[ Page 4987 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

S. Orcherton: You know, in British Columbia there are lots and lots of people who participate in the workings of the province and work diligently on its behalf and oftentimes sacrifice time with their families, time away from their careers and time away from their communities. I'm very pleased today to introduce to the House a number of people who do just that on behalf of the people of British Columbia: Mr. William Clark, who is chair of the BCBC board of directors; Ms. Bernie Blackburn, a member of the board of directors from the B.C. Buildings Corporation; Mr. Bruce Ferguson, a member of the board of directors; Ms. Stephanie Green, a member of the board of directors; and Mr. Michael Geller, who is also a member of the board of directors.

Those individuals are assisted by some very capable and able staff that work for us in the B.C. Buildings Corporation: Mr. Dennis Truss, president and chief executive officer; Mr. Lak Parmar, vice-president of finance; and Mr. Kevin Bell, corporate secretary to the board. I'd ask this House to give them a rousing welcome and much thanks for the work they do on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

M. Sihota: I notice that Lak Parmar, who's a vice-president with B.C. Buildings Corporation, is in the gallery. I have to say that he's also been appointed to the capital health council as a representative from this area. I must say I'm astonished to see him here, because he needs so much time to work on his slice at the golf course that I figured he should be out there instead of here today. Would all members give him a warm welcome.

Tabling Documents

As well, I have the honour to present the report of the business done in pursuance of the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997.

Orders of the Day

The Speaker: Before recognizing the first member for private members' statements, I want to advise members that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be visiting the assembly this morning to do some royal assents. We're not sure exactly when, so I propose to ring the division bells three times to advise members that his arrival is imminent. I shall do that, and I will certainly give notice to individuals making statements that that's going to happen so we won't unduly interrupt and interfere with the statements.

Private Members' Statements

A NEW DAY IN B.C.'S FORESTS

G. Robertson: In opening, I will say that it's with great pleasure that I rise in the House this morning to speak on "A New Day in B.C.'s Forests." Around the 1970s, people began to question forest policy in this province. People no longer saw the major corporations as providers of economic development and security. This was further accentuated by massive layoffs in the early 1980s as mechanization took one worker's job after another and cut levels went up and up. The next few years saw great anxiety and disruption in British Columbia's forests. Many areas were put under moratorium by the previous Socred government such as the Tahsish-Kwois the Tsitika, Carmanah, Meares and others, just to name a few. Our international markets were being threatened. We were cutting timber at rates that were unsustainable. Public confidence in our forest policy was at an all-time low.

Our government has taken important steps to address these problems, to ensure that the long-term health of our forests remains strong and vibrant. We brought in the timber supply review. We brought in the Forest Practices Code -- dynamic forest policy changes a couple of years ago and the best forest practices in the world today.

We brought in FRBC, Forest Renewal B.C., which is doing a lot of outstanding work throughout our province. This year Forest Renewal B.C. will spend $625 million in our province, $188 million in the Pacific region. This represents the largest single investment in our forests, forest workers and communities in B.C. history -- $625 million. This is vision. This is commitment to our forests, our workers and our communities.

We brought in the protected-areas strategy, which will eventually increase our parklands to 12 percent. This legacy is for our children and shows our respect for the special attributes that make this great province of ours so unique.

British Columbia has come a long way from the late eighties and has committed to a strong future for the forest industry, communities and workers. The new jobs and timber accord will create thousands of new forest jobs, bringing economic stability and a bright future to forest-dependent communities throughout British Columbia. The jobs and timber accord is the next step in our government's long-term plan to renew our forests and sustain the communities that depend on them. We will, in partnership with industry, forest workers and communities, put the same energy and commitment into creating jobs in our forests that we have put into protecting our environment.

B.C. forests are a public resource. The jobs and timber accord is an agreement that requires B.C. forest corporations to create jobs as a condition of access to that resource. The accord contains commitments to create thousands of new forest jobs -- 22,000 direct jobs and more than 17,000 spinoff jobs, for a total of 39,000 jobs by the year 2001. This government is on the side of forest workers and their communities. We've listened to their concerns, and we're acting upon them.

The accord is the next step in our government's long-term plan to renew our forests and the communities that rely upon them. We are putting the same energy into creating and protecting jobs as we did into protecting our environment. These new jobs will be spread throughout the province, increasing economic stability in every resource community in British Columbia and giving youth in these communities opportunities to stay in the communities. Vancouver and Victoria will also benefit through their own part of the provincial forest 

[ Page 4988 ]

industry and by the many indirect jobs which concentrate in large centres. When the forest sector prospers, all British Columbia prospers.

The accord is about getting more jobs and value from each tree cut and managing our new forest better, to increase the long-term sustainable harvest over time. No aspect of the accord will undermine compliance with environmental standards. There will be more jobs and value from every tree cut, more jobs by adding value to our growing forests, more jobs in exchange for access to timber, more jobs by making the most of available timber, more long-term, stable union jobs. The jobs and timber accord will create, through small business and secondary industry, 6,500 jobs.

There will be more jobs and value from every tree by requiring forest companies, instead of exporting raw lumber, to supply more wood to secondary industry in British Columbia. This represents a 70 percent increase in the amount of sawn lumber going from the majors to secondary wood manufacturing. More jobs for small business will also be created by using the full small business cut.

Making full use of the Forest Renewal B.C. surplus will create 5,000 new jobs in more intensive silviculture. From tree-planting to spacing and pruning new forests, there will also be 5,000 indirect jobs. Major forest companies will create 5,900 direct and 5,900 indirect jobs, through a combination of harvesting the backlog of annual allowable cut and more intensive use of the existing timber supply.

[10:15]

In addition to the accord, the province has announced the intention to create 2,000 new jobs restoring salmon streams through Fisheries Renewal B.C. These are new, long-term, stable forest jobs. A new forest worker agency will assist displaced forest workers with stable, long-term union jobs. Jobs and timber is a key step in our long-term plan to renew B.C.'s most important resource and the jobs in communities that depend upon this resource.

Government cannot act alone. The most successful world economies underline the necessity of a partnership of government, business, labour and community. Our own experience bears this out. The jobs and timber accord does just that.

British Columbians are demanding action. They want us, all of us, to commit to work together to build an economy that is truly competitive. They want our economy to be competitive not just in its productive capacity but in its ability to provide opportunity for all its citizens to contribute and to realize their own potential. I am convinced that working together, we can respond to this command. Let's get started.

T. Nebbeling: Normally, when we do private members' statements, there is an attempt by the respondents to find something in what has been said by the presenter of the private statement that gives reason to rejoice with the member, and to find levels of points in the statement that we can both agree on. So when the member starts off with "A New Day in B.C.'s Forests," I had hoped that he had used the line more like "a new day in the life of the forest worker in B.C.," because the jobs and timber accord is supposed to be about the people.

The forest practices, the legislation and the regulations that apply to the forests have all been introduced in the last five or six years. It is these rules, regulations and legislation that have indeed caused tremendous upheaval in the communities, in the lives of thousands of forest-dependent workers and their families. I'm looking for improvement in the lives of forest workers and rejoicing in the improvement in the lives of forest workers.

Unfortunately, at this point I cannot see that that goal has been achieved. It should be noted that I personally have for a long time been focusing my attention not necessarily on the companies and the so-called bad boys in the industry that the member started to talk about in his introduction. I have tried to avoid talking about the past -- the seventies, as the member started his presentation with -- which had a devastating impact on the forests because of bad management by companies. Such like has led to disasters in the forests.

It should be remembered that in the early seventies there was an NDP government, and they never did anything about what was so bad, according to the member. I believe the member actually worked in the forests at that time, as well, or lived in a community that depended on the forest industry. I don't have any recollection or have never heard of this member, when he was a young man, standing up for what happened in the forests. So seeing the light today is quite a change of mind.

It is often the case that people, when they make a living out of an industry, don't seem to be willing to talk about the rights or the wrongs of that industry. But then, when they get in a different position and on a different level, suddenly it is okay to slam whatever part of it, one time, in a very strong way.

Anyhow, I will continue to work with the government side to see improvements made to the jobs and timber accord through estimates and other mechanisms. At the end of the day, I hope we can indeed say, like the member, that this is all about vision. Vision means having your eyes open, seeing the hardship, seeing the horrible things that are happening to people living in forest-dependent communities, focusing on that and making that better. When we do that, then we can truly say there is indeed a day to look forward to that can be a good day in the lives of forest workers, rather than just in the forest.

G. Robertson: I'm so pleased to be here today to speak about the initiatives that we're bringing about in B.C. forests. The opposition's criticism of the jobs and timber accord is just another example of how out of touch they are with the interests of forest communities and workers across this province. The member opposite has criticized. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Would you mind taking your seat for a moment, North Island. I almost intervened when the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was speaking, because I think, quite frankly, that in a subtle way we crossed the line. Private members' statements can indeed be partisan; they can be about controversial and debatable matters. However, the moment we cross the line to remarks that are essentially critical of one another, are highly partisan, are charged and are likely to cause offence and rancour, we are no longer in order. I want, then, to say -- albeit after the fact -- that I think, West Vancouver-Garibaldi, you crossed the line, and you've opened that door. But I would ask the member for North Island to please not walk through the same door.

[ Page 4989 ]

G. Robertson: The opposition has repeatedly criticized the government for not taking the interests of forest communities to heart. Well, maybe they should have done their homework and consulted with them before levelling criticism at the government. While members opposite refuse to support the government's job creation efforts, communities across British Columbia continue to register their great support for the accord.

Let's talk a little bit about the people. Gillian Trumper, Port Alberni mayor and former provincial Liberal candidate, has written to the member from Port Alberni expressing her great support for our efforts to create jobs and provide economic stability and growth in her community. In Campbell River, Mayor Jim Lornie calls the accord a very positive development, an announcement that is going to put dollars in the pockets of forest workers and communities throughout this province. In Port McNeill, Mayor Gerry Furney. . . . I ran against him as a Liberal candidate in 1996 in the provincial election. Gerry's an outstanding mayor of Port McNeill, where I live. He also believes that the accord will be extremely positive for communities throughout British Columbia.

I think the real difference here is that these three mayors are mayors of resource communities, and these three mayors understand what the forest industry means to the workers, the economies and the communities of British Columbia. It's difficult to do that when you come from, possibly, a resort area.

In addition, local business groups and communities across the province, such as Creston and Cranbrook, have given the accord a resounding thumbs-up. Mike Barber of Slocan Forest Products praised the accord for changing the way that he things about jobs in the forest industry. I think this is key. Mike Barber said: "My whole career was focused on. . .

The Speaker: Member, I must ask you to wrap up. The time has indeed expired.

G. Robertson: Mike Barber says: "My whole career was focused on unemploying people. That was the measure of success. Now we're going to concentrate on employing people. I look at this as a very positive initiative."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Members, let us enjoy private members' day.

Excuse me, Surrey-Cloverdale. Before you begin, let me just respond. I heard a comment from this side of the House suggesting that the Chair was not being scrupulous enough in terms of enforcing time. Let me remind members that I have tried assiduously throughout private members' statements in this session to never cut a member off too precipitously or too quickly. Indeed, a member on this side of the House has the record so far, being one minute and 15 seconds over the allotted time. So you might want to know that, members, before you burst into chorus.

LEGISLATED POVERTY

For children, the effects of poverty are especially damaging. Poverty leaves children susceptible to disease and malnutrition. McMaster University compiled a study on children whose families were recipients of social assistance. Their findings indicated that these children have double the average rate of psychiatric disorders. Children living in poverty are also twice as likely to smoke and have 1.5 times the frequency of chronic health problems. Many children who live in poverty do not learn or do well in school and suffer from learning disabilities, illiteracy and traits which carry into adulthood.

Child poverty is a persistent problem in Canada. In order to have child poverty, you first have to have adult poverty. Children are poor simply because they live in poor families, and the families are poor because their sources of income are inadequate.

There are many misconceptions and stereotypes of people who are poor. This became very apparent to the people from the Nelson Advocacy Centre, when they met with a class of high school students to discuss welfare and poverty. The students were asked to draw pictures of a typical poor person. The students drew pictures that depicted people as dirty, slovenly and uncaring. Many of the students commented that the poor just sit around swigging beer and smoking dope. They used words like hippies, Rastas, addicts, single moms and homeless. These descriptions that the students depicted and commented on show us a picture that we as a society have unfairly given our poor.

The high school class was then shown a video entitled "Child Poverty in Canada: Report Card 1995 -- Campaign 2000." Full of facts and figures, it showed the ever-increasing population of children living in poverty despite the government of Canada's proclamation to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. Seven years ago, all three major parties in the House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution to seek an end to poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Seven years later, even more children and families live in poverty. Time is running out. It is time to start caring about what is happening to the people in this province. Poverty is real and growing at an alarming rate.

Poverty could happen to any one of us through a death, a financial disaster, a major illness or a marriage breakup. Most people who are in poverty do not have access to the abundant resources of this rich country that we are so fortunate to live in. Many are denied post-secondary education and therefore cannot get a decent job. There are many single parents, whether the cause is from divorce, abandonment or death of a spouse. We see many people on the street that are either mentally or physically challenged, and they don't have the benefit of a family to care for them, much less an extended family. Many of our senior citizens who have worked all of their lives find themselves in poverty because they did not plan for their retirement, nor did they have the opportunity to do so. All of these people deserve the respect and dignity afforded the rest of society who do not suffer from the affliction of being poor.

[10:30]

[ Page 4990 ]

that the number of individuals on social assistance has been increasing dramatically over the past years. Women in British Columbia comprise the largest group living in poverty. The survey also showed that approximately 38 percent of all unattached women under the age of 65 lived in poverty in British Columbia.

Poverty is extremely hard on single mothers and their children. They have the constant stress of having to say no and then having to deal with the anger of their children. These children never get to do many of the things that more fortunate children do, or have what more fortunate children have. It is a constant struggle for them. Single mothers who are struggling to keep their heads above water find the system drowning them, and no matter how hard they struggle, their situations are not improving.

Some of the things I hear them saying are: "You exist, not live; there is nothing for the little extras or for emergencies; you are always begging to survive; I can't afford to give my child the things that she always needs; I can't afford to eat; there is not enough money to live with dignity."

SPARC is a provincial voluntary association of people committed to promoting the social, economic and environmental well-being of our citizens and communities. Their report compares income assistance rates provided under the B.C. Benefits program with the costs of goods and services required for daily living for people under the age of 60. Their conclusions show that income assistance rates in B.C. are too low to sustain the well-being of anyone requiring income support. Current rates from B.C. Benefits meet only 48 percent of the costs of daily living for a single adult and only 64 percent of the costs for a single parent with a five-year-old child. Many families on income assistance must use part of their rent money to pay for food.

Income assistance rates have remained a legislated form of poverty. Policies that eliminated the flat-rate earning exemption restricted access to training programs and reduced asset levels for single adults and childless couples, making life more difficult for people in need. Clearly increased job creation and lower unemployment are critical if we want reductions in income assistance caseloads.

Penalizing the poor, however, is not a solution. If anything, such negative actions will create further social and economic problems in the long term. The report says that after listening to submission after submission, they were convinced that the changes introduced by B.C. Benefits are creating further hardship to people already living in dire circumstances.

J. Smallwood: I listened with a great deal of interest to the presentation made by, I assume, the Liberal critic. I was very pleased to hear the sources she quoted for the information she was providing for the House. I was pleased on a number of accounts.

At least two of the advocacy groups that provided this member with information are groups that have been funded by this government. Before this government provided funding, they didn't exist. They weren't able to speak on behalf of people that were living in poverty and weren't able to raise those very important questions with the kind of support that they have currently. So I'm pleased they're doing their work, I'm pleased the money is well spent, and I'm pleased the critic has that valuable information.

I want to talk about two aspects. One of the things I'd like to do first is start from a personal perspective and then talk about questions of legislation and changes to the systemic causes of poverty that our government has a very proud record on.

First and foremost, I want to talk about a family where there were four young children, and the breadwinner of the family was not employed in a unionized workplace. When he became ill with a massive heart attack, he found himself and his family in a situation where there were no extended medical benefits, and that family soon ran out of resources. The mother of those children had to decide what she was going to do to help feed her kids while her husband was ill. I remember that, because she was my mom. I remember the night when the minister came and brought two boxes of food, and I remember hearing my mother crying. It was not the challenges of trying to feed the children; it was the loss of dignity. It was the loss of dignity in having to receive charity, which I don't believe my mother ever got over. My mother would never have gone to welfare to ask for support, and she didn't, through all of those difficult times.

One of the things that I remember most, like most of us remember from our early childhood, about that situation was the question of dignity and the loss of that dignity. That has helped guide me in a lot of the work that I have done with respect to social justice and the support that I have given the anti-poverty movement. My perspective on dealing with those questions of poverty stems from the rights of full citizenship and from the rights of individuals to the dignity they should enjoy as human beings and as citizens of this province.

That's why one of the things that I'm very proud of is the integrated strategy that our government has embarked on since 1991, because that integrated strategy recognizes that in order to support full citizenship and support the dignity of human beings in this province, they must have opportunities to work at a livable wage. They must have opportunities to participate fully in communities, and to the best of its ability, government should support people toward those endeavours.

I was quite sad, actually, to hear the member recount the statistics with respect to poverty in this province and talk about the question of legislated poverty in such a narrow respect, talking about it only with respect to the system -- which is essentially a system of last resort, a system of welfare that is there if everything else fails.

I choose to look at what has failed. I choose to look at the private enterprise that does not pay a livable wage for those women who you talk about, that does not pay and provide a secure opportunity for people to work full-time and be able to bring a paycheque home to support those children.

I choose. . . . Five minutes is not enough.

The Speaker: I'd just ask the member if she would wrap up, please.

J. Smallwood: If I can just wrap up. . . . I'm very proud of our minimum wage initiatives in this province, the initiatives of the Medical Services Plan for low-income families, the significant improvement in the family benefit -- which is unprecedented in this province. Our legacy in this government is a proud one; we will continue to work on that. Thank you, member.

[ Page 4991 ]

B. McKinnon: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for her remarks. I agree with quite a few of them.

We talk about poverty -- poverty that is real, as we in government have to acknowledge -- and we in government do acknowledge it to a certain point. But poverty is growing; statistics will show that. This is where the big problem lies.

When governments cut programs, when their funds are drying up and governments have to cut someplace, it's usually the programs for the people who can least afford to have these programs taken away. Whether we as government wish to acknowledge this problem or not, it is there and it is real -- and very real.

Our policies are ghettoizing people more and more as governments are tightening their belts. We have to realize that we have a problem not just in B.C. but across the province. We have to start asking ourselves: how are we, as people in power, going to stop this downward slide? It's evident that people cannot live on what they're getting; they are suffering great hardships because they do not know where to turn. People are desperate and find governments cold and unfeeling when they should be caring and helpful -- and I say that with the greatest respect to the member opposite, for all that she says her government is doing. But people who have hardship are finding governments cold and uncaring when they do come to them in need.

The problem is growing, and it's coming to a head. Poverty can be seen in families all over this province. We hear about it more and more -- children being abused, women and children being abandoned and left on their own to survive. Walk down the streets of any big city with your eyes open, and look into the eyes of poverty. You won't have to look very far or for very long; they are standing on the corner with blank eyes or sleeping in the doorway or asking if you can spare a dollar for a cup of coffee. Maybe just go to a school and ask the children when their last decent meal was. The answers are not easy, but solutions must be found. These solutions do not necessarily mean more money. This government must stop killing jobs and begin to create jobs. Lower unemployment is crucial if we really want to reduce poverty across this province and all the ills that go with it.

The Speaker: As I advised earlier, the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will join us shortly. I warn you that I am now about to ring the bells.

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

Law Clerk:

Tourism British Columbia Act

Children's Commission Act

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

Supply Act (No. 2), 1997

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

G. Robertson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Robertson: With us this morning in the gallery we have my partner Karen Schwalm and my son Nolan. I'm really proud of both of them. It's their understanding and support that has allowed me to serve the constituents of North Island in this government, and I'm really pleased. Thank you. I'd like to ask that the members please welcome them to the House.

[10:45]

Leave granted.

J. Kwan: Just joining us in the gallery today are 16 women from the Cambodian women's group. They are accompanied by their coordinator Ms. Naomi Staddon and also Ms. Savon Pen. These women are here to learn about our political structure, to get their exposure to the operation of the Legislature.

As we all know, new arrivals in our country sometimes find it very difficult to participate and to understand how our community and political system work. I welcome their arrival. Would the House please make them very welcome.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Stevenson: I'd like to introduce Rick Graham, who is visiting a number of ministers today. Mr. Graham is with the Vancouver Public Aquarium. They are engaged in an exciting new project at the aquarium in Vancouver. He is here, as I say, to speak with ministers, myself and a few others, and will be back with a number of young people next week. I ask that all members make him welcome.

The Speaker: For our third statement this morning, I want to recognize the ever-gracious and patient member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who allowed those interruptions.

ANOTHER NATIONAL DREAM:
THE TRANS CANADA TRAIL

Of course, after John Cabot, it took another couple of hundred years before Champlain established some of the first European settlements. After him came that long list of explorers that all of us had to learn in school: Kelsey, Henday, Hearne and my favourite, because I love the sound of the names, Radisson and Groseilliers. I've learned since then to pronounce it correctly. Brave men -- and probably women, even though the history books didn't record them -- men of courage who, with aboriginal guides, weaved their way on foot, by canoe and on horseback across this vast continent, until finally, in 1793, Alexander Mackenzie became the first European to actually come overland to reach the Pacific.

[ Page 4992 ]

So how did these explorers find their way across this continent? They used trails, the waterways and woodland trails that the native peoples had built for trade and travel. Less than a century later, as Europeans, we built our own trail, a trail of steel. It was called a railway. A century after that, yet another trail, as we celebrated the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway, the longest national highway in the world. Indeed, hon. Speaker, we've always been a nation of trail-builders. In a true sense, trails have been the ties that bind.

Now today, as we debate in this chamber, there is a whole host of Canadians that are in the midst of building yet another Trans Canada Trail. Conceived as a legacy of the Canada 125 project, this trail will pass through some of Canada's most magnificent landscapes. From community to community the dream is that Canadians could hike, cycle, horseback, canoe and cross-country-ski through forested trails, woodlands, back-country lanes, abandoned railway grades and historic waterways -- a dream that Canadians could travel from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, B.C., to Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories. When it's completed in the year 2000, it will be 15,000 kilometres long, the longest trail in the world.

This is a tremendous community effort. I think real congratulations should go to the sponsoring corporations, the communities, the non-government agencies and the hundreds of Canadians who have already spent thousands of hours and raised millions of dollars to realize this modern-day national dream.

On the national scene, of course, it's the board of directors of the Trans Canada Trail Foundation that is charged with promoting and coordinating the Trans Canada Trail, and I want to say that the B.C. president, Sherman Olson, has done a tremendous amount of work to promote it here in British Columbia.

While it is the foundation's job to raise the funds, each province is charged with the task of deciding on the route and building their section of the trail. That's why Trails B.C. was born. Its president, John Appleby, has been a very persuasive advocate for the work that we need to do to fulfil our obligation to this national project.

I'm very pleased that our government has already made a substantial contribution to the trail with the $44 million acquisition of the Kettle Valley Railway, which will be the backbone of the Trans Canada Trail through British Columbia. Elsewhere, of course, the route is yet to be acquired or donated, or even decided upon. To help in all of that planning work, I'm very pleased that this last April the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, who is here in the House with us today, forwarded a grant of $20,000. But there is still a tremendous amount of work for all of us to do to realize this national dream.

I have a lot more of this story to tell, but my time for this period is probably near expiring. So I will wait to hear from the hon. member from across the way.

C. Clark: Thank you to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for raising this issue in the House. I think this is one that we can probably approach with a little bit less partisan rancour. It's certainly something that many, many Canadians are coming together on around across the country. As she mentioned, it is going to be the longest trail in the world: 15,000 kilometres across Canada.

It is truly a great national endeavour. It's an endeavour that will require the support of many individual Canadians. It's my understanding that 65 percent of the money they will be receiving and 65 percent of the total donations they will be receiving are from individuals -- something like 30 percent from corporations and as little as 5 percent from government. This is truly a movement of people that represents the best in volunteerism and the best in participation on the part of the citizenry that Canada has to offer, particularly on this undertaking, because this undertaking, I think, should remind us of what binds us together as a nation.

It will be a physical symbol of our unity as a country and, hopefully, will help people that work on the trail and work together from different parts of the country understand each other better, understand what this country is about in its different regions, understand how British Columbia is different from Newfoundland and Newfoundland is different from Quebec, get to know each other across this country and recognize that symbol that binds us together. Surely, building this nation has been a monumental struggle, and maintaining it every day, year after year, will continue to be a struggle, because as a nation we need to think about what binds us together, not what tears us apart.

While we sometimes like to focus on those things that make us different and those things that we can disagree on, to me the trail symbolizes the willingness of average Canadians across this land to ask all of us to think about what's important and what's the same and what's similar about us, as a nation that represents tolerance and understanding and a proud, proud history where we have accomplished so much worldwide. We've become probably one of the most respected nations for the things that we've accomplished and for the things that we stand for as a country.

When we think about the railways and the voyageurs and the people that worked to build the country -- the people that in the toughest of circumstances travelled across this nation as voyageurs; the people that built the railways, many of whom suffered the worst indignities in order to so -- and we look at building this trail and what we want to achieve, we should remember that few nations could have afforded to offer this to themselves. Few nations can afford to undertake an endeavour of this magnitude to bind the country together. That is what is truly special about this project: each day, for each person that works on it, it will remind us of how great our country is for, hopefully, hundreds and hundreds of years to come.

J. Sawicki: I want to thank the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for her comments. It is very nice to hear that she is echoing what my final comments were intended to be. There are truly many benefits that this trail will have to Canada. Some of them are very tangible. For instance, it will help to increase the awareness of Canadians of our magnificent natural diversity. It will help protect and preserve corridors for wildlife habitat, for indigenous plants and animals. And for people and communities, there will be tremendous benefits. Not only will it promote physical fitness and good, healthy, family-based activity, but it will also promote ecotourism, bed-and-breakfasts, equipment rentals, etc., in communities all across this nation.

I agree with the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain when she says that the benefits are really emotional, as well. As we approach Canada Day, at a time when our nation is under tension, where Canadian unity is constantly testing us, we need to think of the significance of the Trans Canada Trail and to realize that today perhaps we need it as much as we needed the Trans-Canada Highway, as much as we needed the railway, and as much as Alexander Mackenzie and the explorers needed the native trails to cross this continent. I 

[ Page 4993 ]

think it's particularly interesting in this time of environmental awareness that we have perhaps come full circle and that this trail will actually use modes of transportation much closer to those of the first nations people that built the first trails.

[11:00]

ALTERNATE FUELS:
MORE BREATHABLE AIR

Reducing emissions and improving air quality is a very complex issue. There are a number of solutions: decreasing our dependence on the automobile, better city planning, increasing transit usage, increasing urban forestation, to name but a few. But today I'll be discussing the promotion and development of more efficient fuels with less harmful by-products as one of those solutions.

Never before has the adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," been more appropriate. Air quality obviously has an effect on every aspect of our lives. The prevention of air pollution will have a huge impact on our already over-stressed health care system. Respiratory problems due to increased pollution are increasing at an alarming rate.

There are a number of environmental impacts that fuel combustion have on our environment: global warming, urban smog, air toxins, particulates, acid rain, and soil and water contamination. I will not be talking about the alternative fuels such natural gas, methanol and ethanol. But today I'd like to speak of two fuels: propane and hydrogen. These fuels present an alternative to the traditional fuels and increase the quality of our air. Propane, having the chemical formula C3H8, comes from two sources: 80 percent from natural gas processing and 20 percent from the refining of crude oil. Propane is an excellent source of energy. Overall, propane gas offers more efficiency and less appliance maintenance.

It is also less harmful for the environment. Nearly all pollutants are removed before it is allowed to enter the pipeline. The Canadian automobile fleet burns 50 percent of all fossil fuels used in this country. Propane, by consumption by automobiles, accounts for only 2 percent. So increasing the use of propane in automobile would have a major impact on air quality. The greatest environmental benefit comes from reduced evaporative losses, including those that occur during refuelling. This is because the propane's fuel system is effectively sealed.

There are a number of other advantages. From a life cycle perspective, propane has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of all the commercially available fuels. Propane is low in air toxins, which can seriously harm human health. Propane's ozone-creating potential is one-half that of gasoline; this significantly reduces emissions and smog. Propane is low in sulphur dioxide; this reduces the production of acid rain. Propane's potential to contaminate soil and water is much lower than that of traditional fuels. Propane is a cleaner and more efficient fuel during combustion.

The second fuel I'd like to speak about is hydrogen. Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, is perhaps the perfect fuel. It has an infinite shelf life and can be stored in stable solid materials for use as needed, on demand. A new product out now is a solid material called powerballs. It surpasses the hydrogen storage capacity of compressed and liquid hydrogen.

It is not only efficient but totally non-polluting. It produces absolutely no carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulphur compounds or nitrogen oxides, no unburnt hydrocarbons, no stench and no smoke. The lower mainland and the Okanagan Valley face significant environmental problems associated with pollution from internal combustion engine automobiles using gasoline. We could significantly reduce air pollution levels by using hydrogen as a fuel.

Hydrogen is used in fuel cells. Fuel cells are akin to batteries, but they are three times more efficient at making energy than anything around today. They contain two electrodes sandwiched around a conductive electrolyte. At the anode, precious metal catalysts such as platinum cause the release of electrons from hydrogen gas. The electrons flow into a direct current circuit, then to an external lode, while the electron-less hydrogen ions dissolve into the electrolyte. At the cathode, oxygen molecules pick up the electrons, completing the circuit, while reacting with the dissolved, positively charged hydrogen to form water. So as long as there is a steady stream of hydrogen and oxygen flowing into the cell, it generates a steady electric current, heat and drinkable water. It's a very simple reaction: hydrogen plus water plus oxygen equals water plus electricity.

Both propane and hydrogen present a viable alternative in fuels that would increase the quality of our air. Propane can play a significant role in reducing negative environmental impacts like global warming, urban smog and acid rain. Propane creates half as much ozone, contains no significant quantities of complex hydrocarbons, natural sulphur or solid-producing additives, and reduces particulates. Hydrogen fuel technology creates an exciting new option for improving air quality.

I've spoken today about two fuels: propane, which is currently used, and hydrogen, which is in the development stage. My hope is that in the near future we will have a fuel that will not have a negative impact on our air quality and will, thus, create more breathable air.

M. Sihota: You know, the air quality problem in Mexico City is so bad that birds literally fall out of the sky because of the amount of carbon monoxide in the air. We all know that in Los Angeles they have a notorious smog problem. Delhi, for example, which has the greatest number of automobiles in a concentrated urban area, has the highest level of respiratory problems of any place on earth, all because of the impact of automobiles on the streets.

It has to be a public policy imperative for governments to introduce tough clean air standards. In California they have brought forward laws that say that by the year 2000, 10 percent of the vehicles that are on the road must be zero-

[ Page 4994 ]

polluting vehicles -- can't pollute at all. New York State, Massachusetts and 13 eastern United States have taken the same approach, to deal with this problem both from an environmental and a health point of view.

British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has replicated the kinds of laws that exist in California and in New York. Here in British Columbia, we have the toughest air pollution standards anywhere in North America. I know that because I was engaged in bringing forward those laws. I watched the lobby from both the automobile and the gasoline industries -- and the dinosaurs in those industries -- who would not appreciate the health impacts.

It's very simple. If you can't breathe, nothing else matters. For that reason, we've brought forward the toughest automobile emission standards. We've reduced the amount of sulphur that you can now place in diesel. We've changed the amount of pressure of NOx and SOx emissions that come from gasolines. We've set the stage to bring forward standards that will change the nozzle. . . . Often, when you're at the gas pump filling your vehicle you'll smell the stuff that comes out, in terms of fumes. Through carbon filters within the gas tank, or through attachments to gasoline nozzles, you can eliminate that. That stuff goes up and has an impact on the ozone level.

In this province we brought forward the toughest automobile emission standards in North America, as well. We did that by mandating it by law. We're the first jurisdiction in this country that said that 5 percent of the vehicles on the road in the year 1999 must be zero-polluting. More importantly, we as a government saw an enormous economic opportunity here in British Columbia to become the world leaders in developing the technology to meet those standards of zero pollution.

Here in British Columbia, the Ballard technology, the hydrogen fuel cell -- the concept the member alludes to. . . . It is more than a concept, and I want the hon. member to understand this. It is real. It is not on the drawing-boards; it's on the driveways of British Columbia. Twenty-two new hydrogen fuel cell buses that are produced by Ballard will be on the roads here. Eight of them will be going down to Chicago, and we've got a number of them now looking to be sold in Los Angeles. Why? Because apart from bringing these strict standards in as a government, we also came forward with investment and technology that was designed to take advantage of this huge economic opportunity that is going to accrue to the world.

We are now world leaders in developing that technology. Ballard has now signed deals with Mercedes-Benz, Chrysler and GPU International out of New Jersey to use that hydrogen technology, not just for automobiles but for power production also. Just last year, this government put in $30 million worth of investment to help Ballard meet that challenge, so that we can develop that technology which we're now beginning to sell to places like Chicago. It's now recognized on an international basis.

The point here is that in the long run, the hydrogen fuel cells will be created right here in British Columbia. In terms of clean technology, they will do to British Columbia and Vancouver what the internal combustion engine did in Detroit. It will pass, and Vancouver and British Columbia will become the leaders in this technology. It's important that we do this, because we owe it to future generations to ensure that they have the same quality of air that we had as a population, if not more so -- as all members remember, right?

There are critical problems in terms of air quality in the Okanagan. That's why we started to set up first by putting in the monitoring stations that we did in the Okanagan. It seems to me only inevitable that AirCare and those kinds of programs should next be destined for jurisdictions like the Okanagan.

Let me just say in closing that as we brought forward these remarkable changes. . . . We brought forward the toughest clean air standards, and the opposition criticized them -- they said they would soften them. We brought forward biotechnology, and they opposed the investment. We brought forward global warming strategies, which they criticized. All I can say is that I'm delighted to see that they have learned the error of their ways.

J. Weisbeck: I'm sorry I wasn't here to oppose those particular items that. . . .

I appreciate that we really do have a challenge in creating good air quality. But I guess I was very, very discouraged recently when this government raised the tax on propane, because I think it's very, very important that we maintain incentives. We currently have in place some fuels that would help our air quality, and for this government to stand up in this House and take away that incentive by increasing the taxes on propane, using the argument that the infrastructure is in place, is, I think, a very weak argument.

I thank the hon. member for his statement, and I'll conclude with that.

[11:15]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate a couple of hours today to work on the estimates, rather than everybody going home.

We talked a lot yesterday about the real job situation in the province, and we also figured that from time to time we use different statistics to come to an affirmative number. I intend to come back to that one as well today. Before I go there, we have had a fair amount of discussion on the jobs and timber accord, and we have been criticizing, from time to time, the amount of money that has been spent in public relations activities to promote the whole of this jobs and timber accord. What we have not talked about, really, is the financial consequences.

I was told yesterday by the minister that if I really wanted to be up to date, I should look at press releases. When I went back into my office, there was a press release. It is the following: "Evan Lloyd to Coordinate Government Communications on Jobs and Timber, Forest Initiatives." Mr. Lloyd has, of course, a good reputation of having the ability to take an issue and give it a twist so that it looks like whatever the government intends that issue to have as a profile. Often the name for workers of that nature is spin doctors. Mr. Lloyd is very well known and highly professional in that area.

To see the Premier make the announcement yesterday that his assistant deputy minister in the cabinet policy and 

[ Page 4995 ]

communications secretariat has been taken away from that position and will now be the coordinator of government communications on jobs and timber, and forest initiatives, surprised me a little bit. All I hear from the government side is a ringing endorsement of how fantastic this jobs and timber accord is and how good it is. Basically, anybody who has doubts that this jobs and timber accord is not as the government tries to tell us it is should really examine his or her head. That has pretty well been the message that I keep hearing.

To see, at this point, the appointment of a professional media communications coordinator to join the team that was already in place and has spent a large amount of money up to this point. . . . To see this person joining the force gives me the indication that the first week of the life of the jobs and timber accord and all the presentations that have been done throughout the province, starting last week in Prince George, where the Premier and the minister made the announcement of this jobs and timber accord. . . . I can only believe that strengthening the force with Evan Lloyd to bring out the good-tidings message indicates that that message has not been as well received as the government likes us to believe. We are going to see more taxpayers' money that should really go towards creating jobs. . . . It should really go towards bringing stability to the lives of people who are living with the consequences of the legislation and the regulation and the policies of this government that have been imposed on the forest industry over the last five years -- the people who had to live with the consequences of all these projects and programs, the consequence obviously being job loss. The money that is being spent in enforcing and strengthening the communication team, in my opinion, is misplaced. Rather than continuing to try to tell the world how great the jobs and timber accord is, maybe including a dose of reality in this whole jobs and timber accord debate would be much more helpful and would save money.

Now that I've seen the appointment. . . . I thought about it last night a little bit, because the minister criticized me for not really being aware of what goes on as far as the publications on the jobs and timber accord. Depending on how long the minister wants to go, I decided to spend the first 15 to 20 minutes asking a little bit more about the whole public relations exercise that was part of bringing the jobs and timber accord to the province at the meeting in Prince George.

So my first question to the minister is: how many people have been involved in the communications strategy, and are they. . . ? Well, that may be the best way to go -- one at a time. How many people have been involved in the jobs and timber accord presentation and the strategy behind that presentation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would first have to know whether it's the actual development of the accord or just the communications.

T. Nebbeling: At this stage I'm not interested in the development of the accord, because I believe that was done by a large group of non-communications people. If I look at the list of the various boards and councils that were involved, although I don't know the participants. . . . I've identified about five or six round tables. So these are the people who may have looked at the context of the document itself and deliberated on the context of the document. I don't think we're going to get to that part today, though nothing is impossible.

I'm looking at the people that have been involved -- maybe from day one -- in creating a media strategy and marketing strategy of the jobs and timber accord. It is actually scary to think that I have to use the word "marketing." Here is a government selling a new direction in the forest industry, and that new direction that will have implications on thousands of people's lives is being presented as a very positive thing for this province. That this actually has a need for a marketing media strategy. . . . I would like to know who the people are who have been exclusively focusing on marketing and presenting the media strategy that accompanied the presentation by the Premier and the minister in Prince George.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's interesting, listening to that side. We're now getting Liberal MLAs heralding the deal, and some of them trashing it, saying they'd rip it up. I don't think that side really has a position on the accord. It just astounds me how the Liberals can get away with being on both sides of issues.

We as government have no shame at all in advertising the accord. People need to know that the commitment is there by industry, because it's going to take communities and workers and everybody to keep the companies to their side of the deal and to keep the government to their side of the deal. It's an initiative that all British Columbians can be proud of, and given a chance, they certainly are.

The answer to your question: two.

T. Nebbeling: It is my sincere hope that the minister is not one of these two individuals, because his way of marketing his thoughts is quite poor and inflammatory. A straight answer of "two" would have been sufficient. It would have led me to go to the next question. But I can't miss the opportunity to. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Would the member please take his seat.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd just like a clarification. The member on the other side speaks at length and speaks volumes and volumes, and when I choose to have more than a one- or two-word answer after he has put out his very opinionated views, I think I have the right to perhaps have a little longer answer. The point is that the taxpayer is paying for this man to drone on and on, and I think the government has a responsibility to put out the record and correct the misinformation.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, everyone take his or her seat. The rules of the chamber say that any member who wishes to speak has 15 minutes. Everyone, I presume, is aware of that.

T. Nebbeling: Believe me, I would never stop the minister from an answer of any length, as long as he is within the guidelines of the rules of this House. But when the minister can only find an answer by giving it in a preamble and a preface of what we as the Liberals are doing and what we as the Liberals are not doing, then that really has nothing to do with the question I was asking. I was asking a very straightforward question, and that was: how many people are involved with the communications? And that's it.

Now the member is saying: "Hey, wait a second. You're wasting taxpayers' money with lengthy questions." Sorry -- I'm in this House. We're going to go till 2 o'clock today, I believe. If the minister wants to go longer, that's fine with me as well. But until 2 o'clock, I'm going to get the questions 

[ Page 4996 ]

phrased the way I want to phrase them, just as he has the right to answer them the way he wants to answer them. One thing I hope -- which was lacking in that very simple question about how many people are working in communications -- is that he uses facts rather than politically driven, partisan-driven statements like: "That side over there don't know where they stand on it this way, don't know where they stand on it that way. They talk out of both sides of their mouth." I didn't ask about that. I asked how many people are involved with the communications. Now we have the answer, and that's two.

[11:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Their jobs are strategic communications planning.

T. Nebbeling: I had to hear these words from the minister, because part of the strategy is in a fairly comprehensive package of high-quality print and picture material. Somebody must have produced that. When I talk about the communications team, I would certainly consider that the people involved in putting these packages together are part of the team that is indeed the communications team. So to say there are two people planning. . . . I think I only get part of the picture.

What I'm obviously after, at the end of the day, is what all this is costing the taxpayers of British Columbia to sell what the minister says is a great deal. The industry says: "Forest industry -- job demands unattainable." The industry is not happy with the goals set out, so somebody has to do a job to convince people of different beliefs. The point is: how many people have been involved in the communication of this message? That includes people. . . . And I'm not talking about the people who print the material. But somebody has created this material. How many people really have been involved?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The problem I have. . . . He asked how many people are doing something with the material. I just didn't get the word; I didn't understand the word.

The Chair: Hon. member, could you just repeat the question? Would you mind just repeating the wording?

T. Nebbeling: Yes, I can; sure. I was just thinking, if the minister was saying there was. . . . No, I'll leave that one alone for now.

The point is that there has been a lot of printed material created. Somebody had to go through an exercise of coming up with not only the strategy but also what the message is going to be; these are communications people, as well. Somebody had to come up with the design; this is all part of the communications, somewhere. To think two people did all this. . . . I don't believe it. I would like to ask the minister to consider the whole team when I ask about the communications approach.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I appreciate your interest in the matter. I was answering your questions, when put precisely, with precise answers, as you seem to want. CPCS organized this. So your questions there appropriately belong to the Minister of Finance during his estimates.

T. Nebbeling: So the minister is saying that this does not come out of Forest Renewal B.C.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is no, not at this time.

T. Nebbeling: When the minister says no, not this time, does it mean that once all the bills are in and they are paid, the cheques will be signed by FRBC, or the Ministry of Forests, or by the Ministry of Finance on behalf of FRBC, or by the Minister of Forests? This statement "not this time" worries me.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I do expect FRBC and the Ministry of Forests to be contributing funds to the communications strategy.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister then tell me what percentage of the bill was specifically on the cost of the creation of the jobs and timber forest initiative and of the communication methods used by the team to spread the message of the jobs and timber accord?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have given the answer. It was CPCS that did the planning. The person responsible for that, the minister responsible, is the Minister of Finance.

T. Nebbeling: I asked a question clearly -- what percentage? -- as the minister acknowledged that indeed the Ministry of Forests and Forest Renewal B.C. will contribute to the cost. If there is a cost-sharing, there must be a formula for how that cost-sharing will happen. I would like to have an answer from the minister on what the percentage is that the Ministry of Forests is picking up and what the percentage is that will be picked up by FRBC.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It has not yet been determined.

T. Nebbeling: That is a very scary thought, to have the minister state here that a group of people have been giving a blank cheque that has to come or to be covered by taxpayers' collected money. I just can't believe that I am hearing this.

Originally, I heard that the bill for FRBC -- the whole publication, the advertisement of the publication and the creation of the documentation -- was close to $1 million. I now hear different numbers. I begin to get it confirmed by the minister that, as far as the government is concerned, they're going to spend every dime it will take to get people to believe that this is a great deal for British Columbians. For the minister to say today that it has not yet been determined how much of the cost of this total project is going to be the responsibility of FRBC, or the ministry, or the Ministry of Finance, is just totally unacceptable. I cannot believe that this government gives blank cheques to bureaucrats to go out and do whatever the hell they have to do to get people convinced that this is the best deal since sliced bread without an amount of money set aside for that purpose.

I have to ask the minister again. Rather than having agreed to a fixed amount, has the FRBC committee approved an unlimited expenditure of funds to be contributed to the total cost of the publication and the marketing of FRBC for the jobs and timber accord? Is that the approach that was taken? 

[ Page 4997 ]

Because I would expect that the FRBC committee has approved something, at least, in advance. And if it isn't the dollars -- as the minister just said that it has not been determined how much -- then the motion that FRBC must have passed must reflect the fact that it is a blank cheque.

I'd like to know from the minister what the wording is that gave the marketing team the authority to go out and waste money, spend money -- regardless of how much -- just to convince people that this is the right thing for this province. Somewhere there must be a piece of paper stating: "This is what we as FRBC did. This is our commitment." If that is a blank cheque, then I'd like to hear that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm a bit resentful of the suggestion that there's a blank cheque.

T. Nebbeling: It's not my word; it's yours.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I didn't use the word, and I wouldn't use that word; that would be irresponsible. And I suggest that the member should be careful, because his tone is always accusatory -- not inquisitive. It doesn't help the mood of the House that he proceeds in that way. I'm quite happy to answer his questions, but to be insulted every time that member stands up is very difficult to take.

I'm a patient person. I'm prepared to enter into a reasonable discussion in this House. I just caution the member that the public's watching him as they're watching me. I'll try to be reasonable, but I think the member should be very cautious. He shouldn't accuse people of writing blank cheques, hon. Chair. I happen to resent that kind of suggestion.

Each communications budget of each ministry is approved during the estimates, and as I've said, FRBC would be expected to pick up their share if it relates to FRBC and the renewal of the forests, and the FBRC board would have to approve it. As for what is spent by CPCS, that would be within their budgets as approved by this House.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to try to stick to the vote, but I have to react to a statement read by the minister. When I ask a straightforward question and I get a very evasive answer, then yes, my follow-up question will definitely be a little bit more aggressive. I believe that when the government of the day was in opposition in the past, that that's how they dealt with trying to find out exactly what was happening with the taxpayers' money in this province. We are not talking about something you own. It is something that you as a government manage. It is the revenue that you take from the forest industry; it is what you take from the people working in the forest industry -- what you take from all British Columbians. I think I have the right as the Forests critic to get a good, clear picture, and the minister is evading the answer.

So if indeed he doesn't want to answer the question of how much FRBC is going to pay toward this promo deal, then what has been the printing cost of this production?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is my understanding that the printing costs weren't paid for out of this ministry's budget; they were paid for by CPCS. An inquiry to the Minister of Finance will get an answer.

T. Nebbeling: That bill will then ultimately be shared by the Ministry of Forests and by the Forest Renewal B.C. contribution -- as the minister indicated earlier on, I believe, as it is a shared project.

As we don't know what the printing cost is. . . . Somebody must have created this. Can the minister tell me: was this created in-house by the people that work for this government on the payroll of this government? I can say -- because I like to say something positive, as well -- that I know there are very capable people working within government organizations. Was this document -- the lines "Jobs and Timber Accord," "Forest Jobs for B.C." -- all created within the confines of the government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll be happy to get an answer for you. I personally don't get involved in which printing press is used to print the materials. I will get you the answer.

T. Nebbeling: I thought we already settled the issue that the cost of printing was not to be identified at this point. What the minister should be able to identify, because I have no doubt he has been part of a team to go over these things. . . . This is creative work. These are creative artists -- not just in the layout, but also coming up with slogans like "Forest Jobs for B.C." It could have been "There is a job behind every tree." These kinds of slogans go around, and these are professionals. I know that within government circles there are people who are working to create these kinds of objectives. So I'm talking about the creative part of the total package that came up with the layout, that came up with the wording of the text, that came up with the slogans. Was that done by the government side, or was it done by outside people?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I did say I'd get the answer.

T. Nebbeling: The minister expects me to be civil and not get a little bit more aggressive. The minister answered the question. He was not going to get into who paid and how much was paid for the printing. That's what the answer was on the question that I stated previously. I gave him a little bit more detail -- what part of the job I'm looking for. What is the creative part? What is traditionally an advertising agency? If it is an advertising agency, was all this work -- the creative part of the presentation -- prepared by an advertising agency?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My understanding is that it was an agency under CPCS that had the work done.

[11:45]

I'm not going to ask the minister now how much that agency was paid, because I don't think I'm going to get that answer, although I would expect he knows. Can the minister then tell me which agency has been involved in creating this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information with me.

T. Nebbeling: I'd like it to be on record that the minister looked at his deputy minister, who said "No," and then the minister stood up and said: "No." May I be suspicious when I see that kind of thing happening with the minister and his 

[ Page 4998 ]

deputy minister, and say that I don't think I'm getting the answers that the minister could answer? To look at his deputy to see if he says yes or no is an indication to me that he knows more. That has nothing to do with the bill, but I just wanted to have that on record.

The two people that are working. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order.

The Chair: Take your seat, hon. member.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's got to be a rule against the member getting up and deliberately misstating the truth. This member asked me a question: was it printed in-house or out-of-house? And I answered that question. Then he got up and tried to pretend I didn't answer the question. In fact, he tried to pretend that the question was about who did the creative work. That kind of misleading does not contribute to the debates. I would suggest that the House Leader on that side might reprimand the member and tell him to stick a little bit to the line of questioning that makes some sense and to not get up and pretend that he asked something when in fact he didn't.

T. Nebbeling: Point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Hon. member, you have the floor, in any event.

T. Nebbeling: I know. The minister just tried to say that I misled the House in my questioning, and that is synonymous to lying. I would ask the minister to withdraw his last statement.

The Chair: Hon. minister, the member has made a suggestion that he wishes you to withdraw a comment that you made that seems to impugn something about the hon. member. I'm not sure whether you heard what he said.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If I said anything to offend the member, I apologize. I will be happy to check the record and let the member know the cause of my concern. I don't want to ask every time for him to repeat the question. But if he wants to make his questions simple and clear so that I can understand them, then I'd be happy to give as clear an answer as I am humanly capable of giving, with the advice that I have from my officials.

The Chair: I might just add, from the Chair's perspective, that it is the end of a long week, and a weekend is ahead of us. I think we all need to be patient and try to stick as closely to our agenda -- which is vote 37 -- as we possibly can, and leave our individual personal situations aside while we work directly towards vote 37.

T. Nebbeling: I couldn't agree with you more, Madam Chair. That's why I asked the minister to withdraw his statement, because that was personal and unparliamentary, and therefore. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, there's no need for those kinds of additional comments. They don't help the situation, if I may make that suggestion to you. Proceed, member.

T. Nebbeling: When the strategy for the jobs and timber accord was created -- and when I talk about strategy, I'm talking about the communication strategy -- was there a number, a dollar figure, set aside to pay for the promotion and the exposure of the project?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Set aside by whom? Let me clarify that the board of FRBC has not voted to contribute to the timber jobs communication strategy and promotion.

T. Nebbeling: Then there is no commitment that FRBC will indeed contribute to the marketing and the media strategy of promoting the jobs and timber accord. Had the minister said there is no commitment from FRBC -- simple. And it would have been over and done with. So we have wasted about 45 minutes getting to the point that FRBC is not a contributor to the jobs and timber accord media strategy, marketing strategy. Very simple.

Then I would like to go back to the two people the minister indicated are employed for communication by his ministry. Are these people working in Victoria, or are they in Vancouver?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Two people in Victoria, in CPCS.

T. Nebbeling: And do these people have a fixed budget to work with, within the estimates?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's the budget of the Minister of Finance. Just so the record is clear, I indicated that FRBC had not considered the matter of contributing to the jobs and timber accord. I made that answer early on.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to stick to the communications people who work for the Ministry of Forests. That they are financed through or have a budget within another authority is not the question I asked. I asked: are these two people working with a fixed budget? Is the minister aware of what that amount is? Maybe I should ask that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They have a budget, and it's in the Ministry of Finance. Those two full-time people that I mentioned work for CPCS.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister then explain to me what the job entails that these communication people do? Do they work exclusively for the Ministry of Forests, or are they working for other agencies or ministries, as well?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The staff at CPCS often review ministry material, and they do other things, as well. For a period of time, they're devoted to this project. While they're working on this project and it nears completion and announcement time, they would be working full-time.

T. Nebbeling: So these two individuals are not working for the Ministry of Forests. I did ask if the Ministry of Forests had people working within their ministry specifically on communication. What I do hear now is that two people working for another ministry, for another agency, have actually been pulled in to work exclusively full-time on the jobs and timber accord and how it will be communicated to the province.

That's different. It is just an added element to the cost of the presentation of this jobs and timber accord. They may be working as communication officers for the provincial government, but now their time is exclusively for the jobs and timber 

[ Page 4999 ]

accord and not for other agencies. That again has a cost factor that has to be added to what this jobs and timber accord presentation is costing us.

The minister has not been willing -- or been able, I should say -- to give us the dollar figures, so I'm going to go beyond that. What I do want to know is about the appointment of Evan Lloyd to join the team -- and I take it that is full-time as well. Is there then a third person, or is he one of the two people?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: He would be one of the two.

T. Nebbeling: We are clear that up to now we have had only one person working on it, and it pleases me to hear that. Now that team has been increased by 100 percent by bringing in a second person. Is that what the situation is, Mr. Minister?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to say to the critic that I'm not sure whether the public cares whether it's one or two and exactly which agency of government they work for. As it turns out, the second person happened to move recently from CPCS into a new position. The number's still the same.

T. Nebbeling: We're not going to get to the point that I really wanted to get to, but I think I've created enough doubt that something is not totally kosher. If the government is not willing to say how much money they're spending on promoting the jobs and timber accord. . . . When halfway through the exercise the government decides that they need more people involved and more strength behind the team that is supposed to convince the people of this province that this is a great accord, that is something that creates some doubt about the real value of this accord and its real viability.

I was hoping that we could have spent the last hour finding out what exactly is spent by the government. I will find out through other agencies, through other ministries, but I regret to say that the minister has shown very little willingness -- or maybe it's a lack of knowledge -- to accommodate my quest for finding out how much the taxpayers of this province are paying for bringing this jobs and timber accord into a very positive light.

The jobs and timber accord on its own couldn't do it. The CEOs of the companies who were supposed to be the partners in this deal would not sign it. I don't think the province should, through a media exercise, be convinced that this is a good deal. The deal itself should have convinced people that this will indeed create the 21,000 jobs.

Before I go on to the jobs and how the industry sees it, I would like to give my colleague from Quilchena an opportunity to ask some questions to the minister.

C. Hansen: I read back through the Hansards in the last couple of days in terms of the baseline that was developed for the jobs and timber accord -- and specifically the numbers that are being used for the baseline for employment in the province in the forest sector, in the forest industry, as of March 1996. Of course, as we do our job in the opposition to hold this government accountable for achieving what it says it's going to achieve, these become very important matters. While to some they may seem rather detailed, it is obviously detail that's very important.

In the debates that took place yesterday, the minister was quite unequivocal in using the employment payroll survey from StatsCan as the basis for determining labour force in the forest sector in March of 1996. He was quite critical of the fact that we in the official opposition have used labour force surveys. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us why he feels that the employment payroll survey is preferable, for this type of analysis, to the labour force survey.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not my personal opinion. I feel it's the measure to use because the group we had advising us through the forest sector strategy -- who looked at all of them, looked at the strengths and weaknesses, compared them. . . . Their considered opinion, and that is of government and industry people alike. . . . They're the ones who recommended that this be the baseline that's used. So I'm happy to take the recommendation from a group like that.

C. Hansen: The core strategy committee that came up with this. . . . Is this as a result of research done by the core strategy committee? Was there analysis of the different surveys done that were presented to the minister, upon which he made his decision?

[12:00]

C. Hansen: Would the minister be willing to supply us with a copy of that analysis and reasons for that decision?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I'm happy to share with you what information we have from that committee.

C. Hansen: I guess when we get into quick questions and answers it goes much faster.

Is the minister aware of some of the fundamental changes that have taken place in the way that the payroll survey has been collected by StatsCan over the past few years?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In general terms, my staff are aware of that, yes. But I repeat that I'm not a statistician, and I didn't delve into the technical detail. I'm quite happy. When we charge people who are knowledgable and who care and who in the end have to advise a group like the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, I'm happy to take their recommendation.

C. Hansen: To the best of my knowledge, the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee is also not made up of statisticians. They are people who in turn take advice. If you look at the employment payroll survey that's done by StatsCan, it certainly has a lot of strengths. It's viewed by some as being a very powerful tool in analyzing the numbers of people employed in certain sectors.

But I think the thing that is key in this case is that there were fundamental changes made in the way that survey was done last year. The minister says he has a cursory knowledge of this, and I'm wondering just to what extent. What is his knowledge of how those changes took place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have any detailed knowledge. I suspect the member is leading somewhere with this questioning. If he'd be happy to ask some forthright questions about baseline or whatever, I'd be happy to answer them.

C. Hansen: I guess I felt I was asking some fairly specific questions, because this issue of baseline is a very important 

[ Page 5000 ]

issue. In terms of the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, could the minister advise us who in turn made the recommendation to the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee that this is the appropriate baseline to use?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah. The people who dealt with forest sector employment were Phillip Legg, Mike Apsey, Blair Redlin, Roger Stanyer, Bill Wilson. There was support staff from our economics and trade branch, in the person of Joan Easton.

C. Hansen: I would like, basically, to present some information to the minister that I don't think he's aware of, based on the answers that he's given us today. In May of 1996. . . . What we're talking about with baseline, on this whole issue of the jobs and timber accord, is a baseline that has to go back to March of 1996. The minister yesterday said that in March 1996, the baseline that was appropriate, from the payroll survey at the time, was 86,184 jobs in the forest sector in British Columbia. The problem with using that number is that it is prior to the change that was made.

The minister may recall that at the end of March -- actually it may have been April 1 of this year, or March 31 -- there were numbers which came out of Ottawa that indicated there had been a substantial decline in the unemployment numbers in Canada. Everybody got excited, because of course we were on the eve of a federal election at the time. There was great speculation that this was good news for the governing party, because there had been this huge decline in unemployment in Canada. I guess this quickly brought some people to look closely at these numbers.

The problem at the time was that the numbers were not based on the labour force survey; the numbers were based on the employment survey. I would like to just quote to you. This was a long weekend; it was the Easter long weekend. Because this created such a controversy, StatsCan actually brought their staff in over the long weekend. They brought their staff in because they felt that the credibility of StatsCan was on the line at the time, that they had to address this thing quickly, before you had a bunch of politicians and political wannabes in a federal election campaign running around using numbers that were not justified as an analysis upon which to base employment surveys.

I would like to read you some quotes that came out from the head of StatsCan at the time. This is Ivan Fellegi; I apologize to him if I'm mispronouncing his name. They called a press conference on April 1, immediately after the long weekend. This is Mr. Fellegi's quote: ". . .he has more faith in the 51,000 jobs figure Statistics Canada came up with in its survey of 50,000 households. . . ." This was with regard to the change in the number; the unemployment rate had changed.

Now, this is his explanation at the time. I quote from the article in the Vancouver Sun at the time. It says: "Fellegi blamed the difference in the figures on recent changes in the way the payroll figures had been collected by Statistics Canada." He goes on to say, and this is a direct quote from the head of StatsCan: ". . .there is no question in my mind as to which basically is the right figure -- that's the labour force survey." He goes on to say the payroll survey is "not designed primarily to track total employment."

I think it's important that the minister knows this, because it's obvious from the answers he gave me earlier that he was not aware of this. If we want to take a number of people employed in the forest sector today and project that forward five years. . . . Or if, five years from now, let's say, we want to look back over this five-year period, and we want to come up with the actual number of people employed in this sector for that time frame of analysis, then it's true the payroll survey is a better tool to use.

But the payroll survey cannot be used for short-term analysis. It definitely cannot be used for analysis that goes back to March 1996, prior to the changes in the way they collected data.

For the benefit of the minister, I would like to explain what happened in May 1996. Prior to May 1996, what they did to collect the payroll data was do a survey of a selected number of employers in Canada. They would ask the employers how many people were on their payroll at that time. They would collect that and they would then extrapolate those numbers to reflect the entire economy in Canada. In May 1996 they fundamentally changed the way they collect that data so that they were now taking it from income tax returns.

There are two issues here. First of all, they changed the way that they counted it. The big reason this became an issue in March of this year was that people got all excited about the fact that the unemployment numbers had dropped. All that had happened was that they had changed the way the data was collected. Suddenly, because they went to this different method of collection, they were reflecting more people in the labour force than the old system had done.

For the Ministry of Forests in this province to do analysis on their success in job creation in this sector and to go back to March 1996 and try to compare those numbers to March 1997 is intellectually dishonest. It is not an appropriate tool to use. So I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of some of the changes that have taken place. Would he agree with me that, in fact, if we want to do this analysis, the best advice that we can get is to take the advice of the head of Stats Canada and use the labour force survey?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To my knowledge, we didn't ask the head of Stats Canada for his view on the jobs and timber strategy or the baseline. We looked at each of the four types of data sources: the survey of manufacturers, the labour force survey, the survey of employment payroll hours, and Price Waterhouse. All of them had strengths and weaknesses. It was the judgment of the committee at that time that we should use that. We are well aware of the criticisms and the event that happened there. While you want to talk about statistics, we want to talk about jobs. We want to look ahead and spend our energy creating jobs. You can use your baseline if you want -- use your own baseline. But all I said in the debate was that you tried to pretend that by your baseline, which was somehow superior, we had lost 5,000 jobs.

I was just pointing out to the members -- and I'm sure you didn't like it -- that in fact virtually all those jobs were restored by the next month. So your baseline is not worth anything. We are aware of the inadequacies. We're aware that all of these have limitations. All we're saying is that we agreed that it was the number of jobs -- and you can argue and argue how many: whether there's 86,000 or 85,000 or 87,000. Plus or minus some jobs, we're determined to get our target.

I think that when we take advice from people. . . . We'll go back to the same people, if we like, and say: "In your considered opinion. . . ." But we've now moved beyond. We've said that the jobs and timber advocate will go back. He'll probably want regional figures. He'll probably want them firm by firm, licence by licence. We all agree there's got 

[ Page 5001 ]

to be better data, and we will collect it. But we're not going to turn the Ministry of Forests into statisticians and collectors of data to satisfy the opposition. I think they do it to get a rough measure.

I've seen people trying 100 percent interviews with companies to try to make sure we got the data. Still you can change it. How many days make a job? There are all kinds of different ways, and it's very difficult. I've had some experience working with jobs commissioners, doing just that. I know that you can't always get the exact picture. So we're satisfied that when the jobs and timber advocate takes this, looks at the methodology, looks at the criticisms -- fine. But we understand there was a one-time blip in the statistical portrayal. Our people and our statisticians have looked at it, and we're confident that it still remains a reasonable basis for considering a baseline.

C. Hansen: I would just like to respond to the minister by putting on the record why we are concerned about the statistics, because we are talking about jobs; we're talking about jobs for real people. When you go around the province and talk to people in small communities -- in forest-dependent communities -- they say: "Well, we're supposed to have this wonderful economy in British Columbia that's supposed to have created all these jobs." They've heard the rhetoric that's come out of the budget speech that claimed that last year there were 40,000 new jobs in British Columbia. People don't feel that they've been part of that. They don't feel that they've. . . . Their family hasn't been affected by that, so they wonder where all these jobs are. In fact, what we're concerned about is that in something like the jobs and timber accord, a year or two years from now we're going to have a government that's going to say: "Look at this wonderful track record we have of the number of jobs that have been created. We've got 300 jobs here; we've got 250 jobs in this community." In fact, I read all the press releases that come out of this ministry. One headline is "New Allowable Cut Creates Five Jobs in Vanderhoof."

You know, the problem is -- and I've been told this by individuals who were privy to the negotiations on the jobs and timber accord -- that if you ask the direct question: "If we have 200 jobs that are eliminated. . . ?" Let's use a specific example. Let's say we have 1,000 jobs that are eliminated in Prince Rupert because of the closure of a pulp mill. Then we have another 250 jobs that are created in another community because of some process under this jobs and timber accord. Is that a net loss of 750 jobs in the forest sector, or is this government going to stand up and claim that somehow 250 jobs have been created by this government and by this jobs and timber accord?

We need a statistical base that is honest. We need a statistical base that will hold this government accountable for what they claim they're setting out to do. Quite frankly, it's not good enough for us in the opposition and it's not good enough for the public to have the government go around and count, one by one, the jobs that they consider to have been created by the jobs and timber accord, because I think that would be misleading the public. What we need is a statistical base that is solid. I would argue. . . .

I'm not looking for a response from the minister on this, but it comes down to this whole process of accountability, which is what estimates is all about. I believe that this minister should be held accountable for 21,000 jobs in the forest sector as determined by the labour force survey in Canada. I would just like to put the ministry on notice that we on this side of the House will hold this minister, this ministry and this government accountable for 21,000 jobs as determined by the labour force survey, and we will make sure that that is properly communicated to the public.

I wish the minister well. You know, don't hold me back. I'm not wishing that these jobs are not created, because we recognize that with unemployment numbers of 188,000 in this province today, we need every job in this province. And in forest-dependent communities, we obviously see the need for it because of the unemployment rates that we see in those communities. So we are hoping that the minister is successful.

[12:15]

So I just want to put the minister on notice that we, on behalf of the public, are going to hold him accountable for that, and we're going to do it based on the labour force survey, because that is the only tool we have that is intellectually honest in terms of coming up with the statistical base that is needed to determine the success or failure of this government's programs.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just pointed out to the opposition that if they want to use the labour force survey, there are problems with it. It produces the highest estimates of forest sector employment that is statistically the most subject to error because of the small sample size. Do you want to use that? I'm saying that by your own test, you said we lost 5,500 jobs a month or two ago, and they're all back right now. So as long as you tell the people. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They're all back. You use your standards; go ahead. But just recognize that they're subject to error. My suspicion is that they might change, too, in their method of collecting data. So whatever you pick might be subject to change. It would be our hope and our intention that we have an adequate methodology.

I can tell you that there will be jobs lost in areas where somebody goes out of business. It would be wrong to tell the public that where a job has disappeared for a market condition or a supply condition or something, somehow those are jobs that have to be kept, and then you add to them. It seems to me that there are always going to be jobs disappearing.

We are still aiming for a net increase of employment. There's going to be some down and some up all over the province. It will vary from region to region. It's our intention to keep focused on the creation of approximately 21,000 more jobs -- 20,400, if you want to be more precise.

C. Hansen: Just to quickly respond to the minister's comments about the labour force survey, the labour force survey is a very useful tool, if you use the annual averages that come out, for this kind of analysis. I've looked into these things, and I appreciate the shortcomings of the labour force survey. In order to compare back to March of 1996, it is the best tool available. The other thing that I was informed of by statisticians, by Statistics Canada, is that it is inappropriate for 

[ Page 5002 ]

us to use the labour force survey to compare March to April, but if we're comparing annual averages, it is the best tool to use. I would like to add that comment to the minister's criticism. I'm certainly aware of them, but it is the best tool that we have.

With that, I'll turn this back to my colleague.

T. Nebbeling: To follow up a little bit on what my colleague from Quilchena was trying to make a point on, the minister keeps defending the fact that using the '86 numbers and the baseline of 1986 is justified for all kinds of reasons. It makes sense. It will give a true opportunity to check what the improvements in the job numbers are over the coming years. Having the minister state that time after time yesterday in estimates, I was really surprised to see one of the clips this morning from Terrace, where the West Fraser Timber group were saying: "We at West Fraser Timber figure we have already paid for our share of the new jobs under the jobs and timber accord, because since the time frame for the accord begins April 1996, which was last year, we have opened a new plant that is employing the number of people that we would have been responsible for. So we have done our part."

Regardless of taking that number of the past, June 1997 is when the jobs and timber accord was announced. You would think that that would be the date it would start to count, as far as creating the new jobs. That's what we have been pushing. To say now that we go back to 1986 and that that's going to be our baseline. . . . Companies that have increased their labour force during the past year will say: "We have done our share. We are in good shape, and now we're going to take some of the benefits that come from the jobs and timber accord."

Does the minister not think that this illustrates exactly the problem that we see with trying to take a number that comes from 1986 rather than from the date that the jobs and timber accord was announced, which was in 1997?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be afraid that the opposition would accuse the Premier of not starting from the day he announced the idea of the accord, which was March '96. You'd be hammering on him for that. You don't like it this way; you don't like it that way. There was general agreement that March of '96, when he announced it, was the fairest. Pick, then.

As for whether a company created jobs between March '96 and '97, the effective date of the agreement itself. . . . It was an idea when the Premier put it out; it then took some form and was negotiated. I would say that the timber jobs advocate will consider the employment factors, company by company, region by region, and if a company is doing a good job of creating jobs and maintaining employment levels, I'm sure they'll get plenty of credit for it.

T. Nebbeling: I don't really want to go into that debate, because we have spent so much time on it. Like the minister just said, the Premier had an idea in March 1996, when he announced that he was going to look at a jobs and timber accord. We know what the idea was based on. It was based on the fact that in Oregon and Washington the job ratio created per thousand cubic metres was considerably higher than it was in British Columbia. So the Premier's idea was: "We're going to entice the industry to bring the job ratios of British Columbia to the same levels as they have them in Oregon and in the state of Washington. When we do that, then we can create 21,000 jobs."

That was an idea. Since that time it has been made very clear that that idea didn't work. Job ratios on the coast are totally different and in the past have actually been higher than the job ratios they have in the interior, which are considerably lower. There are very good reasons for this difference. So that was idea.

For the minister to say that because he had that idea, that that is the moment when we set our goal, that that's where we set our baseline, is unrealistic. Since that idea was made public in March 1996, has there been a large number of meetings between the stakeholders -- and that includes all stakeholders -- to come up with the terms: how it would work, who is going to be responsible for creating what, who is going to get control over what money, how is that money going to be spent? Maybe I've heard it all.

It's only fair and right that regardless of. . . . There's a system that is used to establish that baseline, and the baseline is the number of jobs at that moment that you decide to use as a point. To say: "Well, we started to work on the idea. We've worked on it for 14 months, and now we have got a structure that we're going to use. . . ." The moment when the structure that was going to be used to create 21,000 jobs, I put it to you, Mr. Minister, is the moment when you can indeed say: "Now we have something we can believe in," as the government says, "and this is the date it will start by."

I do not agree at all with the reasoning that the minister used before, saying: "Well, listen, it was the Premier who in March 1996 said this will work." Many of the bases that the Premier used at that meeting in March 1996 have been proven to be wrong, as we have discussed, based on studies by the COFI group and their analysis.

Having said that, I would actually like to go on to a question that we haven't talked about before but which is very important and very essential. That is the fact that we know that in certain areas of this province there have been tremendous job losses. I know that the minister has said that we understand there are job losses, there are job gains, and we take the difference as the gain. I'd like to ask the minister if he now can answer my question.

There are three sectors that we have focused on in the timber industry, and those are the harvest sector, the manufacturing sector and the land management sector. We know that in the harvest sector, according to the numbers that the minister provided yesterday, that between March 1996 and March 1997 there was a loss of jobs for 2,812 workers. That is 2,812 people who are walking the streets today, who do not have a job going back into the forest.

The minister has justified that as okay. No, I shouldn't say that; he is concerned about these people, as well. But he says that that is one sector; in another sector, the remanufacturing sector, we have actually created a couple of thousand jobs, so we actually have a net gain of jobs in that same time frame. I know that in the reman sector we have gained. Unfortunately, these jobs are not necessarily picked up by the people who have been kicked out of the other sector, which is the harvest sector.

In spite of painting a positive picture that we have created more jobs in that period, there is still this force of workers walking the streets of the communities where they live wondering how they're going to take care of their future, how they're going to take care of their families, how they're going to get their kids through school. Nothing in the accord really gives me a level of satisfaction that these people are also going to have an opportunity to get back in again, except when it comes to the sector of land management -- silviculture activities.

[ Page 5003 ]

I would like to see the minister explain to me how the jobs and timber accord's criteria can be justified when we know that we do increase job opportunities in a particular sector. But that will not necessarily be available to people who are kicked out of a sector they have been working in for 30 or 40 years. I say this because I do not believe a logger, a faller, who has been out there for 30 years can be put to pruning trees, planting trees -- very strenuous work, not the type of work they're used to. I just do not believe that these are the opportunities.

I know that the minister is going to tell me that I'm wrong and that the $300 million that will be put into land management out of FRBC funds will be used to take care of these 5,000 displaced forest workers -- the harvest sector workers. First of all, I think there will be a lot more than 5,000 people laid off in that sector over the next five years than the 5,000 jobs that the Forest Renewal B.C. fund will create. But they are, unfortunately, jobs that a lot of people will just not be able to be involved with. Even people who have done that type of work, who came out of the harvest sector and transferred themselves into a type of tree-planting, pruning and thinning job, the industry itself -- and I'm sure the minister is aware of this -- has said that the work they do is good quality, but the productivity is considerably less than the traditional workers that are in that sector in the silviculture industry, who are often young people, students making an extra dollar so they can get themselves through school.

To have these jobs replaced with people who really are not used to that type of work is, in my opinion, not going to work. The only consequence of forcing people into that type of work may be that within a month or two they will have back problems because of the type of work, and they're going to go on workers compensation. I don't think that is what the displaced worker wants, and I don't think that type of work is what he or she wants, either. I don't see anything else in the jobs and timber accord that will accommodate these people.

So (a) I question the numbers -- if 5,000 replacement jobs at a cost of $1.5 billion over the next five years is really a workable thing; and (b) what other opportunities can be created for these harvest sector workers that are out of work and that do not have the opportunity to go into a remanufacturing facility?

[12:30]

If we keep cutting at unsustainable rates, eventually whole communities will collapse. We're aware of that. The strategy from that other side is to find somewhere where there's some job loss and to pretend somehow that there's a miracle that can be brought to bear; they would somehow have a miracle brought in that would put those people back to work. It's long, hard work.

We have a value-added training centre in Abbotsford that serves the whole province and the region to train people so they can take the better jobs, the skilled jobs. We've got the resource jobs commissioner, who works with the forest worker transition program to train people to take other jobs.

One of the failings has been that we haven't been able to create enough full-time jobs using FRBC and the model we use, so we've adjusted the model. At least we've been spending the money in communities -- helping communities, helping some workers, helping some unemployed people. About 8,000 jobs -- person-years of employment -- have been created, and that's significant. The challenge, as I've said before, is to match up as many of the people who are displaced -- for whatever reason -- with real jobs.

To specifically answer the question: some of the kinds of things that are going to happen is training people to do commercial thinning, for example, or spacing or watershed restoration work or inventory work. There is a program on northern Vancouver Island dealing with some of the very people you're speaking about, and some of those people are learning to be forest inventory technicians. So there's lots of potential there.

The member makes comments about productivity. It depends quite a bit on the organization of the crew. There are examples where the productivity meets that of the contracting people. You know, really, to say that a student that comes out of university after studying for eight months is somehow in a better position to walk up and down hills and into watersheds than somebody who has been logging until now and packing a saw up and down mountains is really preposterous. It's an oversimplification. I don't mind if the member wants to use these specific examples, but I'd just encourage him to focus his questions, and I'd be happy to try to answer them.

T. Nebbeling: Here we go again. The minister is making statements to discredit some of the points I make. When I talk about the silviculture industry creating a very strenuous type of work, the minister must be aware that there are studies showing that when people in the silviculture industry are at work they have heartbeat rates of 60 percent of the maximum, whereas when you and I do our work we have a heartbeat of about 25 to 35 percent.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm very sorry. My heart rate is very low, because I'm not feeling any tension. I thought we were at quite a low level of debate as far as emotions are concerned, and I hope the minister feels the same way.

However, I think we have kind of an ostrich policy when we start denying that the jobs that potentially are there for the logger, who has been displaced because of government policies and regulations. . .that this logger can just go into a new type of job, which is indeed very strenuous and has a whole different type of muscular requirement. There is a lot of bending; there is a lot of reaching. I shouldn't have to make these points to counter that statement made by the minister, because he knows as well as I do that the few people who have gone into silviculture and have worked in that industry after 20, 30 years of being a faller or a logger or having done that type of work. . . . The productivity is incredibly low, compared to what the standards were in the past.

MacMillan Bloedel did an experiment, because the IWA had indeed negotiated or bargained into the collective agreement with MacMillan Bloedel that any silviculture work the company was responsible for was going to be available for displaced workers first of all, and they did it. I've been to a couple of the sites where the displaced forest workers did this silviculture activity. They did a great job, and everyone spoke very well about the quality of their work. They knew how to 

[ Page 5004 ]

plant; they knew how to put the nutrients about the tree; they knew how to dig the little hole. Quality-wise, there was no problem. But it was also true that the productivity was about a quarter of what the other tree-planters who traditionally do this work can do. So you may still spend the money, but you get a hell of a lot less for your buck. At the same time, because of the type of work, there were a lot of displaced workers who after a while said: "You know, I'm not going to do it any longer, because I can't handle it. My back is not holding up to it."

So to turn 5,000 people who have done hard work in the forest into silviculture workers and land management workers is not the answer. It is certainly not the answer when we consider that for these 5,000 jobs, we are going to spend $1.5 billion over the next five years to create these opportunities. That $1.5 billion of taxpayers' dollars, I believe, could be used to create a hell of a lot more job opportunities for a hell of a lot more people in a hell of a better way.

So I'm not confident at all that the approach we take in the jobs and timber accord of displacing jobs is the right one. I don't think it is going to create the jobs that the people are looking for and that they physically will be able to do. In the long run, we will be spending a lot of money that is just not going to have that return. Having said that, I'm not going to ask the minister to respond, because he's done it before. We're going to continue to be of a different opinion on this one, and time will tell. But what I do want to ask him a question on is something he just said. He said: "These are man-year jobs." Could you explain what you mean by that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, with this member, I perhaps should check the Blues to see what I said. I don't recall making that comment. We are talking about trying to get jobs in terms of the number of days -- 180 to 220 -- as defined in the accord. Those are the kinds of jobs we're trying to get people to create. I think we could debate this issue, but I believe that the industry has agreed that it's doable to create 5,000 year-round, family-supporting jobs -- not part-time contracting jobs where somebody's got to jump from one region to the other for employment. We've gone to the model of delivering land-based programs where industry undertakes to supervise and help plan. It will be, in most cases, their own employees that they put into these jobs. They will know if a logger is able to plant trees; they will know if a tree-planter is able to pick up a saw and fall trees.

So don't oversimplify it. What we have here is an agreement to get rid of as much of the weakness as we can in the delivery of jobs under FRBC. So we've targeted up to $300 million, times five years -- yes, $1.5 billion in investment. If you go on for 20 years, it's $6 billion in investment -- huge investments. We're proud of the investments we'll make under Forest Renewal and that we will renew the workforce and create a new type of worker agency in the process. I am well aware of the repetitive strain problems and all those other problems. I'm aware of the safety record of the silviculture industry. We do have to make sure these people are fit for their jobs and trained for their jobs. But it isn't just a matter of going from a logging job or a sawmill job into a tree-planting job; it's much more complex. And I have said before that a person who runs a grapple-yarder can run a backhoe that fixes a watershed or restores a road back to its natural condition.

Just before I end, I would like to report. I said I'd get the information. The agency that's doing the communications for advising the creative work for the jobs and timber accord is Palmer Jarvis. It was competitively bid. The amount is approximately $1 million. The printing was brokered by the Queen's Printer. So I want that to be in the record. There is an FOI request by somebody to get this information. It will all be available. It takes some time to prepare all the details that people have been asking for.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 11:19 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

D. Symons: There's an act called the Financial Information Act, which requires that every corporation within six months after the end of the fiscal year prepare a statement of financial information. I'm wondering: does the West Coast Express act as a separate entity from B.C. Transit, and would they be required through the Financial Information Act to fulfil that obligation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I'd just like to take this opportunity to introduce the people that are with me. On my right, are: Lecia Stewart, who is the president of West Coast Express; Teresa Watts, who is in charge of planning; and Greg Blasco, who is in charge of finance with West Coast Express.

Yes, we will report separately. In the first year there are exceptions for reporting, but we will be reporting separately, according to the act.

D. Symons: You're in what? Is it about the eighteenth month of operation, roughly? It will be more than that now. So I'm wondering if the first full fiscal year has been through, not counting the five months of the first session. So are you saying that this hasn't been done yet, but it will be done?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is an annual report out. If you don't have it, I can make this copy available to you -- and we will be reporting out.

[ Page 5005 ]

D. Symons: Okay, thank you. I believe I do have one, but maybe I will get a copy just in case I'm wrong on that. I certainly don't have it here.

I wonder if we might then talk about ridership for a moment, because that seems to be a concern I've expressed over the years. I'm wondering about the ridership at various screen lines that B.C. Transit used to measure before when they operated buses. I would like to know -- this might not be information that commuter rail would have, but I would assume they would show an interest in it -- what the bus ridership of those screen lines is now, to determine how much the traffic patterns have changed as an outcome of the fact that we now have a rail system that takes people on the same route they had formerly gone on by bus. So if you have those figures for the buses, as well as commuter rail, I'd appreciate it.

I gather that there has been a little bit of an unexpected development in the ridership with commuter rail, in the sense that a larger percentage of people than they thought are riding to the downtown waterfront station rather than using inter-community stations -- I can't think of the proper term to use, but you know what I mean -- between stations without going to the waterfront. I gather that there's a fairly significant overestimate in the number of people that would be using it as a commuter service within the communities there rather than as a commuter service to downtown Vancouver.

Can we look at these ridership ones? There were two areas they used to take ridership screen lines for. One was at the Barnet Highway; the other one was at the Pitt River. . . . So I'm wondering if you would have figures available for both transit ridership and, once commuter rail has come in, for the commuter rail ridership at those particular locations. Let's do the morning traffic. I suppose it would be roughly constant going in and out. So if we were to take the morning traffic, could you give me a Transit figure for ridership, let's say, sometime in '94-95 or '95-96 for each of those locations? The reason I said '94-95 is that I know that we didn't have commuter rail up and running then. Would you have the Transit figures available here, or will they have to come at a future date? You could give me them for, I guess, the spring of this year -- which means it's been in operation for a full year -- or the fall of '96 on what the ridership on commuter rail would be at the Barnet Highway. Everybody from that point on is obviously going into Vancouver, and if we take the Pitt River one, we're getting an idea of which people are coming into the Coquitlam area.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand the direction the member may be going in, which is: has there been any increased ridership as a result of commuter rail, or is it just the same people taking a different mode of transportation? Let me answer that question in the context of the overall West Coast Express ridership. I can give you the percentage increases. If you'd like the absolute numbers for before and after, you'll have to wait for B.C. Transit estimates for the bus line before. The West Coast Express has resulted in a 265 percent increase in the number of public transit commuters across the North Road screen line at Barnet Highway during weekday peak hours. Now, east of the Pitt River, the increase is 640 percent. So there's been substantial new ridership as a result of the West Coast Express. What that has also resulted in is that there are 2,000 fewer cars on the road during weekday peak periods, and 75 percent of West Coast Express customers used their cars to get to work before West Coast Express began service.

D. Symons: I do have some transit usage figures for back in 1992, so I'd be interested in getting. . . . When we do Transit, the minister has suggested that we'd be able to get those figures then, so if I could give her a heads-up on it -- if I could have the past and present actual usage figures -- I'd appreciate it.

The forecast was, I believe, for two million trips per year. It works out to about a million return trips, then. There would be a reduction of the subsidy when that occurred. I believe the statement now is that the subsidy is at $17 per ride. That would be in each direction, would it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The ridership has grown over 30 percent in the 17-month period from November 1, 1995, to March 31, 1997. The increase has been from 5,000 per day to 6,500 per day. There's been a total of about two million riders from November 1, 1995, to March 31, 1997; that is over a 16-month period. The cost per ride for the 1996-97 fiscal year -- but that includes debt service and rolling stock expenses -- was $15.76.

I guess it's important to put on record right now that the cost per ride calculation, of course, requires us to include the rolling stock, which is not what you do when you're actually calculating bus ridership, because you don't have to calculate the road costs or the building costs of the road. If you actually remove those costs, the rail infrastructure charges, in calculating the West Coast Express per-ride cost -- and do it as an actual apples-to-apples comparison with the transit bus equivalent cost per ride -- the cost per ride for West Coast Express works out to $9.44.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for the answer, and I wonder if she might, then, give me the figure. You say you remove the costs of the rail part. What is the rail lease with CP costing us? I guess we could add into that the amortization that we might have of the leasehold improvements that were required prior to the West Coast Express operating. That cost would be two things: there would be the yearly lease we're paying for the use of the roadbed, and there would be an amortization, I suppose, of the capital costs required for upgrading that particular facility.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The rail infrastructure charge was $3,897,436, and then the debt service costs related to the rail infrastructure is $5,184,642.

D. Symons: Roughly $3.8 million? That's the per-year lease arrangement with CP?

[11:30]

D. Symons: Okay. I had a figure of $3 million. I got the $3 million figure, I thought, from your own briefing sheets. Maybe I didn't. I'm wondering just where I got that figure of $3 million from. "Annual cost of maintenance agreements is approximately $3 million," the West Coast Express briefing notes back in July '96, reviewed in May '97. So obviously there's been an increase. Has that changed? No, I guess I was reading the West Coast Express's own documents here -- interesting.

I wonder if we might just ask a few other questions. Relating to that, the cost per vehicle-hour is one way of measuring the cost of the bus system. I guess when you have a train and the vehicles are, in a sense, coupled together with one engine and five cars. . . . Do you work out something on a cost per vehicle-hour? The capacity of the vehicle is considerably different than a bus.

[ Page 5006 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that's a bus-related statistic that doesn't relate to rail.

D. Symons: Many things are different. I could imagine that it would be difficult to work that out. In a sense, the closest thing would be your passenger costs, then.

Just a few other questions along that same sort of line. There were some figures put out when the proposals were coming up for commuter rail -- that the capital costs were going to be between $90 million and $100 million. It seemed to be larger. The annual debt service cost for capital was between $8 million and $9 million. I wonder if you might give me what the actuals are now for the debt service cost for capital, because these were projected back in '94.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The total project request is about $134 million, but we will be. . . . As of March 31, 1997, total expenditures were only at $125.8 million. There are a couple of minor projects still to be completed, but we still expect to come in under budget on the $134 million.

D. Symons: The question I was after was the debt service costs. I gather you've given me the full amount of the debt, because I'm sure the debt service costs aren't that much. We're looking at the debt service costs. I'm looking for a number -- to give the minister a heads-up -- around $10 million.

Hon. J. MacPhail: For '97-98 the budget estimate is $11.398 million for debt service costs.

D. Symons: The minister has given me a figure that's about 20 percent higher than was estimated when the commuter rail was being projected. I wonder, then, if you might give me the annual operating costs for the trains -- again, the budgeted amount for this particular fiscal year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's $20.442 million.

D. Symons: Another figure that doesn't match with the estimates. The estimates I have here say that annual operating costs for trains are $10.9 million per year. You gave me a figure that's double that. It would seem, then, that a lot of the estimates that were being done when they were projecting commuter rail are not being met. Leased equipment costs are in the order of. . . . If you might give me that. . . . You've got another leased equipment cost for commuter rail.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I expect the hon. member is referring to estimates that were made four years ago.

D. Symons: In 1994.

Hon. J. MacPhail: So we're dealing with reality and experience and the '97-98 budget.

The locomotives and cars were split between debt service and operating. The locomotive lease costs are in debt servicing, and the car leasing is in the operating costs. That explains some of the difference.

D. Symons: I wonder if you might give me the lease figure, then. I'd just be interested in what the lease figure is. Then you might give me the debt servicing on the locomotives.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The locomotive cost is $1.361 million per year, and the passenger cars about $3.3 million per year. We chose the leasing model, because that was a savings to the public. The estimated savings as a result of using lease financing, instead of the traditional debt financing, amounts to about $3 million in savings.

D. Symons: However, the debt servicing was changed recently to, I think, a 30-year horizon rather than a 20-year payment. Will that mean that, really, the debt to be paid off by Transit is going to be in the neighbourhood of $360 million by the time it's paid off?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the net present value remains constant, regardless of the amortization period. The reason the amortization period was changed was that the standard amortization period for regular transit is estimated at about 20 years. However, after doing an engineering assessment, through doing engineering studies based on the design and construction of the asset, the expected useful life was estimated to actually exceed 30 years; and then the stations and locomotives were estimated, through using the same engineering studies, to be between 25 and 30 years. It didn't make sense to keep the amortization at 20 years, so it was changed to 30 years on average, and that was consistent with the generally accepted accounting principles.

D. Symons: When the debt, then -- I'm sure a financial sort of calculation has been done -- is paid at the end of that period, is it $360 million? That's the figure I was seeking before, and you didn't really answer the question. The total cost when all debt is paid off will be in the neighbourhood of. . . ?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that we've had discussions before with this member about net present value, but it's not helpful to any discussion to talk about dollars that are not based on the reality of what the actual cost or expenditure is to the public. The net present value is $134 million. So you can talk about $360 million in terms of: is that in terms of the next millennium or the millennium after that? It's what it's actually going to cost the public in terms of dollars presently.

D. Symons: I may agree to a certain extent with the minister on this, but you're taking a mortgage out, besides the fact that you're making a monthly payment. I think you do have some concern that the size of the mortgage, the interest rate and the eventual cost of that home to you in dollars, which eventually come year by year and month by month out of your pocket, add up to a considerable sum that's larger than the for-sale sign in front of the building when you bought it. That's what I'm trying to find out here. Obviously that number is not forthcoming, so we'll move on to something else. But I'll assume, then, that my figure of $360 million is probably not that far off, if you were to take the cost of that. Looking at present value is one way of looking at it, but you're not looking at the cost of the operation if you do that. You're ignoring that fact, which you seem to be doing.

So if we could just move on to a slightly different topic. Part of the reason for asking, and the figures I asked to compare it to -- you said those figures were old figures, back in '94 -- is that particularly when government, but any business, embarks upon an adventure or an involvement of some sort, they generally do a business plan. And that business plan is the basis for the project that they're taking on. What I guess I'm looking at is the accuracy of the business plan that B.C. Transit used. If we find the costs that they projected on the building of commuter rail and putting a service into place. . . .  

[ Page 5007 ]

If those estimates are quite good, we can have some faith in the government's ability to go ahead with projects, because they're using sound information for putting that project in place.

However, if we discover that indeed the projections they are using are either overly optimistic or, on the other side, possibly pessimistic. . . . If, one way or the other, they don't seem to bear any relationship to what the real case is when it's put in place, we're going to have problems in the future, I guess, trusting any information that comes to us as to the viability of a given project, whether it be commuter rail, fast ferries or whatever. That was the reason for asking those questions. I have asked in the past, and I haven't got it yet -- at least not something that is a viable business plan.

I'm wondering if there was a business plan and cost-benefit analysis done for commuter rail back at the time it was being proposed as a system, rather than the sort of feel-good PR things that were put out at that time -- a real business plan. Is that available? I would assume that if you have done one, what's also been done in the meantime is an upgrading of your business plan, because year by year you want to measure that against the first plan you had and then make adjustments to go along to match the future. If your first business plan was out -- as I suspect it is, from some of the figures that were given -- I assume that adjustments have been made in the business plan, the marketing and all the rest to match the current situation. Is there a business plan that was done back then before it was put in place, the basis for the decision to go ahead with the project? And is there a more recent update of that? I'd like a copy of the most recent update and the original, if possible.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, hon. member, you've already referred to figures from the original business plan, because you've. . . .

D. Symons: That wasn't a business plan.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It was a feasibility study. It's the same thing. What you're asking for is what we went ahead on when making the decision to proceed with West Coast Express. Those are the figures you're referring to. You can call it a business plan; you can call it a feasibility study; you can call it whatever you want. What it is is a snapshot in time upon which governments make decisions about whether to proceed or not. We have gone on at great length about what the current fiscal situation is. You have the annual report before you. Of course we update these statistics regularly. In fact, that's what this exercise is all about.

So let's talk about the politics of West Coast Express. Let's talk about if it makes sense for us to have West Coast Express and, if it does make sense, why it makes sense. First and foremost, it makes sense from the point of view of delivering on a better transit system in the lower mainland, which is desperately in need of better transit from an environmental point of view and a customer point of view.

Ridership has increased by 30 percent. The downtown ridership has exceeded expectations. You and I have already discussed -- or you have discussed, anyway, because it has been the subject of previous estimates discussion -- the fact that suburban ridership continues to be a difficult market to capture. That's because of the abundance of free parking. West Coast Express has done an analysis of this and continues to analyze this -- that there's an abundance of free parking, dispersed work locations and finite resources to provide connecting transit services at the same time as serving the competing demand for school and other travel needs.

[11:45]

Let me just go into some detail about how it compares with other commuter rail systems. This was as a result of statistics compiled by the American Public Transit Association. In the past six years, there've been four new properties that have introduced service in metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, D.C., and Hartford, Connecticut. They've been used as the benchmark of comparison, because they are all similar in size to West Coast Express, and they're all relatively new.

Comparing those systems to West Coast Express, the passengers per year: West Coast Express, 1.44 million; the others, 1.32 million. The passenger-kilometres: 31 kilometres for West Coast Express; and for other commuter rails, 50 kilometres. The operating revenue compared to the operating costs: West Coast Express, 26 percent; the other commuter rail systems, 25 percent. Operating cost per passenger: for West Coast Express it is $13.39, and in the U.S., it's $16.33. The operating cost per passenger-kilometre is $0.43 for West Coast Express; it's $0.33 for the other commuter rails. The revenue per passenger for West Coast Express is $3.35; for other commuter rail, it's $3.46.

Just let me give you, in the context of some fiscal highlights, as well, that. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's $3.35.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Now, the operating costs for '96-97 were $19.3 million, which is $1.4 million under budget. Some of the operating cost savings were one-time opportunities. Other savings are more permanent in nature, and they're reflected in this year's budget request. We have actually requested 1.4 percent less in operating expenditures this year over last. Revenues were $5 million, which is $1.3 million under budget. And we've already discussed that in terms of the lower than expected intersuburban ridership. The net operating expenditures, which are revenue plus operating costs, are $0.14 million, or $140,000, under budget. So the unfavourable revenue variance has been more than offset by the favourable operating costs variance, for a net decrease in our budget request.

D. Symons: That's a rather exhaustive response to my request for the budget plan that was put together. I gather that there wasn't a business plan, obviously. I got all sorts of things 

[ Page 5008 ]

put forth. What I have here is a very small nine-page document put out in 1994, which was a briefing note, I suppose, to the members of the Vancouver regional transit commission. But what we got in the way of FOI wasn't a business plan. I submitted it to business people, and they said: "That's not a business plan."

We have the Sullivan report on commuter rail in the lower mainland area, done in 1993. You read through this, and I wouldn't say it's a glowing endorsement. I think it's a fairly accurate estimation of the options that were open there if the government cared to carry through with them. But to refer to that also as a business plan would not be, I think, accurate. It was a study of options that the government might take -- whether to use the Burlington Northern or the CP route.

Rather than continue on that -- because we might get a lot more statistics or things I wasn't asking for, but we may get them later on anyway -- we can just move on a little bit, then. You gave me some figures to do with ridership. It's interesting, because I tried to work it out -- I'll see if I can find my calculations here -- and I had a different revenue per passenger. I think mine was slightly more than yours, actually. No, these are the other figures. We'll get to where I am a little while later. I'm trying to work back on your ridership, and when I get the figures I'll read them to you. But I tried to work back on the ridership you had, and the revenue per passenger. If you multiply the two together, you should get your revenues, in a rough sort of way. It didn't seem to work out that way, so either the revenue per passenger or the ridership was overestimated, because it didn't match the revenues that you were getting.

So we're going to have some problem, I suppose, in determining what the ridership is. Now, I note that when you go on the SeaBus, you go through turnstiles and you're counted. There's still nobody there as far as checking to see whether you've paid a fare or not. But commuter rail doesn't have even that. You have a barrier-free entrance, much the same as for SkyTrain, where a lot of the people getting onto the system. . . . Basically, it's the honour system.

So when you talk about ridership, I'm not quite sure in which way they're counted. There's not an electronic counter that counts people as they pass; there's not a turnstile, as with the SeaBus, where you go through turnstiles so they can actually count people. You don't put a ticket in at a turnstile, as you do in most subways, but nevertheless you can be counted there. So when you're giving ridership figures, your only real estimate is how many people buy a ticket, I suppose, because you have ticket machines at each of the stations, and this would at least give you some figure for those who purchase a ticket.

But you really have no idea of what the fare evasion is. So I'm hesitant to believe some of your ridership figures, because, as I say, your ridership, your revenue and your revenue per passenger -- those figures don't match.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The reason there are turnstiles at the SeaBus is because the Coast Guard demands that. They demand that in terms of control of people with access to the waterfront; that's the Coast Guard control.

The West Coast Express has the most sophisticated electronic ticketing system available in North America. That's where the ridership count comes from. We also do random auditing, which has been approved by the auditor general's sources, and it shows less than 1 percent abuse.

I guess the reason why I have a sense of frustration with the Liberal opposition is that the questions are provocative, in the sense of attacking the West Coast Express. But that may be just the nature of the presentation. So I accept that the minutiae of who's right and who's wrong over predictions is merely his style of presentation.

But there are advantages to a public transit system. You may not use it, but there are people in my constituency who actually use public transit. There's an advantage to it, which is why governments decide to invest in public transit models. Certainly the environmental advantages and the estimated savings in commuting time among families have shown that there is a 95 percent approval rate. . . . What's the approval rate? Yes, it's in excess of 95 percent approval of the service.

D. Symons: On what the minister was saying, there is no difference between our side and your side on the issue of providing good transit for the people who need it. What I'm looking at is the use of public dollars, the way they are used to provide that service and what choices are made. We have options to choose from: whether it's going to be a commuter rail, whether it's going to be a light rapid rail of some sort -- a light rail system -- or whether we're going to put on more buses. All these things have to be weighed as to the effectiveness in the use of each dollar.

Indeed, if we find that the cost of one system outweighs the value it has compared to where that money might be used elsewhere. . . . That's why I'm questioning the premise on which the commuter rail was put together. It seems to be based on optimistic figures that I don't believe have materialized. That was the concern.

Whether this side now. . . . And I hope the minister won't try and put out to the communities along the commuter rail that somehow if this side were to win the next election, we would shut down commuter rail. That will not happen. There has been a huge investment made in that particular facility, and it will have to continue. It will have to continue in the most cost-effective and service-effective way that can be done. So I will give you reassurances that that won't happen.

What I was looking at in my line of questioning was whether the right choice had been made at that time for that particular amount of money. I believe that in the long run we may discover that some sort of light rail traffic might have been more effective for servicing a wider spread of area, rather than along the narrow corridor that the commuter rail goes. Putting commuter rail in might preclude other speedier services which might take place out to the northeast sector. If you choose one, it's going to slow down, I think, the amount of time or money that has been put into that; it will preclude putting other systems into that particular area. Indeed, because commuter rail has gone to the northeast sector, I would assume that they all look at the southeast sector, out to Richmond and Delta, as alternatives for the next one. They'll say, "Well, commuter rail is out there," and that way it precludes the furtherance of service to the northeast sector, which might have been more effectively put in place to begin with.

One point the minister made at the beginning was about the electronic system, the most up-to-date electronic system that you have. But I gather that is simply in the issuance of tickets. Or does that count the people as they enter onto the train vehicles? How does this electronic system, which the minister referred to as being the most up to date, track the actual people on the train? How does it track people who are fare evaders? You didn't really answer that question.

[ Page 5009 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I did. I said there was an internal and random auditing system to detect abuse, and that has demonstrated less than 1 percent of fare evasion and abuse.

D. Symons: You have on the train itself and at the stations people that I believe are called service hosts. I gather that one of the instructions for service hosts is that they are not to enforce fare payment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The same system that's used to detect fraud throughout transit systems is used on the West Coast Express, and it's best left that you and I don't discuss that, if you ask me.

D. Symons: Well, having ridden SkyTrain fairly often, and having never yet been approached. . . . When I go on SkyTrain, I don't go over and feign that I'm purchasing a ticket, because I happen to have a pass. I don't feign that so that anybody who might be observing would think: "Well, maybe he has bought a ticket." I simply walk on.

As a matter of fact, I was on there last Sunday, and I took my grandson down to the dragon boat races, where my daughter happened to be performing. We decided to take the SeaBus and went over to the North Shore. We came back, and lo and behold, as little boys do, he had to go to the washroom. When I couldn't find. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: No, this is relevant; you'll find out in a moment. I couldn't find a washroom in the Waterfront terminal. There must be one somewhere there, but I didn't see it. So we dashed over to the Hudson's Bay store, where I knew there would be washrooms, and got off there. Coming back onto the SkyTrain, what I noticed, quite dramatically, was that very few people on a Sunday afternoon were purchasing tickets. They were like me, just walking right on.

I would suspect that during a weekday -- particularly during peak hours -- a lot of those people might have a pass that they use, but I would suspect that on a Sunday afternoon, many of those people are casual downtown shoppers and would not have a pass in their pockets. So the thought really struck me that there must be a fair amount of fare evasion. I've had that confirmed to me by people who are fare evaders, apparently. I'm rather concerned that unless you have somebody actually physically checking, or a turnstile where you put a ticket in -- as many subways have, where it goes through and is validated -- you have no real way of knowing what fare evasion is taking place.

[12:00]

There are a couple of issues that I want to address briefly with the minister.

I think much of this debate is focused around the issue of expectations, of numbers and of estimates. The people at that end of the valley, who are very pleased with the service, are, however, somewhat concerned that they've been sold a bill of goods. They are left with the impression that it was oversold, that the numbers, the expectations about ridership, about revenue were not accurate and were presented in a way to make the whole exercise look a whole lot more glowing than it was ever going to be. The concern they have, quite frankly, is that this will sow the seeds of the service disappearing.

I don't think that's in the mind of this minister or this government, but I think it goes to the issue of when public funds are expended, the numbers are presented in a realistic way. That issue has been canvassed. I've said that I don't think the minister, no matter how much she wants to, can address that. Does it make sense or not make sense?

I submit to the minister that it would make more sense if there were a better way to attract the larger population base that exists on the south side of the river to the service on the north side of the river. I'll deal with a particular market area, and that is the population of 100,000-and-some people that live south of the Mission City depot. There are a lot of people there. I don't know what the numbers are but I know that what West Coast Express has been able to accomplish insofar as drawing traffic from the south side of the river has been disappointingly low.

So if the minister has some numbers, through her staff, that she can provide, I'd like quickly to canvass the opportunities that may exist for better tying in the West Coast Express service with what is happening on the south side of the river in that end of the valley.

Hon. J. MacPhail: To your first question, 11 percent of the market comes from Mission, but half of those come from the other side of the river.

If the member is wanting to explore how we would get better service to the people from that side of the river. . . . We are actually exploring a station in Abbotsford and would welcome any input from any MLA on that. We are also exploring with B.C. Transit the need to have connecting buses to a commuter rail station in Abbotsford. We're presently working on both those issues.

M. de Jong: Let's deal with the busing first. As I understand it, there were some difficulties in coordinating the weekday morning departure times between that local service and West Coast Express. What has happened? Is the minister's staff satisfied with the schedule that is presently in place? And if not, this is their opportunity to tell me and the people affected what their idea of a more effective schedule and service would be.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we're definitely not satisfied with the connecting services. There's a couple of reasons for that that we are working on, but they're difficult issues.

One is that the city of Abbotsford just simply does not set connecting service to their commuter rail as a priority and in fact has refused to expand that service. We continue to work with them to show the advantage of doing that. The other issue is the competing demands for buses in the community of Abbotsford.

The bus service in Abbotsford basically starts up after the train has left -- literally. It's a taxi-saver model. They're not willing to put that service to the commuter rail. There are competing needs around school bus service, etc. Certainly the way the community has put in place their transit service to 

[ Page 5010 ]

meet the needs of the local community doesn't match our need for connecting service to commuter rail. So that is definitely an issue that needs resolution. And we continue to work on it. The other thing that's missing from Abbotsford, specifically, is dial-a-ride service. That needs to be implemented.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister knows that her comments will be reviewed with interest in Abbotsford. I know that there is obviously a financial component to this. And the resources available to the community. . . . Lest I be mistaken, is it the minister's and the government's position that a financial responsibility and managerial responsibility for providing the tie-in service rests exclusively with the city of Abbotsford and the regional district? If that isn't the case, to what extent is there a shared responsibility? And are there financial resources available from the province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The way the act is written is that the local community, the municipality, determines the level of service. And then after that, it's cost-shared 50-50. But I'm not approaching this from an adversarial point of view; it's an issue that we have to resolve. It certainly is one that we see as a priority for resolving, because it makes sense to expand commuter rail to serve the community much more effectively -- and doing the connecting bus service in a way that makes sense.

M. de Jong: Believe it or not, I'm not interested in descending into some partisan, blow-by-blow battle here on this issue. I don't think it will necessarily accomplish very much.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Are you sick?

M. de Jong: I'm sedate, to answer the minister's question.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: We'll talk about Abbotsford's water quality problem later, hon. Chair.

Let me say this first of all. The patrons that are coming out of Mission, I understand, now comprise 10 percent of the total ridership. And that only 5 percent of those would come from Abbotsford is I think, disappointingly low. There is a huge population base there, and to the extent that I think the minister's staff are trying to improve that, I share that interest. As compared to Mission, it's a huge population base, and I think it behooves us to try and attract more people.

The minister talked about busing, but she also referred to something that has been. . . . Rumours have been bandied about the community about the desire to tie in with an actual rail link. I'm obviously interested in that, but the minister may be surprised that I am skeptical about how those plans might unfold. But let me ask, first of all: what are the plans? How far along are they developed? When did Transit and the West Coast Express begin seriously to examine the possibility of extending a rail link into Abbotsford? Maybe she could bring me, and in turn the people of Abbotsford, up to date on where those plans are.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We were approached by the Abbotsford Downtown Business Association, because they wanted to revitalize their downtown core. So that literally started things rolling. I mean, there had been talk about it before that, but the actual nuts and bolts started at the same time that the member for Abbotsford approached West Coast Express -- around January. A feasibility study is being done now, and the feasibility study is including wide input from all levels of the community and the fiscal implications of that, as well.

M. de Jong: As the minister might expect, I'm thrilled and pleased that this issue is being examined. The prospect of trains rolling out of Abbotsford along the West Coast Express is a pleasing one.

But here's the problem I have. Politicians like to build things and cut ribbons, but there's something called the Fraser River that separates Mission from Abbotsford. At the present time, there is one rail bridge, and as I understand it, the ability. . . . Let me put it this way. I live on the Abbotsford side of that rail bridge -- right there. The trains are compelled to travel no faster than five miles per hour on that. As I understand it, that is the Transport regulation governing the crossing of that bridge. Is there a way to overcome that, or do we need to build a new bridge? And I don't know how realistic that is.

If you can only travel five miles an hour over a rail bridge, quite frankly I can walk to Mission quicker. I don't want to be part of a process that is holding a carrot out in front of people that stands very little prospect of happening. I don't know if those sorts of technical issues are something that the minister is in a position to address today, but I'm interested in whatever information she can offer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those technical issues are noted and are part of the feasibility study as well. Discussions are occurring with Transport Canada around how the bridge can be used, but there will not be a new bridge built. Part of the feasibility study is to see if there is a time advantage to commuters to use a commuter rail service. That is definitely part of it.

M. de Jong: Just to summarize, then, the minister is saying that there's no thought of constructing a separate crossing for a commuter link. So if a fixed rail link were to be brought to Abbotsford, it would make use of the existing rail bridge, and there are obviously some hurdles that would have to be overcome. Is that part of the study that is taking place -- that technical component? If the study is simply one to determine whether people in Abbotsford would like to be able to get on a train and go to Vancouver, I think the answer is going to be yes. I don't think we need much of a study to decide that. I suppose we can look at whether the numbers would warrant the cost of extending the service. I'm just not clear on what the study is looking at, at this point.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The study is looking at all options for improving the access of Abbotsfordians to commuter rail service. One option is a rail link into the community over existing rail infrastructure. Other options are a direct bus link to the Mission station, or you can also use direct access to the Mission station by dial-a-ride, where you actually ring up and get minibus service to the Mission station. The feasibility study is looking at all of those options.

M. de Jong: I presume, therefore, insofar as improved bus links are concerned, that they would include upgrades and expansions to the Abbotsford-Mission Highway linking the two downtowns -- Abbotsford to the Mission train station.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, I'm not sure I understood your question. We'll be using only existing infrastructure, not building new highways, if that's what you're. . . .

[ Page 5011 ]

M. de Jong: I wasn't clear. There is a thought that one option would include adding a bus lane to the existing highway. Is that is an aspect that is being examined here?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's probably a debate for the B.C. Transit aspect. That won't be part of the consideration. That certainly isn't a factor, just for West Coast Express. We can discuss that either in Transportation and Highways estimates or in the major component of B.C. Transit estimates. It's not related to West Coast Express expansion.

[12:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In the autumn.

M. de Jong: Three other issues, just quickly. . . . I heard the minister characterize the ticket-dispensing machines as state-of-the-art. As I say, I'm not a regular user of the service, but on those occasions -- those dozen or so times -- that I have used it, at any given station on any given day I have noted difficulties with one, not all, of the ticket-dispensing machines. What kind of information or statistics is available to indicate the reliability of the machines? I only mention it because it's an observation I've made.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If I could, I'll just give the hon. member some advice through the Chair -- but it may be inappropriate: you have a pass; you don't need to buy a ticket. If he wishes to contribute to the public coffers, that's fine, actually.

In every location there are two machines, so there is always public access to a ticket dispenser. The failure rate. . . . Actually, the success rate -- let's look at it as the success rate -- matches and in most cases exceeds the industry standard. We are compiling the statistics and can make them available to you, though.

M. de Jong: I wasn't alleging anything. I simply offered an observation of my own: when I attend at the station, with a degree of frequency that I thought noteworthy, there have been people complaining that one of the machines wasn't working. Is that something that her staff is concerned about insofar as the reliability of those ticket-dispensing machines is concerned?

One last issue. As we go through these debates, I hear government ministers frequently express their frustration that they rarely hear anything in the way of ideas or submissions from the opposition benches. I have one today for the minister. I have an idea that I would like to put to her and her staff that may offer a service heretofore unavailable to commuters.

When I ride the train, I get on in Mission. There aren't generally a lot of people from Mission until you get to Coquitlam. Hopefully, that will change as ridership increases in Maple Ridge and further on down the line. But it struck me, as I was sitting there having my cup of tea and sitting in what are generally very comfortable surroundings, that I've got an hour to kill. I was talking with some of my fellow passengers, and they said to me: "Wouldn't this be an ideal opportunity to take some kind of an upgrade course, some kind of a commuter rail lecture series?" It could be done in person. For the people who use the service regularly -- they are on that train every single day -- there is an hour and a half available to them to partake in some sort of educational offering.

I see a flurry of activity on the minister's side. I'm very interested to learn what that flurry relates to and what her response is.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's probably one of those times where the opposition member has heard what we're doing and is now going to put it on the record and claim credit for the idea.

Coming to you in the fall -- although it may be a bit of an oxymoron for you -- is the Brain Train program. Actually, your idea is an excellent one. We are working with Capilano College now to institute what is literally called the Brain Train program. Capilano College will be conducting courses on the train, starting in the autumn, so we welcome your participation at that time.

M. de Jong: I'll ride with the member for Mission-Kent, and we can change the name to Brain-drain Train.

Well, I'm thrilled. It makes sense. I don't know how the whole program will be put together in terms of credit offerings. I don't think, quite frankly, a lot of people are terribly interested in obtaining a college degree from West Coast Express. But to the extent that credit for some of this stuff could be slotted in to the Cap College experience, I think that's wonderful, and I look forward to seeing how it works out and what kind of enrollees are available.

If I can just leave it at this, the minister can explain. Is there a human component to this? Are we talking about video monitors? How is instruction going to be offered on the actual train?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will involve a human element and a computer element. But we'll be advertising this shortly, and I'd be happy to give the member an early briefing on it.

D. Symons: The question Jenny was asking. . . . As far as I can see, we aren't going to finish here, no matter what.

Hon. J. MacPhail: On West Coast Express?

D. Symons: No. . . . I'm only a third of the way, and unfortunately, we won't finish. So it doesn't matter if we do break early.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd just like to say that this is ridiculous. You gave us an estimate of time. Staff have come over, and I don't see any necessity for us being one-third of the way through estimates. But the cost associated with your inability to calculate time will go on record.

D. Symons: Thank you for that little rant. The unfortunate thing is that other people have got into the conversation, and you yourself have given rather expansive and. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, you're the critic. You should be responsible for that.

D. Symons: I can't respond to the answers the minister gives, and sometimes she's gone off quite far. When I asked her about her business plans, she went off on a five-minute talk on all sorts of things without responding to the question I asked.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, b.s.

The Chair: Members, could we get on with the estimates, please?

[ Page 5012 ]

D. Symons: So if we can move on. Two things were asked by the hon. member for Matsqui, and one of them has to do with the machines. I understand that you have actually contracted out to a firm that comes in now and is actually having people monitor machines. So have there been enough problems with these machines that you're paying people $17 an hour to stand around and monitor and make changes, if necessary?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Impark manages the contract.

D. Symons: The second question dealt with an answer you gave about the possibility of dial-a-ride. You had such a system in Mission. I thought it was temporary, as the train was beginning the services for commuter rail. Does that still continue? Or have the bus services been rejigged to service the areas for these people?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it still exists.

D. Symons: Just one remaining question on that issue. I gather that it's operated as a phone-in to the handyDART system, and they will arrange for the pickup and all the rest. Does B.C. commuter rail reimburse handyDART for providing this sort of transit service for them. Or is it sort of picked up by the handyDART funding?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a local service. It's funded out of the local service bus transit fund.

D. Symons: Going back to the ridership, for the first five months it was initially projected to be 7,000 passengers per day. At the end of two years -- and we're at a year and a half -- it was projected to be 11,000 riders per day. The current ridership, I gather you said earlier, is around 6,000. Would that be roughly correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The prediction was 7,000 riders. That was the mature figure predicted at 12 months. We're at 6,500 after 15 months.

D. Symons: The short time lines are different in the papers I have: two years should be 11,000. Say we're at a year and a half now, and that was the predicted ridership.

At some future time you might be able to give the figures that I'm after: the boardings at the different stations. I gather, since you don't seem to have a person checking attendance, that you would have the machine sales at each of the places. You'd be able to know the number of boardings that take place at each of the stations. Would it be possible to get that to me, if you don't have it here? If you have it here, I'd be delighted, but if you can get it to me, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Those statistics are available, and we'll make them available. They're not here, though, at this time.

D. Symons: To do with the locomotive contract that was made, there was a rather large document put out -- I have a copy here -- to do with the acquisition of the locomotives. That was made available to the board. At the board meeting there was a decision made to use something other than the recommendations that came through from that committee. I'm just wondering who put this business plan together -- because I don't see a name on it -- and secondly, what expertise the people that put this business plan together might have possessed, in general terms. Then I'm wondering why the recommendation of those people who had some expertise wasn't followed through and why a different firm was chosen to supply locomotives.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The document was contracted by West Coast Express. We can give you the name of the firm that did it. John Baldwin was one of the authors of it. Sorry, are you asking about the success of the decision? Where are we going? I can provide you with. . . .

D. Symons: I thought I'd said it. There was a rather documented study done by somebody. I was wondering about the qualifications of the people that made that recommendation. It seems that after the study was done, the recommendation was made and it went to the board. The board, after some discussion at that meeting, made a different choice. When you look at the board membership. . . . I look down there, and there doesn't seem to be expertise in locomotives on the board; there seem to be a lot of political appointments. Why was it that what was done by, I assume, experts in the field. . . ? Why was that recommendation. . . ?

[12:30]

GM locomotives were selected because they're less expensive to operate. Fuel savings from this option would be about $30,000 per year. There is a significantly more favourable impact on employment in Canada, because the General Motors product is manufactured in London, Ontario. GM's initial proposal included economic offsets of $100,000 per locomotive, for a $500,000 total offset package. The price for the GM product was significantly less than that paid by other commuter rail jurisdictions, such as Los Angeles and Florida's Tri-Rail. But at the end of the day, the board made the right decision, because the company is still in existence, whereas the other one isn't.

The Chair: I must caution all members. Much of what I'm hearing today, I heard last year in these estimates. So I caution the member on repetition.

D. Symons: Five minutes, less than five minutes.

Anyway, I'm noting that you're referring to and again using, I think, the presentation of Vancouver regional transit a while back. There's a comment that the average passenger on the commuter rail system travelled approximately three times further than the average bus passenger. Was a questionnaire used to determine that? Are you using questionnaires now to determine rider patterns and transit patterns, so you can determine how to adjust service both on commuter rail itself -- the hours and the areas that the work goes into -- and on what services you feed into commuter rail at both ends to match the needs of the ridership?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the calculation of the length of ride is determined by ticket sales, and that's all calculated 

[ Page 5013 ]

electronically. But also we do customer surveys for requests on customer satisfaction and customer suggestions. Then we work with B.C. Transit and also the local regional transit commissions to integrate and to adapt bus service to match linkages to the West Coast Express.

D. Symons: Just one last question, and I think we will finish after all, which is very nice. That deals with when Bombardier got the contract for producing the railcars and the leasing of that. There were also some offset agreements made at that time, which I believe gave them an edge as far as bidding goes. Bombardier was going to do some investments and business in British Columbia as a requirement of the contract they had.

What I'm curious about here -- you may not have this, and you can defer and give it to me at a later time -- is those various commitments made at that time by Bombardier. Have they all been fulfilled? Or are they in the process of being fulfilled? Have any of them now sort of gone by the way?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The actual commitments of Bombardier have been met and exceeded. I'll just reiterate those commitments. They committed to purchase goods and services with a total value of $28.6 million over the 24 months of the agreement. They have met and exceeded that. They also committed to the placement of $120,000 of work with the B.C. Rapid Transit Company for staff training on Bombardier's Ankara, Turkey project. They've done that.

The SNC-Lavalin commitment is ongoing. They're in the process of fulfilling that right now, which is an additional $30 million of engineering work in B.C. that's related to the Kuala Lumpur project. But that is in the process of being fulfilled as we speak. The other commitments have been met and exceeded.

The Chair: That completes the estimates. Maybe we could have a motion to rise.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank the member for completing the West Coast Express portion of estimates. I appreciate that, on behalf of the cost-efficient use of staff.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:35 p.m.

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