1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999
Afternoon
Volume 15, Number 11
[ Page 12791 ]
The House met at 2:10 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the distinct pleasure of introducing someone from the state of Punjab, India -- the state in which I was born and raised. Raja Nurinder Singh happens to be the Minister of Public Health and Civil Aviation. He's sitting right behind me. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.
I have some other introductions of the people that are accompanying him, if I could continue for a moment.
The Speaker: Please proceed.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Thank you. Accompanying him is his executive assistant, Mr. Bhag Singh -- he happens to be in the gallery. As well, there is Rajinder Singh Bhela. He's the secretary of the Khalsa Diwan Society, the oldest pioneer society of the Sikhs which has struggled on behalf of the community over the last hundred or so years for equality and dignity for all of us. I want the House to please give both Mr. Bhag Singh and Rajinder Singh Bhela a warm welcome.
C. Hansen: About half an hour ago I had the opportunity to welcome 20 grade 5 students from Crofton House, and they had some great questions for me. They've had a tour, and they're in the galleries now for question period. They're here with their teachers, Vicky Harris and Mark Fischer, and six parents who are accompanying them. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.
Hon. H. Lali: I too would like to join my colleague the Attorney General in welcoming our visitors from Punjab, India. Mr. Raja Nurinder Singh, as you know, is a minister in the Punjab cabinet, and he's here to talk about the issues of trade and health technologies, as well as transportation infrastructure technologies, along with his other colleagues.
I also want to point out that we're working with the Punjab government to bring a delegation from the Punjab government back here to British Columbia in August, so we're looking forward to that. I would like to ask the House to please join the Attorney General in again welcoming the minister from India and his colleagues.
S. Hawkins: I think I'd be remiss if I didn't add the official opposition's welcome. We've been quite honoured in the last month or so to welcome visitors from the Punjab, and it certainly is a privilege and an honour to welcome this hon. minister and the delegation that's accompanying him.
Hon. I. Waddell: I too would like to add my welcome to the visiting delegation,
because the gurdwara is in my riding. But I rise
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Ross Street Temple is in my riding, and I'm pleased to welcome the guests.
Yesterday I welcomed, as you'll recall, hon. Speaker, many of the directors of the B.C. Festival of the Arts, which started last night with a great gala in Victoria. If I might, I'd like to add one who's in the precincts today. Would the House please welcome Armeda Spada McDougall from Coquitlam, who's a new member of the board of directors of the Festival of the Arts Society.
C. Clark: If you noticed that two members of the press gallery today are looking
especially happy, it's partly, I'm sure, because they're so looking forward to question
period, and also perhaps because the Leafs won last night. But we have two birthdays up
there for two big Leafs fans -- Mike Smyth is celebrating
An Hon. Member: His 64th.
C. Clark: I won't say. And Shane Fox is also celebrating a birthday. I hope the House will wish them both a very happy birthday.
[1415]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have an introduction to make today. A longtime friend of mine is visiting from Ontario. His name is Don Tisdale, and we've known each other for over 20 years. It's interesting, because we have a mutual friend who is also an MPP in Ontario, and Don was telling me that in the upcoming Ontario election, he will be voting for this MPP -- who is a provincial Liberal, I might add. And he told me that when he moves back to B.C. -- which he is doing in the next six months -- he's moving into my riding, and he'll be voting for me in the next provincial election. Will the House please make Don welcome.
S. Orcherton: I just noticed in the gallery an old friend of mine, a community and social activist who resides on Saltspring Island. She works tirelessly on behalf of people in the Gulf Islands on their issues -- and, indeed, on behalf of people on Vancouver Island in general. I'd ask the House to make Ms. Irene Wright welcome.
The Speaker: I have one introduction from the Chair. In the gallery we have a very special guest from Alberta, Rob Reynolds, who is the Law Clerk for that province. He's here to have a look at what happens in British Columbia. Welcome.
EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 69 be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This act makes changes to statutes administered both by the Ministry of Education and by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. It contains amendments to the Architects (Landscape) Act, the College and Institute Act, the Independent School Act, the
[ Page 12792 ]
Institute of Technology Act, the Private Post-Secondary Education Act, the Royal Roads University Act, the School Act and the Technical University of British Columbia Act.
Some of the amendments are necessary to streamline processes for public post-secondary institutions and for school boards. Other amendments are more substantive in nature. The amendments to the Architects (Landscape) Act revise the objects of the British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects, as requested by the board of directors of the society. The College and Institute Act amendments repeal out-of-date provisions relating to program advisory committees and collective bargaining. The amendment to the Independent School Act allows the inspector of independent schools to streamline the process of issuing independent school teaching certificates. The Institute of Technology Act amendment updates and corrects provisions relating to program advisory committees and to the acquisition and disposal of land by BCIT. The amendment to the Private Post-Secondary Education Act exempts Canadian public post-secondary institutions from registering under that act.
The act also amends the School Act in a number of ways. It allows school boards to conduct meetings through electronic means. It removes from the School Act the requirement for delegate members for the Francophone Education Authority, and it also amends the School Act to permit year-round schooling by enabling scheduling, through a local school board, of a school calendar that continues past June 30 or starts before September. Finally, it also amends the School Act to protect the welfare of children by exempting information relating to a report of child abuse or neglect from a child's student record.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the Education Statutes Amendment Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
B.C. FERRIES CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
D. Symons: Yesterday during question period, the Minister Responsible for B.C.
Ferries stated: "
[1420]
Now, I know -- we all know -- that the minister is new to NDP party ranks, but coming
from the ferry-dependent community that he does
Will the minister admit that his own adopted government's -- and I'm not sure which side adopted which side there -- ten-year-capital plan was an absolute failure and has actually put the corporation in a worse financial condition?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yesterday the members opposite said that they had a leaked document, which was made public on May 3 at a very public meeting of the coastal councils. Yesterday they laughed and laughed when I said they needed to have a lesson on how to read the numbers. They said that 5.5 percent and 14 percent were increased projections, whereas if they'd read it yesterday, they would have seen that it was $5.5 million, which is 1.5 percent. They couldn't even read the document they had in front of them, so if anybody is a disaster in this House, it's those members opposite.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
First supplementary, the member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: I'm hurt to the quick, really. I don't think the minister can point to anywhere where I said that those numbers were percentage figures -- nor any of the other comments he made -- because I did not.
The now Premier and then minister responsible for B.C. Ferries stated that the ten-year
capital plan will "
Interjections.
The Speaker: Come to order, members.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yesterday we learned that the members opposite are trying to pressure this side to increase ferry fares for coastal communities -- outrageous.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. G. Wilson: Today we are now hearing them say that they would rather not have any construction done in British Columbia on capital construction programs.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, members.
Hon. G. Wilson: No matter how much that member opposite
[ Page 12793 ]
B.C. FERRIES FARES AND SERVICE
C. Clark: No, the minister didn't say yesterday that he was going to raise fares. He said he was going to rationalize them. What does that mean? For a B.C. Ferry Corporation that his government has crippled with debt, it can only mean they are going to increase fares, decrease service and cut routes.
Will the minister tell us today what he means by rationalization? Will he tell British Columbians, instead of hiding behind these cute definitions? Will he just tell them which routes he is going to cut and which routes are going to be hit with the big fare increases he's got planned?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Come to order, come to order.
Hon. G. Wilson: I find that a somewhat amusing question, because if the member
had been paying attention to what's been happening over the last number of months, the
member would know that
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. G. Wilson:
[1425]
The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, first supplementary.
C. Clark: Well, according to my read of the last couple of months, here's what's
happened: when the minister was on this side of the House, he used to say he wanted to
roll back ferry fares, then he rationalized his way across the floor, rationalized away
all his principles, and now he says he wants to rationalize B.C. ferry fares. Will he tell
us -- instead of standing here dodging the question, telling us that he stood for this
when he was over here, he stood for this when he was over there, and now he stands for
something called rationalization
Hon. G. Wilson: There is no rational explanation for the members opposite; that much I'll grant you.
Let me say it very slowly and carefully for the member so that she understands. We have said there will be no fare increases, at least until April 2000 -- none. That's a freeze. That means none.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. It's very difficult to hear the answer.
Hon. G. Wilson: Secondly, we said there will be no reduction in service, and we have honoured that. Now, I don't know which part of that the member doesn't understand, but when we say no fare increases, no reduction in services, this side of the House means it -- rather than that side that would pressure us to increase ferry fares, because that's what they are after.
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Federal and provincial transport ministers have apparently been discussing a 30- to 40-cent-a-litre increase in the excise tax on gasoline -- in essence, a carbon tax. Details of this outrageous proposal were spelled out last week by Alberta Transportation minister, Walter Paszkowski. Federal Transport minister David Collenette said: "Hey, the idea didn't come from us." So my question to the minister is: did this harebrained scheme come from British Columbia? Or were you simply willing co-conspirators?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. H. Lali: Actually, that harebrained idea came from the B.C. Liberals.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. H. Lali: Well, again, if the members want to use up their question period time by heckling, then so be it. I can stand here for the next ten minutes.
I want to thank the hon. member for Peace River South for his question. That was one of the ideas that was floated by one of the transport ministers. The fact of the matter is that it's not a position that the B.C. government supports, nor does this transport minister. It's an idea thrown out by one of the other transport ministers. It was certainly unanimously rejected by all of the transport ministers from across the country.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. The Chair recognizes the member for Peace River South, first supplementary.
J. Weisgerber: Well, first of all, you've got to wonder why, then, the details of this had to be leaked by the Alberta Transportation minister. We know that the Minister Responsible for the Public Service has been on this carbon tax kick for years. The minister from Esquimalt-Metchosin wants a carbon tax. He wants British Columbians to pay more for gasoline. He wants British Columbians to pay more for natural gas, and he doesn't care a whit about the effect of that on northeastern British Columbia. Indeed, he waves his hand -- waves his hand like this.
[1430]
[ Page 12794 ]
Does this minister really expect us to believe that he went to Ottawa and contradicted his friend and mentor on the issue of a carbon tax?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Come to order, members. All members, please. There are a lot of conversations going on in the chamber right now. It's very difficult to hear both the questions and the answers, and I think that's partly why we're here -- to listen to some of these.
Hon. H. Lali: I'll tell the hon. member. We went to Ottawa to the council of transport ministers meeting to put forward, again, the position that B.C. put forward a year ago. B.C. had the pen to write a paper on behalf of all the transport ministers across the country on a national transportation investment strategy. I went there to re-emphasize that, and for the first time we had some positive statements coming out of the Transport minister for Canada.
They are actually now talking about east-west links in terms of improvement to the transportation infrastructure. Mr. Collenette, the federal minister, also stated that he would not be interested in any tolling on the Trans-Canada Highway system unless there was a toll-free alternative that would be provided along that route. Those are the kinds of issues that we talked about. For the first time, we have the federal government actually talking about them in a positive way, as opposed to rejecting them out of hand.
EFFECT OF AQUACULTURE MORATORIUM
ON COASTAL COMMUNITIES
J. van Dongen: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Last September the Fisheries minister said there would be a decision on the salmon-farming moratorium by the end of the year. In November the Premier said the decision would be made in a few weeks. In December the Public Service minister said that it would be sometime in February. Now we're told that the moratorium will remain in place indefinitely. My question to the Minister of Environment is: why does this government continue to break its commitments and continue this job-killing moratorium, despite a recommendation by the salmon aquaculture review to proceed?
Hon. C. McGregor: There has been no decision taken yet on the matter of salmon aquaculture.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. C. McGregor: But, it's odd that that side of the House shows no concern for
the many environmental impacts that the aquaculture industry can have
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, order.
Hon. C. McGregor:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. C. McGregor:
The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Abbotsford.
J. van Dongen: In response to the minister, the salmon aquaculture review, which cost the government over $1 million, addresses all of the environmental issues. In addition to that, a recent poll shows that 69 percent of British Columbians support the expansion of fish farming. We also know that the unemployment rate in the fisheries sector in B.C. is 32 percent. Over 13,000 fisheries jobs have been lost since 1996. Clearly some of these unemployed people could find a positive future in fish farming.
My question to the Minister of Environment is: why are B.C.'s coastal communities paying the price for a division in the NDP caucus that has resulted in the moratorium lasting over four years?
Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated in my previous answer, we are continuing to
consider the policy questions related to
[1435]
AGREEMENT WITH McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm pleased to report that Canada, British Columbia and the McLeod Lake Indian band have agreed to adjourn the litigation brought by McLeod Lake more than ten years ago. The parties have been able to come to a negotiated agreement, settling a longstanding dispute over outstanding McLeod Lake claims to treaty benefits and aboriginal title, a dispute that resulted in a ten-year injunction against logging in the area claimed by McLeod Lake. The result of the negotiation is that members of the McLeod Lake Indian band will now become signatories to Treaty No. 8, a historic treaty signed in 1899. The agreement releases British Columbia and Canada from the litigation the band filed in 1983.
Clearly this demonstrates that it is negotiation and not litigation that is the path to reconciliation of past grievances with first nations peoples. This agreement was negotiated as a settlement to litigation and therefore was not negotiated as
[ Page 12795 ]
part of the B.C. Treaty Commission process. It includes land and cash only and does not include issues associated with governance, wildlife management, fisheries management and taxation. Canada will provide $9.3 million to a trust capital account in the band's name, in satisfaction of Canada's obligations to the band under Treaty 8 to satisfy any outstanding claims and to provide economic development opportunities.
The province will provide approximately 20,000 hectares to Canada to be held as reserve lands for the benefit of McLeod Lake. This will be in addition to the band's existing reserves, which currently amount to almost 240 hectares. The band will then be able to log the land, providing economic benefits for both the aboriginal community along with many spinoff benefits for the surrounding communities as well. Under the agreement, McLeod Lake forestry practices will have to meet or beat provincial forestry standards. McLeod Lake has also agreed to establish a $1 million rectification trust fund to address any possible deficiencies in forest practices that might arise in the future. That is good news from both the McLeod Lake Indian band and the surrounding communities.
McLeod Lake will also receive interests in eight Crown-owned sites, each one being one hectare in size, in the form of a notation of interest. These notations of interest will identify McLeod Lake band members' interests in hunting, trapping and berry-picking on those sites. B.C. will also offer to sell to McLeod Lake at fair market value approximately 127 hectares of land. McLeod Lake will hold these lands in fee simple.
Additionally, Canada and British Columbia will each provide $1 million to the McLeod Lake Indian band to cover a portion of the band's costs in resolving this longstanding dispute. All three parties will initial the agreement within the next three months. After it is initialled, the agreement will be ratified by the band within 45 days, by the B.C. government within 30 days after McLeod Lake ratifies the agreement and by Canada within three months. The three parties will formally sign the agreement following ratification.
In the meantime, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs will post a draft agreement on the ministry's web site so that it is available to the public. In addition, provincial negotiators will continue to meet with advisory committees that have been providing advice to the province on these negotiations. These committees include representation from local government, forestry companies, trapping associations, guide-outfitting associations as well as community members. The province is committed to resolving any third-party issues that may arise from this historic agreement.
This agreement is another example of how negotiations can meet everyone's interests. McLeod Lake Indian band will now become signatories to Treaty 8 and will receive the benefits of that treaty. Canada and British Columbia will resolve longstanding litigation that will achieve certainty in the region. People in the area will reap the benefits of a more prosperous McLeod Lake community and greater certainty over the land and over resource use.
In closing, I want to offer my congratulations to the McLeod Lake Indian band and in particular to their chief, Alec Chingee, for his leadership in reaching this most historic agreement.
[1440]
The Speaker: In reply, I recognize the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.
G. Plant: I want to begin by expressing my congratulations and the congratulations of all members of the opposition to Chief Alec Chingee and the McLeod Lake band for years and years of perseverance in negotiating this agreement with the province and with the government of Canada.
We are talking about an adhesion agreement. McLeod Lake Indian band wants to become a part of Treaty 8. The negotiations to achieve that end have been the subject of litigation and have lasted for long, long years. Regrettably, on more than one occasion in the past, the McLeod Lake Indian band thought they had reached an agreement with the governments, but the governments changed their minds and changed their positions and forced the band into litigation. On more than one occasion, the spectre of a provincial government negotiating in bad faith has been raised. I sincerely hope that that spectre and this dispute are behind us. I want to acknowledge that with all of this history, the McLeod Lake band has then done something which is truly significant by persevering to reach this agreement.
I also want to commend the McLeod Lake Indian band for having been forthright with the public about its goals and its aspirations throughout this process. Those goals and those aspirations have been reasonable and fair. Now, I have not seen the proposed agreement. I look forward to the opportunity to review it. As an adhesion agreement, I would expect to see that the band has accepted the same approach to certainty as was taken in Treaty 8. I expect -- as the minister has indicated -- that self-government arrangements are not a part of this agreement. In other words, I hope that there are no surprises.
Given the minister's statement, today is a day to express all our congratulations to the McLeod Lake Indian band for the hard work they have done, for the perseverance, for the patience and for the endurance that they have shown in reaching an agreement to settle this longstanding matter.
J. Weisgerber: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
J. Weisgerber: I too want to extend congratulations to all of the parties. It was in 1982 that the McLeod Lake band first decided that rather than pursue a comprehensive land claim, they would pursue adhesion to an existing treaty. That's an option that's available to not all of the bands in British Columbia but in fact a limited number of bands who find themselves to the west of the Rockies but within the arctic watershed, which many people who have studied the original authorities given to negotiators take to be the area in which Treaty 8 should have been negotiated. So it's bands within the arctic watershed in British Columbia who still have the opportunity. There are bands like Fort Ware and Ingenika who may well, if it is their wish, decide to abandon a comprehensive claim and pursue adhesion to Treaty 8. That's the background.
In 1982, McLeod Lake started this process. They've been in court a number of times with
both governments. They've been there at times at their desire and at times because
governments have pushed them there. At the end of the day -- and it's really nearly two
decades, a short time in land claims negotiation
Nonetheless, I think it's quite a satisfactory resolution. What the band has achieved is what the prairie bands
[ Page 12796 ]
achieved -- essentially, 128 acres of land per person to a maximum of 640 acres or one section of land for each family. Some of the other conditions within the treaty have been modified. The net result is that the McLeod Lake band has considerably more land than the Nisga'a and only a very small amount less cash than the Nisga'a achieved. They don't have self-government or an enshrined form of self-government.
[1445]
What that should tell us is that despite all of the statements we've heard that British
Columbians would never support any treaty or that those people who were opposed to Nisga'a
would oppose every treaty
Now, members may not like to agree with that, but I would suggest that the acceptance
of the Sechelt band in its treaty and the acceptance of McLeod Lake, both of which don't
include a third order of government
Let me say in closing that I think the agreement is inferior in some ways -- even though it's 100 years old -- to Nisga'a. I don't particularly like the idea of "hunt, fish and trap as formerly." I think it lacks definition; it lacks precision. I think Nisga'a is much better in that respect. Also, I do note that despite the claims from members across the way that no aboriginal band would ever accept "cede surrender and release" language, this adhesion in fact has that old language. McLeod Lake band has found a way to wrap their mind around it.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: I'm sorry?
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: I don't know. I'm sorry. Those hecklers will have to either be louder or clearer in their heckling.
Madam Speaker, let me close by saying that I believe that there's broad community support for this decision, and that should be the ultimate test. If the McLeod Lake band is happy, if their neighbours are happy and if there is going to be greater certainty and prosperity as a result of it, then I say to this minister and the government responsible there: congratulations. I say to the federal government: congratulations. Most importantly, I say to Chief Chingee and his predecessors: congratulations.
Tabling DocumentsThe Speaker: I have the honour to present report No. 1 of the auditor general for 1999-2000. It's a follow-up on performance audit and review.
Orders of the DayHon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.
The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.
[1450]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(continued)
On vote 39: ministry operations, $24,045,000 (continued).
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have an opening comment to make today; I think I've done that in our last two sessions. Instead, what I will do is simply take a moment to introduce the people here with me. On my immediate left is Marg Arthur, who is Deputy Minister of Labour. On my immediate right is Mr. Gary Martin, assistant deputy minister for labour programs. Next to Gary Martin is Don Cott, assistant deputy minister for labour relations. With that, I will defer to my colleague.
K. Krueger: A warm welcome to the people the minister just introduced. They're probably getting tired of seeing me, but I'm happy to have them here with us. I'd like to start by asking permission to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
K. Krueger: I didn't notice these gentlemen until just before these estimates began. But in the gallery with us we have three distinguished representatives from the Thompson-Nicola regional district, including the chair of the TNRD, Rick Morgan, who's the area director for part of my constituency; Mr. Rino Elverhoy, who's been very active in bringing the film industry to the Kamloops region; and Mr. Bill Walton, who is a city councillor. I would ask that the House please make them welcome.
[1455]
By agreement, the minister and I will be dealing first with issues around the employment standards branch. Once again, I want to thank the staff present for the excellent briefing materials that were provided to the opposition, including a copy of the Ministry of Labour's "Strategic Goals and Business Plan, 1998-2001." There are a lot of laudable commitments in this document. Under the heading "Ministry Goals and Key Strategies," there are commitments to a productive work environment, as well as a healthy and safe work environment for British Columbia workers. Second, there are commitments to promoting a prosperous economy that creates jobs and enhances workers' abilities to balance work and family responsibilities. Under that there's a subnote:
[ Page 12797 ]
"Review the provisions of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) relating to hours of work and compensation systems. This review would focus on ways the act could be modified to promote job creation, the balancing of work and family responsibilities and providing greater opportunities for youth employment. Consultations would take place with key business and labour stakeholders
. . . " as well as with other specific ministries.
And thirdly, it says:
"Promoting a healthy, balanced labour relations climate and harmonious relationships between employers and workers."
A couple of pages down, under "Key Success Indicators," there is a bit of a disclaimer. It says:
"In developing key success indicators, it is important to note that the ministry's actions are often not the determinative factor in the success of the ministry's goals. For instance, economic factors, such as market prices in effect for B.C. resource commodities, interest rates, the health of the stock market and the value of the Canadian dollar will affect the labour relations climate, the enthusiasm of employers to provide safety and family-friendly measures in workplaces and the health of pension plans more than a ministry's planned initiatives. A specific ministry initiative might be successful in isolation, but unable to impact on a host of nationally or internationally driven factors."
Well, that disclaimer being accepted, nevertheless it is certainly possible for the ministry's policies and practices to impede a healthy economy. If we move in the wrong direction, if we're perceived to be out of balance or oblivious to the interests and concerns of business and job creators in the province, it is certainly possible to have a very negative effect on the attainment of the very goals that we've just outlined. There are many in British Columbia who would argue that that has been happening for the last eight years.
The document goes on to say: "However, with this caveat, the following indicators
are provided to demonstrate some measure of the success in achievement of the ministry's
strategic goals. Further development of additional indicators will continue." The
ones I'm particularly noting are: "
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I'm just referring to the same document the member is:
"
K. Krueger: Actually, what the member is meaning to suggest is that it would be good for all of us if the ministry focused on ensuring that it is listening to business input as well. If business wants to put forward key measures by which the ministry might measure its progress toward its goals, I hope that the minister will be receptive. In fact, I hope that will be invited, and I'd like to see evidence of that over the coming months.
[1500]
An example of businesses, organizations, that have been negatively impacted by the Employment Standards Act and adherence to the act and regulations was raised by my colleague the member for Richmond East yesterday. She has asked me to provide the minister with the opportunity to elaborate a little further. Specifically, that example related to societies for handicapped adults -- work that they have done in the past in their organizations and for their employers, who tend to be non-profit agencies; crafts that they did and manufacturing that they were involved in -- things that they did that they really enjoyed and that were very much a vital part of their day; that built their self-esteem and sense of self-worth and that helped them develop the sort relationships that we all prize in our work life. These are things that they are being shut out from doing by their employers' inability to adhere to the measures of the Employment Standards Act.
The minister commented that a substantial length of time was provided to these organizations but that apparently they were unable to comply. That's understandable, because if the products produced were paid for by the hour, they would probably be too expensive for most consumers to be interested. This seems to be an area where I think we would all have the same interests, including keeping those people enjoying those occupations and busily occupied, if it's something that they want to do. I wonder if the minister -- with the advisors he's enjoying today -- could provide a little more detail and a little hope in that direction.
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I'm delighted to do so. First of all, let me make it very, very clear that the ministry has indeed accepted as its duty to work closely with that community to see if we can't solve the problem. The problem, let us be very clear, is that although we want to help adult handicapped people and give their lives meaning in the sense of being attached to a job -- even though that job may not be measurable and meet the standards that the rest of us talk about -- we nevertheless have to balance our desire to do that for those people with the danger of exploitation of those people. That's what we've been trying to do.
Accordingly, then, we've been working for three years. We allowed that particular sector to have a variance, in effect, of three years -- a holiday -- with a view to getting itself sorted out and organized and meeting with our people to work out some kind of adequate relationship so that both parties' interests would indeed be protected. We're still committed to doing that. Indeed, I'm happy to report that we are now actively working on that situation. We have, in fact, arranged for a consultant to work with that particular constituent group, and we're hopeful that the consultant and the parties will be making recommendations by the summer.
I want to again just make it very clear to members opposite that employment standards are in no way designed to impede or interfere with a healthy economy. They simply say that you can't have a healthy economy if it's based on
[ Page 12798 ]
exploitation of workers. It's always a balancing act, and I am well and truly familiar with this particular universe, because I happen to have one of those centres in my community -- the Clay Tree Enterprises people, who I know very well. They're very dear friends, and I understand the marvellous job they do in the community in terms of providing a dignified and meaningful work experience for their clients. But by the same token, I'm aware of what can happen if you don't have scrupulous people -- if you have people who tend to treat those disadvantaged and disabled people as cheap labour.
So again, it's a balancing act. I'm confident we're going to find the appropriate balance between those two points of view, and I thank the member for raising the matter. I hope I've answered his question.
K. Krueger: That is helpful. Will there, then, be an extension of the exemption while this process is ongoing?
[1505]
Hon. D. Lovick: I can't answer definitively yes or no, but that is certainly an option that will be considered as we see the consultant's report.
K. Krueger: What then happens with these organizations and these people in the meantime?
Hon. D. Lovick: They can simply carry on. Most of them won't have any likelihood of being in trouble until the fall. I believe that's when the three-year period is up, in fact. So there is a period of grace there. We don't need to worry too much.
K. Krueger: Obviously the government would be well aware of its own deadline.
Certainly paying heed to the cautions which the minister expressed, which drive some of
the considerations of the Employment Standards Act, particularly with regard to vulnerable
people
Hon. D. Lovick: We are certainly familiar with some complaints that have been made, yes.
K. Krueger: I'm happy with those responses, and I think that the many people that are concerned about this issue will be too. We'll be looking for the accommodations to be found, and I'm sure that they can be.
Moving from that to a bigger-picture perspective, one hears concerns around the province that people think that the Employment Standards Act is an attempt by this government to establish a form of provincewide collective agreement for those who aren't necessarily unionized yet. I wonder if the minister would comment on that assessment of the act and its regulations.
Hon. D. Lovick: I would just point out that employment standards, alas, are very much minimum standards. I don't think any self-respecting trade unionist would say that minimum standards are the equivalent to a collective agreement and a real contract.
K. Krueger: In my previous life, at the outset I worked with a collective
agreement like this, and I noticed recently that it's more like an inch thick. These
things do tend to grow over time; everything starts somewhere. But perhaps the minister
would
Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to that is no. I would just remind the member that when Mark Thompson carried out his review -- as the member will recall, a quite detailed review of employment standards -- he considered that option, went through the analysis and concluded that no, it was simply not a satisfactory option.
K. Krueger: The act is seen by job creators to be incredibly complex and difficult. I'll just read a quote from very sophisticated people that I was speaking with. As I mentioned in the ITAC estimates the other day, which the minister sat in on, I'm surprised by the very unhappy feelings in the Construction Labour Relations Association member companies and the building trades unions, considering that such effort was put in last summer to provide legislation which I thought they were substantially behind. Of course, that doesn't include the Employment Standards Act. But the statement on this from people in that construction industry is: "Nobody knows what the law is, because the act is such a mess. It requires interpretation by lawyers who say, 'I think it says this,' but it is internally inconsistent in many ways."
The input I'm receiving is surely being received by the minister also. I wonder: what ongoing efforts are there to address concerns like that and to update the act to deal with them?
[1510]
Hon. D. Lovick: It isn't clear to me if the member is referring to the construction
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: Okay, so that was an illustration in a generic way, then. All right, fair enough; I understand.
Let me deal specifically first with the Employment Standards Act. We have been working for some time now to make it more user-friendly, to coin a phrase. In addition, I'm happy to note that it has been rewritten in plain language. One just has to compare the older version with the contemporary one, and one will see that. That doesn't mean, I hasten to point out, that we have arrived. The reality is that much of what the member and I may take to be straightforward and readily understandable isn't understandable in a world that doesn't deal with that stuff on a regular basis.
I think that across government and across the ministry I can also make the same claim. For example, the member will recall that when we were talking about workers compensation issues and occupational health and safety last night, the new
[ Page 12799 ]
occupational health and safety regulations for the province have been rendered effectively into a single, very small pamphlet. What I've said on two or three occasions and will repeat now is that that is, to all intents and purposes, all the small business person needs to know. They don't need to know about the 1,400 or whatever regulations there are in total. If they have that little document, which is very readable and very user-friendly, they will be okay. That's all they need to know.
One can extrapolate from that, I think, that that is indeed our commitment as a ministry -- to try to pick up on the very point the member is making. We ought, it seems to me, to try as a matter of course -- as regulators and as government and as legislators -- to make what we do, and what the rules are, simple and accessible and eminently readable.
K. Krueger: In appreciating the minister's comment about the attempt to simplify the language, many people find the King James version of the Bible almost impossible to read, yet it's infinitely easier than the Greek. That's certainly an apt comparison, I think, for a lot of small business people in British Columbia when they look at our legislation -- again referring specifically to the Employment Standards Act. Did I hear the minister suggesting that a similar document to the one we discussed in Workers Compensation estimates is being prepared for small business with regard to the Employment Standards Act?
Hon. D. Lovick: That document already exists.
K. Krueger: Well, the documents that exist haven't been making their way to restaurateurs and people who have to live within the act. I know it would not be the ministry's desire that people would inadvertently contravene the Employment Standards Act and give rise to complaints. We're going to deal with workload issues shortly. What efforts are being made to get a simple explanation of the expectations of employers out to the employer community?
Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that copies of that document are in fact being mailed out almost on a daily basis, because there are those requests for information. As well, the information is available on the web site. What we do as well is send copies directly to all of the various employer-group associations -- the representative groups -- and we give them as many copies as they wish so they can in turn share those with their members.
K. Krueger: What I was driving at was that I think it would be good to be proactive and provide these documents to employers in advance of complaints, rather than being complaint-driven. Obviously not everything the minister was referring to had to do with complaints, but I'm a little crestfallen that Patti Stockton isn't here today. I enjoyed the briefing we had with her. I want to refer to some of her answers, and it would be good if she were here for confirmation -- although Mr. Taylor can certainly help with that.
[1515]
I asked in the briefing meeting about the status of the backlog. Ms. Stockton's answer was that the backlog had been up to 20 weeks, with five months elapsed time between when someone first phoned in a complaint to the 1-800 number and when a file was opened. That's not until work is done on it, but when it was actually opened. She said that the time now, at worst, was down to 13 weeks, but that's still an awfully long time. It was plain to me that Ms. Stockton had been doing yeoman service in attempting to deal with this issue, yet 13 weeks is clearly something that nobody accepts as far as government's response time to complaints through a process that government has initiated. I'd like the minister's comments on that.
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I'm pleased to note that the member acknowledges the exemplary work done by Patti Stockton and her colleagues in the branch -- and very few of them, I might add. I share with him the concern that this is an inordinately long time, even if we have reduced it significantly in the last short while.
However, let's not have any illusions about why that is the case. I mean, the reality is that governments everywhere -- and certainly this province is no exception -- are confronted with that phenomenon, where people are saying: "You should reduce the size of government" and "You should reduce the size of the civil service" -- and so on. Indeed, I would point out ever so delicately that this is the position taken by the opposition in this chamber on a regular basis. So let's simply recognize that actions have consequences. If you do decide to cut the cloth according to the measure available, then clearly there's a price to pay. The price to pay is that we don't provide the service as quickly as we would like to.
I would be happy if the member would be willing to stand up and tell me that he, on behalf of his colleagues, is quite prepared to say: "But yes, the Ministry of Labour should have a budgetary increase of X thousand dollars, so we can hire the required people to expand the 1-800 line service." But I don't think he's going to do that.
K. Krueger: Of course, it's probably not politically correct anymore to say there's more than one way to skin a cat. But reduction of the volume of work done by employees is an even better alternative than hiring more employees.
Before I carry on, certainly it's always a good idea to use people's correct names. I don't know why I refer to Mr. Martin as Mr. Taylor sometimes, but I apologize. It's a bit of a Freudian slip there. I was thinking of someone else.
When we talk about reducing the size of government, we can do that by reducing the size of work that government takes upon itself and puts upon the employer and employee community. For a long time the B.C. Liberals have been advocating legislation that is more results-oriented than process-oriented. The Employment Standards Act is an example of heavily process-oriented legislation.
I think that it has come to the minister loud and clear from the business summits that have been conducted around the province by the government and been initiated by business itself that investors, job creators and businesses in British Columbia are crying out for a reduction in regulation and red tape and for an opportunity to come up with working arrangements within their workplaces that are flexible, that are tailored to the needs of their employees and their particular type of business and that do not spell out chapter and verse, thus and so, the way business shall be done for everybody in British Columbia. It's commonly referred to as a one-size-fits-all approach and commonly understood not to work.
So what we would like to see is a change in the Employment Standards Act that provides for considerably more flex-
[ Page 12800 ]
ibility, rather than the minister appealing to the opposition or anyone else for more staff. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm always skeptical when anybody tells me we should reduce the size of the work, if that is really code for saying we should somehow reduce the standards. I hope that's not intended by the member; I would like to believe it isn't.
What we're doing at the moment is indeed trying our level best to satisfy the concerns that the member raises -- all right? -- to make sure that we don't have an overburden of regulation and unnecessary regulation. We're trying to do that. Thus we have various sectoral committees looking at particular parts of the larger economy through the lens of employment standards and with a view to determining whether the old regulations are absolutely necessary or whether we can in fact relax them somewhat to achieve the end that the member talks about.
[1520]
We've done that in high-tech; we've done it in agriculture; we've done it in gas and oil; we've done it in the film industry. I mean, there are a number of those initiatives that we have carried out -- however, guided above all by the fact that we're not, in the name of making somebody's business dealings easier, going to do it by exploiting workers. That's the bottom line, and it's one that I'm not about to retreat from -- nor, I hope, would members opposite want me to.
On his point, though, about protecting the rights of employers as well as others involved in the system, and that maybe in fact there is too much process, I would just point out to him that one of the reasons for the rather elaborate process spelled out in employment standards legislation is precisely to protect employers. In an earlier incarnation, I am advised that employment standards tended to be a bit of a kangaroo court. You know, the employer would come in and didn't in fact have anything resembling due process and, rather, was sort of guilty until proven innocent. The effort, then, was to make it scrupulously fair, with the emphasis being largely on protecting employers who might be accused of doing something they ought not to be doing.
So I don't dispute the member's conclusion. I think we probably share the same desire that we ought to be trying as much as we possibly can to simplify and expedite and make sure that the regulatory burden isn't overly onerous. But having said that, I want to emphasize that what we've done has been largely to respond to the interests, in this case, of employers.
K. Krueger: The minister has listed some examples of sectors of industries within B.C. where the government has decided to allow more flexible working arrangements, and the minister has referred to those with pride. I think that they should be an encouragement to the minister and the government and all of us that indeed employers value their employees and that there are ways of dealing with abusers -- if abusers appear -- as the exceptions that I believe they are. I think that already in British Columbia, employers place high value on their employees as their best assets in their work organizations. That will increasingly be the case, as I think that we're going to face a shortage of employees in the coming years as the so-called baby-boom generation moves on into retirement.
So if it has worked in those sectors, why wouldn't the government have confidence that it would work in all sectors and that those people or organizations that might be abusers -- deviants of some form -- could be identified and dealt with as those examples arose? Having had such a positive experience in the sectors which the minister listed, why wouldn't the government want to do it for everybody?
Hon. D. Lovick: To coin a phrase that the members from the opposite side are fond of using, one size does not fit all. The reality is that what might work in one kind of workplace will demonstrably not work in another. That's point one.
The second point is that we should have no illusions that what we have done in those
sectors has been a huge, significant change. Most of us would say, quite frankly, "Is
that all?" when we look, at the end of the day, at what has been accomplished. My
point, I guess, is that
Let's take high-tech, for example. The solution we came up with -- or what we hoped would be perceived to be a solution -- has not been greeted with universal approbation, to put it delicately. There are a number of people who think that we did a terrible thing, that we should never have interfered there. Some -- on both sides, I might add -- have said: "You've taken away the rights of workers, and people are going to be victimized as a result of doing this." And people on the other side have said: "You didn't go far enough, and what you did in fact doesn't amount to anything." The same debate, by the way, occurred in the agriculture sector.
