1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 22


[ Page 7875 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Miller: Joining us in Victoria in the galleries today are several mayors from around northern British Columbia. I particularly want to introduce Mayor Blair Lekstrom from Dawson Creek, Mayor Thorlakson from Fort St. John and Mayor Frank Read from Vanderhoof, who were with us this morning when we announced our oil and gas initiative. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have present in the members' gallery two Members of Parliament: Chuck Cadman, the MP for Surrey North and justice critic for the Reform Party, and Keith Martin, the MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're joined in the precincts today by many members of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. I know that many of us will be joining them for a reception this evening. We are also joined in the House today by Stanley French, who is the manager of communications and policy development for the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a birthday announcement today: Chris Brinton, a U.TV cameraman, is 40 years old. Would the House please wish him a happy birthday.

P. Nettleton: It is my privilege today to introduce a number of representatives of various communities in northern British Columbia, who are here to meet on a matter of some urgency in dealing with the whole question of the health care crisis in northern British Columbia -- the withdrawal of services by physicians. Frank Read, mayor of the district municipality of Vanderhoof is here today; Jerry Petersen, director of the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako is here as well; Eileen Benedict, director of the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako; Tony Thompson, mayor of Fraser Lake; Bob Storey, councillor of the village of Fraser Lake; Paul Jean, mayor of the village of Burns Lake; Bonny Hawley, councillor of the district municipality of Houston and president of the North-Central Municipal Association; Blair Lekstrom, mayor of the city of Dawson Creek and vice-president of the North-Central Municipal Association; and last but not least, Mayor Jim Togyi of Fort St. James, that wonderful little town in northern British Columbia. Please join me in welcoming them.

J. Wilson: In the gallery today we have a very well-known individual: Steve Wallace, the mayor of the city of Quesnel and the president of the UBCM. I ask that the House make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I have the pleasure to make two sets of introductions today. First, joining us in the members' gallery we have some special visitors: His Excellency Loïc Hennekinne, the Ambassador of France to Canada. He is accompanied by Maryse Berniau, consul general of France at Vancouver. I'm looking forward to meeting with him and the ambassador later this afternoon and ask the House to make them very welcome.

Also, in anticipation of this afternoon, I'm pleased that we have in the gallery today two of the members of the B.C. Unity Panel: Cheryl Tellier and Meike Wernicke-Heinrichs. I'd ask the House to please join me in making them welcome as well.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have some representatives from the Catholic Women's League who met with members of our caucus this morning. We have Margaret Beardon, Jackie Lenarduzzi, Lorraine Saherty and Marion Nygren. Could the House please make them welcome.

Also, I'd like to extend my welcome to constituents of mine: Eileen Benedict, Paul Jean and Bonny Hawley, who are with us in the gallery today as well.

R. Neufeld: I'd like to introduce Lorraine Saherty to the House. She was introduced by the member just a minute ago. She is a longtime resident of Fort Nelson and a very good friend, and she's here with some others. Because I don't often get to introduce people from that far north, I had to do it.

The other person I certainly have to add my welcome to is the mayor of Fort St. John, Steve Thorlakson.

E. Gillespie: I'd like the House to join me today in welcoming 45 grade 11 students from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in the Comox Valley, along with their teachers, Geoff Horn and Barry Walker. Please join me in welcoming them.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
B.C. IMMIGRANT SERVICES

G. Campbell: We know today that the government has agreed to a new deal with Ottawa with regard to the funding of immigration settlement services in British Columbia. In fact, the government has agreed to a deal that will provide British Columbia with approximately half the funds that the province of Quebec has received since 1991. Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations explain why the government capitulated on this and agreed to the province of British Columbia receiving only $45.7 million while the province of Quebec has received $90 million a year for immigrant settlement since 1991?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sometimes comparisons can be misleading, and that is the case in this particular matter. We have, for the first time in the history of this province, twice the amount of money that the federal government spent on settlement renewal and settlement services for immigrants -- twice that amount flowing into the province. The federal government, for the first time, started giving additional money: $22 million for '96-97, for '97-98 and for '98-99.

This particular agreement formalizes that. It also devolves settlement services that are being provided by the federal government currently; $23 million for those services is being forwarded to British Columbia under this agreement. So there is total new money coming to us of $45 million, $23 million of which is for the services that the federal government was providing and that we're going to be providing, and $22 million in recognition of the services that we have been providing that the federal government should have been providing.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

[ Page 7876 ]

G. Campbell: First of all, there is no one in this House, I am sure, who doesn't agree that the federal government should be providing a substantially larger sum of money to support immigrant services in the province of British Columbia. Certainly that's what we would demand, and we would have expected the government to demand that.

The fact is that the province of Quebec gets 35 percent of the government's federal funding for 13 percent of the total immigrants. In British Columbia we get 17 percent for 22 percent of the total immigrants. The fact of the matter is that we are not getting our fair share. My question to the minister is: why wouldn't he stand up to the federal government and demand that we be treated equally in this province, that our immigrants get the same federal support for settlement services as those in any other part of the country? Specifically, why wouldn't we demand the same standards for B.C. immigrant services as Quebec has managed to attain for Quebec immigrant services?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are comparing apples and oranges. There is an agreement with the government of Quebec, entered into under the Mulroney regime of '91. It's an agreement that takes into account the labour market training element and responsibility for government-sponsored refugees. Quebec is responsible. It is going to provide social assistance to them, and other benefits, which the province of British Columbia is not going to provide. As well, you have the government of Quebec processing and selecting its own immigrants, with employees at missions abroad. I think it's important for us to recognize that their costs are far more excessive than ours.

It is important, however, to recognize that this is a two-year agreement, in terms of the money, for the '98-99 and 1999-2000 fiscal years. It will be renegotiated at the end of that period. This agreement, for the first time, allows us to do several other things. If the hon. member asks me a question, I'll respond.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: I'd like to thank the minister for responding to a question. That's a good thing.

What I would like to ask the minister, though, is. . . . We may be dealing with apples and oranges here. The fact of the matter is that we need more resources for immigrant services in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is that we have agreed to approximately half the funding that the province of Quebec gets.

Once again, the minister points out that we don't get to select immigrants the way they do in Quebec. This, in fact, allows us to select 200 business immigrants, whereas in Quebec they're allowed to select all of their business immigrants. Why wouldn't we ask for the same agreement in British Columbia that they have in Quebec? Why wouldn't we demand $90 million for services so that we can get on with providing our immigrants the services they need across the province?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think there's consensus that British Columbians don't want us to have a duplicate system of selecting immigrants for British Columbia. What we do want, however, is more consultation and more input into policy and planning for the national immigration policy. And for the first time, we have that entrenched in this agreement in writing, in black and white.

We also have for the first time the ability to select at least 200 immigrants per year for the next five years -- a total of 1,000 immigrants and their families -- for the purposes of meeting our skill needs, our business needs, and to attract investment in British Columbia. As I said, that's the Pavel Bure clause or the Jim Pattison clause -- take your pick. For people who will make a significant contribution to this province and who otherwise can't qualify, the province will be able to say: "We want that individual to come and invest billions in this province." We have the ability to do that. There are some other elements that, if the hon. member asks me and the Speaker allows me, I'll speak about.

REPORT ON CARDIAC SURGERY WAIT-LISTS

S. Hawkins: On Friday the Health minister tried to minimize a damning report on cardiac wait-lists by releasing it shortly before a long weekend. What this report reveals is that the wait for cardiac surgery has more than doubled since the NDP got elected, and the number of patients forced to wait longer than six months for cardiac surgery has tripled.

My question is to the Health minister: how can patients have any confidence that the waits will improve under the NDP, since five successive Health ministers have let the wait-lists for cardiac surgery in B.C. become the worst they've ever been?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm actually very pleased to speak to the cardiac review panel results and the announcement made on Friday -- albeit before a long weekend, but leave is very hard to get these days. Many people were there, including the cardiac surgeons who've been part of the review panel. There are three reasons why people can be assured that this government will continue to attend to wait-lists. One is that we set up the cardiac review panel, and we have accepted every single recommendation they made: funding of $8.5 million, which is 700 cardiac procedures this year, in new, annualized money -- 20 percent more cardiac procedures. The cardiac surgeons and cardiologists said they were very pleased with the government's response to their report. That's on top of $16 million in new dollars for other kinds of wait-lists in the province.

S. Hawkins: What the minister left out of her press release is that only one in five cardiac patients has the chance of getting their surgery done within the recommended period of time, and I think that's pathetic.

The opposition has received a leaked memo from a consulting group hired by the Ministry of Health. In reference to the May 3 draft of the cardiac report, the memo says: "This is the almost final editorialized version of the report." My question to the Health minister is: how can anyone believe in her or her government when her ministry insists on editorializing reports before they're ever made public?

Hon. P. Priddy: The report is available, and significant. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I guess people like Dr. Richard Brownlee and other cardiologists and cardiac surgeons are

[ Page 7877 ]

part of the whitewash, because they support the report. They have the final copy, they agree with it, and they agreed with this government's response to their recommendations. So if the member is suggesting that all those cardiologists and cardiac surgeons are participating in a whitewash, then I'm quite appalled by that. They are cardiologists and cardiac surgeons in this province who are outstanding; I think that's appalling.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: The facts are simple: the longer patients wait for cardiac surgery, the higher their risk of dying. This leaked memo, from the ministry's consultants, also states that the Ministry of Health has requested that they include data comparing the B.C. deaths on the wait-list experience with Ontario. Unfortunately for the ministry, the situation in B.C. under the NDP is so bad that the best statistics they could come up with from Ontario still showed a much higher death rate in B.C. My question is to the Minister of Health: why is it so important for the Minister of Health to get statistics more damning than hers before she releases her report?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct: there is a small difference between British Columbia and Ontario. But in the past I have heard the hon. member refer to the fact that we don't have standards across this country for wait-lists. We don't have any kind of data gathered that say that over a period of time the number of patients who are classified as either urgent, elective or emergency and who have died waiting for surgery. In an attempt to gather data from across the country, we are looking at what other provinces do, and we've included. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. P. Priddy: Our mothers wouldn't like this.

The Speaker: The question was listened to in silence; I suggest that the answer also be listened to.

Hon. P. Priddy: We have attempted to collect data from the only other province that has a cardiac registry, which is Ontario. We can't get it from other provinces. But do we want to measure ourselves against standards? Of course we do. This initiative -- a 20 percent increase in cardiac procedures this year -- will make a significant difference. If there are 700 people who are going to get the procedures, I would think that that is a very significant difference for those 700 families.

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL MAINTENANCE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Education. Many principals spend part of their day cleaning out toilets and fixing playground equipment while this minister undermines free collective bargaining and guts CUPE work. Will this minister assure the principals who are in Victoria today and tomorrow that he will put in place enough funding so there can be adequate maintenance and custodial work in our schools, so that principals don't have to spend their day unblocking toilets that are blocked?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't know if the member was here earlier when I asked all members to welcome principals and vice-principals to the precincts. I encouraged members to attend the reception that they're hosting this evening, because I do value the work that principals and vice-principals do in our schools. They are the educational leaders on a local level, and they hold schools and communities together for neighbourhoods across British Columbia.

As far as funding, this member somehow believes that a $105 million increase in the operating budget this year doesn't address these issues; it does. This $105 million -- $93 more per student in every school in British Columbia -- enables principals, vice-principals and the staff they work with to do a good job for our children.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, $105 million is going to simply catch us up to where we should be this year. Will the minister confirm today that the deal that was cut in the back rooms between the office of the Premier and the BCTF will provide no additional CUPE work or relief for maintenance in the schools of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has caught the disease from the official opposition. This is indeed a spend-more day on the opposition benches.

We've devoted $105 million to increasing operating budgets. We're spending $338 million on an exciting initiative to reduce the number of portables in this province by half over the next five years. And we have a groundbreaking agreement with the teachers of this province to put $150 million more into classrooms, reduce K-to-3 class sizes and hire 1,200 more teachers to help our children.

CARDIAC SURGERY WAIT-LISTS IN NORTHERN B.C.

P. Nettleton: In the ministry's report, when broken down by hospital, we discover that the wait-list for cardiac surgery for northern and rural patients is 20 weeks. Northern and rural patients wait at least five weeks longer than patients in the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island. My question is to the Minister of Health: how can she deny that we have a two-tier health care system when patients in the north have to wait months longer than patients in the south?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct. There are some differences in the wait-list times, and we have to move to narrow those or to make sure that there is no inequity between the two. But let's look at the information available to us. The only places where cardiac surgery is currently done are in Victoria, Vancouver and New Westminster, which is one of the reasons we asked the cardiac panel to at least look at and offer for our consideration the need to establish a cardiac centre outside of, if you will, the lower mainland and Victoria. That's exactly what they did. We will be able, when we look at that and establish a new centre, to ensure that people in the north who have to come farther do have greater access and faster time through the wait-lists.

Petitions

R. Thorpe: I rise to present a petition signed by 399 British Columbians.

"We the petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House revisit the issue of hepatitis C compensation to reflect the

[ Page 7878 ]

concerns of British Columbians and to offer a fair, compassionate and humane compensation package to all who have received infected blood."

G. Campbell: I rise to present a petition. I'd like to present this petition on behalf of 17,000 British Columbians who request that the Legislative Assembly reconsider its position and have B.C. support Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in their constitutional challenge to Bill C-68.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

Hon. D. Miller: By leave, I call Motion 48 standing in Orders of the Day of Thursday last.

[WHEREAS the B.C. Unity Panel of legislators and private citizens has consulted the people of British Columbia about the Calgary Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity, which was agreed to by the federalist Premiers and Territorial Leaders of Canada on September 14, 1997, and about other issues pertaining to national unity;

AND WHEREAS British Columbians have affirmed their commitment to preserving a strong and united Canada that fosters the social and economic well being of all its citizens;

AND WHEREAS British Columbians have expressed their commitment to the equality of status for all provinces, while recognizing the unique character of Quebec;

AND WHEREAS the Calgary Framework in no way diminishes the rights enjoyed by Canadians;

AND WHEREAS the Calgary Framework does not imply agreement to constitutional change, and any future amendment to the Constitution of Canada must be approved by British Columbians in a referendum in accordance with the Constitutional Amendment Approval Act, RSBC 1996, c. 67.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

That this Legislative Assembly endorse the principles of the Calgary Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity as follows:

1. All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law.

2. All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.

3. Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.

4. Canada's diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.

5. In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.

6. If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.

7. Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial, and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. Canadians want their governments to work co- operatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation. Canadians want their governments to work together particularly in the delivery of their social programs. Provinces and territories renew their commitment to work in partnership with the Government of Canada to best serve the needs of Canadians.

And that, following upon the report of the B.C. Unity Panel, this Legislative Assembly endorse these further principles:

1. That British Columbia supports national standards for health care and believes that these standards are best set co-operatively by the federal government with the provinces;

2. That British Columbia supports the federal government's equalization program and believes that for other federal transfers for health, education, and social programs, provinces should receive the same level of federal funding per person;

3. That British Columbia believes that provinces should be able to assume greater responsibility in areas that are important to them, such as fisheries in the case of British Columbia.]

The Speaker: It's been posted in the proceedings, so it's not necessary to put the question of leave. Before we begin that, I just have one. . . .

I beg your pardon, hon. member. It does require leave because it's not in Orders of the Day, so I'll put the question. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, I think you need to call Committee A.

Government House Leader.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm a last minute stand-in as House Leader, hon. Speaker. However, we shall prevail.

In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

The Speaker: And in this committee, we will be dealing with the motion.

Just before we begin the debate, I have a couple of paragraphs that I would like to share with members on Motion 48. Before debate proceeds on Motion 48, standing in Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, May 14, 1998, I wish to make a brief observation. Members will have noticed that the form of the motion departs somewhat from the normal restrictions applicable to motions outlined in the notes to standing order 50 in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 117. Debate will proceed on the motion as tendered, as it deals with matters arising out of the Calgary framework on Canadian unity, and the Chair has been previously advised that the form of the motion has the approval of government and the official opposition.

We can now proceed with the debate.

[2:30]

CALGARY FRAMEWORK FOR
DISCUSSION ON CANADIAN UNITY

Hon. A. Petter: It is a tremendous pleasure for me to be participating in a debate concerning the Calgary framework and the consultation process that took place following that framework in British Columbia, in particular because of the role that British Columbia played in terms of participating in the development of the framework and the process that flowed from it -- the process that has resulted in the opportunity today for this House to debate a resolution that represents British Columbia's perspective on national unity matters.

[ Page 7879 ]

The purpose of this resolution is to put forward the position of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia with respect to the Calgary framework. This debate is important. It is about national unity, and in particular, it is about the perspective of British Columbians on how best to foster national unity. The Calgary framework sets out seven principles that are intended to serve as a basis for renewing the federation and strengthening national unity. This framework was defined through discussions amongst the nine Premiers and the two territorial leaders last September. It was clearly understood, however, that the principles embodied within the framework were to be taken back to the provinces and territories for public input. Indeed, this is one of the bottom-line positions the Premier of British Columbia succeeded in achieving as part of those discussions. There was an understanding that those discussions would not result in a closed-door deal but in an open framework that could be taken back and discussed with British Columbians, and that this framework would not be exhaustive but would provide an opportunity for British Columbians to add their own perspective and their own value, which might result in a resolution that is in some ways different than the resolutions that would come forward in other parts of the country.

This input was sought in British Columbia through the efforts of the B.C. Unity Panel, consisting of 12 citizens and ten elected officials from all parties in this Legislature, as well as representatives from the federal Parliament. The panel held public meetings in all regions of the province and received over 700 written and oral submissions and almost 50,000 responses to a questionnaire sent to every household in the province.

The response given by British Columbians through the Unity Panel was very clear. British Columbians are passionately committed to keeping Canada united, and they support the seven principles contained in the Calgary framework. In addition, British Columbians expressed strong support for three other principles that they also regard as important in the context of discussions on national unity. These additional principles are set out in the resolution before us today.

Taken together, these principles reflect a British Columbia perspective on the values that should guide us in building a stronger Canada. They also encourage us to consider in practical terms the strategies that British Columbians want us to pursue in our efforts to renew the federation. In doing this, we need to approach our discussions with a sense of context and a sense of history. We must learn from our experiences -- both our successes and our mistakes. We must be pragmatic, maximizing clarity without sacrificing the need to be flexible in accommodating diverse interests. As we know from recent history, principles that are inflexible are unlikely to be workable, while principles that are unclear can give rise to contradictory expectations and thus be worse than no principles at all.

The Calgary framework articulated seven principles that underlie Canadians' commitment to national unity and that can help to guide our future course of action. The Calgary principles speak to the need to maintain provincial equality while respecting diversity amongst provinces within the context of our federal system. One of the strengths of Canadian federalism is that it enables provinces to participate in Canada on an equal footing without sacrificing their varied and singular characteristics. For this reason, the framework is able to affirm the equality of status of all provinces while also recognizing the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law as being fundamental to the well-being of Canada.

The Calgary framework also stresses the equality of persons, recognizing that all Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law. This principle of equality is again balanced by respect for diversity, including the diversity represented by aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages, and the multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.

Finally, the Calgary framework speaks to the need for governments to work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. It calls upon federal and provincial governments to work cooperatively to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation, particularly in relation to the delivery of key social programs.

The B.C. Unity Panel found that 80 percent of British Columbians support the Calgary framework as a whole, and this support was consistent throughout the province. British Columbians are passionate Canadians, and they are stalwart supporters of national unity. Time and again, British Columbians told the Unity Panel that they want to be part of the solution to the challenges that we face as Canadians and that they are prepared to play a larger role in Canada. Indeed, British Columbians feel strongly that to date they have not been given the opportunity they wish to have to play a larger role in the future of this country. In making their views known to the panel, British Columbians were also very clear in their view that issues of national unity are not synonymous with the concerns of central Canada, nor are they limited to matters related to Quebec and the threat of separation.

Moreover, fostering national unity must not mean reverting to the sterile obsession with constitutional amendment that dominated both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. In this regard, it is important to understand that the Calgary framework is not a constitutional amendment, nor does it imply agreement to constitutional change. The resolution before us makes that crystal-clear. Indeed, it affirms what every member of this Legislature already knows -- that is, that the road to a constitutional amendment in British Columbia must be by means of referendum.

In summarizing the input it received from British Columbians, the panel also found that while each of the principles achieved majority support, including the unique character of Quebec society, the strongest support was given to statements that recognize principles of equality. These include equality of persons in the first principle, equality of provinces in the second, equality of opportunity in the third, respect for diversity in the fourth, equality underlying unity in the fifth, and the availability of powers conferred on one province to all other provinces in the sixth principle.

But the panel's work also highlighted how British Columbians think about other issues and how those other issues are intimately connected in the minds of British Columbians to the question of national unity. British Columbians clearly want us to focus on real solutions to real problems. What I mean by this is that the statements of the principles in the Calgary framework are important, but clearly they are not enough. They are important because they identify general values around which we can unite. But they are not enough, because they don't explain how these values should be translated into actions that address the real problems that we face. That is why it is critical in this debate that we use this opportunity to look beyond the Calgary principles themselves and engage in a constructive discussion about where those principles take us, in fashioning a renewed federalism for the new millennium.

The resolution before us today, hon. Speaker, helps in this regard by incorporating three additional principles identified

[ Page 7880 ]

by British Columbians. These principles are not inconsistent with the Calgary framework. Indeed, they augment and build upon the Calgary principles to address three key themes: first, the importance of national social programs; second, the need for equality in federal-provincial fiscal relations; and third, the case for devolution to the provinces of specific areas of local interest. I intend to address each of these themes in turn. By doing so, I hope to show that, taken together with the Calgary framework, these themes help to provide a road map that we might follow to achieve a new national consensus -- a new form of cooperative federalism to meet the needs not just of British Columbians but of all Canadians as we prepare to enter a new millennium.

When we look at the history of this country, one of the major triumphs has been the network of social programs that we have built together to serve Canadians and meet their needs. The evolution of our health care system, our public education and our system of income security has helped to define our sense of national identity in the latter half of this century. Indeed, these social programs are sometimes referred to as the twentieth-century equivalent of the national railway system that helped to define Canada in the nineteenth century. The significance attached to these programs is also a reflection of the pragmatic nature of Canadians. It is not that we're less concerned than others about grand statements of principle. It's just that we're particularly interested in understanding what such statements actually mean in terms of their ability to provide solutions to the day-to-day problems we face as individuals, as families and as communities. We are justifiably proud of our accomplishments in building these social programs, which more than anything express our shared commitment to one another and our common bond as Canadians.

But British Columbians also understand that these programs have come under real threat in recent years and that we must be vigilant if we are to ensure their continued viability. The future of these programs particularly depends upon our ability to maintain a stable and adequate base of funding. Yet the past few years have seen a serious erosion of that base, as the federal government has cut the contributions it has made through social program transfers by over 50 percent since 1985. The introduction two years ago of the Canada Health and Social Transfer -- the CHST -- alone reduced the federal contribution by 33 percent, or some $6.2 billion.

These cuts highlight a more fundamental issue that is directly relevant to the debate before us. This issue concerns the fact that Ottawa's involvement in these programs has been based on federal spending power rather than on any legislative power -- given that legislative responsibility for these programs rests for the most part with the provinces. In the past, the spending power was used by the federal government as a powerful tool to encourage provinces to establish core social programs in accordance with federally defined standards. But in recent years, the spending power has proved to be a two-edged sword, permitting the federal government to withdraw funding unilaterally while still purporting to maintain its role as enforcer of national standards.

The result has been a growing fiscal imbalance, represented by the ever-increasing costs provinces are expected to bear in order to fund key social programs and the inability of provinces to meet those costs through tax room and reduced transfers provided by the federal government.

At the root of this imbalance is the fact that while primary responsibility for funding the core social programs lies with the provinces, access to the largest share of the most productive revenue sources -- personal and corporate income tax -- remains with Ottawa. Moreover, the federal government, having eliminated its deficit through cuts to these programs, has compounded the problem by directing new spending not to restoring moneys previously cut but rather to creating new boutique programs such as the Millennium Scholarship. These new programs maximize the visibility and political credit for the federal government while disregarding the severe funding problems faced by medicare and other existing programs.

I've gone into some detail about this, hon. Speaker, because in my view this theme around national social programs lies very much at the heart of our debate about the Calgary framework, especially with respect to the seventh principle. This principle speaks of Canada as a federal system, where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. It also states that Canadians want their governments to work together, particularly in the delivery of their social programs. The recent history of federal funding for these core programs illuminates the importance of that principle and the extent to which it has been neglected in recent years. If this principle is now to be given practical meaning, the federal and provincial governments must recommit themselves to maintaining and strengthening national social programs, particularly our national system of health care.

British Columbians told the Unity Panel -- and this is reflected in the additional principles before us today -- that they support national standards for health care and that they expect both orders of government to cooperate in setting and meeting those standards. Achieving this will not be easy. It will require political will on the part of all governments to forge a new collaborative framework for defining and delivering national social programs in Canada. But while it won't be easy, it is essential, and work towards such a framework has already begun and is being pursued by federal, provincial and territorial representatives on the ministers' council on social program renewal. This council has been mandated by first ministers to develop a framework agreement on the social union.

British Columbia's goal in these discussions is to seek a cooperative approach to funding and delivering these crucial programs, combining the need for provincial flexibility to meet local conditions with strong national standards that are mutually agreed upon and jointly enforced. We are also, in this and other forums, asking the federal government to curtail its use of the federal spending power in new program areas and to commit new federal resources to restoring an adequate and stable source of funding for existing social programs -- particularly our medicare programs. The outcome of these discussions is crucial to the future of Canada's national social programs. For this reason, these discussions are as much a part of fostering Canadian unity as is the Calgary framework itself.

[2:45]

It is important to tie these threads together in addressing the resolution before us. This resolution gives urgency to the need for all governments to demonstrate progress in supporting national social programs within a collaborative framework and will help to guide that work in a principled and consistent manner. It is only through such linked efforts that the principles set out in this resolution will be given practical effect, in the form of meaningful change that meets the needs of the people. That, after all, must be the touchstone for all of us.

The second major theme running through the Unity Panel report is that of equality. Indeed, equality is mentioned in five of the seven principles in the Calgary framework. The

[ Page 7881 ]

Unity Panel found that while all seven principles are supported by a majority of British Columbians, the strongest support was given to statements which recognized equality. I might note that wherever concerns were expressed, they too tend to revolve around issues of equality. British Columbians clearly understand and support the view that equality and diversity are two complementary principles of citizenship that are fundamental to Canadians. The adequacy and fairness of the balance struck between these two principles is a kind of litmus test that's employed by British Columbians in addressing the actions of government.

British Columbians also endorse the principle that all provinces are equal under constitutional law. No province should be given more or less authority than any other; no province is of higher or lower status than any other. For this reason, British Columbians have clearly expressed their opposition to any constitutional amendment that will confer a special status on any one province or region. Of course, the principle of equality of provinces does not imply that all provinces are the same, just as the principle of equality of persons does not imply that all individuals are identical. Provinces vary greatly in terms of their populations, their geography, their history, their politics, their culture and their economies. Each province is distinctive in its own way and has its own unique identity. That diversity can be protected and celebrated by ensuring that provinces have the autonomy and flexibility they need to respond to their diverse circumstances, without having to grant any province special status or powers that are not enjoyed by others.

As I have said, Canadians are a pragmatic lot. Over the decades, we have invented mechanisms to meet our needs. One of those mechanisms is a system of equalization payments, which transfers money to provinces whose ability to raise revenues to support provincial programs is weaker than others. The Unity Panel reported that British Columbians support this principle, as it is aimed at allowing provinces to provide similar levels of programs to people no matter where they may live in Canada. As such, it is an important and practical demonstration of the commitment of Canadians to the principle of equality and to each other.

The panel also reported, however, that with respect to federal transfers for health, education and social programs, British Columbians believe that provinces should receive an equal level of federal funding per person, based upon need. In other words, efforts to equalize the relative position of provinces should be confined to the equalization program and should not be extended to other social programs, so as to undermine the principle of equal per-capita funding. Yet this, unfortunately, is exactly what has happened in recent years. Ottawa has used equalization as a pretext for discriminating against provinces with respect to other federal transfer programs.

For British Columbia, the most infamous example of this was the cap on CAP a few years ago, which restricted funding provided to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario for social assistance transfers -- despite the fact that British Columbia faces higher immigration and higher cost pressures than many other provinces. The effect of that restriction continues to this day in the reduced level of entitlements that British Columbia receives under the CHST. Again, I mention this history for the purpose of illuminating the path we need to follow in solving such problems in the future.

I want to relate all of this back to the resolution before us today. The equality principles contained in the Calgary framework lead to certain conclusions for British Columbia. In exploring what those principles mean in practice, the Unity Panel found that British Columbians support the proposition that the federal government has a legitimate and vital role to play in equalizing the capacity of provincial governments to provide core social programs to their citizens. The vehicle for achieving this is the equalization program.

But the principle of equality is seen to be compromised if, beyond equalization, funding for other federal transfers is distributed in a manner that discriminates amongst provinces. This is because British Columbians believe, quite rightly, that a person's entitlement to federally funded health care, education or social dollars should be the same regardless of whether that person lives in British Columbia, Newfoundland or Manitoba. A person in need of health care is as much in need and as worthy of federal regard no matter which province they may live in. Put simply, British Columbians believe that the equalization program should do the job that it was intended to do in remedying disparities amongst provinces, but that it should not be used to erode the sense of common entitlement that citizens enjoy with respect to other federal transfer programs.

I must say, in a similar vein, that there is also a clear impression amongst British Columbians -- supported by overwhelming evidence -- that this province does not receive equitable treatment in relation to other federal program expenditures. Whether that treatment is measured by federal procurement of goods and services, by support for culture or by the presence of federal offices in this province, citizens are all too often aware that British Columbia frequently receives less than its fair per-capita share.

Addressing these issues would again constitute an important, practical contribution to national unity, in meeting the real needs and concerns of British Columbians while removing the lingering sense that principles of equality are not applied consistently to all provinces. This is a message that came through loud and clear in the report of the Unity Panel. It is one that this province will continue to press directly with the federal government as well as in the context of other discussions that I mentioned earlier, concerning social program renewal and fiscal arrangements.

The third theme running through the Unity Panel's findings also relates to the need to balance diversity and equality. It is the theme of enabling the provinces to assume greater autonomy by devolving powers of responsibility to them in certain areas of local concern. British Columbians recognize that provinces vary greatly in a number of dimensions, and they want to live in a federation where their particular needs and concerns are addressed quickly and effectively. One of the major benefits of a federal system is that it allows for differences in circumstances and interests to be reflected differently in various parts of the country. It allows for responsibilities to be assigned according to the needs of citizens and reflects the fact that governments that are closer to the people -- both physically and politically -- can be more flexible and responsive in addressing the particular needs of those people. On this theme I would commend to the House's attention the report tabled last summer by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Where the federal government is best positioned to take action, British Columbians support that, as they do in the case of national standards -- provided we have the means to make our voices clearly heard in Ottawa. But where provinces are best positioned to take action, we believe that they should have the autonomy to respond to local needs and conditions.

The fact is that most, if not all, provinces are seeking greater autonomy in some fields. For example, British Colum-

[ Page 7882 ]

bia, Quebec, Alberta and a number of other provinces have been seeking greater control over labour market development and training. In other fields, greater provincial autonomy may be of interest to only one or perhaps just a few provinces. British Columbia, for example, has sought greater control over the west coast fishery, a move that the Unity Panel reports is strongly supported by most British Columbians. Why? Because the fishery is at the heart of our coastal communities and because some aspects of the fishery demand governmental responses that are particularly tailored and sensitive to local needs and conditions -- responses we believe the province is better suited to make than the federal government.

This call for greater autonomy is squared with the principle of equality by recognizing that all provinces should have equal access to achieving greater responsibility in areas that are of particular local interest to them. In the Calgary framework, these sentiments are reflected in the interplay between the equality principles and the wording of the seventh principle, which stresses the need for governments "to work co-operatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation."

Let me draw these themes together in urging that we approve the resolution before us today and in sketching out the more important linkages we must make to ensure that today's debate is not simply an exercise in hollow rhetoric or symbolism -- that it points much more practically to the future. First, the seven principles contained in the Calgary framework are supported by British Columbians on the basis that they reflect our key values and beliefs.

British Columbians are strongly -- indeed passionately -- committed to a united Canada and to a Canada that is founded on principles of cooperation, equality and recognition of diversity. Second, British Columbians also identified other principles of key importance, principles focusing on the value of national social programs, on the need for equality in federal fiscal relations and on the desirability of giving provinces greater responsibilities in areas of local concern. Third, all of these statements of principle are significant, not just because they define common values around which we can coalesce but because they provide a starting point for the even more important work required to give them practical effect in addressing the challenges that confront Canada.

As we approach a new millennium, I believe that we are at a crossroads as a country and that the principles in this resolution serve as a useful signpost pointing us in the direction that we should be going in. All of the themes I have discussed today guide us in our efforts to find solutions to the problems we face. The message conveyed to us through the Unity Panel is that these solutions should be found in a renewed federal-provincial relationship designed to benefit all Canadians, not just British Columbians.

What British Columbians are looking for, for themselves and for the country, is a new vision of cooperative federalism animated by complementary commitments to equality and diversity both for provinces and for individual Canadians -- a form of federalism that is characterized by strong social programs, supported by adequate sources of funding, and defined by national standards set and enforced collaboratively by federal and provincial governments. They're looking for a form of federalism in which there is a clearly understood division of labour between the need for an effective program of equalization for poorer provinces and the need to ensure that all provinces receive the same level of funding per person with respect to federal transfers for health, education and other social programs. They're looking for recognition of the value of devolving responsibilities in areas where provinces are better situated to meet the specific needs and concerns of their citizens.

In a very real way, British Columbia is particularly well-placed to help realize this vision on the national scene. Geographically, British Columbia is on the periphery of Canada, but with respect to the issues that are reflected in this resolution and in this debate, British Columbia stands very much at the centre of the country. On the one hand, British Columbians have a keen sense of our own identity and of the things that distinguish us from the rest of the country; on the other hand, we remain unswerving in our support for a united Canada and for the principle of provincial equality. British Columbia has consistently supported equalization for poorer provinces and continues to make a major fiscal contribution to the Canadian federation. But we are just as strong in demanding that federal transfers for social programs be distributed on an equal per-capita basis amongst the provinces and that other federal spending be distributed fairly. While we support those who want greater autonomy to enable provinces to better respond to local conditions, we also agree with those who argue for an effective central government to protect national programs, principles and standards.

Given our stance on these and other issues, I believe that we in British Columbia are uniquely positioned to act as a bridge between the competing interests and visions that have sometimes divided this country in the past. We can suggest the means of reconciling those interests and visions in a way that makes sense, not only at the level of the principles set out in the Calgary framework and in this resolution but, more importantly, in practical terms that recognize the need for governments to respond to the real demands of citizens in every part of this country. This does not require us to consider further resolutions, and it certainly does not require us to pass constitutional amendments. The value of the principles we are debating today does not depend upon their being incorporated into the constitution but upon their being infused with practical meaning, to better serve the interests of all Canadians.

That is the challenge that is before us now, not just in British Columbia but in every province across this country. If we can rise to that challenge, then we have an opportunity to forge a new model of cooperative federalism for this millennium, one that will animate the words of this resolution and help to unite this country in the years ahead. I hope that we are up to that challenge; I believe we are. I believe we are also capable of playing a major role in assisting others to meet that challenge in the months and years ahead.

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make introductions.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Thank you, members.

We have a number of groups here today from the United States. The first group was here earlier in this sitting and are now touring the precincts. There are some 28 visitors: grade 7 students, with some adults and their teacher, Mr. Stuckmeier, from the Annie Wright Elementary School in Tacoma, Washington. Please make them welcome.

Just now we have a group from the Presidio Middle School in San Francisco. There are 35 students from grades 6 to 8, with several adults. They are here for a lesson in comparative government and local history with their teacher, Mrs. Tse. Please welcome them.

[ Page 7883 ]

[3:00]

G. Campbell: I want to start by thanking the government for adjusting the agenda so that we could discuss this motion today. I'm not going to be here tomorrow, but I wanted an opportunity to speak to this resolution and motion which was brought forward by the Premier. My thanks to the Government House Leader for that.

I want to start by talking about the process, because as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has pointed out, this is an opportunity for British Columbians to show some leadership -- some true leadership. I'm afraid that we have missed that opportunity. Too often, as we sit in this House or as we go about our day-to-day activities, our day-to-day political life, we forget that there are many things that we have in common. We forget that we share many areas of agreement. I think, in fact, that that agreement is reflected in the motion. It's reflected by the voices of British Columbians, who came out in the middle of December to comment on how vitally they felt about their country and about the ability to strengthen it.

It was more than two years ago that I made a presentation to one of the federal caucuses in Vancouver. During that presentation, I highlighted four key values that I thought British Columbians believed in, four key values that we felt should inform the national debate and national issues. I said first that we believe in equal rights and responsibilities. Every Canadian should have the same rights, the same responsibilities, and the same rights and freedoms anywhere in Canada. Second, we believe in equal treatment. Every Canadian, regardless of where they live in Canada, should be treated equally by federal government programs. Third, we believe in more open government. Governments at all levels should make decisions in an open and forthright manner, so that all Canadians have the opportunity of making their views known before decisions are made rather than after their impacts are felt. Fourth, most people believe that government has abandoned them. Government has abandoned the working families of this country. Every day across this province, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians go to work and pay their taxes. They're the people who make Canada work, yet the vast majority of those people believe that every year it's harder to get by and that their children will have a lot fewer opportunities than they enjoyed. Government must address their needs and give them hope once again.

When the Premiers met and discussed the Calgary declaration and how we might take some steps forward, I believe that all of them were looking for a new way to try to bring governments together so they meet people's needs in this country and in this province. One of the critical components of that is to understand our history. For a generation, Canadians -- children of my children's age, in their twenties -- have listened as politicians have debated the division of powers. They have listened as politicians seemed to forget that their job is to serve their constituents, not to rule them. They have listened as politicians set an agenda that talks about which share of the pie one province or another is going to get, while their lives and their quality of life slowly seemed to be ebbing away and, more importantly, as the opportunities that they felt Canada presented for their children seemed to be ebbing away.

Too often, that's been because we have been willing to deal with the division of powers in the constitution. Instead of dealing with what we have in common, we've dealt with what distinguished us. We've dealt with how we were different, and I believe that the Calgary declaration is at least a beginning step in saying that there are some issues and values that Canadians share; there are some values we agree on.

I believe that families in British Columbia have the same goals as families elsewhere in Canada. We want schools that give our kids the tools they need for the real world. We want a health system that's there for us when we need it, and we want our communities to be safe and secure. We want a little bit more money left in our pockets at the end of the month, because we know that we can take better care of our kids and their future than governments can.

I believe that governments should be focused on meeting those needs, not on amending the constitution, so I agree with the major thrust of the Calgary declaration. This is not about constitutional change. Indeed, I agree with the Premier's motion, which points out that this is not an authority for constitutional change. There will be no constitutional change in British Columbia without going to the people of this province through a referendum. That's how it should be, and I'm glad it's specifically referred to in this motion.

The critical component I think we missed in the Calgary declaration was in the unnecessary rush put on it. We had a number of citizens who were willing to come forward and serve on the Unity Panel, and I take my hat off to them for the time and effort they put in at a very difficult time of the year. They showed the reflection of the people of British Columbia, because they showed they were willing to work on finding some solutions and some common values by listening to the people of this province.

Having said that, I think we should think back. We took this important issue, where people in this province are vitally concerned about the future of this country and how we can make it work better for them -- not for a government or an opposition, not for a province or a country, but for them, for their families and for their communities, regardless of where they are in Canada.

We imposed on that Unity Panel a deadline that said that they must do this work by January. Because of that, the Unity Panel held their unity discussions throughout the province. They did travel and tried to encourage people to come out and speak; but again, this was done in December. It was done in the middle of a mail strike and done at a time that said there was really unnecessary haste, because if there was a truly a need for us to conclude this by January, it would have been concluded -- and it wasn't. If there was really a deadline that wasn't an arbitrarily and politically imposed deadline, then the first thing we would have done when this House met would have been to deal with this resolution. But indeed that was not to be the case. So now here we are, five months past the deadline, discussing this resolution.

I believe that we could have done better, hon. Speaker. I believe that we could have spent more time actually asking people in this province how they felt that they wanted their governments to work in the years ahead. I believe that we could have asked them for their ideas on how to improve the Calgary declaration. What was the result of that undue haste? The result was that 74 percent of people polled in British Columbia in January, right after the Unity Panel's program, were not aware of the hearings. It wasn't that they didn't care; it was that they were not aware. Only 12 percent of the people who were surveyed reported reading the questionnaire that was put out.

I personally believe that the vast majority of British Columbians agree with what is put forward in the Calgary declaration. But again, I think the unnecessary time constraints lost an opportunity for British Columbia: an opportunity for us to show real leadership. I believe that real leadership would have recognized one of the critical components of

[ Page 7884 ]

the Unity Panel's surveys. Ninety percent of the people surveyed said yes when asked: "Do political institutions need to allow more public input into the decisions of government?" Ninety percent agreed that our political institutions have to change to allow more public input into the decisions of government. I think there was some public input and that it was worthwhile public input. We should listen to those voices. But there were a lot of British Columbians who felt left out and who were indeed left out of this process because of its timing and because of the rush.

Having said that, let me say that I believe there is another step that could have been made that would have added to the strength of our position and our leadership role in the unity debate. That has to do with this Legislature. We have a legislative committee on justice, constitutional affairs and intergovernmental relations, representing all parties. I believe that that committee should be working hard to develop a strong British Columbian agenda: an agenda for administrative change, an agenda that recognizes that there are many areas where we do have agreement. I believe that that committee should have reviewed the report that was brought in by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. A substantial amount of work was put into it; a substantial amount of information is available. Why not have a public, open discussion with regard to that agenda? Why not start moving forward, instead of moving from crisis to crisis or from first ministers' conference to first ministers' conference? Why not recognize that we want to have a vital, dynamic discussion in British Columbia, so that we can show true leadership? I believe the Unity Panel's report itself should have been submitted to that legislative committee, which has all parties represented on it. I believe that in doing so, they would have been able to come forward with a strong, all-party resolution.

As it is, the Premier has brought forward his motion. . . . I must say that I believe that this motion is worthy of our support. I do have some concerns about the add-ons that have been brought forward, here. Let me say that I think the important thing for us to do as a Legislature is to move forward, to say on behalf of the people of British Columbia who have taken the time to participate that we hear their voices and we will speak for them.

There are some critical parts of this motion that I believe we have to focus on. The first one is equality: the equality of all Canadians regardless of where they live and regardless of their background; the equality of the provinces. I believe it is critical that the provinces be treated equally in the programs that are in front of us. I believe that too often in the past we have not stood and fought for those principles. We have indeed been willing to sacrifice them on the altar of political expediency, and we should not.

I believe that when you talk to British Columbians, they are very clear that they believe in equality, as the previous member mentioned. That has to translate into true action. If we believe in equality. . . . One of the things that I think British Columbians clearly mean when they say they believe in equality is equality of representation. They believe that we are not treated equally when it comes to representation in our national institutions. Why has that been left off in terms of add-ons? The add-ons are fine, but the fact of the matter is that those were not brought forward by the Unity Panel; those were brought forward by the government. Currently, in terms of Members of Parliament, we are 14 percent underrepresented in this province. In terms of that venerable institution, the Senate, British Columbians have one representative per 620,000 people, as opposed to Prince Edward Island, which has one for 34,000 people, or one per 448,000 that live in Ontario. Many British Columbians look at that and say: "That's not equal." They say that we have to look at ways we can improve that. I agree with them on that.

When we look at the overall motion that has been brought forward by the government, I think we have to recognize that it does call for equality. It calls for equality of Canadians; it calls for equality of provinces. And we agree with that. We also believe it's critical to note, in terms of both the whereases and the resolution itself, that British Columbians are perfectly willing to recognize the unique character of Quebec -- or the unique character of other parts of the country, for that matter. But that unique character does not bestow on any province a special status. It is critical for us to understand that equality does not mean uniformity. It does mean providing each part of the province and each citizen with the opportunity to pursue their own goals, their own objectives, in a way that recognizes that we live in a country with incredible opportunity in front of us.

When you look at the resolution that's before us. . . . Again, I point specifically to point No. 7: "Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial, and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions." I believe that is a very important statement. It's important particularly when we look at the situation we face in the province of British Columbia today. It does not say that it believes in Canada as a federal system, with federal, provincial, territorial governments and aboriginal governments that have paramount power over some of them. It says specifically that we are a federal state which has federal, provincial and territorial governments that work in partnership. And we agree with that.

We believe that it is critical that as we strengthen our federal system, we recognize that there are divisions of responsibility and that there is a division of accountability which must be firmly put in place and firmly established. As we do that, I believe we have to remember that our fundamental task is to reflect the concerns of the people who live here and to respond to their wishes in a way that's positive and constructive.

[3:15]

I believe that one of the goals, as we move forward with administrative changes which will make government work better for the people that live here, is to recognize that the people we serve understand that we live in a dynamic world. The world has changed dramatically since our initial constitutional framework was put in place. When our constitution was first signed, when British Columbia first came into Confederation in 1871, just 36,000 people lived in this entire province. Today there are probably close to four million. British Columbia does have an important leadership role to play. We must remember that if governments are going to respond to the needs of citizens, they have to be dynamic institutions.

I would encourage the government to continue its opposition to the veto power which has been imposed on constitutional change by the federal government. The veto power effectively stops change. I believe we should understand that. The amending formula which was arrived at is one that should work and is fair for Canadians. It has a high hurdle for approval, but it does allow for some change to take place as the world we live in changes. That is critical for us. So I would encourage the provincial government to continue its efforts in that regard.

Hon. Speaker, I want to speak specifically to the three so-called add-ons to the B.C. Unity Panel's report. The first has to

[ Page 7885 ]

do with national standards in health care. I am the first to accept that people in this country believe that it is important for us to have national standards in health care. It is necessary for us to work together cooperatively with the federal government. But I think that for us to have a true leadership voice, we should be able to provide health care to British Columbians in British Columbia, regardless of where they live. We have been calling for some time for this government to respond to the cries of people in the north, to respond to the cries of people who are having trouble getting full hospital and emergency services because of this government's intransigence. If we can't meet those needs in the province, how do we expect them to be met nationally? How can we have a true, strong voice with regard to national standards for health care if we don't even have provincial standards for health care?

As the minister said, the words are fine; it's the actions that make a difference. I was talking today to a fellow from Vanderhoof. It cost one of his constituents about $6,000 to be able to go and stay with his wife in Prince George. She was terminally ill; she wanted to be in the hospital in Burns Lake. If we are going to have national standards for health care, we must have provincial standards for health care, and we must be willing to deliver those standards -- as the people of British Columbia expect. For this to be more than words, it has to be more than simply the provincial government saying: "Send more tax dollars here." There is only one taxpayer, and that one taxpayer expects their money to be spent judiciously, cautiously and prudently; but they expect it to go where their priorities are. There is no question that their priority is for excellent health care in Canada and excellent health care in British Columbia.

The second point: British Columbia supports the federal government's equalization program. Well, I think that can be read the wrong way, hon. Speaker, but I will take it in the spirit that it's given. British Columbians do believe that they should participate in equalization. They are willing to contribute to other provinces through an equalization program, to make sure that facilities and services are available to them. But they do not believe that every program should be used as an equalization program. They do believe that health care should be provided to them regardless of where they live and that education services should be provided to them regardless of where they live. They do believe that procurement services should be fairer for the province of British Columbia; they are not. They do believe that immigration services should be fairer for the province of British Columbia; they are not.

In terms of federal procurement, we still fall far behind our rightful share. The fact of the matter is that British Columbia represents 101/4 percent of the national economy but receives less than 8 percent in terms of procurement. We're not asking the federal government to spend more; I want to be clear about that. We aren't asking for any more or any less than any other province. We are asking the federal government to give us a fair share in terms of their procurement.

I think it's also important for us to note, in terms of equalization, that British Columbia has accepted and benefited from thousands of new Canadians coming to our province and millions of dollars of investment. But we have not had the support from the federal government that's essential, if those new immigrants and those new Canadians are going to be able to contribute as quickly as possible to the province that we live in. Again today we see that instead of the $19 million that Quebec gets for 21,000 immigrants, British Columbians are supposed to be happy with $45 million for 49,000 immigrants. We don't ask more; we don't ask less. We ask to be treated equally; we ask to be treated equally with regard to transportation investment. We don't ask more; we don't ask less. We ask for equality for our province.

The last point that's raised is the issue with regard to fisheries. Again I go back to the point that our party has made for some time. There are two key issues in the west coast fishery that we feel need to be addressed: equal treatment for all people in the commercial fishery and a transfer of responsibility to the provincial government. We've been calling for that since 1994. We still believe that it's essential. We still have a fishery that is in jeopardy. We still have a situation where instead of speaking with one united, focused, constructive and positive voice on how we can save our fish and our fishery in the province, we have a fractured voice. Again, instead of reaching out to all the parties in the Legislature and saying, "Let's speak together; let's speak with one voice for British Columbia," we have the one-man show going again. The problem is not that the one man doesn't want to protect the fishery; the problem is that it is never the case that one person can solve a problem that's that complicated. It is always the case that by bringing us all together, we end up with a more positive, more forthright and, I think, more lasting solution for the fishery in British Columbia.

As we look at the Calgary declaration, I think it does give us an opportunity to speak with one voice. I think there is far more that needs to be done. There have been concerns raised with regard to the resolution, with regard to the whereases, and I think the critical component of this is that the voices of the people of British Columbia have been heard. There is more that could have been done, but this is a positive first step.

On behalf of my colleagues, I am pleased to say that we will support this resolution, we will support this motion, and I am hopeful that all members of the Legislature will vote in favour of this motion that has been brought forward. It is a motion that will hopefully start us on a process toward a new resolution to the problems that have been daunting to all Canadians for the last generation. It is my hope that we can send a clear message that we are a province that believes in equality and that acts to reflect that belief in equality. I believe we should send a clear message that says that we believe the people of our province are committed and united in their endeavour to strengthen our country. I believe it's critical that we send a clear message to everyone that our province is willing to take a leadership role so that the families of British Columbia and the people who live here know they still live in a country with a bright future and with governments that are willing to provide them with the services they need, and that we still live in a country where we are willing to reach out to one another, work together and build on the foundation of agreement, which is critical as we move forward through the years ahead.

I look forward to the debate that will continue with regard to this motion. I hope that we can speak with one single, united voice, and I hope there will be more effort in the future to bring all the voices in the Legislature together to provide the kind of direction and leadership that British Columbia should be showing to a united Canada.

I ask leave to table a document I referred to earlier in my remarks.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 7886 ]

D. Jarvis: In the House today, visiting us from Dorothy Lynas Elementary School in my riding of North Vancouver-Seymour, are 28 students and their teacher Ms. Haussmann. Will everyone please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: It's a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion. I believe this to be a very important day in the history of our province and of our country, because we are now the last of the provinces to deal primarily with this motion. The minister is shaking his head and saying no, so I've missed one. Obviously Quebec has not dealt with it and will deal with it by way of committee hearings. But I think it is interesting that we are now addressing the culmination of work that has taken place not only partly through my office and through the work of Gordon Gibson and of John Munro but also through the national unity committee of citizens which travelled around this province and listened to British Columbians -- on a framework of principles that I think most of us would have expected to be overwhelmingly endorsed and supported by British Columbians. I don't think many of us, when we took this set of principles to the people, felt that we would have heard many Canadians turn around and say they didn't believe that we should all be equal. I don't think, hon. Speaker, that you would have heard many Canadians say they didn't believe that we are a diverse, tolerant and compassionate country. I don't think you'd expect that most Canadians would have said that our diversity does not include first nations or aboriginal people. I think that that's clearly true.

Similarly, I don't think you would find many British Columbians, notwithstanding the concern we have with respect to special status, who would say that the unique character of Quebec society, including a French-speaking majority with a different culture, civil law and practice of history in Canada, is something that is particularly unique or different. Most people understood that when we took these principles out to the people, we were attempting to put out what we believe most people accepted as the primary tenets -- the primary and most fundamental principles -- that make Canadians Canadians.

When we looked at the results, I think there was a great deal of euphoria around that fact that we were proven correct and that the vast majority of British Columbians do indeed support what we felt they probably would support anyway. So we can feel good in that we do now have, I think, a clear understanding of what some of those fundamental principles are that make us Canadian. By endorsing this motion, the Calgary declaration and the framework in this Legislative Assembly, we have underscored -- underlined -- that which I think most Canadians, most British Columbians, believed from the beginning anyway. Even most of those people in Quebec who may be struggling for and seeking a new and different relationship within Confederation observe the principles in this document as being largely motherhood statements. They looked at them as being largely a reaffirmation of what they believed were fundamental principles that were adopted and accepted in "English Canada."

[3:30]

I have some concern that when we went out, took this set of principles around and listened to people, British Columbians wanted to depart from the motherhood statements and really talk about some of the core issues that are more important to the day-to-day survival of British Columbians, and they were criticized for somehow diverting from the original intent of what was being proposed here. To the credit of the Premier -- and I said this when the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations made his statement last week -- he said: "No, in British Columbia we're going to look beyond that." That's certainly something I believe we should have done, and it's good that we have done that.

Beyond the motherhood statement, and beyond the fundamental principles of equality and the notion that we are a tolerant and compassionate people of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, the root cause of what I think is the rot in Canada occurs as a result of a very drastic, real change that has taken place within the powers of the federal government in relation to the provinces. When we entered into Confederation, we came in with a set of guidelines, of understandings, that said: "These are the terms and conditions under which we enter into this Confederation. This is what our jurisdiction is going to be provincially and this is what the federal jurisdiction will be, and through our evolution we are going to make sure that that balance is maintained."

Hon. Speaker, I have to tell you that that balance has not been maintained. The balance is way out of line. When we in British Columbia say, "You know what? We don't like this; we don't think this is good for us as British Columbians, and nor is it good for us as Canadians, because we are seeking to find ways to build a nation, to build equality and to make sure we have sameness across Canada even though we recognize that differences will occur as a result of the ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity," we're told that somehow we're threatening the national unity issue. Where do we hear that? We hear that in the media, which is owned in large measure by the east. We're told it by federal politicians who have their own agenda to press. We're told by centrists who believe that somehow the federal government should be able to continue to march into areas of provincial jurisdiction and that we should all just take it up and accept it and go along with it.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Let's look at a few statistical pieces of evidence of what I'm talking about today. The federal government is boasting about the fact that it is going to have a surplus because of an increase in revenue of roughly 7.3 percent. Revenue has gone up by 7.3 percent, and they're bragging that they have this surplus. Spending, on the other hand, has gone down by 2.6 percent. The federal government says: "That's because we're prudent fiscal managers." Well, hon. Speaker, do you want proof of the rot in Ottawa? Let's take a look at what they've done in the commitment to the most hard-pressed Canadians: those who are sick, those who are in need of income assistance, those who, by no fault of their own, require the assistance of government -- the so-called social safety net. The federal government -- the Liberal Chrétien government in Ottawa -- has cut expenditures in these areas to the provinces by 18 percent. That's their commitment to national unity, to making sure that all Canadians are treated fairly and equally: an 18 percent reduction.

And they wonder why we in British Columbia say: "You know what? We can't keep this up. We cannot continue to keep funding this." Their response is: "You're threatening national unity, because you're challenging our right to spend in those areas of jurisdiction." Well, if that isn't enough, let's figure out where they're getting all of this largesse. Do you know that the income tax, which makes up roughly over 50 percent of revenue to the federal government, has increased? In terms of the amount of revenue, income tax is up by $6.2 billion. That's a 9.8 percent increase. Do you know what would happen in this chamber if the provincial share of income tax went up by 9.8 percent? We're knocking it down in

[ Page 7887 ]

the provinces, because we're trying desperately -- struggling -- to find a way to keep equity in the system. They stuck it up at 9.8 percent.

If that wasn't enough, the dreaded GST went up by 8.8 percent. They've increased it by $18.1 billion in additional revenue off Canadians, who are hurting and struggling in this country. The federal government turned around when they found out what was going on, and they said: "Don't worry about it, guys, because we've got a great national program for the unemployed." Well, they raised $6.8 billion more in UI premiums than they paid out to those poor British Columbians who are out of work. And they wonder why we're saying there's a national unity issue here. They want us to focus in on the aspirations of the province of Quebec. Is it any wonder that the province of Quebec is saying: "Hey, listen, guys. There may be a different way to do this." We don't have the strength in this chamber in this province to stand up and say: "You know, the federal government is no longer going to continue to wade into areas of provincial jurisdiction. We are now going to take over that which is constitutionally entrenched in our jurisdiction -- and that's income tax -- and we're going to continue with this shared arrangement which allows the feds to jack up income tax by 9.8 percent. We're going to pay the can when they cut our transfers."

You know, I hear a lot of talk about universal health care and about how we've got to have universal standards. Well, let me tell you, hon. Speaker, the federal government, Mr. Allan Rock -- and I believe this government opposite is complicit -- can no longer ever use that term because of the shameful, disgraceful way they've dealt with the people with hepatitis C. If ever there was an example of a complete abrogation of responsibility at the federal level, the people who are suffering with hepatitis C are the great example of that, and what a shame. What a tragedy it is.

So when we look at this motion, sure, we can pat ourselves on the back and say that the motherhood principles are the great ones. Let's all put it out there and then let the federal minister go out and try to flog this in the province of Quebec as some kind of a capitulation from "English-speaking Canada." Somehow we have now acknowledged that in fact there is a uniqueness there, which can be broadly interpreted, perhaps, with the linguistic differences as a code of distinctiveness. What an absolute lot of nonsense!

National unity is being affected in this country by the kind of attitude that we have seen in Ottawa: the arrogant attitude that believes that somehow they can make the decisions on behalf of Canadians without consulting them first. National unity is affected by Ottawa, which turns round and is now going to hand off or transfer back to the provinces responsibility -- but no money -- for some of those areas for which we pay our $19.4 billion a year to Ottawa. That's what comes out of B.C., in addition to the $20 billion we raise for this chamber.

How about ports and harbours? What's the federal government's solution to the ports and harbours commissions? We're just about to see the final resolution of that. What is it going to do? It's going to turn around and say that we've now got jurisdictional responsibility over that. How do you raise the money? They're going to raise the money by taking mortgages out on Crown land. That's how they're going to do it. Now, is that a good idea? I don't know. It's the only idea that has been pressed on the part of our ports and harbours commissions.

What about our Coast Guard? Let's talk about what they're doing with our fishery. Let's take a look at what they're doing with the docks -- both fisheries docks and harbour docks, the very lifeblood to coastal communities in British Columbia. What are they doing with those? How strong a fight was it to say: "Don't destaff lighthouses on the west coast because we need staffed lighthouses"? We've even got the federal minister responsible right out of the south Island.

Hon. Speaker, do you want to know what is affecting national unity? It's that attitude in Ottawa. What really causes me a great deal of concern is when I look at the editorial writers in the newspapers and on our televisions -- all owned by eastern concerns, by the so-called federalist concerns -- who challenge any of us who say: "You know what? There may be a better way to do this." They challenge us when we say that the strength of a centralized government in Ottawa has eroded the provincial jurisdictional legitimacy that is necessary for us to be able to provide for our people who live in this province. There's nothing wrong with us standing up and fighting for them, because they're the people who elect us to this chamber to be able to do for them what we are intended to do -- that is, look after their interest and their well-being.

When we add on these, I would like to have seen one in here saying that we want to take over our right to collect taxes provincially. We need to exercise our jurisdiction -- our constitutional legitimacy -- on income tax so that we have the necessary revenue to take care of those items the federal government doesn't think are now worthy of its constant financial commitment, which they off-load to the provinces, which they give us no revenue for and then wonder why our economy starts to go into a tailspin.

The second item that deals with national unity is a broader issue and concern. It has to do with the continentalization or the globalization of our economy and the seeming inability that Canadians have to get adequately informed about what's going on and to convey to our federal politicians that it is necessary for them to talk to us about this, so that we can participate in discussing how we are going to resolve some of these issues. Every single day we see aspects of Canadian unity eroded away right under our feet because of a globalized economy and an inability that we find, with respect to our federal government, to stand up and put the interests of Canadians first. Today it's the corporate agenda that goes first. Today it is the commercial bank interests that go first -- not Canadians, not average rank-and-file people who go out and do a day's work. We find in this country today that the erosion of the Canadian theme -- that which we understand to be Canadian -- is happening more and more rapidly as a result of the slow intrusion of foreign capital, which is now welcomed into our country as an investment but over which we can no longer have any vestige of control.

NAFTA, FTA, MAI and TAFTA -- all of these trade agreements -- are happening around us. I'm not going to stand up like Canute and say: "Stop the tide on the beach." I don't think I'm so foolish as to believe that we're going to be able to just simply say, "No more," to globalized economy and international trade. What I am saying is: let's refocus our attention on what we're doing domestically to be able to make Canadians competitive, so that we can take advantage and not be taken advantage of. Let us move to be able to put research and development dollars into our communities, so that we can build the research that's necessary for us to be on the cutting edge, not the following edge, of this new movement. Let us not be dragged along into it. If we're going to go into it, let's go into it with our eyes open and make sure that we protect the interests of Canadians as our first and primary concern.

[ Page 7888 ]

But we do not see it happening. Every day we're finding that our ability to have our right as a sovereign power is slowly being eroded. We have no leadership on this matter -- none -- coming out of Ottawa.

What we have to recognize is that it is time for us to get bold, to get aggressive about developing a new framework within Canada -- one that will change the relationship of power between the federal government and the provinces. I say this without attempting to be inflammatory -- without trying to rattle the sabres, as they may say -- as a British Columbian. I believe that we have evolved to the point now where we need to start to look at the strength of a confederated model, as opposed to a federated model. I believe that we need to understand that we share a common wealth in Canada, that the shared common wealth allows us the legislative legitimacy within the provinces to be able to meet the needs of provincial concerns and issues and that we have to have the financial ability to do that. Therefore we need to put in place a regime that allows us to collect our taxes provincially to meet those needs, so that we may then share, in the transfer of dollars, with those less fortunate provinces so that they may also have the financial abilities to meet their goals and needs.

[3:45]

It may well be, in this commonwealth-of-Canada concept, that provinces may determine that there will be a different set of relationships between themselves and Ottawa and that those relationships will be legitimized by the interests and needs of their people -- not by a federal government that is in blatant conflict from the beginning and that continues to erode away the provincial right over their jurisdiction and their ability to provide for their people.

You know, in '82, hon. Speaker. . . . I don't want to go onto a long discussion on the constitutional debate. My goodness, I've been through it so many times, and I think most people in the chamber are familiar with it. Most people listening probably remember 1982 and the repatriation of the constitution and the period leading up to that, when there was a huge debate as to whether Canada is one country with a strong federal government and ten appending provinces or whether it is in fact ten provinces that have come together to make one central government. There was a great deal of discussion as to where the seat of power rested. Does the seat of power lie in Ottawa? Does the seat of power rest in ten provinces that acquiesce, in degrees, to Ottawa?

In essence, I suppose that's the strength of the differences between the confederated and federated models of Confederation. But I tell you, hon. Speaker, that once entrusted in that power in Ottawa, it was expected that there would be equality and sharing. It was expected that there would be equal diversity of powers and authorities into the provinces and that the devolution of power would happen in an equal and fair manner.

It has not, and it isn't anti-Canadian to stand here and say so. It doesn't mean that I'm threatening the country because I stand up and say that this motion, for what it's worth -- and it has worth -- will do nothing to appease the people of Quebec. Nor should it, because this was done more to try and defuse what was becoming a very important political issue in that province's provincial election.

Let's not kid ourselves. For goodness' sake, let's be honest enough to know that there was a strong thrust -- and it remains a strong thrust -- to determine the outcome of that provincial election. I mean, why do we think that Jean Charest all of a sudden had this incredible amount of press coverage? Everybody was out there touting him, and he was going to take over. "No, no, no," he said, "I don't want it." Finally, Daniel Johnson steps down, and Jean Charest -- the reluctant bride he is -- is dragged to the altar. There he is: a federal Conservative wed now as the leader of a provincial Liberal Party.

An Hon. Member: It's almost like here.

G. Wilson: Some say it's almost like here. I'm not going to comment on that -- not in this debate today, although it's tempting.

But surely to goodness people don't believe that somehow that's going to solve the legitimate concerns and issues of the people of Quebec any more than this declaration will. What must happen is that Canadians must understand the history of the people of that province. They must understand the history of that movement. They must understand where the core thrust is coming from with respect to the people in that province. We must understand that this is not something that can be glossed over with a veneer that a new politician, albeit a federal politician, can suddenly transfer to the province of Quebec.

Nor is it acceptable for us to say that if we're going to look at national unity and the national unity question, somehow we should play the card of the Supreme Court of Canada. That's what happened in anticipation of this document coming forward. We found that the federal minister then was right in front of the Supreme Court, putting down a motion for debate to see whether or not in fact a referendum, which we've already had three of and which we have already legitimized -- in the process at least, if not in law. . . . He's putting that in front of the Supreme Court of Canada to argue whether it would be legal if a referendum were in fact to pass and a declaration of independence were to be declared.

I mean, give your head a shake. First of all, it's a little late in the game to be doing that. Second, what if they say it's illegal? If it's illegal and if the referendum is held, the campaigns are fought and the Yes side wins and the people of Quebec have, by a vast majority, voted for secession, what is the federal government going to do then? You know, I keep laughing when people say: "Well, we're going to send in the army."

There are some hard-core right wingers out there saying: "Send in the army; we're going to defeat them." Well, I keep saying we can't send in the army. We've already closed down all the bases in western Canada; the army is in Quebec, and they're voting. Those are the guys who are voting. There is no army to send. It's already there, because they've closed down Chilliwack and are closing down the western bases.

Interjections.

G. Wilson: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is demonstrating his intelligence. I mean intelligence in a military sense, which is in itself a bit of an oxymoron.

Let me say, hon. Speaker, that in truth, nobody in Canada is going to tolerate civil war. We're not going to do it. Canadians don't do that, because it's more of a principle than anything that we are a compassionate and understanding people. The reason this declaration is important -- it is important, and it's important that we pass it -- is that it tells us we understand that there are some basic principles that we can accept. But it goes no further than that.

[ Page 7889 ]

It certainly does not give to the federal government one iota of legitimacy with respect to any constitutional change, and anybody in the federal government who believes that somehow our passing this motion gives them the authority to institute constitutional change is wrong. By law, as the Leader of the Official Opposition quite correctly pointed out a few minutes ago, we must go to referendum in the province of British Columbia. So what this motion and these add-ons say is that there is a lot more to building a nation than satisfying the political issues in one province -- namely, Quebec -- and that those of us in British Columbia are strong, loyal Canadians. We want to build a nation.

But there is not necessarily one vision of Canada, and it is certainly not necessarily a vision that comes from Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Many of us in this province have a vision of a nation that includes the legislative legitimacy of the provinces. Many of us have a passion for this country that recognizes that there will be uniqueness and differences. We can all be equal without all being the same. What we want is to put in place a new mechanism, a new system, a renewed Canada. And it's going to have to come from the provinces, because Ottawa has fumbled the ball -- not once, not twice, but three times. I don't want to give them the ball again, because the next time it might just be the end of the game, and I'm not ready to see this country come to the end of the game.

Let's look at some renewed models. Let's discuss the commonwealth-of-Canada concept. Let's look at the confederated model. Let's take a look at devolution of powers and authorities to the provinces. Let us not dismiss anybody who challenges the federal status quo as being somehow anti-Canadian. Let's listen to the debate; let's hear what people are saying, because many people in Quebec may have very good ideas, as they do in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. We are all Canadian. All of us deserve a chance to build a nation, to have a vision for a future -- a future that our children will be proud to say happened, in its first instance, today. We will commit today to build this nation -- to build it together -- and to recognize its full potential and its full future.

I thank you for this time, hon. Speaker, and I look forward to the balance of this debate and to the work that is ahead of us as we build this nation, Canada.

M. Sihota: It's been interesting listening and observing the debate this afternoon around this declaration. You know, listening to the debate, I went through a range of emotions and thoughts. It occurs to me, first and foremost, that it's easy to be angry, but anger alone won't help us build a better country. It's very easy to complain about things that are wrong with Canada, but complaining alone won't help us build a better country. It strikes me, listening to the debate this afternoon, that perhaps we take ourselves -- who we are, what we are as Canadians -- far, far too much for granted. In our obsession for dealing with these matters. . . . I'm not saying that they're trivial -- I'll come back to it a little later on -- I'm just saying that before we step into it, perhaps we should step back and take a look at it.

We take for granted much of what we've been able to accomplish as a country, who we are and what definition we've given to the personality of this country, as seen by the rest of the world. You know, in the eyes of the rest of the world, we're the model. We are what everybody else aspires to be able to provide for their citizens. We are a nation that provides the kind of stability, progress and forward thinking that is sometimes lacking elsewhere in the world. We are, after all, Canada. As Canadians we are, amongst other things, the world's peacekeepers; a noble calling, a role that we play with both pride and passion from one end of this globe to another. We are the world's peacekeepers. The work that we do daily -- and I talk to many of my constituents about this, being from a riding that's predominantly military -- in eastern Europe distinguishes us from all the nations of the world. Our skill in being able to deal with human conflict in the most tense of environments distinguishes us as a country. We're a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. The work that we did as a country this year. . . .

Who am I to always stand up and defend the federal government? After all, I've got my problems with them too. But give credit where credit is due. The leadership that we took on the land mines issue. . . . Both the Reform and Liberal members of the House of Commons have, over the last year or year and a half, been pressuring the rest of the world to begin to make some changes. We are the world's peacekeepers.

In that context, look at the work that we're doing in Asia. Look at some of the things that -- I think to his credit -- the Prime Minister has said during the course of events that have unfolded in Asia in the past week. The world looks to Canada to take leadership around these types of issues -- historically, yesterday and today. I'm confident that tomorrow we will continue to etch out our role as Canadians, because we consider it part of our duty to the rest of the world.

Not only are we the world's peacekeepers, but as a country we have a passion for the environment. Again, it defines us as a nation. The image of Canada -- its lakes, glaciers, waters, streams and air -- is one thing. But our role on the international stage in trying to bring about comprehensive environmental protection is one that distinguishes us as a country. Just look over the events of this week and some of the trade arrangements that govern world trade relationships, and there's Canada pressing for the need to make sure that environmental consequences are built in to try to humanize what I agree are some of the adverse consequences of remarkable economic globalization. There we are, pressing for a virtue that most people in the world would believe in but that few governments would stand for.

[4:00]

We're Canadians, and we have a passion for the environment. We're the world's peacekeepers. Take a look at the environmental front and the role that we've taken in terms of air, be it with the Montreal protocol or the work that we did as a country in Rio de Janeiro under the Mulroney regime. Take a look at the work we did in Tokyo. Sure, I've got some problems with that stuff, and I've articulated that. But nonetheless, in a moment of perspective, one has to step back and recognize the place that we have taken on the world's stage.

It's not restricted to matters of peacekeeping or the environment. Our health care programs -- and more about that in a few minutes -- are the envy of the world. Travel anywhere else on this globe and witness how other nations don't care for their people or show the kind of compassion that we do through our universally accessible health care system. It defines us as a country. It is us that the world looks to. Our health care system is second to none in the rest of the world. Travel abroad and see, as I have seen, people in Asia and Africa involved in what we would consider minor traffic accidents and left there to die because there's not an ambulance service or because blood isn't available. We have a view about the sanctity of life which distinguishes us as Canadians, in terms of the way in which we take that value and operationalize it in the development of our social policy.

[ Page 7890 ]

Yes, sure, we have our debates in this House -- and I'm sure in Ottawa -- about stability and economic prosperity. But again, we are a model of economic stability and prosperity in the eyes of the rest of the world. Yes, we have our tensions around the development of economic policy, but the fact remains that few nations, if any, can point to the level of economic progress that we have witnessed in this country since the turn of the last century to the time now, when we stand on the edge of the next millennium.

First and foremost, it's essential, before we launch into a debate about all that is wrong with Canada, that we take a few minutes during the course of this kind of debate and celebrate that which is good about Canada. It is a remarkable country, and we are a remarkable people. Now, that's not to say that somehow we all think alike. It's not to say that we are a society that doesn't have open and free debate. After all, to quote W.A.C. Bennett, I think it was: "If we all think the same, nobody thinks at all." We debate in this country about ways in which we can improve the quality of life of Canadians, ways in which we can build upon the foundation of success that we have enjoyed as a nation.

You know, that's quite legitimate. In the context of this debate it is true that there are things that we can do to build yet a better Canada -- a new and improved version, if I can put it that way. Yes, in my view, and, I suspect, in the view of most Canadians and members of this Legislature, we need to build a better Senate. We have this House that doesn't quite make any sense, I think, to anybody except those who serve in the Senate. Clearly we need to improve that House. Why? We need to ensure that the sense of alienation that people in provinces like British Columbia feel about not having their voice heard -- or not heard enough or not having appropriate weight attached to it. . . . Some of those concerns about alienation can clearly be addressed through a reformed second chamber -- either that, or perhaps it should be done away with. Either way, hon. Speaker, the fact remains that it's quite legitimate to have a debate around the reform of that chamber.

There are not just governance issues; there are also jurisdictional issues and fiscal issues, like the cap on CAP, that are clearly appropriate forums for debate in this country. Clearly our ability to provide what we consider adequate health or education programs to our citizens is constrained by the decision taken by the federal government in terms of not forwarding equalization payments or appropriate payments to provinces like British Columbia. There are jurisdictional issues, like fish. As we have clearly witnessed the federal mismanagement of that resource over the course of the last three or four decades, there is a natural desire on the part of British Columbians to say: "Look, we think, being closer to that resource, that we can do a better job of managing it than someone sitting in Ottawa." There is some saliency -- not a lot of saliency, I should say -- to that kind of an argument.

These arguments, be they matters of governance, be they matters of fiscal issues, be they matters of jurisdictional issues, have to be addressed in some context that keeps this nation together, that keeps us whole, that doesn't sort of press hot buttons to cause us to find divisions within ourselves, that doesn't build on dividing people and that doesn't build on petty parochial regionalism. But it's predicated on some rational thought about how we can improve what we've got. It's not so broken that it can't be fixed. It's important to remember that the way for us to construct a better constitution is to build on the strengths of this country -- not by focusing on divisions. I find, and I believe, that all too often it's very easy for many people in this debate to slide into that abyss of finding ways by which we can divide one another.

We have a lot to offer as members of this chamber, and people of British Columbia have a lot to offer in terms of the debate around the constitution. Rather than complaining about the process, as previous speakers have done, perhaps we should recognize what it is that we've been able to extract in terms of value out of that process. There was a time that the same individual who stood up earlier on and talked about process would complain that the package couldn't be changed. The process that we engaged in here in British Columbia and the amendments -- or as some like to call them, the add-ons in terms of this resolution -- demonstrate very clearly that the voice of British Columbians on things that are important to them can easily be integrated into a document that is living and not dead, which is not constrained by some artificial boundaries or by some artificial time lines, but is real and living -- in the sense that we have added on these provisions that speak to the aspirations of British Columbians.

Will we achieve those matters that are add-ons? I don't know. I know this: we probably won't get them all. But in the process of an evolutionary constitutional debate, I think it is important that we as a province put forward matters that are critical to us as British Columbians, but at the same time, that we not lose sight of the fact that we are Canadians first and hence have an obligation to take into account those tensions that others in other chambers elsewhere in this country have to deal with as well. We have to recognize that at the end of the day, whether it be constitutional amendments that will be debated in the future -- because clearly this is not a constitutional amendment. . . . When we analyze the constitutional laws that govern us today, we have to recognize that they are indeed the product of compromise. Compromise sometimes means that you have to swallow a bit in order to move forward.

When we get to that time, as we inevitably will, and to that day when a package is put before British Columbians, we in this chamber should consider it our responsibility to recognize that it is the product of compromise. It is the product of recognizing that other provinces, like ourselves, have pressures, tensions and challenges. Sometimes it is not easy, if not at all possible, to reconciliate those during the course of constitutional dialogue -- one province to another, one level of government to another. Our obligation is to go out to British Columbians and not to build on divisions but to put forward an argument that the amendments that have flowed from the Calgary declaration are really amendments that will build upon the successes that this country enjoys.

I've witnessed this debate, and I've enjoyed it over the last 11 or 12 years that I've been in this chamber. I've been a part of the negotiations; I've been part of the controversy. I've been part of the sell around the constitution. There's no doubt in my mind that today in Canada, we are far closer to being able to achieve those accommodations that are necessary for constitutional renewal than we have ever been before. The temperature has been lowered. Some of the events in Quebec -- be they economic, in terms of the economic situation in which that province finds itself, or be they political, in terms of some of the changes that are occurring with Mr. Charest -- have created a climate, I think, where we can clearly bring about some type of constitutional resolution. I think there is an attitude amongst other provinces, including British Columbia, which recognizes that there is little value in constantly going after one another for the sake of appealing to political interests at home. There's little value in doing that when you are trying to build a constitution.

I firmly believe that if you take a look at the kind of response and reaction that was received by those who repre-

[ Page 7891 ]

sented this province and travelled around, if you take a look at the desire that Canadians have for putting this debate behind us and achieving consensus, if you take a look at the kind of reaction provided to the Premiers once they executed the Calgary declaration and the kind of response that has occurred since the day the declaration was signed, and if you take a look at where we are today, I think it's quite possible for us to arrive at a constitutional arrangement. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if we could show once again the rest of the world that we're capable of ironing out our differences and resolving those things that may divide us -- through debate and dialogue, without weaponry or aggression, and with thought, rationality, compromise and consensus? Wouldn't that allow us to build upon what we've been able to create as Canadians? Wouldn't that allow us to maintain the kind of position that we have in the eyes of others around the world?

Since my time is up, let me end by saying that if we choose, in the course of this debate, to recognize that a constitution is built upon consensus and accommodation, and if we choose not to lose sight of who we are and what we are to the rest of the world, there's no doubt in my mind that this debate will have played its appropriate role in leading us to constitutional renewal, which is long overdue in Canada.

[4:15]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in this debate on the Calgary declaration. Certainly it's an honour for me to make a brief contribution to the debate and to express support -- as my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has done -- for the declaration that is the subject of our debate today.

The declaration certainly deserves support, I think, because it offers a strong statement about the nature of the Canadian federation. What this declaration does that will be most useful in the future is underline certain values that are shared among British Columbians and certainly among Canadians. Hopefully, this debate -- and hopefully, the declaration that comes out of the debate in this Legislature -- will be a positive and constructive step for British Columbia. Hopefully, it will be a positive and constructive step for Canada as well.

Canada and British Columbia, as part of Canada, certainly face challenges in the future. There is no question about that. I hope that this declaration will be of some assistance to British Columbia and Canada in helping to resolve some of those challenges as they continue to be faced in the future. Canada, as everyone knows, is a very large, very diverse and very dynamic nation. As a consequence of those things, Canada faces persistent demands for change in its constitutional arrangements, in the way in which the federation operates.

Canada is a great nation, as others have noted. This is acknowledged by the United Nations and, I guess, by most of the world. I think that we can, despite the challenges that we face, move forward as a nation as we enter the twenty-first century. What the Calgary declaration offers is a very constructive and very positive message on the nature of our federation. It offers a framework for future change as well. This declaration, as others have noted, is not about constitutional amendment. The preamble to the resolution we're discussing makes it very clear that it's not a constitutional amendment and that certainly, if at some future point we are able to achieve some tentative constitutional agreement, by law it must be approved by the citizens of British Columbia in a referendum.

The Calgary declaration, as everyone knows, is also at times referred to as the Calgary framework. This may be appropriate, because I think that it offers a framework for the renewal of the Canadian federation. Undoubtedly, at some future point -- ten, 20, or 30 years from now -- historians will look back on the debates in this chamber, in the Canadian Parliament and in the other nine legislative chambers across Canada and form some conclusions about what impact the Calgary declaration had on the subsequent course of events. Hopefully, what we will see from those historians, decades hence, is that the Calgary declaration was an important step in the renewal of the Canadian federation.

The Leader of the Opposition made some very compelling points in his address. One that particularly struck me was that to move ahead, as a province and as a nation, we have to take account of the interests and concerns of the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada -- not the interests and concerns of governments in Canada. I think that this is a new way of looking at this issue in British Columbia and in Canada. In the past, certainly in recent constitutional rounds, the focus has very much been on what governments want, what their interests and concerns are, what changes governments were seeking, rather than, more importantly, on the issues and concerns, the hopes and fears, of ordinary British Columbians and Canadians. Hopefully, with this resolution and with this declaration, we are seeing some change with respect to that issue.

I noted with interest in this morning's Globe and Mail a column by Gordon Gibson, who had some similar things to say about this issue from the perspective of Quebec, where he had visited recently. I just want to quote briefly from his discussion of what he terms "a sea change" in the politics of the province of Quebec: "But the world has changed. For whatever reason -- perhaps a crystallized weariness with negativism, with looking inward and back, with apparently endless sacrifice -- there is a new politics in Quebec. It is the politics of hope, of rebuilding and of improving ordinary lives rather than focusing on the state." I think that is what the Leader of the Opposition and others have tried to say in this chamber today as well -- that it's important that we look again at what the people's aspirations are, rather than at the aspirations of government.

The Calgary declaration, as others have noted, was a product of a meeting of the Premiers -- nine Premiers, excluding Quebec -- and the territorial leaders last September in Calgary. Most importantly, the product of that meeting was a statement of seven principles, which I'll refer to a little bit more extensively later on.

Just as importantly, the Premiers, when they met in Calgary, committed to a process which would be undertaken and completed before the declaration was debated in the legislative assemblies. They committed to consult with citizens to ascertain their views on the statement of principles contained in the Calgary declaration. I think this, while perhaps almost taken for granted today, is an important step. It's something which has not always been the case in Canada -- that we listen very carefully to the people before moving on issues of this sort. Indeed we saw, particularly in the Meech round, widespread public concern that it was governments that were entirely driving a process and that people were not being given an opportunity to listen or to state their views about where the governments were going on that particular constitutional round. I think what we've seen over the past few months is certainly a great improvement in process.

The mechanism which the Premier chose for consulting with British Columbians was, of course, the Unity Panel. As my colleague for Richmond-Steveston did in the Legislature

[ Page 7892 ]

the other day, I think obviously we need to salute the British Columbians who served on that panel, and I think we also need to salute the many British Columbians who took the time and effort to make their views known to the Unity Panel.

The Liberal opposition, I think it's fair to say, had a number of concerns about the process prior to it being undertaken. Certainly we wanted to be assured that the panel would be independent from government. We wanted to ensure that the panel would operate openly and that the panel would respect the views of all British Columbians who made representations to it. Upon being satisfied that indeed the panel would be operating in that manner, B.C. Liberals agreed to participate on the panel and have assisted in the work that is before us today.

The goal of the panel, of course, was to listen to British Columbians. The consultation process that was involved with the Unity Panel was an extensive one. Public hearings, polling, brochures and questionnaires, a 1-800 number and other innovations we're used to try to get a firm handle on what British Columbians were thinking about the seven principles that were contained in the Calgary declaration. We're satisfied, as well, that the Unity Panel's report of February 12, 1998, accurately summarizes what the panel heard from British Columbians.

One of the two primary things which the Unity Panel heard from British Columbians was that they feel very passionately about Canada. I guess this is no surprise. British Columbians, despite occasional suggestions that we may be independent in nature and disposed to looking at Canada in a different way, when push comes to shove -- bottom line -- feel very passionately about being Canadians. The second thing the panel concluded was that British Columbians in large measure support the Calgary declaration.

Given that there was strong approval for the seven principles contained in the Calgary declaration, we certainly view it as appropriate that the opposition, and indeed all members of the House, support this resolution which gives voice to the people of British Columbia through the report of the Unity Panel.

I think it's important, as well, that British Columbians are not the only ones that are saying this. Hopefully, if not at the end of today then in the very near future, all the other legislatures in Canada -- excluding Quebec, I guess -- will have offered the same expression as well. As we noted earlier, the seven principles are ones which are very important in terms of defining who we are as Canadians and what we might look for in the future character of the Canadian nation. Our passage of this resolution today is going to send a strong message to other Canadians about British Columbia's views on Canada, and I will certainly look forward to seeing other Canadian provinces do the same as well.

What does the Calgary declaration offer in terms of principles? Most importantly, it has some very strong things to say about equality -- obviously something that British Columbians and Canadians feel very passionately about. For example, the first principle enunciated in the declaration is: "All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law." This is something, again, which Canadians feel very strongly, very passionately about: all Canadians are equal. This is something that is a product of our history, as well as our current views.

Secondly: "All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status." Again, this is a theme that has been around for a while, and it's a very important one, given some of the discussions which have moved towards things like asymmetrical federalism and so on. Principle No. 2 affirms that all provinces have equality of status.

Linked to it is point No. 6: "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces." Again, in combination with the second principle, this is a powerful expression of how British Columbians and Canadians see the future developing with respect to our federation and federalism.

The third principle outlined is: "Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world." Certainly true.

[4:30]

No. 4: "Canada's diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world." I know that over the past 20 or 30 years, we have long struggled with a way to express some of the sentiments contained in principle No. 4, and I think it is as concise a statement of Canada's diversity as I have seen.

Other principles are very important as well. I'll just note the seventh: "Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial, and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. Canadians want their governments to work co-operatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation." Again, this goes back to the point that government doesn't exist for itself; government exists to serve the people of British Columbia and of Canada. The concerns, interests, hopes and fears of ordinary British Columbians and ordinary Canadians should be at the top of the list in consideration of any changes to the Canadian federal system.

In conclusion, I do want to say that there have been three additions to the resolution that we have before us today -- three additions to the seven principles which were contained in the Calgary declaration. I think my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has certainly adequately canvassed the content of those three. It is important to note, though, that probably if everyone in British Columbia were asked, or if all of the concerns that were raised before the Unity Panel were listed, there would be many, many more than three additions to the list. I think what we need to be careful of here is that we should not repeat what occurred with the Charlottetown accord, where, as the process developed, they attempted to address a hundred different concerns in the accord. As a consequence, in the end it became far too complex and overwhelming. Senate reform and many other things that have been mentioned by other members might be added to the list too. I think we should go to the heart of the resolution before us today, which is the seven principles of the Calgary declaration. Recognizing that it's our role here in this chamber to give voice to the views of British Columbians, I certainly want to again express my support for this resolution as reflected in the support for it by British Columbians during the Unity Panel process.

Again, as has been said by the Leader of the Official Opposition, much more needs to be done in the future, but hopefully, this is a very positive first step towards a renewal of the Canadian federation. It's an important step which hopefully will bring us closer to resolution of issues that have troubled this federation for decades. Hopefully, hon. Speaker, this provides us with an opportunity for renewal, which is contained here today.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the motion on the Unity Panel as it relates to the Calgary declaration.

[ Page 7893 ]

Last fall -- in fact, in September -- nine Premiers and two territorial leaders met and spent some time going over how they would put forward some type of resolution to try and deal with issues that are happening in this great country we call Canada. Collectively, that group came up with seven statements in regard to Canada and to what they deemed we should be doing and talking about to make sure that this great country of ours stays as a country -- one that we all love and one that is cherished worldwide by people as one to actually become citizens of.

I had the pleasure of serving on that committee as one of the two MLAs from this side of the House, along with 12 citizens and eight other elected officials, both federal and provincial. The committee was co-chaired by Alice McQuade and Jake Kerr, whom I would like to thank at this present time for their diligent work in trying to work with all of us to bring resolution to how we were going to deal with the issue, where we were going to travel to and how we were going to go about getting input from British Columbian citizens.

Also, I would like to thank the 12 citizens who served on this panel. We travelled around the province to a number of different destinations. We spent many hours debating resolutions, debating brochures and those kinds of things. I'm sure that at times they must have thought: it's no wonder nothing seems to get done in parliament, because all these folks want to do is sit around and argue about whether the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. But I think it was very important that we did that, that we had to go into it as the official opposition and be comfortable with what we were dealing with when we went out and talked to the people in British Columbia. I was also honoured to serve, early in this government's mandate, with quite a number of other MLAs when we travelled the province and listened to people talk about the Charlottetown accord. I'm not going to say too much about the Charlottetown accord, other than that it was an interesting process for me and actually quite a learning curve, having never participated in a committee that travelled across the province listening to the diverse opinions of people.

As I remember the Charlottetown accord -- and also the Unity Panel just recently -- when we travelled around the country, there were, as I said, diverse opinions. But I will say -- and in fact it has been proven by the polling results -- that people are very passionate about their country, very passionate about British Columbia as part of this country and very passionate that all ten provinces and two territories remain together so that we can continue to have and enjoy this great country that we call Canada. The committee did some polling later on about the Calgary declaration and the seven statements in it. In fact, we went through a mail strike where we tried to mail brochures out and get responses before the deadline. I'm sure that some of the responses from people across the province didn't reach us in time, but they were still taken into account.

The interesting part that I recall, in reading some of the polling results after actually travelling around the province, was that when people were first asked if they generally supported or opposed the Calgary declaration, 49 percent said they supported it. That was just the question -- cold, to people. Thirteen percent said they opposed it, and 38 percent had no opinion on it. Almost as many people said they had no opinion as said they supported it. When the seven principles and what we were trying to do in British Columbia were read out to the people, it was interesting that the support jumped to about 80 percent in favour of the Calgary declaration. In fact, about 60 percent agreed that this Legislature should unanimously pass a resolution supporting these seven statements.

That told me that I could be very comfortable with supporting the seven statements, although when you read the statements and you listen to the people that I listened to -- I didn't attend all the public hearings, but I attended as many as I could -- there was diverse opinion. I guess that diverse opinion was also there when we went around on the Charlottetown accord. What became evident to me was that many of those people who came to discuss the Calgary declaration were the same people who came to the public meetings to discuss the Charlottetown accord. But when we went out to general public polling and asking questions -- because not everyone can attend these meetings, wherever they're held -- the public was generally enthusiastic about the Calgary declaration and said they would like to see it passed.

I listened briefly to some comments by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin as he talked about this great country, about how we should be able to put our differences aside and stand together to look seriously at these issues and keep this great country of ours together. I agree with the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin on that statement. I think it's very important that we do. We can have our differences of opinion at different times, but I think this is a time when we should show a leadership role -- especially in British Columbia -- to many of the other provinces in Canada. We should stand together and united in supporting the Calgary declaration and give that voice to our federal Parliament, so that other peoples in this great country can feel comfortable that British Columbia is part of the federation and is committed to the federation.

The interesting part that came to me as we travelled around. . . . Maybe I should back up a little bit. First of all, I represent a constituency in northern British Columbia which many times feels left out of the major decision-making that takes place in Victoria and very much left out of the decision-making that takes place in Ottawa. For a long time in debating in this House, I thought that I was maybe one of the very few who felt that way, because I didn't hear from too many other MLAs that they felt that the areas they represented were left out of the decision-making and that they should be part of it -- and an important part of it.

[4:45]

It was interesting to note, when I travelled around and also in the polling, that British Columbians on the whole -- the whole province -- feel strongly. They told the panel they want the province to have more influence in Canada. In fact, the survey found that 43 percent of those polled say that B.C. receives less than its fair share of federal funding in transfers, and 69 percent agreed that B.C. has less than its fair share of influence on important national decisions.

I found that interesting, because where I come from, that's always the case. People in my constituency -- or, I think I can comfortably say, in the whole northeast, the part of British Columbia that lies east of the Rockies -- many times feel that way about decisions that are made here in Victoria. When the panel went to Fort St. John and listened to people, I think they found that out and that I wasn't just standing here in debate saying we weren't part of it. People there were very forceful in telling the panel that we didn't have a great enough say in what was going on in our province, let alone in our country.

Just before I leave that subject, we went to a high school in Fort St. John and listened to students in grades 11 and 12 talking about national unity and the Calgary declaration and what they felt about Canada. It was interesting to note that the students felt that it was very important that we make every effort to keep Canada together. That was their utmost concern.

[ Page 7894 ]

Secondly, they asked very clearly that we not give away the farm when we do that, and I thought that was very convincing, coming from grade 11 and 12 students. They were aware enough that things which had happened in the past almost demonstrated to them that people were so hep on keeping Canada together that they'd do almost anything to have that happen, but they also sincerely felt left out of the process of making decisions and receiving what they call their fair share in the northeast.

The B.C. Liberal caucus, as has been stated by a number of speakers before me, certainly supports the Unity Panel's findings and recommendations on the Calgary declaration, and also the three further principles that are attached to the Calgary declaration. Actually, we were just made aware of what they would be just a short time ago. I want to say that I support those three principles, but I want to read them into the record and speak a little bit about them.

The first one says: "British Columbia supports national standards for health care and believes that these standards are best set co-operatively by the federal government with the provinces." That's a fair statement to make, and I would like to see that happen. I don't think I take issue with any part of that. I believe that when we think about health care in Canada as we know it, all too often we take it for granted. Others have said that if you travel around the world, you realize all of a sudden how important health care is to us. I'm getting a little older, but not too old. Getting closer to that time when we need our health care system more and more all the time, it becomes all that more important to me.

When we think about our health care system, we know that we wouldn't have the system that we have. . . . Even though it has some flaws, let me tell you that most countries in the world would love to have our health care system. When we think about it really seriously, if Canada were to break up, if the country were to disintegrate -- with Quebec leaving, let's say -- we wouldn't have a health care system. We'd be back to the system that many other countries face, and that's where you have to be very wealthy to be able to afford full health care. I think that even though we talk once in a while about health care and its failings in Canada and in British Columbia, each one of us should think seriously about what we'd have if we didn't have Canada as a country. To me, that's very important.

The second principle that's added on says: "That British Columbia supports the federal government's equalization program and believes that for other federal transfers for health, education, and social programs, provinces should receive the same level of federal funding per person." Again, that goes to the heart of Canada: our health system, and our education and social programs. That statement is sometimes is a lot easier to say, I guess, than to actually fulfil. At the same time as I went around the province, British Columbians were telling me -- not just on the Unity Panel but also at other times when I've been around the province listening to people -- that we have to get our financial house in order. I know it's very easy to say, "Let's have all this equalized funding," and then in the next breath, to tell everyone that we have to get out fiscal house in order. Sometimes those two things are a little difficult to do. It's something that we can ask for, something that we can hope for, but I'm not sure that we can realistically think that in a country with a debt of $585 billion -- something to that extent -- just federally, we can expect some of these things.

The third one is: "That British Columbia believes that provinces should be able to assume greater responsibility in areas that are important to them, such as fisheries in the case of British Columbia." I certainly have gone on record as saying that in British Columbia we should be taking greater charge over our fisheries -- in fact, if not greater charge, then total charge of it. That might be stepping a bit too far, but we should look at it more closely. Probably, in all fairness, No. 3 is there because of the issues of the day that are going on right now with fisheries and the differences between the federal and provincial governments as they relate to the fisheries. We have many other things in the province that are actually controlled by the federal government, which we could just as easily put in this declaration as a principle and which we would like to have more control over.

Having said those few words, I can stand here as part of the panel that went around and listened to British Columbians talk about their country, talk about their province, talk passionately about both and about their support for the Calgary declaration. I also wholeheartedly support the Calgary declaration as it is put forward in the motion. But I want to add a bit of caution to that, because as I go around and talk to people in the coffee shops or wherever in the province I happen to go, the constitution or the Calgary declaration, or whatever, is not the topic. It's not the thing that's being discussed all the time by people. It demonstrates to me that people probably have greater concern for other things that are going on in their lives, such as being able to have a permanent job, making a living, supporting their families and raising their children in a safe environment. Those are probably uppermost in everyone's mind. It's no different if I'm in downtown Vancouver or downtown Fort St. John or downtown Quesnel. People in British Columbia, especially today, have a certain fear that the economy is in a state that they may not be able to keep a job or enjoy the benefits that they have.

So with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. I thank you for the opportunity to convey a few of the issues that I see as important and that came forward in the short time that the Unity Panel. . . . In fact, it was very short, very compressed time frame to be able to deal with some of these issues and to try to get resolution back to this House. In that short time I tried to listen as closely as I could and bring forward some of the issues that people talked to me about while I was on the panel.

Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to speak in a debate that the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast called an important and historic debate. I think it is because what we do in this House today will affect, in many ways, what the future of Canada will be.

I apologize to some members. I was here at the beginning of the debate but I had to go out for something and now I'm back. So I missed the speech of my friend across the way, but I've heard from Esquimalt-Metchosin, and I did catch the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. If I might say, I thought at the beginning of the debate that there was a lack of passion in the debate. We're talking, oh yeah, a little bit about the debt, as the hon. member spoke about, a little bit about the problem of jobs, which we know is a problem in the country, a problem of communicating -- various problems that you could point to.

But we're really talking about the future of Canada. We almost lost this country. We almost lost this country on the referendum night; it was hanging in the balance. Everything that generations had worked to create -- a unique country in North America, a unique country in the world with a system of federalism that is arguably the best in the world, a country

[ Page 7895 ]

that can lead on to the twenty-first century -- was almost lost. We'd better make sure that it doesn't happen again. That's what the people were telling us.

We did some polls on the Calgary declaration, for which I had the honour of being part of the committee. One of the questions was: How important do you think it is to keep Quebec in Canada? Is it very important, somewhat important, not very important or not at all important? And 90 percent of British Columbians -- and it cut across where they lived in the province, cut across class, gender and background -- said that it was very important or somewhat important, and 10 percent said that it was not very important or not at all important. So the people are there when it comes to national unity. Yes, they identify issues, such as jobs, the economy and other issues, as important to them and their families. But they, as Canadians, residents of British Columbia, as W.A.C. Bennett used to say, recognized that this was really important, so I want to speak to that today.

[5:00]

The Leader of the Opposition said in his speech -- and I welcome the fact that the opposition is supporting the resolution -- that this is a motion to start us on a process, and we'll hear some voices, he said. Compare that to the kinds of leaders in the past. I know that the Leader of the Opposition also said: "Well, you know" -- he's talking about equality -- "the people don't like politicians on this, and it is the people that are leading and not the politicians." This country and this system was created by some very courageous politicians who were prepared to stand up.

I want to quote one particular politician, one of my heroes, who said this 101 years ago, at the diamond jubilee of the empire: "If there is anything to which I have devoted my political life, it is to try to promote unity, harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country. My friends can desert me; they can remove their confidence from me; they can withdraw the trust they have placed in my hands, but never shall I deviate from that line of policy."

That was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking about Canada and about his lifetime goal of reconciling the two solitudes in Canada. That kind of leadership is so much called upon today. I think that's what the provincial Premiers were trying, in their own way, to do in Calgary -- trying to get a system for the future so that they could unite the legitimate aspirations of Quebec and the feelings of the rest of the country.

There is another part of the poll that I would like to quote from. It said: "In the Calgary declaration, the Premiers agreed to a number of principles as the basis for a discussion." Here are some of the principles. "Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following: All of the provinces have equal status." Well, about 87 percent of the people agreed. So that's the argument on equality. Then they also said: "The unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority and culture, is fundamental to the well-being of Canada." And 62 percent of the people agreed with that.

So here you have people in British Columbia who are smart enough to understand that we have this debate on the equality of provinces, where Quebec is saying: "Well, we're a bit special because we have an uniqueness." It's been defined in various ways: nationhood, special status, a distinct society -- une société distincte -- and so on. But the words "unique character" were there, and the big majority of people in British Columbia were able to recognize that.

I think I'm permitted to say a few words in French with respect to this matter.

C'est très important, Mme l'Orateur, parce qu'il y a un sondage ici qui est très important pour les québécois et les québécoises pour comprendre que les citoyens et les citoyennes de la Colombie-Britannique ont les mêmes vues que les québécois. Par exemple, dans ce sondage la question était: "Le caractère unique de la société du Québec, qui inclue la majorité qui parle français et la culture qui est française, est fondamental à la bien-être du Canada." The unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority and culture is fundamental to the well-being of Canada. Soixante-deux pour cent ont dit "oui" à ça -- 62 pour cent des citoyens de la Colombie-Britannique. Pour moi, c'est incroyable pour l'avenir de ce pays. For me, it's really important. . . .

[The Speaker in the chair.]

For me, it's really important for the future of this country that we had that strong affirmation.

Madam Speaker, they were also asked: "The government of Quebec has a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society." And 69 percent acknowledged that. That's what Gordon Gibson was writing about in the Globe and Mail today. He was saying that this debate, this resolution -- contrary to what some of the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition have said about the timing -- comes at a critical time for British Columbia. It says to Quebec -- and to the debate between Jean Charest, the new leader of the Quebec Liberals, and Premier Lucien Bouchard of Quebec that's going to go on there as to the next provincial election, the next referendum -- and Quebeckers that people even as far west as British Columbia are open to constitutional change, open to listening to them and open to recognizing that they have a unique place in the country with the French culture, the French language, the civil law system and their way of looking at things. I think that's pretty important right now.

The last question was: "Any new power given to one province must be available to others." There was overwhelming support for that.

So this is a fine line the Premiers had to walk at Calgary. It's almost, as I had said before -- I didn't think they could do it, but I think they have -- as if they've put a square peg in a round hole. In other words, they had to somehow bring together the view that all provinces must be equal, which is held pretty fundamentally by English-speaking Canadians and others, versus a Quebec view of: "Well, there's Quebec and there's the rest of Canada." I think they've done it. That's why it's an important resolution and well worthy of support, and I'm glad the House is supporting it today.

Now, in his speech the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations talked about an open framework to allow BCers to provide their own values, to renew the federation and a sense of history. I was struck by the phrase: "a sense of history." I've been very lucky to experience some of that history myself. I was there in the House of Commons in 1981 when we had the debates over repatriation of the constitution. It was -- if I can use the word -- a unique time, because it was a majority Liberal government led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau as Prime Minister, with virtually no seats in western Canada, west of Manitoba. As a federal member of the New Democratic Party, representing a big point of view in western Canada. . . . We had a stronger voice at the time than one would normally have thought. As a matter of fact, I just read in a book that Trudeau had offered Broadbent, who was then the leader of

[ Page 7896 ]

the federal NDP, some cabinet positions. I didn't know that at the time; I might have been in the cabinet then. But it was a unique time.

We in the western NDP -- I'll call it that -- and also our colleagues from the east were able to put forward three or four areas where we wanted to see some action. The first one was amending the western energy. . . . There's a provision in the constitution which gives the provinces a little bit more power to control energy and resources. That was put in there to help western Canada in particular.

Secondly, there was a women's rights amendment put in there. When I see what's happening with the Ministry of Women's Equality here in the province ten or 15 years later, I can appreciate. . . . You know, the late Pauline Jewett must be very happy that some of her work came to some good ends. There was also an amendment on aboriginal rights, and that amendment we're seeing played out every day in British Columbia. We haven't seen the end of that. I'm hoping that we will see constitutional change via new treaties in British Columbia that will lead the way to a more just Canada.

Finally, the western NDP caucus was always a supporter of strong national social programs. That element is reflected in the resolution the government has brought forward today on the Calgary resolution. It talks about national social programs and national standards, and that was very important.

I saw Meech come and open up the can of worms that became the difficulties that we had around Meech. I was on the Charest committee. I saw the time when Lucien Bouchard walked out -- it was very dramatic -- and split with Jean Charest; obviously there's a second round coming up. I sat on the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee, which ultimately ended up in Charlottetown. We travelled the country. Some of the resolutions failed because, I think, there were too many constitutional items put in it. It got too complicated, and it got away from the people.

One of the things I noticed in the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee hearings, which went right across the country. . . . They were House of Commons and Senate committee hearings -- a joint committee. The government of the day was pushing free trade amongst the provinces as one of their big agenda items, but everywhere we went -- starting in Newfoundland and going right across the country -- people kept talking about medicare. They kept talking about social programs; they kept talking about national standards as part of being Canadian. They thought that was the constitution. That's why it's important to have that in this resolution here today. The fact is that we do have a national medicare act in which we don't have user fees. We have portability and other provisions in there that people like. They see that as important to them and to their sense of being Canadian.

I'd like to quote from another. . . . I'm quoting from Liberal Prime Ministers here today, but I think this is really important.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: I could quote from some New Democrats too -- not Prime Ministers but Premiers.

It goes back to Frank Scott and David Lewis, reflected later by Audrey McLaughlin. That is the genesis for having a people's constitutional forum. That's why this forum that went around was unique: it had politicians and ordinary people. As a member of that committee, I want to congratulate the extraordinary ordinary citizens that were on the committee, because they performed very well, and they didn't take a back seat to the politicians. They were articulate, and they were outspoken. It was very helpful to me.

I talked about those polls earlier, when. . . . A fellow on the committee was a businessman. He had looked after A&W root beer franchises. He said: "Boy, if I had market surveys like this, I would move ahead." They were fantastic. As I said in French earlier, I was struck by how strong these polls were. B.C. is not a province of rednecks; B.C. is quite a liberal province.

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: Small-l. My friends are, of course, becoming more rednecked as the days go by. But the province, in its constitutional attitudes, is quite a small-l liberal province.

There's something else going on out there which I'd like to talk about, hon. Speaker. The beautiful thing about Canada is that as we live, we are living history; we are shaping the history. I'm not that old. I'm getting older, but I'm not that old. In my lifetime I actually saw constitutional amendments, repatriating a constitution, creating a country. That is very exciting. You don't do that in the United States. You might do it in some other places, I guess -- in South Africa and countries like that right now, where they're creating a new country. We've been doing that in Canada, and it's been going on federally and provincially.

I was going to, and will, quote another prime minister: Lester B. Pearson. I think Pearson got it right. He talked about cooperative federalism. I quote him from February 20, 1964, on page 64 of Hansard.

"The solution, on the essential foundation which I have mentioned, to our problems must be found in what we call cooperative federalism. That means to me that the federal government must of course always seek the approval of provincial governments, when that is necessary under our constitution, before decisions are made." Listen, Mr. David Anderson: federally, you've got to talk to the provinces when you're making certain decisions that affect them.

Pearson says: "That is obvious. But there must also be consultation on matters which, while within the jurisdiction of the federal government, are shared constitutionally with provincial governments, or are of such great and immediate importance to provincial governments that, for good results, provincial support and cooperation must be obtained." Pearson could be talking about the fisheries. He was a diplomat and won the Nobel prize. We need more diplomacy between the parties dealing with federal-provincial relations.

I also want to say something -- I touched on this earlier -- about people creating Canada and about politicians putting their necks out. You know, when medicare was created -- which we all love; the member across the way talked about medicare -- it was people like Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd who put their necks out and got 'em chopped off to get it. It was through struggle that we got these social programs, and we need a lot of struggle to keep them.

[5:15]

One of the interesting characters of Canadian history was Henri Bourassa. Henri Bourassa was the fiery nationalist. He's an example of someone, from a provincial viewpoint, that also contributed to Canada. When I was in Ottawa, I felt that Peter Lougheed contributed to Canada, because he had an articulate point of view from a provincial interest. He was well

[ Page 7897 ]

briefed. I didn't agree with him all the time; he was a Conservative. But he knew what he was talking about, and he got things for Alberta.

We could learn from that as we operate. Whatever flavour the government of the day is in British Columbia, we could be informed, know what we want and work together to get it when we're tackling Ottawa. In return, we ask Ottawa to practise cooperative federalism. That's how Canada should work for the provinces.

Bourassa said this. In Tom Berger's book Fragile Freedoms, he talks about Bourassa. He described his vision of a bilingual, bicultural Canada, an Anglo-French nation from sea to sea. He's talking about Quebeckers. He said:

"We deserve better than to be considered like the savages of the old reservations and to be told: 'Remain in Quebec, continue to stagnate in ignorance, you are at home there; but elsewhere you must become English.' No, we have the right to be French in language; we have the right to be Catholics in faith; we have the right to be free by the constitution. . . [and we have the right] to enjoy these rights throughout the whole expanse of Confederation."

In a sense, the real founder of bilingualism and biculturalism is Henri Bourassa, which goes through to Pierre Trudeau. It's a very interesting development in Canada, because Canadians must feel equal and at home throughout Canada. That's what equality is really about, that's what it means constitutionally, and that's how you keep French and English together. We are so lucky that we now have a multicultural country. It's like a cake. We have the first nations at the base of the cake, we have the French and the English -- these great societies that we've built -- and now we have a multicultural society on top of it.

I missed the speech by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, but I bet that he talked about how the new immigrants to Canada had become Canadians and opened up Canada in a new way. We should be happy. We have succeeded in creating a federalism that's unique in the world and will lead the world to the twenty-first century. It's not easy; we've got problems. The Senate is dysfunctional in Canada. Look at the big issues: hepatitis C and the way the provinces and the feds are not working together very well right now. But we can get over those problems. We should remember the words of Bourassa: "To be at home anywhere in Canada." That's what the Calgary resolution is really about, and that is the message to Quebec.

I just want to conclude by reading a letter from one of my constituents. I'll just say his first name. His first name is Michael; I'll call him Mike.

"Dear Mr. Waddell:

"My name is Mike. I became a citizen of Canada in 1968, and I'd like to tell you that I consider Canada as one of the greatest countries in the world to live. One of the reasons for this is because of its social systems. I rely on doctors and psychiatrists and a counsellor to keep stable and happy. You see, I have a mental illness. Without their help, my medication wouldn't be right and I would be in an institution or out on the street or a burden to my parents and friends.

"I'm very proud to tell you that I work four days a week as a helicopter component overall technician. I make very good money, and I pay a great deal in taxes.

"I'm telling you this because I want to keep a good health care system in Canada. Canada is known throughout the world as a country that is proud of its citizens and cares, and I'm proud to be a part of it.

"Please help to keep that pride alive in me and others."

That's a nice letter. That's part of being a Canadian, that's part of what Canada is about and that's why we need to keep these standards.

I think I've said all I wanted to in this debate. This is a continuing debate, and I'm really pleased that we're having this debate in the House. I wish we had more of them. I want to say that I've listened very carefully to what some of the members said, and I hope that I've been able to contribute a little bit through my past experience in the parliamentary system.

V. Anderson: It's a privilege to be able to rise today and speak for a few minutes on the resolution which is now before us -- namely: "That this Legislative Assembly endorse the principles of the Calgary Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity as follows." Then there are seven principles that are part of the Calgary declaration, plus three other principles which have been presented as part of this resolution.

What I'd like to focus on today for a few minutes is not necessarily the debate or the discussion, because we're having a discussion here today with a great deal of agreement, one with the other. In a sense, my thoughts about this go back to the concerns of my father as a pioneer in this country, sharing and growing and helping the small towns across the prairies grow and develop and be part of that discussion. I go back to a time in university when Norman Ward, an acclaimed professor of political science, talked about the liberal democracy that we had in Canada. At that time he talked about the CCF as being small-l liberals, as the member for Vancouver-Fraserview referred to them today.

One of the realities that the people across Canada see and face is that we are also a very mobile community of people, and that's one of the realities of Canada that we prize. In my own background, I have family relationships that come from Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where we now live. I'm very much aware of our young people as they grow. They develop their education, and they go across Canada for educational training and experience. I'm very much aware that the men and women in Canada move back and forth across Canada for employment and opportunities and to care for family and look after each other.

One of realities of the provinces and territories of Canada is that we do have the privilege of moving about freely when and where we choose. We can live in one place for a time and in another for a time. My daughter went and lived in Quebec for a time and delighted in the opportunity. She would love to go back there. She found her husband there, and that was an added bonus. His first language was French. She taught him to speak with signing, and they got along well with each other.

They share -- but this is the kind of country in which we live. We are intermarrying and sharing with all of the different backgrounds. At one time we thought we could never share, live together and maintain ourselves. Yet when we're discussing the Calgary declaration and the principles of it, what we're sharing in reality is the everyday experience of the people of this country, who have freedom to move about and to share with others their culture, their religious faith and their historical experiences and to learn from others their culture, their historical faith and share their experiences and their vitality.

We have the principles here, and they simply want to remind us, if you like, of the kind of historical experience that we know here in Canada. We've never really fought an overall civil war within Canada. We've had our skirmishes. We had the Riel rebellion. We've had our challenges to learn to live together, and we're still struggling to do that. That's part of declaring, of reminding ourselves of the principles that are set forth within this declaration -- principles of equality, which also has to be worked out with equity. Though the word's not there, the symbolism is there.

[ Page 7898 ]

We are a diverse country in geography, in history, in culture and in every way. We are a country that wants to maintain that diversity. We want to take the strength of that diversity and, with each other, weld it together so that we're stronger together than we are separately. It's kind of like the diversity in a family where each member is very different. It's as if their differences and strengths are brought together, so that there is unity and harmony within the family. Yet every family has its arguments and its discussions and its disagreements, as we do among our provinces and territories.

What we're saying here is that there's more that holds us together than takes us apart. We're saying, as we did when we welcomed Newfoundland into Confederation, that they had something unique and precious to offer us. I've not had the privilege of visiting there yet, although I've visited most other places in Canada. But I do remember one of the graduates of the theological college who went to Newfoundland not because he chose it initially but because he was sent there for a mission. His comment was: "It's one thing to talk about the last generation's history, and it's another thing to live it."

But when he came to appreciate the language of the people and to understand the devotion, faith and strength of the people, he decided to stay and become a part of that land. So it is with Newfoundland and the Maritimes: they all have their own special contribution to make. One of the realities that we're mentioning here is that this is true of all of Canada. We're saying quite honestly and openly that there are qualities of the culture and history and background of Quebec that also need to be part of our Canadian scene, because they're inherent in all of Canada. They're not only inherent in Quebec; they're inherent across Canada itself.

That, hon. Speaker, was brought home to me quite clearly when I had the opportunity to serve in Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan, in the United Church, in what was a predominantly French, Roman Catholic community. I was welcomed there, and I was made at home there. One of the few French-language broadcasts in the early days was from Gravelbourg.

What we're saying here, what we're trying to describe in a formal sense, is simply what happens every day in the reality of the people of our community. As we travel as tourists, as we travel as workers, as we travel as senior citizens to be reunited with our family who have moved away from their home to another part of Canada, we come to share with them in that undertaking.

I simply want to affirm from the everyday experience of our people -- as they share with one another, as they listen to the broadcasts of CBC and our other radio stations -- that we have all inherited a culture which is Canadian. Never is it more seen or made more obvious than when you move outside of Canada when you wear the Canadian maple leaf or the Canadian flag or take it with you on your suitcase, people respond to you as Canadians -- from whatever part of the country you come. They see the uniqueness of what we are in a way that we sometimes cannot see from the inside.

So it's a privilege today to share in this discussion and to affirm with others in this Legislature that as Canadians we need each other. From every province and every corner of this land, from sea to sea to sea, we need each other. We're stronger together, and we must learn to build an even better country than we have now.

[5:30]

P. Reitsma: I too think it's a privilege to join in the debate in support of this resolution, the recommendations made by the B.C. Unity Panel, the seven principles and indeed the additional three that have been proposed as an addendum.

The Calgary framework is about a united Canada. It's about building a stronger Canada. It's about equal treatment of all Canadians: the same rights, the same opportunities. It's about all provinces having equality of status.

When we in B.C. talk about rights, equality and opportunities, do you know what they say in Quebec? "On dit la même chose, vraiment" -- it's the same thing with us in Quebec. We too want the same rights; we too want equality -- égalité -- and we too want opportunities. That's what makes Canada what it is.

This is an extremely important step forward. When I look at the seven recommendations by the B.C. Unity Panel, I look at No. 5: "In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada."

Well, Madam Speaker, so do we in B.C. The uniqueness that we have is certainly the diversity of our province. There are many, many immigrants who have come over the years -- every time a product. . . . Having come to Canada in 1970 from my native country, the Netherlands. . . . We have unique problems. We have the fisheries. We have the lighthouses that are so unique to the west coast, as they are to the east coast of Canada as well.

Slogans are not enough when we talk about the unique character of Quebec society. We are all uniquely Canadians. I had an opportunity this past weekend to talk to a number of my constituents, and concerns were brought forward. One of them was: if B.C. agrees to this, will that change the veto? Will there still be a referendum? Of course there will be. There is real concern that the unique character of Quebec society would ultimately be changed, maybe, to a distinct society -- a phrase that was thrown out, not accepted, by the residents of British Columbia. Will all Canadians be treated equally? Those are some of the concerns that were expressed. Of course, they don't want to see another form of distinct society.

No. 6 is extremely important as well. "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces." That to me is the manifestation of equality.

We noted in the Globe and Mail today that there has been a change in Quebec. The change is that it's the politics of hope now, of rebuilding and improving ordinary lives rather than focusing on the state. That is good, because I think that everyone is after the same thing, and that is a strong, united Canada. This is what the resolution is all about.

We all love our community. We love our area. We love British Columbia. But we're all Canadians from coast to coast, trying to do our best building a stronger Canada, a country all Canadians can be passionate about and proud of. As I mentioned earlier, as a proud and passionate person who came in 1970, I am one of those Canadians. Let us speak with one voice. Let's be passionate and show our loyalty to a united Canada. Let's commit ourselves to a new and better vision of Canada, where Canada is the envy of the world.

Noting the time, I move to adjourn debate until tomorrow.

[ Page 7899 ]

Motion approved.

The Speaker: We need to hear from Committee A and then the Government House Leader.

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

Hon. D. Zirnhelt moved adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 60: minister's office, $414,000 (continued).

D. Symons: I was going through the annual report for 1996-97 prior to our weekend break, and I'd like to look at pages 8 and 9, for a reference point, dealing with partnership agreements. . . . Sorry; I beg your pardon. I've covered that part; I'm doubling up here.

I know where I want to go: to pages 11 and 12. I'd like to move on to the Island Highway project for a little while. One of the interesting things set up in the Island Highway project is the YMC arrangement -- the opportunity for aboriginal people, first nations people, to learn some skills regarding roadbuilding and to have some projects to work on. I wonder what equipment the ministry may have supplied to YMC. Did the ministry acquire it? Who financed the equipment they were going to be using?

Hon. H. Lali: They bought their own equipment. We didn't supply them with any money.

D. Symons: The equipment was bought, then. They borrowed money on the market or leased on their own, and there was no input from the provincial government in one form or another.

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might give the House an idea of how many kilometres of the Island Highway were actually constructed by the YMC.

Hon. H. Lali: It was a $13.8 million project, out of the $1.2 billion VIH project. We'll have to get the other details to the hon. member later.

D. Symons: Then I'll ask a few other questions, maybe, and I'll expect the answers at a later date. When you find out the number of kilometres done, I'm wondering if we might get a cost-per-kilometre figure on that particular section of the highway. I wonder how that cost per kilometre on the YMC portion of the Island Highway might compare to other portions with similar topology.

Was there a cost-benefit analysis done on the YMC project?

Hon. H. Lali: This was an effort to provide opportunities for first nations people so that they could get involved with the construction of the Vancouver Island Highway. It's a very successful joint venture. It was made in an open-tender proposal call, and a lot of benefits were accrued by aboriginal people. I mean, there were partnerships between Ledcor, PCL and aboriginal organizations.

D. Symons: The minister is saying, then, that there were partnerships with Ledcor and PCL. Through this partnership, they would bid on a section of the highway. Is that what the minister is saying? I understand that's the case.

I have one concern, and that's the policy the ministry now seems to have when they work through the HCL -- and certainly that they've expanded to the rest of the province -- which is the concept of local hire. It would seem that what you have now is a number of trained people on Vancouver Island. If you use local hire on other highways that are not likely to be built on Vancouver Island -- because you spent a fair amount on the inland Vancouver Island Highway -- these people might be precluded from using the skills they have acquired through this YMC program elsewhere in the province because of the local-hire policy you have in other areas of the province.

Hon. H. Lali: This type of agreement has been in place for at least 30 years. Under W.A.C. Bennett, it was utilized in the construction of hydroelectricity dams. Individuals hired under local hire. . . . I want to point out that 95 percent of the people working on the Island Highway are from the Island. The people who have received work or have received training on the Island Highway can go and work on other local projects on the Island after they've received their skills.

D. Symons: My point is that there probably won't be that many projects near the size of the Island Highway project to give them the same opportunities they might have had during the construction of that highway. Through local hire, it means they will be precluded from, or will not have as great a chance of, getting jobs in other parts of the province.

I want to move on to Highway Constructors. I wonder if you will give me a little bit of background. If I go back to when the HCL agreement was signed between B.C. Road Builders and the government, there was a statement in that agreement to the effect that it would be used on the Island Highway project only. Now you have extended that to other projects around the province. Why did you extend it? I think we've had, in the arguments used over the years by the ministers before you, the argument that it was to give certainties, so we wouldn't have strikes and labour disruptions and all the rest. It's a fact that we haven't had a strike in the roadbuilding industry for over 25 years.

The other argument used with HCL had to do with the building of the Coquihalla Highway and the cost overruns in that project. I will remind this minister -- which I'm sure he's aware of, having lived at one end of the Coquihalla project -- that the cost overruns had a lot more to do with political interference and with rushing the project through in order to

[ Page 7900 ]

have sections done in time for Expo during times of the year that were inappropriate for building highways. We've had problems ever since because of that political interference. In one sense, this government has done the same thing by setting up HCL: interfering with the building of roads around the province. It's not quite as it was in the old days, when you had a straight bid process and accepted tenders, because you've skewed the market somewhat by having HCL there.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member sees it in the light of political interference. It's good policy. All major VIHP contracts have come in under estimate. It's all completely open-tender policy. Sixty percent of the contracts went to traditionally non-union contractors. The only role that HCL plays is to be able to provide some workers to the contractors.

If you look at some of the benefits accrued as a result of this, 93 percent -- I said 95 percent earlier, and I stand corrected -- of the work on the VIHP has gone to Vancouver Island residents. Local businesses benefit; there's a multiplier factor of 2.5 times. Tax dollars stay in B.C. It provides a stable labour environment. There are no labour or industrial disruptions affecting the project. The project is on schedule and on budget. The health and safety record is also better as a result of Highway Constructors Ltd. It is 38 percent better than the industry average. In 1997 HCL won the national safety award of excellence, as reported in the occupational health and safety magazine, and, again in 1997, won a safety program award from the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering.

[2:45]

The training commitment on this in terms of the workforce. . . . It trained approximately 200 people as labourers, truck drivers or equipment operators. Nearly half of them have found employment in the construction industry. Also, half of the people who took the training were on welfare before. So it's actually moving people directly off welfare and onto the employment rolls. It doesn't take away jobs from trained workers, as the allocation to training sites is an extremely small percentage of the project cost.

Also, you have to look at equity hiring. It hires from traditionally disadvantaged groups: people of colour, people with disabilities, women, aboriginal people, etc. The HCL project employs an average of around 16 percent from disadvantaged groups. It's still low, in my opinion, but if the HCL project was not in place, you wouldn't have the equity hiring as high as it has been. The average on other B.C. construction projects is 1 to 4 percent.

That's all I'll say right now.

D. Symons: I think the really telling thing was near the beginning of the minister's comments, when he commented about the number of people who came on who were not union. I believe that was near the beginning of your comments, hon. minister. I might ask, then; how many of those people, when they went off the job, were union? I think we all know the reason why they were union off the job; it's because they had to join a union to keep the job. It was a condition of employment. So HCL served that purpose of basically adding members to the unions, which this government seems to have been showing a great deal of favouritism to during its reign.

I wonder if we might just move along a little bit, then, and look at sections of the Island Highway -- since we've been talking about it at various times. The area that I'm concerned about deals with the connectors and so forth that are going in in the Campbell River area. There seems to be a lot of controversy going on with the people up in that particular area -- whether the connector should go in at Hamm Road and whether it should be a connector at all. Some people suggest that it should just be a bypass -- that there are enough ways into it. I wonder if you might give us a flavour for what's going on there, what the ministry is going to be doing about the controversy there and how they're going to settle this.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to go back to the HCL issue that the hon. member was mentioning. I think he's mistaking the employees for the contractors; 60 percent of the contracts that were achieved were by non-union contractors, so that defeats the theory that HCL was set up to give all contracts to unionized firms.

I also want to point out that the Campbell River connectors were part of the capital freeze, of which the hon. member is quite well aware. So government made a decision after the freeze was lifted to eliminate the Miracle Beach connector as a result of that. The primary reason was to save money, and I think the hon. member should appreciate that.

D. Symons: Yes, I'm always in favour of saving money, as long as the saving is in the public interest, both ways: for the service given and for the saving of money. I think both things have to be taken into account.

There are also some problems at the Campbell River area. I wonder if you might just give a brief summary of what the situation is currently at Campbell River as far as the road and the access to town.

Hon. H. Lali: We've completed the four-laned south Campbell River bypass project and also the connector to Highway 19, and work is proceeding on target north of Courtenay as well. For the Campbell River section, the budget was $57.2 million, and work completed to February 28, 1998, totalled $47.9 million -- thus far.

D. Symons: Thank you. That looks like it's fairly far along in its construction.

I wonder if we might take a look for a while at any sort of performance measures that the TFA might use. For each project that's undertaken, does the TFA set targets or benchmarks to measure the progress? Do you have a sort of program or policy set on that?

Hon. H. Lali: I would particularly like to point the hon. member to the BCTFA annual report of '96-97. On page 23 and onwards it talks about performance measures. The performance measures are not applied to every project.

D. Symons: What is the procedure when it becomes obvious that a target will not be met? Is there some form of accountability? I guess I can tip my hand a little bit here; I'm somewhat concerned because certainly performance wasn't met on sections of the Island Highway as far as the time goes. Reconfiguring the highway and changing the scope of it also wasn't meeting the cost estimates that had been done, so somewhere the estimates were wrong or people were overambitious or whatever.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to remind the hon. member that the Vancouver Island Highway project is the largest construction project in western Canada. It is on schedule and it is on budget. As he is aware, there has been a fair amount of

[ Page 7901 ]

public demand as to controlling debt, so some of the reductions that had taken place were primarily to meet some of the scope additions, which I read into the record last week. The hon. member is quite well aware of that and can read Hansard on it. Some of these additions were as a direct result of community input and consultation in the local area.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

D. Symons: I guess there'll be a difference of opinion on that. I have news clippings and so forth from the areas up there that say, "Continue with the four-laning," and you've cut four lanes back to two. I have the documents put out when the Island Highway was first announced by the government, showing section-by-section time lines for when each section would end up being completed. I think that to say you're on time or on budget is a wee bit of a stretch. But we'll agree to differ on that.

I wonder if you might tell me whether the TFA has performance-based budgeting as part of its way of doing business.

Hon. H. Lali: No, we have zero-base budgeting.

I just want to go back to the particular stretch that the hon. member is talking about. Neither the province nor the ministry has ever stated that it would four-lane that particular section.

D. Symons: We'll take a look at the papers I have.

I wonder if we can just go one further. Does the TFA assess the impact on the existing infrastructure of short-term investments to meet current government cost pressures?

Interjection.

D. Symons: I understand what it means. It's in a book on corporate performance measures put out for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways a year ago. I'm just seeing (1) if you're aware of your own documents, and (2) whether you're performing according to them.

Hon. H. Lali: We take a look at the investment perspective and then make the decision accordingly. It also depends on what financial resources are at our disposal. If we need to drop some of the area, then we will do that accordingly.

D. Symons: A possible example of this might be whether, in the short-term, because of cost pressures, you end up seal-coating a road when it really should be a rehab job or hot-in-place replacement or something of that sort. That might be an example of where two pressures are on you. The road really has reached the age where it should be resurfaced, and you do a seal-coat job because it can be done at a quarter of the cost; whereas a rehab would be really in order and would give it a much longer life span.

Hon. H. Lali: Given the limited number of dollars at our disposal, we make the best use of the resources available. If it requires a seal-coat because we can't afford to do a rehab, then that's the decision that will be made, and I think the hon. member will appreciate that. I've heard him often saying on record that we should control debt and deficit.

[3:00]

D. Symons: You may not have heard me say it as often as some other members of the caucus, but we'll pass on that point. You're putting words in my mouth again.

I'm wondering if you might tell me who is responsible for delivering the goals for B.C.'s provincial highway plan -- whether that's done through the TFA or whether the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is the major impetus in that plan.

Hon. H. Lali: The TFA has been asked to do the plan. We're doing it in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and it's done within the context of "Going Places." It's still being developed. We're trying to get the best value for the resources.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if you can tell me: does the TFA operate under a debt cap and, if so, what might that number currently be?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, as is the case with other agencies. It's in the provincial budget. Staff are trying to look for it. The hon. member can find that on his own as well.

D. Symons: If you wouldn't mind. . . . There were some other items you were going to get for me also. If you're taking notes of those, I appreciate it, and I'll wait patiently for those results a little later on.

Roughly one-third of the pavement of our primary highways is rated by the ministry as fair or poor, on a pavement distress rating. What plans does the TFA have to address the backlog of rehab and rebuild of highway infrastructure in this province?

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, we have very good news in that particular category. The rehab budget, which was $80 million last year, has gone up to $153 million -- almost double -- and in the northern half of the province the investment more than doubled from the year before. I went up there in April to make the announcement of $66 million, with $27 million actually going into the Peace River area. Obviously we've been able to do that, while having to sacrifice some capital projects.

D. Symons: I might ask if the minister is familiar with a report called "Good Roads Cost Less," done in 1990, I believe. I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us how much that report said should be spent on rehab each year in order to just maintain the infrastructure that we currently have, so that we don't have it deteriorate.

Hon. H. Lali: The debt-cap figure the hon. member asked for earlier is $1.350 billion. That's the budget estimate for 1999.

The study the hon. member is talking about wasn't done on a particular road. It was done on a hypothetical road, then multiplied by the number of roads to come up with some imaginary figure. In order to do an appropriate job, to achieve a realistic figure, I think that the study would have to include an on-site look at particular roads all over the province. To try to extrapolate from a hypothetical situation is probably not the best way to plan on spending Highways dollars.

D. Symons: I wonder if I might take a look at the auditor general's report of '96-97 on the Island Highway. The first thing I want to look at -- I've got three or four things. . . .

In the overall conclusions on page 6, it says: "However, we believe that the ministry would benefit from reviewing these standards and their application to ensure that they promote cost-effective planning and design decisions." The report talks about -- in the first part, which I left out -- the

[ Page 7902 ]

ministry's planning on design standards, which include guidelines for establishing functional classification of highways that are generally adequate. But then they go on to say, as I read just a moment ago, that that they should really be working to produce cost-effective planning and design decisions.

Have you moved on that portion of the auditor general's report?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to read, on the specific conclusions: "Your conclusion that the ministry would benefit from a review of standards and their application to ensure cost-effectiveness is supported and actions are underway to respond to this finding." The auditor general will be coming in with an additional report as to how well we've done.

D. Symons: I might skip to page 36. It deals with corridor protection, if I have my notes correct. I'm sorry; that's a different. . . . I'm going to have to do this differently, because I have a mixup here. I'll go to page 7, then, and continue on from where I was reading a moment ago, where at the end of the section, it said: "The designs for the Vancouver Island Highway project will provide adequate value for money." That's good. Toward the end, it said: "However, an adequate capital management program requires that design alternatives be compared using estimated life cycle costs as well as expected performance of each alternative." Have you used that idea for determining what sort of design you are going to use, looking at the comparison of the life cycle of that particular one?

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes. That's why we are spending more to protect our infrastructure -- by putting more money into rehabilitation, as we have done in this year's budget. It has gone up from $80 million last year to $153 million this year.

D. Symons: I suspect that answer might be suitable for some of the other questions as well -- which is good, and I'm glad to hear that. They talk on page 8 about value engineering studies. I'm wondering if you might tell me, now that we've the experience of Vancouver Island behind us, if you used the value engineering study on Highway 1 HOV lanes.

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

D. Symons: Good. Thank you.

On page 9 there are some comments that you made: "The schedule for the project was determined more by when sections of the project were able to be built rather than by which sections were the most needed. Initially, insufficient consideration was given to staging the project so that highway capacity would become available as demand grew." I'm wondering why, when the previous administration was beginning the Island Highway project, they seemed to start at Nanaimo and were going to be working their way up the Island. In that way it would seem that what they were doing might have been more effective than what was carried out on the project after them.

Hon. H. Lali: The schedule for completion was set and has been adjusted somewhat. There are some areas of the Island Highway which needed improvements first -- and were actually addressed first. I'll give you an example of Nanaimo. There used to be 21 traffic lights to cross; now there are only five. From Campbell River to the Nanaimo ferry used to take three hours to drive; now it takes only two. A lot of the safety kinds of issues have also been addressed.

D. Symons: I might just jump back to the suspension of the Nanaimo ferry. I'm reading again from the annual report of a year ago. It talks on page 12 about this: "The BCTFA also works with transportation Crown corporations in a variety of ways to implement the provincial transportation strategy. For example, the BCTFA worked with B.C. Ferries on the development and construction of the Duke Point access road, which links the upgraded Vancouver Island Highway with the new Duke Point ferry terminal." I'm wondering if you might tell us: was this a joint venture between Highways and B.C. Ferries? Did B.C. Ferries contribute in any way to the cost of it? Or is there a cost-recovery plan, as set up for revenue strategy?

[3:15]

Hon. H. Lali: We work very closely with them. We built the road; B.C. Ferries built the terminal. This was good integrated transportation planning. It's also good for economic development.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might tell me: has the Goldstream road plan been developed now? Is it completed?

Hon. H. Lali: No. We are still working on it.

D. Symons: In the minister's mind. . . . What might be the last section of the Island Highway? As you're doing the project, you'll say: "When this section's done, we have completed the Island Highway project."

Hon. H. Lali: Work is going on concurrently. Some of the areas where all of the work will be completed about the same time are the Nanaimo-to-Goldstream section, some sections in the greater Victoria area, as well as Courtenay to Campbell River. They all have a completion date of December.

D. Symons: I've kind of finished, more or less, what I wanted to ask on the auditor general.

I wonder if we might just take a look at a few others. I notice that the TFA has put a substantial amount of money into Ballard Power. I'm wondering what the current worth of the shares that you have in Ballard Power might be. I'll just ask the rest of the question: what's TFA planning to do with these shares over the next two years? Are you planning on purchasing the shares? -- because I think you have warrants right now. Or are you planning to sell them and use the capital gain to help pay down your debt?

Share warrants. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: On Ballard Power, we have considerable investment in the warrants. They're actually worth more now than they were before. In terms of some of the details, we'll have to get back to the hon. member.

D. Symons: Well, maybe something that isn't a detail on what your future plans are with that. . . . It's interesting that the value of those shares has gone up considerably. In a sense, it could be a wise investment. My question was: are you planning on using this to help pay down the debt that you've got on your. . . ? Can you tell me if, in the event that you

[ Page 7903 ]

eventually sell the shares -- which I suspect you will at some time -- BCTFA has to pay capital gains on that? Any other shareholder would have to pay capital gains. Are you under the same rules as individual investors?

Hon. H. Lali: We're agents of the Crown, so we don't pay the tax. The gains will actually be booked as revenue.

D. Symons: I have a variety of what I'll refer to as odds and ends. Some of these will come under MOTH later on.

The construction of the HOV lanes on Highway 1 were, I think, first announced as $53.6 million. Your authorized budget is $68.3 million -- or it was. I'm wondering why that budget is higher and exactly what the projected final cost of that particular project is.

Hon. H. Lali: Yeah, the figure went up as a result of adding scope, such as the Willingdon weave, as well as adding underground services for an eventual traffic management program.

D. Symons: I like the Willingdon weave; I think that describes what it does at that particular point. I wonder if the minister might give me an idea of what he has spent to date on that project.

Hon. H. Lali: It's $29 million up to March 31.

D. Symons: I believe that a year ago you were working on developing a proposal for implementing a long-term traffic management system in the lower mainland. Is that proposal now complete? What did it cost? Has it been made public?

Hon. H. Lali: The first step was actually adding the underground services for an eventual traffic management program. Also, we'll be moving on a pilot project starting from 160th Street in Surrey to Lynn Canyon. We're still working on this.

D. Symons: I gather the minister means that he's still working on the plan.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Thank you for confirmation of that. The cost, then, hasn't been determined. You might be able to give me an idea of what amount of money has gone into it to date. A later date would be fine.

Hon. H. Lali: It's $700,000 so far.

D. Symons: I believe that the BCTFA was working in conjunction with ICBC in conducting analyses of kilometre-based insurance. I'm wondering if you might give me just a thumbnail sketch of that particular project and where it's at at this time.

Hon. H. Lali: This was actually proposed as part of the TDM -- traffic demand management -- strategy, which was developed at the staff level in conjunction with the GVRD. It's more suitable for the urban areas. In the rural areas, where people travel greater distances, it would pose a huge cost problem for people.

D. Symons: It seems from the minister's answer that at least this proposal is still being considered. I suppose, from the second thing the minister said, that there might be quite a difference between somebody who lives in Richmond, where I live, and drives into Vancouver being charged on a per-kilometre basis for their insurance or any other travel charges, and somebody who lives in Chilliwack or Abbotsford or somewhere like that and works in the same place. That might work in Vancouver. That person is going to end up paying a lot more.

I'm not quite sure whether the answer that you gave would mean that a person who lived outside of Merritt and drove 40 kilometres into Merritt should pay the same as a person driving a similar distance in the lower mainland. From your answer, it seems a little bit inconsistent. You're going to apply it in urban areas only and not in others -- not that I'm encouraging you to apply it in any place, because so much depends upon a person's ability to relocate close to their work to avoid those charges.

The BCTFA, I believe, holds a fair number of properties. I wonder if you can give me an idea -- again, a ballpark figure -- of how many properties they hold and a ballpark figure for the assessed value of those particular properties.

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of the insurance, we are not considering that scheme at all. I just want to clarify that for the hon. member.

BCTFA has approximately 300 properties that it has accumulated over the last number of years. We are actually now in the process of starting to sell these off strategically.

D. Symons: So I would gather, again, by the answers. . . . The minister didn't answer the second part about the assessed values. Some of these are in rural areas where the value as raw land isn't going to be very much. Is it the value of what you might do with it that could increase that return to the ministry or to the TFA?

[3:30]

Hon. H. Lali: As we develop our strategy for selling off these lands, we'll know how much they're worth. It's not necessarily true that in the rural areas they won't be worth as much as in urban areas.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give us an idea as to whether the TFA is considering going into the development of these lands as a way to end up raising more money through the use of the lands and therefore helping to augment the costs of the projects which the TFA is undertaking.

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is no.

D. Symons: Two questions. One relates back to the HCL. I think there was a study done by the Shasta people, the consultants. It reported that there could be a fair amount of money being paid in by HCL to pension plans that will never actually be accessed by the people on whose behalf it was paid in. I could give an example. Let's say that somebody who might belong to the operating engineers was doing a portion of work on the Island Highway, but that that portion of work might take only a couple of months for the particular project they're contracted for. For the time that they're working, then, there would be money going in on their behalf to the union pension plan, but if that person does not work a certain number of years over a certain period of time, they don't actually get credit for that toward their pensionable years.

[ Page 7904 ]

So I'm wondering whether this is really quite the appropriate use of government money -- because that's indeed what it is, in the highway that's going in. It builds up a pension plan on behalf of employees who may never access that money. It builds a nice big pension plan for the other employees who are eligible, but not for all the people who have the moneys go in on their behalf.

Hon. H. Lali: There was a review of this done by the pension standards branch of the Ministry of Labour, and their report indicates that the report you're talking about was actually incorrect. However, we can get you a copy of this report from the pension standards branch. Actually, a copy of this went to the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary last year.

D. Symons: The last item in this particular part that I'd like to ask about deals with the interest and inflation during construction. I'm wondering if you might give us an idea. . . . I gather that right now the TFA is financing interest during construction through cash reserves and borrowing extended to the debt targets established. I believe that this has been criticized. How are you now handling that particular interest-during-construction debt?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out that, like the interest on a builder's loan. . . . It's similar to that. It's been up to accepted accounting principles. It's always been done that way. The difference now is that since the review took place, this line has to be added into the budget rather than be added on at a later time.

D. Symons: Prior to our beginning estimates -- quite awhile prior to the estimates process -- I did pass a letter along to the minister asking for certain information, some of it related to the Transportation Financing Authority. I now have some of it.

But there were two items I didn't have. One was an outline of the financing plan for each of the past and present projects undertaken by the TFA. The second was the number of staff in the TFA, whether there were any substantive changes in the last year, whether there were any severance allowances or buyouts and a list of those people who are working on contract for the TFA. I'm wondering if that information has been gathered. Rather than read it all into the record, if you simply pass it along to me, I'd be quite content to have it that way.

Hon. H. Lali: An overall provincial capital plan is not done project by project.

The staff level has gone up from 38 to 42; four people have been added to deal with the land issue. There have been no severances. If he wants us to send him the information, we will certainly do that.

D. Symons: I just remind the minister that a letter of March 5 would give you the information I was seeking. There's also some highway, bridge and motor vehicle branch information that I asked for as well.

One last question to do with the TFA. There's a group that calls itself the Northwest Corridor Development Corporation. I believe they now have a board of directors, as of the meeting last week. I wonder if the minister might tell me a little bit about the Transportation Financing Authority's involvement with that particular group. They had, I believe, a meeting a year ago and put out a rather nice report. Now they have met again. Apparently, they've got support from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, with a good number of government officials attending from both those provinces. What's B.C.'s involvement in that whole transportation corridor study?

Hon. H. Lali: The Northwest Corridor Development Corporation has not had a lot of dealings with this particular minister. The hon. Minister Responsible for Northern Development has had more of a rapport with this particular group as it's in his area. Also, this group has not recommended, as a result of their deliberations, very much in the way of Highways projects. But the ministry, the TFA, will work with them on any future recommendations that they may have.

D. Symons: I am glad to hear that, because it does involve some roadwork. Highway 16, for instance, is one of the areas of concern. They've been working on the rail part of it, but there are also highways that are going to have to feed the rail. There's a lot of interest in that whole corridor. As I said, Alberta and Saskatchewan were quite active participants in the forum they had up in Prince George last Wednesday, I believe it was. I seem to have been tied up here in this House with the minister at that time, so I wasn't able to be there.

I have basically completed the portion of this debate that I'll refer to as the TFA portion or questioning on estimates. If you'd now like to move into the MOTH section, I'd be quite content to do that.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm wondering, hon. Chair, if we can have a recess so that we can get the staff in here.

The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:52 p.m.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

P. Nettleton: I have a few questions, again with reference to correspondence directed to the minister dated April 27, 1998, from the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. In the correspondence to which I refer, they were doing a follow-up to the March 19 meeting between the regional district and the minister in Smithers -- that wonderful town somewhere up there in northern British Columbia with which I believe the Chair has some familiarity -- dealing with Highways issues for the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. I'll make this as concise as possible. I'm going to refer to a number of projects within their regional district which the minister had asked them to follow-up on with him in writing:

"Highway 16 is the transportation lifeline of our region. With recent upgrades, it is in reasonably good shape. However, there are several areas in our region where standards are not met. It seems that the highway widening east of Burns Lake at the Tintagel rock cuts was curtailed in 1997 due to project underfunding; thus, this relatively short stretch of highway remains dangerous because there are insufficient shoulders for vehicles to pull off on in emergencies. The situation is exacerbated by having inadequate sight lines, caused by the rock cuts on one side and a sheer drop-off on the other. We would hope that the ministry will continue its efforts to improve this stretch of highway and not wait until the pavement is due for replacement."

It goes on to talk about portions of Highway 16 between Smithers and Telkwa where the shoulder widths do not meet the appropriate standards.

Would the minister please comment on the concerns with reference to Highway 16?

Hon. H. Lali: I thank the member opposite for raising these issues, which were also canvassed at that particular

[ Page 7905 ]

meeting he cites. I also want to point out that the hon. member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, who is chairing right now, has also been doing a great job on behalf of his constituents in terms of lobbying me on those very same issues. I think it's incumbent upon local representatives to do that on behalf of their constituents.

I want to point out that the particular section between Smithers and Telkwa -- I had a chance to drive through some of that -- is part of an ongoing program. As funds become available in the future, I certainly don't see why we wouldn't be able to accommodate some of the issues that are there before us.

P. Nettleton: That was a non-answer if I've ever heard a non-answer: "We may do something at some point if there's money available." What does that tell me? More importantly, what does that tell the residents of Bulkley-Nechako? It seems to me that you can do better than that, hon. minister. With all respect, shall we take another run at that?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I would point out that due to the hard work by the hon. Chair, whose constituency this is in, the rehab budget that I announced for the northern roads was $13 million for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. Particularly, Tintagel Corner is actually in this year's budget. On Highway 16, I want to talk a little bit about the Andimaul to Shandilla realignment. It's in the budget to complete the design and make a minor property acquisition for the future realignment and reconstruction of 4.7 kilometres of Highway 16 between Shandilla Creek and Andimaul Creek. These improvements are to address safety concerns and to improve driver comfort through a challenging section of highway.

P. Nettleton: I'm delighted to hear that in fact there are some moneys allocated to Highway 16. However, the minister has not responded to my specific questions. When I say they're my questions, that's not entirely correct. I believe the questions were raised with the minister in Smithers by representatives of the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. The minister has not responded to the particular, specific concerns that were raised at the meeting between himself and those representatives -- concerns which the minister, as I understand from the correspondence before me, requested be summarized and sent in letter form to him. It may be that the minister. . . .

Interjection.

P. Nettleton: It seems that he does have a response. I'll sit down.

Hon. H. Lali: I've always had the response. The hon. member knows that the announcement has been made for the Bulkley Valley-Stikine area. If he has not seen the press release, or if it hasn't come through his newspaper, I have no problem reading out some of the issues that the hon. member raises. I'll do that if he'll bear with me. It'll take a little bit of time, since such great work was done by the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine in making sure that his constituents got their fair share of the funds.

[4:00]

Highway 16. Let me read this out. In terms of rehabilitation projects, under bridge projects: Highway 16, Houston River bridge redeck, replace the existing deteriorated bridge decks to improve safety and protect the substructure of these structures located on Highway 16 in Houston; resurfacing projects, Highway 16, Burns Lake, realign and repave along Highway 16 east of Burns Lake to improve sight distance and safety; on the same highway, New Hazelton to Mudflats overhead, reconstruction of six kilometres of road, shoulder widening and repaving of 10.3 kilometres of Highway 16 between New Hazelton and Mudflats overhead, west of Smithers, to improve safety and rideability; guard rail installation at Lino's corner on Highway 16, approximately three kilometres east of Burns Lake, to assist in the prevention of road accidents; at Janex hill, restore this section of Highway 16, two kilometres east of Topley, to two full lanes with guard rail, by using lock-blocks to prevent the roadway from slipping into the river; at Raymond Road, continue clearing and fencing at this intersection with Highway 16 to improve sight distance and reduce accidents; on the same highway, improve the intersection of Highway 16 and Slack Road west of Smithers by realigning and adding a turn slot and illumination to improve safety and increase capacity. This is all public record and has been announced. I would urge the hon. member to contact the district and the regional manager. They will be more than happy to discuss anything else in that particular area in detail.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, hon. minister. Certainly that was somewhat more illuminating.

There are, however, some other concerns with reference to Highway 16 which were raised in discussions with the minister. The minister made reference to a bridge, I believe. Again referring to the correspondence before me, apparently there are several bridges along Highway 16 that are of insufficient width. In particular, the Beaumont overpass over the CN Rail line west of Fort Fraser has recently been the site of a severe MVA which in fact caused a fatality.

The bridge over the Bulkley River, at the west end of Houston, which has been referred to as a major concern by the mayor of Houston, Tom Euverman, is only 24 feet in width. In fact, traffic descending a relatively steep hill from the west usually approaches the bridge at a maximum speed, which exacerbates the potential risks on the narrow bridge. The director, Harold Kerr, from the Smithers rural electoral area A, suggested that a bridge over the Telkwa River would have a lot of advantages for the village of Telkwa and the surrounding areas, in terms of opportunities for development. For instance, industrial logging-truck traffic and traffic associated with the proposed Telkwa coalmine would no longer be required to use the inadequate streets of the village of Telkwa to access Highway 16. Such traffic could be diverted directly to Smithers via Tatlow Road, and so on. Would the minister comment on the concerns with reference to bridges?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the hon. member that the letter in question will be answered by ministry staff in full detail, and copies will be sent out to the various people. I also want to point out that my district and regional staff in the area have been working very, very closely and will continue to work very closely with municipalities, the regional districts, the chambers of commerce, the first nations and other people who live in the specific area.

I also want to point out that in this year's budget we have doubled the rehab portion from the year before, from $80 million to $153 million, and almost half of that was actually announced for the northern roads initiative. A significant portion of that was pumped back into the hon. member's riding and also into the riding of the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. Obviously we've not been able to address all of these concerns -- the member is quite well aware of the

[ Page 7906 ]

dollars that are at our disposal -- but in the future we will continue to work with the people in the local areas, so we can make sure that their safety and traffic issues are dealt with.

P. Nettleton: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the point of the exercise in which we're all involved is to go through a number of specific projects in some detail. Now, if the minister's answer to my questions with reference to specific projects -- in this case, bridges -- is that at some point in the future he will respond to the concerns of the members of the regional district, then so be it; let's put that on the record. But if the object of this exercise is to deal with specific concerns, as I understand it to be, then let's do that.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member quite clearly knows that I can only announce those projects that have been approved. I can't announce those projects which have not been approved. I have to wait for the necessary approvals before anything can be made public. I have read from very extensive lists from the member for the Bulkley Valley-Stikine electoral district. There are other projects as well. I'd be more than happy to read those out, if the hon. member wants to know what they are.

His particular concern is with the regional district and Highway 16 and the letter that he read into the record. Obviously, given the $13 million for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, I think there were a number of projects that were funded as a result of that. In terms of the bridges that the hon. member mentions, they are being considered by the ministry. If perchance they are the ones that will be approved, I would be more than happy to share the information with the hon. member once the approval process has been effected.

P. Nettleton: I take that to mean that there is certainly nothing in the works in terms of addressing the problems that have been brought to the attention of the minister, not only by myself here today but by representatives of the regional district. If that's the case, at least we know where we're at. That is certainly my take on the minister's response. The projects that have been approved and announced are the full extent of the ministry's move towards addressing some of the problems that have been raised by the representatives of the regional district. That appears to be where we're at. Having discovered that, I suppose we should move on, unless the minister has some further comment.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: I think the member is absolutely wrong. I've announced the good news. Up in the north we are doubling their rehab budget from less than $30 million to well above $60 million -- it was actually $66 million -- a significant portion of which went into the hon. member's riding and some adjacent ridings. If the hon. member feels that $13 million in Bulkley Valley-Stikine is not enough, I would ask him to state that on the record.

He is well aware that given the financial resources at our disposal, we were able to fund the many projects that I have outlined already. Unless he is suggesting that we should increase the debt.

P. Nettleton: I think the minister is well aware that it is not my duty to establish budgets, nor is it my duty to establish priorities. In fact it's the duty and obligation of the minister. That's what he gets paid to do. It's also the duty of the minister to respond to the concerns of the constituents of the Bulkley-Nechako regional district and to answer, as well as he is able, the questions that have been raised in the correspondence that is before us.

Having said that, I'll move along, if I may. I've got a couple more projects I'd like to reference on behalf of the members of the regional district -- members that are looking to this minister for some kind of a response. It seems to me that it's implicit in the correspondence before me that the minister had indicated to these members that in fact he would respond to their concerns at some point.

The other project is the intersection to François Lake Road at the west end of Fraser Lake. Again, it's been the site of many MVAs -- motor vehicle accidents. The intersection is on a curve downhill from the east with no left turn lane and insufficient shoulders as escape routes. The situation's compounded by streetlights that are close to the pavement. Will there be any move at some point in the near future to address the concerns with reference to this intersection?

Hon. H. Lali: A number of these issues that have been raised by the hon. member should be discussed, actually, under the ministry estimates, such as the François Lake issue that he has just mentioned. We're just waiting for the TFA estimates to be over. The staff are here waiting, and we can answer those questions accordingly.

The member raised an issue that it's the minister's responsibility to set the priorities. I agree with him. I am one person -- one cog in the wheel -- in terms of setting the priorities. I would say it goes further than that. Let's start at the local level. It starts with input from regional districts, municipalities, first nations, business groups, other organizations and individuals who are the users of these particular roads and bridges. They're locked into the process. These people meet on a regular basis with district and regional Highways staff. The priorities are developed at the district and regional level. They go up from there through the system to the ministry, where the proper analyses are done so that the proper funding can be given by cabinet. That is exactly how the priorities are set. The minister, again, is an individual who is one cog in that wheel.

I also want to point out to the hon. member that when I first became minister, I received a number of calls from local MLAs in the north, as well as mayors, councillors and people from regional districts, who wanted me to come up on a personal drive-through and take a look at a lot of these issues. The concerns that the hon. member raises in that letter from the regional district were the concerns that were either shown to me in person or verbally pointed out to me in a meeting in Smithers. I indicated to the people that I would respond. We're working on a draft. A lot of those issues have been addressed as part of the $66 million that I announced.

I want to point out to the hon. member that I took four days out of my spring break to go up there, while everybody else was enjoying time off with their families, friends and relatives. I went up there for four days to talk to individuals and the various groups that the hon. member mentions. I promised them that I would look after their concerns, given the constraints of the funding that would be available. Once the budget came down, I went back, and I delivered on those particular issues. The people up in the north are quite happy with the more than doubling of the rehab budget. Next year, if the funding level is again available to me, I have no problem going back into the north to make the kind of announcements that the hon. member has been pointing out here.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that I went up there and listened to the people. And I did take action. That's

[ Page 7907 ]

where I come into setting the priorities on these. In terms of some of the specific issues that the member's now raising, I'd be more than happy to canvass them under the ministry estimates. My staff are waiting.

P. Nettleton: In fact, then, I will postpone to the ministry estimates my questions with reference to some of the specific projects. I'd like to say, if I may, that the minister may be one cog in the wheel, with reference to the minister's comments. But in fact the minister is a very important cog in the wheel. The buck stops with the minister in terms of establishing priorities, dealing with budgetary constraints and addressing the problems with reference to infrastructure in the north.

[4:15]

I appreciate that the minister has taken the time during his spring break to travel the highways in the north. However, I don't think it's likely that the minister will be recommended for some kind of award for having done so, given that most people feel that that is the job of the minister. Whether it falls on his spring break, his weekend or his evenings, that's the job of the minister: to travel the roads and familiarize himself with every pothole in the north, if necessary, and to fill those potholes. Having said that, I'll sit down, shut up and wait for my turn.

D. Symons: Just a very few questions that, unfortunately, I came across while I was listening to the other member there. On page 1 of the auditor's report by KPMG, there is talk about a sum of money put aside from corridor protection. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea of whether cottonwood corridor. . . . What corridors might you be protecting?

I'm also curious about Westside Road; I think there's a bypass route somewhere in your. . . . I've forgotten the name of the place on the west shore of Okanagan. I wonder if you can give me an idea if those are part of the corridors you're protecting.

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of money spent on corridor protection, Vancouver Island on the Pat Bay Highway and also the cottonwood corridor on the lower mainland.

In terms of the Westside Road, that issue was canvassed fairly quite thoroughly by the member for Okanagan West.

D. Symons: I not sure whether the question asked whether there's a corridor that's protected and whether the lands have been purchased in that particular corridor. I believe there was a court case a little while ago to do with land over near Maple Ridge. The Highways ministry wanted to protect corridors. Basically the court said that there had to be the intention of buying them before they could do that, that they couldn't just sort of put a freeze on the land. Are these corridors that you're referring to now corridors for which you're in the process of actively purchasing the rights-of-way?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

D. Symons: On page 1 of the auditor's report, it talks about $51 million in liabilities. Is that a contingency fund set aside for possible liabilities? Or are these specific liabilities? It's contained in notes 12 and 13.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, member.

D. Symons: In the book, I've written a marginal note to myself about $51 million in liabilities. I was wondering if these are outstanding claims or whether it's just a contingency fund.

Hon. H. Lali: I'll just read: "Contingent liabilities of $51 million remain after deducting the estimated settlement expense currently accrued from gross claims outstanding for capital projects."

D. Symons: The purchase of capital assets is bracketed there. Now, I'm not a bookkeeper. Does that mean that you're adding an actual purchase or that you've sold assets? It's the $358 million on page 3 of the auditor's report. That's purchasing?

Hon. H. Lali: In 1997 we invested $358 million, and that's why it's in brackets.

D. Symons: I hope this is the last one -- and you do too, I'm sure.

On page 7 of the auditor's report, there is mention of a net capital debt of $915 million. This is the auditor's report of March 31, 1997. I'm wondering what the net capital debt for March 31, 1998, would be.

Hon. H. Lali: We will have to get back to the hon. member with that figure.

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair please, members.

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, we have the figure that the member was looking for. The figure to the end of March '98 is $1,101,323,603.

For the estimates, sitting to my right is Blair Redlin, deputy minister. Associate Deputy Minister Claire Dansereau will be joining us in a few minutes. Sitting directly behind me is Har Singh, assistant deputy minister for management services. Sitting on this side is John Dyble, assistant deputy minister for planning and major projects, and sitting to my right is Dan Doyle, assistant deputy minister for highways operations.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might look at the estimates figures just for a moment. I wonder if you might give me an idea of how much was spent in contracting out work of the ministry in the operations division and the professional services -- a bit of a breakdown of those particular figures.

Hon. H. Lali: For 1997-98 or for this year's budget?

D. Symons: What's budgeted for this year. And, while we're at it, can you compare it to last year, because I think you have those figures paired off.

Hon. H. Lali: It is $40.469 million.

D. Symons: I asked this under the TFA. I'm not sure whether the ministry itself has land dispositions or if the TFA does that. But if you do have land properties under the ministry itself that's not under the TFA, I wonder if you might give me an idea of how many properties are involved there and how many you might have disposed of last year through sales.

[ Page 7908 ]

Hon. H. Lali: We'll have to get back to the hon. member on that particular question, hon. Chair.

D. Symons: I was going to move into maintenance, actually. I note that in '97-98 there was a total of $444 million, and in '98-99 there's $407 million. But you've got a non-capital rehabilitation in there for $35 million less, which basically means that things seem to balance out pretty well between the two years. Can you give me an idea of what the distinction is between non-capital rehab and capital rehab? How do you make that distinction?

Hon. H. Lali: If, for instance, you're going to resurface a particular road that is existing, it would go under non-capital rehab. If you're adding an extra lane, a passing lane, it would go under capitalized rehab. If you're simply redecking or resurfacing a bridge, that is under non-capital rehab. But if you're replacing the entire structure, that is capitalized rehab.

D. Symons: I would gather from your answer that since you're spending roughly $123 million on the capital side of rehab and $30 million on sort of the non-capital, you're not doing very much -- just lane-rehabing. Indeed, you're adding a lot of passing lanes and things of this sort, then, from the answer you just gave.

[4:30]

Hon. H. Lali: I'll read this into the record so that there are no mistakes here:

"Non-Capital Rehabilitation. Provides for rehabilitation activities which include, but are not limited to: road upgrading; bridge rehabilitation; pavement rehabilitation; avalanche mitigation; wildlife fencing; rock stabilization; rest area upgrades; roadside development; environmental cleanup; electrical installations and infrastructure upgrades; and inland ferry vessel refits. Recoveries are received from Crown corporations for projects.

Further, capitalized rehab will include but is not limited to the following: "road and bridge resurfacing, bridge replacement, seismic retrofit and safety improvements. . . ."

D. Symons: I notice in the non-capital that you just talked about road rehab and that in the capital you talked about road resurfacing. I'm not quite sure what the distinction is between those two terms. It seems like there was just rehab a few years ago and now you have divided rehab up into two sections. That's why I'm curious.

Hon. H. Lali: Road regravel would be considered non-capitalized rehab.

D. Symons: But a resurfacing hot-in-place -- or resurfacing in that way, a new layer of asphalt -- is going to be capital rehab, then, under the definition.

Hon. H. Lali: Something for which you can identify a usable life is capitalized rehab.

D. Symons: Just carrying on with this little rehab discussion, I wonder if the minister might give me an idea, then: if you're capitalizing this for life, what might your capitalized life be for doing a hot-in-place rehab compared to possibly laying asphalt by more traditional techniques? What are the comparative life expectancies of each of these two ways of doing it?

Hon. H. Lali: Fifteen years is the average figure for all road resurfacing.

D. Symons: Basically, by the minister's answer, you're saying that there is not a significant difference between doing a hot-in-place or simply bringing in the asphalt, dumping it, spreading it and rolling it under these more traditional ways. I'm curious, then, why you wouldn't do a lot more hot-in-place replacement of highways as rehab rather than the other method, since there's a considerable saving in doing it that way.

Hon. H. Lali: The figure of 15 years I gave the hon. member is the average. Some could be longer or some could be less. The main reason why we don't use more hot-in-place remix is because it's not suitable for all conditions throughout the province.

D. Symons: I guess that brings me back to the question I asked a few moments ago about the life expectancy of either technique. If you say that it's not suitable, then is that because hot-in-place may not last as long in the northern areas as in the lower mainland area?

Hon. H. Lali: The hot-in-place is not suitable for some surface conditions. In those cases a complete resurfacing is required.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might move on to capital construction and leave the rehab side for a moment.

What are the non-recoverable highway capital construction. . . ? I notice that your figure is $499 million, I believe. Are these the ones that are not being recovered from the TFA? Are these other types of capital construction that the ministry itself is doing?

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, the figure is $449,000. It's less than half a million dollars, and it's not recoverable from the TFA.

D. Symons: Four hundred and forty-nine million?

Hon. H. Lali: Thousand.

D. Symons: Thousand. I'm reading in the estimates book, page 94, for '97-98. It's got $499, but I believe all these figures are. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: I beg your pardon. You're right.

The figure is a little down from last year -- by $50,000. I noticed that the figures seemed to be almost the same. In the book it's the same. You gave me $449,000 rather than the $499,000 that I believe is in the estimates book.

Hon. H. Lali: As we deal with our ongoing liabilities, the figure is actually lower this year than last year.

D. Symons: I note that for vote 61 for the year, the total is down by about $37 million. That about equals the reduction in the non-capital rehab. I'm wondering if you might be able to give us an idea where the border is between rehab and the repairs that maintenance is required to do. When it comes to potholes and things of that sort, maintenance does it; when you're filling the cracks on roads with hot tar, I suspect that's a maintenance job. Where is the border between that and what becomes rehab? How much are the maintenance people responsible for?

[ Page 7909 ]

Hon. H. Lali: It is actually a very complex issue, and it's very well defined within the maintenance contract. If the member wishes, my staff can actually go through that particular issue with him.

D. Symons: I am just interested in the repair of asphalt problems -- that aspect of maintenance -- and not all of the other issues that are related to maintenance. So that was your answer to me on that part? Then we'll discuss it some other time, possibly over coffee.

Have there been any changes over the last six years in the amount of work that's covered under maintenance? Are they doing considerably more in the realm of maintenance that might have been covered by other lines in the estimates book in the past?

Hon. H. Lali: I think the member should know that the inventory has increased with the Vancouver Island Highway coming on stream, as well as the COLA clause that is in there. Part of the contract is a 1.5 to 2 percent increase per annum.

D. Symons: No, I was actually asking the scope of the work that maintenance contractors are expected to do. Has that changed materially in the last five or six years, where some of that work might have been done under another line, under operations or under rehab or something in the line ministries before? Is it now covered under maintenance? It might have been done under rehab or under operations, and now maintenance is required to do it.

Hon. H. Lali: Has the work increased? The answer to that question is no.

D. Symons: There could have been another side to the story. Maybe it has decreased. But I didn't ask it in that vein, so the minister is correct.

The maintenance contractors got together a while ago, worked out some of their concerns and wrote up some discussion principles. One of them was: "We agree that the contractors should not be forced to utilize maintenance resources to perform rehabilitation and/or capital work normally done by MOTH or TFA." The road-builders have shown some concern that there may be some things being done now, or that they may be being asked to some things, that normally would have been done through those other two. That prompted my question.

If we add together the recoverable and the non-recoverable costs of highway construction, I think we get somewhere around $764 million. I'm wondering what you might give as the ones that use the larger sums. On the Island Highway, obviously. . . . The HOV lanes that are being added on Highway 1 in the lower mainland are. . . . Can you give me just a few of the other, larger-dollar items that are included in that sum of money for either capital or non-capital construction?

[4:45]

Hon. H. Lali: Some of these were already canvassed in the TFA estimates. They are actually listed in the estimates book, the blue book, under the ministry operations vote.

They are: corporate services; highway planning and major projects; highway operations; highway maintenance, which includes road and bridge maintenance contracts, other maintenance and non-capital rehabilitation; highway capital construction, which includes recoverable highway capital construction, recoverable highway rehab and non-recoverable highway capital construction; the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles; and the Motor Carrier Commission.

D. Symons: The question I was asking related to the two figures to do with capital and non-capital construction. I said the Island Highway is going to eat up a fair amount of that money, I would suspect. The HOV lanes and Highway 1 will also eat up some of that. I'm just wondering if you might give me an idea of other projects. You named other lines in your ministry Estimates book. Could you just name projects that are being built where money's going into capital projects -- just a few of the larger ones? Where are they being built?

Hon. H. Lali: That was the part I was referring to that was covered already under the TFA. It's already been canvassed.

D. Symons: Let's go back to maintenance for a moment. I believe there's been some real problems with the maintenance service in the Kootenay area to do with Emcon Services Inc., which had to take over from Columbia Road Services. I'm not sure if that's the third company now that's had that particular contract. I wonder if you might be able to give me an idea of when the first company basically went under, was unable to carry on the contract. Do you renegotiate a new contract with the person that's coming in to take that over, or do they simply take over the portion left over by the previous operator?

Hon. H. Lali: In 1997 Northland road maintenance had the contract. All contractors are bonded. If that particular contractor fails, then the bonding company comes in to take over, and the bonding company actually formed the Columbia Road Services. When the bond ran out, the tenders went out and Emcon Services Inc. was the successful bidder. They have the contract for a one-year period.

D. Symons: So basically, at the stage after Columbia had difficulties being the second contractor, you retendered the project. It would seem that the first one, at the beginning of this chain, Northland, obviously underbid the others to get the contract. But they also underbid to the extent that they weren't able to carry forth with the funding that was available.

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, the situation is a lot more complex than that, and I don't think this is the right place to be talking about why a particular company failed.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might give me an idea, going back to rehabs and the comment I made earlier about the book "Good Roads Cost Less" -- and I think I asked about that. . . . I wonder if we can take a look at seal-coating as part of the rehab. Where does the seal-coating part show up in the estimates? Is it part of rehabilitation? And could I have a breakdown, if it's the case, of how much is actually spent on seal-coating to break it away from the other types of rehab that might be done?

Hon. H. Lali: Seal-coating shows up under the capitalized rehab.

D. Symons: Seal-coating is capital? I find it difficult to follow that you actually have the ability to call something of that sort a capital one. It just shows the degree to which expenses are being off-loaded from the ministry onto the TFA.

[ Page 7910 ]

I wonder if you could give me a figure for the amount of seal-coating that was done in the '97-98 fiscal year and how much you are planning to spend on seal-coating in the '98-99 fiscal year.

Hon. H. Lali: Seal-coating is under capital rehab, because you can identify a useful life for it. This is actually in keeping with general accounting principles. In 1997 we did 180 kilometres of seal-coating. In 1998 there is estimated to be 625 kilometres.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if you could give me a dollar figure for each of those.

Hon. H. Lali: We'll have to get back to the hon. member.

D. Symons: Thank you. I'll await that answer.

I had a note passed to me that says: "What is the useful life of seal-coating?" I gather you had one situation where the useful life was less than two years -- one that's breaking up quite badly and causing some real problems. While we're at it, maybe we'll jump into that particular issue. If you could tell me, in that particular one: was the cause of that the quality of the oil that was put down or severe weather conditions? What was the cause, and who's going to bear the responsibility for repairs of that particular job?

Hon. H. Lali: The particular issue that the hon. member is talking about was done by a subcontractor to the contractor. It is under warranty, and we expect the maintenance contractor to repair that particular stretch. The early indications are that the technique for putting down the seal-coat was what caused the actual problem.

D. Symons: Will that particular problem in that district be rectified this year?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

D. Symons: Is the contractor accepting the responsibility, or are you going to litgation over that?

Hon. H. Lali: All the indications are that the contractor has accepted responsibility.

D. Symons: In past years I've managed to get a two-page thing called "Ministry of Transportation and Highways Rehabilitation and Capital Funding Per Electoral District." It lists the rehab, the various portions and the total amount. What I want to do is pass this across, so that I can get a copy of the current one. This one is '93-94 to date. I'll just pass this across as a sample. If I can have a copy of that, I'd appreciate it.

I'm wondering if you can break down on the rehab. You have classifications of roads according to fair or poor, and so forth. What is the cost of rehabbing a road that's classified as fair compared to one that's classified as poor?

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is actually fairly complex. The hon. member mentions a fair road, but we need to know to what standard he is talking about doing the work -- if it's regravelling, seal-coating or repaving -- and what part of the province it's in.

D. Symons: Well, I was considering a paved road that has dropped to the position where the ministry rates it as poor. I'm wondering what the cost would be of rehabbing the particular road that's got that rating compared to the cost if it had a fair rating. I gather you have quite a number of roads which fall into those two categories.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, it depends on what condition the road is in. If it's fair, the cost is $12,000 to $65,000 per kilometre. If it is classified as poor, the options include $80,000 to $125,000 for asphalt overlay.

D. Symons: If a road gets beyond the rehabilitation condition and basically has to be rebuilt, what would the cost per kilometre be on an average road? I realize that some will be more than others, but you must have an average rough ballpark figure for that.

Hon. H. Lali: Depending on where the road is, the cost is around $400,000 per klick.

D. Symons: That's a rebuild figure. I have figures down here that indicate that's somewhere around the rehab. . . . We differ on that -- or my source differs on that. The cost per kilometre for laying seal-coating. . . ? If you take all the seal-coating lanes you did in a given year and divide the amount of money in there, you get an average cost.

Hon. H. Lali: For a two-lane kilometre, the cost is between $12,000 and $15,000.

D. Symons: Quoted in "Goods Roads Cost Less" there is a statement that British Columbia has 2,620 bridge structures. This study was done in 1989-90, I believe. Some 1,500 of our bridges are either made of wood or are over 40 years old. Of these, 600 should be replaced "within the next ten years." Well, we're rapidly reaching that ten-year period. I wonder if you might be able to give me an idea of how many of those bridges that were identified nine years ago have been replaced.

Hon. H. Lali: We don't have that number here, but we can get it for the hon. member.

[5:00]

D. Symons: I wonder if you can give me an idea of the percentage of our paved roads in British Columbia that have reached the 15-year age limit, the stage where rehab work should be done.

Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the member that the last report was done in 1995, and the next one won't be completed for a month or two. But as of 1995, 10,500 kilometres of primary and major secondary highways in British Columbia had an average age of approximately 12 years. Over 35 percent were in excess of 15 years of age. The average remaining life was approximately three years, and over 33 percent had no remaining life.

D. Symons: Your figures are balancing with mine, then. That leaves us a fair deficit if we take the amount of money that you're spending on rehab this year. You indicated that a fair amount of that is going into seal-coating rather than resurfacing asphalt highways. I wonder if you can give me an idea of how the ministry plans to deal with the deficit of highways that we're going to have once a large number of structures are within a few years of reaching the 15-year time

[ Page 7911 ]

when they should have something done. I believe that as things stand now, within five years 55 percent of our highways are going to reach that critical point where we wonder if we should do rehab at that particular time so they'll have that remaining five years of life in them. How are we going to deal with that issue?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to give the hon. member some very good news. As I mentioned earlier, we were able to double the rehab budget from $80 million to $153 million. The overlay is 335 kilometres -- and these are road kilometres, not lane kilometres. For the hot-in-place remix, it's 180 kilometres. I've already given the figure of 625 kilometres for seal-coating.

D. Symons: I'll let the member from up north ask questions regarding seal-coating and the work in that area.

Going on to the bridge seismic retrofit program, I believe this study was done a few years ago as well. A number of bridges have been identified as in need of retrofitting, and I think money has been put aside for that. I have written down the estimated cost of some of that and the amount that has been spent to date. For the Oak Street Bridge. . . . I don't have the year, but it looks like about 50 percent of the estimated $15 million has been spent on upgrading that for seismic retrofit. But I notice that other bridges have had very little done, like the Second Narrows Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge, the Massey Tunnel, the Lions Gate Bridge -- of course, there's a whole other story on that -- and the Pattullo Bridge. A few of these, the Pattullo Bridge being one, will be off-loaded to the GVTA when it is set up. Very little has been done on it. So again, what are you going to be doing as far as the retrofitting of bridges is concerned?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to correct the hon. member. Here's some of the work that we've done from 1989 to present: on the Queensborough Bridge, $7.8 million; Oak Street Bridge, $7.5 million; Second Narrows, $1.3 million; Port Mann, $1.065 million; George Massey Tunnel, $100,000; Deas Slough, $200,000; Knight Street, $700,000; Lions Gate, $560,000; Pattullo, $170,000; Pitt River -- the two bridges -- is $30,000. Other bridges in the region are $6.225 million, for a grand total of $25.6 million.

D. Symons: I'm just noticing that the grand total for the estimated work to cure these is $125 million. So you're one-fifth of the way there on some of these. Some of the numbers you read. . . . If you look at the figures on the other column -- I think you were reading from the same one I have -- you read the amount spent to date. We also have the other one: the estimated cost of the whole project. Some of them are still not near that, so that was the point I was after at that particular point.

I believe the member for Shuswap has a question on rehab.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I'd like to inquire of the minister the current status of a program which I think came into existence about 1989 -- I'm not sure of the current state of it -- and that is the capital rehabilitation program for newly incorporated municipalities. I'm asking this question on behalf of my old friends at the district of Sicamous who were the first beneficiaries of that program, I think, in 1990 as a newly incorporated municipality. Is the program still in existence? Are there any funds to go with it? Are there newly incorporated municipalities still accessing that program?

Hon. H. Lali: We are not adding any new moneys. We're completing the commitments from the BCTFA that were made in the past. It is actually a TFA issue; I just want to point that out to the hon. member.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that. I'll use the same excuse for not asking this about an hour ago -- and the same with a couple of other questions to follow. I was making my own modest contribution to the Calgary declaration debate. Unfortunately, I wasn't quite able to get in here at the time the critic had suggested I do it.

The capital rehab program remains in place, but presumably there was a block of funds attached to that program that are gradually being -- eaten up is not quite the right word -- expended over time. I take it that any newly incorporated municipality would not be eligible for it now; presumably those that incorporated between 1989 and 1995 or '96 would be able to access that. Or are new ones still taking advantage of it?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the hon. member that we are currently fulfilling the obligations of the program that had existed -- the newly incorporated program. However, there is no program in place now for any new community that would want to incorporate. However, we would look at it on a case-by-case basis, and we will work closely with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this particular case-by-case aspect.

G. Abbott: The reason I ask is that back in the mid- to late 1980s, when the district of Sicamous was negotiating its package for incorporation status, one of the important elements in that package was the capital rehab program. By and large, they have made good use of funds out of there but I know they have some remaining projects that they would like to see achieved through that program. Given that it was an important part of their incorporation package, they feel they should continue to have an opportunity to do that. Could the minister advise me how much money remains in that program and whether it is all committed or whether there remains a possibility of accessing it?

Hon. H. Lali: The outstanding capital rehab commitments total $14.5 million. The BCTFA's budget for incorporation assistance was $1.8 million in '97-98, and it's $1.2 million for '98-99. So it's an average of about $1.5 million per year.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I have two other quick questions. Again, I want to apologize for raising them at this point, because properly they should have been raised an hour ago. I hope the minister will indulge me here. Are there any plans at this point in time to see an upgrading of the intersection of Highway 1 and Highway 97A at Sicamous?

Hon. H. Lali: We're doing a corridor management plan from Kamloops to the Alberta border. This is one of the intersections that will be considered as a part of it.

G. Abbott: I don't want to be argumentative, but I'm presuming from that response that there are no immediate plans to deal with that particular junction, that it's part of a broader look at the entire stretch and that nothing is particularly focused there now.

My final question is, again, very much a local question from Sicamous. Just beyond the junction of Highway 1 and

[ Page 7912 ]

Highway 97A is a very busy junction of the Trans-Canada Highway and the Solsqua-Cambie secondary road. I understand that in the past year the Ministry of Highways made a commitment to the district of Sicamous to add a turning lane at that location. Could the minister advise whether that commitment remains intact or what the status of that particular project is?

Hon. H. Lali: We'll have to get back to the hon. member on the specific question, but there is a fair bit of work being done in the Sicamous area. As part of the corridor management plan, it will be considered in the future.

[5:15]

D. Symons: I'm just going back to "Good Roads Cost Less." It's an important document that came out a decade ago. In that document they proposed that there should be about $250 million spent each year to rehabilitate roads over a ten-year period. They figured that about 1,000 kilometres of road should be done each year -- running at about $100 million in 1990 dollars -- bridges for $75 million and secondary roads for another $75 million, making that $250 million. Over the last few years we have seen a deficit in that amount. The amounts spent both in the previous administration and in your administration on rehab have come nowhere near what that study recommended. This year is one of the better years, actually, but it is still $100 million short of the $250 million they suggested is needed each year.

Going back to that seal-coating job, I'm just reading from the Smithers newspaper of February 4 this year: "Another half a million dollars down the drain. As any driver can see and feel as we travel along Highway 16, the seal-coating done last summer is falling apart. . . . With the miracle of hindsight, it appears [it] has been a waste of precious dollars. Had the corridor upgrade been undertaken earlier, it would have saved taxpayers a bundle of money in the long run."

My concern in raising this question again on the "Good Roads Cost Less" study is that every time we postpone something and use a temporary repair like seal-coating when it should be a rehab job, we are in effect adding to the eventual cost of the project. It's sort of penny saved but pound foolish. I'm wondering if you might just comment on how we are going to. . . . You talk about spending $150 million this year on rehab, but that still doesn't match the need that's out there. What are the long-term plans to address that need?

Hon. H. Lali: I certainly would count on the hon. member's support in terms of increasing rehab. We took the first step this year by doubling the rehab budget for the entire province.

In terms of the Smithers corridor, it's a cooperative project between the ministry and the municipality of Smithers, and we didn't have the moneys. That's why it was put off. We're improving technology and techniques in terms of developing new techniques and also a computer system that helps us identify which bridges and roads need to have rehab money spent on them.

I think, again, that the study the hon. member mentioned was a higher-level study. It was more hypothetical than real. It didn't look at actually going into various parts of the province and looking at specific roads before coming back with a figure. But I agree with the hon. member that we do need to spend more money on rehab. We made a start this year, and hopefully in the future we can increase.

D. Symons: I did ask the ministry for some other things when I gave you that letter of March 5, and I talked earlier about the Transportation Financing Authority questions in there. I also have some questions for the ministry. I've asked them, and maybe now is the time to repeat them. Actually, in a sense we've danced around some of these questions, but maybe I could have the complete thing: the number of the lane-kilometres of resurfacing in the last five years, year by year, and broken down into repaving, hot-in-place -- distinguishing between the two types of resurfacing asphalt roads -- and seal-coating, how much in each category of that and if any was financed through the TFA. I gather that in this current fiscal year there will be some financing from TFA, and I believe there was a small amount of road done last year through TFA. If I could have that information -- again, in a timely fashion; I'm not asking for it today or tomorrow -- I would appreciate it.

The second question -- I've got something written here, and I can't make out my comments -- is on a listing of projects for the last fiscal year and the plan for the bridge seismic upgrading in '98-99, with the costs associated with each. You read to me earlier a document I have a copy of, which shows the total cost of doing the retrofitting for seismic upgrading of bridges and the amount spent to date. How much is budgeted for this year in each of those -- if you could also supply that? Again, I don't expect you to have that right now, but if you have. . . . The minister is looking. Oh, that's fine.

Hon. H. Lali: On the first question, the hon. member wanted the figures for the last five years. These are road-kilometres, not lane-kilometres. For 1994, overlay was 375, hot-in-place was 175 and seal-coat was 180. For 1995, overlay was 250, hot-in-place was 120 and seal-coat was 140. For 1996, overlay was 250, hot-in-place was 135 and seal-coat was 270. For 1997, overlay was 165, hot-in-place was 85 and seal-coat was 180. And in the 1998 estimates overlay is 335, hot-in-place is 180 and seal-coat is 625. These are road-kilometres, not lane-kilometres.

On the bridge seismic upgrading, we'll have to give the hon. member figures later as we have not finalized the plans.

D. Symons: I thank you for that, and I'd appreciate a copy of the document you're reading from. That would have it all nicely made for me. If you could, I'd appreciate a copy of that one sheet sometime in the future -- when you're supplying the other things, possibly.

I wonder if we might move along now to the member for Prince George-Omineca.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this unexpected pleasure of dealing with Prince George and devolution, but in any event. . . . The city of Prince George -- that is, the mayor and council -- has some concerns with reference to downloading. I refer the minister to a recent Free Press article of April 23, 1998, which is headlined "City Opposes Downloaded Road Maintenance." It indicates that the city had received news about the highway in a letter from the province with reference to 3.75 kilometres of the Old Cariboo Highway, with the total maintenance cost of $88,677 annually, which is a considerable amount of money. The actual date of the transfer, apparently, for the Old Cariboo Highway is to be May 24 -- that's sometime in the next few days.

Another article refers again to the Old Cariboo Highway and suggests: "In the midst of the municipal budgeting the good old provincial government struck another dirty blow to local governments" -- those are the words that they use -- "in devolving 3.75 kilometres of the Old Cariboo Highway

[ Page 7913 ]

between Highway 16 east and the airport." I refer the minister to correspondence to the minister dated April 21, 1998, from the office of the mayor of Prince George, Colin Kinsley, which raises the whole question of the devolution of this particular highway. They suggest that the city of Prince George strongly disagrees with this move -- that is, the devolution of the stretch of road in the municipality of Prince George, which you referred to as Aitcheson to airport. This road fulfils certain criteria which dictate that it should remain within the provincial government's domain and responsibility.

Another consideration with this particular road is that due to the location of the BCR weigh scales, this segment of the Old Cariboo Highway is frequently used when drivers are rerouting to avoid driving past the scales. The council respectfully requests of the minister and the ministry that they review the proposed criteria to establish which provincial arterial highways should be devolved and to provide classification on the terms contained in it prior to implementing the project.

Will the minister please provide me an update, then, on the status of the devolution of this particular road within Prince George, if he might?

Hon. H. Lali: There was quite a bit in the member's statement before the question.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I think the hon. member has the opportunity to raise some questions on the floor. I sat here quietly listening to the hon. member's question and the member from Whistler is interjecting now.

The province, as the member is quite aware, accepts responsibility for provincial highways and roads and has only transferred those roads that serve primarily local traffic -- which by definition are not arterial highways. The provincial government has been consulting with municipalities and the UBCM for the past year and a half to ensure that a fair and equitable set of criteria was developed to define an arterial highway. These criteria will form the basis of all future decisions on designation of arterial highways.

The province has been paying the maintenance on some of these primarily municipal roads for many, many years, and it's only fair that municipalities assume responsibility for local roads. The provincial government continues to invest in the construction of new highways, and taxpayers in this province should not be expected to pay for building and maintaining new highways as well as maintaining old ones.

I also want to point out that in terms of the criteria, we have now offered to cost-share traffic volume studies with the various municipalities, and we're still consulting. And on the particular issue -- I hope I pronounce this right -- of Aitcheson Road, we always maintain one airport road. Where there are more than one, they obviously become a municipal responsibility.

The hon. member mentioned the issue of timing, that it falls in their mid-budget. Any time the issue was raised, it was never proper timing for municipalities. I just want to point that out for the record.

In terms of my response to Mayor Kinsley, I will be talking to him this week.

P. Nettleton: It's my understanding, then, from your response that in fact you'll be discussing the devolution of this particular piece of road, so there may be some hope that perhaps some kind of an agreement can be reached with the municipality. Is that the case?

Hon. H. Lali: Mayor Kinsley sent a letter on May 5 outlining a series of issues in there. My letter of last week to his worship indicated that we would be responding to the various issues, which we will do this week. That was included in my letter.

[5:30]

P. Nettleton: If I may, while we're on the subject of devolution of highways, direct the minister's attention again to correspondence -- in this case, from the district of Vanderhoof, dated May 5, 1998, directed to the minister from the mayor of Vanderhoof, Frank Read. It talks, first of all, about the position of Vanderhoof council with reference to the devolution of highways. They make the statement that they disagree with the philosophy employed in the policy of highways devolution:

"It is not fair to download costs of any kind without providing new options to increase revenues to offset the cost increase. Under the original devolution proposal, we were to receive $35,700 as an arterial highways equalization grant. This grant has now been removed, and we would like to know the reason for this."

It goes on:

"We note the GVRD has been given a new revenue option in the form of a portion of fuel taxes, and we are not aware of any other local government in British Columbia that has received this special benefit. It is unfortunate that all local governments were not treated equally in this regard."

The mayor makes the point that they have three major concerns in Vanderhoof -- in addition to the loss of the arterial highways equalization grant to which he referred. He indicates that in your letter -- presumably, a letter from the ministry -- dated April 3, 1998, "item 7 clearly states that communities with a population of less than 10,000 will not be forced to take over 'major' bridges." He goes on to make that point that Vanderhoof has a population of 4,401 people, which is significantly less than the 10,000 stated: "We have now been informed by your Prince George office that the bridge in question is not a major bridge."

They have requested a written definition of "major bridge" as it pertains to highways devolution, and that information has not been made available -- at least, it had not been made available at the date of the writing of the letter of May 5. They go on to state that Mr. Minister is:

". . .most unfair to apply your policy as stated in item 7 on a selective basis. If you have not defined what constitutes a major bridge in your policy, then we should receive the benefit of the doubt when we request that the bridge in question not be downloaded onto Vanderhoof."

Would the minister please comment on this issue?

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member was reading from a number of letters, and I just want to point out that we have responded to all of those letters. As for the particular bridge in question, the province has retained responsibility for the structural maintenance of the Burrard Avenue Bridge in Vanderhoof.

I also want to point out to the hon. member that the grant that he referred to was for one year only. We provided maintenance in lieu of that grant. I also want to point out that roads are devolved all of the time. The province continues to accept

[ Page 7914 ]

responsibility for provincial highways and roads and will only devolve roads that serve primarily a municipal function and which, by definition, are not arterial roads. We've come up with very fair and clear criteria that for the first time will form the basis of all future decisions on designation of arterial highways.

I also want to point out that in total the province is keeping over 90 percent of the arterial roads that are within municipalities and outside of the GVRD. This is an increase from the 79 percent that was first proposed in November of 1996.

P. Nettleton: The ministry has responded, then, to the correspondence of May 5, 1998, from the district of Vanderhoof. Is that the case?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

P. Nettleton: That's certainly helpful information, and I'm sure that it would be of some interest. Could I perhaps get a copy of that correspondence at some point in the near future?

Hon. H. Lali: The letters were all cc'd to the respective MLAs, and you will be receiving your letter.

Noting the hour, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:37 p.m.


[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada