate power. There are a variety of impacts that can take place as a result of that. One of those is fish. That goes to the issue of water release, flow regimes, those kind of things. Clearly there are other important issues: flood control, those kinds of things. It really is attempting to achieve a balance between what are sometimes competing objectives in a way that is sensitive to the fisheries values, the individual values, the economic values -- all of those things. We do detailed planning on all of our systems; we do that in conjunction with the agencies I've talked about. We want to be good at what we do. I don't know what more I can tell the member. If she has specific questions. . . . If she's come unprepared, then she should say so. We've started off on what I think is a particularly bad foot, which is quite different from any other part of the estimates that I've been in so far.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: We can set the tone early, Mr. Chairman. You know me; I don't mind. Or we can try to be productive.

C. Clark: Well, if the minister doesn't come prepared to answer questions, then he's quite right. That certainly will set a tone for the committee; there's no question about that.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, member.

C. Clark: I wonder, then -- if the minister would like us on this side to be more specific -- if we could talk about the Cheakamus River. Of course, the minister will be aware that B.C. Hydro is going to court to challenge DFO's order, to challenge DFO's constitutional jurisdiction over inland waters and management of flows. We know that the diversion of flows was, on average, 31 percent more than had originally been licensed or was ever licensed, and we also know that B.C. Hydro was paying the Ministry of Environment for the extra water that it was taking. Can the minister tell us: is it B.C. Hydro's practice to pay for the extra water that they take above and beyond what they are licensed to take?

Hon. D. Miller: The Cheakamus was a historical anomaly with respect to water use, but notwithstanding that -- and the member should be aware, or maybe she isn't aware -- a study commissioned by MELP and done by Peter Ward and Associates to audit the Cheakamus diversions concluded that Hydro had historically diverted 30 percent more water than licensed. Nobody was monitoring that, for whatever reasons.

The Ward report went on to state: "Fisheries agencies have not determined if the hydroelectric project has been a contributor to the declines in fish stocks." It's true that if you look at the area subsequent to the development of the dam, there appeared to be no impact on fish stocks. It wasn't until subsequent development in the Squamish estuary, I believe, that there were declines in the pink runs. I'm recalling this from recollection in my mind, but I think that's true.

Notwithstanding that we were in a process with MELP and DFO, DFO issued an order. We felt compelled to challenge that -- the only recourse we had was in federal court -- for the following reasons. The DFO order is difficult to implement from an operational perspective and has led to an increased risk of stranding fish due to the daily variations of flow. The order, in its simplicity, simply said that the flow had to be a percentage of the inflow without regard for any impacts both on fish and on flooding. So we are taking what we think is a reasonable course in terms of trying to seek some clarity on that. We've implemented a voluntary interim flow release to ensure fisheries protection during the development of a water use plan for the river.

We were surprised, really, at receiving the order, since we had been working with not only DFO and MELP but regional stakeholders, local governments and first nations. We are complying with the order and are committed to the public process of water use planning, but we really feel that we've got to get some clarity on this question if we're going to operate the system the way we think it ought to be operated.

T. Nebbeling: I wasn't going to ask questions tonight, but as this is an area that is near to where I live, I'd like to get in for a minute. The minister is talking about the increase of water capacity through the turbine into the Squamish River. I would like to know from the minister: is he aware of what the capacity of flow over the Cheakamus dam into the lower Cheakamus River was supposed to be, according to the agreement?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't have that statistic.

T. Nebbeling: Well, that means that the minister is not aware of the consequences of the flow into the lower Cheakamus River. Quite frankly, I'm very surprised by that answer, because the lawsuit that was initiated by the Squamish nation was based on the fact that B.C. Hydro had agreed in the past to provide certain flow levels to keep the turbulence of the lower Cheakamus at such a level that phosphorous that came from the Cheakamus and from the Callaghan Lake area would not settle in the area, thereby avoiding the growth of algae that would indeed have a serious impact on the fish stocks.

What does the minister know -- that is my question -- about the obligations of B.C. Hydro as far as maintaining this flow so that indeed the turbulence of the lower Cheakamus River is guaranteed and will be guaranteed in the future so that we can restore that river, which used to be a very lively river and the spawning bed for a very important salmon run? Unfortunately, the irresponsible action by B.C. Hydro has led to a run that no longer exists. That is the reason that the Squamish nation has gone after the provincial government to have these flows restored. I would like to know from the minister if he is aware of what the flows were and what the flows will be in the very near future to restore the lower Cheakamus River.

Hon. D. Miller: We're complying with the DFO order.