I've met with a number of different people in other sectors raising concerns. Where we can accommodate their legitimate concerns without, as I say, jeopardizing the rights of workers, we will do so. But I know that some of the things that have been presented to me just in the past year, and before that to other ministers in this role, are things which, quite frankly, we will categorically reject. We have people, for example, who still argue the case that what we need to do to stimulate the economy is have lower-than-minimum-wage jobs for younger people. We have said: "Absolutely not. We won't do that."
[1525]
We have encountered people who, effectively, say: "You don't have to have anything in terms of a guaranteed call-out. Rather, you will be there at the beck and call of an employer whenever he or she so wishes." We have said: "Absolutely not." It's a matter of ongoing negotiation, and each sector is obviously unique and specific. We have made it very clear that we will work with the sectors. Indeed, that's what the sectoral initiative is about. But I wouldn't pretend for a moment that we have ways to solve the problems of every sector. I wouldn't pretend that at all, and I hope I haven't suggested otherwise.
K. Krueger: Returning to the fact that the current situation apparently is that
it takes 13 weeks, in a number of offices, to answer a 1-800 message from a person who has
a complaint under the Employment Standards Act, and adding to that the fact that the
briefing made it clear that their ideal response time -- their goal -- is to get a
complaint resolved in about six weeks
Further, it emerged in our briefing meeting with Ms. Stockton that one of the factors that makes the resolution time
[ Page 12801 ]
stretch out -- that causes the delivery of the desired result to take longer -- is a slow report time. When you look at the fact that just the intake system, all by itself, is causing a 13-week delay -- therefore, by that logic, putting the new claim into one of those categories of more difficult claims just because it's over three months old -- surely all of us should be looking for ways to resolve this incredible backlog problem. The minister has made it clear -- and I agree with him -- that the government doesn't view more staff as the answer. I've suggested that streamlining the work and cutting the regulation may be the answer; in fact, I'm convinced it is the answer. Perhaps there are other answers. I know there is a lot of brainpower in the ministry, and I'd like to know what efforts the minister and the ministry are making to alleviate this unacceptable backlog.
Hon. D. Lovick: A couple of things. Number one, the member, following his
briefing with Ms. Stockton, will be familiar with the fact that we have tried to make the
1-800 line into an automated service for some. The intention there, of course, is to deal
with all of those cases which can effectively plug the lines and plug the service, when
really all they want to know is something very specific; they're after something
absolutely factual. If, of course, you're in the position then to be able to say on the
phone -- and as much as we all hate those machines that tell you to push 1 for X and push
2 for Y
[1530]
Another strategy that has had some success is what is called a kind of front-end loading, for want of a better term. That's based on the notion of finding out from the call very quickly -- and doing an analysis -- what the nature of a concern is or what the nature of a complaint is. Using the judgment of the employee in the office, frequently you can determine: "Oh, yeah. This is not going to be a complicated one. This won't be difficult. If we deal with this right away, we can probably deal with it in very short order." Therefore it won't get caught up in that larger problem the member referred to that becomes the backlog that gets more and more difficult.
Those kinds of things and other creative strategies as well
B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Penner: It's my privilege today to introduce 29 bright, energetic and inquisitive grade 5 students from Greendale Elementary School in Chilliwack, along with their teacher, Ms. Minato, and 18 parents. Would the House please make them welcome.
K. Krueger: The first goal and key strategy that we referred to in looking at the business plan for the ministry was a healthy, safe and productive work environment for British Columbia workers. One of the facts which emerged in the briefing meeting -- and not surprising at all to somebody with a public sector background, knowing how dedicated people feel when they fall into a backlog situation such as the one we've been discussing -- was that quite a number of employment standards branch personnel have felt it necessary to take stress leave from their employment. Clearly, if we're attempting to provide a healthy, safe and productive work environment for all British Columbia workers and if people in this branch are obliged to go on stress leave because of the workload and the problems -- even considering the technological advances that the ministry just discussed, which I applaud -- what else can be done to right this situation?
Hon. D. Lovick: In responding to this question, I think I'm in danger of getting into micromanagement, as if I were actually sitting there doing it.
The short answer is obviously the better management of staff, but I think probably what that means is some greater sensitivity and some understanding of the nature of the work, which, it would certainly seem on the face of it, is indeed conducive to stress. If you're dealing with people who are arguably among the lowest-paid in our society -- people who have not been treated well by the system and who go to Employment Standards because they have nowhere else to go -- then I think it's safe to say that some of their calls will not the exemplar of patience and understanding: "Please, could you help me out, sir or ma'am?" It'll be, rather, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore," or something like that. If you're on the receiving end of that kind of call, it's obviously not a nice thing.
However, having said all that, I can give the member one bit of comfort, I think, and that is mainly to advise him that, based on the information I have been given, the stress leave and the numbers of people requiring time off for stress problems has indeed been decreasing. So we're clearly doing something right.
K. Krueger: Perhaps we could get specific about that. What is the percentage of unplanned absenteeism in this branch and in the ministry in general?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'd like to ask the member if he would let me have that on notice, and I'll get back to him. I'll get him that information. I don't have it with me.
K. Krueger: Obviously, if I could get it sooner rather than later, we might have further questions that would naturally flow from that. I'd appreciate it.
[1535]
While by no means being a micromanager, Ms. Stockton had taken upon herself the huge project of reviewing every
[ Page 12802 ]
file in the Victoria office of the employment standards branch. The oldest that she found was 500 days old -- clearly not something that any organization would be proud of. The comment slipped out of somebody's mouth in the briefing meeting -- and if I remembered who it was, I wouldn't name him, but I appreciated the honesty -- that resource allocation decisions are political. The staff has actually decreased this year from last year by only two people, but my understanding was that that was necessary in order to provide two people to the minister's staff. I think there are some good reasons for that, as well, since the minister had two ministries previously. He might want to comment on that, because I'm sure that employees have feelings about it.
But if we're not going to add workers to this branch, then I think we must reduce work. That dovetails with the call from the small business community and the business community in general. Why would we have more regulations than we could possibly enforce? As Martin Luther King put it: "Let freedom ring." Let people have a chance to demonstrate that they're good employers who aren't going to abuse their employees, and deal with the ones who are exceptions, rather than deal with everybody across the board in the same way.
So for the benefit of the employees of the branch themselves, would the minister comment further on that workload issue that's creating such stress? That kind of stress is a treadmill, and it's blighting to people. There's no way out of it. If nobody's going to change the type of work they do or the expectations of them and nobody's going to add resources, stress is the result.
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the member is absolutely correct when he quotes somebody
unnamed as saying that resource allocation is political. Of course it is; it's ultimately
a decision
But I think the important point to know, then
My reasoning is simply because those are the people who are not represented by a union. They don't have anybody else to protect their interests. They are, alas, all too typically low-wage earners and the people, sadly, thereby most vulnerable to, you know, the vagaries of the workplace and to unscrupulous employers. Therefore what we did was succeed, quite frankly, in maintaining that operation in an essentially intact way. So I'd like to make that point first. You're darn right it's a political decision, and in this instance the politics for me was that this particular constituent group had top priority. So the member might like to know that. Now, I'm probably going to get in trouble with some others who said they should have had that, but so be it.
I want to make very clear, though, that there was no shift of staff from there to my office. That didn't happen; that's just not the case -- okay?
The third point I want to make is that we need to recognize what the calls are that come to Employment Standards. They are complaints. And a huge number of those complaints are about people who feel they have been aggrieved and mistreated, if not directly abused, in the workplace. You know, it's not a matter, generally speaking, of people just asking for some simple information. It's a complaint. If they're asking for information, it's about how they can pursue a complaint. "I didn't get my holiday pay" -- right? -- "I didn't get my appropriate severance agreement," etc.
[1540]
In 1998-99 the employment standards branch received 17,000 complaints across B.C. We've done a pretty good job. We've reduced the backlog by about 30 percent, but the reality is that it's an ongoing battle. Much as we like to romanticize the workplace and assume that there are very few nasty pieces of goods out there who do mean things to their workers, the reality is that there are some pretty awful people out there, and they appear with depressing regularity. So I'm a little concerned when people are trying to tell me: "Well, you know, maybe we could just back off on the regulations, and maybe we don't need to police the workplace quite as much as we do, because after all, most people are pretty decent." No, that's not the case. Unfortunately, for every story about a good, enlightened employer that we hear -- and I agree that the preponderant majority, in all likelihood, certainly are -- there are also, horribly, sadly, a whole bunch of other stories that illustrate precisely the opposite reality. I think I've dealt with the member's question.
K. Krueger: Those poorer employers are the ones we should be focusing on, in the opposition's view. We should be exception-driven, rather than policy-driven. That's a point that we're trying to make.
The minister has said that the input is by complaint. Certainly that makes sense; that's what we would expect. There are obviously a large number of people out there waiting their 13 weeks, because they have specific complaints. They have another complaint by the time they've had to wait 13 weeks to get their call answered and their file initiated. Does the minister know how many of those complaints disappear during that long wait? How many of those files never get opened because the people just give up?
Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that we do get to them all. Before we emblazon across the sky the notion that 13 weeks is somehow characteristic, let me break it down a little bit. The backlog in Abbotsford, for example, is six weeks. In Port Coquitlam, it's zero. In Surrey, it's four. In Courtenay, it's two weeks. In Cranbrook, it's zero. In Kelowna, it's four. In Nelson, it's zero. And there are some others that are closer to the 13. I certainly don't deny that. But it isn't as if it's across the entire system. The 13 weeks, rather, is the worst-case scenario.
K. Krueger: Apparently five months was the worst-case scenario not that long ago. I think it's Patti Stockton's good efforts that brought the situation around -- noting that disparity between offices. Ms. Stockton did indicate to us that there is some transfer of files from offices that are overloaded to offices that are caught up. I would hate to hark back to my personal previous history too much, but ICBC dealt with this problem years ago by initiating a dial-a-claim service where the input's accepted at one point, and appointments are made for people at the offices where space exists to accommodate them. Is that something that this ministry is looking into?
[ Page 12803 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: We can't accept that model entirely, alas, simply because the offices for employment standards are too far apart. It isn't as if you had them in communities as regularly and as accessibly as, say, ICBC.
K. Krueger: Yet many of those files probably don't involve necessarily seeing the complainant -- at least right off the bat. Perhaps that's something the ministry and the branch could look into and consider, even if the initial stages of the file were conducted by the office that's caught up. It might provide relief to those harassed offices and, also, better service to the complainants.
I asked Ms. Stockton for a copy of the procedures manual that is provided to employees. Her response was that the branch has bookshelves of procedures manuals. It came down to the fact that there is nothing really concise and helpful to hand to new recruits. It sounds as though the branch is struggling with the very same problem that business and investors and job creators are struggling with -- that is, just a paper colossus, a huge amount of red tape to thrash through, to the point where people are so busy trying to put out the fire that they're unable to focus on what's causing the fire.
I think that this branch is too under-resourced with the current workload -- especially if there's no willingness to reduce the regulation -- to ever cope with that problem itself. Once again, I think that that's a case and an example in point for a reconsideration of whether all of the regulation is necessary and whether it ought to be applied to all businesses.
[1545]
I want to read the minister a brief comment from Suromitra Sanatani, the chair of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, who says:
"I am writing to commend both
. . . [the minister and the hon. Advanced Education minister] for the changes announced today which exempt high-technology industry professionals from certain provisions of the Employment Standards Act" -- as we discussed earlier. "The Coalition of B.C. Businesses encourages the government to expand its work with specific industries towards a more flexible approach to employment standards. In terms of what is really needed to boost the economy and job creation, the positive steps taken this far are modest, but nonetheless important."As well, further to our conversation in Victoria yesterday, we wish to reiterate our call for more fundamental reforms to the Employment Standards Act aimed at providing greater flexibility for all industries. The reality of today's economy is that the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses in B.C. do not fit into the inflexible pattern envisioned in the current act and its regulations.
"The success of these businesses and their ability to create and sustain jobs depends on the ability of individual employers to create mutually beneficial, flexible workplace standards with their employees. Businesses where work patterns are customer-driven, highly entrepreneurial, seasonal or project-oriented are being hampered by many of the rigidities in provisions governing hours of work, overtime, minimal call-ins and statutory holidays.
"This issue is a top priority for B.C.'s small and medium-sized businesses. Inflexible labour legislation is widely recognized as an impediment to new business growth and our province's economic renewal. Broader-based employment standards reforms are absolutely essential to allowing small and medium-sized businesses and their employees to reach their true potential.
"We strongly disagree with the claim that flexible standards somehow mean lower standards. The continuing decline in B.C.'s rate of job creation in the private sector over the past number of years is ample evidence that inflexible labour legislation is hurting the ability of B.C. businesses to compete and to create the jobs that support families and local communities. It is time for the government to work with small and medium-sized businesses to create the policy climate that will help reverse this trend."
Ms. Sanatani goes on to express hope that the Coalition of B.C. Businesses will be hearing from the minister in a positive way with regard to those requests. Judging by the answers thus far today, there doesn't seem to have been much movement. That letter was written in February, and we're now three months and a little bit past that. Did the letter initiate any response that the minister hasn't talked about today?
Hon. D. Lovick: The member opposite covered a lot of ground, so let me deal with each of the points briefly.
First of all, on the matter of one office getting overloaded and all of that
Regarding the matter of information for new recruits, certainly there are efforts to brief and to provide people with that basic training. But I would just point out to the member that it's incredibly complicated and difficult, because people in the employment standards branch have to deal with every sector of the economy. That means, of course, learning a whole bunch of different rules and procedures. It's not one simple job that you can get and then it's the end of your training kind of thing.
I also want to respond -- again, charitably -- to the argument that the member seems to be presenting. It says that you can't meet the demands -- so he says, and I think I'm being fair to him -- therefore what you should do is reduce the requirements. I want to just put a little pressure on the logic of that. I think that's a little bit tricky: if you can't meet the demands, reduce the requirements. That's sort of being like a teacher in high school who says: "You know what? Nobody in this class learned to do multiplication. But they all aced addition. They can all do addition, and they can even do division. So guess what. The next test we do, we're going to make sure that they don't have to do multiplication." That's the problem with that argument. Sure, we aren't meeting all of the demands for service as well as we would like, but to suggest that the solution to the problem is to change the rules of the game, I think, is questionable -- to say the least.
[1550]
Regarding Suromitra Sanatani and the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, I have met with
Suromitra and her colleagues on a number of occasions. We have also exchanged
correspondence. The reference to inflexible labour legislation in her letter
[ Page 12804 ]
comes in and says, "These are the demands. We want an end to minimum wage. We do not think that there should be a minimal call-out period," or something, then obviously the room for negotiation is not sufficient to bother having a negotiation.
K. Krueger: With regard to the minister characterizing the opposition's argument in that way, I put it to him that what we are saying is: "Trust the majority. Deal with the exceptions." We wish that this government would stop this failed approach of imposing an encyclopedia of rules across the board. It didn't work in the forest industry with the Forest Practices Code, and it doesn't work with regard to employment, through the Employment Standards Act.
The way Ms. Sanatani put it in that letter she sent to the minister on February 5, 1999
The minister mentioned variances. One of the statistics that Ms. Stockton gave us was that wait times for variances to be processed tend to be between one and 13 weeks. I wonder if the minister considers that to be an acceptable time frame.
Hon. D. Lovick: No, that isn't an acceptable time. But I would offer this to the member opposite. If, indeed, those sectors would come to us with a concerted presentation, as opposed to individual employers, then obviously we could probably deal with the concern more expeditiously than we may be doing at the moment.
I also want to just note that the exceptions -- to use the member's term -- are those who come to Employment Standards. There are approximately 190,000 employers in this province. We get about 17,000 complaints to the employment standards branch. I would put it to the member that those are indeed the exceptions rather than the rule. The category we're talking about, in fact, already establishes the category the member thinks we should be talking about.
Second, I would point out that everything the coalition has asked for is in fact a relaxation of existing standards. They may not see that as in any way prejudicial to the interest of workers, but the fact is that it's a relaxation of employment standards.
[1555]
K. Krueger: Yet there may well be good and valid reasons for those relaxations, and they may well be negotiated between those employers and those employees for value in other areas, just as unions do in negotiating collective agreements.
The statistics the minister quoted in that last answer suggest that less than 10 percent of the businesses of British Columbia are creating the problems. My point throughout this stage of our estimates debates has been that it would make more sense to concentrate on those than on the other 90 percent. If they are able to deliver good results and their employees are happy across the board and no complaints are being generated by them, then why not free them up to explore new ways to do business in 1999 and into the next century, rather than subject them to these constraints? It's not something to be feared to allow different standards. It doesn't mean they'll be lower standards, and apparently those 90 percent-plus of B.C. employers aren't the kind that abuse their employees or take advantage, because they're not generating complaints. So I think, in a way, the minister has helped me make my point: that it would make sense to provide for the very flexibility that Ms. Sanatani is asking for, and that in fact she's right. We're not looking for lower standards; we're looking for flexibility.
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I guess one person's flexibility is another person's lower standards. I think maybe we simply have to agree to disagree on this.
I want to point out to the member two things, though. Number one, he said: "Why can't we simply sit down and negotiate that?" I would point out that that's an option that every employer has with her or his employees -- to sit down and say: "Look, what can we agree to? Do you want to meet me partway?" That's how unions get formed. Frequently they can work out collective agreements in which Employment Standards obviously doesn't enter the picture, because they have set up their own agreement which they consider as preferable. Employment Standards, generally speaking, kicks in if and only if there isn't a collective agreement. So that's one point.
Second, I want to simply, again for the record, remind the member of this: the most common complaints to Employment Standards come from the very sector that Ms. Sanatani and her colleagues are usually coming to talk to me about, and that's restaurants. That's where most of the complaints about violations of employment standards originate from. I don't think we want to get into the action of sharing horror stories, but believe me, I could tell the member some.
I want to remind him of the fact that employees who aren't protected by a collective agreement, who only have that legislation and that branch out there, are frequently scared spitless, especially in an economy where jobs are not that plentiful. They will take things from an employer and from a workplace that they shouldn't, by any rational calculus, but they don't want to say anything for fear of losing their job. That's a commonplace thing. Young kids who go to school and who don't get paid -- they're not going to say anything, because they need the part-time work. Those are common, common phenomena, alas, in our society.
Employment Standards is there to try and protect those interests, the interests of
those people. It doesn't do it, perhaps, as well as it should. I wish we had more
resources to ensure
K. Krueger: Referring back to the beginning of the minister's answer, why should it be necessary for employees to join a union to have a right to sit down with their employer and arrange alternative provisions to those spelled out in the
[ Page 12805 ]
Employment Standards Act? Why should it be necessary to join a union for that?
[1600]
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I think the reality is that employees, unless they do band together to protect their own interests by forming a union, generally speaking, history tells us, aren't treated very seriously. Now, I am prepared to acknowledge that there may be exceptions -- voluntary associations and so forth that have a good relationship with an employer. I'm not suggesting for a moment that people in a workplace need to join a union in order to negotiate something with their employer. I think it's probably preferable, but they don't have to do that. There are probably some employers out there who have worked out those kinds of arrangements with their workers. I suspect, however, that they're decidedly a minority.
K. Krueger: Is the intent of the Employment Standards Act, then, to advance the cause of the unionization of the workforce in B.C.?
Hon. D. Lovick: No.
K. Krueger: Well, the minister and I see the world from very different vantage points, obviously. That's the way it looks to people in British Columbia who have to work with this massive rule book, against their wishes and those of their employees, and that's the way it looks to me.
We'll leave the employment standards branch now, unless the minister would care to make a further comment. I'd like to discuss the Labour Relations Board. But I'll give the minister an opportunity, if he wishes, to discuss that.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, the employment standards branch is designed, as I say, to protect those individuals who are, generally speaking, the least advantaged and the poorest paid in our society. If we lived in a more perfect world where all employers were kind and understanding and said, "We will pay you everything we owe; we will treat you with dignity and with respect," then two things would happen. Number one, probably we wouldn't need employment standards legislation -- and I suppose, conceivably, we would also not need trade unions. The reality, however, is that the workplace, alas, is too often one in which the unequal power relationship turns into a position where the ones with the most power tend to exploit and take advantage of those with less power.
The state's recognition, the state's decision for over a hundred years in this country,
is that there ought to be some minimal standards that people should be allowed to be
protected by so they will not be exploited. That's why every province in this country has
employment standards legislation and why the federal government has legislation. It is a
minimal standard -- I want to emphasize that -- and certainly not the standard where
K. Krueger: I'm not attempting to have the last word here. But if we have a situation where there is such onerous regulation, such tight control, that over 90 percent of the employers in British Columbia are identified as good employers who don't generate complaints, yet they're locked into this, and the employees of the other 8 or 9 percent -- whatever it works out to -- have a 13-week wait or previously a five-month wait to have their complaints dealt with, the credibility of government suffers. And that's not a good thing for any of us.
The Labour Relations Board -- another issue of credibility. The board was hugely well-respected 12 years ago. Former Premier Bill Vander Zalm made his radical moves and his mistakes with regard to the LRB, and the NDP, in the minds of many people, have made the situation worse by swinging the pendulum in the way that they have swung it.
In the wrap-up to this ministry's estimates last year -- July 29, 1998 -- this minister
had these comments with regard to the impartiality of the Labour Relations Board: "
[1605]
There's a whole different atmosphere around the Labour Relations Board and labour relations issues in this province than there was 12 years ago. And there's an urgent need for action to restore the credibility of the LRB -- dramatic action. There's perceived to be a lack of knowledge in the LRB compared to the way things used to be and certainly a lack of balance. We've seen a judge, Judge Ian Pitfield, criticize the chair of the LRB, Mr. Keith Oleksiuk, and ban him from a dispute that he had involved himself in -- obviously improperly in the judge's view.
We had a report by Mr. Brent Mullin, which I know the minister had made comment about in the media -- first in one direction, then slightly the other. But obviously it was a report that concerned the minister at the time. The report -- it's entitled "Towards a Progressive Labour Relations Board" -- says:
"In particular, the board has alienated the employer community. The board has itself thereby created the circumstances and pressure for potentially yet another pendulum swing in British Columbia labour law and legislation."
Breaking off the quote there for a moment, I want to go on record that the B.C. Liberals have no intention of a violent pendulum swing in this area. We're already on record with the changes that we have committed to make. We're not looking for violent pendulum swings, and indeed it's within the power of this minister to correct the problems we're talking about here during his time as minister.
Mr. Mullin went on to say:
"Given the importance of labour relations to the businesses, employees and economy of British Columbia, this demonstrated inadequacy of the board needs to be addressed. The failure of the board in fact arises from basic structural and other fundamental matters
. . . "
He lists them:
"
. . . the composition of the board; the integrity of the board's adjudicative processes -- clouded by the use of board positions to develop arbitration careers; the independence of the adjudicators -- recently interfered with by the executive of the board through the reappointment process; and the need for vision and leadership at the board. These matters need to be addressed. They should have the benefit of the full discussion and input of the community."[ Page 12806 ]
There have been editorials to that effect -- and not just one. We see them in the leading publications of this province. I see the minister smiles, but certainly I think we all pay attention to what editors suggest when they see this kind of news crossing their desks. The Province editorial of December 1, 1998, for example, summed up this way:
" 'In addition to creating an apprehension of bias, the fact that Mr. Oleksiuk entertained representations from one of the parties and imparted those representations to a vice-chair without hearing from the other party constituted a departure from the requirement that all parties be heard,' said the judge.
"It's one of the many reasons why B.C.'s" -- this is no longer quoting the judge; this is the editorial comment -- "business community lacks confidence in the board. Our Labour Code says the chair cannot be removed until such time as someone brings an act or resolution before the Legislature. Labour minister
. . . " -- and the minister is named -- ". . . that time is now."
That really wasn't a new point of view. On May 22, 1998, the same paper had started its lead editorial this way: "To understand why entrepreneurs and investors are skittish about hanging up their coats in B.C., we need look no further than our union-cosy leader at the labour board."
The Vancouver Sun editorial of November 6, 1998, sums up this way:
"Employers have been demanding for months that
. . . " -- again, the minister -- ". . . shake up the LRB. [His] response, which he gave again this week, is to say he is concerned by the allegations and will look into the situation. History suggests he will do nothing. But if the government wanted to signal it is listening to the business community, it would replace Mr. Oleksiuk."
[1610]
Well, last year an internal committee of the Labour Relations Board, made up of the chair and two associate chairs, recommended that the appointment of two vice chairs not be renewed. The two vice-chairs in question were Brent Mullin and Brigid Lumholst-Smith. Both of these vice-chairs had come from the employer side in the labour relations community and were known as strong representatives of the employers' viewpoint at the Labour Relations Board. The committee recommended that their appointments not be renewed, on the basis that they had each already served two consecutive three-year terms and the board needed renewal. The employer community suspected otherwise and protested that the appointments of these two vice-chairs were not being renewed because they had resisted some of the efforts by the chair of the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Keith Oleksiuk, to issue decisions which tilted the LRB jurisprudence towards the unions. Despite these protests, the Minister of Labour accepted the recommendations and did not renew those two appointments.
I understand that an internal committee of the Labour Relations Board recently decided that it would recommend to the Minister of Labour that the appointment of Hans Brown, another vice-chair, not be renewed. Mr. Brown, as is commonly known, is an NDP insider and formerly a member of the NDP provincial executive, who I believe had his terms at the LRB split by a shot at election as an NDP candidate. Will the minister heed the recommendation of the Labour Relations Board and not renew the appointment of Hans Brown?
Hon. D. Lovick: I thought that the member was in fact going to ask me for Keith Oleksiuk's resignation, but instead he is now asking me to accept Keith Oleksiuk's recommendation about some resignation other than Oleksiuk's resignation. He is in fact asking me to accept Keith Oleksiuk's recommendation. Is that correct? On the one hand, he effectively says that we should get rid of the chair of the Labour Relations Board, but then he is also asking me to accept a recommendation of the chair. Is that correct?
K. Krueger: We haven't talked about what the minister should do with Mr. Oleksiuk yet. I thought we would deal with the issue of Mr. Brown first. And certainly if the minister would rather deal with the issue of whether Mr. Oleksiuk ought to remain at the helm first, I'd invite him to do that. So either or both, one at a time or together, Mr. Minister -- through the Chair: what do you intend to do about these gentlemen?
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, all I can tell the member at the moment is: wait and see. He'll find out in the fullness of time, as the parliamentary phrase goes.
I want to simply point out, though, that I don't believe that it's appropriate at all to be talking about people by name in this chamber and suggesting that they should or should not be appointed to any given position because of the political membership card they happen to be carrying. I think that's a dangerous practice.
K. Krueger: If the situation had been dealt with prior to these estimates, we
wouldn't be dealing with it here. It was the minister who brought up the question of Mr.
Oleksiuk's future when I was asking about Mr. Brown, but certainly I'm concerned about
both of them. I remind the minister of his commitment on July 29, 1998: "
We've already experienced the fullness of time. People throughout this province think it's long past time that this situation was dealt with. I would like the minister's assurance that these issues are going to be dealt with promptly in order that credibility can be restored to the Labour Relations Board.
Hon. D. Lovick: Two points. The first one is that the member should not retreat from the point he started to make about the chair of the board. He read into the record a number of things suggesting that I as the minister was remiss because I hadn't replaced the chair of the board, and then when I ask him if that's what he's advocating, he seems to run for cover. I don't think that's, quite frankly, appropriate. Better to fess up, it seems to me.
[1615]
Regarding the second point, the substantive point about the impartiality of the board, what I said about a year ago I think was correct. I think it is still correct today -- namely, that there is a problem if the board is perceived not to be impartial. I accept that. The problem we have, however, is how you fix it. The difficulty is that the challenge about impartiality, the challenge of bias, comes from both sides. That's the predicament. It isn't the case that it is only one group of people who are arguing that Mr. Oleksiuk, the current chair of the Labour Relations Board, is biased and that he is pro-labour. Rather, I could give the member a very large stack of complaints from labour, accusing Mr. Oleksiuk and the board of being pro-business. My conclusion, when I look at all of those files and consider all the arguments that are presented -- including Brent Mullin's paper, which I read carefully after my first
[ Page 12807 ]
interview
K. Krueger: I suggest to the minister that the conclusion is that if neither
side is happy with these two individuals, which is my understanding as well
My impression is that Mr. Oleksiuk is bunkered down and trying to ride this situation out, that neither the unions nor the management side wishes to appear before Mr. Brown and that it's urgent that the minister deal with not just this perception but the reality that the Labour Relations Board is not impartial with these people in position. They should be removed. There is a recommendation from the LRB with regard to Mr. Brown. That's why I asked about it first. Will the minister comment on his intentions with regard to Mr. Brown?
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. D. Lovick: I believe, Mr. Chairman, I already answered that question. I said that time will tell what we will do. I'm not about to say what I propose to do or not do about that reappointment, or that possible reappointment.
I want to make two points, though. The first is that the court case the member refers
to
The second point I would make is just that I am not aware of any complaints by anybody involved in dealing with the Labour Relations Board about the judgments or the impartiality of Mr. Brown. I have never heard any of those. I have certainly heard them about other members of the Labour Relations Board.
K. Krueger: Whether they're questions of judgment or whether they're questions of competence, if there are concerns about the LRB being able to do its job, I am sure they're concerns that are reaching the minister's ears. Certainly they've reached mine. The entire labour relations community is looking to him for an early resolution. It's absolutely essential that this board have credibility.
Interjection.
K. Krueger: When the minister says, "What?" I suggest that the
solution is replacement of the two individuals we've been discussing. If you have a
problem with the leadership, if you have a problem with a judge having suggested that the
leader behaved inappropriately
[1620]
Of course, this whole question and concern of the partiality of the Labour Relations Board is part of a larger picture of a labour relations climate which investors and job creators in this province believe has been heavily slanted in favour of the union positions. One very pertinent example of that is the provisions under the Labour Relations Code for certification versus the provisions for decertification. Under this government's Labour Relations Code, if a union is able to get 55 percent of the employees at a workplace to sign union cards, the union is automatically certified without a vote. However, if 55 percent of the employees subsequently sign an application for a cancellation of the union certification, the board does not automatically decertify the union. This concern has been profiled so many times that I know it has come to the minister's ears. Perhaps he would comment on that very clear example of why British Columbians believe that an obvious double standard exists with regard to the code itself and the LRB.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think the predicament is that the question is a complex one. I
would simply say, for the moment, that I think if the member were to review the
literature, he would discover that
Again, as I say, the issue is rather complex. Suffice it to say for the moment that I think most people in the trade would agree they're entirely different, and therefore perhaps different rules pertain.
K. Krueger: Speaking of what is done in the heat of the moment, let's talk about certification for a moment -- particularly the certification of small businesses in British Columbia. My understanding is that it happens about once a day, on average, in British Columbia at present that an employer experiences certification.
The time lines are very tight. The provisions against the employer speaking to its employees during that time are very onerous. Things happen so quickly that in the case of a small business severely under-resourced in comparison to the large union it may be dealing with, it's a David-and-Goliath situation, and certification can happen almost before the employer knows it. That is, again, perceived as an example of how biased the labour laws are in this province. Has the minister given consideration to expanding the time frames available to an employer to deal with a certification process?
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no, I have not done that. Indeed, I understand the time frame is essentially consistent all across Canada.
K. Krueger: My intent is to proceed with a line of questioning with regard to the implementation of the provisions of
[ Page 12808 ]
Bill 26 since the legislation was passed last summer. However, I had a commitment from the minister that when the staff who weren't available yesterday to deal with the GVW issue under ICBC were here, we would proceed with that. So I'm at the minister's pleasure, at the moment, as to which matter we proceed with and when.
Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for that intervention. My understanding is that we will probably do so a little bit later. What I suspect is happening is that somebody is watching this debate. Some poor soul who doesn't have a life, I guess, is watching what we are discussing here. Therefore they will take what we are saying into account, and we'll say that we are ready whenever they wish to be here. I'll simply advise the member when I get some word from outside that somebody is available, and we can deal with it then.
[1625]
K. Krueger: Certainly that's fine. If there are people who watch Hansard television, they must wonder what we're talking about sometimes. It's like invoking the Phantom of the Opera. But we'll look forward to the arrival of this resource.
Before I move on to the fallout from Bill 26, I'd like to quote from Ms. Sanatani again with regard to the impartiality of the Labour Relations Board. Hopefully, the minister is already thoroughly familiar with this. A survey was done of B.C. businesses, and the outcome was that there is an impression of bias on the part of B.C. businesses who've had to do with the Labour Relations Board. I'm quoting from Ms. Sanatani's article summarizing the survey. She says: "The survey found a majority of small and medium-sized businesses feel they are getting biased treatment at the LRB. Of the 200 businesses interviewed, 53 percent said their hearing process lacked neutrality. One-fifth said the LRB was 'not neutral at all.' " That's 20 percent.
She says: "Imagine running your business with the slogan 'Shop here! Half our customers are dissatisfied.' " She goes on to say: "Because smaller businesses lack the resources of bigger firms, making the LRB more efficient and less costly should be a priority." I think that is manifestly true. "The survey also found numerous complaints that the LRB should do a better job of keeping small employers informed about its policies, procedures and processes." Skipping forward, she says: "The root of the problem is a fundamental imbalance in the labour law itself and the need for a more balanced vision of B.C.'s labour laws."
In summing up, she says: "The time has also come to give employers greater freedom
to communicate to employees about the potential impacts unionization would have on their
businesses. The government's tilting of the balance of B.C.'s labour laws since 1993 has
paralleled the decline in the provincial economy. A more balanced approach is needed to
restore economic confidence, investments and jobs." Going back to an earlier part of
her editorial, Ms. Sanatani said: "
Referring back to the established goals of this ministry and the key strategies, strategy B and goal B was promoting a prosperous economy that creates jobs and enhances workers' ability to balance work and family responsibilities. Here we have the chair of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, who is also the vice-president for B.C. and Yukon of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, telling us that the government's tilting of the balance of B.C.'s labour laws since 1993 has paralleled the decline in the provincial economy. How does the minister respond to that?
Hon. D. Lovick: I was sort of expecting a question about the survey some time ago. Indeed, I thought it might even make it into question period, but alas, it never did. This is the second survey that Ms. Sanatani and her colleagues have released. In this case, the sample they used was somewhat smaller, and I'll leave it for those witnessing this debate to decide why that is the case. The Labour Relations Board provided the coalition with a list of more than 1,000 employers who would have had some kind of dealings with the LRB in the sample year.
The coalition then, I understand, mailed questionnaires to these firms. They received 200 in reply. Most people who are in the survey business agree that a mail-back methodology is inherently biased, simply because those who return the mail in surveys are generally those with the most concerns. Those concerns, needless to say, are usually of a negative variety. Obviously then, given that methodology, it's not too difficult to predict the result. Indeed, we had the same results on the last survey.
[1630]
Given Suromitra Sanatani's stated position on numerous occasions in the press and various editorials and letters that I have read, it seems to be the same theme repeated many, many times. I would point out, though, that the people that are being surveyed are those who have effectively been dealing with the Labour Relations Board, feeling that they are threatened with being unionized or feeling that somebody else -- i.e., in this case, the LRB or government -- is interfering with their right to manage their business as they wish. Inevitably, those people are going to regard the LRB with less than enthusiasm and complete approval.
I think it's absolutely fair to say -- and I'm not pointing the finger; I'm simply describing the logical calculus -- that the majority of people surveyed, given that methodology and given that audience, are very likely to be those who don't have a great deal good and complimentary to say about the Labour Relations Board. So why are we surprised? Indeed, I would say that if we were to give a survey to all the trade unions that lost decisions -- in other words, the board decision went against them -- I'm sure that many of those would also be quite prepared to suggest that there's something wrong with the LRB; it's not serving their needs very well.
Finally, I would just make the point
Finally, I would note this -- and it's a point we made not very long ago, too. One conclusion that I take from this survey and indeed from conversations that I have had with various people on both sides of the divide is that there is a climate of polarization in this province, alas. I'm disturbed by that, because I don't think we benefit much from it. Rather, I'm committed to doing what we can to foster cooperation between employers and employees, because I think that's
[ Page 12809 ]
something that in the long as well as in the short term will be better for all of us.
K. Krueger: Given the minister's obvious suspicions about the survey and how the sample was chosen and how the sample chose whether to respond or not and how the questions were phrased, and recognizing the fact that the Labour Relations Board is a tremendously important institution in this province and that it certainly has a list of everybody it has dealt with and certainly has the resources and the technology, has the Labour Relations Board, then, done its own survey about customer satisfaction, if we can refer to it as such?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not aware of that.
K. Krueger: I wonder if we might have the minister's commitment to order that
that be done, preferably by an independent party, and to make the results public. I've
come in contact with so many interesting people while having this portfolio. Some of them
have been international trade lawyers who tell me that their clients who come to them for
their expert opinion on the many considerations of bringing their money to British
Columbia and setting up business will ask them, at the point of the interview where they
deal with labour laws and the fact that they could be certified by 55 percent of people
signing a card without ever having a vote and without being able to hear from their
employers about the employers' side of the proposition
If that concern is fortified by lawyers in good conscience having to say to those international clients, "We see the LRB as a tremendously biased organization, and frankly, we can't give you any hope or comfort that you're going to be treated fairly there," then we have a gigantic problem. We know that. I think, again, that the minister, for all his admirable zeal to defend the people and organizations that he chooses to defend, nevertheless accepts that the perceived non-balance in labour law and its application in British Columbia is hurting this economy.
So would the minister consider ordering a survey to be done where he has no such qualms about the methodology or the delivery?
[1635]
Hon. D. Lovick: The matter of the survey first, Mr. Chairman. The LRB is not involved in a business providing a service where customer satisfaction is paramount. It's not like ICBC, for instance, or any other provision of goods and services. It is, rather, involved in an adversarial system. It puts itself between two opposing forces. Its job is to say: "One side, we agree with; the other, we disagree with." Accordingly then, it's not about to make too many friends. The best we can hope for is that people will believe they have been treated fairly. My experience is that most people, when the decision goes against them, will find it difficult to say they have been treated fairly. They would rather believe that somebody didn't really hear them or understand their concerns, than say: "Well, yeah, we were wrong. The other guys were right." So I think we need to recognize that it's a classic illustration of an adversarial system. Inevitably, I think, the LRB will become the proverbial meat in the sandwich and will not be praised very much for anything they do.
Regarding the matter of the perceived imbalance in our labour legislation, I think that certain parties may say that. Maybe people who come from a right-to-work state, like Alabama or something, may come into this province and say: "Yup, labour laws are totally out of sync." Well, of course -- from there. But I don't think that's the case in most mature economies with a mature labour relations climate.
When you consider the success that we have had with our Labour Code since it was brought in -- fewer days lost to work stoppages, a significant improvement in the climate in that regard, which is the usual indicator -- there hasn't been this flood of organization whereby every group of people in the world has suddenly become certified and become unionized. There was a flurry of activity in the first years after 1992, but then it sort of stabled off. It's been pretty much a constant since. I would suggest that we have a relatively stable labour climate, and I would also argue that our Labour Code will stand up to scrutiny by any other jurisdiction in Canada as balanced and fair. I don't think any suggestion that it has indeed caused great problems is borne out by the facts.
K. Krueger: I suggest to the minister that the fact that there haven't been as many strikes -- or days lost to strikes -- in British Columbia in the recent past is probably a reflection of the fact that our economy is on its knees. Employees don't want to see their employers go bankrupt or go out of business altogether, when so many have already left the province or have given up on B.C. as a place to do business.
When the minister talks about the adversarial nature of the board's duties, that's a statement of the obvious, as was my comparison to customer service an oversimplification. But the minister was just saying moments ago that if everybody's upset with the Labour Relations Board incumbents, then perhaps they're okay -- to paraphrase what he was saying. If he took a survey, and 50 percent of the union side of the disputes that came before the Labour Relations Board were upset with the LRB and 50 percent weren't, and the same thing in the employer community, then perhaps that would be the right conclusion in an adversarial scenario such as the minister describes. But we don't know that. In fact, the indications are that the business community is very unhappy with the state of partiality of the Labour Relations Board.
I don't understand why the minister would be closed to the concept of doing a survey. Certainly this government spends a fortune on polls and on communications and advertising. The minister has challenged the credibility of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses survey. Why not do one of his own?
[1640]
Hon. D. Lovick: I guess I wasn't specific or emphatic enough. What would a survey tell you? What information would it yield? Certain people didn't like the decision that went against them. Wow, what a surprise. Certain people on both sides didn't like the decision they got. Wow, isn't that informative. Why ever would we spend money finding out that? We know that; we know that's going to happen. If there were some set of questions that would be truly helpful in posing or setting up a survey, I would say yes. But for the Labour Relations Board, which adjudicates and picks winners and losers based on applications that come before it, we're going to have a survey to ask: "How do you feel about it?" Why don't we ask all the winners? Why don't we ask all those who had the decision go in their favour, "Hey, how do you
[ Page 12810 ]
like me so far?" and then go to the other side who lost and say: "How do you feel about it?" Come on, let's be serious. This is a foolish, foolish line of questioning, it seems to me.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take up the member on his offer that he made some time ago and bring in the ICBC folks so that we can deal with the gross vehicle weight rating and the gross axle weight rating.
[1645]
D. Jarvis: We're here to follow up on discussions on ICBC that were discontinued
yesterday. This section is on the GVW and recreational vehicle concerns that were
occurring throughout the province. In January of '99 the ICBC sent out a compliance
circular, ostensibly to deal with the safety issues concerning brakes and weights and
compliance with Transport Canada's regulations. I have talked, as I said the other day, to
Mr. Heather and Mr. Dueck of ICBC, and they both contend that the real purpose of this
compliance letter, which, unfortunately, went out to everyone concerned in the industry --
everyone who was a stakeholder in it
In any event, they sent out a subsequent letter or circular to people throughout this province who were stakeholders in these recreational vehicle concerns and GVW weights and axles, so I thought that everything was going to be settled. In their subsequent letter to the people, it ostensibly said: "Where there's a question of safety, please comply with it in respect to the situation surrounding the incident, but when it's well over the axle weight, then warning tickets should be given." I informed my caucus as to what was happening. Subsequent to that, we've had a horde of calls coming in from all over the province about all the bad things that ICBC is doing in this province with respect to axles.
At this point, what I want to do is get our member -- for Peace River North, is it? -- who is being subject to letters and phone calls and inquiries from all over, especially in his area in the northeast of British Columbia. This is causing great concerns and will cause even more concerns to our tourist industry if it continues. I'll turn the floor over to him at this moment. He will follow me up with some questions, and we can expect some good answers, I hope.
Hon. D. Lovick: By agreement, the member for Peace River North and I agreed that I would start by just giving a kind of quick overview of the circumstance. I thank the member for North Vancouver-Seymour for his backgrounder comment, despite the evaluative nature of what he had to say and the aspersive comments about ICBC.
I was also struck by his reference that following the law is not always the right way. That's a dangerous statement to make in the Legislature, it seems to me. But what the heck. I think I know the point he's making -- simply that sometimes, if we followed the letter of the law on everything, we would probably create more problems than we want. Therefore I can understand.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: His example that's coming across the floor, though, scares me. He says "photo radar," and I think that we should follow the law when it's about photo radar, because we shouldn't speed. And if the member disagrees, I suggest that all he has to do is a simple thing. All those opposed to photo radar, raise your right foot -- not a problem, it seems to me.
Anyway, I don't want to talk about that. I want to talk, rather, about that important issue of gross vehicle weights and about gross vehicle weight rates and gross axle weight rates. In 1987 the federal government introduced its regulations regarding the weight of vehicles on our highways. British Columbia accordingly, in August of 1989, brought in its own regulations. What the regulation said, effectively, was that you can't operate a vehicle if it's loaded beyond the manufacturer's specification of gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating. What that meant essentially was that all the weight of the vehicle itself, plus all the cargo and the payload, had to measure to a certain amount called the weight rating. If you went over that, beyond the manufacturer's specifications -- so the argument went -- you were in fact running the risk of operating an unsafe vehicle, so we were advised.
[1650]
Accordingly, then, B.C. brought in its regulation to match the federal government's, and that is the way it has been since 1989. Quite correctly, the member points out that just this year -- in January of 1999 -- ICBC issued a circular dated January 12 that talked about the regulation and talked about being in compliance with that regulation. Unfortunately, what happened there was that it seems that the cat got out among the pigeons. People indeed got scared and said: "Wait a minute. If you enforce that regulation, that will have a deleterious influence on certain regions of the province. This will not be a good thing." They were concerned about tourists from other provinces who brought in their vehicles, perhaps with a couple of skidoos on the back of a three-quarter-ton pickup or something, and whether those vehicles were too heavy to operate according to our regulations -- failing to recognize, of course, that Alberta has the same regulations as ours, by the way. So it's a matter of enforcement, essentially.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
The story was
The argument, I suppose -- the push-back for people who are concerned -- is that
perhaps people are not buying the right vehicle; perhaps they're asking more of the
vehicle than it was designed for. That's a possibility. I think it's worth noting that in
B.C., though we have essentially the same regulatory environment as do Alberta and
Manitoba -- and, I think, essentially across the country -- we're a little more lenient,
because we have a 10 percent factor figured in. In Alberta, for example, it simply says:
"This is the rating, and you must not exceed that rating." In B.C
[ Page 12811 ]
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: No, no. In B.C. we have a regulation that says that we allow a 10 percent factor -- okay? I think it's worth noting that B.C. is perhaps a little more understanding of the difficulties.
What else did I want to say for the moment? Simply, our essential reason for proceeding is that we believe that it is a safety concern -- that's the advice we get from the manufacturers -- and we think that it's a doable one. I understand that there has been some concern expressed about whether we're going to be too vigilant, rigorous and zealous in regulation, and therefore the RCMP or motor vehicle people working now in ICBC are going to become cops and eager beavers and get out there and try to arrest everybody. The notion is that no region is being targeted; no particular kinds of vehicles are being targeted. Rather, we simply want to ensure that motorists are safe and are driving the vehicles that they ought to be driving and using them for the purposes that they ought to be.
The members opposite, I know, have some particular concerns. I'm, of course, happy to hear those concerns and to answer any questions they have. Accordingly, we have some people here who can give me some technical background to deal with those questions, and I'm happy to note that somebody has just handed me a note on who is with me, so let me advise the members opposite.
Sitting on my immediate right is Keith Stewart. Keith is the assistant vice-president for Vancouver Island. Hi, Keith. Keith, I know and recognize; Paul, I don't know. Paul Beardmore is the manager for compliance programs and standards for the corporation. Ben Mikkelsen, sitting behind, whom I knew years ago, is manager for vehicle standards; and Greg Basham, whom I think we all met yesterday, is the government and corporate relations executive.
With that brief opening, I'm anxious to hear from the member opposite.
[1655]
R. Neufeld: I guess, with all the introductions and comments about what we're going
to talk about
When I first talked to ICBC about this prior to last fall, I understood that it was going to be carte blanche 10 percent. Somewhere along the line I either misunderstood ICBC, or something got changed. It was changed to 10 percent, and you have 60 days to bring it into the weight restriction or to deal with the issue. You either have to unload something or buy a new vehicle. In fact, I think I saw an ICBC circular where they instructed people to say that if you couldn't bring it into line, you had to go out and purchase a new vehicle. I can tell you that that's a little difficult for some folks to do. It's quite easy for ICBC to say: "Go buy yourself a new vehicle." When you're talking about $60,000 to $100,000 for a one-ton that's all rigged out as a welding truck or about a three-quarter-ton or one-ton that pulls a fifth-wheel trailer -- which are in excess of $100,000 -- you just don't go down to the corner store and say: "Well, I'm going to get rid of this today because ICBC told me I had to, and I'm going to buy a new one." I think that's putting a pretty heavy onus on people.
The difference between Alberta and B.C. -- the minister brought it up. It's
interesting, and it's not just Alberta, because the U.S. is involved and Saskatchewan is
involved -- any province in Canada. My experience from the Alberta side is that unlike
British Columbia, they aren't so intent on forcing the letter of the law. I would not go
so far as to say that we should not adhere to the law, but I think laws and legislation
are set up as a guideline. That's obvious in photo radar. In fact, it was quite
interesting that the minister brought it up; I wasn't even thinking about it. Photo radar
[1700]
The issue about it only being in the northeast -- I don't want people to think that. I
have letters. I have copies of a magazine called RV Times, where Golden is
targeted. That's not the northeast. Golden is a long way away from where I'm at in the
northeast, but the northeast is one place. The Okanagan -- a huge tourism area -- is
another one that's targeted. I don't know -- maybe Vancouver Island got off light so far,
because maybe they haven't targeted Vancouver Island. Maybe we should be targeting a
little bit the minister's own riding with some of the weights and measures on the tourism
industry and on industry -- all people who use one-tons and three-quarter-tons and
half-tons
With those few opening remarks, I'm going to go back to my questioning that I started yesterday. I asked yesterday if there is any documentation that demonstrates -- that shows -- that overloaded half-tons, three-quarter-tons and one-tons have added to safety problems on the highways or added to accidents. I want to know if there are any statistics to back that up.
We have two different viewpoints from ICBC. I have some circulars that say that operating above the manufacturer's GVWR is a potential safety hazard. I have other people in ICBC saying that there are no examples of excess weight being a contributing factor in accidents for non-commercial vehicles -- we're talking about the smaller ones. So I want to know: what is it? Are there actually some statistics we can go to that demonstrate that there is now a problem which didn't
[ Page 12812 ]
exist a year ago? We didn't have this problem about a year and a half ago. We might have had vehicles being overloaded, but we weren't facing the same problems that we are now. I just want to know what precipitated the action by ICBC to start checking these vehicles in this fashion and to tell people that they probably would have to take them off the road.
Hon. D. Lovick: Let me start by giving just a little historical perspective in terms of whether this is a problem that has only just arisen. I think the member will appreciate knowing that the matter of enforcement has -- theoretically, of course -- been available since 1989, when we passed the regulation in B.C. But let's just look at it over the past two and a half years -- all right? Over the past two and a half years, we've got some statistical evidence. In 1998 there were a total of 12 violation tickets issued in the entire province. Police issued two; the ICBC people -- the traffic compliance folks -- issued ten. There was only one pickup truck ticketed, which was both defective and overloaded. In 1997 there were 25 violation tickets issued. Police issued 20; ICBC issued five.
Over the first four months of 1999 there have been six violation tickets issued in the entire province. Police issued two; ICBC issued four. Sounds like a scorecard, doesn't it? There was only one pickup truck ticketed, note, in 1999. Although we don't have the particulars, it's likely that this vehicle, which was proceeding along Highway 1 in the interior, was visibly overweight and was asked then to proceed to a weigh scale. The balance of the tickets were issued to heavy commercial vehicles crossing the scales, and this included several buses carrying passengers, and heavy commercial trucks and vans.
That's the point, I think -- to simply say that it isn't the case, despite the circular
Now to the member's specific question: is there specific statistical evidence? The short answer to that is no. Let me tell the member what I do know -- namely, that crash reporting by the police, I understand, doesn't specifically include a section on weight and overweight vehicles. I also understand that vehicles aren't generally weighed following a crash, just because of the practical demands. Rather, police focus on the predominant cause of crashes, which obviously is going to be the driver's behaviour: unsafe speed, undue care and attention, alcohol impairment, those kinds of things.
K. Krueger: Without due care and attention.
Hon. D. Lovick: Did I say "with?" Thank you -- without due care and attention. You can tell somebody who used to work for ICBC; you can spot that.
Although mechanical failure accounts for only a small percentage of crashes -- I understand somewhere between 3 and 4 percent -- tire and brake failure may well be linked to the vehicle being overweight and exceeding the manufacturer's specifications.
[1705]
I would also just quote -- and I'm sure the member's familiar with this, because I think the circular quoted it -- one of the three major light truck manufacturers. In the owner's manual, it says as follows: "Improper weight distribution can have an adverse effect on the way your vehicle steers and handles and the way the brakes operate." Obviously you'll leap from that to say that overweight would clearly also be a contributing factor.
R. Neufeld: Something precipitated the problem. For some reason, people are
getting
When I look at the violations from 1997, 1998 and 1999, there are not very many violations. So obviously there are not very many people out there being ticketed for being overweight. That would tell me, with the amount of vehicles that are out there -- and I don't know how many hundreds of thousands there are -- that most people are pretty well in compliance. Most people don't break the law just for the fun of it. Sometimes it happens. A lot of people don't intend to. But there has been a concerted effort by ICBC, since taking over the motor vehicle branch totally, to check all small trucks. I have had people come to me and tell me that personnel from the weigh scales have informed people verbally that they had better get rid of that vehicle and get it in line, because they're soon going to start fining them and taking them right off the road. Now, that doesn't lead to a good working environment.
The minister's got to understand that where I come from -- the northeast -- there is an
awful lot of movement between Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia by all kinds of
vehicles -- thousands of pickups, three-quarter tons and one-tons. Whether it's for
recreational purposes
[1710]
When I look at some of the documentation from the Okanagan, from the RV Times,
that talks about "Golden Is at It Again"
[ Page 12813 ]
It's interesting that there is no documentation on the fact that one-tons or half-tons or three-quarter-tons that are a bit over their GVW ratings actually cause accidents. The circulars that come out from ICBC talk about "potential safety risks," as the frame breaks and other systems are not designed to handle weights greater than the GVWR.
I think what we have to remember there, also, is that there is a bit built into this by the manufacturers of those vehicles. Obviously they can say to a person that if they're over the GVWR, their warranty won't apply. They do that to help themselves. So they underrate them a little bit. I want to just read what one of the owners of one of the motor vehicle dealerships in Fort St. John -- a Ford dealership -- states. It says: "The figures offer the buyer guidelines to what the total mass of the vehicle may be when including all the potential cargo." That's from a dealer. From ICBC, as I read earlier, it says that the brakes won't handle it or the frame won't handle it, and thus it is a safety hazard. Yet we have no documentation to show that it's a safety hazard. In fact, if you look at the violations, it shows that it's almost nil.
So I'm going to ask the minister again: why is there an effort on ICBC's part to target -- and they do target -- this type of vehicle, regardless of where it's at in the province of B.C. -- other than on Vancouver Island? Why are we actually doing this? Why do we look at the absolute letter of the law for GVWs on vehicles, and we don't when it comes to photo radar or other issues? The minister knows quite well there are hundreds of statutes here that we don't enforce to the letter of the law and probably never will, but they're there in case somebody is grossly overloaded. I agree that if they're grossly overloaded, they should be taken off the road or fined. I'm not saying that it's just carte blanche, but there has to be some kind of recognition that these people have to be able to continue to operate in the province of B.C.
The other thing -- just as a matter of interest -- is that I called the Dodge dealer
and asked him what the difference was on the GVWR between a gas three-quarter ton fully
loaded and a diesel. Same brakes, same frame, same wheels, same tires, same body, same
vehicle. The only difference is the gas and the diesel engine. They up it 200 kilograms
for the diesel engine. Doesn't that seem a little strange to you? I mean, when ICBC says
its brakes, frame and tires can't carry the load and it's unsafe, and yet the manufacturer
can put a different engine in it and just put a
[1715]
Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his comments. I appreciate the fact that he began by saying that obviously most people are in compliance; people don't deliberately set out to break the law.
I think we need to start from there in order to make the point that there is not
Let me give an example, in the fact that -- again, to provide, I hope, some comfort --
in Prince George, the corporation, because of the concerns -- largely, I gather, by the
local radio talk show host up there
I struggle when the member tells me that he thinks this is ultimately about harassment.
I don't think that's the case. Certainly I've been told that nobody intends it to be. But
by the same token, I have to say this: if in fact we have a roadblock -- co-sponsored with
the RCMP usually -- to talk about vehicle safety, and we're pulling over vehicles, and we
find defective brakes, bald tires, lights that don't work and a whole bunch of other
major, serious concerns for road safety
Indeed, I understand that one of the cases that the member for Peace River North was
dealing with
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah. I interviewed the police constable about the one truck that was pulled over and the guy that was complaining that he had been unfairly treated, etc. The police constable's statement was: "Look, you know, the bumper was almost dragging on the ground, so clearly that's why I pulled the guy over" -- not just a random check to say, "Gee, how are you doing in terms of the GVWR and the regulation?"
I simply offered that, not to dispute, but to simply say that I think that suggesting
that it's harassment and that there's this serious campaign going on to try and check up
on everybody and every vehicle
My fear -- and I've said this before -- is that the more we talk about this and the
more we make this an issue, then the more
The "Golden experience," by the way, that the member refers to was in 1997, I
understand. Some of this stuff has been around. I'm a little concerned also about the
argument -- and I've heard it from other members too, people who know more about cars and
manufacturers than I do
[ Page 12814 ]
The final point I would make is just that our policy is not the letter of the law. Indeed, for reasons that I've explained, as well as that 10 percent matter we talked about, I think that it's safe to say that the regulation and the enforcement of it are designed to be much more accommodating and understanding of people's circumstances -- the kind that the member opposite described. Finally, I would just point out that we are now looking at a stakeholder group that's talking about this. Indeed, I understand that something is going on in the Peace region, simply because that's where a lot of this attention has been generated.
[1720]
I'm not sure that I'm giving comfort to the member, but I am trying to, by simply saying that there isn't a concerted and deliberate effort to target everybody driving a pickup truck and to make sure that nobody exceeds GVWR or GAWR.
R. Neufeld: We can each have our own opinion. This is the first time I have to
question the minister in the House. Previous to this, he and I have had discussions
privately. The Golden episode
Mr. Minister, I know that you're being told that this isn't happening -- the targeting.
I appreciate that. I think that it is. I don't want to spend a lot more time on it, but
I'm going to just respond to a couple of things you said when you talked about the one
fellow that got the ticket in Fort St. John; the RCMP said his bumper was on the ground.
He got a ticket. I'm not talking about that. I said to the minister very clearly that if
they are grossly overweight, they deserve a ticket. But I can tell the minister that I
personally sat at the weigh scale and watched a one-ton service truck with two skidoos on
it -- not a service truck, a survey crew, two people
They got to the Fort St. John scale and were weighed. They were pulled in to be
weighed. They were 12 per cent over the GVW; they were within the weights for each axle,
but 12 per cent over, because it's always a little bit lower. They made them unload half
the stuff -- talk about harassment -- in the scale yard. One guy stayed there and watched
it so that it didn't get stolen. The other guy went home, unloaded a whole bunch more
stuff, came back, loaded that stuff up, went back home and loaded the other stuff. Now, if
that isn't harassment, if that isn't a cool way to really make yourself great friends with
the working guy or gal that's trying to make their living
Just one other issue, so that the minister knows. I was given a phone call here just the other day about roadblocks in Fort St. John. It happened at Charlie Lake. So I phoned my constituency office and asked the lady that works with me in my office to go to Charlie Lake and observe, write down what takes place and see who's being stopped for a safety road check. Now, I assume that when the motor vehicle branch goes out on a safety road check, they're looking at all vehicles, whether they are cars, pickups or trucks. I would assume that's what would happen.
She drove out there. It's interesting: there were four motor vehicle branch cars and one van; they stopped farm trucks, welding trucks, vans, crew trucks, B.C. Hydro trucks, an older Chev one-ton, one-ton steamer units, one-ton doolies pulling holiday trailers -- and no cars.
Would I be correct in assuming that these people that were doing this road check assumed that all cars are not in violation -- that they are all fine; you can just let them all through -- but these are the ones we are going to target? So when I say I think that there is targeting in certain cases, I think there is. Interestingly enough, I did phone Mr. Bumstead and talked to him quite at length about targeting those vehicles, and he said they weren't. In fact, obviously he phoned the people at the Charlie Lake area where they were checking vehicles, and they immediately disbanded the road block and left and came over and talked to the lady that works with me in her vehicle while she was sitting there watching them.
[1725]
So there is an issue about targeting one-tons, half-tons, three-quarter-tons --
anything that looks like a work vehicle -- but letting cars through. Maybe the minister
wants to respond to that. But the second part of it is: I'd like to know when ICBC
actually started checking small vehicles on the highway. My experience has been that the
Department of Transport -- which it used to be referred to as, and maybe still is; I'm not
sure -- used to just do commercial vehicles. In fact, it does them quite often along the
highway now. The RCMP
Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the points made by the member, and I think they deserve to be taken seriously, because they are serious. He's doing, I think, what he ought to in terms of representing the people in his region -- and beyond, frankly.
First of all, let me just for the public record make a point that I didn't know about but I think we should all know about. The incident which started this whole issue, this whole debate, in Fort St. John was apparently a three-quarter-ton with an overload of 1,695 kilograms on the rear axle. What that caused was a broken frame, which the dealer then refused to pay for under warranty, because it was grossly overweight. So that, again, is perhaps the activating incident, or whatever.
Second, I think I understand where the member comes from and why he feels as passionately as he does, but I'm struggling with calling road safety initiatives harassment. Maybe over the top, maybe overly zealous, but I think that's a stretch, and I struggle with it. But so be it. That's just my view.
Cars rather than trucks, or cars instead of trucks
[ Page 12815 ]
tially the same one that it was when it was the motor vehicle branch before the merger and the transfer to ICBC. Generally speaking, it's safe to say that the focus is on commercial vehicle traffic; it is on trucks rather than cars. But now it is expanded to do cars as well -- resources and time and so forth permitting. So to the member's first point about why no cars, it's probably because they had enough traffic otherwise. If there weren't enough, they'd have gone for the cars too. All right; so be it.
The last point I want to make is just this
Again, I thank the member for raising it -- and his colleague from Peace River South, who also certainly spoke well on this matter. I appreciate it. I hope we've answered some of the questions, and I thank him for raising the concerns.
[1730]
R. Neufeld: We're talking about GVW weights on small vehicles and that if you
exceed those manufacturers' specifications, it's deemed to be unsafe. What takes place
when you graduate to larger vehicles? For instance, I went to a Freightliner dealership
and looked at the door. That particular truck could carry 5,833 kilograms on the front
axle and 10,432 on each of the tandem axles, or a total of 20,864 on the tandem. That's
what GVW was allowed, which makes a total of 26,697 kilograms. But if, for instance
Now, can you tell me if
Hon. D. Lovick: To deal with the very specific one about the off-road logging trucks, WCB has responsibility for that regulation at the moment. They may indeed be looking at it to discover if it is workable. I suspect that part of the reckoning is that because it is off-road, then other people aren't affected by it -- right? As the member knows, you can drive a logging truck for a long way in the back country and not see anybody. Though you can see some, too, yeah.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: I know, I know. I've done both.
What I want, though, is to deal with his main issue -- namely, the big commercial rigs and whether they're subject to the same stuff. Overweight permits are, of course, part of the way we do business in this province.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, necessary. Exactly so. What the overweight permit does is to allow somebody to put more weight on the road than is normally allowed. We recapture that extra damage to the road by the permit fee. That's what it deals with. It doesn't deal specifically with gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating. Rather, on the back of every one of those overweight permits, there's a statement that says as follows: "The gross vehicle weight of the vehicle or combination of vehicles named herein shall not exceed the safe practical carrying capacity of the vehicle or combination of vehicles or any of the component parts thereof, as regulated by the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or the gross axle weight rating (GAWR)." Same rule, essentially. In no case, then, would an overweight permit for any vehicle, including commercial vehicles, be in excess of the gross vehicle weight rating.
R. Neufeld: In a classroom, that might happen, but in reality it doesn't. With
all due respect -- and I've been in this business -- I have yet to see a weigh scale
operator take a look at the sticker on the door of the truck before they issue the permit.
Never, to my knowledge, has that ever happened. But all I want to know
Tandem trucks cross the weigh scales and will acquire a permit
[1735]
What happens is that the theory that was used up until now -- that when you exceed the
GVWR, the rating that the vehicle is rated for, for smaller vehicles
Not that I don't want overweight permits anymore. What I'm trying to say is that there's obviously some rationale that has to be brought into this whole issue, so that we get it resolved and settled. You can't just go by the letter of the law for everything up to a one-ton, and then kind of say: "Well,
[ Page 12816 ]
after that there's a grey area that we're going to allow." I think you have to
look at all of it in the broader sense. And that, I put my case to the minister, is why we
have to
I'm asking for ICBC and the ministry to actually start
I think that there has to be some backing off by the corporation, in a quiet way, saying: "Look, we're not going to target these things anymore, but we're going to watch and catch the ones that are violating to a huge degree." But it's obvious that we do allow a grey area in the larger commercial trucks, because I think that if you go to the warranty on the larger commercial trucks, it will say the same things that it does on the small ones: "The brakes, the suspension and all the components, the steering, have been manufactured to meet this weight of 20,864, and you shouldn't exceed it." But we do -- as a corporation, as a province, as a government -- sell permits over that amount, so I'm asking for some leniency with the smaller operators.
The minister may want to respond to that again, because his first response was just kind of a little bit glossed over. I'd like him to respond a little bit better to that than he did the first time.
Secondly, I'll put another question to him right now. The National Safety Code
So there's an issue there that I think has to be dealt with. I want to know why it now costs $200 to get a National Safety Code number -- which is something that is federal -- through ICBC.
[1740]
Hon. D. Lovick: First, to the issue of leniency. I won't state that in that language for the record, but I what I will say is that I am certainly committed to commonsense enforcement of the regulation, and I think that's probably what the member is asking for -- and I think that he makes the point.
Re the National Safety Code business, there is indeed an agreement by industry that
this would come in, including the $200 fee. I understand it's significant
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, and stakeholders have bought into that. I understand that they have improved the process so that you can now turn it around within about a week. So it isn't going to take two or three weeks. I understand, moreover, that the province of Alberta so likes what we've done in B.C. that they're talking about copying the program.
R. Neufeld: And the $200?
Hon. D. Lovick: The $200 -- whether Alberta will charge or whether
R. Neufeld: The National Safety Code has been around for a long time -- years. It wasn't agreed to by stakeholders just a little while ago. I can't remember when this National Safety Code was brought in, but I know it's been a long time. But there's a fee that ICBC charges now. It's $200 to acquire that National Safety Code. As I understand, it doesn't matter if you have one truck or 20; it costs you $200. I want to know why ICBC now charges $200 to a customer to get a National Safety Code number.
Hon. D. Lovick: The fee, I understand, came in just in April of this year. It's
apparently to cover the processing. I gather that's a complicated matter, simply because
of the
R. Neufeld: Well, it's always been complicated; it's never been any different. And all of a sudden it's $200. What it is, is another tax grab by ICBC; that's all it is. With all due respect, it's another place where ICBC can target people and charge them $200 for a National Safety Code certificate which people have had to acquire a long time ago. Stakeholders didn't agree to that or they wouldn't be complaining to me now. I don't know who the stakeholders are that the minister talks about, but obviously not all stakeholders were contacted. It is just another tax grab, fee grab, whatever.
The second part of my question is on the stakeholder group. Who is the stakeholder group that the minister has put together to deal with this issue? Who is involved?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry; my memory betrayed me, and I didn't think to ask
anybody. Re the $200 fee -- I remember now. The $200 fee was not problematic for most of
the people, simply because what they got was relief from the motor carrier plate
requirement that obviously the
R. Neufeld: The farmers never used the motor carrier plate.
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, okay. But let's not try and determine the whole thing on the basis of a farmer, although that
[ Page 12817 ]
person obviously has legitimacy. The point was that the revenue was forgone -- okay? -- by giving up the motor carrier plate, and therefore this is some effort to get back some of it -- probably not all of it, by the way. So I don't think, again, you can call it a fee grab or a tax grab or anything like that.
Regarding the stakeholder group -- the B.C. Trucking Association, the Owner-Operators Association, the RCMP, fire chiefs. To all intents and purposes, I think it's safe to say that all commercial vehicles essentially are covered, though obviously there are some exceptions, including, probably, farmers.
[1745]
R. Neufeld: The fee part
I'm interested in the stakeholder group. The minister talked about
If there is a stakeholder group, and the ministry and ICBC say that most of the problems start in the northeast, I would hope that we would search out some organization in the northeast that could actually be at the darned table. So often these decisions are made in a vacuum. I didn't even know there was a stakeholder group out there, and I've been the one that's been complaining about it for a year and a half. My colleague from Peace River South -- I don't know if he knew about it. He nods his head. He didn't know either. So if the big issue is in the northeast, then let's at least incorporate the Northern Society of Oilfield Contractors and Service Firms or the Northern B.C. Truckers Association or at least some people from up there who can deal with these issues -- or at least have their voice at the table without someone from the lower mainland again making the decision and saying: "Well, we consulted everyone." Can I get that assurance from the minister and that he will let me know who it is?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm happy to give the member that assurance, and I will go one better: I will ask him, perhaps in consultation with his colleague from the Peace River, to nominate somebody.
The other point to note is that government did not recoup all the money, so it wasn't a
case
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, I don't want to go over the ground that has been very well covered by my colleague from Peace River North. When I look back at this issue of gross vehicle weights as it pertains to light vehicles, the legislation originally was brought in, in 1987. In 1989, cabinet made a regulation exempting vehicles licensed before 1990 or manufactured before 1989, or vice versa, but in essence up until 1989, to grandfather those vehicles already on the road. I think that was probably a reasonable response to a number of concerns that were raised at that time, not unlike the concerns that are being raised today.
The point that I want to make here is that I believe that a fundamental shift has taken place with the transfer of the motor vehicle branch to ICBC. In my humble opinion, governance is at least in no small measure compromised. There needs to be a balance of economic activity, industrial activity, tourism and other functions. I think that's what happened in 1989. I think the government, through the motor vehicle branch and the cabinet, looked at the turmoil that was going on then and said: "Look, let's grandfather those existing vehicles and try to encourage the buyers of new vehicles to make sure that they don't get caught up in the same situation."
[1750]
Now we have a motor vehicle branch that is under the jurisdiction of an insurance company. I don't want to demean the Insurance Corporation, but an insurance company is focused naturally on safety, and so we see a much different approach to the problem in 1999 than we saw in 1989. I would argue that it's the difference between a motor vehicle branch that was at that time responsible to the Minister of Transportation and Highways and a motor vehicle branch that is now guided by a corporation whose primary focus is on safety. I don't want to suggest that safety's not important; what I want to suggest is that safety, along with a whole bunch of other considerations, is the way that a responsible government should make a decision. I think the points made by the member for Peace River North with respect to commercial vehicles reflect that kind of compromise, that understanding that every once in awhile, you simply can't bring the load down to the manufacturer's recommended weight, and for at least a temporary period of time, you should allow an exemption to exceed that. I'm not expecting any kind of flash from the blue to suggest that we're going to turn back the clock and put the motor vehicle branch back with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. But I can tell you, for the benefit of those members who might be in government in the not too distant future, that it is something that should be seriously considered.
I believe that insurance companies should insure vehicles and insure individuals inside vehicles and outside of them, and that government, through direct governance, should manage the motor vehicle branch and the regulations on our roads and highways. I think that this whole issue with respect to small vehicles is simply a symptom of a decision to move the motor vehicle branch to ICBC, and I believe the warts are showing. I believe this is one, and only one, wart that is showing up as a result of that administrative change undertaken by the government.
I believe that it's a fundamental problem. I don't believe that the minister can ever expect to go to the Insurance Corporation and ask for their opinion on an issue and get anything other than an insurance company opinion. Whether you went to a private or a public insurer and asked them, "Should you exceed a certain standard?" the answer would be: "No, no, no." Whereas I believe that if the motor vehicle branch were under the administration of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, a series of issues would be examined and a more rational and balanced decision would result from that.
Mr. Chairman, I'm just standing up here again to say -- as I've said in the past -- that I believe it has been a funda-
[ Page 12818 ]
mental mistake to move the motor vehicle branch to ICBC. I think this and a number of other issues simply demonstrate that fact. I'd like to hear him respond if he can.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member raises an interesting point. It takes us into the realm of philosophical speculation. I'm not sure that I agree with his conclusion, but the remarks are thoughtful and, I think, deserve to be treated as such.
I think it's early days. You know, in '96 the licence part was transferred from the motor vehicle branch, and in '97 the commercial vehicle part was transferred. I'm not sure we can say yet with any certainty that the preoccupation with safety may well have unintended consequences -- you know, to do things that in effect impede economic development and so forth. I think that is the point the member is making.
I don't want to dismiss, though, and otherwise ignore the member's comments, because they are thoughtful. But I think it's early days, and we obviously need to see how that plays and discover whether in fact the pattern that the member describes -- as in the insurance company always saying, "No, no, no" -- is the pattern that's going to persist. If indeed that's the case, then maybe we do need to take a look.
[1755]
I think that the counter-example is the willingness, though, of the corporation to consider that deviation from the standard as written, in terms of 10 percent and the first 30 days and then the 60 days. I think that indicates a receptiveness, to say, "Look, we don't want to be unduly onerous," so that we have, as I say, negative influence on people doing business and commerce within the province. But again, I take the member's comments seriously and will certainly carry that with me in terms of future deliberation.
The Chair: The member for Peace River North, noting the time.
R. Neufeld: Yes, I note the time. I'll be fairly brief. I just want to put on the record again and reinforce what the member for Peace River South said. I too agree with his comments about what is taking place.
I'm also informed, and it would interesting, and I meant to ask earlier
The Chair: Minister, noting the time
Hon. D. Lovick: Is that agreeable to members opposite? I thank them for their
comments, then. With that, I would simply respond to the
B. Penner: If I may follow up with a request I made yesterday during the debate on photo radar, I asked the minister for a detailed cost breakdown of the various components for the photo radar program -- specifically, figures for the policing component, the costs of the photo radar equipment maintenance, the costs of ticket processing, the capital development costs, the costs of charging officers in addition to the police officers who staff the photo radar vans at the sides of the roads, etc. The minister said that he thought he could give us that answer by this morning. I'm wondering if the minister is in a position to give us that information now -- or after the dinner break?
Hon. D. Lovick: I will endeavour to get that information to the member as soon as we possibly can. I have no idea. I've been in the House for the last. Lord knows how many hours. Also, because ICBC is a bit of an add-on -- we've been discussing Labour estimates, and we weren't doing ICBC -- it was out of my mind. I will certainly endeavour to get that information to the member as soon as we possibly can.
With that, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[1800]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick: I would move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:40 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:41 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
A TRIBUTE TO GERRY STONEY
G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in the House today and speak about a man whose actions, commitment and dedication to working men and women throughout this province will long be remembered. Gerry Stoney's accomplishments are great and, indeed, enduring. His sacrifices and lifelong struggle to provide a better life for working men and women will not be forgotten. Gerry was a very special man who had many great successes. He was a real person, and he was a great guy.
In 1959 Gerry began working in the plywood and hardwood board division of Canadian Forest Products, Pacific veneer division, in New Westminster. That was the same mill where his dad had worked previously. He became a member of the NDP in 1964. It was also during this time, in the earlier 1960s, that he became very active in the union movement, and it was not long until he became a shop steward for the IWA.
[ Page 12819 ]
Gerry was president of the New Westminster local of the IWA for 11 years. He was also president of the New Westminster and District Labour Council for 17 years. Under his leadership this labour council became one of the most progressive and influential labour councils in this nation. He was also president of the B.C. NDP, from 1982 until 1988. Since 1992 Gerry had been executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and it was only fitting that on May 6 of this year, only eight days before he died, Gerry was on stage at the Canadian Labour Congress when Ken Georgetti made his first speech as president of the congress. Ken and Gerry were the very best of friends, and they worked together for many years on a number of varying issues.
In 1992 Gerry became president of IWA-Canada, succeeding Jack Munro as national president. He held this position until 1997, when he resigned for health reasons. In 1996 Gerry made the decision to retire from the IWA; however, that did not stop Gerry from taking on another major project. That was the WCB royal commission, and he worked diligently on that project right up to the time of his recent illness.
Gerry's contributions will be long remembered. Probably one of his greatest achievements was the IWA pension plan. During the 1971 local union election, one of the major issues that Gerry campaigned on was having an IWA pension plan. At that time, that was not a very popular issue amongst leadership. Gerry had a vision in the early 1970s -- a vision for a pension plan for B.C. forest workers. That vision was that forest workers would not have to work all their lives and be left with little or nothing at the end of their careers. In the 1972 negotiations the IWA negotiated a pension plan that is portable and provides decent pensions for thousands of retired IWA workers. Gerry's vision and perseverance paid off, and we have Gerry to thank for his vision of the IWA pension plan.
Gerry was always known for his determination and knowledge. He had a reserved demeanour, in comparison to his predecessor, Jack Munro. Gerry was tough. He was always well prepared for issues that he chose to advance. Keith Bennett, his counterpart at FIR, stated that any time he got into a debate with Gerry on an issue, he knew what he was talking about. He was very competent in doing research. He was a skilled and gifted negotiator. He was well respected by many parties.
Gerry's grandfather was also once president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and I believe that, to some degree, influenced Gerry's decision to be a trade union leader. Gerry had a number of health problems, starting in the early nineties. In 1991 he contracted throat cancer. In 1994, during industry negotiations, Gerry was told that he would require open-heart surgery. However, he chose to set that aside and finish negotiations, and a collective agreement was reached. In May of this year Gerry left us, and he will be very badly missed.
[1845]
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
I recognize, in response, the member for Shuswap.
G. Abbott: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his tribute to Gerry Stoney. It was very effective and very moving.
I didn't have the opportunity to know Gerry Stoney, but it's an honour for me -- on behalf of the official opposition, as its Forests critic -- to also join in the tribute to Gerry Stoney that the hon. member has undertaken.
Mr. Stoney obviously had a long, colourful and, I think, very successful career in different capacities here in British Columbia. As the hon. member has noted, he contributed much both to the working people of this province through his work in the trade union movement, but also, in the 1990s particularly, to the province as well, in different positions that he undertook as a member of different boards. The association that he enjoyed with the IWA and with provincial agencies was obviously a productive and successful one, and the province owes him many thanks for his contributions.
The career of Gerry Stoney obviously gained greatest prominence as national president of the IWA, as the hon. member noted. Mr. Stoney was widely known and widely respected for his skills as a negotiator and certainly for his skills as an advocate for the many people in the IWA that he represented. I know I've spoken to many woodworkers in my riding who deeply appreciate the pension that they have today, and I thank the member for pointing out the critical role that Gerry Stoney played in securing that for working people.
In November '92 Gerry Stoney was appointed to the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Obviously he did an effective job, because he was reappointed later in the 1990s. In October of '93 he was appointed to the Simon Fraser regional health board and, as the hon. member noted, in November 1996 was appointed to the royal commission looking into the Workers Compensation Board.
Again, Mr. Stoney worked tirelessly despite the health problems which plagued him during his latter years, but he did make a great contribution to that process, to his union and to the people he represented and to the province as a whole. I think, as the hon. member has noted, he will be missed, and his contribution will be missed, and I thank the hon. member for that tribute.
G. Robertson: I too would like to thank the member for his kind remarks about Gerry.
Gerry left behind a legacy of achievements and memories: a portable IWA pension plan, something totally unheard of -- people weren't even thinking about that in the early seventies, and I think that's really one of his most important legacies; a better, safer forest industry -- Gerry fought for better industrial health and safety improvements for workers all through his life; a safer workplace; a well-trained workforce that translated into better safety on the job; and a workforce that, indeed, is the highest paid in the world today for forest workers. Gerry always found the time to listen to and encourage young trade unionists and activists wherever he went. He worked tirelessly to advance issues for working men and women.
He made many contributions and supported the NDP all through his life. In the 1972 election he backed Dave Barrett and the NDP all the way to government. In 1991 he again supported our party, and again in 1996 Gerry supported the NDP. He personally supported and encouraged me, and I thank him for that.
[1850]
It was a short time after the election that I bumped into Gerry in the parliament buildings here. Gerry had some meetings to attend and suggested that we get together later in the evening for a visit. True to his word, he came over to the east annex after a couple of hours, and we went for a walk uptown. We had a really good conversation for about three
[ Page 12820 ]
hours. I was really privileged and thankful for that. I'll always remember the time we spent together that evening and the words of encouragement that Gerry gave to me -- and the words of wisdom as well.
I'll always remember Gerry as being honest and always upfront. He always told you what he thought. He was a great politician, too, so that's quite a combination. He worked all his life for working people, and he cared about working people and families. He made a really important difference.
He was a real family man. He loved his wife Carol and his children, Shelley and Rick, very much, and everywhere he went he'd make a special point of talking about them, because in the work he did he couldn't spend as much time as he wanted with them. He loved them very, very much. He was tremendously proud of his grandchildren. I thank his family for allowing and supporting Gerry to do the work that he valued the very most.
B.C.'s working families will fondly remember Gerry's many contributions, and British Columbia is a better place today to live in because of people like Gerry Stoney. I will never forget his work, his efforts, his many contributions, his dedication and his support. He had a vision and determination and the drive to do something about it. Gerry Stoney was a great British Columbian. He will always be missed, and he will always be fondly remembered.
REVITALIZING COASTAL COMMUNITIES BY
LIFTING THE FISH-FARMING MORATORIUM
J. van Dongen: My topic today is revitalizing coastal communities by lifting the fish-farming moratorium. The continuance of the salmon aquaculture moratorium is a subject that is becoming a major concern for coastal communities. We are all well aware of the plight of these coastal communities and the people living there. Traditional resource industries such as forestry and fishing are facing unprecedented job losses as a result of ongoing structural changes in the industry.
This point was clearly made in a report done by the job protection commissioner for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the B.C. Ministry of Fisheries. The report was appropriately named "Fishing for Money." I'm reminded of the saying "Money isn't everything, but it's way ahead of whatever is in second place." The fact is that people need jobs -- real jobs -- that are sustainable and that are not the product of another government make-work project.
In the past year we have seen a discernible change in the attitude of coastal communities -- the people themselves, their elected representatives, their chambers of commerce and many people with a stake in the communities. Their attitude is more hopeful, more forward-looking, more aggressive and more focused on realistic solutions. They have an attitude that is more inclined to seek real jobs, rather than short-term or temporary transition programs. We have seen these mayors, councils, chambers, small business people, workers in the fish-farming sector and allied industries, and the majority of the public, support expansion of salmon aquaculture in B.C.
Four years ago the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks established the salmon aquaculture review -- the first project for the environmental assessment office. Its purpose was to study and make recommendations with respect to the social, environmental and economic aspects of salmon farming. The government spent over $1 million on the salmon aquaculture review, or SAR for short, which was conducted by the environmental assessment office. The review, completed over a year and a half ago, involved extensive public hearings and incorporated the advice of many technical experts. The report addresses, in a comprehensive way, the various environmental concerns that were raised by opponents to fish farming. Issues such as waste discharges, fish health, escaped farm salmon, fish disease, interaction with the wild stock, farm-siting considerations and many other relevant issues are fully addressed in the report.
[1855]
The following are quotes from the summary of the final report of the SAR that speak directly to the environmental issues surrounding salmon aquaculture:
"The technical advisory team concluded that salmon farming in B.C., as presently practised and at current production levels, presents a low overall risk to the environment."
The report continues:
"Where the risk of environmental impacts from an economically important activity is low but the consequences of damage may be significant, the public interest may best be served by dealing with the risk by being precautionary and invoking a series of measures, including preventative management, adaptive management and performance-based standards. In the case of salmon farming, this means reducing risk by setting high standards for farm operations based on the best available knowledge and rigorously enforcing the implementation of those standards."
Many of the report's 49 recommendations directly address the environmental concerns raised by the public.
The other issue that is often raised is the economic impact on the wild fishery. B.C.'s
wild salmon production has been declining in recent years. Secondly, prices for wild
salmon have also fallen -- not a formula for economic health. There is no shortage of
evidence of what is happening on the global market. Farmed salmon now represents over 50
percent of the total salmon market in the world and continues to grow. The downward
pressure on prices exerted by farmed salmon will continue whether B.C. is in the market or
not. Again, the SAR report speaks to these issues: "B.C. farmed salmon does have some
positive impact on the wild commercial industry in the processing sector. While most
farmed salmon is processed
The B.C. Liberal position has been carefully considered, and we believe that salmon aquaculture should be expanded in a managed and regulated manner. We are also committed to protecting wild salmon, as rightfully expected by sport, commercial and aboriginal fishermen. We believe that the SAR report sets out a blueprint for achieving both objectives. Until more competitive designs for closed systems are found, we will continue to support aquaculture based on current technology, proper management and effective regulations. This position is fully consistent with the finding of the SAR report that the current designs for closed systems are not proven to be economically feasible.
I believe that the government has been the victim of an aggressive and effective political campaign orchestrated by a relatively small number of people. Whenever a small group of activists has to rely on an extremely aggressive public campaign to make their point, one has to be more judicious about accepting the validity of their arguments. For the opponents of
[ Page 12821 ]
fish farms to present themselves as experts on environmental issues as well as fish farm economics is very presumptuous. The critics have run an effective political campaign against the government. However, the credibility of their arguments and their tactics is questionable.
I've been involved most of my life in the management of biological systems, both plants and animals. I've spent many years in the food-processing industry. I remain absolutely convinced that we can expand fish farming in this province and do it in an environmentally responsible and effective manner. The opportunity to provide meaningful jobs and economic activity to coastal communities is at the government's fingertips. The opportunity is there to reduce the 32 percent unemployment and the 13,000 jobs lost in the fisheries sector.
E. Gillespie: It's a pleasure to rise on this very divisive and difficult topic to talk about -- salmon aquaculture. I do recognize that salmon aquaculture is an important opportunity, in particular for coastal communities, but I'm going to take a slightly different tack than the member for Abbotsford.
[1900]
Salmon aquaculture is an important industry in British Columbia today, particularly in coastal British Columbia. It employs about 2,700 people, and in 1998 generated over $300 million in sales. This is an industry which is the subject of a very divisive debate in this province. There are a wide variety of concerns, both in favour of industry expansion and against any expansion at all.
The salmon aquaculture review, initiated in 1995 by the provincial government, was set up to address five key issues of public concern: escaped farm fish, fish health, waste discharges, marine mammals and other species, and fish farm siting. In 1997 the salmon aquaculture review was completed. Industry views the conclusions as giving them a clean bill of health, a green light, and is anxious to expand. Government views the conclusions of the salmon aquaculture review as, at best, a cautious yellow light: a yellow light which requires demonstrable performance-based standards for these key concerns -- standards which will be essential for the protection of the environment.
The public continues to raise very challenging concerns. Remember, that here in British Columbia we -- both the government and society at large -- hold environmental standards very dear. Our environmental standards are among the highest in the world.
I would just like to, at this point, remind the member for Abbotsford about the findings in the Tsitika River this fall. Two generations of Atlantic salmon were found spawning in the Tsitika River, which is a matter of grave concern for all British Columbians and something which the aquaculture industry has got to address.
The current moratorium is undoubtedly a source of frustration to the industry. It provides some comfort to those who vigorously oppose the expansion of salmon aquaculture, and it is allowing government some time to investigate opportunities for consensus building and opportunities to ensure appropriate environmental stewardship. There are steps which have been taken by both government and industry over the past couple of years -- steps which will demonstrate to the public that we take seriously our responsibilities with respect to Crown resources. We will act in a manner which protects and sustains these resources.
Industry is clearly moving toward performance-based standards. Not only do these standards make good sense to the public, but they make good business sense as well. I believe that one of the elements we need to attend to is the need for research and development in finfish aquaculture -- research towards a closed-loop system which will eliminate escapement and include waste treatment, and research toward other finfish species suitable for aquaculture.
Industry, coastal communities, government and environmental organizations have all been very active over the past two years since the salmon aquaculture review was completed. With every bit of news from any one of those sectors, there has been tremendous reaction. We have a long way to go yet to build any sort of consensus.
I would like to remind the member for Abbotsford of his comments yesterday when we were speaking of farming issues. We talked about both the rights and responsibilities of farmers: the right to farm, and the responsibilities for environmental stewardship and for some community building around that farming enterprise. I would suggest that as with other farming enterprises, aquaculture has the same sort of rights and responsibilities.
When we're looking at coastal communities, we need to look at not just the economic opportunity that salmon aquaculture represents but also sustainable economic opportunity. It does us no service as a population here in British Columbia to replace one unsustainable industry with another. We need to focus on diversification.
We in British Columbia have what is considered a worldwide document in the salmon aquaculture review, and we have the opportunity to have a world-exemplary system.
[1905]
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the comments by the member for Comox Valley. Certainly I agree with her that there are environmental issues, and she can be absolutely assured that we are looking for high standards and good enforcement tools to enforce those standards. That is part of the equation, and that is certainly set out in the report.
I want to close with some comments from a Marktrend survey that was done recently, and I'm quoting from the text of the Marktrend summary.
"For this survey, a total of 504 telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adult B.C. residents between May 6 and May 13, 1999. The survey was part of Marktrend's monthly ConsumerScope omnibus. On the total sample of 504, the maximum margin of error is plus or minus 4.4, 19 times out of 20."
The question that was asked was: in 1995 the government halted expansion of salmon farming in B.C. pending a review of the industry. The review, which is now complete, contains 49 recommended guidelines for ensuring responsible expansion in the province. Assuming these guidelines are turned into workable regulations, would you support or oppose allowing the salmon farming industry to expand in B.C.?
"British Columbians support allowing the province's salmon farming industry to expand, by a 5-to-1 margin. Specifically, when informed that expansion of the industry had been halted pending a review, which is now complete, 69 percent said they would support expansion, assuming the guidelines in the review are turned into workable regulations. Just 13 percent
[ Page 12822 ]
disapproved of expansion, while 10 percent said it would depend on the regulations, and another 8 percent were not sure.
"As to why residents approve of expanded salmon farming, the top reasons are that it's an alternative to the commercial wild fishery, mentioned by 27 percent of those supportive; it creates jobs, 26 percent; and it's good for the economy, 24 percent.
"In addition to supporting the expansion of salmon farming in B.C., most residents also expressed favourable attitudes about the environmental soundness of the industry, the quality of B.C. farmed salmon and the importance of the industry to B.C.'s economic future. Specifically, 71 percent either strongly or somewhat agree that salmon farming is an environmentally sound and sustainable industry, while 19 percent disagree. Similarly, 72 percent concur that B.C. farmed salmon is a premium-quality food product, while 14 percent do not. Lastly, 78 percent of residents agree that salmon farming is an important part of B.C.'s future economic development and job creation
. . . . "
I would simply urge the government caucus to support their Minister of Fisheries in lifting the moratorium.
The Speaker: Thank you very much, members, for that series of discussions.
STAYING HEALTHY
E. Walsh: I am happy today to have the opportunity to talk about healthy living for approximately four million British Columbians that live in the province of British Columbia. British Columbia, as we've heard many times before, has a rather diverse population, many of whom live in densely populated areas and also in very remote, geographically challenged areas. Many people come to British Columbia because of our lifestyle and because of our health care and also because of our healthy living that we enjoy here in British Columbia.
Contributing to the lifestyle that we enjoy here, the Ministry of Health has identified and recognized the need to maintain and to improve the health of British Columbians by enhancing that quality of life and minimizing inequalities within the province in health status. In fact, that is the mission of Health Goals. These goals recognize that every day our lives and our health are influenced by decisions that we make and that we experience from day to day. In order to enhance our health we need meaningful work. We need a healthy and a supportive workplace. We need sufficient income. We need safe and well-designed communities. We need, also, supportive families and participation in social networks.
Going back just a few years, early childhood, for every one of us, shapes our ability for personal coping skills and for decision-making in the future. Throughout our lifetime, from early childhood, we make lifestyle choices. We make commitments to lifelong learning and control over those life circumstances which are influenced by our daily living. These conditions and these choices also affect our resistance to disease at a biological level.
[1910]
Decisions made today can be quite challenging. Especially in today's environment, there is a need to be able to balance the stability in economic activity while also protecting human health in communities, respecting and actually looking at those interests of individuals and of communities as a whole. Sustaining a healthy environment is essential not only to our well-being but also to our very survival in this province and in this world.
Another challenge is to ensure that we have an effective system that balances public and health care provider expectations with the available resources that we do have. Yet another challenge is that throughout history, and as part of the historical legacy not only of our province but of Canada as a whole, aboriginal peoples experience very significant health status inequities. Clearly there is a need for changes to ensure greater self-determination for aboriginal communities. These challenges are very real, and they are very important to the people of British Columbia.
Through preventative health care and early intervention, major health problems that take a significant toll on British Columbians can be prevented.
I am pleased that our government has put in place many programs and surveys to address some of the challenges that I've mentioned. For example, for seniors, a study is being conducted this year -- the first in Canada, I might add -- on the dietary habits of people from ages 75 to 84. A national nutrition survey for people between the ages of 18 and 74 is being done, but B.C. is the first province in Canada to include a wider range of seniors in its nutritional study.
Today we are also seeing a growing number of women in B.C. that are approaching mid-life. Actually, the baby-boomer era has caught up with us now. Innovative projects that develop information and support that women need will help them to in fact make the healthy decisions that I know they will be looking for as they enter that mid-life time.
British Columbia was chosen to be the location for the Centre of Excellence in Prostate Cancer. This will build on the research that is already being done at Vancouver General Hospital and the B.C. Cancer Agency. This is a deadly disease that kills about 450 British Columbians each year. This is the most common cause of death from cancer among men.
Also, there is a new HIV/AIDS advisory committee to make sure that policy decisions are relevant, inclusive and effective. I am pleased that Joan Bray, from the city of Cranbrook, has been appointed committee co-chair.
There is also a new education and prevention program for students in grades 6 to 7. This has been implemented in all B.C. schools to protect children from tobacco.
In 1997, again, B.C. established Canada's first provincial organ donor registry. More lives could be saved if the same system that is in place in British Columbia were in place throughout Canada.
There is a new resource on an Internet site -- again, the first of its kind in North America. It provides almost 100 documents containing health information that has been translated into ten languages.
There is enhanced nursing care -- an increase in the number of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and also care workers. It means better care for patients in long term care facilities and acute-care hospitals.
I am proud of our initiatives, our programs and the fact that we have been the first in Canada to embark on and to address many of the needs of British Columbians so that they can continue to live full and healthy lives. It's a pleasure for me to stand today and speak on the healthy lifestyles of British Columbians and what we as a government have to offer and what we have put in place to address those healthy lifestyles.
[1915]
A. Sanders: There's no question that British Columbians live healthier lifestyles now in the 1990s than they did at the
[ Page 12823 ]
turn of the century. But I would not concur that this has anything whatsoever to do with government policy. It has to do with public health, standards of sanitary living and so on. One of the things the member has mentioned that is of great concern to me is that preventative health care is a big issue for this government. Let's look at the facts.
When we look at the services that patients receive, do people understand that there is no MSP coverage for any preventative lifestyle counselling? Smoking cessation, obesity counselling, lifestyle counselling, exercise programs -- none of these are covered in any office where a patient would go to see their family physician. There will be a sign that says that none of these are covered by the provincial government with respect to looking at preventative health care. It is a very interesting thing that the government would choose to take pride and responsibility for that particular issue. This government has absolutely no commitment to prevention services, other than those that happen in a wealthy society.
Let's look at some of the other issues that were mentioned. One that's very important to me -- two that are very important to me -- is prostate cancer. The member has mentioned that B.C. has been chosen to be the Centre for Excellence in Prostate Cancer. I know many of those people working on that project. Do people recognize that in this province we do not fund PSA testing? If you are a man, you will not get the equivalent test in this province -- without paying for it -- that you would get if you're a woman who requires a mammogram for screening purposes. If you have prostate cancer, however, we will test you, and you won't have to pay. Is that preventative medicine? I leave it to the audience to decide.
With respect to looking at prevention of for osteoporosis -- a huge cost to our system in terms of pathologic fracture, a huge problem -- do we fund, under reference-based pricing, one of the only proven drugs to be absolutely related to prevention of an indicated problem, which is fracture? Do we fund that drug under our reference-based pricing in this province? Absolutely not. We are in a circumstance where not only do we not fund preventative counselling for many of the lifestyle choices people make, we don't fund the tests for men to make sure they don't have prostate cancer, and we don't fund the drugs that keep post-menopausal women who have osteoporotic-related complications out of the hospital.
So let's look at where we're at. The boomers have turned 50; we've got four million women approaching mid-life, 30 percent of whom will be in menopause in this particular period in time. We know that lifestyle, family history and the day-to-day activity choices that people make will make a difference. But as a society in this province of British Columbia we do not look at those as a governmental responsibility. Is that right or wrong? That's not for me to decide. What is for me to decide is to make sure the facts are on the table and to make sure that people do not think that we look at those.
Let's look at men's issues. A lot of times these days I feel that women's issues are certainly front and centre. Take, for example, breast cancer. We're in a situation where breast cancer is not a leading cause of death. In fact, 18 percent of women will develop that particular type of cancer. It's lung cancer, and before that it's heart disease and stroke; 41 per cent of our women are dying from heart disease and stroke as their primary cause of death. Women's issues are coming to the forefront, and I applaud that. But let's look at some of the men's issues, and prostate cancer is one of the ones that comes to mind all the time.
One of the other things that affects our society, especially with men in their middle years and the years when they're earning an income and supporting families, is mental health concerns; 13 percent of our men will have major depressive problems. Where do those problems come from? A lot of them come from secondary addiction. They come from a dual diagnosis -- having an addiction problem along with a major depression or some other diagnosis. One of the places that comes from is gambling addiction -- alcohol, drug and gambling addictions. Are we, as a society, looking into preventing those for those men who are out there supporting families? The answer is no. When you expand gambling, you expand problems that relate to addiction. If we're truly interested in helping families and in helping the problems that relate to healthy lifestyles, we will start to approach some of these things head-on.
[1920]
So we have women's issues
The Speaker: Hon. member, thank you. Your time is now up.
A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
E. Walsh: I will keep my remarks non-partisan. I am pleased that now, addressing health care in my region of Kootenay, the Cranbrook health council, the Elk Valley and South Country health council and the East Kootenay Community Health Services Society are working together with other health councils in our region -- right now, this week, this month -- to come together with a really good plan for the people who live in Kootenay, the Creston area and the Columbia-Revelstoke area. I am extremely proud of the work they are doing, and I am looking forward to bringing their ideas and their plans to the minister, -- very progressive ideas I might add which do in fact promote healthy living for people not just in Kootenay but throughout the province.
I am also very pleased with the increase in health care funding to the councils and to the society which I represent, because this will help those health councils and our society to achieve many of those programs and ideas that they have brought forward and that they, in the end, will now realize -- especially today, with some of the challenges that we have to face in the Kootenay riding, such as Alberta's progressively private health care and the effects that has on Kootenay residents and its impacts, actually, on the border communities. Other challenges that people in my riding have to deal with are transportation, climate, geography and time zone changes. At a time when the Kootenays are seeing an expansion in industry and recreation, the health councils and the society -- and the MLA's office, I might add -- are working together to meet these increased demands and needs for the future, so that we can try to put together a plan so that we can work together to try to get the best possible health care for the people of Kootenay, so that we can, in fact, continue to enjoy healthy living.
I would like to thank all the health care workers and health care providers of Kootenay at this time. I would especially like to thank those workers of the HEU, CUPE, HSA, BCNU and BCGEU, and the non-union workers in health care. These workers work daily in ensuring that our families, our neighbours, ourselves, the people who mean everything in the world to us are taken care of.
[ Page 12824 ]
I would also like to thank my constituency assistants Laura Kirkhope, Diane Byford and my legislative assistant, Gail Gotto, here in the legislative buildings. These people bring these issues of health care to me, to ensure that those issues for healthy living are in fact addressed, so that I can meet with and talk to those people in my community that this is important to. Thanks to all of the people out there who have made health care what it is today -- the unsung heroes of today.
OPPRESSION MULTIPLIED
V. Anderson: Tonight I'd like to share with you in the legislative building, and also with those in the listening audience, an experience that I had last Saturday evening. It was a very fine, artistic presentation by Headlines Theatre called Squeegee. It was an interactive drama, put on, written and acted by those young people who live on the streets of the lower mainland, in Vancouver -- young people who wanted to bring a message of awareness to those of us that they hoped would listen, understand, appreciate and work with them as they try to move from the circumstances in which they have found themselves to the circumstances in which they would very much like to live. They bring a message that they invite us to work with them in order that they might have the opportunity and the privilege to work out their future in a positive and creative way.
[1925]
Part of their stance, in presenting this play under the direction of David Diamond from Headlines Theatre, was to bring that story to us. I'll read just the part of the introduction which was in the brochure for the theatre -- David Diamond speaking:
"I believe I can speak for all Canadians when I say that we wish people, and children in particular, were not in the streets. However, kids are in the streets; they are not there 'on holiday.' any participants in the workshop spoke of ejecting from terrible situations, not knowing where they would land and hoping it would not be on the street. Once on the street they are not easily employable, and their options for survival are limited.
"My hope for this production is that we not only create good theatre that sheds light onto a hidden issue, giving voice to a sector of our society that traditionally has no voice, but to create an environment where real change is possible."
These young people came together in a workshop. Some of them had been involved in some drama before; others had never been involved. They came off the street. Some knew each other; others were brand-new to each other. They had a workshop in which they discussed and shared their circumstances as existed at that moment and also some of where they would like to go. Then they put those circumstances into the form of interactive theatre.
They went through their play in the first half-hour of the evening. Then they stopped, and they invited the audience to interact with them. And so they started again, scene by scene, and the audience was invited to say stop whenever they felt that someone in the acting was being oppressed by the situation that was taking place. What I learned from that experience during the evening is that these young people are on the street because they had been oppressed one way or another in their lives. They left an oppressive situation that they could not cope with, and they ended up trying to find a new future for themselves in a different circumstance. For many of them that circumstance led them to the street, because there was nowhere else to go.
One of the opening scenes showed the picture very pointedly. It was when the young girl came out into the street. There was another person there on the sidewalk. She came out, and she looked out in a very pleading, urgent kind of way. "Can you tell me where I can get something to eat? I'm hungry. I'm very hungry. Can you tell me where I can get something to eat?" There was not an answer for her.
So they went through the play. Sometimes you were helped by the people on the street, and sometimes you were oppressed by the people on the street. You needed to find some funds. One way to find the funds was to put out your cap, sit on the street and invite someone to drop some coins there so that you should go and get the food you most urgently needed. But immediately, as that young person found that corner on the street, another street person came along and said: "This is my corner. You cannot sit here. Go on, get out of here." The oppression from which they had run away was the oppression they found in their new circumstance, so they had to move.
[1930]
Another thing was that come night, there's no place to sleep -- so you sleep on the street, oppressive in itself but of necessity when there's no other choice. During the night or early in the morning, the policeman comes along and says: "Move out of here. You can't stay here." And they say: "Well, why not?" The policeman says: "Because I've been told by the city that you must move. You cannot stay here. You cannot stay on the street." So they're shoved along -- another oppression.
Then there are the circumstances of how you can make a living. As they went through these kinds of opportunities, another message that stuck in my mind fairly clearly was that one of the opportunities was to go into prostitution, to sell yourself. One of the comments was: "If you can't panhandle, and you can't be a squeegee kid and earn money that way, what choice do you have?"
The Speaker: In response, I recognize the member for Vancouver-Burrard.
T. Stevenson: I thank the member for Vancouver-Langara for bringing this issue forward again. It is such an extremely important issue, particularly in the lower mainland. Although homelessness and homeless youth are actually all over the province, we hear more about them in the lower mainland. I'm very pleased to hear about David Diamond's play Squeegee. David Diamond is a remarkable man who has brought forward this popular, interactive type of theatre on a whole number of issues, including the situation with aboriginal people, gays and lesbians and now with homeless youth.
The description that the member for Vancouver-Langara was giving of the play certainly reminded me of my time on the street with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and two members of the opposition back in late November -- the problem of trying to find a place to sleep and to get something to eat, and then listening to the young people who talked about how they were thrust into prostitution because there was nothing else for them to do. They needed to eat, and they needed to find someplace to sleep.
Thankfully, there are a couple of places in Vancouver that are doing a great deal of work with these homeless youth. One is Covenant House in my riding of Vancouver-Burrard, which
[ Page 12825 ]
I visited two weeks ago, actually, and talked with the director about the expanded services they have to try to deal with the approximately 600 youths we estimate are on the streets, homeless, every night in Vancouver. If not visible, then they're in underground parking lots and that sort of thing. Some of them may find a night or two with a friend, or they're picked up by a stranger. But there's about 600, we reckon, just in the Vancouver area alone.
When you bump into these youths, you're really hard pressed to know what to say and how to help them. About Christmastime I had a pancake breakfast; my riding does this every year. It's a free pancake breakfast that we advertise for anyone to come. We get a great many seniors, but more and more -- the last three Christmases -- homeless youths have been coming, and for many of them this is the only real meal they'll have that day. It's really upsetting to watch how they stuff as much food into themselves as they possibly can in a short period of time, knowing that they don't know where they're going to get their next meal.
The government does, of course, have some very effective programs. One of the youth services is Reconnect, which connects street youth with available resources -- such as social workers, schools, health professionals and so on -- to assist youth to leave the streets and to reconnect with their families whenever that's possible. There's another service known as ARMS, which provides assistance through contracted agencies that the government has for at-risk minors to help them achieve independence through educational and life skills programs.
[1935]
There's another program for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning youth. This is a very important service, because a very high percentage of the street youth -- those runaways -- are gays, lesbians and bisexuals whose families have rejected them, and they end up in the city.
This past year the government has put in an additional $1 million for safe housing for sexually exploited youths. I'm hoping that this will go some way to alleviate some of the problem of the youths who are trying to leave the sex trade. The government has also put $700,000 in a rent subsidy program for street youths where the rents are too high for them to think about paying. Another $1 million -- almost $1.25 million -- is going to hire more youth outreach support workers. This will provide workers to help youths get off the street and back into their families wherever possible.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
T. Stevenson: So I'm hoping that this will have a large effect. And I certainly thank the member for bringing this problem to our attention again.
The Speaker: For closing remarks, I recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.
V. Anderson: Two quick things
When they were asked particularly what we might do, one of the most poignant comments was: "You can respect us; you can have a kind word for us. You can show that you really care about us and that you're willing and eager to be part of our life and for us to be part of your life."
We have to remember that these are our sons and our daughters; these are the sons and daughters of our neighbours and of our friends. For one reason or another -- an oppression that came upon them -- they have been forced into a society, into a circumstance, where the oppression is multiplied again and again and again. For any of us who have ever had any difficulties in life, there are very few of us who have ever been able to get out of it entirely on our own. If we think we did, we're mistaken.
They wanted to share with us that we are a community together -- that we're free as they are free and we're oppressed as they are oppressed. It was a fine presentation, a positive presentation, which showed the respect that they were giving to the adult neighbourhood community, by saying: "If we tell you who we are, exactly and honestly, we trust that you will return the respect to us and treat us honestly and fairly and justly." Without that -- respect and caring from the heart and from the soul -- all the money in the world will not solve the problem. It isn't a question of money, although money is useful. It's a question of caring for one another, of respecting one another, and of being willing to take the time to be together and to develop together a community that we all can share.
Squeegee was the name of this play. I commend the Headlines Theatre for presenting it and sharing with us the truth and vitality of the young people and their abilities. May we have the ability to respond in like manner.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. And I thank all the members for their statements.
[1940]
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the big House, I call Committee of Supply to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, and in the little House, I call Committee of Supply to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Ministry Responsible for B.C. Ferries.
The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(continued)
On vote 39: minister's operations, $24,045,000 (continued).
Hon. D. Lovick: Before we begin, I'll just make three very brief announcements that I think my colleagues opposite will appreciate.
Number one is an answer to a question that was posed the other day. A member asked for the short- and the long-term illness leave statistics for the employment standards branch and the ministry for fiscal 1998-99. The answer to the question is that the employment standards branch utilized
[ Page 12826 ]
5.19 FTEs, while the ministry as a whole utilized 11.27 FTEs. Controlling for the number of FTEs, the ESB had a utilization rate of approximately 1.5 times the ministry rate.
The other point that I want to share with the members opposite is the response I talked about to the letter from COFI that was read into the record. I don't propose to read this into the record. I think we've already covered that ground. Let it suffice that the letter has been responded to by the vice-president for prevention. There have been meetings, I understand, with COFI. I understand, moreover, that COFI is quite happy with the ongoing discussion and negotiation. I will also share a copy of that letter with the member opposite this evening.
The other item -- and I want to formally table this report, if I might, Mr. Chairman
The Chair: Minister, if I could just
Hon. D. Lovick: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. You're absolutely right. We should do it when the whole House is sitting. You're quite correct. I wanted, though, to advise my colleague opposite that although I don't think that information is germane to any debate we might be having at the moment, it's something, nevertheless, that he and his colleagues may well wish to examine for future reference. I hope that the pattern of tabling that report will become the norm hereafter. It seems to me that it should.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will simply wait for questions and comments from the member opposite.
K. Krueger: I wish to express my thanks to the minister for clearing up those various issues. We look forward to perusing that report. Also in the spirit of cleaning up matters that we've been working on, if the minister wouldn't mind indulging me, I'd like to make a couple of comments on the gross vehicle weight issue, recognizing that the advisers from ICBC are gone by agreement. I don't think there's anything controversial in what I have to say.
[1945]
I, too, as critic for the Ministry of Labour -- also, of course, as a person who's well known to have had a long career with ICBC prior to entering politics -- have been getting a lot of input about this GVW issue. I find a lot of it is somewhat hysterical, frankly. I haven't been able to procure a single ticket as evidence that people have been ticketed for being overweight with their recreational pickup trucks and RVs. But I do keep hearing disquieting rumours about Alberta motorists being sent back and towed back.
One individual, who I'm told -- and this may well be true; I just haven't been able to
verify these things
I also want to mention that in my two decades with ICBC -- most of which was spent handling claims, and the rest in loss prevention -- I do not remember a single case of a motor vehicle crash having been caused by an overloaded pickup truck. There was one exception, which was a young man tearing around at grad with a whole lot of teenagers in the back of his truck. Speed and other things were involved -- shifting cargo -- so I don't really think it was an overweight issue. I've also polled my vast network at ICBC, and nobody can produce any cases where an overweight pickup truck produced or led to a motor vehicle crash.
One individual's name was mentioned earlier on the record by one of my colleagues. I didn't know that was going to happen. That was David Conway, who is a road safety regional manager in the northern interior. He's a wonderful, extremely hard-working individual, and I want it on the record that I trust no harm will come to him, career-wise, by having had his name produced in Hansard and on the record, because he feels obliged, I'm sure, to answer direct questions with direct answers. Hopefully, ICBC management is entirely on the same wavelength as the Legislature in this matter.
Anyway, it's a real concern for the economy and, of course, for private individuals who none us want harassed. That term has been used. I certainly trust the RCMP and don't believe they're out harassing individuals. I trust that isn't happening, but we've got to get a handle on this situation before it hurts our economy and our tourism industry. I see the minister nodding, and I don't think he needs to respond to that, so we'll just carry on with the Labour estimates.
I want to make a couple more points about the Labour Relations Board, and the code itself. The minister, in responding to some of my remarks about Mr. Oleksiuk earlier and the case where the judge forbade him to continue handling the matter, had made comments to the effect that -- and I have to paraphrase here; Hansard isn't available yet, although I looked for it -- the court endorsed the Labour Relations Board in the situation, while the minister was agreeing that the chairman was removed from the case.
The case is known as C.D. Lee Trucking Ltd. v. Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada. I pulled it over the dinner break, and I just checked to see what the court actually said in that regard. I'll quote Mr. Justice Pitfield here. It's item No. 72 on page 8 of the judgment, where Mr. Justice Pitfield says this: "I am not prepared to say that the board is incapable of adjudicating the dispute between Lee Trucking and the local. I do conclude, however, that it is inappropriate to repose the responsibility for assignment or hearing in any of Mr. Oleksiuk, Ms. Junker or Mr. Johnston."
My point is that for Mr. Justice Pitfield to say he's not prepared to say the board is incapable of adjudicating the dispute is a long way from endorsing what went on. I know that when the minister said that, he probably didn't have this case in front of him either. I don't know if the minister wants to comment on that, or if I should just carry on. It looks like I'll just carry on. Certainly I'm willing to do that.
[1950]
[ Page 12827 ]
A couple more questions, then, on this whole issue of the credibility of the Labour
Relations Board. I know the minister is very concerned, as we are, about that question.
You can't have a situation in British Columbia, where so many people look to the Labour
Relations Board as a parallel justice system, the means by which they resolve disputes
that are so crucial to their lives
These are going to be fairly short questions, but I'd like the minister to have the opportunity to be on record on the answers. Does the minister agree that the credibility of labour relations in British Columbia requires both credible legislation and a credible administrative tribunal administering the legislation?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.
K. Krueger: That's what I thought. Does the minister agree that in order for an administrative tribunal to be credible, it must both be and be perceived to be demonstrably impartial and fair in its application and interpretation of its constituent legislation?
Hon. D. Lovick: As much as I would love to answer in the affirmative, I am well aware that the difficulty with answering in the affirmative and talking about the classic argument about law -- about being and being perceived to be credible or just or fair or whatever the conclusion may be -- is a problem in this context, simply because all one needs to do to provide the classic counterexample is to say that somebody doesn't believe that's the case, and therefore you have to agree with them that the whole thing needs to be re-evaluated and revisited.
I'm aware of the technique that the member's engaging in -- wanting to lead me down the
proverbial garden path -- and I don't propose to play along with that game. Suffice it to
say that I am concerned about the impartiality of the board and the need for the board to
be perceived
K. Krueger: One does not presume to try to lead a silver fox down the garden path -- far be it from me. Does this minister -- cutting to the chase -- have confidence that the B.C. Labour Relations Board is a fair and neutral tribunal?
Hon. D. Lovick: I want to let the record show that I am not being glib in this
answer. My considered opinion, after reading quite a lot -- after looking at the Pitfield
decision and reading Brent Mullin's submission with some care -- and, moreover, after
talking to a number of people and listening to the comments made by Jerry Lampert, as well
as Suromitra Sanatani, after talking to trade unions
K. Krueger: That doesn't directly answer the question of whether the minister has confidence that the B.C. Labour Relations Board is a fair and neutral tribunal, although I think he meant yes, and he's nodding his head. Does this minister have confidence that the B.C. Labour Relations Board is interpreting and implementing the B.C. Labour Relations Code in a fair and impartial manner?
Hon. D. Lovick: Again I want to say yes, but I recognize the danger. If the member proposes to come with a second question that says, "Well, what about decision X, or what about decision Y?" then I could be in some difficulty. As the member well knows, it is a quasi-judicial function, and my practice, frankly, is not to comment on any decisions made by the board. I can, however, say that in generic and broad terms, I'm answering the member's question in the affirmative.
[1955]
K. Krueger: Respecting that argument, there is a snowball effect when a judge orders -- well, it's a shock effect, to begin with -- the chair of the LRB off a case. Then we have the survey and the opinions, publicly expressed, by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and the editorials that I quoted to the minister. There are many cases as well. There's a general snowball effect. Regardless of whether or not one believes in the individuals concerned, and leaving personalities out of it, what is best for the province is a concern that I'm sure is foremost in the minister's mind -- even more so than in mine and in the minds of the official opposition. Some of these matters are matters of perception, granted, but others are matters of fact. There's no denying what the judge said in the case we've discussed.
Is this minister satisfied that the current B.C. Labour Relations Board is perceived as a fair and impartial administrative tribunal by those who must necessarily appear before it and abide by its decisions?
Hon. D. Lovick: I have concerns that the board is perhaps not regarded in the light that I wish it were -- that it is not perhaps regarded as the paradigm example of impartiality. I have those concerns; I would be dishonest if I didn't acknowledge so.
However, for the reasons I used not too many minutes ago, I think that I am satisfied that the board is indeed capable of carrying out its functions as mandated. I would also point out that the specific complaints about particular judgments are relatively few in number. Moreover, I would remind the member that board decisions can always be pursued through judicial review. That is a process that is available, and if there were absolute prima facie evidence that the board erred because of some kind of bias, then I am sure that the parties involved would indeed take the course of judicial review. I don't think that is happening. I think the points of dispute and disagreement are rather much more subtle than that.
K. Krueger: With respect, there is nothing at all subtle about Mr. Justice Pitfield ordering Mr. Keith Oleksiuk, the chair of the Labour Relations Board, off the case of C.D. Lee Trucking Ltd. v. Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada. That event and the government's failure to respond to it by removing Mr. Oleksiuk have given rise to an obvious crisis of confidence in the community that has to deal with the Labour Relations Board. I'm sure the minister hears even more clearly than I do the consternation that exists around all of these issues.
[ Page 12828 ]
I refer to the Business Council of B.C.'s Industrial Relations Bulletin of early this year. I'm sure the minister has seen it, but I'll just quote it briefly. It says:
"One of the problems highlighted during last November's B.C. Business Summit is the continued impact of the Labour Relations Code -- and other labour laws -- on investor perceptions and job creation. Along with B.C.'s excessive tax and regulatory burden, B.C.'s unbalanced labour laws topped the list of business problems cited by summit delegates."
I'll break off my quote for a moment to comment that it's the government itself that has organized a number of these summits. The most recent, of course, was at the 108 Ranch in the Cariboo -- very recent -- and there was one in my own hometown of Kamloops last spring. The input is pretty consistent from all of these, and this bulletin is consistent with that input.
It goes on to say:
"B.C. is increasingly seen by many as a labour law 'island unto itself' among jurisdictions with whom we compete for investment capital and skilled workers. It is time for the provincial government and trade union leaders to recognize that the current Labour Relations Code has contributed to undermining investor perceptions and has hurt the province's overall competitiveness."
[2000]
Skipping on past that, it refers specifically to the certification issue that we talked about a little bit earlier:
"Turning to certification in B.C., a union is automatically certified if 55 percent or more of employees sign union membership cards. Alberta and nearby U.S. states require secret ballot votes. To quote Mr. McKenna [former Premier of New Brunswick] again: '
. . . we could not understand how either management or labour could find fault with that simple, elementary democratic principle, the principle of a secret ballot.' Since the B.C. Labour Relations Code was enacted in 1992, there has been a twofold increase in the number of trade union certifications."
Breaking off my quote, this may not be bad news, but it's an item of concern to the type of people I talked about earlier: international investors who consult international trade lawyers here in B.C. and ask about the friendliness of our climate for investment.
"Problems with current B.C. labour law also extend to the Labour Relations Board's interpretation of the code. For example, since its decision in Cardinal Transportation -- a ruling which articulated the permissible bounds of employer communication with employees during a certification drive -- the board has placed virtually no limitations on the type, nature and content of union organizing material, while employers have little ability to present even basic objective information to employees during the certification process. For many employers not previously acquainted with the certification process -- especially those in small business -- this imbalance is met with disbelief and a sense of helplessness.
"Another example of the Labour Relations Board's misinterpretation of the code was seen in its decision last year in Highland Valley Copper et al. Here the board effectively ignored 25 years of well-established jurisprudence on management exclusions and supervisory bargaining units by making it much easier for unions to organize company supervisors. Add to this, the leadership of the board was recently rebuked by the B.C. Supreme Court for being biased -- see C.D. Lee Trucking Ltd. v IWA, et al. The Labour Relations Board has announced that it will appeal the decision.
"Overall, B.C.'s investment performance has been disappointing since the 1992 Labour Relations Code came into effect. Many factors help to explain this, but the disparities in labour-employment regulation between B.C. and competing jurisdictions have undoubtedly played a role. The business summit offered many anecdotal examples of how the Labour Relations Code has deterred business investment in B.C. A comparative review of recent investment performance confirms these views.
"B.C. was the only province other than Newfoundland to experience back-to-back declines in capital spending in 1995 and 1996 -- long before the Asian crisis -- and it is the only province other than P.E.I. where the dollar value of private sector investment in 1998 is projected to be less than four years earlier. In 1992 total fixed business investment in B.C. was almost $3.5 billion higher than in next-door Alberta, by 1995, Alberta had overtaken B.C., and by 1997 it was $6.4 billion ahead.
"In many ways, business summit discussions on the Labour Relations Code underlined what has been known to many within the business community for some time -- that the code and its interpretation has deterred investment, slowed the pace of private sector job creation and eroded B.C.'s competitiveness. It is time for the provincial government and trade union representatives to recognize the same."
Considering that and all that has passed between us this evening, surely the answer to the following question is no. But I'm going to put the question to the minister. Are the people of British Columbia -- and is this House -- to assume that the B.C. Labour Relations Board enjoys the full confidence of this minister?
[2005]
Hon. D. Lovick: One of the parts of this job that some people have difficulty comprehending, I think, is that my obligation, my responsibility, is to try to fairly represent the two communities -- the business community and the labour community. It's a balancing act. I don't have the luxury of the member across the way, who can give one side of every debate. I guess he does so because he believes it. I guess he does so with all sincerity. But to quote the business summit as the final word on B.C.'s economy and what ails us and on the Labour Code is like my asking the B.C. Federation of Labour -- Ken Georgetti and Angie Schira -- to give us an objective report on how they feel about replacement workers or scabs. Let's be serious about the sources we are using here.
I also want to draw attention to the Pitfield case that the member refers to in various ways. I have read that judgment. Quite frankly, I think we are not being entirely fair or legitimate in our discussions if we take bits and pieces of that judgment and try to quote those as somehow capturing the essence of the judgment. I would remind the member opposite that the chair, Mr. Oleksiuk, was not the adjudicator involved in that case and that Justice Pitfield's conclusion, as I recall, was that the chair should have no further dealings with that case. That was the point -- not suggesting that somehow the process was terribly thwarted and corrupted because of the chair's involvement, as if the chair in fact made the decision. I think we need to be very careful about what we say.
I also want to draw attention to the fact that we were apparently talking about the Labour Relations Board, and yet the member's final question was about the Labour Relations Code, suggesting that the code was antithetic to the interests of development and business in this province. On that score -- on the matter of whether the Labour Code is or is not helpful or harmful to business -- the member and I have different points of view.
He jokingly said that the rate of unionization in the province apparently increased, and he wondered if that was necessarily a bad thing. Well, I'm glad he did that -- and laughingly. The point I would suggest is that he is probably suggesting -- on the basis of the tenor and the tone of his remarks -- that the people he talks to do believe that's a bad thing. The people he talks to apparently do believe that a non-union, low-wage economy is somehow preferable to the one we have in this province. I disagree with that. I think most macroeconomic specialists with whom I'm acquainted would
[ Page 12829 ]
probably agree that a low-wage economy and an unorganized economy -- a non-unionized workforce -- are not to anybody's benefit, certainly not in the longer term.
The member and I have disagreements. I thought we were talking about the LRB. I believe I've answered the questions about the LRB. But if he wants to talk about the broad, subjective dimension of whether in fact our labour laws are good or bad for business, obviously we are going to go in different directions, because we have authentically different views. I make no apology for my views. I don't expect him to do so for his. Let's simply agree to disagree on that point.
K. Krueger: Well, for the record, I frankly think that as a manager, a person is in a more comfortable and solid position dealing with a union than simply dealing with employees, because you have a clearly delineated collective agreement -- a set of rules by which to work. I enjoyed that as a manager. As a shop steward and an executive councillor and a board member of an 8,000-member union for over half of my career, I could never understand why managers were afraid of unions, frankly. I have no quarrel -- absolutely none, and neither does the official opposition -- with people's right to association in a union and to collective bargaining.
[2010]
Where the situation becomes a bad thing -- and where I think business refers to the certification process as a negative for B.C.'s investment climate -- is where these things happen through an environment where the situation is clearly slanted to one side of the labour-management equation by the existing law and its application. When the minister suggested earlier that I was simply quoting business, that frankly isn't true. I was also quoting a B.C. Supreme Court judge and the media, who are by no means -- I don't think -- slanted toward business. In fact, sometimes they seem slanted toward labour. But I've quoted several editorials.
Mr. Oleksuik interfered in the case that we've been discussing. It was a matter of great significance to the court. So, far from wanting to discuss general things -- and I don't mean to flog this forever -- I want a very narrow, specific answer. That is, having been confronted by the fact that the business community has expressed its dramatic lack of confidence in the neutrality and impartiality of the B.C. Labour Relations Board -- and it has been very public about that, having been confronted with Mr. Oleksiuk's misbehaviour as judged by the Supreme Court of British Columbia -- will the minister tell us, yes or no, whether he continues to have full confidence in the Labour Relations Board and the chair, Mr. Keith Oleksiuk? Does the minister have full confidence -- yes or no?
Hon. D. Lovick: It is not my practice, nor will it ever be, to comment on individuals and whether I do or do not have confidence in individuals. I have made comments about the board, and I have said why I think that the board is currently functioning in the way that I find acceptable. That's as far as I'm going to go.
For the record, however -- and I tried to give the member a clear indication -- I have read the Pitfield judgment. I know the judgment. I don't have it before me, but I'm concerned with what the member seems to be doing -- that is, stating things about that judgment that are not in fact the case. Mr. Oleksiuk was not accused of interfering. That is simply not true. Mr. Oleksiuk, rather, took a phone call that he should not have taken. That was an error in judgment. Indeed, as I recall, Justice Pitfield said that it was an error in judgment. There was no suggestion -- at all, ever -- in that report that Mr. Oleksiuk interfered.
I think we are abusing the privilege of this Legislature when we make statements that suggest something different from the facts. We're dealing with people's reputations, with their careers, with their integrity. I'm sure the member opposite would have no wish to stray from the very straight and narrow path we ought to walk when we are dealing like that with individuals. I would ask him, then, to please be very, very scrupulously careful about what he says about what the judge did and did not say.
K. Krueger: I don't propose to split hairs with the minister about what is interference and what is not. This was the headline in the Vancouver Sun: "LRB Chairman Ordered to Stay Away from Labour Case." You could hardly ask for a more frontal assault on the credibility of the Labour Relations Board than a headline like that.
I'm going to turn from those discussions to issues that arose out of the passage of
Bill 26 last year and the incorporation of
Without a change to the rules of membership evidence, the evidence of membership in a trade union can be used to support an application for an unorganized unit, or one that is organized by another union, even though the member may also be a member of that union. In fact, this evidence can be used without the knowledge of the member in question. The issue is one of urgency, because the so-called open season for construction -- the period of time when one union can make an application to displace another union as a representative for a particular bargaining unit -- is July and August, so it's coming right up. It is therefore important that this regulation is passed and effective before July 1.
[2015]
The construction industry review panel, which was co-chaired by individuals that the minister has already named -- arbitrators Stephen Kelleher and Stan Lanyon -- was unambiguous in its recommendation. Their report stated: "A trade union making an application for certification for a construction bargaining unit should be required to show evidence of current support for certification when it makes an application to the board. We recommend a change to the labour relations regulation to do this." The issue was a significant enough one that it merited a separate bullet in the two-page press release summarizing the 36-page report.
The report also proposed the wording for the regulation changes. Under the heading "Additional requirement for con-
[ Page 12830 ]
struction industry," section 3.1, it suggested: "In addition to the
requirements of section 3, a trade union making an application for certification in the
construction industry on the basis of active membership referred to in section 3(c)(ii)
must attach an expression of support from those members in the following form: I support
the application by
Now, the Minister of Labour indicated to the House on July 16, 1998, that:
"
. . . the recommendation is very clear in Kelleher and Lanyon. I have said we are committed to doing that."
He also said:
"
. . . if we want to claim that trade unions are indeed an accurate reflection of the wishes of the majority of workers at any given point, we have an obligation thereby to demonstrate that the support is fresh. That's a step forward, it seems to me, and it's one I welcome. I don't think there are grounds for suggesting that it would be anything other than the most rigorously defined definition of fresh support."
On the day previous to that, the minister, in response to a question by the previous B.C. Liberal critic to the effect of "Would fresh evidence of support be required in the case of a raid that could occur under this particular section?" said: "The answer is yes, a raid is indeed an application for certification and therefore must, by the logic we have outlined, demonstrate evidence of what's called 'fresh support.' "
Then the previous Labour critic, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, asked: "Can
the minister give us the assurance that the form that they will be pursuing is the form
that was -- the format, perhaps, not the specific document
Well, as the minister well recalls, the official opposition did everything it could to prevent the passage of the legislation, but it was passed with the government's majority. So there have been very interested people, of course, looking for that regulation ever since.
Just finishing up, quoting Hansard from the committee stage debate on Bill 26, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena asked: "Does the minister anticipate that this regulation will come into effect at the same time that these relevant sections would come into effect?" The minister said: "My officials -- the member for Richmond-Steveston will appreciate -- effectively quoted me the UBC motto. It's a trick question, right? The UBC motto, for those who aren't aware, is tuum est -- it's up to you. The answer therefore, I'm happy to say -- given l'�tat c'est moi and all that -- is yes, absolutely so." So since l'�tat is still vous, is that still the case, and when is it going to happen?
[2020]
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm pleased to give the member a plain English answer. The answer is yes, that is still the case, and it happened today.
K. Krueger: Well, I feel like celebrating and going home, but I'm not sure everybody would go along with that. But that's an accomplishment for the day. No particular need, then, I assume, for me to carry on. Certainly I haven't seen the order-in-council. Would the minister just confirm that the regulation is exactly what Messrs. Kelleher and Lanyon recommended?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I'm happy to confirm that.
K. Krueger: Closing that file, then, and moving right along, I hope the rest of this goes as easily tonight. We could get further than I thought.
I'd like to refer once again, without meaning to be tiresome, to the ministry's statement of goals and key strategies, wherein the first goal mentioned is a healthy, safe and productive work environment; the second one is promoting a prosperous economy; and the third is promoting a healthy, balanced labour relations climate and harmonious relationships between employers and workers. Referring again to things that have happened since the passage of Bill 26, I'd just like to ask the minister whether he advised the House whether his government foresaw the creation of uncertainty in the economy through the Bill 26 labour relations legislation.
Hon. D. Lovick: If the member is suggesting that Bill 26 has caused some kind of uncertainty, I would categorically reject that and suggest that there is no evidence to support that conclusion.
K. Krueger: Since the official opposition is not in the habit of throwing out red herrings, I know the minister will be expecting me to produce some rationale for the question, which I'll do now. Will the minister agree that the failure of this government to provide a specific definition of ICI construction in part 4.1 of the code has created uncertainty within the British Columbia construction industry, insofar as collective bargaining is concerned?
Hon. D. Lovick: The parties agreed to leave the specific definition up to the parties in negotiation directly with the Labour Relations Board. That has been going on, and that is indeed where the matter sits right now.
K. Krueger: It's one thing for the parties to agree on something; it's another to enact legislation. The official opposition certainly never agreed. Perhaps the minister would tell us which parties he is referring to, and also perhaps the minister would advise the House whether or not service work to construction sites is caught by the term "ICI construction" in part 4.1 of the code.
Hon. D. Lovick: The parties I referred to are CLRA -- the Construction Labour Relations Association -- and the building trades, represented, I guess, by the Building Trades Council. The service work that is going on is precisely the discussion that is happening between those two parties with the board at the moment.
K. Krueger: Will the minister advise the House whether maintenance work at the construction site is caught by the definition of ICI construction in part 4.1 of the code?
Hon. D. Lovick: Same answer as to the previous question.
[ Page 12831 ]
K. Krueger: Will the minister advise the House whether the fabrication and/or manufacture of construction materials is caught by the definition of ICI construction in part 4.1 of the code?
[2025]
Hon. D. Lovick: My intuition would be that isn't, but I'm reluctant to say that, simply because I no longer have that whole documentation with me. I suspect that it may be the same answer as the previous one -- namely, the board is adjudicating that along with those other areas that the member referred to. But on the face of it, I don't think that the fabrication of construction materials fits into ICI, as we used it in Bill 26.
K. Krueger: I thank the minister for that straightforward answer. Will the minister acknowledge and agree, then, that the failure of his government to provide clear legislative direction as to the inclusion, or not, in ICI construction of service work, maintenance work and/or fabricating and manufacturing has created considerable and costly uncertainty within the British Columbia construction industry?
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, the Chair is having some problems with this line of debate, where we seem to be interpreting legislation and the need for legislation. I would ask members to perhaps consider a different line of questioning, more related to the estimates that we're in.
Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd forgotten the job you do. I'm glad you do it, because I think you're probably quite right.
The member's question is predicated on the notion that there is some failure on the part of the legislation to do what he suggests ought to have been done. No. There was a conscious and deliberate decision to leave those matters that the member has read into the record -- at least the first two of them -- subject to the discretion of the board, working with the key stakeholders, rather than have academics and theorists, such as we in the Legislature, try to determine what that was. Rather, leave it to the people who actually work in the field. That was a conscious, deliberate decision. I don't believe for a moment that it has created any kind of uncertainty or problems in the industry.
K. Krueger: Well, the minister is the minister and is looked to for direction -- certainly on the government's intent with regard to legislation. This was very controversial legislation. The minister defended it stoutly.
Is the minister able to advise contractors providing the service work, maintenance work and/or fabricating and manufacturing for the construction industry whether they may bargain on their own with the building trades unions or if they are required by part 4.1 of the code to bargain through the CLRA with building trades unions?
The Chair: Excuse me, member. I did caution members. I think you should take it as a ruling that we're not interpreting or discussing the need for legislation in estimates.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate that these are somewhat technical questions, but I have moved to a different subject. There is resistance by contractors to any imposed obligation to be represented at the bargaining table by the CLRA. Some building trades contractors have grouped themselves into associations. Others are few in numbers and can't necessarily do that. So I do ask the minister for direction, because the question is by no means clear whether contractors in those areas may bargain on their own with the building trades unions or whether they are required by the Code to bargain through the CLRA with those unions.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I'm reluctant to answer, even though I can, simply because I think your ruling is clear -- that we are indeed now reinterpreting legislation, and I'm not sure that is grist for the estimates mill. But because I don't want to run from the question, let me just answer, albeit briefly.
The board is currently dealing with submissions from the very contractors that the member has named, and the board will ultimately make the ruling in terms of whether it is a CLRA obligation or whether they can be an independent association. That's going on. Indeed, that was anticipated when we created the legislation.
[2030]
K. Krueger: I'm sure that people will be at a bit of a loss, then, as to why the House didn't spell it out in the legislation if the question was anticipated. Why would we leave it to the LRB?
Switching from the question of contractors' rights, is the minister able to advise the House of any building trades unions that have taken the position that certain of their work is not included in the definition of ICI construction in part 4.1 of the Code?
The Chair: Members, I've been fairly clearly now. Both sides have had an opportunity to go beyond the Chair's ruling, and I think we'll have to be a little more forceful about it. So I would ask the member to move on to a different line of questioning.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair. The minister is in a position to have information that I'm not necessarily privy to, and I have moved to a different area of questioning. I would like to know -- and the minister is certainly much more in a position of having his ear to ground on these issues -- whether any building trades unions have taken the position that they are not included in the definition of ICI construction.
The Chair: Perhaps the member could pursue a different line of questioning.
K. Krueger: Is the minister aware of the application of the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 82, currently before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board, seeking various declarations? It includes, but is not limited to, the following: a declaration pursuant to IRC decision No. C191/88 and B.C. Labour Relations Board decision No. B139/95 and BCLRB decision No. B53/96 that it is not appropriate to include service and maintenance work within the jurisdiction of the bargaining council under part 4.1 for the maintenance and service component of the unionized elevator industry; a declaration that the bargaining structure involving the bargaining council and CLRA, established for ICI construction pursuant to part 4.1 of the code, is not an appropriate
[ Page 12832 ]
bargaining structure for the negotiation of collective agreements covering the maintenance and service component of the elevator industry; and a declaration that CLRA is acting in violation of sections 55.2(1), 55.21(2) and 55.22(1) of the code by purporting to act as bargaining agents for the Local 82 elevator industry's employers with respect to the maintenance and service and residential construction of the elevator industry. Is the minister aware of those positions?
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask for your guidance here. I know that is an application before the board. That's all I know and all I should know, frankly, because what the board does is its business, and it's not for me to interfere. The instruction that I ask from you, Mr. Chairman, is essentially based on the ruling that you have offered a couple of times now -- namely, that we seem to be talking about legislation and the meaning of legislation rather than about the budgetary estimates of this ministry. Now, as I say, I'm not reluctant to talk about anything that the member wants to talk about, but I am also mindful of the fact that we are certainly bound by the rules of this chamber.
The Chair: I would like to see us make progress on this, member. Perhaps we can move on to matters pertaining to the estimates.
K. Krueger: Well, the minister denied at the outset that this ministry or this government has created uncertainty in the labour relations climate in British Columbia through the passage and implementation of Bill 26. I believe -- and the official opposition believes -- that this government has created uncertainty which is obviously requiring the intervention of the Labour Relations Board. If that intervention is causing the minister's discomfort, then, fine, we can move on.
Contractors in this province honestly don't know whether they're in a position to be able to bargain for themselves. We're into the construction season. This is an urgent situation. The official opposition believes that Bill 26 was deficient and created uncertainty. Does the minister agree that it is important for a building trades local in the province of B.C. to know whether or not its work falls within the definition of ICI construction?
[2035]
The Chair: Maybe I could make it very plain, members. When we're discussing Bill 26, we're discussing legislation. Could we move on to the estimates?
K. Krueger: Well, okay, then. Would the minister agree that a building trades union's inability to know whether its work falls within the definition of ICI construction pursuant to part 4.1 of the code creates uncertainty, contrary to the interests of British Columbia within the British Columbia construction industry?
The Chair: Member, if you have no questions related to the estimates, perhaps we could consider the vote.
K. Krueger: I believe that all of these questions relate to the estimates. If you have difficulty with them, then obviously they won't be answered. Hopefully, eventually I'll strike the mother lode, and you will stop finding difficulty with my questions.
Does the minister agree
The Chair: Member, could you take your seat, please. Reflections on the Chair are not for these estimates either, member. It's very simple. I think you have experience in estimates, and you know what the rules are. So I would just ask you to ask questions of the minister that relate to the estimates.
K. Krueger: Perhaps in helping me make that determination as I work through my questions, the Chair could explain to me why any particular question does not relate to the estimates. Certainly the ministry's spending plans are under scrutiny; there are costs associated with these questions. If the Chair needs any clarification of why I believe that, I'll happily furnish it question by question.
Does the minister agree, in light of Local 82's application, that there is uncertainty within the British Columbia construction industry insofar as Local 82's work is concerned, as a result of part 4.1 of the code and the government's failure to properly define ICI construction?
The Chair: Members, the Chair has made a clear ruling on this. If the member continues in this manner, he'll just have to remain in his seat, and the Chair will call the question on the vote.
K. Krueger: Well, I move that the Chair do leave the chair.
[2040]
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 15 | |||
| C. Clark | Neufeld | Coell | |
| Chong | Jarvis | Anderson | |
| Penner | Krueger | Thorpe | |
| Symons | van Dongen | Barisoff | |
| Dalton | J. Reid | J. Wilson | |
| NAYS -- 36 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | McGregor | |
| Kwan | G. Wilson | Hammell | |
| Boone | Streifel | Pullinger | |
| Lali | Orcherton | Stevenson | |
| Calendino | Walsh | Randall | |
| Gillespie | Robertson | Cashore | |
| Conroy | Priddy | Petter | |
| Miller | Dosanjh | MacPhail | |
| Sihota | Lovick | Ramsey | |
| Farnworth | Waddell | Smallwood | |
| Bowbrick | Kasper | Doyle | |
| Giesbrecht | Goodacre | Janssen | |
[2045]
K. Krueger: A number of our members had to leave. It looks like the government wins the vote.
Switching to something completely different, there is concern from a number of the contractors captured by Bill 26, and therefore represented in negotiations by the CLRA, which we can summarize this way: Bill 26 provides, under section 55.21,
[ Page 12833 ]
that the Construction Labour Relations Association is authorized to bargain on behalf of all unionized construction employers who have a bargaining relationship with a trade union representing employees in craft bargaining units within ICI construction -- meaning construction work performed within the industrial, commercial and institutional components of the construction industry. Contractors will no longer have the right to bargain individually with those unions holding certifications for their members being employed by that contractor. Rather, they are to be represented by CLRA.
In a recent presentation made by Mr. Bob Morrison of the CLRA, a roomful of people and I were told that the negotiations were proceeding "at the speed of light" -- that's a quote; Mr. Morrison indicated that things were happening very quickly. Contractors are appealing to me, and I assume to the Minister of Labour, that Bill 26 somehow omitted an obligation for the CLRA to accept a duty of fair representation such as that provided by section 12(1) of the Labour Relations Code of B.C.
The Chair: Member, could you take your seat, please? The Chair has made very clear rulings on this matter, and the member is showing disrespect for the Chair. I'll leave it to you if you wish to continue in this vein.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair. Well, certainly there is no desire to show disrespect for the Chair. I am attempting to elicit some answers from the minister with regard to serious concerns of individuals involved in the construction industry in British Columbia, whose livelihoods are in question -- whose ability to carry on business is in question. I fail to see how that is in contravention with the ruling of the Chair. I will continue to take your direction on such matters, in that you've obviously received the endorsement of the House.
Interjection.
K. Krueger: Would you like to
[2050]
Hon. D. Lovick: Just on a point of order -- simply to be helpful, if I might be. The Chair's ruling has nothing to do with whether he wants us to discuss this matter. It's simply that the ruling, under standing order 61, is very explicit indeed that legislation is not a subject for estimates debate; even the impact of legislation is not a subject for estimates debate. That's the point -- to the member opposite through you, Mr. Chairman -- and I'm sure you wanted to say what I'm saying now. Given that I have spent a little time in the chair, perhaps I'm more mindful of the particular citation. I'm sure the member opposite doesn't wish to do anything that doesn't show absolute respect for the Chair, but we're simply not allowed by the rules of this House to carry on the line of questioning that he is. Clearly we should therefore switch to another topic.
K. Krueger: I'd like to discuss the topic of the survival of contractors in British Columbia -- and a specific example is the concrete-pumping contractors in British Columbia -- if we can find a way to do that without bearing on the particular legislation. Perhaps the minister would assist me in that regard.
I'm advised that a number of the contractors who find themselves in difficult situations presently are not able to fall within a subgroup of the CLRA contractors, as recently endorsed by the Labour Relations Board. Their principal competitors are in Alberta but are doing business here in British Columbia, and their needs are urgent. They seek to have the ability to negotiate directly with their unions, and they have not yet had the opportunity to do so -- nor, apparently, a ruling that puts them in a position to be able to resolve these difficult issues. I wonder if the minister could give us some guidance for the companies affected.
Hon. D. Lovick: With a view to perhaps marking period to this awkward discussion, the matter is now before the board. That doesn't mean that those contractors who have taken an issue to the board for adjudication can't carry on as they did before this legislation. They can continue to go to work for companies; they can continue to function in their business. But what they have done is that they have said they want clarification from the board regarding how wide the net is cast under the auspices of Bill 26. That's the only answer to the last ten questions, roughly, that the member has asked. I am prepared to give him that answer, but frankly, I am not serving anybody's interests, I think, by simply repeating the answer. I also think, Mr. Chairman, I am probably violating the rules of the House by answering as I am.
K. Krueger: Rather than risk banging heads with the minister -- or, worse yet, the Chair -- on this issue, I propose to regroup on this aspect of my line of questioning and consider it overnight and pick it up in the morning.
For the time being, I'd like to switch to a consideration of the Highway Constructors Ltd. arrangement and model, recognizing that that arrangement to a large degree falls under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. But believing that there is a component within the purview of the Minister of Labour, I wonder if the minister would elucidate his ministry's involvement in the HCL model.
Hon. D. Lovick: We have no direct involvement, nor do we spend one nickel on that.
K. Krueger: That being said, there is certainly a pensions aspect to the HCL model, and the minister has within his ministry the pension standards branch. I wonder if he would comment about his oversight of the pensions aspect of the HCL model.
[2055]
Hon. D. Lovick: There is nothing unique about HCL in that regard. Rather, building trades pensions are covered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, just as HCL workers -- building trades people working in HCL contracts -- would be. But there is nothing unique about the HCL contract as it applies under pension benefits standards legislation.
K. Krueger: Part of the responsibilities of the pension benefits standards branch is, of course, an ongoing review of the viability of pensions and the fairness of pensions for the members who are going to depend on them. There was a report released some time ago where analysts had considered the HCL model and its pension fund and indicated that at least 45 percent of the people working on HCL projects and paying into that pension fund would never have the oppor
[ Page 12834 ]
tunity to enjoy any pension benefits. I wonder if the minister would comment on that and whether that situation remains the same today.
Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the report the member refers to has been refuted soundly and absolutely by the superintendent of pensions. There is no truth to the rumour that the member quoted.
K. Krueger: The pension benefits standards branch reviews pensions in the province, as I mentioned, determines their viability and determines whether they're sound. Could the minister advise us how frequently audits are conducted on the 1,000 pensions that the branch oversees?
Hon. D. Lovick: Audits, I understand, are done infrequently. The process of conducting them is relatively recent. I believe only three have been done in the last year.
K. Krueger: If only three in 1,000 were reviewed in the last year, how do we know how many of the pension funds in British Columbia are experiencing difficulty?
Hon. D. Lovick: The plans are all required to submit annual reports to the superintendent of pensions each year. Those reports, I understand, are prepared by members of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, and therefore we can pretty much guarantee the accuracy of the information.
K. Krueger: Can the minister tell the House how many of the approximately 1,000 plans over which the pension benefits standards branch has oversight are multi-employer plans?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry. I can't give a direct answer. The temptation is to say that it's each of the 16 building trades, but I understand there are some other plans as well that are multi-employer. But we will get that information as soon as we can for the member.
[2100]
K. Krueger: Can the minister tell us which of the pension plans in British Columbia are known to be in trouble at the present time?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm reluctant to respond to this question, perhaps, in the way the member wants me to, for two reasons. Number one, I have difficulty with the terminology "in trouble." It is true that some plans have unfunded liabilities. It is true that some other plans have been caught in the real estate market and things have obviously not gone as well as they had anticipated, and they have therefore been meeting with the branch and the superintendent with a view to getting into compliance and finding ways to ensure that the plan is stable and so forth. So "in trouble," then -- that terminology causes me some difficulty. That's point one.
The second thing is that I am reluctant, frankly -- although I have the information -- to state to the world: "These are the particular pension plans and organizations that may be having some difficulty." I think that's for the members of the plan to share with their members.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member opposite says, "The world isn't watching," and he's perhaps right. But I guess I'm mindful of the legitimate privacy rights of those individuals. So unless I got some advice from a lawyer or somebody, I think I'd be very reluctant to quote that into the record. I don't think it's appropriate for me to do so.
K. Krueger: Referring again to the HCL pension provisions, is there any provision for -- perhaps subsidization is not the correct term -- crossover from the HCL pension arrangements to the multi-employer pension funds that are experiencing difficulty in British Columbia.
Hon. D. Lovick: I was working a little bit with what the question is and how I
answer it. I understand that once HCL members have two years of contribution to the plan,
they are then vested, which probably answers some of the question. But the matter of
whether HCL plan contributions will then somehow be transferred to another plan that might
be in difficulty
K. Krueger: I appreciate the minister's assistance in guiding us through this
territory of what little overlap there seems to be between the HCL model, mainly
administered through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and his own ministry
[2105]
Contractors who were at one time very significant players in the construction industry in British Columbia and who brought apprentices to their programs and so on tell me that the contractor force is being deskilled by the HCL model. They send me copies of the applications that HCL takes from people, specifically the employment equity-style questionnaire, which asks people about their race and ethnicity and so on, and express concerns about the fact that their highly experienced workforce is unable to get work in the province anymore in the things that they were expert at doing, because the contracts are being let through the HCL model, and other people are filling the jobs. One example is Tercon Contractors Ltd., a Kamloops-based highway constructor that has shifted much of its business offshore, because it's simply unwilling to allow people that it doesn't know to operate its equipment and engage in roadbuilding in British Columbia. Recently people who have contracting companies in what is termed "day labour" in the province received the unwelcome news that they too would come under the HCL umbrella, and that they are obliged to hire their employees through the union hiring hall and will have very little control over who is operating their equipment.
