[ Page 9421 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1998

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs while the debate on the government's estimates for 1998-99 continues. The first interim supply for 1998-99 granted by the Legislative Assembly was for one-quarter of the tabled estimates. This funding will be exhausted by June 30, 1998. A second interim supply is therefore required to provide for the continuation of government programs. Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced through all stages this day.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for some minutes -- ten minutes has been requested -- while the bill is being circulated and read. At the same moment, I call committee Chair to open the estimates in Section A.

The House recessed from 10:10 a.m. to 10:13 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: I will rule on the question of the request that we complete all stages this day. The Chair has examined the bill and is aware of the precedents which have been long established in this House as qualifying this bill to be advanced through all stages in one day. I therefore find that the application of the minister complies with the requirements of standing order 81.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1998
(second reading)

Hon. Speaker, this supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The bill requests one-twelfth of the voted expenditures, as presented in the 1998-99 estimates, to provide for the general programs of the government while the estimates debate is being completed.

I. Chong: This morning I rise to comment on and participate in the second reading debate of Bill 42 -- Supply Act (No. 2), 1998 -- which we've just been presented with. This form of debate is not new to members of this House. This is the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament, which means that all of us here, with the exception of the member for Surrey-White Rock, have had to proceed through this process at least three times. I find that somewhat disturbing, as many members of this House will also probably express. The first time that I participated in interim supply was on June 27, 1996 -- almost two years ago -- and the scenario then was the same as it is now. Back then, it was the Thursday just before the Canada Day holiday. Today is June 30, 1998. Again, it's the day before the Canada Day statutory holiday, and we find ourselves once again having to deal with interim supply.

[10:15]

As we all know, the budget for this current year is over $20 billion, which represents, on a prorated basis and as stated in the bill, approximately $1.7 billion in expenditures in one particular month. That is a huge sum, given the economic reality of the day and given the difficult times that businesses are suffering. When government can continue to expend funds without question, without members being able to participate in looking at the various ministries expending those funds, I think it does a disservice to the people of this province. It does not allow us as elected members to fulfil the duties for which we were elected in this past election.

When I look at the Supply Act, and having granted interim supply in the past, I have to reiterate the similarity that we have this year in comparison to last year. Last year we came back to the second session of this House on March 24, 1997. By June 25, three months later, we were at the same crossroads of having to grant interim supply. We came back to the House this year on, I believe, March 26. It's June 30, some three months later, and again we are looking at having to grant interim supply. Some who may be watching or listening to this debate may be wondering why it is that we are repeating the same process as last year and whether or not we could have learned from our last year's experience.

That's a valid question. I think we should have learned from last year. I think we should have endeavoured to work that much harder at not having to have another interim supply bill this year. When we came back at the end of March and the fiscal year-end was March 31, obviously we could not possibly have debated the budget in a matter of days. But three months has elapsed, and in those three months, surely we should have been able to have devised a schedule which would have allowed us to have fully participated in and debated the government expenditures. As I stated earlier, this is so similar to last year that it makes no sense that we would have to be repeating this kind of debate this year. I would hope that the members opposite are paying attention, so that

[ Page 9422 ]

For us to have been here for three months and not to have been able to proceed through the budget debates of all the ministries perhaps speaks ill of the functioning of this House, this Legislature. When people want to question us, when our constituents want to ask us why we cannot possibly move through the budget estimates of every ministry in three months, we have to provide some kind of an answer. The only answer that we could ever come up with is that it is the government that decides what we are debating, at what particular juncture, at what particular week, at what particular time. If the government chooses not to bring forward particular estimates for debate, then we are bound by the orders of those days to continue with whatever other items the government wishes to debate. That doesn't need to happen.

What can happen, given that we had a similar circumstance last year. . . . We know that three months appears to be inadequate to debate every ministry. If we knew that from last year, then surely the Premier, cabinet and caucus could have discussed coming back at least two or three weeks earlier to deal with this issue. If there was legislation that could have been delayed until after the estimates were done, perhaps we should have been doing that. It comes back again to the fact that we do not have a parliamentary calendar. That would allow for timely discussion of budget debates and of legislation and would therefore allow for a more coordinated and more productive process when it comes to dealing with government expenditures.

Hon. Speaker, as the official opposition, it is our duty, our obligation, to hold this government to account -- and to account not only for its expenditures but also for the legislation that it brings in. We have always said that anytime government brings in legislation which we think is poor, harmful or detrimental, we would stand up, debate those things, bring our voices forward and offer amendments wherever possible, in the hope that we could possibly change those things.

However, it is somewhat different in the debate process, because rarely do we have any opportunity to amend anything when we are debating the various ministries. All we can do to hold this government to account is to look at those expenditures, scrutinize them to the best of our ability and look at programs in the hope of finding ways to help government run more efficiently. In an indirect way, I suppose, we are able to offer amendments because we are able to look at those programs with a different view, a different perspective.

Hon. Speaker, I have to ask what has happened in terms of the government process in these last few years. This administration, this NDP government, has been around in government for seven years, since 1991. Prior to that, some of the members were in opposition. They too know very well the difficulty that they must have encountered -- those who were in opposition -- in dealing with the annual budget and the annual budget debates. So this is not new, particularly, to this NDP government. When we have not seen a progressive move towards making a change to that, we have to ask why. Why don't you change things? As the cliché goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, it is broke, so it deserves to be fixed, and it's not being fixed. Seven years has gone by since this government has been at the reins, and there has been no attempt that I can see to change this kind of process.

Clearly it would not serve the people of this province if we did not grant interim supply, because we do need to recognize that we have to continue with the programs, especially the programs of health care and of Children and Families. We must continue with those programs that are there. So it would not be prudent of any of us to say that interim supply could not be granted. But in principle, hon. Speaker, this should not occur. We should not have to be granting interim supply, especially when we've had ample opportunity to revisit the situation and to perhaps look at changes and offer some solutions. Perhaps if the government agreed to work with the opposition, as the Premier indicated in his inaugural throne speech in 1996, we would be at a different stage than we are at here today.

In the last few months we have heard various debates on various ministries. We have been able to look at some of the agencies, boards, commissions and even Crown corporations. I think we have done an adequate job of doing that. I think what is evident when we have done that, and what is clear, is that those organizations which are functioning well generally have a business plan. It's not unusual for organizations, commissions, boards or agencies to have business plans, because if you are in charge of a certain amount of money or have a budget that you must live within to maintain certain expenditures monthly and annually, then of course you have to develop a form of business plan.

So would it not be possible that this House also develop some sort of a business plan -- perhaps not to the minute detail, but generally? Contained within that business plan, perhaps we should be taking a look again at the concept of a parliamentary calendar. We should take a look at those ministries which are extremely large in terms of expenditures. We know they are Health, Education and perhaps Children and Families. Perhaps they should always be dealt with in the earlier part of the session when we are brought back here to debate the budget, because those obviously must continue. Those ministries which have a smaller portion of the budget pie. . . . Perhaps we should be deferring those to the end. But what I have seen in the three years I've been here, hon. Speaker, is that generally that is not the case. Generally, we leave the largest ministries -- such as Health and Children and Families -- until the end. I have to admit that this year I was pleased to see that Education was brought forward earlier, and I think that was a progressive move that the government made.

Why is it that the largest of the expenditures are left so close to a quarter of the fiscal year, so we have to come back to this chamber and be presented with another supply act and deal with the granting of interim supply? I think that shows that the government operates, at the best of times, dysfunctionally. I think those who are watching or listening to this debate wonder why it is that every year we come up to this juncture, to this particular crossroad, as I mentioned earlier.

I took note of the Minister of Finance's comments when she introduced Bill 42. She mentioned that we would move through this all in one day because it is a matter of urgency. Well, I would agree that it would be a matter of urgency, because we are hung on the day before a long weekend at the end of our three-month quarter of this fiscal year.

If the government was aware that we were not moving to closure on the ministry debates a week or two weeks ago, why did we not come forward at that time and deal with an interim supply bill so we did not move through all stages in one day, or even bring it forward last week? Why is it that we interrupted the process of the budget estimates, with which, I think, we were proceeding at some speed and efficiency over the last three months? Why is it that we stopped those debates

[ Page 9423 ]

That would suggest that that was a piece of legislation that was a matter of urgency. If we could do that with one piece of legislation, why could we not do that for this kind of legislation? It doesn't make a lot of sense. People -- constituents, taxpayers, all British Columbians -- would have to wonder why that is. And we can't give them an explanation, because we're not the ones driving the bus.

I would suggest that the members opposite -- when they caucus, when they speak to their Premier, when they speak to their cabinet ministers -- think about this. For those backbenchers who one day expect to be cabinet ministers, think about those kinds of things and look at ways to run this House and this province more efficiently and effectively, for the benefit of all British Columbians. As I have stated time and time again, all 75 of us are elected here to serve all the people of this province, and when it comes to dealing with government expenditures, it is certainly all the people in this province that we have to consider.

As I stated earlier, I am disappointed that this interim supply is going to be moved through in one particular day, and especially on a day before a statutory holiday, because I think all members of this House would want to participate in this debate. Certainly there are 33 members of the official opposition and a number of other members. There are 35 members on this side of the House who may wish to participate in this particular debate. If each of us were afforded the time that we want to make and express our comments -- so that our constituencies are aware that we are here doing their business -- that would amount to 18 hours of debate.

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 18 hours of debate can't happen in one day, especially when you break for the lunch hour or break to recess and those kinds of things. If we were to backdate the time that is required for this particular bill, we would have to go back to last Wednesday or Tuesday. So why did the government not consider that? They are the ones who bring this bill forward. I suppose it was because they felt the urgency of another piece of legislation: Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code changes. As we all know now, that hasn't passed, so I can't say that that urgency seems to take precedence over this particular urgency. If the government had foreseen that it would have taken some time, surely they should have waited until they were able to accomplish the debates on the estimates and to move through and complete everything by the end of this month, so that we could move fresh into the new month of July and deal with that particular legislation.

[10:30]

When we debate a bill that is considered a matter of urgency, it is done on the basis that it is needed for all the people of this province. That is why I do feel disappointed that we are here again to debate interim supply.

I was looking at my comments from last year. Much of what I said last year is actually quite similar to the points I'm making this morning. I actually find it somewhat amusing. Last year we had difficulties with legislation we thought was going to be introduced: the legislation dealing with gambling expansion, no-fault insurance and, of course, last year's dreaded Bill 44. Those things were all looming. But the government did do something right last year. They didn't introduce those to sidetrack the estimates debate; they did wait until the estimates were over.

However, it still required interim supply last year, which means that three months does not seem to be enough time for us to deal with the budget estimates for the first quarter of the fiscal year. If we've learned anything from last year and this year, it is that three months is not enough. So next year, if we are to do the people's business in a more effective and efficient way, we should definitely be here that much sooner. We should start the session in early March or even late February. If the government is not prepared to table a budget for us to review at that time, surely there would be other business we could deal with, other pieces of legislation that the government deems to be so-called urgent that we could perhaps deal with -- pieces of legislation that they too know will demand an amount of time and debate from all members of this House.

If we were able to proceed in that manner, I think the people of this province would see that we had made a step in the right direction, that we had made a progressive step to moving towards a more coordinated and cooperative Legislature, and that we had definitely listened to some of their comments. Some of our constituents do think we are here in January or February or March, and they are very surprised when they see us still at our constituency offices on a daily basis. They wonder why we are not here. I think just about everyone knows that the government's fiscal year-end is March 31. So when we say that we haven't yet come back to this House, and it's the second week in March, and then it goes to the third week in March, and then we're near to the last week in March, some constituents -- some who are in the business community, I guess, and even those with a financial background -- start to wonder and ask: "Why are you not back there? Don't you have to deal with the budget fairly soon? Don't you have to deal with some estimates?" All we can offer is: "Well, we will be there when we are called to return. As to the debate on the budget, we will have to debate the budget for a period of time before we get into the estimates. Obviously we will have to deal with interim supply as soon as we return, and hopefully, we won't have to deal with a second supply bill within the session that we're there."

But that doesn't seem to occur. It seems that no matter how we try to offer some assistance to the government. . . . For the three sessions I've been here, we have looked at having a second supply bill. That is a very difficult concept for some members of the public to accept. In their households, they're required to deal with their expenditures on a timely basis, because no organization, no business, no fiscally responsible entity would be expending funds without some method of debate, without some opportunity for those with differing views to offer their perspective.

I realize that we're here to debate the granting of a second interim supply bill. I hope we will not have to be here debat-

[ Page 9424 ]

That's fine, because we are quite prepared to see what legislation is brought forward, to hear what the minister has to say, to seek input from our constituents, and then to offer our comments on those pieces of legislation. I think some of them will be very contentious, so I think they will take some substantial amounts of time. As I said earlier, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how many hours we need to debate a piece of legislation. If it is contentious, there are 35 people on this side of the House who all may wish to debate it. Given that we are permitted a half-hour to debate, it could take 17 to 18 hours just on second reading, not to mention the committee stage that we have to go through.

If there are pieces of legislation out there, I hope the government knows that they must bring those in on a timely basis and that if interim supply is granted today, we should not be looking at granting interim supply three months from now, in September. Given the scope of the legislation that may be offered, we could very well be looking at having to deal with a very long session. I certainly don't want to put a time limit on it, because we are here to do the people's business, however long that takes. That depends on what this government brings forward in terms of legislation.

I note that there are a number of ministers here, and I'm grateful for that. I note that there are some backbenchers here, and I'm grateful for that too. We've seen in the past that sometimes the audience is a bit lean. It was particularly lean last Thursday morning. I suppose we won't see that happen again for a long time, and that's a good thing. Some things can occur in this House that effect change -- and sometimes immediately and positively, I might add.

Once again, I would like to reiterate the fact that interim supply is not new to this House, and interim supply, I suppose, will continue again in the future if we continue to proceed in the manner in which we have -- that is, convening late in the year, near the end of our fiscal year. But this province has been around for a long time. This is not something that has been, I think, an annual procedure. I wonder when it was that we started to deal with interim supply on an annual basis -- at what point.

I haven't had the opportunity to go back to the history books and check, but I would imagine that at least since 1991, since this government was brought into power, we have had interim supply bills each and every year. And that's why I say the disappointment is there, because it shows that they haven't learned from those years of experience. I know there are a number of experienced members across the House who have seen that changes can be made, and I'm hopeful that they will look to taking some progressive steps in addressing the idea of interim supply, perhaps even look at legislating a requirement for interim supply not to occur more than once in a particular session. That would be a novel idea, and I leave that for the members opposite to consider.

As I say, we do recognize the urgency of this bill, given that it is the day before Canada Day and is the last day of the first quarter of this fiscal year. For that reason we on this side of the House have approved standing order 81 to allow this to proceed through all stages today. But I would be remiss if I did not say that I am disheartened by the process, that we have to proceed in this fashion each and every year. I would hope that next year we will not be looking at this and that the Premier and his cabinet, his executive council will look back in their records to see how many times this has occurred and how they can prevent this. In that way, we will better serve the people of this province.

R. Thorpe: It's a pleasure to rise today on behalf of my constituents from Okanagan-Penticton. Every day the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton work hard in the orchards, in the vineyards, in the wineries, in the tourism industry, in light industry, and we dream with our young entrepreneurs. We also have a very large seniors component to our community. My responsibility is to reflect the values of my constituents. My constituents care; they're caring people. They look after each other; they look after those in need. And most importantly, I'm proud to say that my constituents are truly fiscally responsible. So why are we here today?

We are here today because unfortunately we're governed by an incompetent socialist government in British Columbia -- a government that wants to hijack democracy, that wants to hijack the legislative processes of this House. We have no published legislative calendar. We have lots of talk, lots of broken promises from the government, yet we have no legislative calendar.

[10:45]

It's amazing that we have a government that talks about the need for prudent fiscal management. Oh no -- that was the former Finance minister; he's long gone. Somehow they say that the fiscal matters of this province are not urgent. But every family and every individual in this province knows that the opposite is the truth. They know how hard it is today to look after themselves, to look after their families and to plan for their children's future; that is urgency. But to this government, it is not urgency. In fact, they're asking us to approve $1.691 billion today. You know, hon. Speaker, most people cannot even relate to that number. I suggest to you that most members of this House cannot relate to the magnitude of that number.

What is that number? Let's see. That would be a community in British Columbia of about 66,000 people making $25,000 a year. That is a lot of money. This government wants it for one month, and they want to do it in a tight legislative

[ Page 9425 ]

Obviously I've hit a note again, because I see the famous master of ceremonies of lunch smiling over there. It's $11 million more -- from a government that says it's fiscally responsible. The facts are that that socialist government is incompetent and irresponsible with respect to fiscal management and the management of this province.

I would like to reflect on and talk about some principles and questions regarding interim supply. First of all, how did this government get elected? Second, how has this NDP socialist government managed our affairs? Third, does this government have a plan? Fourth, what has this government said -- more importantly, what has it done? -- since May 28, 1996? I'm not going to mention in any detail Bingogate, Hydrogate, breaking the Criminal Code of Canada. I'm just going to deal with the facts that they told British Columbians. I'm not going to talk about those other things that are absolutely despicable to British Columbians.

How did they get here? How did they get elected? They got elected with 39 percent of the vote. That means 61 percent of British Columbians said no to the socialists. But what has happened, and how did they get there? Well, hon. Speaker, you remember the two balanced budgets. Actually, they weren't balanced. It was: "We need a little wriggle room." It was hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. We remember that one. Remember how they told us they were going to look after health care? Well, the truth has come out on health care. Education -- I remember it: we were going to build schools everywhere. We were going to cut back, by 50 percent, the number of portables. Well, we know that hasn't happened.

Oh yes, there was a debt management plan, but that failed. And then we went to debt management plan 2, and that failed. Then, of course, they were going to look after our children. In fact, history will probably mark this government as the worst government in the history of British Columbia with regard to the care and protection of our children.

How have the socialists managed our affairs? Well, we have the highest marginal tax rates in North America. We have fees that are never-ending, and there's legislation before this House that's going to call for more fees. Taxpayers, hard-working individuals -- whether they're from Summerland, Penticton, Naramata or Peachland -- know that a fee. . . . They know that when Glen Clark's hand is in their pocket, he's taking money out for his pocket -- not for their benefit but for his benefit. Of course, we know that our unemployment rate is at 9.7 percent, the highest west of Quebec. Our youth have the highest unemployment rates west of Atlantic Canada. In investments we are at 50 percent of the national average. We were beaten out by that great economic powerhouse, Prince Edward Island. British Columbia was beaten out in economic development by the powerhouse known as Prince Edward Island. That is shameful for this province, shameful for that socialist government.

Debt. What is going on with our debt? We've had huge promises with respect to debt. It's going up, up and up -- $31 billion and growing. More importantly. . . . You know, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head talked about plans. Well, this socialist government introduced two debt management plans -- their own. The auditor general didn't impose them, nor did the comptroller general or the opposition. The people didn't. They put them in themselves, and they failed. Now they want British Columbians to give them more money to squander away. I don't think so.

Deficits. There have been seven in a row. They say that the last one was $95 million. That's interesting, because "Budget '98 Reports," which the Minister of Finance passed out to everyone in British Columbia, says on page 33 that the deficit is $949 million. That's a government document. They stand in this House and tell us $95 million. It's $949 million in reality.

How have they done? These words come to my mind: incompetent, irresponsible and untruthful and no confidence. There is no confidence for the investors, no confidence for the people who live in British Columbia who want to invest, no confidence for the people in the rest of Canada who want to come to British Columbia to invest, no confidence for the people in the rest of North American who want to come and invest for the future of our children and no confidence for the rest of the world to come to British Columbia. That is what this government has achieved -- yet they want $1.691 billion more to operate for one month.

Does this government have a plan? We know they have a plan on Bill 26, because Mr. Georgetti told them they did. The banker has called the demand loan. It will be put through this time. That's why we've got interim supply. That's why we didn't start earlier. They wanted to tighten the calendar so that the big banker, Mr. Georgetti, could call the demand loan of the NDP and the socialist government. That's what is going on. But do they have a plan? No. The Minister of Finance speaks about a three-year plan. Who has seen it? Show it to us. Where's the plan? There is no plan. There never has been and there never will be. They've been in power for seven years, and there's no plan. That is disgraceful.

An Hon. Member: Seven deficits.

R. Thorpe: Seven deficits, my colleague reminds me.

If they had a plan. . . . Perhaps they do. Perhaps there's a plan in their secret NDP vault, but perhaps they could share the highlights with the citizens of British Columbia. Other governments are publishing. . . . As a matter of fact, in the debate on Bill 26, many members over there were referring to Alberta. Well, Alberta has a published three-year business plan. Every ministry is accountable; it says their objectives in the front. They're measured against them -- but not here. Maybe we should make an amendment to Bill 26, since they like Alberta so much.

It reminds me of the plans. . . . Remember those five-year plans in Russia and Cuba, all of those failed plans?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Well, I don't know. But we've got a socialist government here, and it's not working. But look where those countries are that had those great plans.

Now we have the Minister of Finance toting around in her back pocket a three-year plan. Let's see it; let's see the plan. Let the Finance minister come in here in this House and show us the three-year plan. You'd think that if you had a three-year plan, you'd be proud of it.

Interjection.

[ Page 9426 ]

Why, hon. Speaker? You ask why; I knew you were going to ask that question. It's because there is no accountability, absolutely no accountability for this government. They've got the best jobs they've ever had. They got their hands. . . . The vault's open, and they're just in there taking all those hard-working people's cash and spreading it all over to their friends. They're just having a great old time, with no accountability. This province is adrift under the leadership of the one-man wrecking crew. Hopefully, one of these days a minister over there is going to have. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: No, no. I think it's the minister who's travelling around somewhere in a private jet today.

But does this government have a plan? The answer is clearly no -- no plan, no expertise, just cheap, dirty politics. That is what that socialist government is all about. That is the hard, truthful fact, and the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton know that. The scam's over, folks. They don't want you to have more money. Remember that.

That $1.691 million is like a community of 66,000 people making $25,000 -- unbelievable. And that's one-twelfth. They want just under $21 billion, and that doesn't count all of the billions they've off-loaded onto Crown corporations. They're having a free-for-all over there.

The Ferry Corporation is just under $1 billion in debt now, I think. When the government took over, they were $14 million in debt. The service doesn't seem to be getting any better. Fares are going up faster than the stock market.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I think your ferry just came in, over there.

Anyhow, let's see what this government. . . . Why should we give this government. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . . Hon. member, take your seat. Hon. members, there will be opportunity for debate. Come to order, hon. members. Okanagan-Penticton, continue.

[11:00]

The Speaker: The hon. member who has the floor will take his seat. I recognize a point of order from the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member opposite, while his speech is very enlightening, forgets the orders around the use of props. I would ask him to keep props -- which a newspaper is -- well out of sight, because he knows it is against the rules of the House.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point. The member is aware of the props issue. I'll also call for order. It's very important when discussing difficult issues that we keep some order and demonstrate respect for the other members of this House.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I do appreciate your guidance.

Let us talk here, calmly and seriously, about what this government promised British Columbians about creating and protecting jobs. What has happened? Why do we need so much more money? Why do we have interim supply? It's because we have fewer people working in British Columbia today. As a matter of fact, in January we had 19,000 fewer people working, while in Alberta -- and remember, the Minister of Labour always refers to Alberta -- they created 22,000 new jobs. We had forestry, which was going to create 22,000 jobs, and we've lost 12,000. We have the highest unemployment rates west of Quebec. This government. . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: Members who want to make comments should be in their chairs.

. . .said it was going to protect jobs and create jobs, but that's just a broken promise by an incompetent government.

They can't keep all of their promises. Let's see if they kept this one: reducing the government debt. The facts are that in 1991, we were $17 billion in debt; in 1995, $27 billion in debt; on March 31, 1997, $29.3 billion in debt; on March 31, 1999, $31 billion-plus in debt. That's what it's going to be. That's what you project, if you read your book. Now we've got this new big project, SkyTrain or something like that, down in the lower mainland, that I think runs through seven or so government members' ridings. The people in the interior don't quite understand the things that they're paying for all of the time. I think the Premier's own words were: "It's a turkey on stilts." He was referring to the SkyTrain, I think. But it's more debt for the province.

Let us talk about promise No. 3: "It will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row." This socialist NDP government has never balanced a budget since it was elected. The only way they're going to have an attempt to balance one is to continue to off-load hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to Crown corporations and other agencies. Who was the Finance minister who started us down this road of disaster? It's the missing Premier. He's never here anymore. It's Darth Vader.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Promise No. 4 -- we remember this one. We were going to have the highest credit rating in Canada. Well, the fact is that it's not the truth. Everyone in Canada is getting better, and on the backs of hard-working British Columbians, our credit rating is going down, down, down -- negative watch. The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Post, the Hongkong Bank. . . . Everyone is saying it's disaster time in British Columbia, under the management of the socialists. That's what they're saying -- that that's just another broken promise by the NDP.

Their fifth promise. . . . This was a special promise to the hard-working people of British Columbia. "My government will focus on developing jobs." It must have been in small

[ Page 9427 ]

With respect to job creation, the biggest tragedy of all has to do with the unemployment of young British Columbians. It's just under 19 percent. That is criminal, you know. It's shameful when only New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have higher youth unemployment rates than the great province of British Columbia. We should have the lowest rate of unemployment in Canada. We should have the lowest rate of youth unemployment -- but not with this incompetent socialist government. It's just another broken promise.

I talked earlier about the jobs and timber accord. I won't talk on that one right now, because we know that rhetoric. . . . Millions and millions of dollars are spent telling British Columbians. . . . That's one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of British Columbia. They've spent millions and millions of dollars advertising that there's a job behind every tree. In fact, there are no jobs. Communities are suffering; families are suffering. We have members in this House that represent some of those communities. But will they stand and defend their families and their communities? We don't hear them. We hear cheap shots, but we don't hear them do the proper thing: stand and speak on behalf of their constituents in this House.

Then the tragedy I live with -- perhaps mostly in my riding -- is the promise to make important progress in cutting waiting lists in British Columbia. Well, I have a huge, huge number of senior citizens in my community -- disproportionate to the average of the province. Let me tell you that people are waiting longer and being put under stress more than ever before. Cardiac surgery is taking up to a year, and very sadly, some people aren't making it. We have joint replacements that this government says should take 18 weeks on average. That's not true. It's taking 35, 40 or 45 weeks, and they are not addressing the problem.

"Let's just pretend that there isn't a problem, and hopefully, it will go away." But the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton are standing up now, and they're demanding from this government the services they've paid so dearly for. Yet the result is more broken promises by this incompetent NDP government. It's a promise that's been broken to those who have difficulty in standing and fighting for themselves.

Then, of course, right in this House -- right over there -- the Premier stood and promised a new role for all MLAs. There was going to be involvement for every member of this Legislature, so that we could all work for the common good of this province. The Premier said: "My government is committed to helping make that happen." Well, hon. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Not one thing has happened on that government side to bring all MLAs together, to make sure that committees of this House are working. In fact, the Premier has done the exact opposite. The new Crown Corporations Committee, which was to be led by a member of the opposition, has never met -- not once.

You may have noticed that there are some education issues in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, this government has legislation pending in this House to shove a contract down elected officials' throats, and we'll deal with that later. You know what? The Education Committee in British Columbia has not met in the seven years of NDP watch. British Columbians know that health care is frayed at the edges throughout the province. Tell me, how many times do you think the Health Committee has met in the last seven years? One's too high. Back down. It too has not met. Yet this government wants us to give them more money. I don't know what they're going to use it for. It may be for a ham sandwich. But who knows? It'll be an expensive ham sandwich. The last one was fairly expensive too.

But you know, hon. Speaker, the promises of this government are broken. They're broken to everyone except Uncle Kenny -- No. 19, as the Premier called him. No. 19, the Premier said, as he got his medal from the province -- the No. 19 member of the cabinet. Those are the facts -- sadly, the facts -- in British Columbia. The bottom line is that the NDP socialist government is a government made up of broken promises, incompetence, no vision and no plan of where they're taking the province of British Columbia -- absolutely no vision. That is why, on behalf of my constituents, I will have to vote against this money.

What we should be doing and what we should be working for is a legislative calendar. I know there are perhaps one or two members over there who wish they could have the opportunity to stand and speak, saying: "I too want a legislative calendar. I too think that we should be bringing in the budget in February so we have time to debate it. I too think that we should have a legislative calendar that says we're going to be here in the spring and in the fall, and that while we're here, we'll have a calendar that says when we sit, so that we can plan -- so that everyone can plan. We can plan with our constituents, the people we're elected to represent."

But no, this government wants to hijack the democratic process in British Columbia. They want to hijack this Legislature, and I think they know they've now met their match. This official opposition is going to continue to hold their feet to the fire.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: In spite of the hunger pains of the Minister of Agriculture, we are going to continue to hold their feet to the fire. Do the right thing: have a legislative calendar.

S. Hawkins: I'm pleased to rise and join in second reading debate of the supply bill, Bill 42, that's before us. I note that it is the second supply bill we've seen in this session. As the member who spoke before me pointed out, it's an incredible amount of money that the government is asking for -- $1.691 billion. I think we all understand that this is a bill of confidence. This bill is a question of whether this House has confidence in this government spending that money on behalf of British Columbians.

I guess that's the question we have to ask here today. I would put forward that this side of the House and certainly the majority of British Columbians do not have confidence in this government. I would point out a survey that was done by Marktrend in their summer quarterly, done just in the last month. In this survey, we find that there were several questions asked about the economy and about health care. The question that was asked was: "Over the past year, how has this situation panned out for British Columbians as far as their economic situation?"

[11:15]

[ Page 9428 ]

There certainly have been a myriad of problems for health care. We have seen the quality of health care decline under the mismanagement of ministers rotating through the Health ministry. I don't think we've seen a Health minister actually take a Health ministry through a full year. In the last five years we've had as many Health ministers and deputy Health ministers. . . . Certainly in the last few months there have been a lot of situations that have been cause for great, great concern. I think one of the most prominent -- there are two or three I'll mention, but I'll start with one of the most prominent -- is the waiting lists in this province.

The waiting lists have been absolutely awful. I've only been in this House for two years. This is my third session, and in every session I've stood here and begged on behalf of people who have been relegated to long waiting lists and lineups for surgery, treatment and tests. I've been saying to the government: "Get your act together and help these people." Many of them need life-saving treatment. Finally we saw this government act, and last November they put out a waiting-list report. You would think that when they put out this waiting-list report, there would have been all kinds of joy and everybody saying: "Wow, they've got their act together; they've put out a waiting-list report, and here are the numbers." But do you know what? We didn't hear that. The first reaction from the waiting-list report that this government put out last November was: "That's a cruel hoax." Their waiting-list report said that everything was okay. Their report said there weren't long lineups.

That prompted one of the medical organizations, the BCMA, to do their own waiting-list report, because they said that the government was less than honest and that the waiting lists were indeed longer than what the government was admitting to. This February we saw another waiting-list report that the BCMA put out. Do you know what? Their waiting-list report, compared to the numbers the government had reported, showed double what the government reported. The truth is somewhere out there.

I know there have been surveys done on whether or not people believe that this government tells the truth. I think last summer we saw a report that said 75 percent of people surveyed didn't think this government tells the truth. So I don't really have difficulty, I guess, not believing the government's report.

Well, here we go. We had the government's original waiting-list report; we had the BCMA waiting-list report which said that the waiting-lists were actually double what the government was reporting. We had the now Minister of Health, in the middle of March, put out another waiting-list report, and it was the cardiac surgery waiting-list report. Again, I just have to shake my head, because there were many things left out of the minister's press release. There were a lot of things in that report that people needed to know. The minister's release just glossed over the report, left out a lot of important facts. Incredibly, the minister said as a result of the report that her ministry will fund 450 more cardiac surgeries a year. That tells me right away that there must have been something in that report that made her twig to the fact that there must be a problem there. Every year we've been raising the issue of cardiac surgery, and every year we've been hearing from those benches that there's not a problem. But every year we seem to be getting increased funding for this situation, so we know the government knows there is a problem. But they try to gloss over it.

Here's what was left out of the minister's press release, when she presented the cardiac surgery report to the public on May 15. Frankly, the way that it was reported. . . . She released the report on the Friday of the Easter long weekend. We have seen this in the past, where the government tries to bury bad news in a long weekend and hopes that the press and the public aren't paying attention and don't pick it up. I thought -- and I know the public thought -- that that was a very sneaky way of doing it. All these kinds of things don't give the public very much confidence in the way this government manages, or mismanages, the public's affairs.

Here is what was left out of the minister's press release: the median wait time for all cardiac surgeries has more than doubled since the NDP came to power, from seven weeks in 1991 to 16 weeks today. The waiting time has doubled since the NDP took power. There's something to be proud of! The number of patients forced to wait longer than six months for cardiac surgery has tripled since the NDP took power. What the report didn't tell you was that the cardiac wait-lists are the worst they've ever been in history. Today a cardiac patient has a 1-in-5 chance of getting their cardiac surgery within the recommended time frame. Those aren't very good odds. If you're unlucky enough to be a very urgent cardiac patient, only 1 in 7 has a chance of getting their surgery done within the recommended 72-hour time frame. That is not something to be proud of. Certainly that tells me that they're not managing health care very well and that there is a risk to the public out there who have cardiac problems.

Certainly in the last few months rural health care has been a huge concern -- and we know there are still problems in the area. We came into the House at the end of March, and since the January 31 many communities in northern and rural parts of B.C. have been threatened by the withdrawal of physician services, because this government didn't act on those concerns in a timely manner. We've known, and the NDP have known, for years that rural health care is lacking a lot of resources. It's very difficult to recruit and retain health care personnel in the rural and isolated areas around the province. It got to a point where it came to a crisis. It came to a crisis, and it didn't have to. We know that it didn't have to, because we know that the government had a couple of reports on the shelf that could have solved the rural health care crisis that we saw carry on for five months. It could have been resolved it very quickly, but this government chose not to do that. They put lives at risk; I know that. I travelled up north and to the rural areas, and I saw what kinds of conditions patients were having to endure because this government neglected and betrayed their concerns.

Gosh, hon. Speaker! Throughout this session we've seen the kind of extraordinary steps that ordinary people have

[ Page 9429 ]

One of this things that really struck me when I was up there was a young woman, a young mom -- and she was in the House; she came to see for herself what was happening as far as the attention the government was paying to health care in their areas -- who was five and a half months pregnant. Her mother was born in Vanderhoof, she was born in Vanderhoof, and her first child was born in Vanderhoof. But guess what. Because of the crisis in the north that the NDP created because they didn't pay attention to rural health care concerns, this mom was in danger of having some kind of complication in her pregnancy. The NDP said: "We're going to ask you to drive two and a half hours, from Vanderhoof to Prince George, to have your baby. Oh, by the way, Prince George Regional Hospital is reinforced, and it's a MASH unit now. They usually can only handle about 15 pregnancies; they're doing 22 a day. You might have to sit in a hotel room, and you might go into labour there until we find you a hospital bed."

Well, she refused to do that. She came here to the House to tell the Premier and the Health minister that that wasn't good enough and that that wasn't the way to manage health care. They pay their taxes up north; they send huge revenues to the government from taxes they pay up north. They expect that the government will work for every British Columbian and make sure that there is equality of health care provided to every British Columbian in the province.

It's not like the government didn't know about the problem. It was on the news every night, in the papers every day and on the radio. There were letters being sent; there were petitions being sent. But this government chose to make those northern and rural patients suffer for five months before they accepted a recommendation that they had, in reports that they commissioned, three to four years ago. That is the kind of mismanagement and lack of concern that does not give any confidence to the public about how this government manages the province's affairs.

I remember that we tried to move an emergency debate in this House so that we could get this government to pay attention to rural health care. It was a crisis. The then Health minister, who is the Finance minister now -- which doesn't give me much confidence at all in her abilities -- said that it wasn't an emergency. That is the kind of situation that we find ourselves in. When patients are suffering and when waiting lists are growing, the government just turn their heads and stick them in the sand and say: "No, it's not a problem." We know that it is a problem and that rural health care concerns continue to be a problem. We will continue to raise it in the House.

[11:30]

But it has gone too far. Health care workers and front-line people are speaking up. At my hospital the chair of the hospital's medical advisory committee, Dr. Andy Pattullo, resigned. He cited overcrowding, long waits in emergency and a critical shortage of beds as the reasons he resigned. He said that he wasn't getting anywhere, and no one was listening. The bottom line and cutbacks and mismanagement by the NDP seem to be the problems here.

Mine wasn't the only hospital that was speaking up. In fact, the medical advisory committee at Penticton Regional Hospital. . . . The member from Penticton was just speaking about health care in his riding. His hospital said, in their motion, that they can no longer assure the community of safe and effective acute medical care. Has this government let health care sink to such a level that hospitals are warning people in their areas that they can no longer be assured of safe and effective acute medical care? That is pathetic. That is what this government has let health care come to in this province.

If you think it's just in the Okanagan, if you think I'm just speaking because those happen to be in the areas that I'm representing. . . . No, it's not only in the Okanagan. In fact, bed shortages and overcrowding in emergency rooms are problems provincewide. We've seen that in Vancouver at St. Paul's Hospital, Royal Columbian and Vancouver General. I know, because I've been there. In December I did a shift at St. Paul's Hospital with the emergency room nurses and the doctors. I saw the overcrowding, the ambulance delays.

Here is a doctor, Dr. Joe Quigg, who is an emergency room physician at Cariboo Memorial Hospital, which happens to be in the riding of the Minister of Forests. He says, in absolute frustration in a letter to the community health council, that overcrowding in the emergency room has "reached an unacceptable level and is a disaster waiting to happen." That's the kind of language front-line workers are using to describe the kinds of conditions they are working under and having to provide patient care in. He also says that the bed shortage at the Cariboo hospital is so bad that if something isn't done to fix the problem, "closing the emergency room would be safer than having a false sense of security that emergency services can be provided" -- which is a sad statement of fact.

We have asked this NDP government why they have allowed the hospital bed situation to get so bad that patients face the prospect of having the emergency room doors slammed in their faces. We've heard of incidents like that, and I will bring them up in the Health estimates. In fact, we heard of an elderly woman at a Victoria hospital -- and I think this is one of the most tragic stories I've heard -- dying in the

[ Page 9430 ]

I have to ask myself: have they really done something to change the situation and make it better? Have they done that? Do you know what I find? I don't find examples of that. What I find are examples of government advertising saying they are doing a good job. These are three-quarter-page ads and full-page ads. You know what I get as feedback on these ads? People phone my office and ask me how much these ads cost. I know that the government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising around this province on TV, on radio and in newspapers, saying what a good job they are doing. People are writing to me and saying: "Couldn't that money be better spent on health care? Couldn't that money be better spent on life-saving treatment? Couldn't that money be better spent on cardiac surgery, on the long lineups that this government has imposed on patients in this province? Couldn't that money be better spent there?" I think so. I think British Columbians who write to me and say that are on to something there. We've been reminding the government of that too.

We see patients who are denied life-saving treatment, like insulin, because the government won't cover it under Pharmacare. But if we turn around, we see the government advertising that they've actually increased funding to health care. Instead of doing this, why don't they just put that money into health care? Then we might be able to afford some of that life-saving treatment, like insulin, and some of those comfort measures in old age, where people have broken their hips or need hip replacement. We've got long lineups for knee and hip replacement, because government says: "We'll only do 1,500 a year at this place." Quit advertising and put that money into health care.

The auditor general released a report and said that he estimates that the government spends about $25 million a year on advertising. I can tell you that $25 million will buy a lot of health care. I think people are starting to wake up to that fact, and they're starting to ask questions. Every time the government puts out an ad, I get a phone call saying: "Why are they spending my money -- taxpayer money -- to pay for advertising, when I can't get the treatment I need, when I can't get the tests I need, when I can't get the surgery I need and when I can't get the drugs I need?" The government should be asking that question of themselves as well.

It's interesting. The member for Okanagan-Penticton sits on the Public Accounts Committee. He has a finance background, and he talks about setting goals and targets and being accountable for them. Well, I can remember one example -- and I know that other members have brought it up -- where the government set a goal. They set a goal in their jobs and timber accord for 20,000 jobs in the forests, I believe it was. The socialists said that there would be 20,000 more jobs, and as soon as it was said, that seemed to vanish. When the Minister of Forests was asked about that -- because in the last year we haven't see 20,000 new jobs in the forests; what we've seen is a reduction of 12,000 jobs in the forests -- he said: "Well, that wasn't a promise. That was just a target. We didn't really say we would do it. We just said that maybe we would do it."

Well, that's not good enough. You take the taxpayers' money and say you're going to do stuff with it. I remember that the ad campaign was more than $1 million. I remember the House adjourning for that jobs and timber accord announcement. I remember the Premier flying up to Prince George like the knight in shining armour. He was going to have 20,000 more jobs for people in the province. Oh boy! Where did they go? That is not the kind of accountability people in the province are looking for.

They talk about -- I've heard this saying before -- not a dime without debate. This government is asking for almost $2 billion to spend on behalf of British Columbians on programs we haven't even scrutinized. A specific one comes to mind, and that's the mental health program. This government came out with a big, flashy announcement in March and said that they had a seven-year plan for mental health and that they were going to spent $125 million in the next seven years. They were asked: "How much of that are you going to spend in this budget year?" The figure that was thrown out was $10 million for mental health in the next year.

We are now into the second quarter of the budget for this budget year. We do not have an implementation framework. I've asked for it. I've written to the government, and I know other groups have as well. We don't have an implementation framework for the mental health plan -- what they're going to do -- and we have no idea where they're going to spend that $10 million, that wonderful figure they threw out, for mental health this year. Why should we approve a penny when they haven't even had the courtesy to let mental health patients know where that $10 million is going? You know what? It's the second quarter of the budget year, and not a penny of that has been spent yet on patients.

They want us to approve $1.6 billion for the next month without even having an idea of where it's going. We have not had the Health estimates yet, and we know some of that money's going to be spent there. It flies in the face of the democratic process and making sure that the government is being held accountable for the kinds of spending it's doing. I have to say that it doesn't give rise to having any confidence in this government's initiatives, since we haven't really been able to ascertain -- by way of debate or by way of information that we've asked for -- how this money will be spent.

We have seen jobs leaving this province, and I've talked about the jobs and timber accord. I must say that the confidence in the economy in B.C. and the confidence in this government is right down to basement level.

An Hon. Member: Sewer.

S. Hawkins: The sewer level, one of the hon. members says.

When the budget was brought in, in March. . . . It was at the eleventh hour, I might add. This government waited to the very last minute to bring in the budget, and they're waiting to the very last minute to ask for supply again. Moody's downgraded our credit rating, and another credit rating agency put us on credit watch. Why did they do that? They said we had a high deficit, high debt and absolutely no debt management plan in this province. We've got the world looking at us, saying: "B.C. -- not good."

We've got high taxes and high youth unemployment. We've got excessive regulation and red tape. We've got a negative business climate here and a business community that doesn't have confidence in this government. We have higher debt. And you know what? We do have something historic, and I know other members have mentioned it. We have the seventh consecutive deficit budget, which came in this ses-

[ Page 9431 ]

For those reasons, I cannot support this interim supply bill.

K. Krueger: Here again we find ourselves being asked to give this government a blank cheque. For the benefit of people who may just be tuning in to this debate on television, it's a debate over Bill 42, the so-called Supply Act. It's a tiny little bill -- half a page -- like a promissory note that one buddy might write to another. "Need a few bucks? I'll give you this little IOU." But it's not a small amount of money, is it? It's $1.691 billion, which this government wants to have carte blanche authority to squander over the next month. That's no exaggeration. We in the official opposition believe and the public believes -- and we've had ample opportunity to see for ourselves -- that this government squanders the money that slips through its fingers.

[11:45]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, $1.691 billion is a huge amount of money. What does that equate to? How can we possibly put that amount of money into terms we can really understand? There was an announcement by the Premier just before the Kamloops economic conference last month, one of those announcements where he holds forth to the public that things are going to happen, even though they may be nothing more than a gleam in his eye. Of course, the people of Kamloops are hoping that this one might be true, although they can't help but be cynical. This same Premier has been charging all around the province for months, announcing things that might happen -- announcing eight different sites, I believe, for aluminum smelters in British Columbia.

The Premier had one for Kamloops. He went out to Highland Valley Copper and announced that there was a possibility that there would be a feasibility study. There was a possibility that we would have a copper smelter at Logan Lake, near Kamloops. That would be a tremendous job generator if it were true, but it's a very significant outlay of capital. Of course, private enterprise is much, much more careful of how it spends money than this Premier or anybody on the government benches opposite is when it comes to spending public money. I spoke with the president of Highland Valley Copper afterwards to find out if it was true, if there was any actual likelihood that this copper smelter would be built. It would be a wonderful thing for Kamloops and for the province. He said: "Well, you know, we'd love to do it, but it's such a huge amount of money. It's $200 million." He and I both scratched our chins and thought about how $200 million was quite a bit less than the $330 million that this same government has pumped into the failed and failing pulp mill in Prince Rupert -- the Skeena Cellulose debacle. Two hundred million dollars is what this copper smelter near Kamloops is projected to cost, and private enterprise is very reluctant to say that it would ever actually spend that kind of money.

That's less than one-eighth of what this government is asking for approval for with this tiny little bill that it wants to slip through the day before Canada Day -- the most important holiday of the year from a national point of view and obviously a day when we'd all like to be home in our own constituencies. Once again the government hopes that it won't have a zealous opposition, that it won't have a rough ride from the opposition, as it asks us for authority to spend more than enough money to build eight of those copper smelters or enough money to build two of the aluminum smelters such as those Alcan is contemplating up in Kitimat -- about a billion-dollar project. They've recently announced that it doesn't look like they can go ahead because of two things: the high taxation and the tremendously high labour costs in British Columbia.

Is the government doing anything to help in those two areas? Not really. In fact, they introduced Bill 14 and pushed it through the Legislature recently, which will add significantly to the cost of doing business and to labour costs in British Columbia. Now, of course, they're trying to thrash through Bill 26 -- over all the protests of just about everybody. With almost unanimous protest in this province, they're trying to jam through another bill to make construction and labour costs higher so as to once more favour their big union-boss friends, particularly Mr. Ken Georgetti.

Of course, the Premier had the gall to publicly refer to him recently, at the Order of British Columbia ceremonies, as the nineteenth cabinet minister. We all know -- hon. Speaker, I'm sure you do too -- that Mr. Georgetti in fact enjoys the status of a cabinet minister. When the Premier says "nineteenth cabinet minister," he isn't talking about nineteenth in the pecking order; he's talking about one of 19. Indeed, I think it's pretty obvious to everyone in British Columbia who is clued in as to how this government does business that Mr. Georgetti is in a position of power senior to the Premier, because the Premier dances around on his strings like a marionette -- a little puppet -- of the B.C. Federation of Labour and of the so-called nineteenth cabinet minister.

Alcan could build two of those smelters for what the government is asking us for in this bill -- this little tiny bill that they want to sneak through the day before Canada Day. You could build two Coquihalla Highways for what the government is asking for. This is the money they want to spend in just one month; in just the coming month they want to spend $1.691 billion. It cost less than half of that to build the Coquihalla Highway, and what a boon that has been to jobs and to the economy of British Columbia. Of course, you could only build one mid-Island highway for that amount of money and maybe have a little change left over. Of course, this government -- this incompetent, arrogant NDP government -- has spent 50 percent more, building the mid-Island highway to the pathetic point that it has, than it cost the previous administration to build the Coquihalla Highway through much more rugged terrain.

Those are the kinds of things that other governments and, indeed, private enterprise could do with the amount of money that this government is asking to squander over the next month: eight copper smelters, two Alcan smelters, two Coquihalla Highways. That's the kind of money that we're talking about.

[ Page 9432 ]

K. Krueger moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:14 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)

D. Symons: I'm not quite sure where we left off yesterday; if I start repeating myself, I'm sure that somebody will tell me. Looking at the financial parts of it, I think I asked. . . . Oh yes, I remember: we got to where I was asking why the debt-servicing contributions had gone down while operating contributions from the government had gone up. I believe the answer I got was to the effect that that was primarily because of interests rates that are currently lower. I guess that, in a sense, B.C. Transit and other government operations -- indeed, a lot of financial transactions -- would be in a great deal of difficulty if interest rates suddenly went up to where they were sometime in the late seventies and early eighties. But we'll worry about that when and if it happens. That's the same question -- good.

[10:15]

The first question comes on the first page and deals with the overall budget. I'll just point out here that SkyTrain's debt servicing is about three and a half times the actual operating budget of SkyTrain, and we find that the other ones don't have anywhere near that relationship between the amount of money that goes into paying the debt off and the amount of money to operate the system. When we look at the West Coast Express, we find there that the debt servicing is roughly half of the cost of the operations of that service. For the bus system, it seems to be. . . . Somewhere around -- oh, what would that be? -- one-seventh of the operating expenses are used for debt servicing. Obviously SkyTrain is extremely expensive -- the debt-servicing thing related to the operating side of it.

When we look at those particular figures, I think that that maybe gives us some cause for concern -- when we find that so much of the money goes to paying the debt rather than the operating side of it. I wonder if the minister might just be able to give us some sort of idea -- considering that and looking at SkyTrain and others -- why there seems to be such a great interest now in going into expanding the SkyTrain system, which obviously has that very huge ratio of debt servicing to the operating expenses of the service.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is right to point out that this is a capital-intensive method of transportation. One could make the same argument on any highway that one builds as well. We are moving toward building another rapid transit line in the lower mainland -- this will be the first in over 12 years -- because there is no more room on our roads to provide efficient and environmentally healthy methods by which to move people around. We are expanding our bus service, but the bus service will run at grade and in the context of the flow of traffic that exists now. In order to meet the Livable Region strategy, which provides for quality of life, it is incumbent upon us -- working with the GVRD -- to invest in this project in the form of capital, in order to deliver a service that actually meets the needs listed.

D. Symons: One might add: in spite of the huge capital costs of it.

I did ask something related to that. I think this will come up -- I hope I've got the quotes from Hansard -- a little later on. I'll just move on in this document while I'm going ahead. I'm looking at the bottom of page 2, if anyone on that side is following in the document, under "Productivity Initiatives." It speaks of four major initiatives planned for '98-99 that are targeted to results in savings of roughly $7 million. This represents 2 percent of the Vancouver regional transit operating budget. These initiatives involve the continuation of a comprehensive absenteeism program to reduce sick leave costs, improve operator manpower utilization, preventative maintenance program rationalization and other maintenance initiatives, and finally reduction in administrative costs. I wonder if you might look at each of those in isolation. Maybe the minister could just give me a little bit of a flavour of how these initiatives are taking place. We're into the year; we should be beginning to get a feeling of what's happening there and whether it's successful.

The first one was dealing with absenteeism, which we recognized last year was a significant problem, with a cost to the corporation of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 million. I hear and read in the press recently where there's about a 10 percent absenteeism improvement. Could you give us an update on what's happening there and exactly what you're doing, besides just finding out that there's a 10 percent improvement? What initiatives are taking place to improve the amount of absenteeism? I guess it's not improving absenteeism, is it? Which way should we say it -- improving getting people to be at work rather than being absent?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is good news on this front. I must begin by saying that the corporation, both management and the employees, has worked very hard to improve employee absenteeism. They have worked. . . . I would say it's a tentative cooperative approach, but it is nevertheless cooperative.

[ Page 9433 ]

There have been substantial improvements in employee absenteeism. In the last year, we went through it. B.C. Transit appointed an attendance management committee, and that was to raise the profile of a corporatewide attendance management initiative. Phase 1 of the program emphasized improved communication between management and employees regarding the importance of regular attendance and the availability of assistance and supervisors when disabilities prevented employees from attending work. The responsibilities of employees and supervisors were clearly defined. Supervisors were given additional support and training to assist them in the management of the employees' attendance. A new attendance database system was implemented to improve the tracking and reporting of operators' and maintenance workers' attendance records.

The attendance management program, to date, has resulted in significant improvements in attendance. Paid sick leave for transit operators declined 16.9 percent in 1997 from the same period in the previous year, while total health- and injury-related absenteeism was down 11 percent; that includes short-term disability and WCB. The reduction in lost time was equivalent to the hiring of 40 full-time operators, nine full-time maintenance workers and a savings of more than $2 million for the 11-month period.

So we continue that; that is continuing in 1998. Through this year, there is increasing cooperation from the workers in this area. There is what I say is a very firm approach being taken by B.C. Transit to fairly inform, to fairly and consistently apply the rules, and to take action when there are breaches.

D. Symons: It's encouraging to note that you are having some improvement. I guess this is a trend -- you're hoping that indeed. . . . Although a paper did write that article -- and I happen to have read it and tend a little bit to agree with you, in that things don't happen overnight -- and they seemed to be implying that it wasn't a great change, at least it was going in the right direction.

I'm wondering about something I overheard awhile ago on one of the Victoria buses. As the minister probably knows, as she rides the buses also, often in the off-hours when drivers are getting on the bus to go to another location or to go home after their shift, they will tend to sit at the front and talk with the operator of the bus. The conversation went something like this: to the effect that one of the drivers was discussing things with the other ones, and he commented that he had been off, and had planned to be off, for two days because he was ill. After the two days, he wanted to come back to work, but apparently he was being "encouraged" by some fellow union members to not come back until he'd stayed off for five days. Apparently there was some pressure on him, because it would have affected someone's employment if he were to have come back before having been away for a total of five days.

I'm not sure if this is how the spare board works, or the fill-in or the substitute driver or whatever, but it seems that basically you are paying for two drivers: one on sick leave and another for those extra three days when this fellow felt well enough to come back to work but was being discouraged from doing so. How are things operating there? There seems to be a situation here where we are getting sick leave numbers that are higher than necessary through either some employment practices at B.C. Transit or some pressure from the union, one way or the other.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the contents of the question are fair, and I'm not going to attach motives. The member has presented anecdotal evidence, and I believe his anecdotal evidence, but I'm going to explain this in a context that doesn't attach motive to it.

We do have a system where the combination of the collective agreement benefits and the way that one manages the schedule from a work practice point of view could be seen as working as a disincentive to return to work in a timely fashion after an illness. It's very complex. The member's anecdote illustrates some of the complexities. Let me reassure him that where change needs to be made in the collective agreement to do away with the disincentives, we have those proposals on the bargaining table now -- management does. We are also making changes to the spare board operation so that it operates well within the context of the collective agreement provisions and makes sure that there are operators available in the context of absenteeism, but doesn't in any way create a disincentive to being at work.

D. Symons: I take it from the minister's response that they're aware of this situation and are working to improve it. I would just encourage them to continue that. I realize that we are dealing with very touchy situations in making changes to collective agreements where practices that have gone on for a number of years now are recognized to be a disincentive to coming back. Sometimes those things are difficult to change.

The next item on this list of productivity initiatives is operator manpower utilization. I wonder in what realms you have worked to improve the utilization of your operators.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, this is good news for the customer and the taxpayer. For 1998-99, we're projecting a 2.1 percent increase in service hours per operator in the Vancouver bus system. That's a pretty good productivity increase. This is mainly due to scheduling efficiencies, and we're using new software. . . . All of which means an increase in service for the customer as we move into the new millennium.

D. Symons: The next one on the list is the preventive maintenance program, rationalization and other maintenance initiatives. Again, if you might explain a little bit, and then I'll probably have a few further questions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: An in-depth review of preventive maintenance programs, policies and procedures has identified an opportunity for improvement. We're revising the first inspection interval to 6,000 kilometres from the current 3,000 kilometres. That will bring B.C. Transit into line with most other transit properties. It's not expected to impact service, reliability or safety. There is an overtime reduction that. . . . If we assume that the requested investment in preventive maintenance is made, overtime can be reduced to 8 percent from the current 18 percent -- a substantial reduction.

We've revised our apprenticeship program. This is good news: there'll be a productivity gain with no impact on the current staffing levels.

There'll be a 15 percent reduction in road calls -- that's where a bus needs maintenance on the road and a maintenance crew goes out. The road calls really divert resources from a regular maintenance routine, and they also cause pas-

[ Page 9434 ]

There's also a reduction in materials usage that will mean a saving, and there's increased productive time through various initiatives. So that will be expected to increase productive time by about one week per FTE per year.

[10:30]

I have a question somewhere else; I was quickly thumbing through my papers here and couldn't find it. I know it's coming up later, but I'll try to remember it and ask it now. I'm wondering: if overtime costs time and a half and double time, that sort of thing, would it not be more advantageous in the long run to hire more employees rather than paying overtime? These tables I have would indicate that your overtime hours are quite consistent. It's not just that there's a peak at some point where you say that now we go back to not very much overtime, but we seem to have hours of overtime quite consistently.

The second part of this question -- it will turn up somewhere later in my notes -- is on trainees, the apprenticeship program. I'm wondering whether you have enough people in those programs to bring more people into the maintenance program at the trained level. If you've got them working there as trainees or apprentices, they could fill the positions as others are going to retire. What's happening in that respect, as well as maybe hiring more employees?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an interesting question about the use of overtime versus the hiring of more employees. I would suggest that to manage best within the resources available, it has to be a combination of both -- hiring employees where appropriate, but using overtime to manage the high points and the lower points in the requirements. There are very busy times both in the days and in the maintenance cycle, and that's when you need to go into overtime. But there are also times when the workload is much less, and that's when a lot of catch-up work can be done. If one converted from overtime into hiring, you would have people being much less productive during the less busy times as well. So we have to do a combination of both: the use of overtime and the hiring of staff.

D. Symons: I was just reading, as you were answering one of the other questions. . . . I do seem to have some response on the third one, actually -- it's further along in this document. So I won't ask the particular point about administrative costs and so forth, as that seems to be answered fairly well in here.

The next page -- I'm on page 4 of your document -- is on the service plan and service hours for 1998-99. I notice that West Coast Express is going to experience a 7.5 percent increase in service time for the year. I gather that you're running at maximum now, so I'm curious: are you running more trains on Sundays and holidays? Or where is that increase coming from? Can you give me some idea of that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we dealt with this yesterday, and I'll just reiterate it. Some trains are at capacity or running at 90 percent of capacity, and we will have to look at what we do with those particular trains. That, of course, would mean an expenditure. Right now we're estimating an increase in ridership of 6 percent, but it's running for the year to date at an increase of 10 percent. There is capacity on the trains for that now.

D. Symons: I was talking about service hours, and you are talking about capacity in ridership -- which aren't necessarily the same thing. There's an increase here of. . . . It talks about a service plan where you're increasing the service hours from 23,900 to 25,700 -- roughly a 7 percent increase. It was the hours. I wasn't aware that you were able to run another train. You haven't added on more cars, and that was the curious. . . . What are you doing to increase the hours of service? I realize you are having increased ridership, but how about the hours?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm so sorry -- my apologies. The member was right the first time: there are special events, special trains and special occasions that are increasing the service hours.

D. Symons: Page 5 deals with budget risks, and I think this is always an interesting topic to follow. One item talks about labour contract settlements as being a risk. Indeed, your contract has run out, so I assume you're still in negotiations. I hadn't heard of a new contract being signed. Is there a parameter for this particular figure -- sort of between one figure and another figure -- where there's a budget risk with the negotiations that may affect the budget? Do you have some parameters there for risk management?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's zero. We're budgeting zero increase. And I might say I'm very encouraged. I haven't had a chance to talk about this. The guidelines for all public sector wage increases is zero percent this year, zero percent next year and the opportunity for a 2 percent wage increase in the third year. While many are discussing our labour climate in the context of minor changes to the legislation, over 150,000 public employees have settled in the last three months for a zero percent wage increase. It really is monumental news for the taxpayer. Not only the guidelines but the pattern for settlements are guiding us in really being able to manage this risk quite nicely.

D. Symons: I note that when the 2 percent comes in, we just may have a different government. It's very nice that you're able to convince the public sector employees right now to accept nothing, with the anticipation that there'll be another government they can hammer harder, making up for that lost time two years down the line. We'll see how that plays out as time goes on and proves me right or wrong.

The other one under budget risks, which I found sort of interesting, talks about a proposed captive dividend: "A $1 million dividend is proposed for '98-99. Unexpected losses

[ Page 9435 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: B.C. Transit Captive Insurance is a subsidiary that is wholly owned by B.C. Transit, so the subsidiary pays the dividend to B.C. Transit.

D. Symons: Okay. That relieves how I was interpreting this, because I wasn't aware of that. So this is through insurance, and there haven't been claims. Therefore there's money left over. I thought that somehow the government, as it does with B.C. Hydro and other firms, was claiming a dividend back into the coffers of the government. This is not the case. I'm pleased to hear that, because my other question, if you were going to say that, was: why not pay down the debt instead, since we have a large debt? Obviously that question isn't relevant.

Page 9 deals with the bus overhauls and maintenance, and I think we've covered that. That was a special amount you put in there. That's done already. Thank you.

The next one is on page 10: debt-servicing costs. I think I asked before what the total debt of B.C. Transit was, so we'll leave that one. We have discussed productivity initiatives -- good.

I found an interesting one on page 26 of the document. In the bottom half of this table we're dealing with -- I'll call it the corporate services unit -- there are various portions of corporate services named. I note that we have an 8.5 percent increase in corporate services budgets this year over last year. I'm wondering why the corporate services part has that increase compared to other parts of the budget for B.C. Transit, which don't seem to have anywhere near that increase.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The increase is in technical services, which is maintenance.

D. Symons: Yes, the president's office has a 10 percent increase, and there are some other increases in there as well. I think those questions have been fairly well covered.

I'm using a set of documents that I got from B.C. Transit recently, and I appreciate them supplying these to me. Not having this year's annual report, at least these give some of the figures that will no doubt occur in that report. The next document I'm looking at is the Vancouver regional transit system '98-99 capital budget. If we could just ask a question or two on that. . . . I noticed, in looking at table 1 at the bottom of page 1 of that document, that there seems to be no provision at all in there for budgeting for the Richmond RapidBus. Indeed, there are some things going on this year. You did answer earlier, I think, that most of the expenses are coming in next year, and I believe you already answered the question about the funding for the articulated buses. That it is there for the Broadway line, so we've got that.

On the second page, however, we have the cost containment strategies. Again, there is reference to the federal Infrastructure Works program and the Richmond transit centre. I'm not quite sure, and maybe I'm looking for clarification so that I can understand the figures. I see lots of figures with brackets around them, and I notice that there was a figure of $4.9 million in '98-99 and a further $1.62 million in 1999. I'm looking at the Richmond one there, the transit centre, and similarly for the RapidBus infrastructure. I'm wondering if you might just explain the brackets and what those figures in the '98 and '99 fiscal years mean.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the hon. member would just bear with me, I'm working from a different document. There's no problem; it's just a different layout. Let me just say, on some of the figures that are. . . . I'll explain it to you, and then we'll see if that's good enough. On the figures in brackets, some opportunities for cost containment. . . . I'll deal specifically with the Richmond operation. Some of the cost containment may have been predicted as a result of the Infrastructure Works program. For instance, on the RapidBus those cost containment measures did come through; they are part of the Infrastructure Works program. They didn't come through on the operating centre. We'll be carrying that ourselves. So that's the kind of logic behind those numbers.

D. Symons: So these bracketed figures, then, might mean what you were hoping to get as a federal contribution toward these projects. Would that possibly be it? There's another one here, and it's too bad we don't have the same document. But toward the bottom of the table is: "Oakridge transit centre redevelopment." I find that in 1999 there is $25 million there and in the 2000-2001 fiscal year there's a further $15 million. I'm assuming these are millions -- yes, they are. So what do those represent as happening with the Oakridge transit centre and the redevelopment of that particular property?

[10:45]

D. Symons: Okay. So these are not revenues, then; these are just sort of savings or reductions in spending that these figures represent.

The next question. . . . I'll try and shorten it a little from the convoluted question I asked last year, but it's a repeat of a question and a bit of a follow-up from last year's estimates. I was basically suggesting that it's difficult when we look at the cost of SkyTrain or the cost of commuter rail or the cost of operating a bus system, if we look simply at today's costs of putting in the infrastructure and today's operating costs. But if you prorate all of that -- taking everything into account over a length of time, 20 or 25 years, and the fact that SkyTrain has very high capital costs but very low operating costs compared to some of the others -- maybe over a 25-year period of time the cost comparisons might be better able to evaluate which system is more effective in the long term as far as spending the money.

In answering that question the minister indicated, if I can just read a little bit: "But it would seem that if you take those high capital costs and amortize them over a long period of time. . . ." I beg your pardon; that's my question. I'll go back to the minister's response: "The member describes the ongoing work of strategic planning that the corporation does in terms of the expansion of Transit. For instance, in coming to the conclusion of the model of light rapid transit that we will proceed upon, there were three major studies done examining the upsides, insides and outsides of models for transit" -- and taking into account, I guess, that long-term consideration of it all -- "and the conclusion was reached to proceed with the proposal that was established." That's a proposal for light rapid transit.

I won't get into the argument again on light rapid transit versus SkyTrain. But apparently you were doing something of

[ Page 9436 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: They are a matter of public record, but I will gather them up for you.

D. Symons: The next question relates to the '98-99 operating budget. I think we've dealt with the topics that I have here, though. Yes, all of those have been dealt with.

Before I move on to the next few questions, though, I might allow the member for Vancouver-Langara. . . . He has some questions relating to transit in his particular riding that he'd like to ask.

V. Anderson: As the minister is no doubt aware, in the Vancouver-Langara riding we have certain transit concerns at the moment, particularly with regard to the developments along Granville Street which run all the way from the Arthur Laing Bridge right down to downtown Vancouver. It runs all the way down, and we've had a great many meetings with citizens in the community. Prior to being elected in '91, I was involved in previous discussions about transit on Cambie Street and Granville Street. So it's got a long history.

Back when the HOV lanes were put in, on Granville Street, there was a great deal of concern at that time about the merchants and the loss of business that they would undergo -- which they did -- when that happened. I remember the credit union telling me when that took place -- it also happened to be at the time when there were some bridge closures -- that they lost 20 percent of their business. Some of that has been recouped since, but not all of it by any means. So I'm wondering if the minister could update me briefly -- I know you had a little discussion on this the other day -- about what kind of social, economic and environmental studies were done with regard to the RapidBus development along Granville Street which is being proposed at this time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The economic studies that led to the development of RapidBus are about the increased demand for transit from Richmond into Vancouver. It's interesting in the context of the debate; both opposition members from the Richmond perspective and the Vancouver side. . . . Certainly, as we discussed the need for rapid transit throughout the nineties, it was determined that the highest priority should be the route from the Lougheed corridor hooking up to New Westminster, and the third-highest priority was the Richmond-Vancouver corridor. There was an agreement between the province and the GVRD that we would do RapidBus. It is to meet the demands -- which, actually, we did discuss earlier -- of moving people from Richmond into Vancouver and vice versa.

There's been significant public consultation from January to now, and some of that has been catch-up, including the need for the Vancouver councillors to meet with the citizens as well. Reassurances and much information have been given about what RapidBus actually means, and the implications for the community have been discussed and accepted by the community -- save and except a certain portion, which is still very important.

As our consultations take place, we have altered some of the infrastructure enhancements of RapidBus. For instance, we will not be removing a substantial portion of parking now. That does have implications for the efficiency of the system; nevertheless, we have altered the plan in that fashion. We've also given a great deal of public explanation of what the intent and the consequences of RapidBus are. I know that some people actually thought that it would be a speeding bullet, and, of course, that isn't the case. It moves at the speed limit, but there is infrastructure being built about where lights can change as the bus moves up to intersections, etc. But all of the safety rules and all of the rules of the road, including speed limits, apply.

V. Anderson: I'll comment on what the minister has said, but I'll comment first on what she hasn't said. First of all, there is no sociological study of the impact on Marpole, south Granville or the area in between; there is no economic study on the impact on Marpole, south Granville or the area in between; and there's no environmental study on the impact on Marpole, south Granville or the area in between. More buses mean more pollution. It will not cut down the traffic which is already going through there. It will only compound the problem all the way around. The minister has said that in effect there have been no studies that. . . . And this confirms. . . . I've been at a number of the meetings; I listened. I asked questions, and there are no studies that we're aware of, unless they're behind the scenes. So we'd still like to see sociological, economic and environmental impact studies of the areas combined. The people there are rightly concerned. They understand the problem of getting people from Richmond and south down to Vancouver and back again, but they're not sure why this should be at the expense of the people who live in the area.

I'd like to remind the minister that if we take the residential block between the two business blocks in that community. . . . The residential block means that there are three major school programs that use the 25th and Granville crossing. One of these school programs -- York House -- is right on Granville, so technically that should be a school zone as far as the safety of those students is concerned. There are students and families that live right on Granville, and there is no school speed zone for that particular area. There are three major schools that use that on a regular basis, both morning and night. Small children go there all the time; that's a real safety concern. There are three churches along that route that have populations of the same nature going in there all the time, plus the residential people who make this the highway and the speedway which it is now.

I travel that route every day when I'm in the constituency, and let me say to the minister that unless the speedometer in my car is out of order, if I travel 50, I'm regularly passed by buses. On a regular basis, they pull out and pass me, so they're not maintaining the speed limit. If the minister were to say to us that all buses will have speed control on them so they cannot go past 50 miles an hour, then there would be some assurance that they're staying within the speed limit. Otherwise, our experience is that there is no way that happens.

If a bus is going 50 miles an hour through the business district of south Granville or Marpole where there are pedestrians right out to the edge of the sidewalk and the bus is running right on the edge of the sidewalk, with the present buses plus elongated buses, the safety factor is just impossible. Also, periodically we get a little rain in Vancouver, and you get those buses going along the curb lane only three feet away

[ Page 9437 ]

In the Marpole area we also have seven co-ops within a block of this district, and the children all go across to school. The senior citizens go across there on a regular basis. In fact, there are eight co-ops -- counting the senior citizens -- within a block of these intersections that are used regularly. Fortunately and practically, in the development of those buildings, they've all been made handicapped accessible. We have a great number of people who travel in wheelchairs and people who rely on guide dogs, both hearing dogs and sight dogs. We have curbs that are made accessible, and we have crossing signals which can be heard as well as seen.

You get those people going along that area. You have the Marine Drive traffic coming from the university. You have 70th Avenue traffic coming across the Oak Street Bridge, which comes up and turns at that corner. You have trucks coming along Marine Drive. You have traffic coming off the Arthur Laing Bridge. At any time it's one of the most congested areas in the city of Vancouver. You add this present system to that, and you've gone from a mess to an unholy mess. We have seen no studies that take this into account or give us any assurance that there'll be any improvement to safety or stability for the traffic through those communities

Also, when you look at the neighbourhood plan for Vancouver, which was to encourage neighbourhood development, the Marpole area has struggled with this. As the minister is probably aware, this is historic Marpole, where south Marpole began -- prior to north Marpole -- at the corner of Hudson and Marine. The business district was on Hudson and Marine streets up until around 1950, when the Oak Street Bridge was built. When the Oak Street Bridge was built, the business district had to move. The stores, the Safeway, the banks and the businesses moved from Hudson and Marine up to Granville Street to re-establish themselves as a community. There were still some businesses left, until the Arthur Laing Bridge was built over top of them. Then they had to move, so they also moved up to Granville. They've already relocated.

[11:00]

We have a great number of senior citizens living in the area. We have a great number of people with handicaps and disabilities living in the area. We have a lot of people -- it's a residential area -- with children living in the area, and they're concentrated right in the area where these buses go through. So we are very anxious to see what's going to happen.

I was there at the first presentations made by B.C. Transit, in which there had been no consultation, and as I talked to some of the staff afterwards. . . . They were told -- in effect, advised -- not to do public consultation before they made their first presentation. To the community it sounds like first having a consultation and showing you're going to destroy the community by 80 percent, then making some modifications: "We won't take away quite as much parking. We won't have quite as much control." Then you'll only destroy the community by 40 percent instead of 80 percent, so we should all stand up and say: "Hurray for that."

But the community doesn't buy that. They did get involved. They went to B.C. Transit and asked for the long-range planning. Lo and behold, what they found in the long-range planning which they weren't told about at any of the public meetings was that there is a plan to narrow the sidewalks and put another lane in, because the lanes that we have now are not wide enough to safely accommodate the new buses that are going to be provided. You widen the lanes we have now, you take off the sidewalks -- which pushes you onto both the residences and the commercial businesses -- and then you have a lane, like in the Deas Tunnel, which will go one way in the morning and another way at night. That is something they hadn't heard about before. That's a highway down a residential-business street. What I'm trying to ask is: what is the real long-range planning that's taking place? Of course, they're fighting this issue.

Then we had the Premier's announcement which came out regarding SkyTrain. Let me just read part of the press release: " 'In addition to the line that we're building beginning this summer, we will work with the Vancouver airport, the 2010 Olympics committee and local authorities to examine ways to accelerate construction of a SkyTrain link from downtown Vancouver to Richmond and the airport,' MacPhail said." But what is that plan? Is this disruption of Granville Street only a preliminary disruption until the SkyTrain technology plan is done? Are they planning then to put the SkyTrain technology down Granville Street after they have destroyed the community and its businesses? Are they going to run the SkyTrain down the middle of Granville Street? Are they going to run it under Granville Street? Are they going to take it down Cambie, as others have been suggesting?

The short-term result is. . . . The South Vancouver merchants have been advised by the merchants who live along Kingsway that when the transit and HOV lanes went along Kingsway, some of the merchants along Kingsway moved. A number of them moved up to Granville Street because the kinds of businesses that need walk-in clientele, that need a walking-street location, wouldn't survive anymore on Kingsway. So they moved to Granville. If this process goes through, those merchants are done. Those stores will have to close. Not only is that difficult for the merchants, but it's difficult for the community and the residents who use this as their neighbourhood shopping area. That's true both on Granville and in Marpole.

I want to express that concern and get the minister's response. What are they doing about the needs of the seniors in the community? What are they doing about the needs of the children and families in the community? What are they doing about the needs of the residents for neighbourhood shopping areas, which become their social communities? What are they doing about the needs of the merchants who would like to serve the community and still be able to survive? What are the short-term and long-term plans, and how can the community participate? The "consultations" that have been held to date have only been instances of: "Here's the topic. We'll listen to

[ Page 9438 ]

Can the minister give us a plan for a real meeting between the citizens, residents and business districts from one end. . . ? Just remember, this goes from Marine Drive down to the Burrard bridge. Remember that everybody in that area is drastically affected. Then remember the other changes that are coming at the south end of Marine Drive and Granville Street: the Eburne mill is closing down. Right at the end of this section, there is a major redevelopment taking place. Commercial or residential development -- who knows? But that's going to have a major impact on what is already a very congested area. Has this major shift been taken into account?

On the other hand, there's a major redevelopment at that other end, just off the Granville Bridge, with the redevelopment of the area where the Vancouver Sun used to be. Has that redevelopment been taken into account? There's a whole host of things that, as far as people in our community can discover, there are no answers to. When we go to city council, they say: "Talk to B.C. Transit." We go to B.C. Transit, and they say: "Talk to city council." And when you ask for the long-range plan, they say there isn't one.

I hope the minister can provide us with some direction today. Give us some studies that we can work on with the minister, or give us an opportunity to meet with the minister in order for us to resolve these things together.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the opposite points of view we have received from members of the opposition. Both the advantages and disadvantages of this proposed Rapid Bus line have been reflected in questions from members of the opposition. I might also add that these differing points of view reflect the matters that have to be resolved by various levels of government. When one is in government, one is not allowed the luxury of taking two opposite points of view without resolve.

Let me just begin by outlining a few of the facts. First of all, this Rapid Bus route is meant to fulfil the 2021 strategy of the GVRD. The greater Vancouver regional district developed a Transport 2021 transportation strategy and agreed upon it among themselves as municipalities, and B.C. Transit is the corporation that will implement the transportation strategy from a public transit point of view.

There is no passing of the buck. The strategy for developing Granville Street as a transportation corridor was made by those who have the authority to make that, and that's the municipalities in the area. What B.C. Transit's role has been is to take the current system and replace it with a more effective and efficient system. The RapidBus system is a replacement system for the current expressway lines. B.C. Transit is doing everything it possibly can to carry out its implementation mandate in a way that meets the needs of the community. Hence, where we have had the ability to modify, we have done so.

If there are studies available in terms of the decision to make Granville Street a transportation corridor, they will rest with the GVRD under the 2021 transportation plan, and I would urge the member to seek those studies. On July 8 the municipal council of Vancouver will be meeting, as it is their responsibility to decide on the future of this RapidBus system along the transportation corridor of Granville Street. I would urge. . . . I'm sure the hon. member will be there.

Matters of speed limits and the setting of speed limits are the authority of the local municipality. Again, that would be an opportunity for the member, on behalf of his constituents, to argue the points he has made so effectively here about school zones and speed zones. In terms of enforcing the speed limit with buses, I accept the member's anecdotal evidence. I would also say, though, that we have a very strict policy in the corporation of abiding by all the rules of the road, and where there is a violation of the rules of the road, we encourage enforcement of the rules. In no way is there ever an issue of any schedule being set or any encouragement to violate the rules of the road. I also would advise the member here that there is no plan whatsoever -- and this has been made clear at public meetings -- to change lanes. It is simply not a fact that there will be any change at all to the lanes along Granville.

Lastly, on the issue of SkyTrain, it's interesting that there's an overwhelming demand for SkyTrain. Certainly on one side of the bridge, the municipal council fully endorses increasing rapid transit to Richmond, so I would welcome views on how we reconcile these matters. No decision has been made on the corridor for SkyTrain, except for this: Granville Street has never been discussed as a corridor for rapid transit -- ever. I can't imagine that that would change now. Consultation is proceeding with the municipalities affected, Vancouver and Richmond, and with the YVRAA, the airport authority. We have the added advantage -- perhaps the promotional advantage -- of there being a 2010 Olympics committee as well, which can perhaps bring in the elements of private partnership in developing this. We have time to consult widely with the community.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's honesty in her response, saying where it's at from her point of view. That's helpful. It's the only way we can work together, and the community will be happy to do that.

In response, B.C. Transit is being, as we listened to the study. . . . Might I say, first of all, that I'm not speaking here as a member of the opposition, although I am that. I'm speaking here on behalf of the people of the Granville corridor and of the people who are expected. . . . The message I bring at this point is the message of the people of the Granville corridor. As an opposition, we agree with that, but I would bring it anyway even if we didn't, because that's the message I've been hearing from their meetings. They'll read what I say in Hansard, and they'll want to know that I'm speaking on their behalf. I have to be open and frank about that as well.

Our understanding is that the local effectiveness of the traffic, for those who live and use transportation on Granville Street at the moment, will decrease with the new implementation. The new RapidBus. . . . Though the through bus will stop at 70th and Granville, it will not stop again until 49th and Granville. So as far as the Marpole people are concerned, there is very little new advantage for them.

[11:15]

I'm surprised that the minister said that if there are studies that affect Granville Street, they would be with the GVRD,

[ Page 9439 ]

I would ask if the minister is able to put at least some recording mechanism on the buses -- and I know they have it for trucks and others -- to indicate when the buses go over the speed limit and to keep a record of the speed of the buses when they go over the speed limit. If we have that kind of record and we can share it with the public to prove that the buses do not go over the speed limit, regardless of what the anecdotal evidence is, that would be most helpful.

I agree with the minister that up until this point there has been no discussion of SkyTrain down Granville. But on the other hand, there was no discussion, as far as the community was concerned, about the present bus system down Granville. Again and again we've had promises that this wouldn't happen. We had promises that there weren't going to be HOV lanes, and that happened.

I also am aware that in the previous discussion, back at a time before I was elected, they talked about the rapid transit going down Cambie Street. That was stymied -- with a heritage board being fired -- because of the concerns of the people on Cambie Street. But the discussion was about going underground and about a bridge for SkyTrain, or whatever transit was being used at that time, at the end of Cambie. Plans were being made, and parking lots and everything were available at that time. So I'd be interested to know -- for the other street that I also have responsibility for, Cambie Street -- what's being discussed and developed along that line before it becomes a fait accompli, so the citizens can be a part of that discussion from the very beginning.

I would hope, with the minister taking note of these, that there might be, even on present buses, a record of their speed, so we can guarantee they're keeping within the speed limit and can keep track of these. There should be more consultation by B.C. Transit with the citizens so there actually can be good discussion.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would just note a couple of facts. One is that even with the enhanced RapidBus system, over 50 percent of the passenger use of those buses will be in the south Granville community, not travelling from Richmond into Vancouver or from Vancouver into Richmond. It will be along and within the community that the member so ably represents.

I would also note that buses, even with the RapidBus, will only form 4 percent of the vehicles on that corridor, and they will carry 50 percent of the people using it. Really, I mean, that is something, for those of us who are trying to encourage public transit, that we should take great pride in -- 50 percent of the people moving through the community will only occupy 4 percent of the vehicles.

So we need -- and I think the member is suggesting this -- to work on this to meet everybody's objectives of encouraging public transit and having a greater quality of life and also meeting the needs of the communities. I would welcome the opportunity to assist the member to see whether there are any GVRD studies in the area of sociological and economic impacts, and I will move forward on that.

In the area of consultation on the future route of SkyTrain, we have a full public consultation exercise that will be implemented in the very near future. Currently our public consultation team is headed up by Arthur Griffiths, and the community will be involved. I will be happy to provide the member with the methods by which community consultation will take place. No decisions have been made, but I would just offer you this: it's highly unlikely that. . . . In fact, I would say it's a pretty safe bet to suggest that Granville will not be in any way an option now as a corridor for SkyTrain.

The last one is on vehicle recordings. That's a whole public policy issue about how we regulate the enforcement of speed. Do we use other methods to do that? B.C. Transit is very comfortable with the regulation of speed practices now through the enforcement mechanism, and we hold ourselves accountable for that.

D. Symons: In yesterday's discussions the minister mentioned the purchase of three Ballard buses. I'm just wondering: are those Ballard buses going to be made in Canada, or are they going to be German-made?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The shell is made by New Flyer in Winnipeg. The rest of the bus is modified and built in Burnaby.

D. Symons: Good. I'm wondering if there is a rough cost. This is a sort of new technology for each of these buses. I gather you have an experimental bus that drives around periodically, but these three are now going to be in regular service, no longer experimental. What would the cost per vehicle be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've already taken delivery of one vehicle, and the other two vehicles are coming. The cost of each bus is about $800,000. Because there's no. . . . These buses are not mass produced at this point, so that includes the research and development portion attached to each vehicle -- because they are one-off. I'm hopeful that this will lead to mass production at some point.

D. Symons: That's a considerable increase over the cost per bus, and I'm assuming that mass production will bring the cost down. Let's hope it's going to be competitive with diesel, because it would be better to go with that than diesel.

I've just one other question. I gather that B.C. Transit has in the neighbourhood of $180,000 for options to buy Ballard shares. They have an option to buy these at $26, and Ballard stock is now, I think, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $90 on the stock market. There's a considerable capital gain involved there. If the Vancouver portion of B.C. Transit becomes part of GVTA, I'm wondering where those capital gains will go -- to B.C. Transit or to the Vancouver regional transit authority, whichever way it goes? Will they go to B.C. Transit and government, in effect, or will the GVTA be able to have those capital gains accrue to them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no such options held by B.C. Transit.

D. Symons: My information was. . . . I guess that's a bit of a problem. I relied upon Mr. Malcolm Perry's column, and this gossip fellow is obviously just that: a gossip fellow.

Interjections.

[ Page 9440 ]

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Symons: I note that there are 308 buses in Vancouver that are between the ages of 15 and 19 years old and 162 buses that are 20 years and older, making a total of 470 buses that are within five years or less of having reached their life expectancy, which is generally around 20 years.

The minister indicated earlier that the plan to purchase buses over the next period of time was for about 700 buses rather than the larger number that the GVRD would like to have. Obviously, if you take out the 470 that are simply replacement buses for those that have reached their life expectancy, we have an increase in the fleet of somewhere just over 200 new buses to deal with the fact that we currently have a shortage of buses. We don't have buses to put on the road when we have breakdowns and so forth; as well, we don't have enough buses on some of the routes to cover the usage due to increased population that's currently going on. Is that going to be enough to meet our demand?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is a middle figure of what is needed to meet the needs of public transit, moving into the millennium. We will certainly be investing, through the GVTA, in more buses than had been contemplated originally under the ten-year plan by government. But I would suggest that if more resources become available or the revenue stream grows at a faster rate than anticipated, yes, there could be more buses put into use.

D. Symons: On to a slightly different topic here, and that's the topic that I bring up each year dealing with fare evasion. I'm wondering how often there are blitzes on fare evasion and how many prosecutions B.C. Transit may have had in the last year. I note that one of our columnists again referred to one a moment ago, and I've got another one here. Apparently he was talking to a driver who estimated that from his experience, the cost of fare evasion -- and this is one driver that he refers to, giving him the pseudonym of "Tom Trueheart" -- is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 million each year, rather than the $3 million that B.C. Transit estimates. That's going by his experience. He apparently carefully monitors the fare blocks to make sure that people put the fare in that they're supposed to and takes the flak he sometimes gets for that. How often do you monitor fare evasion?

The other question is about the adequacy of penalties. I gather you had Toronto Transit consultants come in, back in '93-94, and one of the things they pointed out was that the penalty was $40 then. They suggested going up to the $60-150 range for first offenders. Have you acted upon that? They also indicated in that report the discretion of issuing penalties. They said there should be zero tolerance when issuing penalties to fare evaders when their actions were found to be deliberate. Again, are you acting upon that, or simply having your fare-checkers tell the person to go back and buy a ticket or put money in the farebox, whichever the case may be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The issue of fare evasion is a complex one. I might say, though, that our system, based on three fare audit surveys. . . . Our fare evasion or revenue loss rate is well within the low range of all transit systems. Particularly, fare inspectors on SkyTrain inspect about 200,000 customers per year. Customers have a 1-in-6 chance of being checked for fares while boarding or riding SkyTrain.

The member makes a good point about penalties and enforcement. There is certainly a request through the Attorney General ministry for an increase in the penalty, and that will move through the system. But I would also note for the member's comfort level that we are putting in electronic fareboxes in the Vancouver region. It's a major capital expenditure, but it will be very effective in combatting fare evasion.

D. Symons: The next question has to do with various types of things. There's one here for Brandon Transit and so forth -- validating the fact that the person has paid the fare. I gather, though, that the fareboxes will not be on SkyTrain, which is one of these barrier-free types of transit, and also the SeaBus -- the name just escaped me for a moment there -- is another one. Indeed, if you put the SkyTrain that's talked about along Broadway, and the RapidBus, for that matter -- again, all barrier-free. . . . These, I guess, become almost encouragements to people, because it seems so easy to walk on; you're not even walking by a driver who's noticing that you haven't put something in the box.

[11:30]

D. Symons: I did ask a question. I'm wondering about the zero tolerance of fare-evaders. How do people who are acting as fare-checkers treat somebody who has walked past and not paid and who -- when they get to the top of the stairs, where it says "Fare-paid Zone" -- when asked for the ticket, doesn't have one? Are they now being issued a summons or a ticket or fine? Or are they simply told to go and purchase a ticket?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there is a policy of zero tolerance. That's re-emphasized and reinforced through our training program. But there is an opportunity, if people simply don't have the money, for the checker to institute a fare deferral. Then payment can be submitted later.

D. Symons: We spoke a little earlier, because I asked some question about some numbers dealing with the Oakridge transit centre. I note a newspaper ad of last November, basically looking for an Oakridge maintenance facility and an invitation to prequalify for that. Tied to that seems to be a whole process of redevelopment of that particular one. I wonder if the minister might just give me a little bit of an idea of what the plans are and of what's going on with the Oakridge transit centre.

The follow-up, I guess, is that if you're going to develop that site and not use it as a transit centre any longer, it's certainly handy as far as getting the trolleys into service there and the other buses too. It's in the centre of the transit thing. If you move things out to Richmond or Burnaby and so forth, the drivers are going to be spending a lot of time on the road, getting from the transit centre to where they really begin their routes and pick up passengers. That seems to be time lost to Transit, as far as useful time goes.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and all of those factors are taken into consideration. We're in the process of engaging an architectural development consultant to assist in assessing the redevelopment potential of the Oakridge transit centre site and in preparing options for discussion with the city of Vancouver. Factors that the member brings forward are taken into consideration in that process.

We want to determine if funds sufficient to construct a new operating centre in Vancouver can be raised through the

[ Page 9441 ]

D. Symons: Does B.C. Transit have any intention of phasing out the trolleys that are currently in there? I gather that purchasing new trolleys is expensive. Are they going to phase them out or continue to refurbish the current ones? What are the plans as far as trolleys go?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no current plans to phase out the trolley system, but certainly that issue has to be examined carefully within the next two to three years.

D. Symons: I note in another newspaper article here -- where I seem to gather lots of information. . . . There is a comment in the April 13, 1998, Vancouver Sun that says: "Shuttle Service Aims to Fill Gap Between Cabs, Buses." I notice that there was the idea or motion to put in a modified taxi service -- in this case dubbed the "super shuttle" -- that could operate in Vancouver.

Is B.C. Transit, then, looking at an expanded use of that sort of idea to cut down the number of empty buses, particularly the ones that operate in the wee hours -- particularly in my area of Richmond? I know that I see buses running up and down after 9 o'clock in the evening that are virtually empty. There might be a better way, rather than simply cutting back the number of buses that are going there, of making the schedules still as frequent but not having a bus cover that particular route and therefore not having the attendant costs that go with that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The GVTA will be provided with a range of options that could include that. There are limitations on having to meet certain tests to implement an option. But those options are there.

D. Symons: One other related topic to that, I guess, is that quite often I get information -- and I assume the minister does too -- from a Coalition for Casual Custom Transit. Basically, these are people that need disability facilities in buses. But they generally say that often the vast majority of people with disabilities don't need the handyDART. They find that the bus. . . . Getting to the bus stop and getting up onto a bus can be difficult for them, but they indeed would like to see the concept of the taxi-saver program expanded. Reading their figures -- and I'm not sure if they're slanting them toward their cause -- it seemed to be cheaper, in overall costs to the taxpayer, to improve the taxi-saver program than to put in more custom transit, or handyDART service. I wonder if the government is looking further at that particular issue around handyDART and taxi-saver and the relative merits of one over the other.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think that probably the best approach -- and it is one recommended by the group -- is to make the regular bus system accessible. That's what we're moving toward: a policy of 100-percent-accessible buses, which would take care of the concerns raised. We're over 50 percent of the way there now.

B. Penner: I am pleased to participate in this debate on transit. Last year during a similar debate on transit, I asked the minister responsible about any studies that may have been conducted, examining the feasibility of commuter rail on the south side of the Fraser River in the Fraser Valley. If my memory serves me correctly, the minister was somewhat vague in her responses but did indicate that her office would forward to me any information or studies that had been conducted. I never did receive any information from the minister's office.

However, the Chilliwack Progress, which is a local newspaper in my community, did receive information through a freedom-of-information request sometime last August. The information they received was a study that was conducted into the feasibility of starting the commuter rail service which currently exists on the north side of the Fraser River and runs from Mission to downtown Vancouver, with a number of stops along the way. That service, of course, is referred to as the West Coast Express. At the back of that feasibility study, if my memory serves me correctly, was scenario No. 8, which briefly discussed the possibility of a commuter rail service using a CN Rail line on the south side of the Fraser River. And there was a somewhat obscure remark, but one having the general intent of indicating that a line on the south side of the Fraser River would be more economically feasible, due to the greater population that exists on that side of the river.

Of course, that sparked some interest in our community as to why a serious look hasn't been taken at beginning a commuter rail service. Since that time last summer, a volunteer organization in Surrey has been promoting the concept of reviving the Interurban rail service. This is on a different rail line than the CN line mentioned in the previous study.

The minister may be aware that the Interurban line began service in, I believe, 1902 and ran from Chilliwack to New Westminster through a number of communities in the Fraser Valley. It moved both cargo and passengers. The passenger rail service ceased, I believe, in September 1950, due to the increasing popularity of the Trans-Canada Highway through the Fraser Valley. However, cargo continues to move on that rail line, and presently it's operated by Southern Rail of British Columbia and, I am told, is a reasonably profitable rail line in terms of commercial cargo. The discussions that have been occurring with this volunteer group in Surrey centre around the prospect of resuming some form of passenger rail. In the short term, it would probably not be viable as a commuter service. However, that possibility does exist.

I travelled to Ottawa this past February -- at my own personal expense, I might add -- and met with the federal Minister of Transportation, Mr. David Collenette, in his office. We spoke about the potential of the Interurban rail line, and certainly there are some problems. Certain sections of the track are used -- again, I think, by CN -- to move coal trains to the port at Roberts Bank. However, I think there are some accommodations that could be made.

I wonder if the minister is familiar with the Interurban proposal that this group is putting forward in Surrey and what her view is of this proposal.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like, if I could, to answer a range of issues that the member has raised. The Interurban proposal is one that's of interest to people who are well experienced in trains; they're aficionados of trains. I happen to be a person who believes very strongly that commuter rail is the way of the future. If the volunteer group can make a case that is cost-effective, then I welcome the presentation. We just have to wait and see.

There is a societal juxtaposition -- I would say conflict, almost -- between the use of rail lines. We stopped passenger

[ Page 9442 ]

I might add that I regret if the member didn't get the information on the south side study. We certainly have done a lot, and there have been discussions that took place with the community as well. I would be happy to arrange -- and I mean this sincerely -- an early briefing between West Coast Express and the member, to bring him up to speed on all of those.

Expansion of commuter rail is something that I welcome, but it has to be done in a way that meets the community needs as well.

B. Penner: I intend to be brief with my additional comments. On the issue of the proposed Interurban commuter or passenger rail service, a number of municipalities have met on a frequent basis -- all the way from Chilliwack to Surrey and the municipalities in between, including Abbotsford and Langley. They are all supportive of the concept of reviving commuter rail service on the rail line presently operated by Southern Railway of B.C. The minister might be familiar with that. It was at one time owned by B.C. Hydro and was privatized during the Bill Vander Zalm government in 1987. That's when that rail line was sold to Southern Railway of B.C.

The response that I received from the federal Minister of Transportation, when I asked about the need to reduce some federal regulatory red tape as it applies to passenger service, was that it was unusual for an opposition MLA to be making that request to the federal Minister of Transportation. He was asking me why it wasn't coming from the minister responsible at the provincial level. I guess I'm asking that the minister develop some interest in this proposal. Although the municipalities are working hard on it and this volunteer group has certainly done tremendous service to the public, I don't know if they can do it on their own. It will take some support from the provincial government to bring this concept to fruition.

D. Symons: I'm just curious. In the last while, with the controversy going on over SkyTrain, in particular, there's been a number of ads in the newspaper. This is out of today's newspaper, and there were similar ones in our Richmond papers. I noticed last week that there were two ads about two-thirds of a page in size. There were two ads in one issue of one of the papers. I'm wondering if I might be able to find the cost that B.C. Transit -- this does have the B.C. Transit logo at the bottom -- has put into the newspaper advertisement campaign that they seem to have been on over the last few months -- if that would be possible. I know you may not have the figures here, but if you do, I'd like them now -- otherwise, at a future time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The entire campaign is $300,000.

D. Symons: I do have a number of questions dealing with regional transit, particularly in Victoria, and a few other very regional questions. If I could have a commitment from the minister that we might sit down just a few minutes later, we could report resolution, I suppose, and pass your motion. We could then still discuss these informally after, if the minister would agree to that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: These are questions that would concern Victoria staff, so we could arrange it according to. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, but the responsibility is.

Certainly I would welcome that if. . . . Did the member mean later today? Oh, later in the session -- or whatever. Yeah.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, fine. Thank you.

[11:45]

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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