T. Nebbeling: That's not the answer that I'm obviously looking for. I'm looking for the compliance that B.C. Hydro 

[ Page 4875 ]

did agree to in a contract that was signed in the past at the time that previous governments decided to build the Daisy Lake Dam in order to provide the turbine power for the creation of power. At that time there was serious concern that the lower Cheakamus River could be threatened, could become a river that no longer functioned as a spawning river for the salmon run. B.C. Hydro agreed at that time to uphold certain flow levels so that river would remain a living river.

It really is disturbing that the minister -- knowing that a law case is in process, which is based on B.C. Hydro's failing to provide these flow levels -- is not aware of what the requirement was in the past and what will be needed in the future to once again bring that river back to life. I again ask the minister -- having a sheet of paper in front of him that he most likely can use to read to us from -- to clarify some of these questions that I have asked before and that I'm asking again.

Hon. D. Miller: It appears that in 1957 the DFO committed that: "A release of 500 cubic feet per second" -- 14 cubic metres per second -- "was stated from the start to be a maximum which might only be required for short periods under extremely unusual circumstances, if at all." That's a quote from the DFO order in 1957.

Prior to the DFO order -- this most recent one -- Hydro was releasing 500 cubic feet per second or 14 cubic metres per second during spawning and rearing, March to December, and 350 cubic feet per second during incubation, January to March. So a historical review of the situation, going back to the late fifties, would appear to indicate that Hydro was complying with the view of DFO at that time. In addition to that, and why I say we were somewhat surprised that DFO issued their order, we had been doing a great deal of work prior to that -- both the ESOR, electrical system operating review, and the specific Ward report, which the member may want to disagree with. Fair enough. I'm just saying that there's a report by someone in the field -- who, I presume, has the credentials -- who suggests, as I've stated, that there is not any way in which they have identified the reasons for the loss of those pink runs. I'm not suggesting that there are not some implications for Hydro in that, but I'm saying that the Ward report -- and I think Mr. Ward has credentials in this field -- cannot attribute that. . . .

It's true historically that subsequent to the construction of the dam, those runs were not impacted; they were there. It wasn't until the development in the Squamish estuary that we started to see a decline in that particular run. Again, I'm not pointing fingers at anybody. I'm just trying to give you a bit of a historical record. I really resent, quite frankly, the sort of characterization that particularly the Environment critic always brings to these questions -- that somehow Hydro could not give a whit about fish, doesn't care, is irresponsible and disregards any impacts on fish. It's a silly statement. The member continues to make it and no doubt will continue to make it. I guess it speaks volumes about the member.

We've tried in every way to be respectful of fish. We sincerely believe that we have to try to manage our systems for fisheries values. But we also recognize that these systems -- most of them -- were built long before we became legislators and were built at a time when those kinds of issues did not appear to have the same focus that they do today. To that degree, we're trying to go back and deal with decisions that were made in the past that have a lot of consequences for today. I don't think that it's an easy issue to deal with. It has its particular challenges, it has economic consequences, and it has to be kept in some relative context if we're to actually deal with this problem.

We are dealing with it. You may think we're not dealing with it, but we are. I don't know if anybody has taken the time to sit down with Hydro and try to get a full briefing on the kinds of programs that they do operate -- the money, the resources, the time and the people that they've got committed to fish. I don't know if anybody on the other side has taken the time to do that. If they haven't, it seems to me to reinforce my contention that to characterize Hydro in the way it has been characterized by the Environment critic is irresponsible. I guess, as you can say, you can give advice, but people aren't compelled to take it.

We're trying to address the situation. We felt that in terms of the lack of clarity of the order, which simply says that 45 percent of the daily inflows have to be released, there could be negative consequences, indeed, for fish. We've taken the only action we can to try to get that kind of clarity, which is go to the federal court. I think that is quite responsible. If members want to characterize that, as they have attempted to do in question period, as Hydro disregarding fish, I think it's rather foolish. It doesn't make any sense. There's no rational basis for the statements, but if the members want to continue to make those foolish statements, I guess they're quite welcome to.

[9:45]

Hon. D. Miller: It's no excuse.

T. Nebbeling: Well, it is.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm going to give you the facts, Mr. Minister, so that you can deal with reality rather than what you'd like to be the facts to get this issue away from you.

The Chair: Continue through the Chair, please, member.

T. Nebbeling: I was speaking through you, Mr. Chair. I wouldn't address the minister directly, because I know he doesn't appreciate it.

Anyhow, the minister put much emphasis on the fact that the estuary was developed and that for that reason the pink salmon run really got attacked and disappeared, in a sense. That's not true. The estuary has only been developed to a very small extent.

What really happens is that the estuary, as a feeding area for water, is fed by the Squamish River and by the lower Cheakamus River. It is the lower Cheakamus River that has been the spawning site for the pink run, and the estuary has never had a lack of water. As a matter of fact, the amount of water that comes out of Daisy Lake is just split. It is not diverted from a route that goes into the estuary. Part of the water goes into the lower Cheakamus and thereby is sup-

[ Page 4876 ]

posed to keep the lower Cheakamus at a turbulency level that will avoid the sediment of phosphorus, thereby creating a livable river and thereby having a viable spawning site for the pink run.

The Squamish River is the recipient of all the other waters -- ones that have gone through the turbine and created the power. Clearly the water is back into the system, and the estuary is in no way, shape or form affected, because very little development has happened there, in part because of the opposition of the community of Squamish to any erosion of the environment happening in that area. So that estuary aspect is not truly the reason for it.

I'm going to come back to the numbers that the minister just quoted as flow levels over the Cheakamus dam into the lower Cheakamus. I would like to ask the minister how these numbers that he just quoted compare to the original numbers that were part of the deal that was made -- in the fifties, I grant you -- based on true need; not the need for creating hydro but the need to keep that river alive so that indeed the pink salmon run could have a survival rate that is needed, to see that little river produce what it was supposed to.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll repeat -- and I read this into the record a moment ago -- that in 1957, DFO said: "A release of 500 cubic feet per second was stated from the start to be a maximum which might only be required for short periods under extremely unusual circumstances, if at all." That's DFO in 1957.

The record subsequent to that, or prior to the most recent DFO order, is that Hydro was releasing 500 cubic feet per second during spawning and rearing, and 350 cubic feet per second during incubation. One could take that, in broad terms -- in my view -- to suggest that Hydro was indeed attempting to comply with DFO's original order.

Further to that, it's a matter of historical record, not finger-pointing, that there have been declines in some stocks. There are declines for a variety of reasons on our coast in a variety of stocks. The dam is located above a natural barrier to migrating salmon, so we know that there's no impact in terms of the habitat there. We know from historical records that salmon populations in the river continued to be strong well past the completion of the Daisy Lake Dam in 1957. Existing records indicate that chinook, coho and pink salmon continued to be strong through the 1960s, but declined dramatically during the seventies and eighties.

Now, if there's a causal relationship -- and I'm not suggesting there's not -- it seems to me that it only developed some 20 to 30 years later. I simply indicate that at the same time, significant growth has occurred around the creation of a deep seaport, logging in the watershed and diking of the river channel -- which the member says has absolutely no impact. It does appear to me somewhat germane that if the stocks didn't start declining until those other developments took place, one might -- even the uninformed might -- assume some causal relationship.

I'm not an expert in the field. So what did we do? We contacted an expert in the field, Mr. Ward, who produced a report. Again, he was not able to verify the contention that the opposition seems to jump to so willingly.

I don't know if they're talking to DFO biologists sitting across the table here or people who have expertise in the field, but they certainly jump to conclusions quite willingly. I suspect the reason is entirely political. They want that to be the conclusion, and that's the one they jump to.

It hardly suggests that you can have a rational, reasoned debate around these questions. This is a political debate. If you want to have a rational and reasoned one, then present it. If you want to portray Hydro as some fish-killing outfit that doesn't give a damn, then you're not going to get anywhere. So we can have this on certain levels, as I said. I'm not trying to do anything but be helpful here. I've had reasonable discussion with others, and I'm quite prepared to have a reasonable discussion here. If it's going to be on the basis as we've started, then it won't be reasonable and it won't be cooperative. It will be unpleasant. But that's fine.

The Chair: The Chair would like to caution all members that he will be forced to attempt to exclude from debate any discussions that are not germane to reaching a decision on the estimates.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I think this has got everything to do with the estimates, Mr. Chair. We are trying to figure out. . . .

An Hon. Member: Order.

The Chair: Would the member take his seat, please. I know the member wouldn't want to contradict the Chair, because that would be against the standing orders. So the comments that are made toward the Chair's decisions or comments that the Chair might make are not in order.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That statement was definitely for the minister. You took it wrong that. . . . It's unfortunate; the other member, who doesn't say very much, woke up, I suppose, and didn't hear what I said. He thought he'd just call order for the sake of being heard and being recorded in the meeting.

The minister made a point, and I want to talk about that. The point he made is that he believes this is a political exercise and nothing else but a political exercise. Let me tell you: if this was a political exercise, we would have been talking about this a year ago; we could have been talking about this before. The reason I'm saying this is that in the community of Squamish -- in the Squamish nation's communities -- this issue has been discussed for a number of years. If we could only bring in statements of biologists right now, as far as the erosion of the lower Cheakamus River -- and that's where we're talking about -- and when that process started and because of what it started, the minister would be very much enlightened to see that in order to get a river saturated with phosphorous to the point that the character of a riverbed indeed started to change, to the point that growth of algae will not only take oxygen away from the water but also make it impossible for the small fry to have a survival rate, that process takes a very long time. So if the dam was built in 1952-53, and the impact on the lower Cheakamus River, due to lack of flow into that river, thereby not having the turbulency needed to keep forces flowing on into the estuary and into the Pacific. . . . That it takes that time is something that the biologists will confirm.

I take exception to the minister's statement that this is political, because I can also tell you that it was staff from B.C. Hydro -- as a matter of fact, the Hydro manager of the Daisy Lake Dam -- that stated that the option for the management to divert enough water over the dam to comply with the requirements would cause a 5 percent power reduction, and that, in the opinion of the dam manager, was not an option. That is really the reason that we face the problem. It is the 

[ Page 4877 ]

dollars; it is the greed. It is something that B.C. Hydro was very much aware of: the impact of their corporate decision to reduce the flow in order to save 5 percent more power. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: If he would listen, he would understand that this is more than political. I'm giving him some facts that have been happening in the last couple of years. If the dam manager had recognized the debate that was going on in the communities and if the dam manager had recognized the discussions that were happening in the offices of B.C. Hydro, the dam manager would not have made that statement. But by doing that, he took it away from the political scene, and he put it into a mismanagement scene. That is why the critic for Environment is talking about this issue: because it is a mismanagement issue.

I would like to ask the minister, now that he has quoted some of the numbers of the past that were dictated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: as far as the flows are concerned, what are the flows, for the last two years, of the Cheakamus River? Has there been an increase to accommodate the need of the lower Cheakamus? And furthermore, has B.C. Hydro done anything to remove the algae from the riverbed so that we can start re-creating that river into what it used to be: a very vibrant, healthy, living river?

Hon. D. Miller: I did attempt to put some facts on the record. Perhaps just to amplify it somewhat, in terms of Hydro's. . . . When I hear the language, I don't quite understand. Something is passing me by. This member -- this former mayor of Whistler -- talks about the greed of Hydro. A public institution that has brought untold benefits to this province is spending $5 million annually in fisheries and is working with other agencies. This member, in a cavalier way, just brushes it off as the greed of Hydro. What a silly statement! It's a bit too much, Mr. Chairman, to listen to this drivel.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the minister should have a smoke.

Hon. D. Miller: A smoke. Get serious.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: Let's look at the record in terms of what Hydro has done. In 1994, long before these members came along and started to characterize Hydro as greedy and uncaring, Hydro co-funded a project with DFO to build an additional spawning channel at the North Vancouver Outdoor School on the Cheakamus River.

"A new rearing refuge area was created to supplement the existing upper and lower Paradise spawning channels. The new area provides 4,800 square metres of wetted area and 500 square metres of spawning habitat, as well as complex overwintering refuge for young salmon."

Last year Hydro spent $25,000 funding the creation of 3,000 square metres of new fisheries habitat, again in conjunction with DFO -- working with the very agency that has a mandate to protect fish.

"The collection of in-stream flow data. . .installed a new control system on the spillway gates at Daisy Dam. The new control system for the gates will help reduce the impact on fish of flow changes below the dam by allowing for a more gradual change in flows.

"The Cheakamus River. About 600 cubic metres of gravel will be removed from Dave's pond, a groundwater-fed pond adjacent to the river. Removing the gravel will provide more critical wintering habitat for young Coho salmon, which spend a year in fresh water before making their way to the ocean. B.C. Hydro provided the funding for the cost of the gravel removal project, estimated at $10,000."

[10:00]

The Chair: Minister!

Hon. D. Miller: It's unproductive politics. They're getting nowhere with this silly line of questioning.

The Chair: Minister, you will have to. . . . Order!

Hon. D. Miller: But that's what we come to expect from this irresponsible opposition. That's what we come to expect from this. . . .

The Chair: Members! Please, minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

The Chair: Perhaps before he takes his seat, the minister could move the motion to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and by some measure report progress. . . .

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:01 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada