[ Page 10665 ]

The House met at 11:06 a.m.

Orders of the Day

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

I would also say, by way of repetition, that I would urge the minister and members of the government. . . . In treaty-building, as in any matter of construction, the fact that one agrees that you need the edifice, that you need the document, doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that there will be disagreement about the shape, the cost and the form that that document, that building, takes. In the days that have followed the closing of the estimates debate and the tabling of that Nisga'a treaty, we have begun to see the basis around which some of those differences exist and where that debate is going to be most focused. I think that's a good thing.

As I did during the estimates debate, I would urge members of this House, of the government, who feel particularly strongly about the need to ratify the agreement that is now before us -- I think it's all there now -- not to lose sight of the fact that individual members of this House and British Columbians who have and hold a different view of matters relating to self-government, the commercial fishery and the notion of equal representation for all peoples, regardless of their background or ethnicity. . . . That does not render those individuals any less committed to the notion of achieving aboriginal settlements or any less respectful of the Nisga'a people for their perseverance and their commitment for over 100 years to reach a settlement. As we embark upon this debate, I hope that there will be a resistance on the part of government and of this minister to succumb to the temptation of labelling anyone that doesn't see the treaty exactly the way they do as somehow being less committed to the notion of achieving a settlement.

Madam Speaker, this is a matter. . . . We will have this debate, perhaps in the fall or perhaps later than that. But this is truly historic. This is truly something that will impact on the way British Columbians live and on the way they are governed, and it is worthy of the full and complete debate that we now know the government at least is committed to having in this House.

Between now and that debate happening, we know from the estimates debate that the government intends to provide information and material to British Columbians. I will ask the minister, as I asked him during the estimates debate, that it not represent any manner of propaganda campaign or sales job on the part of the government. There is a big difference between making information available to British Columbians, who are going to be responsible for making this agreement work in whatever form or shape it takes, and who are in large measure paying the cost associated with it -- it's now in excess of $500 million, we are told -- and using millions of taxpayers' dollars to tell them the position they should be adopting with respect to that agreement.

So as I usually do, Madam Speaker, I will take this opportunity to thank the minister and, in particular, his staff for providing in advance of the estimates debate -- relatively expeditiously, I think -- some of the information that we require to proceed through that process, and to say that we on this side of the House look forward to the historic debate that will follow. We will know, I'm sure, in due course -- the sooner the better -- what the government's plans are with respect to that debate around the draft Nisga'a agreement.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the order normally is opposition first, and others, and then the government wraps up. So whichever order members want to deal with that. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, our confusion is simply that we are doing two ministries, and with your permission, I would suggest we go to the Ministry of Labour, and then I will do a joint wrap-up, if that's acceptable.

The Speaker: I'm in the hands of the members. I recognize the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF LABOUR

The Labour Relations Board that we have in British Columbia is an institution that is of vital importance to this province if we are going to have stability in labour relations. I fear that what we have today is a situation where the integrity and the reputation of the Labour Relations Board is being challenged, and I think that is very serious. I think that it is an area where the minister must take action very quickly before we find ourselves in a crisis situation.

With regard to the WCB, I am concerned when I see preferential access to the WCB by one of the communities in labour relations, that being the trade union community in British Columbia. I'm very concerned about a proposal that has been put forward to take $125 million out of the WCB fund to fund a worker occupational health and safety centre that would be totally administered and controlled by the trade union movement in this province. I am looking for some assurance from the minister that we're not going down that road.

[ Page 10666 ]

In closing, I would like to thank the ministry officials. I know that when we did the estimates, they promised certain information that would follow, and I've received the great majority of that already. Certainly my compliments go to the staff for their quick follow-up on that. I look forward to the few remaining items that were promised at that time.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me begin by saying to the opposition critics on both Aboriginal Affairs and Labour -- and also to a number of their colleagues who participated in those debates -- that I think they did their jobs well in estimates. We had a cordial and civil and, I think, thorough debate on the issues under both of those ministries. I think what occurred was, frankly, informative -- a good discussion. There were some differences of opinion, and that's as it should be.

[11:15]

Let me just make a point to the member for Matsqui regarding differences of opinion. He's absolutely correct that there will be legitimate differences of opinion. I hope that all of us involved in the Nisga'a debates, particularly, will recognize that we owe each other a certain respect, a certain cordiality and a certain level of tolerance, because there are those legitimate differences. My hope, as I said during the estimates, is that our debate and the discussion that we have about the Nisga'a final agreement -- ultimately it will be the Nisga'a treaty -- will be based on real information rather than opinions that are sometimes perhaps too cavalierly ventured by people who ought to know better.

Regarding Labour, I would take the member's challenge regarding the need for an independent posture and position on the part of the Minister of Labour, specifically with regard to a body such as the Labour Relations Board. I am well aware of the problems that the member alludes to; we did discuss them a little bit in estimates. I know that the Business Council of British Columbia has expressed some serious concerns. I am very mindful of those concerns. I will be guided, above all, by the simple precept that the Labour Relations Board must be, and must be seen to be, impartial. Clearly, if it is perceived to be otherwise by too many people, we have a problem. We need to address that, and I propose to do that.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, again I want to thank the members for their contribution. I think the debate was worthwhile, and indeed the people of the province were well served by it.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,
HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION

During the course of that debate, we touched on a number of issues. Some that come to mind this morning are photo radar, legal aid, the decision to disarm the RCMP auxiliaries, the after-effects of the decision taken last year to close some courthouses. . . . And we discussed family justice issues. I think what is common to all of those issues is that they remain issues today. They remain issues for the Attorney General and for the government. They remain issues which are of public interest and importance.

I think that in the three months since we concluded the debate or the discussions on photo radar, more questions have arisen with respect to whether that program is fulfilling its mandate and is indeed even legally acceptable.

In the three months since we concluded our discussions of legal aid, the Legal Services Society has continued to try to work within the mandate and the financial resources that it has been given by government. The impact of their decisions are being felt in communities, and I am continuing to hear about them.

In the three months since we concluded our debate and discussion about the disarming of RCMP auxiliaries, there has been a review undertaken, and it's a review that's underway. We are continuing to await the results of that review. I think it's formally required by the end of September, although I know the Attorney General is doing what he can to speed it up or at least urge the people who are participating in it to hurry up with their work. In the meantime the effects of that decision are being felt in communities as RCMP auxiliaries wrestle with the challenge of how to do the job they think they offered to do under the changed circumstances presented by the decision to disarm them.

In the three months since we concluded the debate on the Ministry of Attorney General estimates, I believe the Attorney General has taken a new look and made a new decision with respect to the closure of the Sidney courthouse. We look forward to seeing how that works out for that community in the months ahead.

Lastly, in the three months since we concluded our discussions on family justice issues, I know that the Attorney General has introduced legislation here which deals with some aspects of that problem. The Attorney General and his ministry are continuing to work on a variety of solutions to the ways in which the family justice system currently fails to serve the interests of British Columbians.

That is a sample of issues; there are others. Court backlogs is one that comes to mind. Clearly the Attorney General is responsible for a number of challenges in government. I hope we will have the opportunity to continue to debate those issues when we next visit the estimates of the Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, I want to thank my staff who were there with me. They shall all remain unnamed. I

[ Page 10667 ]

We also touched on areas around multiculturalism, human rights and immigration. They are obviously very, very important areas. We had some very constructive debate around them. The issues the hon. member mentions were all discussed, and they have all evolved over the last three months. We continue to deal with the challenges in each of those areas.

I said at one time about court closures -- I think about a year and a half ago -- that there is no machismo in politics for me and that we would look at any issue that we think could be reviewed and any decision that could be improved. We've done that with respect to the courts to the extent possible and will continue to do that if at all possible, because courts are symbols in communities. Whether or not it's inconvenient for people to go elsewhere that's ten miles away is quite a legitimate concern. But apart from that, the fact that courthouses are central symbols for communities means that communities feel rather aggrieved when a courthouse is taken away. I'm very mindful of that issue.

We have tried to deal with court backlogs. We are dealing with Judge Metzger's report. We have dealt with the difficult issue of compensation for judges. As well, there are obviously issues in family justice that continue to challenge us, and we continue to grapple with them. On auxiliaries, obviously, I'm waiting for the review on auxiliaries, and I'm hoping the review will resolve this issue once and for all. On photo radar, the hon. member and I obviously disagree on the issue. I think it's a useful tool for law enforcement and public safety. A decision has been made at this time not to expand it and to deal with some of the wrinkles that might exist in it.

Having said all of that, we also embarked in the last year on community accountability programs, which would expand alternative measures in the community, so that we lower or reduce the burden on the courts and corrections to the extent possible. That's a major departure from the way we've been doing things. Many communities have sought information on that issue, and I'm hoping that this program expands.

There are many other issues to contend with in the coming year. I hope the cooperation that has existed between the Attorney General's critic and my office continues to the extent possible. We'll all be better served in the end.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

In the Education estimates, we found a Premier so cynical about the intelligence of families in this province that he promised a 50 percent reduction in portables, then brought in legislation so that Richmond, a district where one child in four now goes to school in a portable, will have to haul 17 new portables onto the school grounds to accommodate new class language in legislation that will occur for them in September 1998.

We found a Premier with flagrant disregard for the principles that create democracy, who was unfazed by usurping the proceedings of the collective bargaining between teachers and trustees. Estimates revealed the intricacies of the backroom deal between the Premier and the president of the BCTF. This was one that was mutually good for both their political careers and their political hides but really held no long-term benefit for the children of British Columbia.

Would the Premier revoke this deal, once discovered? Absolutely not. In fact, he went further than that; he legislated that deal. What we have as a result of the estimates and what will be in the House in committee stage, probably tomorrow, is a bill that will shove down the throats of the families of British Columbia what was good for the Premier and the president of the BCTF and which held little good for the rest of the province.

Come September, we will have the Premier and this minister responsible for finding that our littlest kids are bused out of our neighbourhood schools to attend primary school -- kindergarten or grade 1, 2 or 3. We will find, because of that agreement, that we have perhaps three children in one family, all in elementary or primary grades, going to different schools. We will find the continual reorganization of classrooms within a school. As a grade 1 class is set up and a new child comes in, the class has to be reorganized, so it's now a 1-2 split -- a new teacher. Perhaps that might happen two or three times. These are critical things for little children. I will hold the Premier and the Minister of Education responsible for the disturbance that these children feel when they're in their primary grades.

We will have our clerical, custodial and administration staff laid off because of Bill 39 and the fact that it was necessary to do so under the wording of the legislation -- that every teacher's job should be saved until there was no one else to lay off, other than members of that particular union.

Other things we learned in the Education estimates. . . . The schools on earthquake zones will not be upgraded, even though our liquor outlets have been. Few elementary schools have band programs anymore; these have had to be cut. We no longer, in hardly any districts in B.C., provide that for our young people. Not a single additional cent for books, paper or supplies will be available or made ready for operating budgets to accommodate the new staff and classrooms that this government has provided.

We have, in legislation that the Premier will bring in, an early retirement incentive program designed to bring young blood into the profession -- to get the senior teachers who wish to retire early to do so, and have those new teachers in who tend to be the ones who run our extracurricular activities. What we're finding around the province, because of Bill 39 and because of what we anticipated in the estimates of the Education ministry, is that we're having young teachers laid off and that there are incentives for the senior teachers to stay on. It's an early-retirement incentive that has not even worked. The government can't even get that part right, when it comes to looking at early retirement.

In estimates we looked at overcrowding, and I still get petition after petition from Dover Bay Secondary School. I'm still wondering what the minister is going to do about that school, where parents write to me, in great packages of paper, about their concern for their school and the circumstances there.

We're bringing in, through estimates and through the bill that resulted from those estimates, on-call teachers, who will be paid more than the teachers they replace. What we've had

[ Page 10668 ]

[11:30]

We responded, through that core-funding budget, to the requests of trustees and others. And the budget actually was hailed by the BCSTA recently, in the national publication which reports on all school boards. . . . The president of the school trustees, Carole James, says their campaign for increased education funding has paid off dramatically in British Columbia, with a $105 million increase to core funding.

We also debated a very exciting technological innovation, the provincial learning network, which will, within the next six years, link all 1,700 public schools in British Columbia to the very latest in educational resources available through the Internet and through information technology, and bring the resources of urban centres to rural and remote schools.

We debated the impact on portables and school construction of a $338 million capital budget, the first of several which will reduce the number of portables being used by B.C. students to half in the next five years -- a very exciting initiative and one that parents throughout the province, particularly in high-growth areas, have said is badly needed for their schools.

Finally, we debated one of the most exciting initiatives that I've seen in my years as an educator-administrator: the agreement with the teachers of the province to lower class size and bring more professionals into our schools. There will be 1,200 more teachers in our schools over the next three years, a reduction in kindergarten-to-grade-3 class size to an average of 20, partway toward the goal of an average of 18 students in kindergarten-to-grade-3 in five years.

We also debated the financial resources to make this a reality: $150 million of operating money to hire those teachers and get them going in districts, and $370 million in capital funds to build a thousand more classrooms that are going to be needed for those smaller classes in kindergarten-to-grade-3.

So, hon. Speaker, there is always no shortage of challenges in public education, and the member opposite, who serves as an able critic, surely reflects in her comments some of the challenges that she sees in our education systems. But the challenges we face are how to spend additional financial resources well; how to make sure that we are fair to school districts and where we hire some of these 1,200 additional teachers; how we ensure that the schools we have the funding for are built and open in a timely fashion; how we ensure that new technology becomes available to our children in schools across British Columbia; how we ensure that smaller classes and access to educational professionals equitably across the province become a reality in our schools.

Better learning is the goal of the budget this year. There are significant new resources in here, so we can make better learning a reality. There are more teachers, more classrooms -- better learning for British Columbia students.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

That was supposed to have happened under the jobs and timber accord. Initially 20,000 jobs were promised, to become 40,000 after five years. What we have actually seen in the sector that the jobs and timber accord covers is a reduction of 15,600 jobs, at the same time that we saw the government spend approximately $1.5 billion on that jobs and timber accord. So it's a miserable failure. It is a miserable failure that has had a tremendous impact on the lives of so many British Columbians, who are still trying to find a way to keep their standard of living and quality of life at what they were used to. The jobs and timber accord clearly has now been seen as a failure.

A new initiative was introduced last year. That was Power for Jobs. Power for Jobs is the quest of the Premier, where the Premier travels all over the world these days, trying to find industries to invest in British Columbia, thereby creating jobs. The one tool that the Premier has to entice a particular segment of industry, the aluminum smelters, is the hydro power that is required to run smelters. What the minister is assisting the Premier with is, basically, creating a deregulation system for B.C. Hydro, thereby giving the opportunity to the Premier to go out, talk to companies and offer hydro at a cost far below the cost of producing the power. In principle, this would not be a bad thing -- were it not that B.C. Hydro, at the same time as selling hydro at lower cost than production, is looking to its traditional customers to make up the dollars that they are losing by offering this power to foreign companies. So the commercial users and the residential users in particular are going to pay -- are paying today, actually -- much higher rates in order to still give Hydro the opportunity to gain the annual profits that they are, by regulation, allowed to make.

So this is a bad, bad deal, and in the long term I don't think it will work. We have seen, in order to achieve this goal of deregulation, the role of the Utilities Commission being truly diminished and basically put aside. The minister, through orders-in-council, can basically now set any cost for power they want to offer to users, without any consideration for what it will do to the consumers, be they residential or commercial.

But the worst area -- which I felt very uncomfortable with -- was in the area of gaming. The minister is responsible for gaming. When we started to do an estimates process on the gaming industry, we first talked about the expansion that the industry is seeing today and the consequences for communities -- the social impact, the economic impact. The minister feels that these impacts are less than relevant, when studies clearly show that it will have an incredible impact on communities. This is not done to serve the traditional customers of the Gaming Commission and the B.C. Lottery Corporation, which are the charity organizations in British Columbia. The charity organizations in this province are being more and more sidetracked, and the funds are becoming more and more of a

[ Page 10669 ]

There's a number of other issues, but unfortunately my five minutes is up; I told you I was not going to have enough time. I hope that the minister can give some explanation for exactly what is happening in these areas.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his comments. We had, I think, a thorough and wide-ranging debate in estimates. The member is quite right that in five minutes it's hard to do it justice. In fact, in my response it will also be hard to do it justice. It is a huge ministry.

We had a thorough debate on Power for Jobs and B.C. Hydro. Clearly there is a difference of opinion. We feel that one of the cornerstones of economic development in British Columbia is going to depend upon the energy that's available in this province through the downstream benefits. The aluminum industry is one of the key cornerstones upon which we can provide job opportunities -- employment opportunities -- and the development of a new industry throughout the province.

We had a thorough discussion on gaming and where we need to go in gaming. There was, again, a good exchange of views and ideas -- and some differences of opinion. Again, that's as it should be. I think I outlined quite clearly and concisely what we're trying to accomplish in terms of putting gaming on a sustainable legal footing in the province. I also talked in terms of what the role of the charities will be, how we are moving towards the development of a gaming act in the province and how we're trying to ensure that the Gaming Commission can operate and function in a way that's consistent with the goals and expectations of not only charities but also government and, through government, the citizens of the province.

We also touched on the Insurance Corporation of B.C. -- ICBC -- and the policies that are currently in place there. We had a thorough discussion in terms of road safety programs, the implementation of programs, and the goals of ICBC and how, from government's perspective, we can ensure that we bring down accidents in the province, that we work to reduce the number of claims. I think I said on the record -- and I put it on the record again here -- that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in moving to a no-fault system. I think that was an important part of our discussion. I also think that we were able to address areas which I think are of clear importance not only to the government but to the public at large. One is that we really have to be aggressive in terms of the six-point safety program, because that is one of the key cornerstones in terms of ICBC. We also have to improve ICBC in terms of making it more customer-oriented, and we constantly need to be vigilant on that to make sure it is a more consumer-oriented company. That in fact is something that I think applies to all the Crowns.

We also went through B.C. Housing, the activities in terms of B.C. Housing, including the fact that British Columbia is one of two provinces in the country that continues to build social housing, and the role that we need to play in terms of ensuring that we continue to deliver that. We also went through the need to establish partnerships -- to get out of the traditional sorts of models where there's a one-size-fits-all approach and look at creating partnerships, particularly with local government. We explored examples of that in the city of Vancouver, where we have been able to work on partnerships -- quite successfully, I think -- and explored how we need to expand that throughout the province.

Finally, we also touched on general trade issues. I think we had a very good and thorough discussion on that, in terms of trade and investment policies in the province: what British Columbia's current state is; what directions we need to take, from the perspective of this ministry, in dealing with the economy; how we need to focus on our overseas markets; and how we need to continue to address what's happening in Asia. Just because there is an economic downturn there, it does not mean that we have to neglect our relationships there. We have to continue to strengthen that. We have to continually search for new opportunities and assist businesses here in British Columbia in identifying opportunities in Asia as well as in other emerging areas of the global economy -- South America being one, and Latin America, particularly with the changes that are taking place there and the opening up of their economies.

The member and I also talked quite extensively on the need for British Columbia to focus on what's happening in Europe and, instead of sometimes trying to be defensive, to be more proactive -- to aggressively go out and pursue trade opportunities and meet the issues around trade barriers and trade challenges.

All in all, I think we had a thorough debate on the estimates. There were areas where there was agreement, and there were areas of disagreement. I'd like to thank the member for his comments and his thoughtful discussion, and I look forward to it next year.

[11:45]

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

I'll be sharing this time with the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who will deal with the Mines part of the minister's portfolio.

We talked about elimination of red tape. That's probably one of the issues that's foremost in the drilling industry in the northeast part of British Columbia. I was surprised to learn that there is actually no move afoot to eliminate any of the needless regulations, but rather that we're setting up a new system that, hopefully, will be able to work better. I am hopeful that it will be able to work better, and I guess only time will tell.

We discussed a bit about the cost of drilling in the Peace country in British Columbia as compared to Alberta. It's actually over twice as much. That relates to high taxation, all the regulation and all the blockades that are put into place as compared to Alberta. Our only saving source is the fact that most of the wells drilled in northeastern British Columbia produce a lot more than those in Alberta, and that makes them viable. I'm hoping that we can change that a little bit and get on with some more drilling.

[ Page 10670 ]

With B.C. Rail, we discussed at length the sale of WesTel, an integral part of the B.C. Rail operation, for $55 million. I came away feeling that it was just simply to get money into the general revenue of the government to continue programs. I don't think we can continue to sell assets, not pay down debt and use that money just to operate on. I think it's wrong-headed and won't take us in the right direction.

We also spoke about northern development, which is a new portion of the minister's responsibilities. It was very interesting, and as we go along, we'll learn more about northern development -- something that I am in favour of. I hope that the way we've taken it will actually see things happen in a positive way for northern development in the northeast and northwest part of British Columbia.

With that, I'll turn it over to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

D. Jarvis: Unfortunately, the only successful thing this government has done in the past seven years with respect to mining is to discourage investment in development and exploration in this province. This year the government's plan in mining is probably too little, too late. I'll remind the government at this point that the largest made-in-B.C. mining company spent only $12 million in the past ten years upgrading the Gibraltar mine and another $1 million at Mount Polley. At the same time, they went out and spent $4.4 billion in other jurisdictions around this country. This is only going to change with a change of government.

I would just say that this government has systematically destroyed the second-largest resource industry in this province for a political ideology. That has only added to the mounting unemployment and debt in this province.

Hon. D. Miller: It's certainly difficult to follow such gracious comments, but I will attempt to deal with some of the issues very, very succinctly, in the interest of time.

I want to briefly canvass some of the significant initiatives brought forward by our government that have benefited, and will benefit into the future, the sectors that I am responsible for as Minister of Energy and Mines.

The Mining Rights Amendment Act entrenches compensation in the act for the first time. It provides for a single-window agency, so that we reduce red tape and bureaucracy in terms of mining companies needing permits. The development of a mineral exploration code -- for the first time, the industry will operate under a code of its own -- again strips away needless bureaucracy. There are fiscal exploration incentives, to the tune of $9 million annually.

We are working with companies through the down cycle. We don't control the price of copper -- it's around 79 or 80 cents. It is way too low, but we continually see very positive news. We see today in the press a plan worked out to keep Huckleberry open. It took a great deal of effort on my part and on my ministry's part to work with that private sector company. We can see that we did that just a month ago with Imperial Metals. The Kemess mine is now in production.

All of the comments that I see from the mining industry. . . . I was delighted on my recent visit to Calgary to see that the message is getting out there that B.C. is a place to do business, is a place to invest in mining. Our relationship with the industry is at an all-time high, and we continue to work with them and will continue to work with them to develop this so we can realize our potential. It's a shame that some people always want to be negative.

On the oil and gas side, again there was a significant breakthrough with respect to the oil and gas accord with dramatic reductions on royalties both for new and existing pools -- 20 percent for the existing pools and 40 percent for new; dramatic reductions on the royalties side. The development of the Oil and Gas Commission, a historic first in British Columbia, combines all of the ministries into one single agency with respect to dealing with land use permits and the like. It's welcome news.

On the Northern Development side, there has been a historic breakthrough in the Peace River, which has been neglected for years and years and years. For the first time in history we've dealt with the issue of the municipal or regional infrastructures and their inability to tax industrial activity up there. It was praised by the member for Peace River South. Even the member for Peace River North had some nice words to say about it. I know that all of the mayors and the regional district people I talked to were absolutely thrilled and delighted with that agreement. We're moving on significant initiatives -- the rail agreements and the bridging agreements -- that we hope will induce the kind of activity that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture talked about.

In the Dawson Creek region, we've moved to put half the Highways budget into northern B.C. this year. We're working with the government of Alberta on a northern transportation strategy, in terms of the port of Prince Rupert and more northern development . There's a tourism conference coming in the fall, which will again look at the potential for circle tourism in the north. The appointment of a northern commissioner for the first time, despite the naysayers on the other side, was very well received; the press was good. There was the occasional critic -- politically motivated, Madam Speaker, shocking as it sounds. There are people who put politics ahead of the interests of people in northern B.C., and I guess we all learn to ignore them. It was very well received. We now have that commissioner in place.

The Crowns. B.C. Rail is going to continue to struggle. Quite frankly, the revenue is dependent on the resource sector. There are potentially, I think, even tougher times ahead. It's not certain to me that the impact of Asia has yet to be truly felt -- and it will be felt by more than British Columbia, believe me. We're starting to see the signs of that now.

B.C. Ferries. Madam Speaker, what can I say? We are at the dawn of a bright new era. The pride that British Columbians are going to have when that fast ferry goes out there. . . . They're going to be thrilled, and all these naysayers on the other side -- you won't be able to find them.

I want to say that I appreciate the constructive -- sometimes constructive -- criticism offered by members opposite, and I'll deal with the non-constructive criticism in my own fashion. That's all I have to say.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

[ Page 10671 ]

We spent some time looking at Maps B.C., the effect of B.C. Transit on air pollution, the waste management plan and Bill 25 -- the Fish Protection Act. We also spent some time talking about elk hunting and leghold traps, which are of interest to people in the north, gypsy moth spraying, the Columbia Basin Trust, the Marine Heritage Legacy and the government's failure to proceed with that in the manner that they had promised. I was pleased to see the forthcoming ideas from the ministry as to how they can make up lost ground.

We talked one night at great length about beehive burners, as you may remember, Madam Speaker, and had some very insightful answers to the questions that the member for Shuswap and I asked during that debate. We talked at some length about Columbia Cellulose, as well, and the wonderful pollution control moneys that are going to be pumped into that facility to bring it up to the standard that the government has set for itself for the year 2000.

Interjection.

M. Coell: That's a good question: who's going to pay for that? I think we all know that the taxpayers will once again be on the bill for that.

We talked at great length about the campsite initiative, or the lack thereof, with the Ministry of Forests cancelling their campsites. I think I would be remiss if I didn't speak briefly about Crown Lands. I think that during the session as a whole, in question period and in the estimates, we've spent a great deal of time talking about Crown Lands and their ineffective management over the past number of years. I am hopeful that the ministry will somehow get a handle on the management of Crown lands. This a job creator for the province; it's been a job killer for a number of years now. I think the people of British Columbia deserve better.

We talked a great deal about the greenhouse gas action plan. I am concerned, too, that Bill 50 does not take into account the concerns the environmental movement has about the increase in greenhouse gases because of some parts of Bill 50 that were passed early this morning. The whole management process of the ministry is disturbing to me. I feel that the present government does not have as high a priority for environmental issues as predecessor governments have had. I think it's important that we continue to watch that as the budget is changed and parts of the ministry are hived off. These are areas of great concern.

In wrapping up, I thank the minister and especially her staff, who were very helpful on a number of issues.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to begin by thanking my critic for the opportunity of working cooperatively throughout the estimates process. I think it went very well, and I do appreciate the professional approach he took throughout estimates. I appreciate the acknowledgment he gives to my staff, who have supported me throughout the estimate debate. As the member well knows, this ministry is full of very dedicated staff people who make the protection of the environment, pollution prevention and waste management initiatives key parts of their lives in that they work very hard on the goals of British Columbians around environmental management.

I think it's fair to say that the member and I canvassed a number of challenges that this ministry faces, not the least of which is the fact that we have had some budget reductions in this ministry over the last several years. That's not to say that we don't continue to have priorities for environmental protection. Given the additional need for spending on British Columbians' priorities in the areas of health care and education, that's not to say that we haven't put significant resources, as well, into environmental protection initiatives. We are clearly trying to achieve what British Columbians want, which is the appropriate balance between economic development activity and environmental protection initiatives.

The member made note of some of the concerns that have been raised. Let me just begin by saying that it was an error on my part not to table the ministry's annual report prior to estimates. I could easily have done that, and it was simply an error on my part not to have done so.

In terms of the member's concerns around the management of the Crown lands branch, let me assure him that the amendments to enable the transfer of some authorities to manage Crown lands to BCALM, as it became known to us during the estimates debate. . . . It simply does not transfer the authority from this ministry; the authority and policy-setting continue through this ministry. So I encourage the member to discuss that matter more fully with me if he has that concern.

[12:00]

As the member and I discussed at some length, we do have a number of goals in this ministry. I look forward to continuing a good working relationship as we move forward on those initiatives, including the Fish Protection Act, product stewardship. . . . Despite the member's concerns about Bill 40, which I believe he and other members of his caucus raised prior to the withdrawal of that, we will be proceeding with the expanded beverage deposit refund system. So I think that the members will have an opportunity to work with us on revamping the policy framework through Bill 40. Nonetheless, we will proceed with our product stewardship model, which is to expand the beverage container refund system come April 1. So I want to assure him on that count.

We will continue to work on the Fish Protection Act, Trails B.C. and greenhouse gas reduction. As the member indicates, there has been and continues to be a wide debate across Canada about our need in British Columbia and across Canada to deliver on our goals related to greenhouse gas

[ Page 10672 ]

Finally, hon. Speaker, I would like to once again take the opportunity to thank my critic for putting forward what I think was a very useful debate, with constructive opportunity for criticism and for working together on a number of initiatives. And once again, I thank my staff for the support they provided throughout the estimates.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

First of all, I want to thank my deputy critic from Oak Bay-Gordon Head, who participated quite heavily in the debates. I also want to thank the former Finance critic, our deputy leader, the member for Delta South, who. . . . Maybe in ten years I might get up to his speed, although I doubt that very much. I doubt that I'll ever have the opportunity either. His wisdom and guidance are always helpful and much appreciated, and I know that all members of the House benefit from his skills.

I also want to thank the minister's staff, who, quite frankly, have been exceptional in offering their assistance and advice and information, etc., to us when it was necessary. They have been a very professional group of people, and they've done a good job.

I think that the key portion of the estimates this year centred around the economy and what the Ministry of Finance's role is in dealing with and in setting some guidelines and some goals for ensuring that our economy performs well. It was clear in a comparative analysis that was done of surrounding jurisdictions that the economy of British Columbia is not performing nearly as well as it should, or nearly as well as it is capable of doing, or nearly as well as our neighbours are. That is something that requires a great deal of attention by the government, and it should be requiring a great deal of attention by the government. When you have a province as rich in resources and as rich in people as British Columbia; when we see ourselves in the position we are in relative to the other nine provinces -- that is, sliding into a recession -- when the other provinces are doing extremely well; when we see our performance relative to Washington State and Oregon, two economies which are similar in structure -- or up until recently were similar in structure -- and similar in size. . . . To see our poor performance compared to their performance is something that should give the government cause for concern and should give the Ministry of Finance cause for concern.

There should be some setting of targets and some goals and strategies on how to improve the economic climate in British Columbia above and beyond where it is now. I know that the government, in its budget this year, which was canvassed extensively in the House, made some very, very minor commitments to tax cuts which won't take place until next year. We discussed whether or not those will really have any impact in turning the economy in British Columbia around, and obviously we argue that they're far too little, far too late. The government feels that they're sufficient and will, in fact, do the job that's required. We don't.

The other item which we spent some time on was comparative tax rates, particularly rates for individual income tax, corporate income tax and small business income tax. It was interesting, hon. Speaker, that after the estimates were completed, the province of Ontario, I think it was, or Alberta. . . . I can't remember at this late hour, given that we've been here so long, right around the clock, but it was one of those two provinces. I have to look in my documents and see. Almost within days of us finishing up the Finance estimates, they cut their small business income tax rate in half.

An Hon. Member: It was Ontario.

G. Farrell-Collins: It was Ontario. I thank my colleague. That puts our small businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and it's something that we need to be aware of.

So there was an extensive debate on those items. Individuals or members who didn't participate and wish to can review those debates.

Other items were discussed: the support services division; unclaimed money. . . . The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head took that project and spoke about that in some detail. There was discussion around the sale of the vehicle fleet from the former Ministry of Government Services. Supply services was an issue which was discussed by the minister and myself with regard to a 1 percent service charge that is charged to suppliers. I don't believe we ever got quite to the core of that question, but we certainly came to some sense that there was a problem with it and that it needed to be reviewed, and I hope that happens. I wait to hear from the ministry as to how that's progressing.

Two other items which were discussed were the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation -- and I thank my colleagues for Okanagan-Penticton and Fort Langley-Aldergrove for their participation in that area -- and that mysterious division known as Cupcakes. It's still just as mysterious now as it was at the beginning of the estimates. We hope to do better next year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: As always, I enjoy my critic's comments. I don't think it will surprise many to know that on some areas of his comments, I actually agree. These are challenging times for the economy of British Columbia. We do accept responsibility for needing to meet the challenges, and we are doing so. We are trying to do so in a very cooperative way with all of the aspects of the business community, labour, the municipalities, and we will move forward. But nevertheless, they are challenging times.

I do await the emergence of national effects because of the downturn elsewhere in the world. The reason why I say I await that is because, again, that will mean even greater challenges for British Columbia, because we do fully 70 percent of our export trade with the rest of Canada and the United States. So I am hopeful that as they manage through those economic challenges, we will also be partners with them.

I actually thought the estimates this year were helpful to me. I am a new Finance minister, and I received some good advice and some probing questions. As answers were given, it became clear to me that some change may have to be made as well. Yes, the hon. member is correct in that information still has to be given, and we will do so.

So we move forward, hon. Speaker. Even though our budget has been very conservative, I do not think we have

[ Page 10673 ]

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

Revenue-sharing and the traffic-fine discussion. It would seem that the province isn't going to readily share any revenue. Certainly I know that it has been under discussion many times, but the province has left an interesting message: "Ticket more people and you can keep the difference." We have some questions on that, and we certainly have some questions regarding the cost of installing intersection cameras. It would be very nice if, during the estimates process, a useful discussion might emanate on a cost-benefit analysis. That was lacking in this debate.

Disarming of auxiliary police. Again, I don't see this ministry championing the rights of municipalities. Any additional policing costs incurred by municipalities as a result of this decision will impact negatively on municipalities. That's a fact.

The Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program. We saw the province put its priorities ahead of the priorities of local governments, the very same local governments they intend to empower when we continue debate on Bill 31, which will see local governments become independent, responsible and accountable. So there's still some hypocrisy going on in this ministry in terms of truly empowering municipalities. The contrast to that is the B.C. Liberals' community charter, which is truly talking about empowering local decision-making.

The Barrett commission recommends reinstating the building standards branch previously cancelled by this government. The Barrett commission saw a link between eliminating the building standards branch and leaky condos, which this minister simply couldn't see.

What was missing from the estimates? The minister didn't once provide a cost-benefit analysis or a measurement-accountability framework. She was not able to tell this House how she measures success in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. She has not ensured that the material discussed in the estimates has reached the opposition. I would simply ask her to take a page from the Minister of Labour's book. His Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia is ongoing. That material was requested and received on June 30 -- its expenditures to date. This minister's commission, the Barrett commission, is complete. It was completed six weeks ago, but no information is forthcoming to British Columbians on the cost. The minister knows full well that the request has been made many times. So in terms of efficiency, again this minister has failed. She has not directed her staff to provide that information. Otherwise, we would have it. That's a concern to me.

I'm not convinced that this minister has effectively championed the issues that local governments and their constituents have asked for. I hope and trust that this minister will continue to be mentored by her colleagues, who have indeed provided useful information during the estimates process, and come back to this House during the next session far more able to adequately respond to the issues raised.

Hon. J. Kwan: It has been an honour and pleasure for me to participate in my first estimates debate as Minister of Municipal Affairs. First of all, I would like to thank the ministry staff who assisted me throughout this process. Actually, I also want to thank the members opposite for their comments. Some of the discussions were indeed productive; others were otherwise.

Many of the issues the opposition member mentioned, including arterial road devolution, red-light cameras and auxiliary police, fall under other ministers' jurisdictions. On many issues what I do as Minister of Municipal Affairs is link up with those ministers to provide the connections with local governments so that they can have that dialogue. We have actually done an excellent job, through the joint council with UBCM, on these fronts.

We had extensive discussion on the Barrett commission and the various aspects of the leaky-condo issue. The Barrett report was released on June 18, and the responses from most leaky-condo owners and commentators were extremely positive. With Bill 46, we have acted on the key recommendations in the Barrett report. The province will contribute $75 million as bridge financing to the new reconstruction program to assist leaky-condo owners, and we will also require mandatory new-home warranties and licensing of residential builders.

We're moving forward with Municipal Act reform, a multi-year initiative that will provide a new legislative foundation for local government. I introduced legislation this session that formally recognized local government as an order of government within its jurisdiction for the first time in Canadian history. I'm pleased that Mayor Steve Wallace, president of the UBCM, also welcomed these changes on behalf of the UBCM.

[12:15]

These initiatives embody the spirit of partnership contained in the protocol of recognition, signed by the Premier and the president of the UBCM, in September of 1996, and I'll work to strengthen this partnership over the coming year. By the time of next year's estimates debate, I hope to report progress on a number of these fronts.

Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted to have had the opportunity to engage in my first estimates debate, and I look forward to working with all members of the House in the coming years to improve the quality of life for all British Columbians.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE

[ Page 10674 ]

As this minister has often said, he's relatively new in his role and wants to be an advocate for small business. I thought our estimates process went fairly well, but I do have some disappointments that the minister was not the advocate for small business on Bill 14, Bill 26, Bill 50 or Bill 46. Perhaps we can see the minister growing into really being an advocate all of the time for small business and tourism.

What has become apparent to me is that this government does not have a vision. It does not have a multi-year plan or focused annual implementation plans and, as importantly, a follow-up performance accountability format. I think those are important, and perhaps the government will continue to work on them.

With respect to Small Business, small business needs a real reduction in red tape and government interference. It needs significant lowering of taxes now, not in the future. This ministry must aggressively pursue the concerns about the WCB, employment standards and the Labour Code that small business is telling the minister and the ministry about every day. The ministry has to stop the rhetoric and meet the challenge. We must be competitive now. We've had two signals today from ministers of this government that next year looks worse than this year, so this is the time for action. We have to stop the rhetoric.

With respect to Tourism, we have to make sure -- and the minister has given me his assurances -- that Tourism B.C. will in fact operate as a truly arm's-length organization. In the tourism area, we must ensure that the backlog of back-country applications at the Ministry of Environment is being aggressively pursued each and every day, because there are huge opportunities for employment and investment for our province. Again, for tourism operators, we must lower taxes today -- now -- so they can be competitive. Industry leaders have said repeatedly that they need flexibility in the areas of employment standards, the WCB and the Labour Code. Surely the minister is hearing those voices and will act on those.

One area of the estimates for which we did not receive the information we'd hoped for was the detailed information with respect to the plan for the government's commitment to create 25,000 jobs. I look forward to that. With respect to film, yes, we're doing fine now, but what we need is a vision and a plan of where we're going to be in the year 2005.

With respect to red tape, we need real leadership. Yesterday in this House, Bill 46 was introduced, read a second time and went through committee, and that is going to add an enormous amount of red tape. On one hand, the government is saying this, and on the other hand, the mountains and mountains of red tape are growing. We need real, positive action in this area now. The official opposition has said that we will help. We need action from this ministry.

In closing, I suggest to the minister that we don't wait for FOIs. Keep us advised of what's going on. If there are problems, perhaps we can solve them. From my perspective, I hope I've demonstrated to the minister that not all issues have to be political. We have some experience and some expertise. Let us all work together to ensure that working families, small business operators and tourism operators can be successful in British Columbia today. I'd like the thank the minister for his cooperation.

Hon. I. Waddell: I also want to thank my critic, the member for Okanagan-Penticton, for his thorough work in the estimates. I found the estimates very interesting. The member is correct that I am a new minister -- new to this. But I was a critic for 14 years in the House of Commons in Ottawa, and I used to have 40 minutes at the minister. The hon. member had 17 hours, which I think is way too long. It should be cut dramatically, drastically. It's a waste of time, basically, except for some parts of it. On balance, I think the system in British Columbia is better, but it needs to be used more efficiently -- not 17 hours when it could be done in two, three or four hours. But it has to be done with the minister making material available to the critic. I appreciate that, and I think the member is right on that.

I want to address the vision question, as George Bush would say. I believe there is a vision here in the ministry. We have cut taxes for 40,000 small businesses. We have cut red tape, and we've listened to the Business Task Force. We've announced two film programs. I've been minister for five months, and this is coming about for the domestic industry and the foreign industry. Film is booming.

Tourism is booming in the province, and it's booming for two reasons. One, we put $2.5 million more into Tourism British Columbia so we could market B.C. and expand and get more Americans and more people from Europe, as we are, and hold our own with tourists from Asia. The other reason is that we live in the most beautiful part of the world. This is a stunningly beautiful province, and what I tried to show in the estimates was that we're taking. . . . As Minister of Tourism, I wanted to take this stunningly Super, Natural province and add the other elements into it: culture in the province -- aboriginal culture, Chinese Canadian culture -- and our heritage -- the heritage of our buildings and our people. I wanted to put that in with things. . . . So we put culture and heritage in with tourism. We put in the efficiency of small business, and we tackled issues like red tape.

I think it's been pretty successful. I'm very proud of what the ministry has done, and I'd like to take this occasion to thank all the people who work in the ministry. It's lean, but it's not mean, and it's very effective. Also it helps, honestly, to be Minister of Tourism in the most beautiful part of the most beautiful country in the world. Having said that, I want to thank the hon. member, and I look forward to our next round of estimates.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

I think the one thing we agree on is that the federal government takes an awful lot of money out of British Columbia every year in the realm of fuel taxes. Somewhere in excess of $700 million goes out of the province, and precious little of that comes back for infrastructure works and highways. I would be delighted to work with the government on this to somehow try and get more money to come back. As a matter of fact, over the last five years I've had a motion on the order paper that we have a cost-sharing on the fuel taxes that are

[ Page 10675 ]

It seems interesting that just in the last few days -- this really didn't come up during our estimates debates -- the federal Minister of Transport has now seen the light, and they're going to have to pump some money into British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland, to deal with transportation infrastructure problems there. I would just encourage the minister and the government to, as quickly as possible, hop on board any offers the federal government might make in a cost-sharing arrangement so we can deal with some of the serious problems we have that must be dealt with.

We were talking for a while about the Island Highway. The minister was quoted as saying that it's proceeding well and within budget. First, it's over time; it has taken longer than the original estimates were put out for that. It's only within budget in the sense that four lanes became two lanes and interchanges became intersections, and things of that sort. It's been downsized. I think re-scoped is the term one of the previous ministers used to use. Every time I talked about one of these, he would say: "It's been re-scoped." This highway project has been re-scoped also.

I have some concerns, and I expressed them, about the motor vehicle branch being moved to ICBC. Formerly the motor vehicle branch costs were paid for out of the Ministry of Transportation and Highway's yearly budget, which came out of general revenue. I'm not quite sure now. From the way I read things, it appears that the costs for operating the motor vehicle branch are being carried by ICBC, which means it's being carried by the people who are buying car insurance in the province. They're now covering costs that were formerly paid for by government out of its general revenue. I don't think that's quite fair.

We did talk about the Transportation Financing Authority. Again I expressed this year, as before, the problem now. . . . The debt that is being run up by the Transportation Financing Authority does not show up in the consolidated revenue fund, does not show up in the annual deficit. This government claims they're reducing the deficit, but what they're indeed doing is reducing the number of ways that in the past would have contributed to the deficit by shipping things off the books. The TFA is certainly one of the major contributors to that. There's roughly $400 million this year that in the days of the previous administration would have appeared under the Highways ministry spending. It no longer appears there and therefore no longer contributes to the deficit, but it certainly does contribute to the annual debt that the province is running up. I have a concern about that. We should have this thing shown in there, at least. The debt servicing of the Transportation Financing Authority is growing. It's mortgaging our future. The previous government used to pay for their highways projects year by year, as it went along. They certainly paid for all of their rehabilitation year by year. We moved away from that into long-term debt financing for paying off projects we're building today that our children and grandchildren may have to be paying off in the future.

The rehabilitation budget this year. . . . I will compliment the minister: I think he's done better than most ministers that have had his position in the past few years in getting money into the rehab program. I think it's one issue that I've harped on -- if that's the correct word to use -- year after year. The government has been underspending -- grossly underspending in the last few years -- the money needed to go into rehabilitating our highways in order that we keep the infrastructure at the level we've got it and that we don't lose things. What has happened over those years, of course, is that the cost of that deficit in doing rehab has raised the cost of fixing those highways more than need be. If the highways that we're rehabbing now had been done five years ago when first needed, we'd be in better financial condition.

I see I've talked. . . . I'm only halfway through what I'd like to say, but anyway, I thank you for the time to comment on this.

Hon. H. Lali: I want to start off by thanking the hon. member for Richmond Centre, who is the critic for Ministry of Transportation and Highways and BCTFA, for his comments. During the estimates, especially, there were a lot of thoughtful ideas that he put forward, and I want to thank the hon. member for that. I also want to thank all of my staff, both at the ministry and also at the TFA, for all of the hard work that they put in this year in terms of the estimates and trying to prepare the capital and the rehab programs and also doing all the ministry work.

[12:30]

I also want to point out that in the northern part of British Columbia we more than doubled the investment in rural roads from the year before -- $66 million. In the Peace River region alone it was $27 million. Obviously all of the people in the Peace have been quite happy that we've been able to fix some of the old roads that needed to be fixed.

I also want to point out that I'm glad that the hon. member is on board with the B.C. government in terms of pressuring the federal government into spending more money on transportation- and highway-related projects throughout Canada. I met with the hon. federal minister, Mr. Collenette, in February '98. . .and also in Edmonton, where I put forward a paper on behalf of all transportion ministers of the provinces for a ten-year, $16 billion national highway strategy. It was encouraging to see Mr. Collenette's comments in the newspaper a couple of days ago. But I would remind the federal minister that there is a Canada outside of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and I would encourage the federal minister to start lobbying his cabinet for funding in those areas.

The British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority has gone into partnership with local government on various programs. There is the air transport assistance program and the cycling network program. There have been other issues I've been working with -- lately, the announcement of the 200th Street interchange in Langley. I'm also working on the Nordel Way area and the Okanagan Lake Bridge.

The hon. member across the way mentioned that increasingly the B.C. government has been mortgaging our future. I take from his comments that he does not support us building projects and then increasing the debt. But I also heard the hon. member just say that we are also underspending in terms of highway infrastructure. Those two comments by the hon. member are contradictory. I would say that the Liberal

[ Page 10676 ]

Also, I'll be doing a corridor management plan -- Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies on the Trans-Canada Highway, and on the Okanagan Highway, No. 97.

The hon. member raised some issues specific to the lower mainland. There are the HOV lanes on the Trans-Canada Highway, which will be completed in September. At the end of September, the Lions Gate rehab, a $78 million investment, will be underway. The South Fraser perimeter road: we're in discussions with the city of Surrey to try to alleviate traffic from the Port Mann Bridge and onto the Alex Fraser Bridge. We're also going ahead with plans for the Cape Horn interchange to get rid of the bottleneck. We'll be doing some planning to add another lane to the Port Mann Bridge.

The Vancouver Island Highway. I'm glad that the hon. member across the way agrees that we are on budget. We're also on time, to be completed by the end of the year 2001. It has created 2,700 well-paying, family-supporting jobs and also the HCL model, which is providing training for people and also bringing local hire and hire for aboriginal people and people of visible minorities.

In conclusion, I'd like to state that there are competing demands throughout the province for highways and transportation infrastructure needs. In the rural areas, it's a straight building and rebuilding of roads; when you come down to the lower mainland, you're dealing with safety issues and traffic congestion. Hon. member and hon. Speaker, I'm happy to say that the provincial government is succeeding, through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Transportation Financing Authority. Roads are safer now, and they're also more efficient as we continue to work with the constraints that we have on the issue of the budget. We're also working with partnerships with local municipalities and other organizations to make sure that we will have a provincial infrastructure that's up to snuff.

Again I want to thank the hon. member opposite. I also want to thank my staff in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and also in the BCTFA for a job well done, and I want to thank all members of the House. In closing, I'd like to point out that the one thing I forgot to mention is that our budget for both the TFA and MOTH has increased from $809 million last year to $871 million this year, which is a significant increase.

The Speaker: That concludes the reports of estimates from Section A. Now, Government House Leader, do you have a motion?

Hon. H. Lali: I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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