DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1998
Afternoon
Volume 11, Number 9
Part 1
[ Page 9333 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce two constituents of mine from Osoyoos, Elaine and Conner Clarke. Would the House please make them welcome.
I. Chong: I'd like to introduce to the House today two guests of mine, Anne Heel and Bonnie Smith. Both are involved with music programs in schools. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
W. Hartley: Today in the gallery we have some 20 visitors from Catlin Gable Elementary School in Portland, Oregon. They are in grades 5 to 7, and they are here with their teacher, Mr. Carr, and some adults. Would the members please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Pullinger: The administrative assistant from my office, Wendy Twomey, is in the gallery today. She's here with Linda Angus and her daughter Alex Bissley. I understand that Alex has just completed grade 6 at Sir James Douglas Elementary School with straight As, which is a nice accomplishment. Alex is starting her summer holidays today by having lunch at the Legislature and watching question period. I ask all members of the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today, visiting with us from Broxbourne, England, is my brother Michael Petter. It is his first visit to the Legislature, and I'm delighted that he is here. I'm also delighted that he is accompanied by my mother Lisl Petter. I ask the House to make them both feel very welcome.
G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Roger Jones, a resident and very active member of our community in New Westminster. I ask all members of the House to please join me in making him welcome.
J. Doyle: I'm pleased to have my youngest son, William, in the gallery today. William is down here for a couple of days to watch the proceedings in the House. I'd like to also say that I'm very proud of William; he just got straight As in grade 6. I'd like you to make him welcome.
E. Gillespie: I ask the House to join me in welcoming a family from my constituency of Comox Valley. Ross and Margaret Griffiths-Cochrane are visiting in the gallery, along with their children Laura, Jamie and Stephen.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1998
Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998.Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Bill 41 introduces two measures that were announced in Budget '98 as part of our government's three-year plan to stimulate the economy, enhance the competitiveness of B.C. businesses, encourage investment and create jobs. The first measure is a production services tax credit targeted at both Canadian and foreign film and television producers. Effective June 1, 1998, this new incentive provides a refundable corporate income tax credit equal to 11 percent of qualifying labour expenditures incurred in B.C. and paid to B.C. residents in making a film or television production.
The second measure contained in Bill 41 is a mining exploration tax credit that is available to both companies and individual prospectors to encourage and increase their exploration activities. This refundable tax credit is equal to 20 percent of eligible exploration expenses incurred in British Columbia after July 31, 1998.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
FIRST NATIONS TREATY PROCESS AND NON-ABORIGINAL VOTING RIGHTS
G. Campbell: Last week, hon. Speaker, a draft copy of a secretly negotiated agreement between the Westbank Indian band and the federal government was made public. Seven thousand property tax payers living on the Westbank reserve were horrified to learn that if this deal goes ahead, they will forever be denied one of the most basic democratic rights in Canada. This will prohibit those taxpayers from voting on either their local government representation or the laws and taxes which will be imposed upon them.My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: when was he first made aware of the Westbank agreement-in-principle? Does he support the principles that it embodies?
Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, given that it's a federal matter, with regret I must take the question on notice.
The Speaker: A different line of attack, I presume, Leader of the Official Opposition?
G. Campbell: Attack, hon. Speaker?
The Speaker: I beg your pardon. I take the word back.
G. Campbell: I'm searching for some answers here.
The Speaker: A pursuit of the question.
G. Campbell: A different line of questioning, however, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: A good way to put it.
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I'm sure that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will agree that one of the most fundamental rights we have in Canada, in a democracy, is equal voting
[ Page 9334 ]
rights. I assume that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would agree that it was wrong that aboriginal people in Canada were denied voting rights for some time.My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: does he believe that two wrongs make a right? Will he stand up and ensure that all citizens of Canada, regardless of where they live, have equal voting rights regardless of any aboriginal self-government agreements?
Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I did take the question on notice, and I can't violate the rules now.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Lovick: All right. Now that I am speaking, I obviously can't hide behind a procedural point, so I won't -- but with caution. A cautionary note to the member is that we're talking about a reserve which is entirely, completely under federal jurisdiction. For me to comment on what is happening on reserve land is quite simply inappropriate. I don't have sufficient detail. Therefore I'm not about to add fuel to the fire, if indeed there is a fire burning out there. So I'm asking the member, I guess, to be a little bit sensitive to the delicacy of the problem.
[2:15]
The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am sensitive to the delicacy of the problem. I am sensitive to the concerns that are expressed by literally thousands of people who are Westbank residents. But I'm also concerned about the concerns expressed by British Columbians. They would like to know what principles will be embodied in any kind of self-government agreement that this government may agree to.
Let me ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs this question: would he work to oppose any kind of self-government agreement that would in fact give aboriginal communities and band laws supremacy over federal or provincial laws? Will he ensure that provincial and federal laws have paramountcy in any self-government agreement?
Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I would refer the member to the agreement-in-principle that we now have extant between ourselves and the Nisga'a, which is a pretty clear enunciation of what our views are regarding self-government and the relationship between federal Crown and the provincial Crown vis-à-vis the legislative and legal framework. The other document is simply the principles for settlement of claims, which we published almost two years ago. So I think that's a pretty clear statement of what the provincial government's position is vis-à-vis post-treaty legal rights and entitlements in terms of first nations people.
M. de Jong: Well, if that is the blueprint, as the minister is indicating, he should also know that this side of the House and a great majority of British Columbians disagree with that blueprint, are opposed to that blueprint. The question that we're asking the minister today is
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I would be prepared to give the member that assurance, certainly based on what we have said thus far and as far as I understand the member's question. Everything we have done is consistent with that. In the Nisga'a AIP, for example, we talk about the laws of general application still obtaining; we talk about meeting or beating our laws in terms of wildlife protection and fisheries; we talk about the fact that the Charter of Rights and the constitution of Canada will still obtain; we talk about the Criminal Code of Canada still obtaining. So it seems to me that all of those things taken together would certainly mean that the answer to the member's question is an affirmative -- yes, indeed.
The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.
M. de Jong: The Nisga'a AIP denies to non-Nisga'a -- non-aboriginal people -- the right to vote, that basic and fundamental tenet of our democracy in Canada. That's something that the minister glosses over in fairly short order. The federal government is embarking upon a strategy that is going to divide this province into a number of little fiefdoms. It is going to create a jurisdictional overlap, a nightmare, and the only people who are going to get rich, I'm sorry to say, are the lawyers who will be fighting those jurisdictional overlaps for years and years to come.
The question for the minister today is: will he stand up for British Columbians, who are looking for these agreements to truly embody equality; stand up for the British Columbians who are demanding the right to vote for a government that is going to impose taxes on them from here to ever after?
Hon. D. Lovick: My job from the beginning, since taking on the significant responsibility of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, has been to represent the interests of the rest of us in the province as well as first nations. Clearly, in doing so, all I can do now is enunciate the point I just made a moment ago: that the laws of general application will continue to apply, that the Criminal Code will still apply and obtain, that the constitution and the Charter will still obtain. I think I've given about as much in the way of assurance to the member as I possibly can. Unfortunately, as I listen to these questions, I begin to hear the sound of marching feet. It begins to sound a bit like the one-law-for-all kind of silliness which is unfortunately out there. I hope I'm not misrepresenting or misunderstanding the point being made.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.
FIRST NATIONS TREATY PROCESSAND AMENDING FORMULAS
G. Plant: There's another issue raised by the Westbank self-government deal that is equally troubling. While I appreciate that the minister says he basically hasn't seen the Westbank self-government agreement-in-principle, I think that the[ Page 9335 ]
issue of self-government and its relationship to the treaty process generally, as well as to aboriginal people across British Columbia, is very important to this government -- or it ought to be. The issue that I want to ask the minister about is the issue of amendment. The amending formula in this agreement-in-principle allows the agreement, once it is finalized, to be amended by simple order-in-council, which is to say that the government of Canada could amend this agreement, once it's made, by a simple order-in-council, without bringing the agreement back to Parliament, let alone to the Legislature of British Columbia.Given the importance of self-government agreements generally, I want to know whether the minister supports this approach to amendment or whether it is his view that no amendments should be possible to agreements like this without ensuring that the matter comes back before Parliament or the B.C. Legislature. In other words, will the people have a say in amending agreements with aboriginal people?
Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, this sounds suspiciously like the question we began with that I took on notice, asking me to comment on the specifics of this one -- which, again, I simply can't do. If the member is asking me to extrapolate in general terms -- you know, how will we deal
The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.
G. Plant: The issue that I wanted to raise and attempted to raise was the issue of amendment: what happens after you have an agreement? How can it be changed? That is an issue raised in the Nisga'a agreement, and it is an issue that is part of the treaty process which this government is participating in with aboriginal groups across British Columbia. It's an issue that I say, with respect, is pretty darned important. The question I want to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is this: what are the instructions that he has given his treaty negotiators with respect to amending formulas?
Hon. D. Lovick: We are on the threshold now, we like to believe, of negotiating the first modern treaty in British Columbia history with the Nisga'a. I for one am proud and excited about the prospect of doing so. To ask me to now come out from the table in the negotiating room and start talking about what is on the table would be, quite frankly, (a) irresponsible and (b) disrespectful to the people with whom we're negotiating. All I can say is that I would ask the members opposite to cut us a little slack and be patient, because I'm hoping we'll have something to say very soon.
TRANSFER OF CARDIAC PATIENT AND HOSPITAL WAIT-LISTS
S. Hawkins: Last Thursday Mr. Ivan Fehr, who is a senior citizen visiting in the Kelowna area, was taken to Kelowna General Hospital with chest pains, and on Saturday night the cardiologist determined that he needed to be transferred to a cardiac surgery unit. But when the air ambulance was called to take Mr. Fehr back to Edmonton, where his doctor and a hospital bed were waiting, the Ministry of Health refused, and instead he was sent to St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. This decision not only left Mr. Fehr completely alone in Vancouver, but it also bumped all the other patients that were waiting for cardiac surgery at St. Paul's Hospital. So my question is to the Health minister: why on earth would she transfer Mr. Fehr to Vancouver, to St. Paul's Hospital, where there's a huge wait-list for cardiac surgery, when he had a bed waiting at his home hospital in Edmonton?Hon. P. Priddy: It is the policy of the B.C. Ambulance Service and the government to transfer a patient who is ill to the nearest facility that can provide the necessary care. In this case it was St. Paul's in Vancouver, and my understanding is that that was the agreement and recommendation of the attending physician.
The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Okanagan West.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
S. Hawkins: The Minister of Health
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.
S. Hawkins:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member, we'll take a moment until the House comes to order.
S. Hawkins: Instead of doing what's best for Mr. Fehr and what's best for all the patients in B.C., this minister is busy making excuses. She knows that this decision is going to cost B.C. taxpayers more. Now St. Paul's Hospital is going to be redoing some very expensive tests on this patient, because there are no records for him at St. Paul's. I ask the minister again: will she admit that her government has failed over and over to manage wait-lists in this province and has again made a very bad decision for this patient and for patients in B.C. by transferring this patient to St. Paul's Hospital?
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm still dealing with MLAs being called to a hospital for urgent health cases.
It is the principle to transfer the patient -- in this case, one with a cardiac problem -- to the nearest centre where treatment can be provided, which is what they did. Secondly, there is not going to be an increased cost to British Columbians. There is a reciprocal agreement with the province of Alberta, where this gentleman is from, that his in-hospital
[ Page 9336 ]
medicare costs will be covered, so there is not an additional charge. He was taken to the closest centre that could provide appropriate treatment for him.
Would the member suggest that we, because Edmonton is his home, transfer this patient further away for cardiac care, when St. Paul's Hospital was closer? While I do appreciate
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the minister is just about to finish her statement.
Hon. P. Priddy:
As well, I have the honour to present two reports: "Criminal Injury Compensation Program of British Columbia Report, 1997"; and "Report on Multiculturalism, Government of British Columbia, 1996-97."
In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Crown corporation B.C. Transit and of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
The Speaker wishes to make a statement before we begin. The procedure that the House is presently embarked upon is somewhat novel to this House, and a comment on the procedure may be of assistance to the hon. members. Members will be aware that our standing order No. 1 refers us to the practice of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, in the absence of express provisions in our own standing orders or precedents from this assembly. Accordingly, extensive reference has been made to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.
[2:30]
The House is dealing with the broad category of business generally known as dropped orders. The procedures to be followed arising from a dropped order are outlined in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twenty-second edition, page 321. The authority quoted states in part as follows:
"A dropped government order may be reinstated for the day following that on which the unexpected adjournment takes place by means of a motion to that effect appearing on that day's order paper in the name of a minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business. The dropped order itself appears printed in italics either at the head of the list of Orders of the Day or at the place where the government wishes it to be taken."It is therefore the Chair's view that the procedures adopted consequent upon the dropped government order have been correct, in that notice of motion to reinstate has been given and appears on today's Orders as motion on notice No. 50.
The major question that remains unanswered is whether or not the government motion to reinstate Bill 26 to its former position on Orders of the Day is a debatable motion. The Chair is of the view that the motion in question is debatable, but only within the confines of the scope of debate applicable to a business or procedural motion. Such motions relate to the business of the House and are described at page 315 of the twenty-second edition of Erskine May. The scope of debate on a business or procedural motion does not extend to permit an examination in detail of the subject matter of the motion, but rather directs itself as to the reasons, pro and con, for reinstatement of the order for the adjourned debate on second reading of the bill.
I further refer to Erskine May's twenty-second edition at page 321, where discussing such motions, it states: "If debate occurs on such a motion, it must be strictly limited to the precise object of the motion." I draw an analogy between this motion before the House and a motion to recommit a bill to a Committee of the Whole House, in part or in whole, after the bill has been reported to the House from a Committee of the Whole. In the circumstances, the Speaker, under the United Kingdom practice, permits a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for recommital to the member who moves the motion and a member who opposes the motion, after which explanations the Speaker puts the question on the motion without further debate. This United Kingdom practice has now been codified in their standing orders and is discussed in the above referred edition of Erskine May at page 542.
In this House, the bill which the government seeks to restore to the order paper is presently at the stage of adjourned debate on second reading. The Chair notes that many members have not yet exercised their right to speak on the motion for second reading; nor have any of the standard amendments to this motion been moved, thereby providing ample opportunity to speak to the substance of the bill in question.
It is, therefore, the Chair's view that the motion in question cannot be distinguished from any other procedural motion and is debatable only to the extent of the mechanics of reinstatement. The merit of the bill will be fully canvassed when, and if, the motion for reinstatement passes.
I recognize the Government House Leader.
REINSTATEMENT OF BILL 26 ON ORDER PAPER
Hon. J. MacPhail: The motion is in my name, so I assumed I would speak to it first.I will read it into the record: "That the order for the adjourned debate on Second Reading of Bill (No. 26), Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998 be reinstated to the Orders of the Day." I welcome the opportunity to admit and to acknowledge here that there was a technical error on Thursday, which brought interruption to the debate on Bill 26. This motion is necessary in order to reverse that technical error. The motion is in order and simply reinstates the second reading of Bill 26 to the point where it was prior to the House being adjourned on Thursday.
I thank the Speaker for her opening advisory comments. Hon. Speaker, you have cited Erskine May, twenty-second
[ Page 9337 ]
edition, at page 321, and that would form part of my address to motion 50 as well -- about a dropped order being reinstated.I would ask for us all to consider that in our jobs in this Legislature we have important work to do, and that we do carry on our work in a way that tries at times to accommodate concerns. There has been accommodation of concerns around the precedent set on controversial bills -- and this is not in fact sought in any way. Our motion does not seek to reinstate the debate on the bill without proper notice to each and every member in this House. It is time now, though, to proceed back to the debate. As you have noted, hon. Speaker, there is ample opportunity for debate on the piece of legislation concerned in this motion -- Bill 26 -- and we welcome that debate.
I would also just ask the House to consider that there have been times when the government has sought to accommodate the opposition members' needs. In fact, we have made whole the opposition on occasions when technical errors have placed them in difficulties. I believe that that is the way we should be accommodating the business of the House.
Finally, hon. Speaker, I would pay heed to your advice -- I assume it was advice -- on how the House of Commons conducts its business in this area. I believe you read that one speaker from the government addresses the motion, one speaker from the opposition and then the question will be put. Certainly that advice is welcomed and heeded by us.
The Speaker: I recognize the Opposition House Leader.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I take note of your comments, although I don't recall them being quite as characterized by the House Leader from the government side. I recall your comments in their entirety.
In looking at this issue as it developed over Thursday and Friday and throughout the weekend, it became clear that in fact the precedents in a case like this, for a general dropped order, are numerous. At one point in the late 1800s and into the early part of this century, it was quite common for items to lapse as dropped motions in Great Britain almost every Friday afternoon. As a matter of course, the items were reinstated on the order paper on the Monday -- in many cases without the House even talking about it or a real motion being passed. In fact, the Clerks just took it upon themselves to put the item in the order paper, and so it went.
However, this is a very, very unique situation which has occurred. In fact, it is not something
The Speaker: The member tables material.
G. Farrell-Collins: What I have given to the Speaker are three precedents in particular. One of them is from 1917, which is a fairly clear one.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I hear comments from the Deputy Premier. If he wishes to rise on a point of order, he's welcome to do so. I haven't heard that, so perhaps he can wait for his turn in the debate.
The 1917 precedent is fairly brief and fairly clear; it merely states
There are two other precedents which I think are better indications of what we're dealing with today as a result of what took place on Thursday. I'll start with the one that took place in 1923, because in that case, it was again a dropped motion that resulted in a contentious matter. It was an extremely contentious matter before the House. The government at that time tried to reintroduce the motion under the dropped-order procedure -- similar to what the government is attempting to do today -- and following the standing orders of the day, did exactly what it is the government has done today: they brought forward a motion. The motion was in order. The item had been entered in italics in Orders of the Day. Everything complied virtually identically with what we're dealing with today.
But, hon. Speaker, in the copies that I've forwarded, if you have a chance to read through them, you'll see that in the 1923 scenario, as that debate went back and forth
If one looks at another precedent from the House of Commons, on July 14, 1884, a similar occurrence happened. I believe it was in that case where there was actually a motion that dropped off the order paper. There was a motion after the budget debate that the House go into Committee of Supply. That was treated back then as very close to, if not identical to -- and there was some debate at that time -- a confidence motion, because it is, in fact, the motion that's moved in response to the budget debate. In that case, the government lost a division -- actually lost a division. Then the House adjourned without that matter having been dealt with -- the motion that the Committee of Supply be set up. In that case, there was also extensive debate. There were 15 speakers. Again the debate raged for several hours, within the parameters that were laid out by the Speaker, as to whether or not that issue should be reinstated, how it should be reinstated, why it should be reinstated and the problems thereof. I think those precedents which I pass to the Speaker are very clear.
It's important, when you look at this debate that we're having today on Motion 50, that
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the member -- I guess he's still the Minister of Agriculture -- talking. I don't know whether
[ Page 9338 ]
he was ordering takeout or whether he was trying to engage in the debate. If he wants to, he'll be more than able to rise in his place and give his wisdom about the procedures of this House and how it all happened on Thursday: that he was more concerned with dreaming about lunch than he was about passing the government's bill. I await his comments.If you look at the two instances that I raised earlier, particularly the 1923 and the 1884 scenarios, it's very clear that what happened in those cases, although similar, was significantly different from what happened on Thursday. On Thursday it was a deliberate attempt, strategy and tactic to use one of those tools that's available to the opposition to force a government to stand up and defend its legislation in a meaningful way or to abandon that legislation. That's the question that's before us here today: is the government prepared to defend this legislation? Should they be entitled to reinstate it, having abandoned the legislation on the order paper on Thursday? Should this House allow them to reinstate it? Those are the questions that are before the House.
We're not arguing about whether or not that's in order but the question of whether or not the government gets to go ahead with that legislation. It is not a decision for the Speaker; it's not a decision for one member of this House. It is a decision for all members of this House to make when the vote on this motion is finally taken. There is no automatic right for the government to reinstate this bill, despite the precedents, despite the history, despite the ruling. That's why this debate is taking place here today.
[2:45]
The debate today must centre around whether or not it is appropriate -- not whether or not it's procedurally correct -- for the government to be let off the hook and to reintroduce this debate, and whether or not this House should allow them to do that. I would argue no in the extreme, because in the two short years since the last election, this government has become one of the most arrogant, irresponsible, pompous governments we've ever seen in the history of British Columbia. This House has made its opinion known on this matter in the past. This House made its opinion known on the matter which this government abandoned last Thursday and now attempts to reinstate. The public made its opinion clear on this issue last year. Yet the government continues to try and bring it forward. The government knows right now that on Thursday, when they let this issue lapse -- when they let this issue fall off the order paper -- there was significant opposition to it. They knew that at the time. They've heard from opposition members. We're now well into the second reading debate. Most members of the opposition have participated in the debate, have become involved in the debate and have let their feelings be known on this bill.When we were sitting there discussing the bill in second reading, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson looked across the House and found two -- count 'em -- members opposite sitting in the chamber. One was the Minister of Agriculture, ordering lunch; the other was the esteemed, knowledgable and much experienced member who is now the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. If either of those members were taking the role of Government House Leader -- I assume one of them must have been -- then one or both of them certainly would have been involved in monitoring the debate and would have made sure that we didn't end up in the position we ended up in today. If the government was so eager to have this bill brought forward and to move this bill through the various stages of debate, where was the government on Thursday? They were down in the dining room having lunch. If they were so eager, so adamant, so intent on driving this issue through the Legislature for the second year in a row, where were they? Why weren't they here standing up for this?
It's not the first time that members of the government have been -- how shall I say? -- otherwise occupied. I can't recall how many quorum calls there have been in the last week, trying to drag the enthusiastic members opposite into the chamber to stand up and defend this legislation. One has to ask oneself why it is that when the House expressed itself and, more importantly, when those two members opposite expressed their support so enthusiastically for this legislation on Thursday
The reality is this: they don't really care about the legislation -- or some of them don't care about the legislation, anyway. I know the Premier cares about the legislation, because he has a debt to repay to the members of the building trades -- the executives, the big guys who supported the government at length.
The Speaker: The hon. member is aware of the rules regarding the debate on Motion 50 -- that is, on the technical merits of reinstatement, not on the substance of the bill to be discussed later, perhaps. Member, continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I take your guidance.
I was merely reflecting on what the motive might be for the government's urgency to have this bill reinstated. As has been done elsewhere, legislation lapses on order papers throughout parts of the Commonwealth the world over. Legislation is introduced, it's partially debated, and then it dies on the order paper.
Indeed, I recall when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin used to be a minister and was also Government House Leader. I believe it was 1993. At that time a number of bills were left on the order paper and in fact died a natural death at the prorogation of the House. I think there were six or eight bills where that happened.
When one is looking at the order paper and at the amount of work this House has to do -- the amount of work left to be done, the number of bills that need to be completed and the estimates that need to be completed -- one wonders why it is that this government doesn't just follow up on what was clearly evident on Thursday: the fact that they have no desire to proceed with this bill. They have no desire to recommit it.
What happened somehow between Thursday and now is that the government has rethought it. They've decided that this is indeed urgent. All the members -- the other 36 members opposite -- who decided to be elsewhere at the time have suddenly had a conversion on the road to Damascus, so to speak, and decided that this piece of legislation is one of the most important things that they need to do this session.
I ask the members opposite: where was the urgency in them that we see today, demanding that this bill be reinstated on the order paper as Motion 50? Where was that urgency on Thursday? The House can only test the urgency of an issue by the vehemence and the passion which members opposite express in debate -- by the urgency of their debate and by the urgency of the logic behind their debate. We haven't seen it. When this House is asked today to reinstate a matter that was
[ Page 9339 ]
rightly, procedurally and correctly dropped from the order paper on Thursday, in a direct and deliberate move under the standing orders, one has to ask: why? Where was the passion on Thursday? Where was the desire to have this issue moved forward? There was a good half-hour left for debate. If we're trying to get this work done and get it out there, and if it's so good for the people of the British Columbia, why was the Minister of Agriculture so anxious to get to lunch?An Hon. Member: That's a good question.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's a good question. The Minister of Labour asked me the question. Without reflecting on the presence of members in the House, I don't know what it was that the Minister of Labour was doing. I don't know if he had already tucked into the ham sandwich or whether he was on dessert as of 11:30, but he wasn't in here, and he wasn't defending the bill passionately, as I would have thought he would have been doing as the minister responsible for it.
I would like to know where the members opposite gained this passion since Thursday. Where was the passion on Thursday that the members are supposed to have?
Hon. D. Lovick: Subterranean fires always burn brightest.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the Minister of Labour. I'm sure he's going to get up and defend his bill, because if this House decides to reject Motion 50, if it decides that it's not going to reinstate the bill -- which is a decision that only this House can make -- then I would expect and hope that the Minister of Labour would accept that verdict and move off it. So I expect that he would engage in the debate today. I would expect that he would stand up, given his procedural wisdom, too, having spent time in the chair which the Speaker now
M. de Jong: That will be a short speech.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Matsqui tells me it will be a short speech. Having heard the member opposite speak, I can imagine it would go on for days.
Hon. Speaker, given the fact that the member sat on your esteemed throne for a period of time and oversaw the procedures of this House, I would love to hear the wisdom of the member opposite as to the rationale and the desire and the reason for Motion 50 -- why this House should vote in favour of Motion 50 and why it is
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: He's doing it already, and I thank him. He says it's not on the order paper; it's subjugated. That's exactly why we need the wisdom of the Minister of Labour and why we need him to stand up and tell us exactly the reason, the rationale for why he feels the bill that is in his hands needs to be debated in this House. If nothing else is done, what we will have is a piece of legislation that has, for all intents and purposes, disappeared from this session. What we need to have on this side of the House
Who knows? We may vote in favour of Motion 50 if the members opposite can convince us of the urgency of the debate. That's what this House is all about: members offer their wisdom, their point of point, their ideas, their vision to the other side and to their colleagues, and try and sway them to their point of view. I'm still unswayed on Motion 50, but I can't wait
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Chilliwack says he's close to being convinced that Motion 50 should pass and that this bill should be reinstated on the order paper. I am a little further away, but I'll let the member for Chilliwack decide on his own. Why don't we on this side of the House make it a free vote as to whether or not Motion 50 should pass and whether or not Bill 26 should be reinstated on the order paper?
I know that at various times in this House the Minister of Labour has had to cut his elucidations short, given the clock. I hope that he will take full advantage of it today to partake in this debate and elucidate for us at length his wisdom about why his bill, which has dropped off the order paper -- a bill that was in his charge -- should be reinstated on the order paper. So far, nothing the Government House Leader has said leads me to believe that that's the case. She says it was a technical error; it wasn't a technical error. She says that the government has been accommodating in the past. Well, hon. Speaker, there's a difference between a technical error and a deliberate strategy. The minister, I think, would understand that, as would the Government House Leader.
[3:00]
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Coquitlam-Ottawa chuckles that it's a deliberate
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister of points of order chuckles that it was a deliberate attempt
Unfortunately, the next day, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson rose to launch a similar parry, to dive and thrust forward with his sword, the black knight opposite stood there like a Monty Python character, arms and legs gone, bleeding profusely, saying: "Come on back. I'm not quite dead yet."
An Hon. Member: It's only a flesh wound.
[ Page 9340 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. He was saying, "It's only a flesh wound," and the Minister of Agriculture rushed to his aid with a ham sandwich to try and bandage those flesh wounds.An Hon. Member: To give him some strength to carry on.
G. Farrell-Collins: To give him some strength to carry on.
So one has to ask what happened. I mean, what did happen on Thursday? Why should this bill be reinstated on the order paper? You know, if you look through the precedents and similar things -- although there are very few -- I would say that in most of those cases, with the exception of probably one, it was a technical error on behalf of the government. It was a technical error, and to quote a learned friend of mine: "When you're stuck with your tail in the gate, one usually looks a little sheepish and asks to have your tail removed from the gate."
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: No, I believe
My cell phone was on all weekend. I was awaiting
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. The minister says that I'm still waiting. I've had a few dates since I was 16 -- not many, but a few.
I waited there, hoping to get a call from the government. I expected it. As Erskine May and I were snuggled up together for the weekend, I was awaiting a call from the government. Looking at the Hansard debates and the precedents, I thought it was pretty clear from all of these debates that the next step is the government talking to the opposition and some accommodation being made. But, hon. Speaker, nothing. My poor little old phone didn't ring at all. The members from the opposite side, the government members, never called. That's fine.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, I see -- the friends. Lots of friends phoned, but I can tell the difference. I'm wise enough for that.
The reality is that there are points here where accommodations may or may not have been made, but there was no exploration of that. All I can guess is that the government intends to use its overwhelming legislative majority -- its overwhelming mandate from the public in the last election, its overwhelming percentage of the popular vote in the last election -- to do what it does so well and has done so well for the last two years: divine that it has all the answers. Once again government can do anything it wants -- to quote the Minister of Forests -- and it is going to plow ahead with this. There's no attempt to look for some way of having the issue examined by committees, no attempt to look at other ways to deal with this issue, no attempt to find other ways to move it forward on the legislative agenda for another time or in some other fashion. The government intends to use its overwhelming public mandate -- the overwhelming mandate it got from the voters of British Columbia -- to plow through this House once again and have this bill reinstated on the order paper and push it through.
Hon. Speaker, what is left for the opposition to do but do what we're doing now? Again, that's to open the little toolbox that the opposition has left to it -- the very little toolbox here in British Columbia -- and try to make the government understand that while most of the time government can do what it wants, government can't always do what it wants. And it can't do it in this case.
When I look at these debates, I have to ask myself: are we doing what's in the best interests of the people of British Columbia, procedurally, by reinstating this bill on the order paper? I would argue that we're not. Forget the merits of the bill itself for a minute. Let's just talk about what's happening here: the procedure. Well, I don't believe there are merits to the bill, but I said I was going to forget about the merits of the bill. I'll save that debate for second reading, because I'm sure that the Minister of Labour or the Speaker would call me to order if I were to discuss the merits of the bill itself. So I won't discuss the merits or the lack of merits of the bill, for fear of being called to order.
What I will do, however, is talk about the process that's in place here. You have a piece of legislation. This isn't like the donation-of-food act. This is a bill that -- without discussing its merits -- has been highly contentious, and it has been highly contentious for two years or more. In the last election and prior to the last election, the government assured us that all the changes they were going to make to the Labour Code had been made. The question we have now is: does the government have the mandate to reinstate it on the order paper today and then push it through? Given that they have no overwhelming public mandate to do that and given that the rules of the House are clear as to what will happen to this bill in the event that this motion is defeated or withdrawn
K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, as I listened carefully to your remarks prior to the commencement of this debate
The Speaker: If the hon. member would take his seat, a point of order has been raised by the Minister of Labour.
[ Page 9341 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: My apologies to the member, hon. Speaker, but I read carefully as well as listened to your ruling, and the only authority you quoted was indeed the Speaker of the United Kingdom. You said as follows: "G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order.
The Speaker: On a point of order, I recognize the Opposition House Leader.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too am mindful of the analysis or the similarities that the Speaker gave in her ruling, hon. Speaker. You, hon. Speaker, gave us as best you could some parallels as to how this debate may or may not go forward and looked at the motion for recommital. But I submitted at the beginning of my comments -- I assume that the Speaker has had a chance to look at those precedents, and I'll refer to them again
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: No. The member asks if I'm challenging the Chair. If I may just comment to that in my point of order, I have no intention of challenging the Chair. What I do intend to do is take the interpretation given by the Speaker, which was not exclusively that which was quoted by the member but which was used in an illustrative fashion by the Speaker in her ruling -- which I listened to very, very carefully, I might add
Hon. Speaker, I would argue that in keeping with your ruling, quite frankly, the precedents from 1884 and from 1923, in which case 15 and 17 speakers, respectively, made representations on whether or not the identical motion
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm having trouble making my point of order.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Continue with your point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
I did listen very, very carefully to the ruling of the Speaker, and I have kept within the ruling of the Speaker -- to a T. But I do not believe that the Speaker's ruling said that that is the only way that this matter shall be dealt with. Indeed, if that is the case, then I would say that a serious breach of the precedents has been made. Therefore I can't imagine that that was the interpretation that the Speaker wanted to have made of her ruling.
So I would argue that in keeping with the Speaker's parallels, as best she could draw them, given the limited precedents that are there, the comments made by myself
Therefore, when members of this House rise on an issue as unforeseen as this, a wise Speaker, I would think, would interpret the precedents in an open way that allowed members, if the House so wished, to participate in that debate, keeping within the limited parameters that the precedents have offered and the limited parameters presented by the Speaker's comments earlier on.
The Speaker: I thank you for your comments. I would like to draw your attention, hon. members, as the ruling is circulated, that the Chair ruled on page 3 that the motion in question is a debatable motion. The reference to the United Kingdom permitting a brief explanatory statement was indeed an analogy. On the basis of that, the scope of the debate is the issue, not the number of members who speak.
K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity that you've afforded me and my colleagues to participate in this debate. It seemed to me, as I listened carefully to your ruling initially, that you were obliged to operate in pretty much uncharted waters. Previously, the precedents seemed to be so few, and I think you made it very clear that the subject of the debate is the reasons, pro and con, for whether this motion should or should not be passed by this House.
A point that seems to be raised repeatedly in and out of the House by members opposite is whether or not this was a technical error or a deliberate move on the part of the official opposition in attempting to deal with Bill 26, on which, of course, we were engaged in second reading debate. I'm obviously in a unique position to comment on that question, because I was the member who had the floor at the time. Indeed, speaking personally from my experience, for me the second reading debate of Bill 26 has been very much a stop-and-go experience.
On Wednesday night I attempted to proceed with my remarks in second reading. I got only a little way into them, and the House ran out of time. I reserved the opportunity to continue, but at that time and before I actually reserved the right to continue speaking on second reading, I did attempt to adjourn the House rather than adjourn the debate. Due to the uproar from the government side and the usual rude behaviour and catcalling and so on, hon. Speaker, you were not able to hear the motion that I made and in fact paraphrased a different motion -- that being the one you thought I made, which was to adjourn debate. That had not in fact been my motion, and I think Hansard bears that out.
[3:15]
In any event, I offer that as clarification that there was indeed nothing accidental about my motion on the morning of last Thursday, when we continued second reading on Bill 26. In fact, I'd been watching very closely for an opportunity to[ Page 9342 ]
make that very motion and indeed praying for that opportunity, because my colleagues and I believe, and people throughout this great province of ours all believe -- business people, chambers of commerce, business associations, taxpayers and unemployed people who hope for work, which can only flow from a rejuvenated economy -- that the matter we've been dealing with is a tremendously important one and that successful passage of that bill would be a very negative thing for the economy of British Columbia. We don't want to see it happen. The official opposition has vowed time and again to use every tool at its disposal to defeat, derail and in any other way possible destroy that piece of legislation. As the Opposition House Leader said, we have precious few tools in our toolbox. Sometimes I hold that toolbox up to the light, and I try to see if there isn't something in it that's stuck to the bottom, because there's so little there for us to actually use in attempting to deal with some of the terribly wrongheaded and mistaken initiatives that this government brings on. We believe that this tampering with the Labour Code is the first and worst example of this.Certainly I was watching, and had been watching ever since debate began on Bill 26, for an opportunity to make that motion and see if indeed we could kill Bill 26. Our understanding, as a result of advice in the past, was that our only hope of successfully killing a bill like that was to make that motion during debate rather than moving to adjourn the debate. So I had resolved in my own mind that that is exactly what I'd do if I got the opportunity, and as I said, I prayed every day that I'd get a chance to do that. If that was the only way that we could defeat such a destructive, wrongheaded and dangerous piece of legislation, then I hoped for that opportunity. On Wednesday night, I thought I might have it because the government side of the House was in such disarray. I didn't have it, as it turned out, because you didn't hear what I was saying. Perhaps it would have been defeated at that time anyway.
I offer all that as part of just crafting a picture of the context in which my motion of Thursday morning was made. Certainly the events of Thursday morning didn't unfold quite the way we had anticipated. We believed initially, when I reserved on Wednesday night, that I would be resuming speaking on Thursday morning in second reading of Bill 26. Then word came that evening that the government wished to discuss the Income Tax Amendment Act first thing on Thursday morning, and it was not a particularly contentious piece of legislation. So our understanding was that the government had set aside one hour to deal with the Income Tax Amendment Act. On our side of the House, we were expecting to resume second reading debate on Bill 26 at 11 o'clock that morning. The minister and the government members were to be prepared for that as well.
One of the things that forms part of this context for me, hon. Speaker, is that throughout the second reading debate, I had listened very closely to the remarks of the government members opposite. I'm interested, for one thing -- and I believe it's a tremendously important piece of legislation -- but I also had a particular role with regard to this piece of legislation. I'm the designated deputy critic for Labour, as well as Aboriginal Affairs, for the official opposition, and the critic had asked me if I would manage the speaking order from the point of view of the opposition. Certainly he has many other duties, and I was happy to take that on. So I was keeping a careful record, of course, of which of our speakers had spoken and when, and whether we had the right number left for each particular day's debate, and I was keeping track of which speakers opposite were speaking to second reading as well.
One of the things I noticed as I listened carefully to the members opposite was that the members really didn't understand the history of this particular piece of legislation. A number of them made remarks, such as: how could we have possibly opposed first reading of Bill 26 when we hadn't even seen the bill yet? But what they didn't appear to understand was that we had had that bill since February. The people who drafted the bill had done us the favour of publishing this particular document, "Looking to the Future," and in the back of it is a copy of the legislation that they recommended.
I won't dwell long on this, hon. Speaker. It looks to me like you might be having qualms about whether I'm on point. I'm trying to paint this picture for you of what was going on in my mind and why I want the government members to believe the truth, which is that this was no technical error. It wasn't some fumble of inadvertently moving the wrong motion but indeed something that I took as a very serious opportunity, which I had a tremendous obligation to take advantage of, in doing everything that I can as a member of the official opposition, which has sworn to defeat this legislation by any means possible.
As I wrap up with comments about this document published by Stephen Kelleher and Stan Lanyon, in which they reviewed this whole matter of whether or not we ought to have sectoral bargaining in British Columbia
They seemed to believe that none of us had seen it until the day before it was called for second reading -- since of course, the government tabled it one day and called second reading the next -- when in fact we'd all had it since February. And I believe that they had all had it since February but hadn't seen it somehow. Unless someone goes around and pulls the pieces of material out of the NDP MLAs' in-baskets that the government doesn't deem it desirable for them to read
Part of our context was, as I say, that we feel determined to defeat this legislation and that it's tremendously important to the public and the economy of British Columbia that indeed this legislation be defeated. As I listened to the members opposite, I began to realize that they really don't know. They really don't understand that this is something that is all part of a plan that has unfolded. It looks a whole lot like the son of Bill 44 from last year. I see you shaking your head, hon. Speaker, and I'll try not to try your patience here. I am just trying, again, to flesh out this context that
[ Page 9343 ]
Of course, part of that context for us was that we had been assured by the government that there wouldn't be any debate on legislation until the end of June, that the government had the desire to complete its budget and to not have to pursue interim supply. So it seemed bizarre that suddenly this debate was launched the very day after the bill was tabled. Perhaps that is why the government members opposite seem to believe that this legislation was something new to us, when, indeed, it wasn't new at all. There was practically nothing in it -- a couple of minor changes, as I demonstrated in this document
Another thing that struck me as the government members were speaking was that they were all reading from the same prepared text of quotes from members of the official opposition. A large number of these quotes -- and again, I am trying to flesh out and paint a picture of the context in which I saw this bill
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the member has the floor.
K. Krueger:
Again, that was part of the context for me. I thought: my goodness, those people opposite seem to actually believe what they are saying. They seem to actually believe that this is a modest piece of legislation, because
Interjection.
The Speaker: Will the member sit down. There's a point of order raised here by the Minister of Advanced Education.
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I've been listening to the member's remarks in light of your ruling. With the broadest and most liberal interpretation of your ruling, the member is so far from the subject matter of discussing the reasons, pro and con, for the reinstatement of the order -- which was your ruling -- as to be completely out of order. I would ask that he be called to order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's come to new lows when the government is scripting its points of order and having them passed out by the Whip.
An Hon. Member: It's the Speaker's ruling.
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, the Speaker's ruling. I apologize, then, to the minister.
I'm sure the member has particular comments to make, in that he was the one who actually moved the motion. It's important to understand the motivation for why we're where we are now, if the House is to decide not to
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
G. Farrell-Collins: The government Whip can get up in the House
The Speaker: Hon. member
G. Farrell-Collins: If I can finish my point of order, hon. Speaker, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has particular input to make because of his moving the motion in the first place. His motivation for doing so is critical for this House and these members in deciding whether or not they should undo the work that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson did. It's important for the members to understand the motivation for his motion last Thursday. It clarifies, certainly for the Government House Leader, that it was not a technical error -- that, in fact, there was an intent to do that. That's why his comments are particularly important as to why he moved the motion that he did on Thursday.
M. de Jong: Also on the point of order, Madam Speaker, as I have gone through some of the precedents that deal with this largely procedural matter, it is particularly important that the House be apprised of a number of issues -- like what motivated the member involved to make the motion at the particular time that that motion was made. That is important. It is also important that the House, when you refer to the precedents that deal specifically with this matter, be apprised of whether we were dealing with a contentious versus a non-contentious matter and what was in the mind of the member who made the motion that gives rise to this debate today. Insofar as this is the only member of this House who can provide that information to the House as it considers the issue presently before us, I think it's particularly important that we hear what the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has to say.
[3:30]
Interjections.The Speaker: I don't believe it's proper to speak more than once on a point of order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I accept the points that have been made, and I draw attention to those points by the member speaking. I would observe, having listened to the debate and the language carefully, that the remarks are getting perilously close to second reading debate. It does sound rather like second reading debate. I want to encourage the member to speak to the mechanics of the reinstatement.
[ Page 9344 ]
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I respect that very much, and I will try to veer away from being perilously close to any waters that I'm not supposed to venture into. Honestly, what I'm trying to set out here is my personal position as the MLA who happened to have the opportunity to move the particular motion that seems to have created these troubles for us -- to try to explain myself and re-create the context, so that it's clear to you, hon. Speaker, to the other members of this House and indeed for the record how it was that we ended up in the position we're in and why I believe we should notThe Speaker: Hon. member, take your seat. I recognize the Minister of Labour.
Hon. D. Lovick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I want to read into the record your ruling on points of order. The reason
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, there is a point of order being raised at the moment.
Hon. D. Lovick: The point of order that has been offered to this chamber, which we are obligated to abide by -- all right? -- is as follows: "
The Speaker: I thank the member. I recognize, in response, the Opposition House Leader.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would just draw the attention of the Speaker and the Minister of Labour to Hansard debates in the House of Commons, Great Britain, April 11, 1923, where the Speaker ruled: "The Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister is to restore the dropped Order of Supply. The Order was dropped by reason of the incident of yesterday. Therefore, discussion can take place on any matter relevant to the incident which calls for this Motion. That, I think, is quite clear
It is on the identical scenario. The member, as I stated earlier, is doing just that. He is clarifying the matters for the members of the House
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, on all the points of order I would remind all the members of the final paragraph of the Chair's response today: "The motion is debatable only to the extent of the mechanics of the reinstatement." That is the ruling that the Chair has made. I will therefore serve notice, as anyone gets close to second reading debate, that interruptions will occur.
Hon. member, continue -- on the mechanics of the reinstatement, not on second reading.
K. Krueger: I will try to stay within those parameters and those bounds. I will, of course, rely on you to give me the signal if in some way I seem to be digressing from that sincere intent.
The official Opposition House Leader discussed the precedents that we've been able to find on the record for Houses within the British Commonwealth that have found themselves in this particular situation over the course of centuries. Of course, there haven't been very many. There have been many where it was a technical error -- where this sort of thing occurred inadvertently and debate on a piece of legislation was shut down through, apparently, no intent -- perhaps carelessness, negligence or somebody thinking about lunch or a ham sandwich instead of about the matters at hand. It has been quite routine, a pro forma way of going about things to get that legislation back on the rails.
What I've been trying to do here, in my own halting way, is lay out the circumstances from my point of view, in a sincere effort to demonstrate to this House -- and to you, hon. Speaker, and to the record -- exactly what was going on in my mind at the time. I want to help everyone see this issue, of whether this was a technical error or an intentional motion, from the point of view of the person who was in the position of having to make that motion.
The Opposition House Leader has made the point that many government bills have been allowed to die in the past at various stages in the legislative process. Indeed, we have a number of bills in British Columbia that have never been proclaimed, even though they made it all the way through the process. I just got an article the other day on adult guardianship legislation, for example, that actually made its way through the House and had all-party agreement. People who deem it very important have been waiting for it to be proclaimed, and it hasn't happened. Now they're really alarmed by fresh legislation that's on the order paper in this House and are wondering how that happened.
In my past life I certainly wondered, as well, why various pieces of legislation that were passed by governments of the day were in some cases never proclaimed -- for example, the legislation that dealt with prohibiting automobile insurance premium rating on the basis of age, gender and marital status. That was a huge event for the Insurance Corporation of B.C., which I was working for at the time. I won't be long on this; I'm just trying to give an example. It meant that single males under 25 could no longer be charged higher amounts for their automobile insurance premiums than the general population. That was in spite of the fact that
The Speaker: Hon. member, that seems a bit irrelevant to the point of the reinstatement of the bill.
K. Krueger: I'll accept your direction on that, as always. I'll just turn that little set of notes completely upside down.
What I am trying to do is stick within the parameters of my discussion of why we should not reinstate Bill 26, and why
[ Page 9345 ]
Motion 50 shouldn't be allowed by this House to proceed. I don't want anyone in this House, when they vote on this important question, to be operating under the misapprehension that this was just some sort of little faux pas, some error -- that the wrong motion came out of my mouth. As I said, I was sitting here with a growing concern for the members opposite, listening to the things that they were saying and realizing that they were going to find themselves in a position of having to explain to their constituents how it was that they voted for a piece of legislation of that nature that was going to have such far-reaching ramifications.
I wanted to give those members an opportunity to
If you object to the term "with its pants down," I withdraw it, hon. Speaker. I see you frowning.
If you really caught the government unawares, if you actually
Interjection.
K. Krueger: Once again, the minister heckles me. And particularly because he used to be our Speaker, it tends to throw me off, that this man who's supposed to be accountable to the public on matters of labour legislation -- this Minister of Labour and also the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- would be so rude and crass and would heckle and preen and carry on the way he does, with his rude little comments
The Speaker: Hon. member, I draw your attention to the light.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I am designated speaker for the official opposition on this motion.
It's interesting, after having just expressed my concerns, which are significant and ongoing, as to the way the minister deals with the opposition and heckles and twitches and makes faces and generally harasses us as we try to speak for our constituents, that the member for Skeena is also noted for that. It happened just now; it happens all the time. But I am concerned for him. That, again, was part of my whole context in moving this motion: that these poor people over there don't realize what they're doing. They don't realize the tremendous consequences that are likely to flow or the accountability that's going to be demanded of them.
When that member for Skeena
The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please. I recognize the Minister of Women's Equality.
Hon. S. Hammell: Point of order. The member is speaking on the merits of the bill, not on the orders of today.
G. Farrell-Collins: On the same point of order, I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to two things, if I may. First of all is the fact that the government Whip came back through the House and handed copies of the Speaker's ruling to each member sitting in the House, asking them to periodically raise that as a point of order on relevancy. Hon. Speaker, in the light of
"Although it is the duty of the Speaker to interfere in the first instance for the preservation of order when, in his [or her] judgment, the occasion demands [the] interference, it is also the right of any member who conceives that a breach of order has been committed, if the Speaker refrains from interfering -- either because [the Speaker] does not consider it necessary to do so, or because [the Speaker] does not perceive that a breach of order has been committed -- to rise in his place, interrupting any member who may be speaking, and direct the attention of the Chair to the matter, provided he does so the moment the alleged breach of order occurs. When a member speaks to order, he must simply direct attention to the point complained of and submit it to the decision of the Speaker. When the attention of the Speaker is thus called to a supposed breach of order, [the Speaker] at once gives [a] decision and if, in [her] opinion, the member whose words or conduct are complained of is disorderly, calls upon him to conform to the rules of the House."More importantly, hon. Speaker, it goes on to say this -- and I draw this particularly to the attention of the Minister of Labour, who has risen a number of times today on a point of order:
"On July 1, 1952, the Deputy Speaker deprecated a growing practice of interruptions of debate by members who, 'when the hon. member who is speaking refuses to give way, think that the only way that they can get their word in is by raising a point of order.' [The Speaker] stated that in his opinion such interruptions constituted fraudulent points of order and should be stopped."
[3:45]
Hon. Speaker, I think you've given very wise guidance to members of this House today, particularly to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. I think he is doing his absolute best to keep within those
The Speaker: Hon. members, I appreciate the point
H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, I don't think the particular ruling that the member referred to was intended to allow
[ Page 9346 ]
someone to be called to order four, five, six, perhaps even ten, times, and then the number of points of order constitutes some kind of interference in that member's right, and he can be as irrelevant as he wants to be. It seems to me that the ruling was quite clear and that if members rise on a point of order, they are rising because the debate is not applicable to the business or the procedural motion. I think that's the point that the previous speaker overlooks.M. de Jong: Look, in this House we all have our roles. The government members have their roles, the opposition members have their roles, and the Speaker has her role. If the Labour minister is upset and angry because the government's agenda has come off the rails, then that's his problem. But he shouldn't be -- nor should the member for Skeena or the Minister of Women's Equality -- standing up in the House and purporting to tell the Speaker her business. We've had the ruling. We understand the ruling; the member for Kamloops-North Thompson understands the ruling. Quite frankly, when I examined what past Speakers have said, it is bordering on the contemptuous for members to be constantly standing up and interrupting speakers in this assembly, repeating points that have been made a number of times and upon which the Speaker has made a ruling. As I say, it's time for these members to realize that the Speaker runs this House, not them.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members will come to order. I'd just remind everyone that this is a difficult moment in our history. I think we want to conduct ourselves as best we can and with due consideration for all aspects -- in particular, that the motion requires very limited scope. So I recommend that to the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who I know heard the words.
K. Krueger: Yes, I have, hon. Speaker, and I'll continue with my brief remarks. Forgive me if I kind of lose my place from time to time, with these frequent interruptions and broadsides from the cabinet ministers opposite who seek to make these points of order. Even the member for Skeena, with his point of order, clearly demonstrates to me that
I thought: how can I help them? How can I deal with this situation? The government members were actually standing up and speaking and demonstrating to us that they didn't know what they were talking about. They're in this very awkward position of endorsing something that they clearly haven't read, even though it should have been in their in-baskets since February, as it was in mine. As I cast about for an opportunity to deal with that, I had that unfortunate stop-and-go experience in trying to speak to second reading.
Suddenly this wonderful opportunity presented itself, when the minister's spouse was in the House and acting as House Leader. She called Bill 26 for second reading debate and said: "I hope I'm right." I knew she was right, and I sincerely hope she doesn't think that I misled her. She had been a little confused about what to call, since the minister wasn't in the House -- unaccountably -- half an hour after the time when this bill was scheduled for debate. He wasn't there and she was. So she stood up, and she was plainly reluctant to even stand up. But somebody had to stand up, since he wasn't here, and there was no Government House Leader at the time, apparently. So the minister stood up and called second reading of Bill 26, and then said: "I hope I'm right." She was right, so I stood up, and I intended to attempt again to conclude my remarks on second reading of Bill 26. I was just barely into it, and I looked across and realized that there was hardly anybody there. There were only two government members present -- the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and the Minister of Agriculture -- and neither of them seemed to be paying any attention. To me, that was a shocking thing.
A lot of what had been going on thus far in the debate around Bill 26 was shocking. We know that it's a tremendously important thing that we're working on here in the House. The government has made it very clear that it considers this a huge priority. Indeed, it's arguably the centrepiece of the whole legislative agenda for this session. So I've been kind of confounded and flummoxed by the fact that the government members opposite seemed so ill-advised on exactly what they were dealing with. There before me I saw empty benches and two cabinet ministers who weren't paying any attention at all. That, as I said, was an opportunity I'd literally been praying for. I didn't think it would get any better than that -- that I would ever actually find the House completely vacant of government MLAs.
In trying to deal with this question of whether or not this was a technical error or a deliberate act on my part, I submit all of that to you as background for the situation I found myself in. I thought that here was a chance where those government members can get this whole thing set aside if they're being coerced to think or act as yes-people and just supporting something they don't understand or don't know anything about, or indeed probably don't even agree with, especially if they've had any kind of input from their constituents as to the ramifications which they have to expect as a result. If those government members were indeed in an unfortunate position, which they seemed to me to be in at the time, then lo and behold, here was an opportunity to get them off the hook, to shut this thing down, to kill this bill. That's what I thought I had the capacity to do at that moment -- to knock the thing down so that they'd have until the next legislative session to actually think about this whole issue of sectoral bargaining and how it's going to affect British Columbia and their constituents.
The Speaker: Hon. member
K. Krueger: Okay, okay. I understand, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: It's a very narrow focus -- reinstatement of the bill, good idea, bad idea. That's the focus.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a very bad idea to reinstate the bill. Indeed, if this motion were to be allowed by this House, it would undo all the good that I was trying to do for the government members opposite. It's as if you pull the drowning sailors from the sea, and then, at the last moment, they unaccountably spring back into the sea. It's going to be a sea of accountability for those hon. members.
[ Page 9347 ]
Interjection.K. Krueger: The member for Skeena is going to have to give an account of himself back home. I notice that other government members aren't heckling me in the same way he is, and I believe that perhaps some of them actually see the tremendous advantage they've been given -- a second chance. Perhaps they'd consider absenting themselves from the chamber when we vote on Motion 50, if they would like the opportunity to confer with their constituents, and if they agree that this is a redemption for them -- a chance to not do the wrong thing, if not to do the right thing.
It can't be comfortable for those NDP members of the government who sit opposite every day, knowing that they represent an arrogant government, a government that has publicly said it can do anything it wants, a government that was elected under circumstances -- presenting itself as having delivered balanced budgets that weren't and
The Speaker: Relevancy, member. Relevancy, please.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It does seem relevant to me, but if you say it's not, then I'll move on.
Last Thursday, and indeed on Wednesday, the day before, when we were dealing with second reading, there was no apparent passion on the part of government members. It was almost a matter, it seemed to me, of putting in time. There had been no apparent thought given to the bill itself or to its consequences. It seemed to me that the members' spirits were dulled, that they hadn't been given the opportunity to really research the matter or apply their minds or even begin to understand why, on this side of the House, there is such tremendous concern over this particular bill. It seemed to me that they needed a chance -- if indeed they were being bullied and coerced into supporting this thing by that so-called nineteenth member of cabinet -- to get out from under that awful burden, and that if I had a way to give them that chance, I ought to take that chance and afford them that opportunity. If this House were to pass Motion 50, then all of that good would be undone.
We have a tremendous obligation -- I know I don't have to tell you this, hon. Speaker; it seems like we've never been successful in getting it through to the previous Speaker -- to do the right thing in this House. We have a sacred duty as parliamentarians to carry forth the best interests of the people of British Columbia -- not just of the B.C. Federation of Labour and not just of Mr. Georgetti, the nineteenth member of cabinet, as the Premier referred to him.
The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not relevant to the debate.
K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, in those matters where your opinion and mine diverge as to what is relevant, I will always, obviously, submit to your judgment. If Mr. Georgetti isn't relevant to Motion 50, then I'll try not to raise his name anymore.
The Speaker: Hon. member
K. Krueger: As I say, listening to the debate from the other side of the House, I found myself in the position of slowly becoming aware that my colleagues over there didn't realize what they were doing -- that they didn't realize the situation that we were moving toward. Even though I knew that there were likely to be other opportunities for them to reconsider, particularly if we raised amendments in second reading -- that there might be chances for them, in preparing subsequent speeches, to actually consider the points that we were making on this side of the House -- it didn't seem to me that that was happening. It seemed to me that if an opportunity came, as it did, to put a halt to the whole thing, to give those members a chance, in a very sober way, to think the matter over again, that it would be very negligent of a member of the official opposition not to seize that opportunity and do what he could. That's the situation I found myself in.
The member for Rossland-Trail spoke just before me. I am always reminded of our mortality when he speaks, and again, of our obligation to make use of our time wisely here in this House.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I think that's a good idea: using time wisely in this House. If the hon. member can consider some fresh arguments, that would be appreciated.
[4:00]
K. Krueger: I think I'm potentially moving on toward the conclusion of my remarks.It's still an adjustment process for me. Again, this is one of the things that sort of created my personal context last Thursday morning when these events unfolded. Things change very fast in here. In one session, a person is Speaker, and I'm looking at him in that chair and trying to regard him as an independent person, a neutral and impartial person. Then suddenly he's over on the government benches, and he's heckling me and my colleagues as we try and sincerely present the concerns that our constituents have about legislation. I find myself in a position of some cognitive dissonance there. I build up respect for a person because he's in a respectable position, and then I suddenly find myself being heckled by him from across the House on a matter of tremendous importance to the whole province and to the economy of British Columbia. I think: if he has that effect on me, what effect does he have on those poor people around him who are subject to his opinion as to whether or not they advance within government ranks? Really, this was part of the context, for me.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I hesitate
K. Krueger: I don't want to try your patience, and I'll certainly try and wrap up my comments. This matter has repeatedly been referred to as a "dropped order." It's more than that; it's a poleaxed order. It's an order that took a sniper's bullet between the eyes, and it took it for good reason, hon. Speaker. The gun was loaded by a team that knows what it's doing. The sniper had that opportunity. The government presented itself as fair game, an inviting target. The cross-hairs were there, and the trigger was pulled. It was no accident; it was no technical error. I'm here to vouch for that on the record. I trust that you believe me. I trust you've looked at the record from the previous day, and you see very clearly that this was not just a technical error. Because of that, we have to divorce ourselves from all those precedents of the past, when parliaments carried on with dropped orders, deemed them to be of no effect and, apparently, almost pretended that they didn't happen. This wasn't that situation at all.
[ Page 9348 ]
We have these very few tools that we can work with as the official opposition, hon. Speaker. You know that. You know how fond the previous Speaker is, now that he's a minister, of rising to his feet and challenging us on the rules and even -- of all things -- trying to lecture you on the rules. So we have few tools, and that was one. I was aware of it; I was waiting and watching and praying for an opportunity to use it -- and there it was. For the record, this was no technical error. This was a deliberate manoeuvre on a highly contentious bill of grave concern to me, my constituents and the official opposition.I urge all members of this House to vote against Motion 50, because the effect would be very, very wrong. I thank you for your indulgence and for the time that I've had to speak.
G. Wilson: In rising to this debate, I rise to oppose Motion 50, even though I'm on the record as not necessarily sharing all of the concerns the official opposition has with Bill 26. I think it's extremely important for us as parliamentarians, as legislators, to express to the public what exactly is going on in this debate.
Parliament works in a manner that provides virtual exclusivity to government with respect to the ability to put through legislation. Virtually all of the rules are written in a way that favours the government, in order for government to accomplish the agenda and the business that they believe is in the best interests of British Columbians. It's the role of the opposition to take issue with legislation and to use whatever tools they have, whatever rules are within their ability, to be able to prevent passage of legislation that they believe is wrong.
Now, hon. Speaker, in second reading I stood in support of Bill 26. So I don't stand here in opposition to the bill, but I certainly do stand here to seek the direction of members in this Legislative Assembly to believe in, uphold and support the rules of the chamber. I know, in the ruling, that the government has the capacity or ability to reintroduce bills. But it cannot be done lightly, it cannot be done callously, and it certainly cannot be done in a manner that simply says: "Well, sure, I was caught speeding, but I'll talk the cop out of giving me a ticket." Unfortunately, that's the kind of attitude that we're seeing coming from the opposite side.
I don't want to get into the debate as to whether or not what transpired last Thursday was a short-handed goal from the Liberals, or the NDP scoring on their own net. The fact is it's a goal, and you can't call it back. You can't play the game again.
An Hon. Member: The red light went on.
G. Wilson: The red light went on. It's a goal, and whether or not the Liberals scored a short-handed goal or the NDP scored on their own net becomes an irrelevant and a rather moot point. The fact is that it is a score.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain suggests that we take a look at an instant replay, and I'd pass on that.
It's quite clear to me that within the parliamentary process, there are a number of rules that can be exercised, and they can be exercised with the greatest difficulty from the ranks of the opposition members. In anticipation of this debate, I went back and looked at some of the Hansards with respect to comments from members opposite when they sat for their long, long tenure in opposition. They has a long, long tenure in opposition and may in fact have a long tenure again at some point. The point is that in looking at Hansard -- and I'm not going to read a whole bunch of them, hon. Speaker, because I take seriously your comments with respect to the restriction on debate and how we have to tailor it to this motion
The member for Cariboo South is now frequently quoted as saying: "Government can do whatever it wants." Certainly the members opposite during their tenure in government are trying daily to prove that that's true. If that is true, then government can do what it wants. Also, it would appear that it can make a mistake. It can essentially blow it, and that is precisely what happened in this debate. The members opposite had a rule they could use. When the member for Kamloops-North Thompson stood up and moved adjournment of the House -- he did not move adjournment of debate -- all the members opposite had to do was call a division vote that would have brought back their majority to vote down the motion, and we wouldn't be here today. That's all they had to do: call a division. That's why we have a division vote. That's what the rules are for. They didn't call a division, because, my guess is, they weren't really paying attention to the debate.
Hon. Speaker, that speaks volumes about what is really wrong in this chamber. What is happening is that we are getting to the point
An Hon. Member: Where were you?
G. Wilson: The member asks where I was. I was watching the television in my office with incredulity when I heard adjournment, and I came into the House immediately to see whether or not the members opposite were going to call a division. Interestingly enough, the Minister of Human Resources asked where I was. I was actually having a caucus meeting because I have one member
For the government opposite, with all of its members, to try to suggest that another member, a member of the opposition, should have called a division is absurd. I mean, that's ridiculous. Clearly I wasn't going to do that. All they had to do was call a division, and they failed to do it. They failed to do it because they were not paying attention to the debate. The reason they weren't paying attention to the debate is because it has become almost pro forma in this chamber that when the government introduces a bill, it will push its bill through with its majority. No matter what debate occurs on this side of the House, it is virtually irrelevant to the debate, unless government itself
[ Page 9349 ]
We cannot simply pass this Motion 50 without there being a great deal of discussion about the wisdom of the rules as they apply. It seems to me, even though I am not particularly opposed to Bill 26 -- I don't hold the views that members of the Liberal Party do with respect to its consequences for the people of British Columbia; I've said in second reading debate that I frankly don't see it to be as dire a piece of legislation as official opposition members do -- I do believe that when the opposition exercises one of its very, very few opportunities to be able to suggest that we suspend further debate on this bill, put it back to whatever level of discussion we need to and have later introduction, it cannot be done lightly. It cannot be done simply with a government motion coming in and tossing it on the floor.One of the great tests about the rules of the Legislative Assembly, one of the ways we can start to really ask ourselves whether or not the rules apply in fairness, is for us to ask ourselves: "What would happen if the shoe was on the other foot?" What would happen if we were to change sides for one day and suggest that, in fact, it was the members opposite sitting here who had exercised that particular rule and had been successful in its application? Would they be as quick to say: "Well, let's just let the government reintroduce it"? Would the members opposite be as quick to say: "Let's just say it was a shot on our own net. Let's play the game again. Let's have that point over"? I don't think so. I don't think they would. And certainly a cursory review of Hansard demonstrates quite evidentially that they would not. They would be there to hold the government accountable.
So in my brief remarks to this, in voting against it, I felt it important that -- not only as leader of the PDA but also as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast who has stood in second reading debate and spoken in favour of Bill 26 -- I put on the record why I am so strongly opposed to the introduction of Motion 50. If we do not adhere to the rules
If those are the facts, then it makes our job in this chamber irrelevant. Hon. Speaker, I don't ever want to see a day when the Legislature of British Columbia is rendered irrelevant because of a high-handed attitude of government that believes it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, without any effective means for the opposition to challenge it. So on those grounds, I would hope that all members would recognize that in this case, Motion 50 should not pass.
M. de Jong: A number of issues arise in a debate like this. Some of them have been touched on by previous speakers; some of them have yet to be discussed. A couple of the themes that I think are relevant as we embark upon this discussion of this House giving government approval and authority to do something that it would otherwise not be able to do
Interjection.
M. de Jong: I'm sorry -- the Minister of Environment apparently has a salient point relevant to this debate. If that is the case, she should get up and make it. Thus far, there has been a dearth of arguments, submissions and debate from the government side which would say to members on this side of the House: "Convince us that this is something worthy of support."
[4:15]
P. Calendino: Of course it is.M. de Jong: Well, the member for Burnaby North says that he is convinced in his own mind, hon. Speaker, that procedurally this is something that needs to go forward, that this is something worthy of the support of the members of the House and that the government can't do it on its own. He is saying: "Support it." What I'm asking, and what I think we as legislators in this assembly are entitled to ask, is for him to articulate on what grounds this extraordinary motion is worthy of that support. It hasn't happened in the time I've been here; it hasn't happened in the time he's been here. I don't think that it's asking too much of the member for Burnaby North to stand up and provide us with some argument in favour of the motion that's presently in the House. But they don't want to do that. Excuse me for providing some thoughts, some submissions to the debate today about why the motion is not worthy of support, why the motion should be defeated, and why Bill 26, which is only peripherally relevant to this debate today, should be cast overboard and dropped -- at least insofar as this present legislative session is concerned.
We've heard other speakers in this debate repeat that oft-heard line from the Minister of Forests that government can do anything. Others have made reference to that. It is in a debate such as this that, really, we have an opportunity to examine the truthfulness of that statement or that impression of government that the Minister of Forests apparently has. Can government, can the executive council in this assembly, really do anything it wants?
The second part of that statement, I would submit, is: are we relevant? Are we as 75 legislative members relevant insofar as carrying out the business of the province? To the people watching this debate in the gallery here today or at home or, heaven forbid, those actually reading Hansard, is what we discuss, what we debate in this House relevant at all to how the business of the province unfolds -- recognizing that, after all, it is their tax dollars that feed this place, that feed the policies that the government of the day intends to bring forward? So it is through a debate such as the one we are having today that we can find the answers to those questions.
When we arrived here, we all got something called Standing Orders, a little green binder -- not big, not too many pages. It sets out the rules by which this House must conduct itself and by which members must conduct themselves. It provides for some order in what would otherwise be an incredibly disorderly assembly. Sometimes it's disorderly in any event. But when we are in doubt, when difficulties occur, we return to this book. What many members -- myself included -- are sometimes shocked to discover is that behind this book are this book and about 200 like it: histories, parliamentary histories, precedents that guide members of the assembly and, more particularly, the Speaker in rendering the decisions that he or she has to make when procedural debates, procedural wrangles of the sort we are discussing today, occur.
[ Page 9350 ]
I think it's novel and useful and -- believe it or not -- exciting that, for a change, we have the opportunity to consult some of those historical precedents to seek guidance in determining whether or not the government of the day should be allowed to proceed down a path that other members of this House on the opposition side think should be closed to them and to see what the authorities say about the path and procedure that the government has followed.Before I turn my attention to the circumstances by which we find ourselves in this particularly novel circumstance, I guess I should begin by saying that when this incident took place last Thursday, it was first of all essential to ascertain where we were in terms of the status of this bill. That was far and away the single most important question -- to which no one had the answer. During the course of debate on a bill -- in this case, Bill 26 -- an attentive member of the assembly, who has purposely set out to act upon his party's stated objective to kill a piece of legislation, takes advantage of a moment and moves a motion -- because that's all this was: another motion; it happened to be an adjournment motion. What happens when that motion passes? Because members of the government aren't paying attention, it actually passes. There's no division. No one stands up and says: "Hold on. We are the government. We command a majority in this House, and when in doubt we always have the option of calling a division." No single member of the government side does that -- and the motion passes. What's the status of that bill? That is the essence of the issue that we initially had to deal with, because the resolution of that question gives rise to the debate that we are having today.
After much toing and froing, we discover that we have what's called a dropped motion. They might have called it a dropped ball, and in football parlance that's called a fumble. The government has fumbled the ball. They've come to the line. They're supposed to have the play, they call the signals and they drop the ball -- plain and simple. So what happens? You know, hon. Speaker -- and this is something that I think might be lost on people watching this debate, because thus far, as I mentioned earlier, no member of the government other than the Government House Leader, who was obliged to say a few words, wants to speak
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Interjection.
M. de Jong: There he is -- the member for Burnaby North, again ready to chime in with no end of witticisms and comments. Get up, I say to the hon. member. Get up and tell us
But I digress from the issue that I want to alert the Speaker and the House to, and that is: as we were trying to deal with that essential question of the status of Bill 26 itself, the first authority we came to that assisted our side of the House -- and possibly assisted the government side of the House and also, I think, the Chair -- was dated from 1952 in the House of Commons in London. It helped us to determine that what we are dealing with here is a "dropped motion." The interesting thing about that is we were consulting with that authority, Mr. Attlee. Clement Attlee was the opposition leader at the time, who was engaged in the debate around the iron and steel bill of 1952, a particularly contentious piece of legislation in England that the Labour opposition of the day didn't want to see proceed -- and had been cast into the abyss by a similar motion.
Before, though, I get to the questions that the Speaker was interested in resolving as part of that debate -- which parallel almost precisely what we're dealing with here today
His only comment during the course of the debate
So we can get to the issues that were considered around that question. Some of those relate to how essential the legislation itself was and how contentious the legislation was, and I think those are relevant considerations for the purpose of determining the timing of the reintroduction of the bill -- in this case, Bill 26. I think that's very important.
I think it's also worth noting that some of the other authorities that the Speaker will be relying upon in ruling on this -- and I talked about Sir Winston Churchill
[4:30]
One of the questions I think we have to ask ourselves -- and we ask it somewhat rhetorically, because to this point we've heard nothing from government members[ Page 9351 ]
tion: what would great parliamentarians of the past have to say about this procedure that the government is trying to run through the Legislature today? What would the Stanley Knowleses of the world have to say about what the government has done and about what the opposition's response to it is? I ask that question, and I'm going to leave members of the government in suspense, hon. Speaker, because they're going to get the answer from another member of the opposition who will speak later in this debate -- what a great Canadian parliamentarian like Stanley Knowles would have to say about the role of the opposition vis-à-vis the government in terms of the use of the standing orders and what is proper and what is improper for oppositions to do in trying, quite frankly, to resist the legislative initiatives of the government. And that's what this is all about, hon. Speaker.As we look back at the events that took place last Thursday, which have given rise to this debate here in this House and are now the subject of debate, I think it's important to keep one thing in mind: we're opposed to Bill 26. Now, I don't think -- and if I'm wrong, I'm sure the Speaker will correct me -- it's entirely relevant or proper for me to go through in detail the reasons for that opposition. I don't think it's proper for me to devote any amount of time in this debate to how we think that is going to further subvert any attempt at attracting investment to the province of British Columbia and how we think it's going to drive jobs and investment out of British Columbia. I think that that touches on an area that is more properly left to second reading debate. But make no mistake about it, members on this side of the House are opposed to the bill.
We've had a great deal of debate; we may, this year or next, have more debate if the government sees fit at some point in the future to attempt to renew the debate on this bill. But we are opposed to this legislation. I think you have to keep that in mind as you consider the context around which the actions of last Thursday took place.
Let us also be mindful of one other thing. The procedural manoeuvre that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson employed last Thursday is one that has been used before in parliaments across the Commonwealth. That's why we have the precedents. In fact, he attempted to use it the night before. Why did he attempt to use it? Because in our opposition to this legislation, which we have spoken on and emphasized time and time again, we have said to the government: "We will endeavour to employ any mechanism at our disposal to halt this legislation -- legislation that we don't think should be on the floor of the Legislature in any event." It's that simple.
Now, government members feign outrage at the fact that the opposition has dared to do precisely what oppositions are elected to do. And that is to hold the government to account, to say to the government: "We've got standing orders and standing rules, and by God, you're going to abide by them." Is that so unfair? It is in this case extremely embarrassing and extremely uncomfortable for the government. I know that members of that government caucus have been disciplined for being asleep at the wheel. That's their problem. Our job is to do our job. Our job is to do our job, and today that job is to stop the reintroduction of Bill 26. You can rest assured that we'll pursue that with vigour.
I harken back to Thursday
G. Farrell-Collins: Vancouver-Ottawa.
M. de Jong: Vancouver-Ottawa, my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain reminds me. Thank you.
You know, I remember when he was first elected here. He very quickly acquired the moniker as the member for the point of order because of his profound understanding of the rules of procedure that guide parliaments across Canada and the Commonwealth. And there he sat, tongue-tied apparently, unaware of what was happening around him, supposedly here to follow the debate on a bill that on the one hand, the government says is insignificant -- there's nothing in it -- and on the other hand, is apparently so important to the government that we are here debating their desperate, desperate attempt to reintroduce it and save some face amongst their union sympathizers, to whom they owe a debt.
The member for Vancouver-Fraserview, sitting on his hands, immersed in whatever it was he was doing but not doing his job, which is to pay attention to debate here
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Someone has just reminded me of this: but for a quirk of fate, the man who ran second in the NDP leadership convention only two and a half years ago, the man who but for one other individual would be the Premier of the province of British Columbia, leading the House, abandoned this all-important legislation for the sake of
Incredibly it all happened, ostensibly, on the watch of the Minister of Labour, a modest fellow in charge of a modest piece of legislation. What's in this bill? "There's nothing in this bill," I heard the member say. Yet here we are, desperately trying to find a mechanism by which the government can place this back on the orders of the day, back in the legislative session's business.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Someone says the bill is not dead. Well, no, it's not dead; it is truly on life support, however -- hanging out there somewhere. The government desperately seeks a way to bring it back to life. That's what this debate is all about.
[ Page 9352 ]
I was in the halls, and one of the government membersInterjections.
M. de Jong: The government Whip is here. Undoubtedly, this is cause for intense embarrassment on his part. I don't suppose there are many days that he is particularly pleased to see any of us, or me, standing in this House debating motions that he would rather see run through so that he can get on with whatever it is he deems important in his life. I'm sure some of those things are quite important. Today must be particularly embarrassing for him -- particularly painful to bear witness to the fact that through the lack of attention, the lack of attentiveness, maybe arrogance
Hon. D. Lovick: "Fly me to the moon
M. de Jong: The singer of that song is dead, too, just like your bill, hon. member.
I think the government members have a sense of embarrassment and are wondering to what extent the opposition is going to exact payment from
Hon. D. Lovick: Oh, believe me, you are. I mean, this is painful.
M. de Jong: I say this humbly and with a total absence of self-righteousness, as I know the Minister of Labour would: there is a price for the government to pay. That is to understand that, having run afoul of the rules as they have, on a piece of legislation that is truly contentious -- there's no mistake about that
You know, we haven't even gotten to what some of the options are for the government. They are dealing with this as if it were a life-and-death struggle, and perhaps for them it is. Perhaps those people to whom they owe the favours, who have demanded the introduction and passage of this bill
But there is an option, and the option is the honourable thing. The option is to withdraw this bill from the consideration of this legislative session and take it into the future. Take it into the future. Pay the price for not having abided by the rules, for having fallen asleep at the switch, for having run out to the drive-through lane at an inopportune moment. That is the price this government needs to pay, and they are unwilling. But we are very much willing to engage in a debate and call out to government members like the member for Burnaby North: "Stand up. Tell us why you deserve to have this bill reinstated."
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time is up.
[4:45]
B. Penner: At the outset, I'd like to just indicate, for those people who may be watching this debate, what we are here to talk about. Motion 50 is intended to deal with a process for reinstating a dropped order when it is done inadvertently. But to all members present in the chamber nowI was here when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved adjournment of the House, and I know that he did so purposely. It was not inadvertent. It was a very deliberate and calculated strategy on the part of the opposition to do what is good for British Columbia, to protect our economy, to protect jobs and to protect the future for young British Columbians. That is what the member for Kamloops-North Thompson was doing. It was not inadvertent; it was very deliberate. So when we consider whether or not to support this motion, we have to consider whether the motion is appropriate as a remedy for what actually took place. In my considered opinion, it is not.
This bill is highly contentious. It is not simply a routine order of the day that was placed on the order paper. It is much more than that. It's a contentious bill. It has been the subject of much debate here already, as well as around the province. If any of us as MLAs are checking our in-baskets, we're getting an increasing amount of mail every day telling us why Bill 26, which is the matter behind this motion, should not be approved. So this motion, I think, is an improper motion to deal with a matter as contentious as Bill 26 and the changes that it will bring to British Columbia's economy.
I mentioned a moment ago that I was here last Thursday morning around 11:30, when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, a person I'm proud to call my colleague, moved his motion. In fact, I had been here earlier that morning. I think it would be instructive for all members, when they deliberate on whether or not to support this motion, to consider the following: the government benches were clearly in disarray last Thursday morning. They were not clear about what they were seeking to accomplish here, doing the people's business; they were not sure what they were trying to accomplish.
I was here in the morning when we were discussing a bill entitled the Income Tax Amendment Act. At the conclusion of that debate -- it was a fairly low-key affair -- the minister responsible for that bill, the Minister of Human Resources and the MLA for Cowichan-Ladysmith, was asked by the Speaker what matter she wished to call next. She didn't know. There was nobody on the government side of the House who knew what we were supposed to be doing in this Legislative Assembly. We sat here, and we waited.
My colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson offered advice, suggesting that debate on Bill 26 be called. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith took that advice and called Bill 26 for second reading debate. However, hon. Speaker, she did so without the presence of the minister responsible for that bill, the Minister of Labour.
I was here; I was present the entire morning on Thursday, unlike many members of the government side. In fact, if more members of the government side had been here, I'm sure we wouldn't be here today talking about Motion 50. Motion 50 arose because the government side did not know what they were doing on Thursday morning. We have to consider that
[ Page 9353 ]
when we deliberate as to whether or not we will lend our support to the motion that is on the floor of the House today.
What happened after the minister called debate on Bill 26? There was a moment of hesitation, and the member for Kamloops-North Thompson began debate. As indicated earlier, the minister responsible for the bill, the Minister of Labour, was not present. The Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance, was not present, nor was the Deputy House Leader for the government side present
An Hon. Member: Nor the Whip.
B. Penner:
The reason that that matters is that it indicates the degree of importance which this government places on this bill that we're debating here today in the form of Motion 50. If Motion 50 is really that important to the government, then why were those members not taking it seriously on Thursday morning? It is the action or lack of action last Thursday on the part of the government that brings us here today to discuss Motion 50.
At that moment, when my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved his motion, I knew perfectly well what he was seeking to accomplish. I knew, as did other members of the official opposition who were present in the House. We knew what the purpose of that motion was; it was very clear. It was to adjourn the Legislature without adjourning debate on that bill, because we were trying to defeat that bill.
It was the expressed will of the House on Thursday that that bill be defeated. The Legislature decided last Thursday morning. I've checked the videotape that Hansard keeps. There it was. Last Thursday morning at 11:31 a.m., to be precise, this House decided that that bill should be consigned to purgatory and to adjourn the matter in the Legislature without dealing with that bill any further. That was the decision. Now the government, through Motion 50, is attempting to resuscitate and to revive that bill, which was declared null and void by this Legislative Assembly last Thursday. Really, I don't think that it's an appropriate use of the government's power.
I'm reminded of situations in court. I'm a lawyer by background and training; that's what I was doing to earn a living prior to coming to this place. When a court case is concluded, whether it's a criminal case or a civil matter
Hon. Speaker, to go back to the analogy of a criminal courtroom, a court can't simply say after the accused person has been sentenced and has walked out the door: "Oh, we're compelling you, sir, to come back here before us." The court cannot do it. It has lost jurisdiction over the individual, because it has made its decision. This Legislature and all of us collectively made our decision and passed judgment on Bill 26 last Thursday at 11:31 a.m.
I think another colleague of mine, the very humble, shy and retiring member for Matsqui, presented very effectively some of the history that applies to situations of this sort. As he so ably pointed out, there aren't that many comparisons we can draw on that are similar in fact and in circumstance and in context, where a government is bringing forward a controversial and, I dare say, unpopular piece of legislation and the opposition seeks to defeat that legislation through a procedural tactic.
The member for Matsqui referred to the situation in 1952 in the English House of Commons, and I think the response from Sir Winston Churchill was the appropriate one. After listening to what the Speaker had to say on the example -- I think the bill being debated at that time had to do with the iron and steel industry in England -- Sir Winston Churchill agreed that it would be inappropriate for the government to attempt to bring back that piece of legislation during that legislative session. Now, I haven't had time to peruse some of the newspapers from that era and so I'm not clear as to whether or not Winston Churchill's government ever did bring forward that piece of legislation at the next legislative session, but I think he was correct in his approach. The opposition in England in 1952, led by Lord Attlee, very clearly intended to defeat that legislation through a procedural tactic that caught the government off guard. Winston Churchill's response was: "Well, they got us. We could try to somehow jimmy the rules and ram this thing through in any event, but that wouldn't be the proper thing to do." Sir Winston Churchill evidently had too much respect for the integrity of Parliament to try and do that.
When we look at Motion 50 and whether or not it should be supported, I think we should ask ourselves: what would Sir Winston Churchill have to say about it? Here we are, some 46 years later, and a similar circumstance has arisen. The opposition has used one of the few tools it has in its toolkit to derail a very unpopular piece of legislation brought forward by the Minister of Labour, who couldn't even be bothered last Thursday to be here to defend it -- so much for doing his job as the Minister of Labour. We used that tool, and collectively the opposition -- through the fine efforts of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- derailed Bill 26. Sir Winston Churchill agreed 46 years ago that where the opposition does that, using one of the few tools it has, the appropriate response for the government is to say: "Okay, you got us. If we're that determined to bring forward this kind of bad legislation, we'll do it in another legislative session. But we won't do it this time, because that's what the rule says."
You know, hon. Chair, in no way will I try to compare his stature as a respected parliamentarian to that of Winston Churchill, but I spoke to another parliamentarian on the weekend about the situation. I spoke to a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Alberta, and he's a government MLA. I outlined briefly to that member from Alberta what had occurred here last Thursday at 11:31 a.m. As soon as I described what had happened, he said: "Oh, I know exactly what you're talking about. You got the government. The bill is defeated. It's gone for the session." That is what another MLA in Alberta, independent from this party, had to say. It's their understanding that if that happens in their Legislative Assembly, the government will not attempt to bring forward that piece of legislation again. All government members in Alberta are instructed to watch closely for opposition tactics, using the tool used by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. They watch specifically for that -- unlike this government, which was asleep at the switch and was dreaming about a ham sandwich. Or was it a bologna sandwich? I'm not sure.
[ Page 9354 ]
There are some other analogies that can be drawn in contemplating whether or not to support Motion 50. There are other things we can look at. My colleague the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, as well as my esteemed colleagues the member for Kamloops-North Thompson and the member for Matsqui, have all pointed out that there's a dearth of similar cases to look at, save and except this 1952 matter in the English House of Commons, which I've referred to, where Sir Winston Churchill agreed with the opposition that the bill should not come forward again in that legislative session.Where else can we look for guidance? I've been thinking about that, hon. Speaker. As I previously noted, I formerly practised law. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which is the high court for this province, there are more than 65 rules passed by this Legislative Assembly to administer the process of that court. There are a number of rules that apply to the high court of this province, which I think we can draw on as a reference for what we should do in considering Motion 50.
[5:00]
After all, Motion 50 is really about process. We have to ask ourselves whether it really sets out a legitimate process that should be followed. Rule 2(7) of the Supreme Court of British Columbia rules states: "If upon application by a party it appears to the court that there is want of prosecution in a proceeding, the court may order that the proceeding be dismissed." I would argue that what happened last Thursday at 11:31 a.m. is that there was a lack of prosecution on behalf of the provincial government with respect to Bill 26. The Minister of Labour did not jump up and defend the bill when my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson moved adjournment of the House in order to intentionally derail the harmful effects of Bill 26 and to protect the B.C. economy and B.C. workers. No other government member jumped up to defend Bill 26. In fact, nobody on the government side got up to defend Bill 26 when my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson intentionally set out toInterjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members. I can't hear the speaker.
B. Penner: Nobody on the government side bothered to prosecute -- that is, to push forward the case of Bill 26 last Thursday morning. Accordingly, I think we can say collectively as a Legislative Assembly, given that the Legislative Assembly supported the motion that my colleague moved last Thursday, that Bill 26 should be dismissed for a lack of prosecution.
That's one analogy, but a person could make others. My mind turns to something that reminds me of when we used to play baseball. Do you remember Little League baseball? The first time that I played in a minor baseball league, our team didn't win very many games. In fact, we only won one game that season -- despite, of course, my fine efforts. The only game we won was when the team that we were supposed to play on a particular evening failed to show up. We won by default. That's because there was nobody from the opposing team who bothered to show up for a scheduled baseball game. You know what? I think that's exactly what this government is guilty of. They failed to show up for the game. They didn't know the game or they didn't care enough to be here. Yet here we are supposed to be supporting Motion 50. I don't see how the government can ask us to support that motion when they didn't care enough to show up last Thursday morning at 11:31 to defend this bill, Bill 26.
When I looked at the court rules again that apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the high court for our province, there is rule 17(1). It indicates: "A plaintiff" -- that is, a person pursuing a matter in the court -- "may proceed against a defendant under this rule if (a) that defendant has not filed an appearance to a writ of summons, and (b) the time for appearance has expired." The heading for that rule is "Default in Filing of Appearance." In other words, it's just like a Little League baseball game, where the other side has failed to show up and comply with the rules; so the side that is compliant with the rules is entitled to win by default. I think that's what happened here last Thursday morning. The opposition won because the government side didn't show up for the game.
An Hon. Member: Was that a home run?
B. Penner: I think it could be argued that my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson came very close to hitting a home run. There were no members from the government side in the field to catch the ball. If there were any members there, they dropped the ball. In fact, the two members
R. Thorpe: Who threw the opening pitch for that game?
B. Penner: I'm being asked by my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton: who threw the opening pitch for that game? Well, as I mentioned earlier, it was a fairly shaky, wobbly and slow pitch that was launched by the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who called debate on Bill 26 without the Minister of Labour being present to defend the bill. However, I digress, and I wish to return to my insightful analysis of what should guide us in considering whether or not to support Motion 50.
I turn now to rule 40(8) of the Supreme Court rules, which has yet another provision that I think we can draw upon for some guidance on whether or not we should really support Motion 50 today. Rule 40 of the Supreme Court rules is titled, "Evidence and Procedure at Trial," and subsection (8) indicates the no-evidence motion: "At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant may apply to have the action dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's case."
Again I contend that the government has offered no evidence to support their case, either (a) that we should support Motion 50 or (b) that we should support Bill 26, which is really the end result of supporting Motion 50. Where is it? There is a lack of evidence. We've heard some catcalls and some heckling from the members opposite, but so far they have refused to participate in this debate and give evidence not just to us but also to people around British Columbia -- the people that pay the bills, the taxpayers that expect us to do their bidding. They have not supplied those taxpayers in British Columbia with any evidence as to why Motion 50 should be supported.
Accordingly, I would argue that the Legislature must dismiss for lack of evidence the government's motion that we revive Bill 26 and put it back on the order paper. After all, that's what Motion 50 is all about: asking us to somehow overlook the decision of the Legislature last Thursday morning at 11:31 and to revive that bill. I say that the government has not provided us with the evidence to support Motion 50.
[ Page 9355 ]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
B. Penner: Oh, I see now that it's Madam Speaker. I'll just pause as you take your place.
Again, in my previous experience as legal counsel, I did deal primarily in the criminal courts of British Columbia. I'll defer to my colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston for a more careful analysis of the civil rules that apply to the courts in British Columbia, particularly the Supreme Court, because he practises there far more than I do. But I was quite conversant, I think, with criminal procedure, particularly in our Provincial Court.
There are numerous rules that apply that I think we can draw on for an analogy to guide us as to whether or not we should support Motion 50 here today. It has to deal with the jurisdiction of the court over the accused and over the offence that the accused is alleged to have committed. The courts don't have carte blanche to simply say to a person: "You, sir, must now appear before us at a specified date and time and answer to us." There are very strict procedural guidelines that must be followed by everyone in the criminal justice system in order to bring an accused person forcibly, against his or her will, before a judge. There are guidelines; there are rules. Where those rules are missed, the court loses jurisdiction.
I argue that we as a Legislative Assembly have lost jurisdiction over dealing with Bill 26, notwithstanding what the government is hoping to do through Motion 50, because last Thursday the Legislature adjourned without first deciding what to do with the matter that had been the subject of debate, and that was Bill 26, second reading, debate in principle. The Legislature let it go. I say that it lost jurisdiction.
There is a case in the criminal courts that I have some familiarity with, known as R. v. McKinnon. There an accused person was told by a judge to come back to court in ten days, I believe it was, after that particular court appearance. In fact, the Criminal Code says that no criminal case can be adjourned for greater than eight days without the consent of the accused.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm questioning the relevance of this
B. Penner: I'm leading up to that.
The Speaker:
B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will certainly heed your caution.
What I'm describing is how we as a Legislature lost jurisdiction, just as courts have lost jurisdiction over accused individuals in the past. I think there are some similarities that we can use to guide us. I believe you remarked in your comments earlier this afternoon, hon. Speaker, that there are not that many precedents that we can rely on to guide us, to tell us what we should do, in approaching the situation which has given rise to Motion 50. I'm trying to provide all members present with some other analogies to guide us as to what we should do on Motion 50.
In the case of R. v. McKinnon, where a judge adjourned a case for greater than eight days without the consent of the accused, it was held on appeal that the court then lost jurisdiction over Mr. McKinnon, could no longer compel him to come back to court and had, in effect, acquitted him. That was the end result. At the end of the day, the charge was gone. In my respectful submission, Bill 26 should be gone, because the Legislature lost jurisdiction at precisely 11:31 last Thursday morning.
I can tell you that it was a deliberate decision. I sit not far from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, and the moment he finished making his motion and it was endorsed by this Legislative Assembly, I turned to speak with him. We immediately spoke about what the government's response would be, because we knew what had happened. We knew that the Legislature had relinquished its jurisdiction over Bill 26, at least for this legislative session. We considered amongst ourselves what it might be that the government would do. I, for one, would have hoped that the government would do the honourable thing and say: "Okay, you got us. Score one for the opposition." Actually, in this session that would be about score number 14, if I think of all the times we've raised issues here in the Legislature and the government has quickly sought to correct the problems that we've identified. However, we talked about what the government's response would be. Would they accept it graciously, or would they put forward some type of motion to try and revive the bill? Well, today we obviously all know that the government's course of action is not to pursue the high road. It's not the honourable one of saying: "Okay, you got us; we'll let you have that one. And if we're that committed to the principles of Bill 26, we'll bring it back at another time." I'll get to when I think it would be a better time to deal with this whole issue. Instead, they sought to use this motion, Motion 50, and this process to correct a very obvious attempt on the part of the opposition to defeat a bill that is bad for British Columbia.
I think a better practice, rather than Motion 50 -- rather than have the opposition and the other Members of this Legislative Assembly support Motion 50 and revive this bill -- would be to say: "All right, we'll let it go for this session, but we'll bring it back at the next session." I think that the appropriate time to do that, if there ever is an appropriate time for something as damaging as Bill 26, would perhaps be during a fall sitting of the Legislature.
An Hon. Member: What about after an election?
B. Penner: Some members suggest that a more appropriate time would be after an election, and I certainly wouldn't have any difficulty with that. I'm sure that as a B.C. Liberal government, we would not bring forward such a harmful, ill-conceived and ill-considered piece of legislation. Failing that, however, the appropriate course of action, rather than pursuing this spurious motion, Motion 50, is to have a fall sitting of the Legislature and to state clearly to all British Columbians when the Legislative Assembly will sit every year -- rather than the current guessing game. That way, we don't have to be here debating Motion 50, and people in British Columbia who are wondering what we are attempting to accomplish will know when we will be here doing their business and working on their behalf.
The official opposition has proposed for some time now -- in fact, we have put it before this House in draft legislation, which the government hasn't supported -- a fixed legislative calendar. The Legislature would start in late February -- rather than virtually April, as it did this year -- and then we would also have a fall session to deal with contentious pieces of legislation such as Bill 26, which gives rise to Motion 50 today. Instead, the government in its so-called wisdom has seen fit not to do that. I that is disappointing. I think back again to what Sir Winston Churchill would have thought 46 years ago. I think he would be disappointed that this govern-
[ Page 9356 ]
ment believes that parliament is here to serve only its purpose and not the purpose of the public at large. That is completely unacceptable and unnecessary, in my view. Ultimately, I think it is detrimental to the government in terms of its electoral chances.
[5:15]
The Speaker: Hon. member, I draw attention to the time. Your time is now up.B. Penner: Hon. Speaker, I'd just like to thank you and everybody in the Legislature for the opportunity to speak on this motion.
C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, I rose slowly to take my place in this debate, because I was looking across at the government benches, assuming that somebody from there want to stand up and defend this motion from some very good arguments that have been put forward by my colleagues in the official opposition and by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who also made a very cogent argument as to why this motion should not be passed. But I am astounded, given the significance of Bill 26, that no member of the government is prepared to stand up and defend this motion. Not one person will stand up to defend this motion. I think that says something about their support for Bill 26 in the first place. They're not prepared to stand up and defend it, because they know it's not defensible.
I'd like to quote from Hansard of April 14, 1987. That was a little over 11 years ago now, if I've got my arithmetic right. This is a quote from the second member for Nanaimo.
An Hon. Member: Who was that?
C. Hansen: My colleague says: "Who was that?" The second member for Nanaimo at the time is currently our Minister of Labour.
An Hon. Member: What did he have to say?
C. Hansen: Actually, it was very interesting. This was a debate on a piece of legislation that was called Bill 19. This was an amendment to the Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987. The Minister of Labour at the time was a member of the opposition bench, and he was speaking to a hoist motion during second reading. It was interesting. I gather he was complaining about the fact that there were no government members prepared to stand up and defend Bill 19 at the time. He said: "
Today we've got a situation where Bill 26 has been taken off the order paper, and all of the precedent around the Commonwealth in our parliamentary system says that the bill should be dead. I will speak more on that later. Here we have a situation where nobody on the government bench is prepared to stand up and defend this motion. This motion that we have before us, put forth by the Government House Leader, is: "That the order for the adjourned debate on Second Reading of Bill (No. 26), Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998 be reinstated to the Orders of the Day." In other words, the bill was dead as of 11:31 Thursday morning. The Government House Leader has brought in a motion to have it reinstated. We on this side of the House have given some very good arguments as to why it should not be reinstated, and not one member of the government is prepared to stand up and defend this motion. Not one member of government is prepared to stand up and refute the very good arguments that have been made by my colleagues on this side of the House.
The Minister of Labour had some other things to say. This is actually from April 23, 1987. I know that at the time the second member for Nanaimo of the day was a very new member of this Legislature. He was first elected in October, I guess it would have been, of 1986; maybe I have my month wrong. Certainly the Minister of Labour had been a member of this House for less than a year at that time. This is, again, speaking to the Industrial Relations Reform Act of the day, Bill 19, which I'm sure is embedded in the memory of every member of the NDP as, they said, a dark day in B.C. labour relations history. This is another quote from the Minister of Labour. He said: "
I know that the Minister of Labour is very much a champion of the rules of parliament, very much a champion of the rules of debate. Certainly, hon. Speaker, he has served in the chair, in the same capacity as you serve now. I think that if there was no other experience in a parliamentarian's life that would impress upon you the importance of tradition, the importance of the rules, the importance of the fact that those rules are there to serve the whole House, not just the government benches
Interjection.
C. Hansen: My apologies -- it's three members of the chamber. My apologies to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who served in this House in 1991.
Certainly that would be an experience that I think would make you realize how important the rules of this House and the rules of parliamentary precedent are -- to serve all members of the chamber, not just the government members.
It has led me to ask
Interjection.
C. Hansen: The member for Skeena said he hasn't had a chance. I would gladly have allowed him to go before me
Interjection.
C. Hansen: He says: "Why would I?"
Interjection.
C. Hansen: The member is calling into question the very motion that his House Leader has put forward. I won't repeat
[ Page 9357 ]
the word he just used to describe it, because I'm not sure that it's a parliamentary word. The fact that none of these members have stood up to defend Motion 50 leads me to question whether or not they are all supportive of Motion 50 and whether or not they are all supportive of Bill 26 as it was presented to this House. Maybe a lot of those members would just as soon allow Bill 26 to die. Certainly I know there would be lots of reasons that they may be willing to do just that. If you start looking at Bill 26 and what it means for government members and government backbenchers, first of all I'm sure that they recognize the impact that that has on the economy. I understand the role of the government Whip and when you have to have a motion of government, a bill that says: "No, we cannot vote against this in second reading because of solidarity within the government caucusNow, suddenly, for all of those members of the government benches who have doubts about Bill 26 -- as to whether or not this is a good initiative for the chamber -- they have their opportunity to allow it to die a quiet death. They can still go back to the building trades unions and say: "Well, we tried; we fought the good fight. We were all prepared to vote for it and pass it, but because of a motion by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, the bill died." Maybe that's it. Maybe the government members are prepared to allow Bill 26 to die because it gives them that easy out. It gives them the ability to say to the few supporters of Bill 26: "I would have voted for it if it had ever got to the point of a vote." But to the majority of people in their constituency who are concerned about Bill 26, they can go and say: "Well, you know, this was a bad time for them to bring in Bill 26. Our economy is going down the tank fast. Maybe it's just as well Bill 26 died, because now we can get on with the job of rebuilding the economy." Maybe that's the reason none of these government members have stood up to support this motion that's before us today.
We have to point out some of the things that happened on Thursday morning. Thursday morning, there was basically a government caucus that was ignoring Bill 26. It was clear, when my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson was speaking about some of the problems with Bill 26, that nobody was listening. I think that if the government members had been following some of the criticism that had been coming from this side of the House, they would have recognized the flaws in Bill 26. I think that would have started to work on their conscience as to how they would vote on second reading on that particular piece of legislation. What was obviously clear on Thursday morning, when my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson was talking about the principles of Bill 26, was that the government members were not listening. There were only two government members in the House at the time, and neither of them was listening. I would argue that if they had been listening, they would have learned something about some of the problems. But clearly they weren't listening. Clearly Bill 26 wasn't important to them, and by wilfully ignoring the debate, not paying attention to what was happening in the House, they allowed Bill 26 to die. Bill 26 died on Thursday morning.
The other thing that's important to note when it comes to Motion 50, which is before us, is that this wasn't a subject of controversy in the House at the time. This was not a motion of government votes versus opposition votes, which passed by a small margin. The motion that my colleague put forward on Thursday morning -- "that the House do now adjourn" -- was passed unanimously. That's important; it was passed unanimously by this House. That is the way the rules of this House work: if opposition to a motion is not expressed, then it passes unanimously. I know there is a fine Latin phrase that the Clerks use when they describe that a motion has passed without dissent. I must confess that my Latin is a little rusty, but I know the Minister of Labour could help me with it, so I won't try to
Hon. Speaker, speaking of the Minister of Labour, I want to go back to a quote that he made when he first introduced Bill 26 in this House during second reading.
The Speaker: Hon. member, references to Bill 26 must be very limited.
C. Hansen: This is very limited, hon. Speaker, and it is directly relevant to the motion that is before us.
In consideration of your caution, I won't read the full quote. I will just read the one sentence that is relevant. The Minister of Labour was referring to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson at the time, and he was introducing the bill for second reading. I gather that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson may have been giving the minister some feedback during the course of his introduction. He said: "He's a very good target, hon. Speaker, you know. But I'll try to ignore him for the moment. I know he's looking for his 20 seconds of immortality." Those words, which the Minister of Labour spoke at the outset of
K. Krueger: What were those words? I'd like to hear those words again.
[5:30]
C. Hansen: I will gladly share that transcript with my colleague, because he hasn't had a chance to read it yet.
It has been referenced that Bill 26 would be the nail in the coffin of the B.C. economy, and I think what happened last Thursday morning was that Bill 26 was effectively killed by that motion. What we have before us in Motion 50
Interjection.
C. Hansen: My colleague from Chilliwack says we're looking for a lightning storm. There certainly are lots of storms.
I also think it's important that we recognize the significance of this debate. We've made light of some of these issues, and there have been analogies of everything from, in my case, Frankenstein, to Little League baseball. But in all seriousness, I think that we have to recognize the importance of the debate
[ Page 9358 ]
we are having here today. In the history of all of the parliaments that use the British parliamentary system, this is a very important date, and this is a very important debate that is taking place. The motion that my colleague from Kamloops moved on Thursday is obviously a motion that has happened before in British parliamentary history, but rarely has it ever been moved with the intent to kill a bill.The procedure that has been brought forward by the Government House Leader to try to resurrect that bill, to breathe life back into it, is a procedure that will have ramifications for parliaments throughout the Commonwealth in the future. What we do here today is not just a procedure that rescues the ability of this government to continue to put forward legislation to endear itself to a small group of trade unionists in British Columbia. Rather, the debate that we have here today under Motion 50 is a debate that will go down in the history of the British parliamentary system. If there is a situation in the future whereby an opposition member brings forward a motion that the House do now adjourn, and that motion passes, and it is a deliberate motion -- as it was last Thursday -- this motion that is before us today and this debate that we are having today will be a very important factor in how future parliaments around the world consider dealing with those particular situations. We are, hon. Speaker, creating new precedent by the actions that have been taken by this government today.
I question whether the motivation for bringing forward this motion today is one of following the rules and precedents that we have throughout the history of the British parliamentary system, or whether it is an effort on the part of the government to simply resurrect a piece of legislation that, to their embarrassment, was killed by an opposition procedure. I think that it's important that all 75 members -- all 74 members, hon. Speaker, with the exception of yourself -- give careful consideration to the ramifications for the future and the precedents that will be set as a result of this motion. I think it's not a case of the government members looking at it and saying: "Well, my government was embarrassed, and I want to pass Bill 26 because we promised the building trades unions that it will get passed." That's not what's at question. What is at question here is the integrity of our British parliamentary system. I ask every member of the government benches to search their conscience in that respect. I think, as one of my colleagues said earlier: "If the shoe were on the other foot, there would be a very different approach taken by the NDP members in this chamber; if they were in opposition today, they would be fighting for this bill to remain dead." And I ask each of those members to think first and foremost about the importance of our parliamentary tradition when they're deciding how they will vote on this motion.
What we are seeing is an effort by the government to use its majority in this House to pass a motion. This government is trying to rely on the 38 votes that it has, which obviously will outnumber the opposition votes when it comes to the passage of this motion. But for those of us that want to stand up and protect the integrity of this chamber, I think it's important for us to stand up and do everything that we can to argue against this particular motion and to urge government members to support us in that effort as well.
Hon. Speaker, I want to raise the issue of the legitimacy of the government using that majority in this case. What we have is a government that, granted, has the majority of seats in this chamber. But I would like to question whether or not they've got the legitimacy from the public in order to use this kind of manoeuvre to resurrect the piece of legislation that died last Thursday. You've got to look back on the election, where they got 39 percent -- and again, there are arguments about
It's not just going back to the votes that we got in the election. It's a case of, when you look at Bill 26, whether it should be allowed to die and allowed to remain dead. There is certainly an argument that the public does not support that kind of legislation in the first place. The polls showed that only 19 percent of the public felt that there should be labour legislation that further pushes the balance of the Labour Code in favour of the trade union movement. I think it is a good argument that
The Speaker: Hon. member, that's canvassing some of the arguments that have been made around Bill 26.
C. Hansen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is whether or not Bill 26 has majority support for being brought back. I will take your caution and move on to other areas.
I want to go briefly to some of the rules we have that guide the business of this House, such as standing order 45(2), which provides for the motion that my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson put forward. If I can quote a couple of relevant sections -- actually, I'm not sure how to refer to this particular document -- on the business of the House: "In the midst of the debate on a question any member may move (while in possession of the floor), 'that this House do now adjourn'
The number of people that had very clear understanding as to what that particular motion meant in our British parliamentary system is interesting. We were very clear on this side of the House as to what that meant prior to that motion being put last Thursday. It was something that we had talked about. I think every member of the opposition benches knew the significance of that motion, so it was clearly not an accidental motion. It was clearly done with intent, and the clear intent was that it have the effect of killing Bill 26.
It's interesting that when people were told about this
The question that is before us under Motion 50 is to ignore what is certainly a popular understanding of the impact of that motion and to bring in this motion to breathe life back into that piece of legislation. I know my colleague who spoke earlier was talking about what would be a better time to have this particular bill come back, rather than putting it back on the orders of the day through this particular procedure.
I know that there are a lot of people who feel that there are really two arguments around Bill 26. One is the fact that it [ Page 9359 ]
I know that the Minister of Labour was very anxious during the initial phase of our second reading debate. He felt we weren't speaking to the specifics of the bill, which is something we will obviously do if this bill ever gets to a committee stage.
One of the issues that comes up, if you start reading back through the precedents that govern situations in this case, is whether or not it was a contentious piece of legislation. Certainly if you start looking at the various cases of when there has been a procedure of this nature introduced by a legislature, by a parliament, there have been two very distinct categories. The most common category is when it was an accidental procedure, where somebody basically moved the wrong motion at the wrong time, inadvertently. That is one whole set of precedents that we have to deal with. But the other set of precedents, of which there are very few -- which the Opposition House Leader indicated earlier
The question of whether or not the 75 members of this chamber should support Motion 50, I think, goes back to whether or not they wish to uphold some of those traditions. In considering whether or not they should uphold those traditions, they should look at whether or not this is a contentious piece of legislation. I can certainly speak for many hours about the fact that this is a contentious piece of legislation, but I also appreciate that that may not be directly relevant to the debate before us. Certainly, if you start looking at the number of organizations that are standing up against it, if you start to look at the rallies that are starting to be organized around this province over concern about these changes, one cannot dispute that this fits that category and that definition of being contentious. So I ask all members of the House, when they're considering how they would vote on this motion, when they're considering whether or not to vote with the rest of the government members, that they give consideration to that fact and that they stand up for the traditions that we have come to support and vote to ensure that the integrity of this chamber and the integrity of our parliament is maintained into the future.
[5:45]
G. Plant: I am pleased to rise to speak about Motion 50, which is the motion that the House Leader has introduced: "That the order for the adjourned debate on Second Reading of Bill (No. 26), Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998 be reinstated to the Orders of the Day."
One of the things that I think can happen in a parliamentary chamber like this one, although it doesn't happen very often, is that when we look at the issues before us, we can seek to persuade each other; we can seek to marshal arguments to persuade those on the opposition benches of our perspective; we can have a debate in which we try as members of this assembly to persuade each other of the merits of the motion, the merits of the matter before us, the issue before the House. I come to this debate waiting and wanting, in some respects, to hear something like an attempt to persuade me that I should vote for this motion. It would be, I think, a reasonable exercise of the prerogative, the privilege, that we all have as members of this assembly if the members of the government who put this motion forward were to stand up and say: "Here are the reasons why we should bring this bill back to the orders of the day" -- the things that the members would say they want to put on the table here, on the floor of the House, as it were, to try to persuade us that the right thing to do is put this bill back on the order paper.
Who knows? It hasn't happened yet. I haven't come to this chamber, in the two years that I've been here, with my mind more or less made up against the government and been persuaded out of it. One of these days it might happen. One of these days it might happen that the government might actually speak to something, might put forward concrete, substantive reasons -- good reasons, reasons that make sense in principle, reasons that make sense in practice, reasons that will advance the cause of democracy -- and I will find myself sitting there saying: "Gosh, I was wrong about this. You know, I came here prepared to oppose the government's motion, but they've persuaded me out of it." I guess I'm going to have to wait again, because so far, none of the government members have persuaded me. In fact, they haven't even tried. They haven't even gotten to their feet to attempt to persuade me that there is any merit in the motion they have put on the order paper -- except the House Leader.
I grant that we've heard from the House Leader. We had to hear from the House Leader. The practice around this motion requires that we hear from the House Leader, and I will look forward, in the time that's available to me to speak on this motion, to dealing with some of the things that the House Leader said in her extraordinarily brief
Earlier in this debate, my colleague the Opposition House Leader took advantage of the opportunity that was presented to him to draw an analogy to one of those great sources of insight into life on the planet Earth that has been provided to us in the last half-century by referring to a Monty Python [ Page 9360 ]
But, you know, such is the state that what formerly passed for a disciplined intellect on my part has fallen into that I heard my colleague refer to one Monty Python sketch, and instantly another one came into my head. I thought: what's happening here? What is Motion 50 all about? Motion 50 is about this: Bill 26 isn't dead; it's only resting. Like the parrot, we can smash it on the desk a hundred times, if we like. It may look dead; it may look like it has no life. But it's not dead; it's only resting.
We have before us a motion that engages all of us, as members in this assembly, on the question of whether or not we should in fact breathe new life into Bill 26. Impossible as it may seem, from the perspective of those who believe in the truth of Monty Python analogies, that is the issue before us.
Although I have not been assisted by speakers from the government as to the reasons why I should cast my vote, as a member of this assembly, in favour of Motion 50, I have listened with interest to the speeches of my colleagues on the opposition bench and also of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I've listened to their exposition of the principles which I think should engage us when we look at Motion 50 and decide how to cast our vote. As I understand it from the speeches of my colleagues who have spent some time studying the Journals and reading the books of parliamentary practice, it's entirely appropriate that we look at issues around whether or not Bill 26, which would be revived, is urgent. Does the motion engage us in matters which are urgent? Is there something essential, something really important, about what Motion 50 seeks to do, that we need to respond to? Is there something controversial at issue here? Is this a case where the government is simply seeking to correct a slip?
I'll pause here to point out that I was certainly assisted in my understanding of the issues by listening to my friend the member for Chilliwack talk about the analogy to rules of court. There's a rule of court that allows the judge and the court to correct a slip if it's simply a minor, technical problem and, in fact, not even that -- just a comma that wasn't put in the right place. I think we need to look at that issue too. And I think we also, if my colleagues are right, are entitled to look at the question of whether or not -- by denying the government this motion -- we are in effect denying them any opportunity ever to come back before this assembly with a bill like Bill 26. Are we so exercising our power as opposition that we are in fact, completely and for all time, stopping the government from pursuing its agenda? If we were to do that, I think that we would need to be sure and certain that what we were engaged in was a matter where it was vital, it was important to democracy, to do that.
These are some of the issues, at any rate, that I think are important in looking at the motion before us. I hope that I'll have an opportunity to elaborate on some of those questions at some length in due course. But noting the hour, hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The committee met at 2:59 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
Hon. J. MacPhail: A couple of opening remarks, just very briefly. As I've said, the vote is for just under $300 million. The proposed '98-99 operating budget for B.C. Transit is $663.45 million, which is an increase of $13.25 million compared to '97-98, a 2 percent increase. The provincial share of the proposed budget is, as I've said, $296 million. The provincial share is net of West Coast Express revenue of $6.09 million. The local share for B.C. Transit is $361.36 million.
The local share in the Vancouver and Victoria regions can be funded from existing local revenue sources without any increases to fares or tax rates, which is good news. The provincial and local share of expenditures is based on the existing funding formulas, with the exception of $2.7 million for additional service expansion in the Vancouver region. The Vancouver regional transit commission will fully fund this portion of service expansion, which exceeds the amount included in the ten-year plan. The budget request is based on the '98-99 service plans that have been approved by the Vancouver and Victoria regional transit commissions and the municipal systems and environment committee of the B.C. Transit board of directors.
[3:00]
A significant investment of $4.92 million in improved service quality in the Vancouver region is proposed. This will result in improved service reliability and safety for Vancouver buses and quick and easy access to information about Transit services. Cost savings of $7.4 million in the Vancouver region are planned as a result of a number of productivity initiatives, including continued reductions in absenteeism. This represents 2 percent of the Vancouver region's operating budget.
Debt service costs are estimated to be $9.23 million lower for '98-99, largely owing to lower interest rates. Following a February 1998 agreement between the province and the greater Vancouver regional district, responsibility for transit services in the district will be transferred to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority or, as I hope we can now call it, the GVTA, by April 1, 1999. Legislation establishing the GVTA received first reading in the Legislative Assembly on June 19, 1998, and there will be plenty of opportunity for further discussion and debate as part of that legislative process.
During this year of transition, B.C. Transit will continue to deliver its established five- and ten-year plans. These plans include significant increases in service, as well as major improvements in service quality.
I would very much like to extend my thanks and congratulations to all employees of B.C. Transit for their hard work [ Page 9361 ]
I will just take this opportunity to introduce the staff at the table. Blair Trousdell is the chief executive officer for B.C. Transit, and Rick Krowchuk is the chief financial officer for B.C. Transit. I will also introduce people as they come forward.
D. Symons: I thank the minister very much for those opening remarks and overview of the corporation during the last year. B.C. Transit is very important, of course, and transit is extremely important in the urban areas to reduce traffic congestion, pollution and all those things that we in our society now think are not really good for us. I'm somewhat concerned. We often deal with transit issues using a carrot-and-stick approach, and I wonder at times, like with the chicken and the egg, which comes first. I think we have the problem that I too often see in the Transport 2021 study and other things that have been done in the past: there's quite a bit of the stick but not too much of the carrot to go with it. We'll be looking for that sort of thing as we carry on our discussions today. I note that some of the stick approaches are surcharges on parking, gasoline taxes, tolls, road-use restrictions, TDM and that sort of thing. Most of these are in place to put the costs of providing transit on the automobile driver. Somehow I think there might be a disproportionate amount going strictly to the automobile to finance transit.
At our peak travel periods we do have crowded buses. We have hard seats, fewer seats and proportionately more standees on buses now. In some cases, we have uncertain reliability, and too few spare buses in our aging fleet. Those are other topics I will talk about as we go on today. The quality of service is key to a successful transit system, and I'm sure that is not something that would be at all new to the minister or to B.C. Transit. Reliability, reasonable travel time, reasonable costs and comfort: without these features, people are going to stay in their single-occupancy vehicles, and that's not what any of us want.
This is probably the last year in which Transit will be a major estimate issue within this Legislature, because with the GVTA taking place, I suspect that the minister from this point on in future years will be able to say: "That's not mine; that's the GVTA." Then we'll be dealing with the Victoria and municipal transit systems, which will certainly cut down the size of our debate in future years. But maybe the minister will tell me I'm wrong on that one.
Jurisdictions that have tried to promote car pools and HOV lanes have reported that those efforts have had minimal success in reducing traffic. We're going to have to look at that as well. Polls have indicated, however, that people will take transit if it improves. If it will end up giving them a reasonable alternative to their automobile, they'll take it.
The Vancouver regional transit system has not replaced old buses in a timely fashion, let alone added new buses to keep up with the population growth. So I guess my first question to lead in from all of that is: what is this year's budget to address these needs? The minister has already answered that for me in her opening remarks. Thank you. What are the long-term plans for B.C. Transit to address the issues that I mentioned a moment ago issues of too many old buses and not enough to replace those, let alone bringing in more buses to increase services in the area?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just begin by offering you some rather rigorous detail on bus orders. I'll just scan it for you, though. This is new bus deliveries this year, next year and the year 2000. For instance, there are 51 low-floor buses coming on, with an in-service date of July of this year; there are 21 low-floor arctics that are coming on in September of '98; 25 CNGs, December of '98; 44 low-floor arctics, September of '99; 26 low-floor arctics, September of '99. This is when they'll actually be in service. The delivery is part of that, but actually being in service is the only thing that really counts. There will be 23 low-floor buses, December of '99; one low-floor Nova diesel, January of '99; 60 low-floors, September of 2000; 9 low-floor arctics, September of 2000; and 3 low-floor hybrids, April of 2000. We also anticipate three low-floor buses with Ballard fuel cells to be in service very, very soon this year.
D. Symons: I gather there is some difference
Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, I wondered why they left the "C" out.
D. Symons: Okay, now you know what an artic is. It's articulated buses. I'm assuming
Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you for that. Yeah.
Interjection.
D. Symons: Okay, so now you know what you read, hon. minister.
But I gather there is a shortfall between what the GVRD proposed for needs in the greater Vancouver area over the next decade compared to what is feasible to finance. I think they were saying something in the neighbourhood of 600 to 800 buses in the next decade, and apparently somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 buses are on plans. I'm wondering if maybe you could give me an idea of that.
Also, just while we're at it, I believe there is about $50 million that the Vancouver transit commission had not spent on buses in the last few years, because it was up to the government to put in a matching amount before they would be able to spend that money on buying buses. I'm just wondering whether the money that was held back will now be made available to the new transit commission, or the new GVTA, when it is in place, or whether those buses will be ordered before the GVTA is in place.
Hon. J. MacPhail: If the hon. member is referring to the reserve that has been built up, yes, that is transferred to the GVTA.
D. Symons: The GVRD has suggested a carrot-and-stick approach, I guess, to reducing traffic. The sticks were higher parking fees, a higher gasoline tax, tolls, higher licence fees, vehicle insurance or AirCare of some sort. The carrots are higher bus fees, a shortage of replacement or spare buses, plastic seats and crowded rush-hour vehicles. I'm wondering what the minister's views are of the GVRD's proposals for traffic reduction or for encouraging people to travel by bus.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a partnership between B.C. Transit and local communities. The GVTA is actually the manifestation of the partnership. I would say that I think B.C. Transit is [ Page 9362 ]
The GVRD, of course, entered into the GVTA with the understanding that as they assume greater responsibility and the revenue sources to go along with that, they would be putting in place their Livable Region strategy in a way that would be the carrot approach. They have the revenue sources now to increase public transit services, and that's the model under which they will fall.
Certainly one could argue that appropriate taxes are not a stick approach; they're the cost of doing business for people who wish to remain in a single-occupant vehicle. The flip side or the corollary to that is that these taxes should be directed to offer greater public transit for those who wish to take public transit. That is exactly what's behind the GVTA.
D. Symons: I gather that what we're going to find out as we go through here -- and as the minister responded a moment ago -- is that many of the questions we ask on one side will revert back to a GVTA question, and vice versa, because the two are fairly interlocked. I guess the ongoing situation between the government and the greater Vancouver regional district over the governance model
The other thing is that I would tend to differ somewhat with the minister, who commented a moment ago about whether some of those fees and what not on the automobile driver are not a stick approach. It seems to be a stick, I think, if you're putting various extra expenses on the automobile driver to discourage him from using a car, and using that money towards providing better transit. Nevertheless, we'll disagree. I gather that the minister caught, when I read my sticks and carrots in my last question, that indeed the carrots were also sticks in a sense as well -- more forcing of people, not attracting them, into taking transit. But we'll get into those other attractions, I guess, as we go further on in today's discussions.
Last October the Vancouver regional transit commission scrapped the off-peak discount. It was their alternative to a fare increase. That seemed to be the only incentive, other than having people standing, to avoid riding transit during the peak hours. Wouldn't the minister agree that it would be wise to encourage off-peak travel? One of the ways to encourage off-peak travel would be to offer them a discount during that time, to level out the ridership -- it would do that -- and make the best use of the transit vehicles and the drivers -- that is, to have them utilized at more or less the same level throughout the day rather than having people just in those peak periods. This is done in B.C. Ferries; it's done with airlines. Why not on the buses?
[3:15]
We did surveys before making that change. Around 3 percent or maybe fewer said they would be impacted by that change. In fact, that has proven to be true in terms of ridership numbers. So it's making choices about how to make sure that your fee structure is done in a way that actually encourages the greatest use of ridership.
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
D. Symons: A letter of November 27 last year from Mr. George Puil of the GVRD to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit regarding car travel asked if vehicle occupancy was down and so forth
Hon. J. MacPhail: I say this with the greatest of respect: we do have legislation before the House. I think it would be appropriate for us to have the discussion around the GVTA on the legislation. All of this is actually articulated in the legislation specifically -- the revenue sources -- and are debatable at that time. So those questions are appropriate for the legislation before the House.
D. Symons: Well, I was only asking a question as to some comments the minister had made. I didn't realize we were treading entirely within that jurisdiction. There are going to be a lot of questions I'm going to ask about the GVTA that I think might be better to discuss here rather than in the Legislature in debate on that bill. Do you want to respond to that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it isn't appropriate. There are two forums in which we can discuss the GVTA. The GVTA has not been created yet; therefore it is not part of these estimates. But it is going to be created as per legislation; it's very specific, detailed legislation. So this is not a question of stifling debate, but it is a question of where
The Chair: We ask the member to take the minister's comments and proceed in that fashion.
D. Symons: A week after the fare increases took place in the GVTA region last October -- or at least the removal of the mid-day fare decrease -- the Vancouver Province had an article entitled: "Why We're So Slow to Hop Aboard Our Buses." They answered the question with the reasons: poor service, unreliability and inconvenience. Poor service would [ Page 9363 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Perhaps I can address a wide range
In the area of customer information, there has been over $1 million invested in this budget to improve customer information, almost 8.5 FTEs for customer information, and we're marketing our information, as you've probably seen, in the news and on the radio. There is increased staffing in the custom transit support department. There are also some ongoing environmental initiatives. I would also like to talk a little about productivity initiatives, and then go to some of our achievements as well.
This year there's a targeted savings of 2 percent through productivity increases in the Vancouver region operating budget. That will mean a savings of $7.4 million. Let me just tell you what we have already achieved in productivity savings, because, of course, the hon. member may remember that in our last set of estimates we were dealing with the auditor general's report, particularly in the area of service quality and absenteeism. I'm happy to report that there's been an operator productivity improvement of 2.8 percent, which is an improvement of 4.8 days per year per operator. This has generated a savings in that we have had to hire 64 fewer operators. In other words, we haven't had to increase our staff in order to maintain the increased service levels. The short-term absences have improved by 15.5 percent, and that means the overall operator attendance average has improved by 10.3 percent.
Since December of '96, the number of spareboard operators has dropped by 61 people, and that's a savings of $3.3 million. There's been a savings of 10 FTEs in the area of maintenance efficiencies, and there's been a 3 percent improvement in kilometres between road calls. So really, last year's record is good, and this year's business plan objectives are even better. Ridership in Vancouver was up by 1.5 percent in '97-98, and we are forecasting a '98-99 increase in ridership, over that increase, of 3.1 percent.
D. Symons: The minister brought out a lot of figures on things I'm going to be canvassing in a little detail later on, so I suppose we're going to be doubling up on some of the comments made. But I thank her for the answers she's given to some upcoming questions. We'll see if we repeat them later.
The CEO of B.C. Transit was quoted in the November issue of B.C. Business Magazine as saying:
Hon. J. MacPhail: This has been an ongoing point of discussion since the development of the ten-year plan and since the final approval of the GVRD's Livable Region strategy. The negotiations around the GVTA are a compromise between those two positions. The ten-year plan is, as quoted, in B.C. Transit's ability to fund; the GVRD's Livable Region strategy has a bigger vision. It was on that basis that the GVRD approached our government and said: "Let us take over transit." That's what GVTA is all about. At this stage, the funding sources for the GVTA are a compromise between the two. They reach a midpoint between the ten-year plan for buses and the GVRD's Livable Region strategy. So there's good news already in that there will be funding for more public transit than was contemplated prior to the agreement and the GVTA. Beyond that, however, it literally is a commitment at the local level, either through greater densification and the ability then to have greater public transit or an increase in funding sources. Of course, the funding sources that have been transferred to the GVTA are growth resources. The GVTA no longer has to rely on a set amount from government. As the population grows, so grow the funding resources. It will be incumbent upon the new authority to make sure that as revenues grow, so does the commitment to public transit.
D. Symons: Again, I don't know if the minister has my notes in front of her on comments coming next, but she seems to be jumping one step ahead of me all the time. I was reading in a briefing note from last year -- I suppose these are briefing notes for the ministry -- dealing with TransAction 2002. This one commented: "While representing a significant expansion, TransAction 2002 falls short of the targets identified in Transport 2021 and adopted in the GVRD's Livable Region Strategic Plan" -- which we're just mentioning, hon. minister. "To meet these targets will require increases in funding which exceed the province's debt management plan" -- I think it's now called a financial management plan. "As a result, changes to transit governance and funding would be required to meet the later targets."
[3:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The funding is adequate. There will be a change in responsibility, of course. As the local government [ Page 9364 ]
D. Symons: I would agree with the minister that it's adequately funded -- as long as they use some of those new taxing or fundraising authorities that they've now been given. We'll talk about that possibly at a later date, particularly when the bill is debated, I suppose.
If we can go back for a moment to 1995 and Mr. Ben Marr, in his report to the GVRD he recommended investigating P3s for rapid transit. Has B.C. Transit or the Vancouver transit commission or the GVRD -- one of these authorities -- gone to the private sector for a request for expressions of interest or a request for proposals for the Broadway-Coquitlam transit corridor? Has the private sector been approached to put in proposals or expressions of interest for that particular service?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appointed a business advisory committee to the LRT project, headed up by Doris Bradstreet-Daughney. She's the former chair of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and she heads a business advisory committee whose mandate is to seek private-public partnerships, or actually to encourage private development opportunities as we build LRT.
D. Symons: Back last September there was some concern about the possible delays -- and we're certainly finding recently that there seems to be more of a speeding up -- in delivering the light-rail project. The minister was quoted back in September: " 'The reasons we haven't signed it' " -- meaning the agreement -- " 'are well known to the GVRD,' said the minister. 'The proposed agreement contained ambiguities that would slow the project down. We're working to clarify those details.' " He further went on to say: "It was indicated at that time that a revised protocol agreement is now being considered by the provincial cabinet. Officials say that technical work on the system is proceeding in the meantime." So was the revised protocol agreement reached and signed last fall? I gather that's correct. And was that a result of the technical work which was going on at that time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just make a general answer here. All of this is now moot with the GVTA. All of the issues arising out of LRT -- how to proceed, who controls it, etc. -- is contained in the GVTA legislation.
D. Symons: What I'm leading up to is the fact that many of the problems that seem to have transpired, in a sense, to convince the government to change from one technology to another, in spite of what it says in that agreement that people signed a year ago -- and we're looking at a year ago last March and signed last November, I believe
On April 28, 1998, Vancouver city council indicated that they would not be able to reach the October 31 deadline to choose a preferred-routes option. They were concerned about having time to do the proper consultation with the public. The cost of the project is now $1.5 billion, supposedly. It was still going to be an LRT at that time, as of April. If contingencies were taken into account in November and the cost was estimated to be $1.1 billion, why have the costs escalated by $400 million in six months, to the $1.5 billion that the Premier's now talking about?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can make all those cost studies available to the hon. member if he hasn't had them yet, because they're all public. I'd be happy to give that information. It's all well-documented.
Comparing the '94
As we got into discussions with the municipalities about routes, it became clear that
So it's interesting that there are messages coming from the GVRD individual municipalities saying, "My God! It's because of one municipality other than us that we're not at the front of the line, and we want to be at the front of the line," and there are others who would say: "Gosh, you've got to take your time and make sure that we work this issue out, because there are many other factors that now need to be taken into account -- for instance, a tunnel on the Broadway corridor past Clark to avoid business disruption." I think this is the natural evolution of a very important but complex project.
D. Symons: I thank the minister. I find that I have some of the documents she has referred to relating to the LRT and the changes that have been made, as she said -- whether it goes underground or over intersections and so forth
If we can move on a little bit to the GVRD and the GVTA agreement, you'll be able to tell me, as I ask the next series of questions relating to the agreement, which ones you care to answer here and which ones I'll take to the other place. I'll put Xs and Os by them, so I'll know where I'm going to bring the questions up. I happen to agree with the concept of local control, so on that, as far as a GVTA agreement goes, we're at one. [ Page 9365 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be about $550 million at the end of the year.
D. Symons: I have some concerns about some of the advertising that was done by B.C. Transit leading up to the public forums that were held in the communities prior to the GVRD sort of signing on board, shall we say. I think if we take the Richmond one, it was badly timed. I'm reading the Richmond Review. That meeting took place January 21, but the ads went in the papers over the Christmas holidays, between Christmas and New Year's, when people aren't likely to be reading a paper. In one, there's a little chart with an arrow pointing down. It says, "How transportation improvements would be paid for," and then it says: "Transfer existing revenue sources from the province of B.C
I think that except for the West Coast Express revenues, all of those things already went to the Vancouver regional transit commission, as their sort of local taxing authority. So I don't know if this ad is correct when it says that it's transferring existing revenue sources from the province of British Columbia. Were these things not already dedicated to the
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, that isn't our ad, so I can't answer for it. It's not our ad. It's the GVRD's interpretation. I'm sorry; I don't know.
D. Symons: Then I gather that Mr. Puil has a lot to answer for. We were just checking, and the minister is correct: that's "GVRD" down at the bottom. I'm looking at the ratification of the recommended agreement on transportation governance. I've got to find page 25, because this is numbered in different ways. It says in here, if I can find the right place: "An additional revenue requirement of more than $800 million for the authority in its first year will be required." This is from the Eva Hage report.
[3:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
D. Symons: A very short answer. We may discuss that a little later on.
The advisory committee that is supposed to be structured
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, all of this is addressed in the legislation. Maybe we could agree on issues that impact funding for B.C. Transit this year -- for instance, funding sources that will at some point move this year
D. Symons: I wonder if we might move on a little bit, then, to what is currently taking place, and that's to do with LRT. Now, you might also say that that's a GVTA thing. Indeed, it is generated right now through the government rather than the GVTA -- and certainly, rather than even through the advisers to B.C. Transit, it would seem, at the current time. So I'm wondering if we might look at that for the next short while.
The B.C. government holds substantial amounts of land, I believe, along the highway -- a certain number of metres each side of the highways and so forth. Some of this is along the proposed LRT -- or ALRT, whichever it may be -- route. Will the GVRD -- or the GVTA, as the case may be -- have to purchase right-of-way from the government for where the government has land, or will the government donate the needed land along those particular routes?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There will probably be a mix of private and public property along the route and access to it. Whether there will be a dollar value to the accesses will be negotiated and agreed upon at all levels. I'd just welcome Teresa Watts here, who is part of the LRT project.
D. Symons: I notice that the newspaper picture of Teresa last weekend did her justice. Welcome. Pictures in the paper are not always representative of the person that's been pictured, but this worked out well. Anyway, back to the subject at hand.
There was an agreement -- I think in July of '95 -- where B.C. Transit entered a marketing agreement with SNC Lavalin and, I believe, with Bombardier. Contained within that agreement was a guarantee to Lavalin for a 25 percent or more share of future SkyTrain project management engineering work. Is that agreement still in effect? Would it apply to the recently announced rapid transit project?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That agreement terminates in July of '98.
D. Symons: If it terminates in July of '98, I believe there is the opportunity to roll it over. Is it government's intention, then, that it will be renewed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's future policy, but there's no intention at this point to roll it over. [ Page 9366 ]
I'm wondering how much B.C. Transit might have received from either Bombardier or Lavalin as royalties -- or for proprietary rights, I suppose you'd say -- from payment for the guideway technology that was used in Kuala Lumpur.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There were no royalties that I am aware of, but we did train those who would work on the Kuala Lumpur line, and we were reimbursed for the provision of the training.
D. Symons: I gather that B.C. Transit got an award from the engineers for their innovation in developing that guideway technology and that B.C. Transit paid for development of that technology. That technology has now been transferred and used in another location. Surely B.C. Transit would get some return on the investment they made in developing that technology, and you're telling me they haven't. If that's the case, then entering into this three-way agreement you have in selling our technology and so forth abroad doesn't seem to be returning to B.C. Transit what it should rightfully get. I wonder if the minister might comment.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I believe that the member's referring to a time prior to these estimates. If there's some specific information he has
D. Symons: It predates this last year's estimates, I would agree, but it doesn't predate estimates on B.C. Transit. I'm wondering if I might just ask the minister, then, if she would look into this and maybe write back to me or report to me in one way or another, sometime in the next short while, on what she may have found out about that particular issue.
The GVRD transportation strategic planning committee
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's certainly a very important reason, but it's not the only one, by any means. There are environmental issues that are literally life-and-death. There are health issues that are literally life and death, in terms of promoting greater use of public transit. If you ask me, one of the reasons why the new authority is so groundbreaking is because for the first time it does tie transit planning and transit responsibility for delivery of transit to those who are also responsible for managing growth.
D. Symons: I'll read from a report by Mr. Ken Cameron to the strategic planning committee dated January 4, 1996, regarding progress on the light rail-rapid bus implementation program. On page 3 of that document it says: "The Crown corporations secretariat's multiple account evaluation of the rapid transit corridor studies prepared by B.C. Transit concluded that the only reason for building light rail transit in any of the corridors is to achieve growth management objectives." That's what I was asking: whether the minister would agree with those comments.
Hon. J. MacPhail: You say it's a report by Ken Cameron?
D. Symons: From Ken Cameron to a strategic planning committee of the GVRD.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Ken Cameron is an employee of the greater Vancouver regional district, so I couldn't possibly look into his mind. I do know that I have had advice from the Crown corporations secretariat personally about how important rapid transit is for the environment -- and health as well.
D. Symons: At that point Mr. Cameron was only quoting from the Crown corporations secretariat's multiple account evaluation of rapid transit corridors. That seems to be what was in the document. I would gather, then, that the minister thinks there may be something missing from that evaluation.
The second quote I have here is: "Experience with other recent interagency projects, such as Transport 2021, the south coast transportation system plan and the transportation demand management strategy has not demonstrated that B.C. Transit has the amount or type of staff expertise to undertake successfully the project coordination role proposed for it." That's dealing with the project of light rapid transit. Again, I have concerns. I don't believe you brought in any expertise to deal with that, but you seem to be doing a lot of this preparatory planning in-house.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, my relationship with the GVRD is good, I think, so I don't want to
D. Symons: I have a variety of questions here to do with costs between the two different technologies. I assume you'd rather do that during the debate on the bill -- or here? I've got the total cost projected and the cost per kilometre for the LRT option. Does that include purchase of the vehicles as well as the roadbed? This has to do with the LRT option, now, for the Broadway line.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Any estimate would include the cost of the vehicles. I'm advised that the costs for conventional LRT would be about $51 million per kilometre. For automated light rail transit -- SkyTrain 2 -- it's about $54 million per kilometre.
D. Symons: I asked about the vehicles because when we were talking about commuter rail, we found out later that while the vehicles were being leased, they weren't counted as part of the capital costs. You're saying that when we're talking $51 million and $54 million, that includes the cost of purchasing the vehicles, and that could be adjusted later by leasing them. Currently in your cost evaluations of the two systems you're taking into account the total costs of all the expenses involved in both of them. I assume that the government, as you said earlier, has a recent detailed cost analysis of each type. I will wait with anticipation for a copy of that. [ Page 9367 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it's basically the same route, but there are slight variations to give the advantage to either one system or the other in terms of calculating what's most cost-efficient.
D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give me the cost per SkyTrain car for the latest order that B.C. Transit has done for SkyTrain. What was the cost per car for the previous order? What was the last order, and what was the one before that? I believe there's been a substantial increase in the cost of those vehicles.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The quotation for the Mark II order is $2.7 million. We don't have prices for the original order or the previous Mark I order -- the one in between. I can get those for you.
D. Symons: I believe that you have an order on delivery now -- 20 vehicles. Aren't the Mark I cars still in the works? If you could give me the cost per vehicle of that and what it might have been on the cars that you ordered back in '93-94 -- somewhere around that stage -- I'd appreciate it.
The number you gave me -- $2.7 million -- for the Mark II version
[4:00]
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't know what the costs were for Kuala Lumpur.
D. Symons: Since those are the only Mark II cars that have been built, it would seem that B.C. Transit would look into what it costs Bombardier to build those cars. I'm surprised. I'm wondering where you got the $2.7 million figure from, then? Is that from Bombardier?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can't imagine that what happens in Kuala Lumpur is relevant to what we pay. We've done an evaluation of what we need and entered into negotiations around what would be a quote, a price, that meets our needs here in Canada. That's where the $2.7 million arose. There's also an agreement from Bombardier that they will do a cost audit when we purchase more vehicles.
D. Symons: The reason I brought in Kuala Lumpur
From what the minister said, then, I would gather that $2.7 million is not a firm quote, that you don't have a firm contract with Bombardier. When that is signed, will you be signing a contract where there will be a firm price, or is it going to be a cost-plus? Particularly if they're building in B.C., under what circumstances are those SkyTrain cars going to be built? Are you going to quote a price, and will they build them for that price and any cost overruns will be Bombardier's problem, not B.C. Transit's problem -- or the GVTA's problem, as the case may be?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be a fixed-price contract.
D. Symons: Again, in looking at comparing the two technologies, I wonder if you might be able to give me an idea of the projected cost-recovery rate for a SkyTrain system along Broadway. Also, what cost recovery rates might be projected for the LRT system?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We haven't done those cost recovery studies either on LRT or ALRT, so it's premature to give you quotes. But that work is to be done.
D. Symons: I would gather, then, that if such a study has not been done, you won't be really settled in your own minds whether it's going to be a SkyTrain or LRT until all these studies are done. Would that be correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it will be SkyTrain.
D. Symons: And we'll find out what it's going to cost after -- that seems to be the answer the minister is giving. I don't know whether that's a good way to do business, but
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. What we do know is that more people will be able to ride SkyTrain, and more people will actually choose to ride SkyTrain, than LRT. The studies will just put numbers to that knowledge.
D. Symons: I remember that only a short while ago people seemed to be claiming that the LRT would carry more than SkyTrain because the cars themselves have greater capacity. They are going to be slowed down, so I suppose that if you take the speed and what not, you might say LRT
You mentioned that you're going to build Mark II cars for the Broadway line. The Mark II cars are not compatible with the current line. Are you eventually going to standardize to Mark II cars, which will mean station changes and vehicle changes to the Mark I cars so that these cars can be interchangeable?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Mark II cars are compatible, and there will not be any station changes needed. Whatever changes in terms of coupling that are required have already been decided upon.
D. Symons: I understand that Mark II cars are slightly wider and therefore would not fit the station platforms. Is this not the case? If I'm wrong on that, that will be a plus -- if you can put the Mark II cars directly on the line. I wonder, then, in the recent orders you have made for the current SkyTrain run, why you didn't order Mark II cars directly and get the larger vehicle at a price that's not much of an increase.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we have received quotations, and from that we can make an order. The current expansion, [ Page 9368 ]
D. Symons: I wonder, then, if the minister might give me an idea of the cost comparison between Mark I and Mark II. She said $2.7 million for the Mark II variety. What are you getting the Mark I variety for?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They are essentially the same, because the Mark I has been modified to incorporate the enhancements of a Mark II. The original Mark I cars are being phased out.
D. Symons: At what point on the road to Damascus, so to speak -- or I mean, the transit to Lougheed Mall -- did the NDP discover that a SkyTrain was competitively priced with LRT? We've certainly had them promoting LRT. We've had the Premier in past incarnations as opposition -- and, indeed, as minister responsible -- basically panning SkyTrain. I wonder when this revelation that indeed SkyTrain is superior to LRT seemed to have taken place.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Public consultations and discussions with municipalities started moving along fairly rapidly in December and January and then through to April and May. In the course of that, it became clear, as we've already discussed, that there would be route changes, whether it be LRT or ALRT. It became clear that the public, in their consultations, actually thought we were building SkyTrain. There was a much greater understanding of what SkyTrain is and the acceptability of it than there was of LRT. When we continued our consultations, both publicly and with other governments, there was an opportunity to consider SkyTrain technology in terms of cost comparisons. We then surveyed more and more public reaction. The public surveying made it clear that: first, we had to get on with the job, and second, that people particularly wanted us to get on with the job of building SkyTrain, even if it cost more, and that there should be no further delays.
D. Symons: Yes. I'm looking at a Burnaby Now newspaper of last Wednesday, in which the former chair of B.C. Transit, Burnaby city councillor Derek Corrigan, says that updated estimates on the costs of light rapid transit are inflated. He went on to say that he suspects the provincial government will try to use numbers to convince the public that SkyTrain -- that's the elevated automated rail system -- won't cost more than LRT. The newspaper goes on later to say: "Sifting through the documents after Monday's council meeting, Corrigan doubts the cost rose by $158 million due to inflation. The figure is based on 3 percent inflation per year since 1994. [He asks:] 'Where in Canada has inflation gone up by 12 percent in the last 4 years?' "
It seems that somebody that's been very closely related to B.C. Transit over the years -- indeed, when a lot of this planning was going on for LRT and ALRT -- doesn't seem to be convinced by the government that the changes they are making are grounded in fact.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can't speak for Derek Corrigan, but our cost estimates have not been challenged in detail by any municipality. If there is an opportunity for a municipality to do it, I welcome it.
D. Symons: Seeing that the chair of the GVRD, George Puil, has been questioning the figures in the press quite dramatically over the last short period of time and has been making quite a fuss about it, I don't know if the minister has been in touch with what's been going on in the press.
Another thing that bothers me in this road to Damascus, as I referred to it
[4:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The reverse order in answering your questions is, yes, we did direct a search, as well, for expression of interest. The one-page summary, which could be drafted within three days, was merely an expression of interest. Then we would expect the same companies, after attending the briefing, to have done the formal request for proposal. So the time lines are not unusual at all. We proceeded with fulfilling those contracts with some modification, but much of the work is much the same.
D. Symons: I'm wondering, then, if the minister might give me an idea, since time lines in her mind didn't seem to be important
Hon. J. MacPhail: The project team had already accumulated a list of experts and people in the industry interested in this area, both within and outside of Canada. That's in the form of a mailing list, and the full mailing list received the same ad.
D. Symons: And to that mailing list -- was that mailed out prior to the date of the ad? I would assume, if you might [ Page 9369 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The people on the list received the information in a timely fashion, with time to respond.
D. Symons: I'm wondering, since I have the newspaper ad and what it says, if I might have a copy of one of the letters that was sent out to somebody on that list. You could actually blank out the name of the person, if you think that it's sensitive at all; I wouldn't mind that. But I'd appreciate seeing how the letter that went out might compare to the ad that was in the paper. Would the minister be able to supply that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The contents are exactly the same as the ad, which is what I said.
D. Symons: Well then, if I might still have a copy of one of those letters, with the contents the same as the ad, I'd still appreciate it if you could.
There was some concern, I guess, shown on the part of one of the firms involved in putting together a group of experts on that. They expressed some concern that they had bid on something and that the firms that went to a lot of trouble to put in bids then found that basically the goalposts had been changed on them.
One of the firms -- a Vancouver one -- said they were part of 14 firms comprising the Transurban team. They were among four groups shortlisted, and they felt basically shortchanged by the whole process they had been put through by B.C. Transit. Is there any sort of compensation that you're making to those firms that went to the trouble -- once they were shortlisted -- of putting together proposals and then found that the goalposts had changed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't want to comment on the specifics of a news article about a particular proposal. All proposals were considered evenly and fairly and not in the context of any change in scope, but proposals may not be accepted for technical reasons. That's standard practice.
D. Symons: I guess the concern of the firm is that basically they were asked to submit proposals for teams that would evaluate light rapid transit. "On the ground" was their understanding of that, and now they find that they're dealing with an elevated automatic transit. It's quite different. As a matter of fact, different people have some expertise in that area. They would be competing against them, but they wouldn't have been competitors in the other system.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I will comment just generally, but proposals that are rejected for technical reasons can be resubmitted, taking into account the technical problems. I understand that that may occur in some situations.
D. Symons: I like the minister's definition of "technical." There's a request for proposals on an LRT that wasn't to be fulfilled as an LRT. That's technical, I suppose.
I'm just reading from the Burnaby-New Westminster News Leader to give the minister a feeling for what public opinion may be, if this editorial represents public opinion. Also from last Wednesday is a comment at the top; the heading is: "Price Is Right." It says further down in the article:
"First, there was the trial balloon. Word leaked four weeks ago that SkyTrain might now be an affordable alternative to enhanced light rail transit. Then there was word that Bombardier, SkyTrain's manufacturer, might be lured to B.C. to set up a construction facility, thereby fulfilling the Clark government's mantra of 'Jobs for B.C.' A week later came the 'opinion poll,' which showed a strong public preference for SkyTrain -- although many of the 800 or so respondents said they did not know much about LRT systems. Then came the official number-crunching and the announcement Monday that the enhanced LRT option would cost $730 million more than expected to build. Those numbers stand in stark contrast to the information released in 1994 that indicated SkyTrain would cost nearly $20 million more per kilometre to build than LRT. Wednesday's announcement is the inevitable next step.
"It is interesting to note, however, that while the provincial government seems to be set on a billion-dollar building course, immigration to B.C. is dropping faster than the Canadian dollar. For the first time since the mid-1980s there were more people moving from B.C. to other provinces than moving here.
"The whole premise behind SkyTrain construction is that it lead to growth and development -- not serve growth. The original ridership estimates were based on the assumption that the proper rezoning and development along SkyTrain routes would take place to fill the cars. But what if that growth does not occur? Following the boom years earlier this decade it is easy to forget that the population in cities like New Westminster was falling in the late 1980s, that schools in Burnaby were actually closing because of too few students.
"The lower mainland is in dire need of a better transit system not just to serve the people who are expected but the people who are already here. It would be unfortunate if the pursuit of high-priced and high-profile projects like SkyTrain were being made for political reasons and not practical ones. One can only hope that if the provincial government is willing to revisit its original cost estimates, it is equally willing to review the original premise behind the SkyTrain option."
Much of the premise of transit in the GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan and the GVRD-Ministry of Transportation Transport 2021 study was that transit should be used to manage growth. I cited something on that earlier. I think that's one of the real concerns we have as to whether transit now should be there to manage growth or to serve the needs of the people who are currently there.
When the New Westminster-Lougheed Mall-Broadway line is up and running, how many railcars are planned to be used along that particular route? You've indicated that they were going to be Mark II. That was the second part of the question.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's projected that phase 1 will use 40 cars, and then the completion of phase 2 to Coquitlam Centre will probably need an additional 20 cars, initially.
D. Symons: I don't know the answer to this one, so it's a question for my information for a moment. When you have that whole thing completed -- phase 1 and phase 2 -- how many kilometres of guideway will there be, roughly, compared to the current SkyTrain running from Surrey into Vancouver? How do the two compare in distance?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The new SkyTrain guideway will be 34 kilometres with all phases complete, and that's just to [ Page 9370 ]
D. Symons: I gather, for the current SkyTrain, that you have a fleet of 150 vehicles. There are 20 more on order, so you have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 150 to 170 vehicles for that particular one. On a proportional basis, I'm not too sure
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're looking at the integration of the other system. There will be 150 cars, with a potential for expansion of 20 cars on the other system and 60 cars added to deal with this system. As ridership increases and the system is integrated, there could be economies of scale in using all of the cars. We're comfortable at this point that a projection of 60 new cars is appropriate.
D. Symons: I think this still fits in. I was wondering again about the GVTA, because a lot of this stuff to do with the type of technology used is going to fall back on them. I'm wondering exactly how many jobs Bombardier is committed to in this new B.C. plant. I'm looking at a Globe and Mail article from last Thursday, and it says here: "The plant will be Bombardier's first manufacturing operation west of Thunder Bay and will generate a minimum of 165 jobs, the company said." That's quoted in the paper, and certainly we've heard the Premier speak of numbers considerably in excess of 165, so I'm wondering if you might be able to tell us how many are there.
I'll just read this as well because I think it's related to it. Maybe I can cover two questions with one here. It says further on this: "Bombardier will invest an initial $15 million in the plant, whose location has not yet been chosen, and will spend another $100 million in the Vancouver area over the next five years on salaries for plant workers and payments to its suppliers." I guess I have a concern that $100 million over five years
Hon. J. MacPhail: The minimum base guaranteed by Bombardier in manufacturing is 165 jobs. There will be an additional 220 jobs in operations and maintenance, located here. The direct and indirect total of jobs created because of Bombardier being here will be 740 jobs. The annual earnings of the employees will be $30 million to $34 million. There will be an additional B.C.-based procurement policy of $26 million per year.
[4:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The jobs listed are just for operation and maintenance of the new line. However, there are opportunities to blend the first and second lines, but there are issues around the workers who are already there and who have an employer. Certainly we're not limiting our discussions in that area.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might give me a flavour for how many jobs are involved in the current maintenance facility. Would it be comparable to the work that Bombardier's going to be doing for the other line?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Around 350 employees.
D. Symons: That's a great surprise to me. I didn't realize that there was that number involved. I've been past the Edmonds plant a number of times, and I had no idea there was such a large workforce there. I'll have to ask for an invitation to look through it some time. I'd be interested to see what they do.
I'm curious
If we might move on to another one. Just looking at the people who object to the SkyTrain, I find that one of the allies of this government -- COPE in Vancouver -- objects to the transit plan. I will not read all the things that the co-chairs of COPE have said; I'm sure that the minister has read them all. Certainly, COPE and SPEC and so forth seem to feel that there's only so much money available -- I'm just reading the last part of this -- for transit, and that SkyTrain has the potential for sucking a great lot of that out of it. That was a comment made by them. So I'm wondering if the minister might comment on these rather high-profile groups that are against
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no link between the plans for GVTA and the funding that's planned for increased buses. As I read into the record, they're in the works and they're provided for. Any funding issues that arise around the LRT project will be separate and distinct. I would like to put to rest any of the worries that somehow ALRT is going to suck the money from anywhere. We're committed to expanding public transit in the area of buses, West Coast Express and SkyTrain.
D. Symons: I have some other authorities on that particular topic. On March 4, 1984, this person who is now our [ Page 9371 ]
We have him saying on June 9, 1992: "I guess as a politician one has a temptation to build something today that someone doesn't have to pay for for three or four years, on the assumption that I might not be there and whoever is there can deal with it; but it's clearly not very good public policy." That was the man who is our Premier, making comments before. It is interesting to note that quite often the Premier points over to the Liberal opposition and calls us naysayers. It seems that there has been some naysaying on the government side, as well, when they were in opposition.
Mr. Bob Williams, who's well known to the NDP people, said on May 3, 1985: "What we're doing by making this decision is really freezing out full service to the rest of the region because of the high cost that we're saddled with here." I think that's a bit of a problem and certainly concerns things that the Premier told me in past years in debating estimates with him -- that we couldn't do as many things as we'd like to do in transit because the debt charges for SkyTrain were so very much, and that's precluded doing a lot of things that they would love to have done but weren't able to do.
How are you going to overcome that problem, since you've now said that that's not going to be a problem; the two go separate. But, indeed, there are only so many dollars in taxpayers' pockets that can be used for transit.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're spilling over into the legislation again. But the funding sources are listed in the legislation for the GVTA. If the member is in some way questioning the cost comparisons between LRT and ALRT that have been done recently, I would welcome his input in a detailed way and would address that.
D. Symons: I'm waiting for your detailed cost estimates and will be looking at it for those.
Again, just going by the public opinion in this editorial in the Vancouver Sun, on Thursday, June 25, just a week ago, it talks about the lack of consultation and quotes Mr. Puil here, pointing out that the contract has rapidly changed without consultation, and he's talking about the GVTA and the SkyTrain. "Rather than stepping back from transit administration, the government usurped authority and alienated its partner." This is an editorial comment. But at the end it says: "
Again, I think the government should pay very close attention. We've seen a Burnaby paper and the Sun editorials both saying the same sorts of things: that consultation hasn't been good. It obviously wasn't good at the beginning, when you were suggesting putting in LRT. You would have heard the comments then -- I heard them then -- about what was going to be wrong along the Broadway line. They were what you are now saying are the reasons you're changing from doing what was proposed then to doing what you're now suggesting. You weren't listening then, and now, when you made the change, you didn't approach the right people that were involved in it and discuss the situation with them and at least get them involved in the decision. It would have been prudent, I believe, to do so.
I guess the rest of this is in the same sort of vein. I'm curious. Basically, we had a few photo ops relating to this situation in the last few weeks. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give me an idea of when we're going to have the photo op announcement of the PNE location that will be in Coquitlam and this new SkyTrain line.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The PNE location? Why would I comment on that? Sorry, it's not my portfolio, and I have no idea what the decision is.
D. Symons: Okay. I was suggesting that possibly the announcement will be coming that it's going to be located along the portion of the line that is built, because basically -- I think, if I remember the possible LRT routes -- they were going to go out along Broadway out to Coquitlam first. The second phase of it was going to be joining into New Westminster. We seem to have changed the order of those and, indeed, the part to Coquitlam has been left out. But it will go past, I believe, where there's a possible location for the new location of a theme park in that area, anyway. That's going to replace the PNE, I believe. So that was the question there. It was just a throwaway, I suppose; indeed, it's fallen flat.
I wonder now if we might move on a little bit. It's the last question, I guess, on this topic -- or close to last. On Thursday, June 25, at the end of a comment on the $1 billion upgrade to ease Vancouver's woes, the minister was quoted as saying that she has already factored the considerable costs of the new project into the province's long-term budgets. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to tell me what provisions have been made in the long-term budgets, then, to factor the costs of this in.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's money for light rail transit, either at-grade or ALRT, in the province's capital plan.
D. Symons: Is the province's capital plan in a form that's available to the opposition -- for years projected into the future?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The level of debt is, yes. We announce that in the budget every year. The allocation of it, no.
D. Symons: I was after the allocation.
Just a moment, while
Oh, we're onto one that's relative to me: the RapidBus to Richmond. It's one that I'd like to ask a few questions on. I'm looking first here at a document of B.C. Transit: "RapidBus Service." I've got a received date of April 19, 1994, so it's a document somewhat prior to that. The one thing that I noted here is that they have on one page a layout of the timing of what's coming. "Two RapidBus routes have been identified as part of the '94-95 annual service plan. The following lists a description and timing for each of the four routes." The first one at the top of the list is a RapidBus route to Richmond: "Richmond-Vancouver Granville City Express -- 1994." Supposedly, the timing is 1994: this document is dated April 1994. [ Page 9372 ]
Further on, on page 2, it says:
[4:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: As projects were allocated with funds, the funds became available for the upcoming year. The planning has proceeded in that vein.
D. Symons: I believe there are 21 articulated vehicles -- if you go back to what you read earlier -- for the 1998-99 allocation plan. Are these for the Broadway line? What is the cost of a low-floor articulated vehicle?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they will be used on Broadway. The price of an articulated bus is about $550,000.
D. Symons: So an articulated bus is roughly $200,000 more than a standard bus. I wonder if you might give me an idea of the capacity of an articulated bus relative to a regular bus. What's the capacity of a regular bus? What's the capacity of an articulated bus? Are we getting our value, proportionately, out of that extra $200,000 for the articulated bus?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, absolutely. Actually, intuitively one would know that by riding one as well.
D. Symons: Would the minister be able to tell me the capacities of each of the two vehicles?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I will get that for you.
D. Symons: How many articulated buses are going to be purchased for the Richmond service?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Around 44.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might be able to give me an idea of how many buses are currently involved in the Richmond express service.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We deal in trips, and currently there are about 1,100 trips per day.
D. Symons: What I'm trying to get a feel for is the fact that you're going to be replacing the express portion of the buses. I realize the 401, 403, 407 and 406
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, let me offer you this. I think it may be what your question is directed toward. The replacement RapidBus system for the expressway -- the Richmond expressway -- now will expand the service by 23 percent.
D. Symons: I guess it does slightly answer the question that I was after, but not entirely. But we'll have to take it at that for the moment, because obviously the number is unknown. I thought that might have been something that would have been worked out in the process of determining the relative savings that you might get by putting in the RapidBus system. You're going to get me the capacity of both of those, I would hope.
The rush-hour frequency, as outlined for the RapidBus system, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of three to five minutes, but I find in a newspaper article, looking through and talking about this, that some say three to five minutes and others say five to seven minutes. I notice that the current express thing during rush hours is somewhere in the five-to-six-minute range. I wonder if you can just tell me what the projected rush-hour frequency is for those buses.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The three-to-five-minute figure is correct.
D. Symons: I notice that they say that the service times -- and that will be from Richmond Centre to downtown Vancouver -- with the RapidBus will be in the 35-to-40-minute range. If I look at the current schedules, taking it from the Richmond exchange into downtown Vancouver, I find that in the morning ones, it is somewhere in the middle of the rush hour, and going downtown is 47 minutes. In the afternoon ones, coming back, it is 46 minutes. So we are really looking at possibly a five-to-seven-minute saving in time in putting in the RapidBus system, at a cost of $70 million to $80 million, over the current system of buses we have.
I'm just wondering whether purchasing a dozen more buses and putting them on that route might not have accomplished basically the same sort of situation you're trying to get, and that's to increase the service. You're saying a 23 percent increase in capacity. I assume that is what you meant before -- by putting more buses on, you could basically have that.
The Chair: Direct your comments through the Chair, member. [ Page 9373 ]
The Chair: Hon. member, your comments through the Chair.
D. Symons: Yes, hon. Chair, I'd be delighted to put the questions through the Chair.
Anyway, I'm curious, because we see now that when these times for the RapidBus were put into place, they were suggesting that they were going to have the traffic lights, the smart lights, there. The buses would trigger the lights to increase the length of time, to give them time to get through. They were going to have curb parking; it was going to be more restricted than it currently is. Almost all of those changes have been made because of the uproar along the Granville corridor. All those changes that we were going to do to enhance the speed at which the RapidBuses could make it along Granville are not going to be there. So indeed, the time frame that they gave us, I think, for the 35 to 40 minutes probably will not materialize, because the very things that they were going to do to achieve those are not going to be in place.
I'm wondering if we might be able to ask: will you be maintaining those same time frames, or are they going to increase slightly? Would it maybe not have been better, years ago, to put just a few more buses on to increase that rapid express bus service? That might have accomplished the same thing at much less cost.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I must say that the changes to the parking do pose some restrictions now on the service. It's too bad about that, but we accept the community input around that. It will present a minor problem, but the investments in all of the other areas are proceeding. There will be, overall, $23 million of infrastructure spent on the RapidBus system, $13 million of that this year, making the changes that the member has outlined. There have been changes to restore some parking from the original plan, though.
D. Symons: Yes. In my comments I was saying that I don't think the time differential is going to be as big; the time saving between the rapid and the express buses is not going to be as large now, because of those changes. The minister has sort of confirmed that that may indeed be a problem.
I would also suggest that if you were to reroute the express buses right now over the Laing Bridge, you could cut another three or four minutes off the trip, where they go down through Marpole and double back and come over the Oak Street Bridge. You could get them into the Richmond Centre three to four minutes faster by just making that slight route change from the current one. So there are ways that you could achieve the same time differential there. I hope that your RapidBuses will possibly offer more incentives to ride rather than the fact that our current express buses are rather crowded. I know I rode it at 6:30 one morning to go down to a radio interview and was amazed. I got on at Richmond Centre and stood all the way until I was virtually down to Georgia Street in Vancouver. That's how crowded it was at that time in the morning, and it certainly doesn't, by my appearance from my office, note that it changes much until after 8 o'clock in the morning, so there are at least two hours there where people are standing all the way from Richmond into Vancouver. So we need more capacity, and you've indicated that's coming. I'm wondering if you might consider, before we wait another year, rerouting your Richmond express buses over the Laing Bridge and follow the route the RapidBuses are going to follow.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the member makes a good point. Some of the buses actually do take that route now, and it's a matter of achieving a balance between routing that delivers for bus passengers given the growing volume of traffic. The member makes a good point about traffic occurring in a sustained way, and it's choosing the best route possible given the various hours that will achieve the greatest efficiency.
D. Symons: The one drawback in the particular route that I'm recommending -- I seem to recommend it and then say there is a drawback -- is the Sexsmith loop, which means they have to double back to get into there where there's a park-and-ride facility.
In the minister's 1997 briefing book, there was a comment about a minimum of $500,000 being approved for planning and engineering in '97-98, and this may increase, and "project time lines may be accelerated if the federal infrastructure funding is granted." This all deals with a ten-year development plan and includes the RapidBus between Vancouver and Richmond. I'm wondering if that money was spent and whether the spending on this was all relevant to federal infrastructure moneys.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. Actually the federal money never came through, so we're proceeding on our own. That's the $13 million, which I quoted to the member, that we'll be spending on this project for the infrastructure this year alone.
D. Symons: The briefing note I'm looking at is headed: "Issue: RapidBus Project Status." It says in here: "A minimum of $500,000 has been approved for planning and engineering in '97-98." I would assume, then, that that $500,000 was not spent on RapidBus projects, because for '98-99 you're spending considerably less than the figure that was supposedly in these briefing notes for '97. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're spending $13 million this year.
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Right, and we did spend that $500,000.
D. Symons: I apologize for dropping a few zeroes in there. It made a big difference, didn't it, between millions and thousands? How much is budgeted this year? You said $13 million. Has the order for the articulated buses been placed so that they're now on order? Who are you purchasing them from?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The order hasn't been placed yet. It will probably be placed at the beginning of the new year in order to meet the time lines.
D. Symons: Although you haven't put the agreement in, do you have a fixed price for the number of buses you're ordering, or will that depend upon the situation at the time you place the order?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there is a fixed price, and there's a letter of understanding to reserve the time slot for production. [ Page 9374 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it's been purchased.
[5:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's at Shell and Steveston, and the purchase price was $11.11 million.
D. Symons: Has the land for the transit exchange for the airport connector on Sea Island been purchased or leased, or is the airport authority going to supply it as a courtesy to help them get better transit into the airport?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. We're still in negotiations with the airport authority on that.
D. Symons: I'm reading a Vancouver Sun newspaper article of May 4, 1988. They're saying here that officials are predicting that two-way peak-hour travel between the two communities -- Richmond and Vancouver -- will increase 60 percent to 2,700 from 1,700 passengers today when RapidBus opens in '99, rising to a 95 percent increase, or 3,300 passengers, by 2006. I'm thinking that your figures are quite large for the number of people who are going to jump on the RapidBus. I'm wondering how you're managing to come up with those figures.
I note that when SkyTrain was put in, the ridership on SkyTrain certainly went up a great deal. It went up from zero to a very large number. But what was found out in the long term was that an awful lot of the people who were riding SkyTrain had been previous bus users and were simply finding SkyTrain much more convenient and faster than the buses that took their time getting them around town, and so forth. There weren't that many people that got out of their cars to ride SkyTrain; it was more that people got out of one bus system into another transit system. How are you so sure that that's not going to happen in Richmond also -- that you'll simply be replacing the commuters that ride on the current express bus with the commuters that are now going to ride on the RapidBus?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I would just refer to the member's own personal experience -- that buses are at capacity for large portions of the day, and the figures have been garnered from a variety of sources. But one should also view what actually happens during the use of the service -- and that is that there aren't enough buses to provide the service for the demand now.
D. Symons: I would say, "Hear, hear!" to that; we're in agreement on that. Indeed, I ride the buses fairly frequently -- both from Richmond into Vancouver and around Vancouver -- and ride SkyTrain. Any time I get a chance, I hop on Transit vehicles, partly because of my critic role and partly because I find it easier than trying to find a parking space downtown. So I do have some experience in riding these things.
By and large, I've found that I must compliment the variety of drivers that I've had. The vast majority of them have been extremely helpful and courteous to the passengers. I generally sit up near the front so that I can observe what's going on. I think, by and large, we have an awful lot of people who are somewhat dedicated to the jobs they do and do a very good job. I watched one down at the Waterfront station who was extremely helpful to a passenger who was somewhat befuddled about how to get from one place to another; I thought that that person went well beyond their duty, and I went up and told him so as I was leaving the bus.
That said, and with everything I've been saying here about Richmond and so forth, I'm in no way suggesting that somehow you do away with this. I just want to make sure that all due diligence has been done in looking at all the options, because I would somehow like to see what was suggested recently and dangled in front of us last week: that SkyTrain come, and maybe you don't spend the money on rapid transit but put that into getting the SkyTrain out there that much faster. I think that would really get more people to leave their cars behind -- and get us into Vancouver, particularly using the Cambie corridor. But that's a personal preference on my part.
In the comment where I say that SkyTrain was dangled before us, there was a rather large "if" in there, and that "if" depended upon, from the way it was placed in the papers and announced, what happens with the Winter Olympics at Vancouver and Whistler. Indeed, what will the scene be if we find out in November that we're out of the running for it, and the possible Canadian candidate will be somewhere else, or if in November we find that we're still in the running, but the Olympic decision won't be made for five years? What happens to that SkyTrain sort of dangling in front of Richmond? Is it really conditional on what happens this November or five years hence? Or is it going to go ahead in the same time frame regardless of that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The discussions and negotiations that are going on right now involve several partners, one being the provincial government through the LRT project, the other being the municipality of Richmond, the third being the airport authority itself, and fourth, the enhancement of the 2010 Olympics committee. All bring their own issues to the table. One is not necessarily contingent upon any of the others to proceed. But what is necessary for the line to proceed is agreement on cost, ridership, demand, route, etc. At this stage we're fortunate to have the 2010 Olympics committee as an enhanced promoter of getting a SkyTrain out to Richmond.
D. Symons: Enhanced promoter: that still leaves me that concern of whether it's going to come or not. We're going to have some tough competition, I guess, in getting the Olympics to Canada, let alone to this area of the world, although I think we have the best area for it. But so much of that is involved in that horrible P-word called politics, and it isn't necessarily chosen on merit, quite frequently.
You know, the next set of questions I have here
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it'll be the Moray Channel Bridge. But the simple answer is yes, the federal government is involved. [ Page 9375 ]
The next set of questions I have here primarily relate to the GVTA. Again, I don't know exactly how much we want to go into that here or in the other place, because my first questions deal with what I refer to as funding shortfalls between the funding stream that's going to be transferred over to them -- indeed, what they're getting as a grant now
We've got benefiting-area tax; I think that will come during the other. I'm giving you a heads-up, anyway, on the discussion.
One we might discuss here, because I think this may be relevant too, is that there seemed to be a great deal of concern in the Municipal Finance Authority over the fact that the GVTA is added into the GVRD. They're not too happy about having that particular group, I guess, taking part in the Municipal Finance Authority, because they have a very good credit rating. They're afraid that the GVTA might get only a double-A rating or something and affect their rating. So is that relevant at this particular part of the discussion?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No -- actually, the concerns have been addressed in the legislation and are accepted by both the GVTA and the GVRD.
D. Symons: I'll cross that off, then, so I won't come back to that whenever that legislation comes before us. So we'll save some of that.
Major contracts. One thing I'm concerned about is that the greater Vancouver regional district met on June 26. One of the things on their agenda was concern that there be some wording in the contract to deal with major contracts. I'm just reading item 3.8 from that particular agenda. It says:
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure that was a gratuitous comment about SkyTrain, because the design and plan of SkyTrain is the responsibility of the provincial government, and that's according to the legislation. On all other matters there has been a protocol reached between B.C. Transit and the GVRD about entering into contracts and working together on that in a cooperative way, and it's working very well. This cooperation forms the basis of a memorandum of understanding that, so far, has been signed by me. I'm awaiting the signature of the GVRD.
D. Symons: It was referring to things that are being considered -- that they get timely notice of that, as well, rather than finding out at the last moment.
I think we can leave this other one, although it relates to it, I guess. I'm asking why there seemed to be such a rush to make the announcement regarding the change from an LRT to SkyTrain and not doing what I'll call due diligence in consultation with the GVRD or the Vancouver regional transit commission prior to Arthur Griffiths, I guess it was, coming out with his trial balloon. Within a month we had the whole thing shifting from one technology to another. Certainly there seemed to be quite a few people involved with the GVRD who were somewhat taken aback by the fact that they weren't taken in at various times in the consultation process and at least told that there were things being considered and allowing them to have some input into it. What was the rush? Why within that month period? Why not delay it another month or have it delayed another month and at least bring them on board first, rather than have them getting their backs up and seeming to be against the project -- as they seem to be doing now?
For the record, I happen to think SkyTrain is the right technology to put along Broadway there, and underground would be even better than aboveground. The costs would skyrocket, I suspect, if we put it underground, but if you're going to put the best the thing for the future, that might be the way to go. I'm not arguing against SkyTrain, but I do think that since these people are going to be major players and inherit much of what is going on now -- and certainly the operating expenses of it -- that somehow it could have been done better.
[5:15]
As one gets into any situation where there are five municipalities involved, there are going to be different and competing interests, and it's our job to manage all of those issues. Certainly my conversations with the chair of the GVRD are not necessarily even about a question of preference. In fact, he has stated he has no preference of one over the other, but he is concerned about cost, as am I. Those issues are absolutely manageable.
The overriding premise on moving forward quickly is the public's demand for more public transit, for reasons that the member and I have discussed already, and for getting on with it now. There is a preference from the public, first of all, to delay no longer and, even if it costs more, that SkyTrain is the [ Page 9376 ]
D. Symons: There have been some comments, particularly by Mr. Puil but by others as well, concerned that there may be more expenses related to using SkyTrain technology. I have heard, I believe, that the minister is willing to at least discuss some changes in the financial arrangements that might take into account some of these possible increases -- at least to allay their fears that they won't be saddled with some considerably higher expenses than they thought they were going to be attaining. Have consultations taken place? Have there been meetings? How many meetings have you had, and at what level might those meetings be taking place, relating to the concerns they're showing over the possible increased costs with the change in technology used?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I just answered that question. That was exactly the detail of the question I just answered. We are not into detailed negotiations yet. The legislation does provide for a 60-40 cost-sharing arrangement, if the parties agree. That's only if the parties agree. If one party doesn't agree, then we're into it again.
I just want to reassure the members of the Legislature that building a light rail transit line and increasing public transit is in the interests of the citizens, but it's also in the interests of the municipalities. The only way that the municipalities can deliver on their Livable Region strategy is if public transit is increased, including a rapid transit line.
D. Symons: I'm wondering about the detailed route and engineering plans. You said before that the routes aren't necessarily quite settled yet for either of the particular technologies being used. I'm wondering when the detailed route and engineering studies will be completed, so that there will be a more accurate cost estimate of each of the projects.
Hon. J. MacPhail: On phase 1, we're proceeding now with a detailed construction plan. The next phase, of course, is contingent upon public consultation in terms of route and cost.
D. Symons: Is there a time line for when we might expect the detailed cost analysis for phase 1 that will be coming forward?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, that's been released. I'll undertake to get that for the member. That's for phase 1.
D. Symons: Is the document the minister is referring to the one that has the little increases for each of the underpasses on the LRT? I've seen that one, but I haven't seen one for the SkyTrain that's now proposed. If it has been done, I'd be delighted to have a copy.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. They're separate documents, and I'll undertake to get that document for you.
D. Symons: There seemed to be a lot of press activity on June 25, for some reason. Another quote from that particular one, where the first quote
Hon. J. MacPhail: I wasn't there when the Premier made those comments. What I do know is that our government has discussed the fact that we have to deliver on a rapid transit line, and we have to proceed on that in a way that's cost-effective for the public. Cost-sharing arrangements will take some time. I think the Premier was saying that our cost-sharing arrangements shouldn't in any way slow down the construction of the line. I think that's what the reference is to.
D. Symons: Well, it seems that the government has had seven years to address these problems if they so cared. All of a sudden there seems to be a great rush to deal with it -- prior to the next election, I suppose; that might be the driving factor. Indeed, the rush with which you're currently going into it and the interest in speed weren't shown as far back as two years ago. It seems that it's just now coming to the fore as being an extremely hurried project. The minister commented in that same Province article of June 25, which said: "I know the public wants us to build this no matter what it costs." I'm curious whether the public's view might be somewhat different if some of those "no matter what it costs" costs were to turn up on their property tax bills or on a vehicle levy charge the next time they go through AirCare or when they have their insurance renewed. I don't know if people, having read the questionnaire, were saying -- the 77 percent, or whatever the figure was -- they were in favour of SkyTrain. Nowhere did it really indicate it in such a way that a person could personally feel: "Hey, that's going to cost me." Indeed, one way or another, it is going to cost, no matter how they go about it. I suppose it's easy to engineer public opinion when people are sort of ignorant of the technologies and the costs involved. Again, when the minister said that the people want us to build it no matter what it costs, I don't believe that people realized, when they were answering that questionnaire, that that's the take the minister would take on their particular response to that questionnaire.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I am pleased to be able to tell you exactly what I did say and where I've been misquoted. I never did say that. What I did say was exactly what the questionnaire said. I said that 71 percent of people wish us to proceed with SkyTrain over LRT, even if it costs more. Not in any way would I ever assume that anyone would say, "no matter what it costs," nor would I agree with that.
D. Symons: Thank you for that clarification, because in the paper they did put quotes around that particular phrase. I guess the minister's aware of that and was disappointed in their accuracy in reporting, which we all find happens in the press periodically.
West Coast Express. Would that involve a different seating arrangement?
Interjection.
D. Symons: Okay. I think I might have the answers, because I discovered something here. Let me just check one moment, and then I will see if I will bother asking these. No, this is '96-97. [ Page 9377 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: In 1997, it was $5,010,466. That was for the year ending '97.
D. Symons: How about '97-98?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That was for $5,869,577.
D. Symons: That's nice. The numbers have gone up a little bit there; that's good. Can you give me the total operating expenses for '97-98, the year just finished?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The actual for the year ending March 31, 1998, was $29,648,000, including debt service.
D. Symons: I wonder if you might give me the total net cost per ride and also the total revenue per ride for that year.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The net cost per ride was $14.26 for the year ending March 31, 1998. I'm sorry, did you say the revenue per ride? The only way I can give that to you is to give the average price per ticket. That's $3.40 per ride.
D. Symons: I wonder if you might be able to give the debt service cost for the '97-98 fiscal year?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It was $9.231 million.
D. Symons: It's gone down by roughly $2 million from the last fiscal year; that's good. What was the total budget for West Coast Express for '97-98, and what is the estimate for '98-99?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Last year it was $31,600,000, and this year it's $31,300,000.
D. Symons: Taking your estimate from last year for '97-98, the year that's just passed, you're pretty well bang on. That's pretty good estimating, I must say.
I'm wondering when this year's annual report might be coming out.
[5:30]
D. Symons: The third-quarter report has a comment: "
Hon. J. MacPhail: The projects that were delayed were adding ticket-vending machines, some communications issues -- we were without a communications manager -- and customer service projects as well. All of those projects were completed on budget in the fourth quarter.
D. Symons: I'm wondering how the payments for the engines are being handled.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Their payments form part of the debt service cost.
D. Symons: I'm wondering if I could have a copy of the original business plan and the cost-benefit analysis that was done prior to embarking on the construction of West Coast Express. I asked for it two years ago and basically haven't seen it yet. I'm also wondering if I could have the most recent update of that business plan, because I gather Crown corporations are all supposed to update their business plans year by year. So I wonder if I might have the original one that sort of justified the decision to put in West Coast Express and then the most recent update of that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I recall you making that request, and I recall sending it to the hon. member. So if the hon. member didn't get it, we'll do it again. I do remember specifically doing that. And it is a public document. But we'll get it.
D. Symons: Thank you, then. What I will do prior to having you go look for it is look through my files and see if I misplaced it in going through there. If I can't find it, I will get back to you and ask for it. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I'm wondering if we could look at the annual service plan. This is not the one. I've got the annual service plan for '98-99. I'll have to read where it's from, because I believe it's for B.C. Transit as a whole, not just the SkyTrain people. It's for the Vancouver regional transit system, and there's a section under here called "Service Plan for West Coast Express." It's ridership section 5, if you happen to have that document there. Under the ridership forecast, it says: "Ridership is not anticipated to increase significantly in '98-99 since the market for West Coast Express is not likely to change without a significant service expansion."
I gather there are problems in service expansion with what CPR will allow because they've slotted you in between other calls on the trackage that's involved. I guess what I'm concerned about there is that if that's the case, then it's not likely that West Coast Express in the near future is going to reach that pre-opening forecast of 11,000 riders per day. They were going to do that in the first year of operation, and we're now moving into year three. Therefore our cost per rider and cost recovery isn't going to change significantly unless we can get more ridership in there. Your ridership forecast indicates that that's not going to be the case.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We forecast a 6 percent increase in ridership this year. We're actually trending at 10 percent. I would just note for the member that some trains are at capacity, particularly trains 3 and 4, and we're running at 90 percent on some trains.
D. Symons: It's sort of funny because your response seems to be in contrast to what the ridership forecast of B.C. Transit's annual service plan was. Naturally, in a sense, I'm pleased to hear that.
Although you can't add other trains and change times to a great extent, could you add another car if you're at capacity? Can you take six rather than five cars on the train and therefore relieve your congestion? You're saying that you're beginning to have capacity on some of the trains. Is that a possibility?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that is one avenue for expansion that could be considered. [ Page 9378 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the member does bring up an issue that needs to be addressed, and we are working to address this issue. We're revisiting all services between points, and the train, and I anticipate that there will be changes made.
D. Symons: I gather that when you're increasing your fleets
Hon. J. MacPhail: The issue that needs to be addressed is reliability of service, so that the buses are there when the train arrives -- that's how the matter is being approached -- and allocating resources on that basis as well.
D. Symons: The minister seems to be suggesting that it's more a timetable program than necessarily a lack of vehicles. It's a case of getting them to coordinate. That would be good. You want a seamless sort of arrangement.
Another issue that's very closely related to that one is the problem of parking lots, particularly the parking lot, I believe, at Port Moody. It's perpetually full. The suggestion in a recent article indicated that a lot of drivers, when they come and find the lot full, just continue to drive into Vancouver rather than take the commuter rail, because of the problem of parking. They can't park; they just stay in their car. Are there capacities at the various stops for increasing parking? How might you address that particular problem so you can increase ridership on the trains?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, for instance at the Port Moody station, we just added 70 new spaces in April. There is no question that we have to expand capacity as the train fills, but most of the parking lots do have the capacity to increase spots. We will do it as the demand is there.
D. Symons: I thank you for that answer, and I gather that the people involved out there in finding full parking lots will be pleased to know that there will always be a parking spot for them in the future.
One thing that has been introduced recently -- and I must commend the government for it -- is that they've got a bus, LRT and commuter rail circuit route that they introduced back in May, I believe, or prior to that. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea of how the response has been to that particular service, where people can now actually use commuter rail and not have to stay at one end or the other, because there are other ways now. The shuttle bus service runs from the Coquitlam station into the New Westminster SkyTrain station. They can actually achieve a return trip. How has it been done? Have you done some surveys on the response to that? Can you give me feedback on how that is going and whether it's going to continue?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's been very popular -- excellent.
D. Symons: I have one other question. It's something out of the news. I'm reading from the Ming Pao newspaper of May 14. It says: "[The] Finance minister and minister responsible for transportation
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure the member didn't mean to be facetious in terms of the safety of the passengers
D. Symons: The minister did have her conversion from metres to feet roughly correct: a metre is about a tenth more than a yard actually, so a little more than three feet -- 39.4 inches, I believe, if you want the exact figure, but that's close enough. A little trivia thrown in. I gather, then, from the minister's answer -- and I got off track there, with the measurement
It's more for the interface of the commuter rail with other rail traffic that might be going along there, so that you can just make sure that nothing untoward is going to happen. Is that the main reason for it, then, rather than
[5:45]
The Chair: Noting the time, minister.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll answer this question, if I may, Chair, and then [ Page 9379 ]
D. Symons: The other part of that was just
The Chair: If the members have a question to pose, I would request that they stand and that the minister has his or her seat.
D. Symons: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I was just trying to hurry things along.
The other part of the question was whether the debt contributions are down because the total debt is down -- because you're paying down the debt -- or is it because we have lower interest rates now?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's mainly through lower interest rates.
I don't know what the wish of the member is in terms of the time.
D. Symons: We can keep going on that. Unless you make a motion, I'll keep going.
The Chair: A motion may be in order.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I haven't received any direction. I noted that the Opposition House Leader was
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, okay. That's fine. Then I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.
(continued)"As you know, the province is moving ahead with a high-occupancy vehicle program to encourage more ride-sharing, the results of which will become more evident over the next few years. More importantly, the recommended agreement on transportation governance and funding, should it be ratified by both parties, will give the new authority the necessary tools to influence travel behaviour and regional travel patterns in a significant way."
I'm wondering if the minister might just explain to us a little bit about what tools she means would be necessary for the new GVTA "to influence travel behaviour and regional travel patterns in a significant way." Could she explain that phrase she used?" 'If we were going to meet the requirements of the GVRD plan -- Transport 2021 -- we would need, in the Vancouver region, an extra 1,203 new buses. With the existing plan that we have funding for, we will in fact get 720 buses' -- those are the figures that I was trying to give earlier, but I was a little bit off, obviously -- 'so we are arguably 500 buses short.' The bottom line? 'The reality is that the government doesn't have enough money to provide what we're talking about.' "
I'm wondering, if 1,203 is the number of buses needed, but we're only going to get 720 over the next period of time -- which is a shortfall of roughly 500 -- how are we going to meet the transit needs of the GVRD?"Victoria has done a masterful job engineering consent on the project" -- meaning the SkyTrain or LRT project -- "it's a textbook example of how to rally support for a billion-dollar venture.
It's simply one editorial, but I think it's an opinion that's in many people's minds, including my own. I don't know if the minister would like to comment regarding that editorial."RapidBus routes in greater Vancouver. RapidBus service is designed as an intermediate step between regular transit and intermediate capacity transit systems. Service on the four corridors" -- Richmond being one of the four -- "could be developed in stages. For example, unique bus stop signage, special shelters, improved customer service information and transit priority measures could be introduced to get the service started. This could be followed by the introduction of articulated buses, special paint schemes and improvements to fare collection. In its ultimate configuration, the corridors could be converted to bus-way, light rail or SkyTrain service."
"B.C. Transit, B.C. Rapid Transit Company Ltd. and West Coast Express Ltd. will advise the region in a timely manner of any major contracts, agreements or other commitments that they are considering or propose to consider that involve or significantly affect the assets or responsibilities that may be subsequently transferred
I guess they're concerned that somehow within here, between now and the actual transfer -- and SkyTrain is probably the reason they would like to see some sort of agreement now, after the barn door has been opened -- that that is sort of brought in there. I'm wondering if the minister might be agreeable, between now and the taking over of the GVTA -- at least any further things beyond what has happened with SkyTrain -- that they will be given more timely notice than they were on this particular one.