I know that the unemployment of professional people in British Columbia, for one thing, and also the deskilling of the workforce are issues for the Minister of Labour. I'd just like him to comment, if he would, about these aspects of HCL as they relate to his ministry.
[ Page 12835 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, I should point out that HCL does not relate to my
ministry, quite frankly -- all right? The two areas that I guess one would deal with
What the equity provisions do is take those groups of people that are traditionally excluded from careers in that kind of construction activity and say: "We will set aside a certain portion of the contract for those people." We're talking notably women, we're talking aboriginal people, and we're talking physically challenged people. Those individuals, in some cases, have gone on to get apprenticeships and become skilled tradespeople. What we're trying to do is to ensure that the stock of skilled tradespeople will be growing, will be continuing, and what we'll also do is address some of those systemic bits of discrimination that have kept people like women out of the traditional trades. It's a good program; it's worked very well.
The percentage
[2110]
In other words, the HCL model, I think, is designed -- and designed rather well -- to ensure that the kinds of problems the member refers to don't happen. Certainly that was the experience that we had with it on the Vancouver Island Highway project. It's fascinating that when the project was first announced, a number of small contractors, businesses and people were saying: "This is terrible. You're trying to unionize us. This is an awful thing." At the end of the day, all of those contractors, all of those companies and all the little towns up and down the route were all saying: "Thank you for the model, because we saw B.C. dollars being invested in B.C. communities. We also saw some of our own people, who wouldn't otherwise ever have had an opportunity, getting jobs -- and in some cases, also getting training."
A good model, I think, all things considered; an excellent model, certainly defensible. I give that rather long answer to the member simply because I have to, at the same time, give notice and note that technically we -- the Ministry of Labour -- don't have any direct involvement with HCL. Therefore I'm not sure my estimates really fit. However, I'll look forward to the member's additional comments.
K. Krueger: That being said, I don't think I'll pursue the HCL issues further here. We certainly plan to cover those issues in the Ministry of Highways estimates.
Referring again to the informal discourse that the minister and I had with regard to the brief coverage of ITAC in the Advanced Education estimates, the minister was here for the discussion of the delicate question of the controversy between the advocates of the BMW -- building maintenance worker -- application for certification as a craft and the building trades unions, who are very much opposed to it. I wonder if the minister would share his thoughts about that. I've listened to both sides; I know that it's a difficult question. The minister clearly had insights on it, and I'd welcome him to share those.
Hon. D. Lovick: The Ministry of Labour involvement in ITAC is, as I know the member knows full well, symbolic to a degree and I think that's appropriate. It's good symbolism -- okay? But the Ministry of Labour obviously wants to know what's happening in that whole area of industrial training and apprenticeship, and clearly has a vested interest in seeing it function well. Accordingly then, the Deputy Minister of Labour sits on the board of ITAC. That, of course, is Marg Arthur. The deputy's role at the moment, she advises me, is to chair the committee that's currently adjudicating that dispute, can we call it, between the building trades and the advocates for the building maintenance workers. I'm not sure I'm describing that second group in the correct way. I'm not sure that I have to say, you know, here's who the good guys are and aren't, or something.
I don't claim to have any great, intimate knowledge of it. I know in vague terms what
it's about, and I think it's an indicator of the kinds of difficulties we are going to
face with a modern workforce as we try to grapple with what crafts are. Crafts are
changing. Do they require the same level of sophistication they did traditionally? For
example, is it a fair comparison between a building maintenance worker, even if we throw
in half a dozen
That's a debate that's going to go on for a very long time, and I don't presume to know the outcome. I know that both sides have legitimacy. I'm pleased by the fact that the resolution to the dispute is going to happen in, I think, precisely the right environment, rather than in some kind of adversarial model where we have winners and losers. I suspect that going through the ITAC process now, we may well find it's a win-win situation for the parties. I hope so.
[2115]
K. Krueger: I wasn't aware that the ministry's involvement in the ITAC process was so symbolic. I'd appreciate it if the minister would just give us a synopsis of how much or how little his ministry actually is involved. I know that the minister doubtless has knowledge of the origin of the BMW program, because he was also Aboriginal Affairs minister up until not very long ago.
The Chief of the Skeetchestn Indian band -- which is a member of the Secwepemc nation, otherwise known as the Shuswap in our region -- Chief Ron Ignace, approached me about this in considerable frustration because his band and
[ Page 12836 ]
the Secwepemc Cultural Education Society have put a great deal of effort into advancing the program and saw it as an employment opportunity for band members. I gather that originally there was some discussion of the classification being particularly useful to that band and others with regard to maintenance of their own buildings, but there actually are aspirations to export the skill and the certification in a competitive mode throughout the province.
So two things. I'd like the minister to flesh out any and all involvement of his ministry in ITAC and, secondly, to comment on the aspirations of the aboriginal people in general and the Skeetchestn band in particular with regard to the BMW program and where he sees it going.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think we need to remind ourselves of what ITAC is. It's essentially a policy-making body. It's independent of government, except for the direct connection with the three deputies on the board. Obviously one has influence on that board, as one does with so many others, by talking to various people and making one's views known -- through, in my case, the deputy. Direct involvement, though -- no, the Labour ministry doesn't have it anymore, not even the budgetary obligation. As you know, that is now with the Ministry of Advanced Ed.
Really, the matter of what the Skeetchestn people are trying to do
I heard a horribly depressing statistic just the other day -- that the average life span of reserve housing is something like 20 to 25 years. That's outrageous, of course, and it's simply because of absence of maintenance and, in some cases, the absence of training. You know, here's how to do it -- or making sure that the money is set aside to take care of it and that it becomes a legitimate maintenance budget. Anyway, I understand that there are a number of initiatives underway to try and grapple with that problem.
The point I guess I'm making is just that the idea of a building maintenance worker technician -- is that the right terminology? -- is a good one, and I congratulate the Skeetchestn band on their initiative and on all of their efforts, and I hope that it will have some success. Whether it becomes a certified trade is obviously not the only issue on the agenda, but it may well be a very important one. Whether that happens or not, the concept of a building maintenance worker with some qualifications and some recognition of those qualifications is, I think, desirable, and I think that it would indeed probably become a marketable trade, something that could be shipped to other bands in other communities in the province. That, I think, would be good for all parties concerned.
[2120]
K. Krueger: One of the concerns that the other side of the BMW equation has voiced to me is the safety aspect of having a generalist building maintenance worker, and specifically the fact that these people would be working with natural gas and electricity. The way it was put to me by journeymen in the competing trade -- if that's the right term -- was: "In our trade there are no second chances, just funerals." That certainly raised some alarm bells with me. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on the safety aspect of the BMW classification and whether that's a legitimate concern on behalf of the other side of the argument.
Hon. D. Lovick: My deputy is advising me of the fact that this is precisely the
kind of thing that ITAC is grappling with and why, as she puts it, we need to get all of
the stakeholders involved. We need to have the trades council being involved in this
discussion simply because at some point we will probably be
Those people have that expertise and some book learning but also a whole lot of
experience and ability. They share that with us. The whole concept of apprenticeship in
trades training is to say: "I've been there. I did that. I've learned those
things." That's part of the collective wisdom to be passed on to the next generation.
It seems to me that we must never discount those skills and those abilities that those
skilled trades people represent. By the same token, we have to find the balance between
using that as a kind of barrier to say: "Nobody else will ever be allowed to touch
that trade at all, because they don't have our high level of qualification
K. Krueger: I certainly wish them well also. It sounds as though there may well be a compromise position that everyone could arrive at where the BMW could have a level at which they no longer get involved in particular aspects of buildings maintenance. Certainly I heard tremendous frustration from Chief Ron Ignace, speaking not only for the Skeetchestn band, but the Secwepemc in general. He was with Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops Indian band when he spoke with me. They want a resolution. They want to be able to move forward. I wonder if the minister and the people who are counselling him could offer any prediction of a likely end date of these considerations or an offer date where we might have the opportunity to allow the Secwepemc people to go ahead -- at least to some extent. Is that a possibility?
Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that it is hoped that something may indeed be resolved by the fall. That's as specific as I can be at this point.
[2125]
I see that we have been joined by our colleagues from the other House. If my colleague agrees with me, then I will now move the appropriate motion. The motion is that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[ Page 12837 ]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.
The committee met at 3:04 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRIES
On vote 10: ministry operations, $30,651,000.
[1505]
The Chair: I recognize the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
Hon. G. Wilson: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $30,651,000 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, ministry operations.
The Chair: You have heard the question.
I recognize the member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: I think I'll ask a few questions before we call the question. I'd like to just begin by making a few general comments about the situation as I see it with the Ferry Corporation. I'm just trying to sort things out here a little bit. I was unavoidably detained by a number of microphones on the way here; the minister shared the same experience I did.
We've seen now, for the past number of years
If we take a look at the minutes of Ferries board meetings over the past few years, we find that there were lots of little indications that things were wrong. There were lots of indications that something was going wrong and that it should be looked into, and apparently nobody did. So we look at -- I'd better put my glasses on to read these -- May 23, 1996. The terms of reference for the CFI board were set, and the construction mandate for the CFI was set in December of 1995 -- it mentioned those minutes. On July 2, 1996, a post-budget spending freeze was imposed on all capital projects. That did not affect ferry No. 1 of the three fast ferries, but ferries 2 and 3 were caught in that freeze.
A fare increase was delayed. This was in the July 2, 1996, minutes. There are comments
about the fare increases being delayed by the minister, who demanded a financial review
and economies. But in May 1996 the board advised the minister that their dire financial
situation is due to his refusal to approve fare increases in February of '96, before the
election. We find on September 11, 1996, that the board considered the financial situation
extremely serious. Remember, that's now three years ago. The board said: "
January 17, 1997. We find in the minutes of that date that the reporting procedures for CFI and the board to the B.C. Ferry Corporation were raised. "Their directors were not fully satisfied with the reports submitted, which do not provide detailed financial information on the costs associated with the high-speed ferry. Management continues to develop the reporting process." Those were thoughts contained within those minutes. Now, you would think that then -- January 17, 1997, fully two years and four months ago -- they were given the warning by the CFI board that there were some problems. What we find as a reaction to that was the fact that those board members who were raising these questions were terminated, and they brought in some other members onto the board that didn't ask the same penetrating questions the previous board members had.
May 27, 1997. In those minutes it notes a letter from the minister -- he's the Minister of Advanced Education now, I guess, but he was in a different ministry then -- saying that government "will help save the B.C. Ferry Corporation from bankruptcy by injecting more money." Doane Raymond thought it was proper to advise the auditor general that the corporation -- B.C. Ferry Corporation -- had inadequate cash flows for its ongoing requirements.
Again, there seems to be, within those minutes of the board in '97, some dire warnings of financial difficulties that only in the beginning of this year did the minister, the Ferries board and all these other people say: "Oh, my goodness, I had no idea what was going on." In minutes of May 27, 1997, approximately $12 million in infrastructure investments by the Ferry Corporation in the fast ferry program are classified as accounts receivable. They say that every effort will be made to recover the amounts in spite of the fact that no agency has yet acknowledged the obligation to pay the amounts advanced. We're having lots of problems in the B.C. Ferry Corporation as identified one way or the other in the minutes, and yet it seems that not much was done.
October 10, 1997. I'm jumping ahead and leaving out a number to save time. The board was to prepare a report for the government caucus meetings on October 16-17 in Cranbrook. So what we have now is that the Ferries board is providing to the NDP caucus, at meetings in Cranbrook on
[ Page 12838 ]
October 16-17, information regarding the financial situation of the Ferry Corporation, and they were not providing that to the rest of the people of British Columbia or to the opposition. And we will find, if we look at the minutes I got from that meeting and the business plan for the Ferry Corporation, that the majority of all that information is blanked out. It seems it was supplied to the NDP caucus but not provided to other people.
[1510]
I think maybe that would be
April 3, 1998. It states that the minister met in camera with the president and board from 1:15 to 2:30. But again, we don't have any idea -- because it was blanked out -- what might have taken place at that in-camera meeting. But the minister assured us in January of 1999, this year, that he had no idea what was going on in B.C. Ferries.
So what I really guess all of this is leading up to is whether the minister can tell us if he's done something now to bring about some form of accountability for everybody involved, from the board on down in the corporation, so that the history of things that I've just read here won't repeat itself in the future. And what are you doing about what happened in the past?
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, let me start by saying that when I became minister in January -- I think it was on January 29 of this year -- some action was taken almost immediately with respect to making sure that there was a proper financial accounting of the project and that there was a proper technical review of the project done so that we had a full accounting and a full explanation of the very issues that the member has raised and that I, when I was on that side of the House, was raising also.
If the member would like to look to page 51 of the Gordon report, there is a fairly clear accounting of exactly where the figures were and who was asking the questions. I think that's something that the member would be able to discern. So Hugh Gordon's report is a report that has, I think, given us a very clear financial picture of exactly where this project is to date.
The JJMA report, which was the technical review that came in, gave us a very clear technical assessment of the vessel, which I think provided us an opportunity to understand what the technical merits of the vessel were. It panned out to be -- in their words I think -- a very fine ship -- albeit they said that it was a Ferrari. I think they wrote that in the report, but I think that was an anecdotal piece of information, which we all found most interesting.
The program or project is now under the guidance of a new CEO for B.C. Ferries, under a
new B.C. Ferries board, under a new chairman of the CFI board, and a new CFI board and
soon, hopefully, a new CEO for CFI, which is a different approach than we had in the past,
when the same president or chief executive officer was for both corporations. On top of
that, as the member will know, as a minister I have
The member will also know that there is work being done with respect to the auditor general on the whole question of Crown reporting and the administrative reporting aspect of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I look forward to those recommendations to see how we can make sure that there is a much more streamlined process for both reporting and accountability.
So we've done a great deal since I became minister to address the very issues that the member raises and to make sure that the corporation is in a position for us to be able to access sound information with respect to the cost of the project and also for us to be able to now start to build a proper business plan, so that we can look at the cost of implementation and the ongoing cost of running and maintaining the vessels we're building.
[1515]
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I certainly hope that all he says will turn out as he said, because we have had some mismanagement and some misinformation given to us in the past. Indeed, if you've managed to correct all the situations that allowed that to happen, that will certainly be a plus, and I would commend the minister if that takes place.
Going back again, I just want to spend a little more time on history, and then we'll
move on to the present. By the end of 1997, it became more and more apparent, I think,
that the Ferry Corporation was really in trouble. What was happening then was that there
was supposedly a $210 million cost for these three ferries, but by the end of '97, half of
that had already been spent. It was 18 months into the program by that time, and more than
half had been spent. The first ferry was not even in the water yet, and the other two
ferries were basically metal in a yard waiting to be assembled. It was obvious at that
time to anybody looking at the project -- without having to have anybody that I blamed a
few minutes ago for giving answers
Maybe as an aside at this point, I'll just mention to the minister that I was contacted a few months back by the auditor general's office. They wanted to have a meeting with me. I asked them: "What is this meeting about?" They wanted to know about the facts I had about the Ferry Corporation and the fast ferry overruns. So I said: "Well, I really don't have very much in the way of information." But they said that they'd like to meet with me anyway, so they did meet with me.
I think the import of what they were trying to get at was that somehow I must have had some leaked documents from
[ Page 12839 ]
somewhere that were showing me all of these things, because I was more right, let's say, than the corporation had been in what was being put out to the public. I basically had to tell them, "Well, I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I'm not able to tell you that I got any leaked documents," because I didn't.
What I did was take the facts that were given to me. I was told by the now Premier, when he was the minister responsible, that it was going to take ten to 12 months to build a ferry. I've talked to people in the shipbuilding industry, and theoretically it could be done. I was told that it was going to cost $70 million each for the three of them. I was told that about 60 percent of the cost of that ferry would be labour; the other 40 percent would be materials. So if you take 60 percent of $70 million, you get $42 million. After the first year, you could assume that the labour has taken $42 million. Well, we have gone into two years. Two times $42 million is $84 million. Add in the $30 million for materials, and you're already well over the $70 million. So we would know, by the end of 1997, that we're in trouble, because already the first ferry must be getting somewhere upwards of $100 million. Granted, some of the things that were spent at that time were for materials and the engines for all three ferries. Nevertheless, just the labour alone, after it had taken two years, should already put it over the budget for the first ferry.
I'm really wondering, then
The minister mentioned a moment ago that they put someone from the Crown corporations secretariat on the board of CFI. Where was the Crown corporations secretariat? They're supposed to be looking after and monitoring Crown corporations during the time that this is happening. So basically we have three questions. Where were Treasury Board and the Crown corporations secretariat? Who was writing the cheques? How come somebody didn't know the costs were out of hand?
[1520]
Hon. G. Wilson: Those are all good questions, actually. They're not unlike ones that I was asking not so many months ago.
D. Symons: I learned from a master.
Hon. G. Wilson: Oh, I appreciate that. It's most generous of you to
They are good questions. The answer is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation was writing the cheques. I can't give you specifics on discussions at Treasury Board, because I wasn't party to them, and I would assume that there would be some issues. With respect to the Crown corporations secretariat, they were receiving the same information that the minister was -- and others -- and that information clearly was incorrect.
I would draw the member's attention to page 17 of the Gordon report, and on specifics
-- because I think this is relevant, very germane, to the questions -- where he suggests
I think those are good questions, and they were troubling to me -- as they have been to the member opposite -- and I think very troubling to members of the government -- to find out how it is possible that the information flow can be so inaccurate as to be so far out in terms of its completed projections. That's why we took steps to correct that, and we have done that. We have now taken the necessary steps to make sure that there is a much more reasonable assessment of completed costs. We have the second vessel in the water today, I'm told, and that's good news. The third one is being built, and that program, once it's completed, will fall within the general envelope of dollars that are identified in the Gordon report.
Has it been much more expensive than we expected? Yes. Was there inaccurate information provided to ministers and to the Crown? Yes. Is that an acceptable practice for corporations? No. Have we done something to correct it? Absolutely. Now what we have to do is turn our attention to making sure that the business plan that is connected to that service, as well as to the broader set of services that the corporation provides, builds in cost efficiencies that will allow us to try and recover some of the moneys that currently are outstanding in the debt.
D. Symons: Yes. I have read the Gordon report, and I had it right here to refer to the page that the minister referred to. I appreciate the Gordon report, because I think it's the first honest set of answers we've had from the Ferry Corporation in three years. I guess I'm dwelling a little bit -- and will continue for a few minutes -- on past history, but I'm trying to set the stage for the present and indeed trying to set what the minister might be setting as benchmarks, so that we can measure the progress from this point forward. By asking what's gone on in the past -- and you're now explaining what you're going to be doing or have set in place -- now I'll have something when I get up next year and say: "Well now, have you achieved what you've told us about last year?" So that's part of the purpose of delving into the past.
In January of this year -- and it's quoted in the press -- the Minister of Finance was reported as saying that CFI had stopped issuing monthly written progress reports the previous fall. They'd stopped sending these on; indeed, they were just giving verbal reports from that point on. These are the progress reports. They look like this one here, "Catamaran Ferries International: Progress Report." I'm sure the minister has seen them. This one is for September 1997. It's the only one I've ever seen, by the way. It's interesting that at the very time that the minister commented that these progress reports were no longer being written but were being given verbally -- at least to her -- that's the time that I happened to be requesting copies of the progress reports from CFI. Is it just a coincidence that they stopped getting them written at the time that I
[ Page 12840 ]
was saying: "Can I have these written reports?" Could there be some connection between those two? I'm asking the new minister now, in the spirit of openness: may I please have copies of all the progress reports up to the point when the minister stopped receiving them in the fall of 1998? So I make that request.
[1525]
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm happy to oblige with whatever we can find. I'm assured that it wasn't as a result of your request that these reports no longer made their way down to the Finance minister and others who were requesting them. I'm certainly happy to oblige you on any of those reports that I can find.
D. Symons: I certainly hope that the shredder hasn't been working in the meantime, between then and now. Anyway, supposedly they were up to the fall of 1998.
If we look at some other things
I'm curious -- again, going back into history -- about the decision to go with fast ferries. It seems that the corporation went out for assessments of a fast ferry program to two different marine architects. One of them is Robert Allan Ltd., which eventually became a partner with the Incat company that built the ferry -- or designed the ferry, rather. Another was a fellow named Peter Noble, who worked for Kvaerner Corp. at the time. It's rather interesting when you read the two reports. The one done by Mr. Noble pretty well hits all the problems that B.C. Ferries has had up till now with the fast ferry program or the catamaran ferry program. Yet it's interesting that when you read the report of the person that they obviously took to heart, none of these things were really identified, to any great extent, within his report.
I'll just take a quick look, if you don't mind, and run through the Peter Noble report. I'm not sure if you're familiar with his "Fast Ferry Technology: An Overview with Respect to BCFC Operations," submitted to the B.C. Ferry Corporation in July 1994. In it, he says:
"It is very hard to arrive at true capital costs for vessels that exist on paper only, which have not been developed to meet the new IMO codes, which have never been built in this size anywhere in the world, and which may represent at least a tenfold increase in the size with which B.C. yards have had experience.
"Based on the limited cost data available, Figure 14 has been prepared to compare the capital cost per AEQ for small, subsidized, foreign-built fast ferries and for current BCFC locally built displacement ferries. The data suggest that a 200 AEC capacity fast ferry will cost about twice as much as a 200 AEQ capacity displacement ferry."
It goes on to say:
"Vessel operating costs can be expected to be higher in a number of areas, such as fuel, crew and machinery maintenance."
I won't go on and read all the other quotes that tell all the details of construction problems, except for one bit on construction materials:
"Welded steel structures can be designed to be competitive with aluminum as vessel size increases. In addition, steel has a much better fatigue life and can probably have a service life of 30 years, while an equivalent aluminum structure might have a 15-to-20-year life. It is also significantly easier for a steel vessel to comply with a national authority's fire safety regulations than it is for an aluminum vessel to do so."
So we find all of these various problems pointed out. Now, I must say that Mr. Noble, in the whole report, does not at the end say: "Don't build them." He just says: "These are things that you have to take into consideration when you build ferries." Now, I know, again, that I seem to be blaming the current minister for the failures of people in government prior to his taking on this job, but it does seem that nobody really wanted to hear anything other than the fact that we're going to build fast ferries. I'm wondering if the minister might explain, from talking with people now that he's in this position, why that was so.
[1530]
Hon. G. Wilson: There were a number of issues there that I should address. I think
that, first of all, I want to come back to this reference to
Secondly, we put out a tender to Mr. Gordon and JJMA to do financial and technical reports that were as hard-hitting and as blunt and as honest an assessment of the project as possible. We did so without regard to the risk we may have found if it came back that the information was that these were not going to be workable vessels. Fortunately, that didn't happen. We undertook to do that. I think it's important for the record that if the member opposite wants information and if that information is available, we'll make it available to the member -- provided it doesn't contravene some kind of privacy issue. We'll take guidance on that.
Thirdly, I think that in fairness to the board -- the previous board -- the truth is
that they were asking for information and accounting. I think that it clearly became
evident
Now, the member asked me as minister now to account for why we got to where we are. I can't really do that. I mean, I'm familiar with all of the information -- the Noble report and everything -- because I have a file full of that stuff that I used when I was on the opposition side.
I think that what is more pertinent is to recognize a couple of things. First of all, Stena was already in construction of the HSS in Finnyard in '94-95, and it -- as a surprise to me, and it might be to the member opposite -- was actually bigger than the one we had done. They were involved in helping to try and provide some kind of reference post for this project. They were advising on technology. Much of this technology, actually, is not as new as some would pretend it to be. It actually has been in the works for a number of years. The kinds of problems that we ran into with the prototype -- this prototype, the first of the Pacificats -- are really not unusual.
Since I've been minister, I've had representation from a number of people who've been involved in the construction of both conventional steel vessels with experimental hull types as well as aluminum catamaran ferries, where new prototype
[ Page 12841 ]
vessels have been brought onto the market. When you bring out a prototype, there are problems. Those problems are expensive, which is the reason why for every subsequent vessel built the costs will go down fairly substantially, because the die is cast -- without any pun intended -- and therefore, once the decision's taken, the costs can be realized over the construction program.
So I have deliberately not spent my time as minister trying to go out and ferret out all of the stuff I couldn't get when I was in opposition, because I don't think that would be a useful use of my time.
What I have done, however, is demand a full accounting. We have that in the Gordon report. I've demanded a technical report; we have that in JJMA. I have made sure the corporation is aware that we need to bring in some very substantial cost savings and that we have to put in place both a new operational and a new capital plan to accommodate these vessels coming on service. We have to restore a certain level of trust in the corporation within the minds of British Columbia taxpayers who get, as a regular diet -- partly because it's served up by the member opposite and partly because the media like to do it, as well -- that this corporation is fiscally out of control, that these ships don't work and that it's going to be a huge boondoggle.
While there are challenges -- and there are; I don't try to diminish them -- this is not a hopeless cause by any stretch of the imagination. It is going to mean that we're going to have to start to really put our shoulder to the wheel to make this project work. I think it can work. It's going to take a substantial change in thinking; we're now trying to get that change in thinking through the system. Once that's done, I think that we will restore pride in this corporation and you will see the B.C. Ferry Corporation become a world leader in innovative marine transport technologies that will help move people much more quickly, more effectively and in a much more cost-effective manner as well.
[1535]
D. Symons: I'll answer the question that I asked the minister. I asked him how it might have happened that things happened the way they did back then. I have a newspaper column that I'd just like to read into the record to explain the answer to the question I posed and really didn't get the answer to. It says:
"
. . . most of the problems started with the decision taken in 1992 to include the construction of three high-speed, aluminum catamaran ferries in the corporation's ten-year capital plan. That was a decision driven by the corporation's political masters and not the professional marine engineers within the company's ranks."The decision to build fast aluminum catamarans was taken by the NDP government of Mike Harcourt in 1992. A rookie minister responsible for B.C. Ferries listened to his old mentor, Bob Williams, who he had appointed as the czar of British Columbia Crown corporations. Williams had bought Bawlf's sales pitch, hook, line and sinker, and convinced his prot�g� -- who is now the Premier of the province -- to give the green light to the plan."
The article goes on to say:
"The senior management of B.C. Ferries were given the authority to triple the corporation's borrowing and had almost unlimited support from their political masters to pursue 'fast-cat' construction."
That column fairly well describes how we got to the stage we are at. I suspect the minister may recognize his words, as I read out something from the Powell River News of January 20 of this year -- not that long ago. But that does describe the answer to the question. We both know -- and he's not in a position to admit it -- that a lot of it was politically driven, behind the scenes, rather than economically driven by commonsense business practice, value-for-money audit and all those other things that might have been done prior to avoiding the problems we got into.
If you look back over any comments I've made, minister, you will never have heard me say that they wouldn't float. Somebody else made a comment like that in jest once, but I've never said that. Nor have I said that they won't work. I have indicated that they're going to cost more, and they have. I have indicated that I feel they're overweight and underpowered, and that we're going to have a problem achieving the crossing time. I still stand by that, because I'm quite sure that that's the case, but you will have a chance very soon, in two months' time, to prove me wrong on it.
I do hope that maybe I'm wrong. In one sense, if all turns out well in the next election, I may be sitting in your shoes, and I'll have to deal with this problem. I want something that's going to work. So as much as I might knock the program, my heart is saying, with you, "Let's have this darn thing work," because somebody -- whether it's your side, our side or anybody -- is going to have to deal with it, and the people of the province are going to have to pay for it. I want something at the end of the day, even if it has cost a lot more, that's going to work. I'll give you that much, at least, in saying that, before I continue hammering at it for a few minutes. I'm going to come back to fast ferries as a specific topic much later in our discussions.
The first announcement came on April 1 -- which happens to be April Fool's Day -- in 1996. It said: "The Premier and the Minister of Economic Development today announced the start of construction on three aluminum high-speed catamaran ferries, resulting in 350 new shipyard construction jobs." Further on in the news release, it said: "The first of three fast ferries are expected to enter service for the 1997 summer season." People are always asking me: "When did they first say that the first ferry was going to be in operation?" The reality is that the Premier, when he was minister responsible a few years ago, said the first one was going to be in operation in 1996 -- the summer of '96. I said: "No, we can't really count that, because they hadn't started building it." He was just jumping ahead of the thing.
So I really count the time for the ferry program as at April 1, 1996. We can measure
the time from that point on, because that's when construction was supposed to actually
have begun on the ferry. We find that now, three years and a little bit later, that first
ferry still is not in service. We're told now -- and maybe the minister will correct me
I had written down in my notes here that I should run through this document, which is something I put together on October 9, as maybe we didn't get a briefing from the Ferry Corporation like the one that you got for the NDP caucus. I put together one for the Liberal caucus which I presented to them -- the one there. You know, actually, many of the things I put in here relate to the progress, or lack of progress, the problems that the Ferry Corporation was having with welding and other things, and the costs as they kept escalating -- and other little quotes I've put in here. I put it all together and gave it to the caucus. It's amazing -- just using a little bit of picking up points here and there, you begin to put things together -- how close this has come to the truth.
[ Page 12842 ]
That's why I'm sort of asking these questions now, because it seems that until we got
the Gordon report we were not getting good answers from the Ferry Corporation. At least
now -- and I'll give the minister credit; going out for the Gordon report has been, I
think, a high point in this minister's taking over the job, in the sense that he has shown
[1540]
The first item I would like to look at is on page 1; it's the executive summary. We're reading the second paragraph, which is halfway down the printed part of the page: "The initial budget for the fast ferry program was set at $230 million, and the three fast ferries were to be delivered between April 1996 and October 1997. In August 1997, Treasury Board approved a revised budget for the fast ferry program of $263.3 million."
We find there that already, it seems, by August of '97 somebody was beginning to clue in to the fact that indeed these things are going to be more expensive, particularly the first one. As the minister said, and I agree with him, first prototypes are more expensive. But this one has been one heck of a lot more expensive when you average it out. The other ones aren't coming in fantastically less expensively, so we're still going to have a much larger cost than was initially projected for this program.
Then it says:
"In June 1998 the first ferry was launched; in November 1998 various sea trials were conducted
. . . . In January 1999 the Crown corporations secretariat was advised by BCFC that the total estimated cost to complete three fast ferries plus CFI operating costs, was approximately $329 million, or $106 million over budget. . . . "
It goes on to a further page, which I will skip to. On page 3 of his report he actually tabulates the cost of the ferries -- ferries 1, 2 and 3 -- and then the total cost of the whole program. He comes to the total vessel costs -- third column over and about four columns down -- and we find that it's $359,459,000.
Then we go down to the bottom, because that's just the construction only, but involved in building the ferries there were some other expenses brought in as well. I just want to check out where, because Mr. Gordon, I think, has included these here. He comes to a total program cost of $436,693,000 -- somewhere around that. I think he's adding another $8 million-plus down at the bottom there -- total related costs, I think.
I'm wondering if the minister might, then, give us an understanding, because I asked,
basically, in '96 and '97: will the costs that went into training the people in welding
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, they're all included.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. Last year I asked that question, and the minister responsible at that time ended up waffling on it. The year before he'd said yes when I asked about the shed, and last year he said, "Well, no," and then he said: "Partly." Then I said: "Well, what part?" I gave him a multiple-choice question, because he wasn't quite sure what part. I kept pressing the matter. I said: "Well, is it 25 percent, 50 percent or 75 percent?" He settled on 50 percent, but it was a case of picking something out to get me off his back, I think.
So you have said they're all included. So when we get to $445 million, theoretically
that's all of the expenses related -- even tangentially -- to the fast ferry program. I
appreciate that answer. And that takes care of those sets of fees that I was going to read
into the
Now I'm reading again from the Ferries board minutes, just looking for the explanation of things having got out of hand, because people seemed to know, but yet they didn't -- sort of an ambiguity there. This is the CFI board of directors meeting, November 28, 1996. Mr. Rhodes advised that he had participated in several meetings with Treasury Board, so Treasury Board was involved in discussion about the ferries. Crown corporations secretariat -- I referred to them earlier -- was involved regarding funding for the fast ferry project. "He said clarification of the capital program is expected in December. Mr. Rhodes assured board members that these bodies have been informed and are aware that because of delays, changes in scope of work" -- which the minister referred to earlier -- "and changes in estimating costs, the value of the project may be higher than the original project budget."
Yet at the time he's indicating to the board that that was the case, we -- "we" being the opposition, the public, the media and so forth -- were being told that we were on time and on budget. Again, we seem to have been misled. Yet it would seem that the Treasury Board and the Crown corporations secretariat knew. Again, were all these people involved in a complicity to keep the truth quiet?
[1545]
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, there's no evidence that there was any complicity to try and keep things quiet. I think that there is substantial evidence to suggest that the reporting process was flawed -- badly flawed. That's something we're taking steps to correct. One of the issues that the auditor general is looking at is around those whole reporting processes. I look forward to his report. I'm pleased that the member opposite has had a chance to have some input into that. I think that there may be some light shed that will help us.
So I don't think there's any indication at all that there was complicity on anybody's part. It was the previous minister -- and I think the record should show this -- that actually commissioned the Gordon report, not me -- although certainly I was pleased to see it take place. I think it has shed considerable light on the process. I think all of us benefit from it.
J. Reid: To get down to some specific issues and address some issues that certainly concern my constituents in north
[ Page 12843 ]
Nanaimo and Parksville-Qualicum
[1550]
Hon. G. Wilson: I thank the member for her question. It's an area that we are making substantial progress in, and I think it's one that is very, very exciting. We have made sure that we undertake to include the tourism industry in a whole range of discussions now, not only in terms of their involvement -- and it's peripheral within the coastal communities that we work within the Coastal Council -- but, more specifically, directly in having input into some of the services that we provide. One of the initiatives that we are now starting to undertake is to work with communities to get a list of when they have community events, particularly in the summertime, so that we can make sure that we understand when those events are scheduled. We can have advance notice of it so that we can interface and work with respect to the service provided to those events and make sure that we have adequate service to accommodate what their needs will be.
Also, on the whole question of cross-promotion
J. Reid: That didn't address the issue of what you're using to measure the projected growth in tourism and how you're going to be able to provide the transportation required by those people -- by the numbers, by the fleet. So as far as measuring and anticipating the growth in tourism to be able to accommodate those needs, what methods are being used to derive those numbers?
The Chair: I will remind all members to please direct their comments through the Chair.
Hon. G. Wilson: There are a number of forecasting measures that are used, not only by the corporation, and therefore through my office. My colleague the minister responsible for tourism in British Columbia has extensive forecasting work being done on a whole host of tourism initiatives that the government's been involved with. It's a very successful program -- a lot of very good news. British Columbia is doing exceptionally well with respect to tourism development and promotion right now. The numbers of people who are coming and the number of dollars that are being generated are very positive, and I think that it's something that we can all be pleased with.
Now, is there more to be done? Absolutely. And do we have to make sure that our services tie in to the projections of numbers with respect to increases? Absolutely. How do we get a firm number on that? Well, there are two ways. One, the community stakeholders advise us of the activities in advance so that we understand what the advance planning is in the communities, so that we understand how those communities are going to start to incur greater demands as a result of the initiatives that are being undertaken at the community level. Also, it's through other normal demographic projections that are done with respect to base populations that fluctuate or change depending on how successful or poorly economies are doing in particular communities.
Obviously the B.C. Ferry Corporation has seen a very dramatic increase on some runs
with respect to the tourist months, the peak months. Overloads, lineups and those sorts of
things are a problem for us to deal with. We simply can't, because of the peak loading
[1555]
J. Reid: The goal sounds admirable, but as was evidenced a little over a week ago
when it was suggested that the new fast cat wouldn't be taking the tourism brochures
I had one other question with regards, again, to measurement and decision-making within B.C. Ferries. That is with regards to small businesses -- not just tourism businesses but small business on the islands, which obviously, again, are very dependent. Cancellations of bookings come with just rumours of disruptions or of ferry fare increases. So I'm wondering what studies have been done to measure the impact that these ferry disruptions or rumours of ferry disruptions have on small businesses in ferry-dependent communities.
Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know of any specific study that's been done to measure the effect of rumours, but it seems to me that it wasn't very long ago in question period that you
[ Page 12844 ]
guys were feeding those rumours. You were telling everybody that there were going to be
fare increases and that the ferry rates were going up. So you guys have to cut it out.
They need to stop doing that, because it's affecting
The Chair: Minister, I'll just, again, interrupt for a moment. I'll remind all members to please address their comments through the Chair.
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, they've got to cut it out. They have to stop doing this. These rumours of increased fares, I'm sure, have a negative effect.
One of the areas, though, that
J. Reid: With the small business and with the assurances that the minister provides, there is still the problem of promoting that to the general public, considering that the reputation over the years has been somewhat clouded. I was just wondering what B.C. Ferries is offering as far as being able to promote stability so that with the tourist season coming up, this message is going to get out and have some kind of assurance behind it.
Hon. G. Wilson: It's interesting that I hear the member say that. Because I've heard from a number of people -- chambers of commerce and tourism associations and people on the Island -- about how vulnerable they are because of reductions in service from potential labour disputes that disrupt sailings. Now, I've lived in a ferry-dependent community for 23 years. In 23 years, I think I can remember once that ferries didn't sail because of an actual labour dispute. The ferries run dependably. Now, it's true that from time to time, the winds come up and delay service because you can't get across the strait; it's too windy. It is also true that from time to time, there are mechanical breakdowns, and as the fleet gets older, that becomes more problematic. The servicing gets much more expensive and more frequent, because an older ship needs to be serviced more regularly.
We don't like to see disruptions in service because of breakdown, but in terms of
disruptions on the labour side
A Voice: Wildcat strikes.
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that there were, yeah -- once or maybe twice in 23 years. It really hasn't been a big issue, and yet I hear people say that. I hear the member say that there's fear in the communities. I know that to be true, because I've heard that expressed to me as well. All I can suggest is that what we have to do -- and the solution to this -- is to build an employer-employee relationship that is less confrontational and is far more problem-solving in its orientation, where we restore pride in the worker and make sure that there's confidence and trust between the worker and the management. It's a high priority, I have to tell you, in my tenure here as minister, to try to find ways to do that. The first hurdle to get through is this collective agreement.
[1600]
D. Symons: I'll just continue that line of thought before I get back to mine. I agree with the minister when he says that there have not been very many work disruptions, but it's interesting how one -- or the threat of one -- affects communities, in the sense that the fear is there. The tourists then get into it, and it goes as far as California that you can't depend upon the ferries, even though it's only once every five years that something may happen. Really, I sympathize with anybody in charge. That's a real problem you have to deal with in some way, as best you can, and overcome it.
Since 1991 we've had two strikes that I can remember, both wildcat strikes and both over manning issues on the ferries -- I guess staffing is the correct term to use nowadays; I'll be politically correct -- and neither one of them lasting for much more than half a day. Certainly at the ferry terminals, these have caused a great deal of consternation. I gather that one of them almost developed into fist fights, and police were actually present at that particular one. Feelings go high in the communities that are dependent upon ferries.
I know the community that the minister represents. When the current labour dispute was going on and the threat was there of partial disruption or disruption to service, both sides in the dispute went to the Labour Relations Board and sought essential service designation. The board came out with an essential service designation, and your community, I think, was one that was worst hit, in a sense, by that particular designation. It left one vital link out, which means that to get from Powell River to the Sunshine Coast, people would basically have to come to the Island, go to the mainland and then go back to Gibsons. To go that way to get from Powell River to Gibsons would be a rather circuitous route, taking three ferries in the process to do it, rather than just one. I believe the Labour Relations Board actually changed their policy and put some service in for that particular ferry.
The issue of labour is very important. In talking with employees, as I have, on the ferries, there is a sense of pride in their Ferries Corporation among the people who work for B.C. Ferries. I don't think we necessarily have to build that; we have to work on what's there. The pride is there, but as you said, there is some confrontation between management and labour. This is where the problem lies. I think the ferry workers themselves -- both them and the management side -- have pride in their organization, but somehow the two of them are at loggerheads over a number of issues. That's where the problem lies. I'm wondering what you might have set in place in order to overcome those problems.
Hon. G. Wilson: On the first count, all of us have a duty, I think, to try to reduce the anxiety that people feel about potential work stoppage. It's not helpful to speculate on when it may or may not occur. I think that is the word that has to be given to both management and the union. When you're in a protracted labour dispute and you're having difficulty getting resolution, often the rhetoric gets pumped up, and people do get anxious about it. I think all of us have a need to try and dampen that down as best as possible.
[ Page 12845 ]
I agree with the member when he says that there is substantial pride in the corporation. I think there is. I think, however, that there has been a less than acceptable level of trust between management and the worker. That's what I have observed, certainly. With the possible exception of the member opposite, I think I probably travel on ferries more than most MLAs, and I get a chance to speak with everybody from the deckhand through to the engineers, the stewards, the captains, the mates and so on. I think that there is a general understanding that this corporation -- regardless of all the complaints that come in from time to time -- is really second to none in the world. We have one of the largest publicly owned Crown ferry fleets in the world, and I think we do provide, on average, the best service. Certainly if you talk to anybody who comes in from foreign countries and travels on our ferries, they will tell you immediately that they are very, very impressed with the level of service.
[1605]
What we have to do, however, is find a way to build the relationship between the worker and the employer so that when we get to talking about the crunch issues, the issues that cause the divisions -- i.e., cost rationalizations, looking at cost-saving measures, trying to find new and more efficient ways to deliver service -- enough trust exists there that we can actually get those discussions going.
The member says: "What are you doing?" We attempted, in the mediated settlement, to actually set up a panel. The mediator recommended the setting up of a panel of workers and management with an independent chair to start to address some of these issues and to try and get through some of that. Now, regrettably, the union didn't ratify that agreement, so we're back to trying to resolve it using what limited tools we have left in our toolbox to do it.
But I think that's what we have to do, and that's what I'm advocating within the corporation and with the workers of the corporation. It's time for all of us to plug in with a single mind, and that is to say that what we want to do is make sure that we put in place a cost-efficient service that is going to be suitable for the public and that we can afford. The indication I get is that the union is more and more willing to do that. I think that we're building a management team that is prepared to do that. And that's good.
D. Symons: Something I suggested a couple of years back, I think, during these estimates debates was that we basically have about four groups that are intimately involved with the Ferry Corporation. One, of course, is the users. In a sense we might say that they're represented through these advisory committees. We have the employees, who are currently in labour negotiation with the government; we have the Ferry Corporation itself; and we have the government. So we have those four groups. I think that what often happens -- and this is maybe where some of the distrust takes place -- is they meet one-on-one with each other, but they don't really meet to hear all three at a given time. So it's quite possible for somebody who wants to manipulate things to talk one way to one and work another way with the other and so forth. So people aren't quite sure, you know, if the same story is going out to all of them.
I'm wondering if the minister has that in place, as I suggested a while back -- not to
you but to previous ministers: that possibly there should be some way that those four
groups could get together and listen to each other's concerns and, indeed, what the issues
facing them are, so that they could see the other side of the issue. Quite often you get
quite stuck on your side of the issue. If you can hear what the other side is
Certainly the advisory committees are trying to do that with B.C. Ferries, saying:
"Well, look at it from the user point of view." The government's looking at it
from a cost viewpoint, and the Ferry Corporation is caught in the middle, trying to
satisfy both of them. The union sometimes is outside just simply fighting for better
working conditions but not involved in those other decisions as well. So would it be
possible, in some forum
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I think it certainly would be possible. But in order for us to get there, we have to get over this hurdle, which is signing a collective agreement. That's the first focus.
D. Symons: I won't suggest that if this had been done when I first suggested it -- what I'd suggested a couple of years ago -- that we wouldn't be at the impasse now with negotiations, because I'm not so na�ve to think that may be the case. But certainly we should look and see if something like that may be feasible after he gets over the present hurdle the minister is speaking of.
If I can just backtrack for a moment to where I was before we moved off a little bit
into tourism. I had an interesting article here, and I'd just like the minister to
[1610]
Hon. G. Wilson: With me is the new CEO, Bob Lingwood, who I think the member has met. Directly behind me is Mark Stefanson, who is bringing his expertise with respect to the communications side of things; Peter Mills, who I think you probably know -- he was here and left -- who is bringing the financial side of things as treasurer; and Don Avison, who you may well know from the Crown corporations secretariat.
D. Symons: And the others we'll meet as time permits. Thank you.
I wonder
Hon. G. Wilson: John Wells was general manager of CFI, and I believe he retired on April 6.
D. Symons: I have something here. It's from the Vancouver Sun on June 18 of last year, so he was still there -- a very
[ Page 12846 ]
reputable source, of course. It says: "Wells, who has 41 years of shipbuilding experience, said the Pacificat has 75 per cent B.C. content and its Canadian content is 90 per cent." I'm wondering if the minister might be able to confirm that those figures are somewhat close to the actual fact.
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that if we count the engines as being purchased through the Canadian agent, Detroit Diesel, that would probably be about right.
A Voice: Were they built in Canada?
D. Symons: Somebody there saw through what I was leading into, because indeed the engines for each ferry cost $14 million, and the aluminum content of each ferry -- which was bought in France, I believe -- cost $9 million. You add those two together, and you get $23 million of offshore-wrought material. Whether or not you bought it through Detroit Diesel, that came from MTU in Germany, and that's $23 million. If $23 million is 10 percent of the content of the ferry, then the other 90 percent makes the total cost for that ferry $230 million. I just thought Mr. Wells was giving us a heads-up on what the real cost of the fast ferries were. Anyway, it seems to have worked out quite nicely.
Hon. G. Wilson: We could, of course, explore the origins of all the based minerals that were taken for the manufacture of each of the product parts and -- who knows? -- Canadian companies abroad. What he hasn't put in there, of course, is the great love and affection that Canadians hold for this vessel. That must be worth something.
D. Symons: I think the minister gave a good answer there, and I appreciate it. He knows I ask that question in jest, because it was just a nice thing. There had been many things put out on the ferries that were hyperbole, and indeed, if you look closely at them, you can find out that they don't really hold a lot of weight. But it makes nice press for the public. Maybe that's where some of the problems end up coming from. People have commented, particularly on the fast ferry program, about things that were exaggerated to an extent that it brought credibility into question.
There's something, though, that I'm not sure of. I'd like to ask just a few questions
on the fast ferries before I get on to a pile of financial questions in a moment. There
have been hints and rumours and so forth that connect with the purchase of the design for
the ferry that there is a royalty attached to each ferry built that will flow back to the
designers of the ferry. I'm wondering
[1615]
Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know the answer to the question of if there is a royalty. I'll certainly have somebody who is with me here check that out. Just so I am clear, you're talking about a royalty on the sale of a vessel?
D. Symons: I gather it's connected to the sale of the vessel. The royalty is paid back to the designers.
Hon. G. Wilson: Just so I'm clear, you're talking about a royalty when B.C.
Ferries takes possession of the vessel. Is that what you're
D. Symons: I think it would apply in both cases, but the minister, I'm sure, will be able to clear that up for me.
The Chair: The member carries on.
D. Symons: No response needed on that, as far as I understand.
Just a couple of other questions, and I will be getting into this in much more detail
later on. As a matter of fact, maybe I will put this
Hon. G. Wilson: I wonder if, with the member's indulgence, we might just take a
two-minute recess while he gets his papers in order and I take
The Chair: Okay. The committee stands recessed for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:17 p.m. to 4:24 p.m.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the committee back to order and recognize the member for Richmond Centre.
[1625]
D. Symons: And I recognize the Chair also.
Anyway, just a couple of other little questions relating to boards and the minutes. This is a rather interesting one, because I'm going to bring up questions regarding the fast ferry and its performance in a short time. But this one is the minutes of the board of directors, October 21, 1994. It talks here about the ten-year capital plan. Mr. Ward is putting forth a thing about the fast ferries, and he says: "It was noted that the catamarans may be designed to load on two levels with double-lane loading comparable to current double-deck conventional ferries, thus producing an in-dock time comparable to current vessels and providing a crossing time of about 45 minutes on route 2. This would result in the total departure-to-departure minimum time of approximately 70 minutes."
Now, I gather those figures are not the figures that are currently being used, but we
can see again, I think, the hyperbole that has gone about which tends to diminish the
accomplishments the fast ferry program may make. I'm wondering if the minister might give
us, maybe, a bit of an update then. If it's not going to be 45 minutes
Hon. G. Wilson: I guess there are a couple of things I would point out. In
October '94, just to make reference to the comments that the member raised
[ Page 12847 ]
wouldn't even have been the same vessel design that was being discussed, so that would be quite different.
The projection now is that the crossing time will take about 65 minutes when all three vessels are in service. However, it is important to note that when it goes into service on July 1, it's going to have to interface with two slower vessels, so it is going to have to run at a slightly slower speed in order to work within the schedule.
D. Symons: So it's a 65-minute crossing. And your departure-to-departure time,
then, when you have the three of them running, would be
Hon. G. Wilson: It's a 90-minute cycle when it's departure to departure.
D. Symons: That's the hour and a half that the Premier spoke of a while back.
I wonder if we can take a look at "B.C. Ferries Releases Pacificat Operational
Performance Review." This is the one of February 2. I know the minister will agree
with me that it was seriously flawed. This was discovered moments after it had been put
out, and the media and myself had a chance to look at it. We found a number of errors in
here, because when we find
But barring that, the times throughout there may be different now, according to the fact that the vessel is not going to be going into the dock at 50 kilometres an hour or something of that sort. Rather, you're saying that the time frames in different sections here may be different, but the total is still going to be the same, then, for the turnaround.
The one thing, I think, that was fairly accurate in the report -- because a lot of this
report was not accurate, as far as distance and times going across
What we find in this wash graph is that once you get above about 25 knots for the catamarans, the wash goes way up. I think that's still a problem with the fast ferries. I wonder if the minister might speak on what studies have been done now beyond the tank test, because I believe that when we get to the JJMA report, we'll find that they were simply using tank-test reports; they weren't out on the ferry measuring the wash. So can you just comment a little bit on the problems you had with the wake wash of the ship? Indeed, when it's out in the centre, are you going to simply just ignore the fact that it's making a rather large wash and only concern yourself with it when you're in the closed waters near the ports?
[1630]
Hon. G. Wilson: Before I get to answering that question, let me tell the member what I have found out about the royalty. My understanding is that there is a $500,000 vessel royalty to Incat. They provide up to $200,000 for design service to the buyer; therefore their net is $300,000. If Incat sells one of the vessels, the B.C. Ferry Corporation receives the $300,000.
D. Symons: Reciprocal, sort of.
Hon. G. Wilson: Right.
Now, with respect to wash, one of the benefits we've had is that we've had it out there
doing sea trials, so we now actually do have some benefit of knowing what the impact of
wash will be. The problem we had with
D. Symons: Yes, I have had some experience with boating. In my younger years I had the distinct displeasure, I'll call it, of steering HMCS Ontario out of Esquimalt Harbour on a training cruise down to San Francisco. I had the distinct displeasure of being taken off the helm because I wasn't responding quickly enough to the orders that were coming through a voice tube from the upper deck. That ship was quite a bit of an older vessel, not having the current electronics that they have on them. That was as a sea cadet in those days, so it was a novel experience. But since then, I have done a fair amount of boating on the coast and elsewhere, and I do enjoy boating and know a little bit about them -- just enough to be able to understand some of the terms and conditions brought up relating to the fast ferry, fortunately.
I'm looking at
But up above, we find that there's some talk about the fact of running engines quickly. It says: "Conversely, if it is desired to maintain the current speed, the power setting can be reduced. This results in lower fuel consumption. An added benefit is that the intervals between engine maintenance overhauls is increased." That's if you're able to lower the speed. "The periods between maintenance overhauls are governed by the number of hours the engines are run; plus the power settings used." That's the percent of the maximum continuous rating used. "Thus, operating at a lower power setting has long-term savings on both fuel consumption and maintenance costs."
[ Page 12848 ]
Now, the reason I raise this question is that basically it would seem that to get our 35 knots or whatever we're going to manage to get when these ferries are carrying a load, we are going to be having them running at virtually 100 percent of power, which means that we're going to be ending up drinking fuel at an excessive speed. We're going to be wearing those engines at a faster rate than possibly we would like to be doing. That means our operating costs for these ferries are going to be considerably higher, and in the long run, it's going to cost us more to operate these ferries than the ferries they are going to replace.
[1635]
Hon. G. Wilson: You know, there's been a considerable amount of controversy around these engines and whether or not they're the right engines or the wrong engines or whether we should have gone for gas engines or diesel engines. I can tell you that I've heard from just about everybody who builds a marine engine as to what is the right and wrong engine for this particular ship. It is true that these engines will have to run at virtually 100 percent capacity for short periods of time. I'm told that they're designed to do that and that it will not pose any undue hardship on the engine.
I'm also told that there is a need and that these engines are designed to get this vessel up on step -- if the member knows what I'm talking about -- in order to be able to build fuel efficiency, and that will require a considerable amount of power. Now, whenever you run an engine at that level of velocity, there's a high cost associated with fuel. I'm not going to try and hide that; that's true. But I'm told that the design is set for this, that that's what has tested well and that we shouldn't be unduly concerned about those engines.
D. Symons: The term "on step" is used for a planing-hull ship, and this is certainly not a planing-hull ship, where you get it up, and then once you've got it up on its planing platform, you can end up throttling back once you've got it riding almost above the waves or on top of the water. We're still plowing water with these, so the saving is not as great with that as it is with a different type of hull, but, of course, you don't get that type of hull in that size ship.
Going to the JJMA report, I think it has more credibility than the one I was just referring to, but we do find some things in this report that raise questions as well. I'm reading from the executive summary, if you want to follow here. I think it's page 3. I'm not sure if these are the faxed-copy page numbers on the bottom. Anyway, it's the executive summary. Halfway down the page it says: "JJMA has estimated the weight, speed, manoeuvring and wake-wash performance of the vessel using the best available data." I gather that in many cases this was simply that they took data that was supplied to them; they were not actually there measuring these things themselves. So although this is a performance study, it seems that many of the things they were basing their results on -- the minister referred to that giving it a clean bill of health earlier -- were based on materials given to them by B.C. Ferries, rather than having actually measured themselves. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on that. Did JJMA take the ferry out for a spin, put it through its paces and base the report on that?
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes, Mr. McKesson and his team were out on the boat. They did not rely strictly on information that was generated through B.C. Ferries.
Maybe I should also correct
[1640]
D. Symons: I'll just read the next paragraph after, if you don't mind. I'm wondering -- maybe the minister will explain about the due diligence in a moment -- about the route that this ferry is intended to take and the next comment that I make. Again, reading from this executive summary: "We note that while the predicted full speed is approximately three knots below the original anticipated speed, we wish to also observe that these speeds are based on a full load condition which will rarely or never be seen in service, and that the practical operational impact of this speed shortfall is probably negligible."
Now, I'm wondering if the minister has ridden the ferry from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo
or vice versa during the summer months and could find a time when the ferry is rarely or
never in a full-load condition. It just doesn't happen in the summer. In fact, I hear on
the radio
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm told that "full load" means full fuel capacity,
full water capacity, full car complement and full passenger complement. So when they
suggest that it's rarely going to run with all of those conditions applying
D. Symons: Well, we'll see. Assuming that you're carrying a full load of vehicles on there, they have the full-load weight that they are estimating at 1,891 metric tons. And that is, I think, just nine metric tons less than the rated weight maximum for that particular vehicle. So they're cutting it pretty close if that's going to be the weighted load that they're working on to the maximum that you'll be allowed to have on the ship.
Just reading further down:
"We caution that rating the reliability as 'good' " -- that's the rating they've given your ferry -- "does not in any way relieve the owner of his obligation to stay ahead of required maintenance. We also wish to note that we have assessed reliability in comparison against other vessels of similar type. Owners whose experience is based only on steel-hulled, low-speed ships with low- or medium-speed engines (such as many of the other ships in the BCFC fleet) may be surprised at the level of maintenance activity required for a lightly-built, high-speed aluminum ship driven by high-speed diesels."
I'm wondering what precautions the Ferry Corporation is taking in light of that. You've got a different type of ship. It's different; it's going to cost more. Maintenance is going to be more of a factor. What precautions are you now taking -- because in less than two months, it'll be in service -- to make sure that you're going to be ahead of this situation, rather than catching up as problems develop?
[ Page 12849 ]
Hon. G. Wilson: Ships require maintenance. There's just no question about it. All ships, whether they're wooden, steel or aluminum, have to be properly and adequately maintained. There is a cost to maintaining them, and when they're brand-new, the cost of maintenance tends to be less than when they get older.
Just by way of digression, I can tell you that
An Hon. Member: Oh, I thought you were going to buy one of the ferries.
Hon. G. Wilson: No, not a ferry. I can't afford the ferry.
When we lifted it up on the ways on the weekend -- this old wooden boat, 1927
You have to maintain a vessel. There's no question about it. The longer you go without
maintenance, the more difficulty you're going to have. The fast cat
[1645]
We are fully aware of the maintenance program that the fast cats will require. We've got advance notice of that. The JJMA report makes reference to that. We understand that because they are aluminum hulled, there is an electrolysis issue that needs to be dealt with, and we're going to have to deal with that. We need to look at all of those issues. As a result, we're going to undertake to make sure that the maintenance program is kept well ahead.
It's important to note also that the certification of this vessel, through Lloyd's of
London, will require monitoring and maintenance as well. There's no opportunity to not
maintain. But an important point to note, and it came as a surprise to me
D. Symons: It seems that the capital plan had an $800 million budget. What did they raise the debt cap to? To $1.35 billion, I believe. So somehow we haven't stopped you from spending. There has been no fear of that. You've done it very well without our help. But anyway, I just figured I'd get a dig back, since you gave one as well.
I'm looking at one other thing, and again, it's on the executive summary page. At the
bottom there is a summary of the outstanding issues. No. 2 on that list is the lightweight
survey to be completed, and then in brackets they've got "done/not submitted."
I'm wondering why, if you had done a lightweight survey for the ship
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that it's because it hadn't been validated. It had been done but not validated. That is now complete.
D. Symons: I would appreciate, then, if the minister might share that evaluated figure with us. How many metric tons?
Hon. G. Wilson: We'll get that for the member.
D. Symons: Oh, I see. By getting it, you mean immediately. That's very good. Thank you.
I had some more questions related to that. I'll just skip that for a moment. I do want to look at another chart that's on page 22, I believe, of that report. It has to do with a graph there that's the estimate of the Pacificat's speed power. We take a look on the left-hand vertical axes there. They have the kilowatts of the engines, and they have the speed in knots as the horizontal on the graph. I believe that 100 percent kilowatt output for these MTU engines is 26,000 kilowatts. I'd like some confirmation, because my next question depends upon that.
If you draw, then, where the upper line is here, which the tested model
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that if you draw the line on this graph as the member says, it hits about the mark he suggests. But I would certainly not want to suggest that that does anything more except suggest that when you draw the line down the graph, you'll hit the point that he suggests. I'm only going to go by what the performance report says here. I'm certainly not a marine engineer. I wouldn't want to try to reduce my comments to a simple drawing of a line on a graph.
[1650]
D. Symons: I wonder if the weight of the ship has turned up.
Hon. G. Wilson: It's a lightweight ship.
D. Symons: I hadn't noticed. Okay, we'll move on for a moment, then.
I'm wondering, just going on to more mundane financial matters, from the $800 million
Advancing the Fleet program that was announced in 1995 prior to the 1996 election
[ Page 12850 ]
Hon. G. Wilson: Roughly $450 million.
D. Symons: Then if you've spent roughly $450 million, is that inclusive of what has been spent on the fast ferry program, or is that being kept separate at this point, since it hasn't been capitalized with the Ferry Corporation?
Hon. G. Wilson: I am advised that that's inclusive.
D. Symons: Then there must be a lot of other projects that haven't been done, I
would assume, or a lot of bills that haven't been paid one way or the other. I wonder if
you might clear that up, because
Hon. G. Wilson: The advice I get -- and I think the member will see that it makes sense -- is that the original plan was to build Duke Point; the high-speed program; plus three minor vessels, of which only one has been built, with two more to be built.
D. Symons: Included in there, I believe, were some terminal modifications and improvements to terminals as well? That's my other question, really. The one vessel that's built is the Queen of Skeena, nicknamed, I guess, the Century-class. There was another vessel, I believe, to be built, and that was the vessel to serve the Prince Rupert - Queen Charlottes run. The Queen of Prince Rupert was to be built, and I believe the plans were authorized to start a number of years ago. All the announcements back then would have had that ship in operation by now, so can you tell me where the Queen of Prince Rupert is at this stage -- its replacement vessel?
Hon. G. Wilson: The difficulty for the corporation came with the government freeze in '96-97. The capital construction program for the minor vessels was put on hold. Inclusive in that was the design work that was to go for the new vessel to serve the north. That's one of the reasons that we now need a new capital plan and need to move ahead to make sure that we catch up on what was proposed some time ago. Given our particular financial situation, that's problematic for the corporation, and we're working on ways to get around those difficulties.
D. Symons: A moment ago the minister said that they had spent $450 million of the $800 million that was earmarked for the Advancing the Fleet program. Now he talks about a new capital program. So are we talking about some new money beyond the $800 million? Or are you just talking about a rejigging of the $800 million that was the Advancing the Fleet program?
[1655]
Hon. G. Wilson: Okay, let me give a this a whirl, then. The original $450 million that I just explained was to include more, and I think we've just covered off what those additional costs were. However, as I mentioned, the corporation finds itself with some difficulties, because its debt management is roughly $375 million, which takes us up to roughly the $800 million. Now that $800 million is a five-year-old number.
We are going to have to rethink what the priority of the corporation is, which is what I've been actually saying over the last few months. We are now going to have to put a different priority to the capital construction program and to the terminal maintenance programs on the capital side so that we can put priority to those vessels we think are most urgently needed. That's something the corporation cannot avoid. Now, how the corporation is going to finance that is going to be challenging.
D. Symons: My next question down here was: what priorities have changed between then and now? I'll leave that for a moment, because the next one I find interesting is: seeing that there's going to be an election on the horizon, will there be a new ten-year capital plan similar to the one we had? Is that now in the works?
I think what the minister has told me is, then, that we've spent $450 million on the
Advancing the Fleet program. At the present time it sounds like you're saying, "Well,
we're going to chop that off" -- year 5 is about where we are on that now --
"and we're going to now look and rethink capital programs and start a new five-year
program." So rather than being a ten-year complete program, we're going to chop ten
years off and take the remaining five years and draw up a new program, which may have a
different
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, not really. Keep in mind that we're not chopping anything off. What we're doing is rethinking priorities for how we're going to commit the balance of the money that's there for capital construction. In the original plan, projects were identified, earmarked and given priority. We are going to complete the fast ferry project. That decision has been taken. What we now need to do is rethink the priorities, with respect to the expenditure of the balance of that money, on what capital projects we're going to do. We're really not in a position to say.
By the way, the lightweight vessel -- if the member would like to note it -- is 1,348 tonnes.
D. Symons: Okay, so basically, then, when I was saying that you're doing a new
program
I'm wondering if you might give me an idea of the particular ones, the more expensive projects, that are in mind that have to be prioritized. One I mentioned was the Queen of Prince Rupert. You mentioned two other vessels, I think. Were they both to be -- not C-class but Century-class; using C and Century seems a little bit confusing -- Century-class vessels like the Queen of Skeena? Are those the vessels that are under consideration? At least, what are you considering out of this $350 million that's left?
[1700]
Hon. G. Wilson: Mr. Lingwood advises me that over 20 percent of our vessels
[ Page 12851 ]
that's a long time ago. They are the Queen of Tsawwassen and the Queen of Sidney, and they are going to have to be replaced at some point. Now they alternatively serve the Gulf Islands and Little River-Powell River. The northern route, from Hardy up to Rupert, is a issue that we need to address, because that vessel is now getting to the point where we're going to have to start to decide how many more years of active sea life that vessel can have.
We have to put priority to all of these, and it's not an easy job when you're looking at the constraints we have with respect to our overall capitalized account. I don't want to muse about what we will and won't do, because somebody will read it and there'll be expectations created in some areas and disillusionment in others. We are having to look at our service requirements, and we're going to have to make some sound decisions on the basis of where we get the best bang for our buck.
The member opposite talked about the C-class vessel as opposed to the Century-class. The C-class is Cowichan, which is the reason it's called C, I understand. The Century-class is the newer vessel, with a very, very successful hull design. It is true that in the Gulf Islands and in those areas that are relatively protected waters, where you don't have large beam seas coming in, that's a very effective vessel, highly manoeuvrable and quite usable. If we're to look at putting priority to the delivery of those services, that would be an acceptable vessel. It's unlikely that that would serve Powell River-Little River. There may have to be something else looked at, designed and built for that run. It certainly wouldn't do to service the north.
All of these are going to have to be weighed. The costs of each of these vessels vary, because they're of different size, different capacity. But we are going to have to make some decisions very soon, and that's why the rollout of both our operating and capital plans, hopefully, won't be too many months away.
D. Symons: I'll wait until we hear the rollout of your capital plan. That'll be interesting. It seems that this rollout of the capital plan just happens to be tying into the nearing of an election, which the other one also did. It seems things work that way in the political field.
I'm wondering, because you mentioned the Queen of Sidney, and I believe it
happens to be the one that services the area that the minister represents
You also mentioned the Queen of the North. I think one of the problems is not
just its age
I wonder if we can look now, possibly
[B. Goodacre in the chair.]
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that there was such a plan. The member opposite has actually FOI'd it. I don't know if he's got it yet, but if he has, then he will know that it was based upon a $51 million annual subsidy from the Crown, with a guaranteed tariff increase annually, and that the plan is now outdated considerably, because approaches have changed, ministers have changed, philosophies have changed. So it no longer applies.
[1705]
D. Symons: I'm just frantically searching for it here. I thought I had it with me, and it looks like I don't.
The next question, then, related to that is: can the minister tell me now, because we
raised the debt cap for the Ferry Corporation just recently to $1.35 billion
Hon. G. Wilson: That's precisely what we're in the process of doing with the Coastal Council, which was the source of this "leaked" document -- which actually wasn't leaked but nevertheless arrived in the hands of the official opposition, and you raised it in question period. That was partly the result of that process -- to look at a variety of approaches and a variety of efforts that could be made with respect to the management of the debt, given that there is a dramatically different approach with respect to funding and financing of the corporation.
We are now financing this corporation as a functional part of the highway, and as such, there is going to be an annual influx of capital coming off as a portion of the fuel tax. So that's a substantial departure from the way things have been done in the past, and from my perspective, it's a positive one. What we're now going to have to do is see how we can manage, within that $1.3 billion cap, the delivery of service more cost-effectively. That's not to say that we're not also going to challenge the federal government with respect to their contributions. Because we are financing this as an extension of the highway, I take issue with the federal government and their contribution, and we're making representations to Ottawa to see them fulfil their obligations, much as they do in the Maritimes.
So I think that the member will perhaps just have to wait a few more weeks or maybe a month or so until we can finalize this approach. Once we do that, that plan will be open and available, and I would be happy to get feedback and even assistance. I mean, I have often invited the member opposite to put forward some good ideas and different ideas and to work together in making sure that we can make this corporation functional.
D. Symons: I appreciate the importance of using the coastal communities and the advisory committees as input, but it seems that what the minister is saying is that it's going to be up to them to come up with a debt management plan. I hope that isn't the case, because in reality, I don't think they
[ Page 12852 ]
will have the expertise to deal with a debt of $1.35 billion. So I hope you're going to use something other than the people out there who have a vested interest in the ferries. Certainly they don't have the wherewithal to deal with a debt that size. I certainly hope that, on the other hand, you're not laying it on them -- that it's, "Somehow we're going to have to come up with this, and you guys are going to have to sort of take some cuts in service or increases in fares," or whatever ideas you might have if you're approaching them with this idea of dealing with $1.35 billion worth of debt. It's going to be a real chore if you're going to try and sell that to coastal communities. I suspect that there's a lot more going on behind the scenes within the corporation with the people you have there looking at ways of handling this.
I am somewhat concerned that there doesn't seem to be the germ of a plan. At least, the minister made no hint of how he's going to deal with it other than saying: "We have now dedicated 1.25 cents per litre of gasoline to the Ferry Corporation." I have to compliment the minister on it, because he talked about using auto equivalency, which I guess the powers that be decided not to allow. But this is not a bad trade-off for that, and it does bring certainty in the funding. We certainly didn't have that in the last few years, when one year the government was flush and would give enough money to the Ferry Corporation to meet its cost overruns that year, and the next year the government was a little short of money, so they cut back on the subsidy given to B.C. Ferries. Basically what happens as a result is that the B.C. Ferries debt goes up. It's not sustainable to keep doing that.
[1710]
The Ferry Corporation, in my mind, has almost reached the stage where your debt is not
sustainable. Rather than saying, "We're now going out and talking to coastal
communities and looking for input," or looking for input from the opposition or input
from anywhere you can, I thought that
Hon. G. Wilson: Let me start off by saying that I'm sure there are members of the Coastal Council who would be delighted for us to simply hand over the operation of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to their concern.
D. Symons: Momentarily.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, at least until they can get some of the things done that
would serve their communities. No, we're not off-loading any of this responsibility onto
them -- or onto anybody else, for that matter -- but we are consulting with them, because
at some point we are going to have to
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, in anticipation of having them sort out what that means, we have to come up with a way that we can explain why to go from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay costs X number of dollars, to go from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo costs Y and to go from Ganges to Swartz Bay costs Z number of dollars, if in fact the distance you're travelling has no relationship to the tariff you're paying. You have to find a way to rationalize the tariffs so that everybody can see that there's equity in the system. That's what it means, and that's what we have to do.
Now, does that mean that some communities may at some point be faced with increased costs? The answer is yes, they may. Will they be in the astronomical numbers that were alluded to when I think there was some confusion as to dollars from percentages? The answer is no. Why? Because I take the position that ferry-dependent communities are approaching -- if they have not approached -- their threshold capacity to pay.
If you think that the threat of ferry disruption is a downer on tourism and on local industry and on local chambers of commerce and so on, the threat of annual increases in fares is a real financial downturn on local ferry-dependent communities. The cost of freight, the cost of commodities, the cost of transporting your kids -- the cost of doing everything -- goes up beyond the capacity for people to pay. I'm not one to stand by and say that we're going to use the fare box as the solution to the corporation's financial woes.
Now, there may have to be some justification for that -- some rationalization. We're doing work internally on that to sort out how we can bring in an equitable process. That work is actively underway, and it will become a part of the management plan. Now, keep in mind that the corporation anticipates that this year it will run its first operating surplus in three years. That's a good thing. We're now turning things around.
It also is important for us to remember that we have, for the first time ever, a rationalization on fuel tax that is going to give us a guaranteed financial commitment from the provincial Crown. That's a good thing. Our auditors -- and these are kind of important people to keep onside -- still think this corporation is a going concern. Some people put out there that the corporation's bankrupt, it's destitute, and it's ready to be retired. That simply isn't the case.
Now, do we have some serious debt management problems? Yes, we do. So if we're not going to do it through the fare box exclusively, there may have to be some modification adjustments, but nothing until April of the year 2000 and nothing without full consultation with those people in the communities affected. Where else are we going to find those savings? We're going to find those savings in reducing operational costs, on the one side, in increasing the revenue that we get from people who are on the vessels and in finding ways to make services available to people to expand revenue and to make the terminals less expensive with respect to the overall costs and to see if there aren't ways we can generate revenue from the terminals themselves -- whether it's through new and innovative approaches to real estate use or whether it's some way to actively promote other forms of commercialized use in the ferry terminals.
[1715]
There are ways to generate additional revenue. That's another way for us to get money.
Now all of those ideas are being put into
[ Page 12853 ]
what we're doing. We're doing many, many good things. In the off-season we're talking about bringing in a ferry miles program -- great for some areas in local communities where people, through local retailers, can bank ferry miles for schools so that school kids get a chance to travel more frequently in the off-season. That brings in revenue stream to the corporation where it ordinarily wouldn't get it. That helps us, because it builds revenue in times when, generally speaking, the corporation is not receiving revenue because of low ridership.
All of those kinds of initiatives are being looked at, undertaken and put in place. All of them will help us. Is it going to be solved overnight? No, it can't be solved overnight. Those are big numbers, and you can't knock them down in just a short period of time. With respect to the election, hon. member, I would say that if you've ever spent time at sea looking at that horizon, you quickly know it's a globe, and that horizon just gets further and further and further away. So I wouldn't count on an early election.
An Hon. Member: No, the election is coming closer and closer and closer.
D. Symons: Yes, is that funnel disappearing in the distance, or is it appearing? We'll never know. I suppose the minister is as concerned as I am about when that particular one might come.
The minister may remember when I was critic for Ferries, under his leadership, and I
remember the time he brought up the concept, I'll call it, of the rationalization of fares
-- to use his term. He was concerned and raised the issue with the minister responsible
then -- who happens to be his boss now -- about the idea that going from Powell River to
Comox-Little River was roughly half the distance, I believe -- or maybe even less than
that -- of going from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay. He argued at that time that that was not
fair, and somehow this should be
I know that in many of the communities around the province where the distances aren't
too far -- and particularly those that were taken over by the Ferry Corporation
I've heard these same arguments before. You're tending to address them, and I would commend you for the various comments you've made. I've been nattering away about past problems in the Ferry Corporation, and if you end up putting it in good shape for us to take over, I'm going to be very pleased at that. If you don't, I'm not sure what we'll do. We'll fire you if you don't get it into good working condition. Anyway, maybe you can position yourself for being CEO of B.C. Ferries, if you can do a good job of it. But at least Mr. Lingwood, I don't think, is shaking in his shoes at that suggestion.
The Chair: Member, could you remember to direct your comments through the Chair.
D. Symons: Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I thought that I was going through the Chair and that he was just picking these up on the periphery of the comments.
Back to some seriousness here for a moment. I think that the comments the minister has made are interesting. It will be interesting to see how they're followed through with. Some of those communities are going to be the ones where there are longer distances but they've enjoyed, let's say, a fare comparable to somebody with a much shorter route. They may find that when these are balanced out, their routes will go up a little bit, and they'll be up in arms, no doubt.
I was on Saltspring Island at Fulford Harbour a year ago last November, where the fares had gone up twice in the one year -- once in March and then again in November. I know that the minister, when he was on the opposition side as well, was involved in protests at various places. I happen to have been at the Saltspring Island one when they were dumping the symbolic tea into the ocean. The feelings in those communities are valid, because these communities are very much dependent on the Ferry Corporation. There is as much fear going on, I think, of what is actually being done as there is fear of what might be done. I don't think the minister is helping a great deal by suggesting what the Liberals may do in there, because he's playing on fears, and in many cases, that backfires on the corporation as a whole.
[1720]
I recognize the problems you're dealing with and the problems that have to be dealt with. At least the minister has given me some indication that you're working in that direction to work with them, and I wish you well in those deliberations.
The next thing I want to get to is tied in with that. Will you be putting in place,
then, some benchmarks? Once you get your whole system in place and you're going to have
yourself a debt management plan, will we see benchmarks built into that debt management
plan, so year after year
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to that is: yes, the member opposite will, in the next two, three and four years, come to this chamber and ask us, because we'll still be here outlining how we have managed to meet all of these targets. They're in the financial statements basically. We'll state what it is that we intend to do, and that will be there.
I'd point out also that on these tariff increases in the so-called leaked document, the other point that I'm not sure the members opposite appreciate is that those numbers -- those fare increases -- were the Coastal Council communities' numbers, not the B.C. Ferry Corporation's numbers. They were numbers that were built to inflation. They were an inflation index on fair tariff increases, which they suggested would be acceptable. As the minister I'm saying: I don't think so. So let's not flip that onto this side, saying that we're the ones that are driving. I'm saying that as the very last resort, when we have explored every other opportunity, we will then look at the fare box -- but not until we've done that, because I don't think people can shoulder more tariff increases, quite frankly, although we may not be able to avoid it at some point -- but not until we've looked at every other option.
D. Symons: Yes, and I did read that in one of the Coastal Council's advisory reports. Basically I think it was 2 percent,
[ Page 12854 ]
which is something that the Premier, when he was minister responsible, said the Ferry Corporation would be doing. So back in '95, when I said, "How are you going to pay for your Advancing the Fleet program?" he said: "Well, we'll just increase fares by no more than 2 percent. We'll increase them by the rate of inflation and no more than 2 percent over that. If we get the ridership increases that we're projecting, we won't even have to increase it by that 2 percent." In the meantime, the fares have gone up 40 percent. So that was the plan.
The coastal communities have basically said that they can accept, I think, a
cost-of-living increase on the ferry thing with possibly a percentage point more. But that
seemed to be what they were agreeing to, or at least submitting to, I would think. I've
dealt with the people there, and I think the minister would agree that the majority of the
people are quite reasonable in their demands. They know they aren't going to get free
service. They know that when you talk about the ferries being extensions of the highways,
that doesn't mean they're going to have free ferry service. I've met with
Anyway, I want to move back, then, for the moment. Things aren't coming up on my page in the order they were supposed to, because I'm back on the wake-wash questions. This is, again, out of the report by McMullen and should have come in here a little bit earlier. I've dealt with the wake wash, and there are just a couple of other items that I didn't deal with there.
[1725]
In his report, he also made
Hon. G. Wilson: In order to give a full answer, I just wonder if the member might tell us what page in the report he's referring to.
D. Symons: Unfortunately, this was taken from
Hon. G. Wilson: Perhaps you could be just a little bit more specific with respect to the reference on safety concerns. This was in the McMullen report that you're referring to?
D. Symons: It's from the JJMA report. If the person who passed this on to me is
correct
I'll leave that with you, maybe, if it's too difficult to find it right now, and go on to another question.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yeah, we're anxious to answer that. Whenever there's an issue of
safety
D. Symons: I have no problem giving this to you, but it wouldn't help you.
Hon. G. Wilson: We're not aware of any safety issues. There were redesigns on the ramp for efficiency purposes. There were a few other minor alterations made but none that were specifically linked to safety issues that we can recall.
D. Symons: I'm hoping
The last comment here again deals with section 2.6(1), which seems to be a reference to do with the sea water system piping.
"JJMA's assessment of the Pacificat leads us to believe that there is a significant problem with her sea water piping. According to drawing information provided to JJMA and by visual inspection of the installed piping, pipe used in the sea water systems of Pacificat is 316L stainless steel, Schedule 10 wall thickness. Similar or identical pipe used in sea water systems on previous ferry applications has developed leaks within a year or two of operation, to the extent that the piping had to be replaced. This resulted in extensive time out of service. Examples are early versions of the Boeing jetfoils and vessels in the Washington State Ferries fleet."
I'm wondering how the minister is going to deal with that particular problem that seems to have been identified by JJMA.
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that the issue of corrosion in the piping is, I think, what the members is addressing, and that it only becomes a problem if the system is shut down, at which point the lines will be purged in order to remove the liquid and therefore eliminate that problem. Clearly, again,
[ Page 12855 ]
that speaks to the need for ongoing maintenance and some vigilance with respect to making sure that these systems are properly dealt with.
[1730]
D. Symons: I wonder if we can look for a moment at some of the costs related to this. I gather, dealing with the C-class ferries, that the fuel for them costs probably about $20 million for the three of them to operate each year. If you work out the costs for working the three C-class ferries, it is about $20 million. The fuel costs for the Incats is likely to be about $110 million. Would that be approximately correct?
Hon. G. Wilson: We're a little confused as to where you got that figure from. I'm advised that the total fuel cost for the whole fleet is less than $40 million -- unless it's specific to that route, and we would have a hard time reconciling that. I don't know quite where the member got those figures.
D. Symons: I hate to tell you who this came from, but let's say he has the same
name as the previous CEO of Catamaran Ferries. Some of his information is
Hon. G. Wilson: The Pacificat fuel costs will be $3,792 per round trip. Now,
that's a better way than per day, because depending on how many trips you do
D. Symons: Not quite twice, from what I see there.
Can you tell me how many times it's planned that each Pacificat will be fuelled? That's
not counting the case now, where you're going to be fuelling them
Hon. G. Wilson: Initially, for the first four months until the fuel facility is built, it will be fuelled by truck in Departure Bay, and it will carry the fuel for the day by truck.
[1735]
D. Symons: Once we deal with that situation, where you're fuelling it by truck
Hon. G. Wilson: My advice is that once that fuelling facility is done, it will be fuelled half-full. It will be fuelled overnight. Then it'll be filled to half-full and topped up during the day.
D. Symons: One is sort of fuelling while it's in service, and the other will be during the night layover.
I'm wondering, then, if the minister might give me an idea of the cost of the fuelling facility that's being installed. Have you got a cost? It's gone out to tender. Has that tender been in, and do you have an actual cost now?
Hon. G. Wilson: We'll have to get you that information. It's been very recently approved to proceed, so those numbers will be made available to you forthwith.
D. Symons: On that note also, did it go out to tender as such, where the project was described and people were asked to tender on that particular project? Or did they use an RFP, where basically people were to come in and give proposals that could vary and then you would choose the proposal you liked best? Were these tenders done in such a way that everybody who was capable of doing the job was given an opportunity, or were there any riders on it such that you had to do an HCL model or something of that sort as far as the building of this facility is concerned?
Hon. G. Wilson: No, it was a standard tendering process, and we'll get you the details of that.
D. Symons: One other question dealing with that particular aspect of it. Can the
minister also find, when they're getting that information on the cost of fuelling
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, we're happy to get you all of the costing of it, but we didn't woo anybody. Obviously it wasn't the size of the tank; it was the location of the tank. There were some visual-quality issues that needed to be addressed. We dealt with the residents' association there, which was the advice of Nanaimo council, and there was, I think, a proper consultation. So we made sure that the community was fully aware of what was proposed. We listened to their concerns; we addressed their concerns, I believe, to their satisfaction.
D. Symons: The last question has to do with the fuelling facility. You mentioned a moment ago that you're going to be backing a truck on and basically loading it from a truck, and that's a time-consuming effort, I gather. It takes about an hour to put in the amount of fuel that way. You're planning on doing it much quicker once they have this arrangement made with the fuelling facility and then just ram a hose in and start pumping the fuel in quickly. I gather the Ferry Corporation wants, however, to be able to be fuelling it at the same time you're loading the ferry. In the past, that has been a no-no in the shipping industry. I'm wondering whether you have approval from Transport Canada for loading while you're fuelling.
The Chair: Member, you're wandering into the second person again. Please direct your comments through the Chair.
[ Page 12856 ]
Hon. G. Wilson: Obviously we're going to have to have approval from Transport
Canada. The times have changed with respect to Transport Canada regulations. It used to be
that you couldn't load an aircraft while you were fuelling an aircraft, either, and that's
changed. I'm certain that we would not have embarked upon -- at least I think I'm certain
We've got that? Oh, we've got it. Just as I suspected, we're on top of the situation.
[1740]
D. Symons: It just goes to show that the staff earn their keep.
Just before we break for the dinner hour, I'd like to ask one question regarding the
fact that you had some problems with the engines. The cylinder liners were replaced. I
gather that these were a manufacturer's recommendation, because they found they were
wearing maybe faster than wanted in other jurisdictions where they'd sold these engines.
It's done at the expense of the manufacturer, MTU. Detroit Diesel, I believe, is their
agent here, and they did the work for them, I suspect, and that's all covered -- not a
cent cost to B.C. Ferries. If you'll confirm that to me in a moment
The fact is that most jurisdictions that are using those particular engines are not
running them at close to 100 percent of their output. I'm wondering how much trouble we
will have with MTU or Detroit Diesel as far as any warranties go and as far as any service
contracts we might have with them go. I'm wondering if the minister might give me some
assurance, one, that there will be no problem with the warranty
Hon. G. Wilson: At no time have the warranties on the engines been compromised. This is 100 percent under warranty. That's the first thing.
Secondly, we can run those engines at 100 percent under warranty. So what that does is it simply increases your maintenance frequency, and you have to maintain the engines more. I'm informed that the corporation has no concern with respect to the warranties on engines. That's been something thoroughly discussed, largely as a result of a rumour that these warranties had been broached. Those rumours are not correct; they're ill-founded. The warranties are in place, and we have no concern.
D. Symons: Just in that same vein, then, you have, I believe, a service contract with Detroit Diesel as far as maintenance of the engines goes. I'm wondering if that's on a per-usage basis. You were saying that if we run them faster, reports seem to indicate that they'll need maintenance more frequently. So are we paying them on a per-job basis, is it retainer, or is it a flat fee that we pay per year, as you often do for coffee machines or things of that sort? What's the general gist of the arrangements you have with Detroit Diesel for the maintenance servicing of these engines?
Hon. G. Wilson: It's a standard warranty, but there is some maintenance work done on the engines which the company undertakes to do through a preapproved schedule. Some of the work, B.C. Ferries undertakes. There is some discussion right now as to whether or not the work that's allocated to B.C. Ferries could be more cheaply done by the company, and those discussions are underway. But the warranty is specified, and I think what we might do is try and make available to you a copy of what the terms are so you've got them at your disposal.
[1745]
D. Symons: I would appreciate that. I just need, really, an outline of the conditions of it. I'm curious, again, whether we're paying a flat fee per year and they will service the engines or whether we are paying for service as required -- that's the sort of thing I'm interested in -- and what the warranty is and roughly what it may end up costing us for servicing these engines on a yearly basis.
Hon. G. Wilson: I'll endeavour to get some more specific information with respect to the warranty. With respect to the maintenance contract, I'm told that's still under negotiation. There is a regular running maintenance program that needs to be done, and it's yet to be determined whether or not the company can do it more cheaply than B.C. Ferries. Maybe we should contract them to have it. As you know, from time to time, engines need to lifted and work needs to be done, and that's a standard part of a running maintenance program. That, I'm told, we have not concluded a negotiation on, but I'll certainly get you all the information surrounding it.
The Chair: While you're on your feet, minister
Hon. G. Wilson: Thank you. So you want me to move the question? Is that what it is?
Noting the time, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.
The committee met at 7:44 p.m.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRIES
(continued)
On vote 10: ministry operations, $30,651,000 (continued.)
D. Symons: I'd like to ask the minister if I could just carry on with a few thoughts we had prior to the break regarding the fuelling. I was asking questions about the fuelling of the ferries with the new fuelling facility that will be installed. I didn't ask, I guess, the other side of it. Are you planning on fuelling the ferry when you're doing it by truck before that fuelling facility is installed? Will you be loading cars as the ship is being fuelled by truck? I assume that's a no-no, but I'm just checking to see if that's intended.
[1945]
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is no. It will be fuelled overnight during the truck fuelling process. For the informa-
[ Page 12857 ]
tion of the member, the cost of the fuel facility is $1.5 million, which includes tanks, piping, pumps, etc. The cost of the facility is built into a contract with the successful bidder, who will also provide the fuel. Capital cost is built into the per-litre cost of the fuel. The successful bidder is Fenco Maclaren.
D. Symons: That's the contract for supplying the fuel, and it will carry on as the fuel is needed. All the fuel for the fast ferry program will go through that particular facility in Nanaimo, then, I assume -- at Departure Bay.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes. At the moment we're only planning to do the one.
D. Symons: Now you're fuelling ferry No. 1, before the facility is put in, via truck. From what you said a moment ago, you're fuelling it once at nighttime, and then you're going to run the ship to begin the first run with a very full load of fuel. Then as the day progresses, it will get down to near empty. Is that the intention?
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's the intention.
D. Symons: Then when the fuelling facility is in and you've got all three fast ferries going -- so you're not having the problem of fitting a fast ferry in with the current ferries -- then you plan on a midday fuelling.
Hon. G. Wilson: That's right. Once we have the three running and they can run at full speed, then ultimately we'll be refuelling every round trip.
D. Symons: Did I hear the member say every round trip? I thought we said earlier that that was going to be sort of a midday fuelling. You would start with half a tank and then top it up during the day. Are you topping it up every round trip? Is that the intention?
Hon. G. Wilson: Yeah. Apparently we're going to phase this in, so that initially it's twice a day. Then eventually it will be every round trip when all three are running.
D. Symons: That begins to fuel my suspicions -- if you'll pardon the pun about fuelling my suspicions here -- that the talk of the ship having a weight-to-power ratio is somewhat true, in the sense that you're obviously going to keep those tanks fairly low to keep the weight of the ship down. I don't know if that was intended when the things were first designed -- to fuel basically every round trip -- but it seems to add some credibility, I suspect, to the thought that that's a problem with the Ferry Corporation.
I wonder if we can just get into some other issues to do with the fast ferries. Can you tell me the capacity of the ferries as far as vehicles go? I am told that when they were first designed, they would be carrying buses, recreational vehicles and cars. Can you give me the proportions of those? What are going to be the restrictions on RVs and sport vehicles? How many buses will it carry? And then what space is left for cars? I know it's 250 auto-equivalents, but of course, a bus takes up some of those auto-equivalents.
Hon. G. Wilson: Just before we get off that fuel situation, I don't want the member to get unduly panicked. So that I don't have to answer this question in question period, let me just answer it here. There is no question that there is a weight-fuel ratio that we want to try to maximize. When those ferries are running at full capacity, we're going to try to keep the fuel to a minimum. But it's not to suggest that those ferries can't run fully loaded. Clearly, if they could not, we wouldn't be doing it with a full fuel load on the first ferry. I just want to make sure that you don't get too far out on that one.
With respect to the second question, there will be up to three buses. There may be a variety of RVs and campers, but the car equivalency will be 250.
[1950]
D. Symons: Yes, I notice that in the brochure that was put out a couple of years ago, it talked about four buses and light trucks. But I heard that you're going to be limiting the weight of the trucks. A light pickup truck will be about the maximum you would have on the ferry. I'm not too sure if you can tell me: will there be restrictions on the size of RVs? There are a lot of people that use that particular route to get to Vancouver Island, particularly when they're going to the northern part and mid-Island. This is certainly going to cause some problems for them if they're all going to be rerouted through Tsawwassen.
Hon. G. Wilson: I think one of the things to keep in mind is that this fast-cat ferry will eventually be billed as a premium service when all three go into service. Very heavy RVs will not be permitted on the fast ferry. In the interim period, when one is in service and two C-class regulars are in service, that shouldn't be so much of a problem. With proper advertising and advance notice, they will get onto a C-class. But there is going to have to be a certain amount of education that goes along -- or advance publication -- to make sure route 30 picks up all of the commercial traffic. The truckers are aware of this -- now that we're starting to move them toward route 30 -- and that very large or heavy RVs would be redirected through route 30.
That, frankly, is desired by the municipality of West Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay as well. We are finding that the capacity of both of the terminal facility and the highway immediately adjacent to it, with the Squamish turn-off, has become an issue that they want some resolution to. Part of the problem is because of the volume of traffic, and camper traffic in particular.
D. Symons: I had passed on to me a note that says exactly the thought that was
going through my mind, and that is: what you're going to consider as a large or heavy RV?
Are you going to have a sort of
Hon. G. Wilson: I think it's fair to say that the corporation is anticipating that only relatively small RVs, campers,
[ Page 12858 ]
truck-campers or small RV units would be acceptable. Length is going to be an issue as
well. I think it's fair to say that there'll be a certain learning curve as to what can
and can't be accommodated when this first ferry goes into service. I guess the fortunate
part of the fact that only one is going into service is that it will give us an
opportunity this summer to get a good feel for what in fact can be accommodated and what
cannot. The benefit is that there is a C-class vessel that will be able to pick up
whatever can't be taken on the fast cat. We'll have a really good idea by mid-July as to
what can and can't be taken, but there is no specific GVW set that says that
D. Symons: I understand. Again, my sources aren't always impeccable, but roughly one and a half metric tons is going to be the cut-off point for the upper deck on this ferry, and a height of about 6 feet 6 inches, whereas in your brochures you advertise overheight vehicles as being something higher than that. So here will be vehicles that won't be overheight as far as the brochures go, but they will be overheight as far as loading on the fast ferry goes. Are those figures incorrect?
[1955]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think it's fair comment for the upper deck, but the overheights will be accommodated on the lower deck.
D. Symons: Also tied in with this is the notion of getting on the ferry and reservations. I read a while back where you're planning, on the fast ferries, to have a 100 percent reservation system. Can the minister confirm that and maybe explain a little bit how that's going to work?
Hon. G. Wilson: We have not yet confirmed that it'll be 100 percent reservation. We certainly are trying to find ways to spread the load throughout the day, and one of the ways we can do that is through a reservation system.
We are certainly looking, not just with the fast cats but with the regular service, at an expanded reservation system. That's one thing we're looking at so that we can have a much better handle on when we can expect peak loads, or for people to travel. That'll be more relevant, I think, after the summer period rather than during the summer.
D. Symons: I will be following up on the reservation system later.
The ferry now, you say, will have up to three buses. However, at times -- I believe in
the summer -- out of that particular terminal there are more buses than
Hon. G. Wilson: Most of the buses are on a schedule anyway, and they're on a reservation system. So we don't anticipate that there's going to be a particular problem this year, for the reasons I've already stated. If they can't get on the fast cat, they'll get on the C-class.
However, we are working with the bus companies, and we are working with the tourism industry in Nanaimo -- well, the whole of Vancouver Island, not just Nanaimo -- to make sure that we can build schedules and services that are going to meet the needs of the people who want to use it.
One of the benefits that we have
D. Symons: One of the benefits the minister missed, I guess, is the point that if you have the three ships running at a 90-minute turnaround rather than a two-hour turnaround, that will maybe space the buses out onto two ferries, whereas now they all want to hit the same ferries. So that might work in your favour. We'll have to wait and see, as we will with many of these things I have been asking about.
Loading procedures. What is the loading procedure on the fast ferries going to be? I wonder if the minister might describe the way in which the vehicles will be loaded and unloaded from the vessel. The reason I'm asking is that the current ferries basically load four at a time: two lanes on the upper deck and two lanes on the lower deck. You just load them on -- they drive on and they drive off -- four lanes moving at a time.
Hon. G. Wilson: We expect that we'll do exactly the same thing -- two on at the top and two on at the bottom -- and hopefully go forward.
D. Symons: I witnessed -- from land, mind you -- the trial run that was done in
Horseshoe Bay a few months back. I noted that as the ferry came in
[2000]
I'm wondering, if this was a trial run as it was supposed to be -- you know, to try it with a load of cars and try loading and unloading -- what went wrong with that particular one. They loaded them, when it came back to loading again, the same way. It was very easy for me to count how many cars were on there, and there were not the 240. I know they had some bags on there with water in them, but there wasn't the
[ Page 12859 ]
number they said there was on the ferry either -- or they didn't unload them all.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, that was done specifically for that member's benefit -- so he could count the cars coming off. It was painful to do, but we did it. I'm just joking, hon. Chair.
The truth is that that was done specifically as a weight trial. We had a crew that was
untrained. We had float bags on board, as the member referred to. I think that there
wasn't an effort to expedite loading and unloading at that particular time. It is true
that they did come off one at a time; the way the member relates it to us is correct. But
I wouldn't read anything more into it, other than the fact that we didn't have a fully
trained crew. We had weight bags aboard, and largely what was being tested
D. Symons: I might ask two more questions on the loading; I'll lump them together. How long are you anticipating loading to take? I would assume, then -- from the answer given before that they're going to do the same as the current ones -- that you dealing with something probably slightly less than 20 minutes. But we'll find that out in a moment.
Along with that, because of the configuration of loading the vehicles, are you going to have special lanes or some arrangement out on the tarmac prior to loading so that you will be able to fit them in on the ferry in the order you want? Will it be necessary to place vehicles -- besides the fact that you're going to put buses in a certain spot -- in certain places on the ferry, and you'll have to prearrange a grid on the tarmac and then have them drive on in a certain order?
Hon. G. Wilson: We don't anticipate that we're going to sort of select by colour or anything like that. We already select by size, because there's an overheight portion and then there's a portion that will take regular vehicles. There may be, as this vessel comes into service, some lanes that might be set for cars that are less tall and therefore fit the upper deck. But we don't anticipate that there's going to be anything particularly unusual about the loading of this vessel that makes it much different from any other. We anticipate that the loading time will be virtually the same.
D. Symons: Actually, I have two members here that have some specific questions regarding their regions. Maybe, if the minister doesn't mind, rather than carry on with my chain of reasoning, I'll let them have their freedom to ask their questions.
M. Coell: Thanks to the minister for answering my questions -- I'm being very optimistic. I'd also like to welcome Bob Lingwood, who's your CEO. I had the privilege of chairing the Victoria regional transit commission for many years, and I found him to be a very capable and first-class administrator, so I think you're in good hands.
Over the last three years I've had a number of comments from constituents -- on the Gulf Islands mostly -- about ferry service, and I'd just like to bring a few of those comments to the minister's consideration. The first one is with regard to the guaranteed direct transfer at Swartz Bay for travel to and from the mainland for the Pender Islands, north and south
As an alternative to route 9 travel, users on the Penders have been encouraged to use throughfares via Swartz Bay to get to the mainland. When they arrive at Swartz Bay, rather than simply transferring directly to a route 1 ferry, they have to exit the terminal, drive down the highway, turn around and then go back through the booths and line up and wait for the next route 1 ferry. This process does not encourage users to travel via Swartz Bay in order to get to the mainland. I'm wondering, as are a great number of Pender Island residents, both north and south: is the corporation considering a guaranteed direct transfer onto route 1 vessels for passengers travelling from the southern Gulf Islands to the mainland? As well, is the corporation considering a direct in-terminal transfer at Swartz Bay for passengers travelling from the mainland to the southern Gulf Islands?
[2005]
Hon. G. Wilson: Apparently that's a good question, and one that there doesn't seem to be unanimity on in terms of Gulf Islanders and others as to how we might solve that problem, other than the fact that there is unanimous agreement that there is a problem there. I appreciate the member bringing that to my attention. I think that one of the difficulties -- from the corporation's point of view, if I understand it fully -- is that there is a question of equity as to whether or not people who have been waiting for a long time to get on a ferry should be essentially bypassed by people who are already en route. Others, who believe they're en route, don't believe they should have to go and line up again to get the service.
So if I understand that to be the issue, it seems to me that it's not unlike similar issues that I deal with, with people who are en route through Powell River coming down to Vancouver and then finding when they get there that they can't actually hit the sailing they've already paid for. When you get on, you pay to do your route. So it seems to me that that's an issue that can be looked at. I'll commit to the member to talk to him and to the constituents who are writing to him about that issue, to see if we can't tie that into some of the new discussions that are underway with respect to Gulf Islands service.
M. Coell: The equity issue is easily addressed, I think, in that someone may have been waiting in a lineup on Pender for 20 minutes or 40 minutes, and they're going to Vancouver. Had they gone to Vancouver via route 9, they wouldn't have that problem. So they have probably waited in a ferry line as long as the people in Swartz Bay. I think the major problem in trying to encourage people to use this route is having to leave the terminal, drive up the highway, drive around and come back through. In many instances, they do get on the ferry and do go around. It's just a problem that I see, and a great number of Gulf Islanders see that problem too. I'm pleased that the minister is committed to finding a solution for that problem.
The other issue is with regard to ferries with available space leaving vehicles behind at Tsawwassen. Do we have any numbers that would indicate the amount of standbys that are left behind at Tsawwassen when there was space available on the departing route 9 ferry, and are passengers that are turned away from the terminal included in those figures?
Hon. G. Wilson: My understanding is that the reason -- and the member fully knows what the reason is -- is that people reserve to get on, and then they don't show up to get on. But meanwhile they've loaded it, because they've got a number of islands that they're doing. They load it in such a
[ Page 12860 ]
way that they can't then bring on other vehicles that are going to a destination
It does seem to me to be unacceptable to leave people at the terminal if there's space
on the ferry. If it's a question of trying to rationalize
[2010]
M. Coell: It would be interesting just to see the numbers of what, statistically, has happened over a two-or-three-year period with standbys and for different islands. If that information is available, it would be interesting for me to see that. I think the minister would probably be interested in seeing that as well.
The other thing -- apart from being sometimes difficult to read because they change periodically -- is the ferry schedules. They're not published sometimes until days before they go into effect and are changed after they're published as well. The ferry schedules are not made public until just before they come into effect, and this continues to pose a problem for Gulf Islands tourism. It loses travellers who cannot adjust their schedules in advance. It prevents tourism businesses from doing advance bookings, advance advertisements. The situation is also frustrating for residents who commute by ferries to and from work -- in the Victoria area, for starters. Surely there must be a way to publish these changes earlier and to provide some sort of consistency in ferry travel times from season to season. I don't think a few days' notice is acceptable to the residents of the Gulf Islands.
Hon. G. Wilson: I agree with everything the member just said. There has to be a better way to set those out schedules. I certainly think that we want to, particularly in light of the tourism aspect of it. Earlier on, there were some questions from the member for Parksville-Qualicum, who was talking about ways in which the Ferry Corporation could assist in tourism development, promotion and cross-promotion. So I think that one of the things we need to do is find a way to set out these schedules and make sure that we do some cross-promotion with respect to tourism and to be aware of the kind of events calendar that's going on in the various communities, so that the schedule actually represents the specific needs of the communities. All of that we're attempting to do. I have certainly asked the CEO, and I know that he's taking some considerable action in improving customer service. This is one area where I think that can be done.
M. Coell: I would encourage the corporation to do that. This is not a new problem. It's a problem that's been around for a decade or so, where the changes are made with very short notice. As the islands develop a kind of a grassroots-based tourism industry, it's very fragile, and this would be of great assistance to building that tourism industry.
The Mayne Queen and the other ferries similar to it
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that there isn't an easy answer to that question. Depending on the age and the size of the vessel, some of those services may not be there. I know that has been an issue for me in my community, with people trying to get wheelchair access to the upper decks. That can be a problem. I'll certainly undertake to look at the Mayne Queen specifically. My understanding is that there's elevator service on that ferry, but possibly not. I'm hearing that no, there is not.
We do have, as the member knows, a very active stakeholder group that is advising on everything from schedules through to this kind of issue. I'll certainly undertake to have ferry personnel look at that particular problem. If there are specific individuals who routinely use the ferry, then we'll undertake to try and contact those people and find out what we can do.
[2015]
M. Coell: I think it's an important issue for tourism, as well as for residents on the islands. If you're in a wheelchair, you're denied access, basically, to anything but your car. I don't think that is really the sort of atmosphere we want to have in any government operation. So I would encourage the minister to look into that.
With regard to the status of option 3
Hon. G. Wilson: We have discussed this with the stakeholders group. A full financial plan is expected by the end of June. My guess is that it'll then go back to the stakeholders, and we'll look at matters of implementation at that point.
M. Coell: The direct service between Long Harbour, on Saltspring, and Tsawwassen
Hon. G. Wilson: There is no change for this summer. The stakeholders, apparently, are in direct consultation on the long-term service potential for that. But certainly for this summer, there's no proposed change, and I don't think we really thought fully beyond that.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could update me on the Queen of Skeena and Bowen Queen engine problems. What is the status of those two vessels' engines at this point?
Hon. G. Wilson: The Bowen Queen is done, and the Skeena is being analyzed to identify exactly what the problem is. It's a vibration issue, and it's something that they're looking at and trying to pinpoint.
M. Coell: I am interested in corporate sponsors, and I wonder how much Coca-Cola paid for a corporate sponsorship on the ferry system.
[ Page 12861 ]
Hon. G. Wilson: It would appear that the total sponsorship for the corporation is
$900,000, but apparently
M. Coell: You're probably in a better opportunity right now than you've ever been with regard to B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries. What work is being done to secure better commuter service between links -- between B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries -- at Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay at this point?
[2020]
Hon. G. Wilson: We are under active discussions with both B.C. Transit as well as Pacific Coach Lines to more fully integrate the services so that we can have a much more streamlined process for people who want to access either Pacific Coach Lines or B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferry connections. This is something that certainly early on, I've identified as a major priority for the corporation. I think that the wave in the future is going to be getting into rapid transit and interfacing rapid transit and the B.C. Ferry Corporation. So it's a major thrust within the corporation now. We're in the early stages of working it out, and I'm hoping we'll have some very positive news later in the year.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could update me. We're in the middle of a ten-year plan, and the minister is now working on a ten-year plan to go from now, I guess, to ten years out. What work has been done on the Gulf Islands with regard to the new ten-year plan?
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I think that in part, I've actually talked about that aspect of the five-year plan and that we're moving ahead. But where it directly affects your constituency will be around the capital construction program to bring in new vessel service -- that's something that we're looking at -- and also on the question of home-porting and how we can rationalize service around that system. That is actively under discussion, and we're actively involving ourselves in that planning process. The stakeholders are directly involved.
There is a bit of concern with respect to ratification of the collective agreement, because the members of the union are going to have to be full participants in this discussion in order for us to make this thing work properly without undue problems arising on that front. We're anxiously awaiting resolution on that question so we can move much more quickly toward resolution on these issues. I think that the member can take comfort in the fact that we are very actively moving ahead, and we hope to able to have something very positive to suggest on this front very early in the fall.
M. Coell: I thank the minister for answering those questions. I'm sure I don't need to mention this to the minister, because he also has a riding that is dependent on ferries, but every time there's a threat of a strike or a threat of increases, it sends shock waves up and down all the Gulf Islands -- from property values to tourism. I guess what I'm saying is that a stable, trouble-free ferry system would be a great benefit to residents of the Gulf Islands, not just residents on the mainland who use the major ferry system or residents of the capital region who use it. But in the last few years I think we've seen some real problems created by instability in the system. I hope that over the next year or so into the future, the ferry system is much more stable than it has been.
[2025]
I. Chong: I'm pleased, as well, to be able to participate in these estimates regarding the B.C. Ferry Corporation. As the minister is probably aware, the questions I have are primarily financial in nature. I know that the critic has asked many other questions, as has my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, regarding the servicing and route-specific questions.
In regards to the financial statements that I was reviewing for '95-96, '96-97 and '97-98, there was reference in there in terms of risk management contracts and in particular, reference to the idea of commodity derivatives in terms of financial instruments. I'm wondering if the minister can advise me whether that is a process that the corporation will embrace more, I suppose, in order to deal with its interest debt-servicing costs and whether it will move into other commodity derivatives to deal with fuel costs, in terms of getting those two expenditures under control. When you take a look at your financial statements, you see that your fuel costs and your debt-servicing interest costs are fairly substantial -- in the $38-$40 million range. Seeing that there was reference to it in the notes of the financial statements, I'm wondering what the corporation is doing about future costs in these areas.
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that the corporation only uses financial derivatives to hedge risk and that that is actually controlled through the Ministry of Finance. With respect to the fuel, so far we have found that the best value is to purchase fuel on sort of the spot market. However, there may be long term. With increasing volumes now, there may in fact be some opportunities to take a different approach. That's something that is constantly monitored, and we may make some decisions later this year.
I. Chong: I'd like to also pursue questions regarding CFI and the fast ferries. Where in the notes there's reference to the capital assets -- whether major replacements, major additions, etc. -- some of the indirect costs, such as interest costs, are capitalized as a part of those major expenditures. I'm wondering whether the minister can advise, for the '96-97 and '97-98 financial years, how much of that has been capitalized. Once those costs are all in place, we will be looking at a substantial increase, I would expect, in the interest costs. We're not, perhaps, seeing the true picture of what our interest cost is on a comparative basis.
[2030]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think I have what the member wanted. It's the corporation's policy to capitalize interest costs on all new products until that product comes into service. I would refer the member to page 3 of the Gordon report in terms of capitalized interest on the high-speed ferry. I think that was what she was asking -- it was $24,061,000.
I. Chong: I'm presuming that's for the two-year cumulative and not for just one year. For the whole capitalized project -- I would assume that's what it is. I see the minister shaking his head. I'll just accept that.
The other thing is that with these financial statements, they've indicated they're consolidated with CFI -- which
[ Page 12862 ]
makes sense because it's a wholly-owned subsidiary. The discussions that have been
ongoing, I suppose, for the possible sale of CFI to a private investor or enterprise
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that the member would be aware that, given that we may well be in negotiations with private investors, I'm not anxious to trigger what it is that we would expect through that sale. But I would, just under a general practice, consider that the vessels, while they're under construction, are written up as an asset to the corporation and that the building tools and other aspects of the corporation would be written down as debt. So in general terms, that's where that split would come.
Now we have a new CFI board. They are in a position of looking at the corporation in terms of its financial position. There is a mandate for them to now explore positioning CFI within the private sector. That may come as a private-public partnership, or it might come straight out as a private partnership. But I think that the member would be aware that, given that there are people who are very keenly observing what's going on, I wouldn't want to tip my hand by suggesting what we would hope to get.
I. Chong: Certainly I wouldn't want to cause any possibility of a markdown of the potential sale value, if there is one.
Can the minister then advise, though -- again as a result of the consolidated financial statement -- what portion of the net loss that we are seeing on the current financial statements would be attributable to CFI? The $59 million, I believe, loss reported in '97-98 -- a portion of that may, or can, be attributable to CFI, once the consolidation of the financials took place.
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is $3.9 million, but keep in mind, member, that whatever we get for CFI will essentially be written off the corporate debt.
I. Chong: Can you, minister, advise whether any projections, analyses or
calculations have been done in terms of the opportunity-cost loss and the revenue loss as
a result of the two-year delay of CFI? Had the fast ferries been in service two years ago
[2035]
Hon. G. Wilson: I probably would be asking those questions. The truth is that there is no opportunity cost loss, because we've been providing service. So it's not as if the route hasn't been receiving service. They are being adequately served. Some may argue that because of the increased costs of fuel and maintenance, we're actually saving some money. But I think that they might be wrong. I think that what we need to do is focus now on making sure that when they do go into service, when we actually get those vessels on a regular route, we will be able to maximize the return to the taxpayer through having a service that is premium -- and they recognize it to be premium service -- and that we can in fact get this project working properly and bringing some dollars back home.
I. Chong: Another question not specifically related to the financials
Hon. G. Wilson: We are already doing off-peak pricing, as the member knows. We have low-season, shoulder-season and peak-season pricing. So that is being done. This high occupancy rate has a fairly substantial direct cost to the corporation. I'm advised it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million. That's not to suggest that there aren't other innovative ways that we can start to facilitate this kind of project. I have requested that the corporation start to investigate a number of those kinds of initiatives. One of the ones that I'm personally kind of keen on -- and I mentioned this a little earlier on in these estimates -- is using B.C. retailers to establish a ferry miles program, much like an air miles program.
The Chair: Minister, if you'll just take your seat for a moment. Division bells, it sounds like, have rung. We will recess until we're finished.
The committee recessed from 8:39 p.m. to 8:49 p.m.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
Hon. G. Wilson: I was answering a question around the idea that we were going to try to become a little bit more creative in providing fares for off-peak periods, and I was alluding to some of the ideas that we were talking about. One of the things that we were hoping to try to accomplish is some form of a ferry miles program that might also provide assistance for schools. They could take the benefit of banked ferry miles through B.C. consumers. There's a whole host of different initiatives that we're attempting to put in place so that we can provide the best service possible for British Columbians.
I. Chong: One of the last queries that I have with regard to the financials, as
I was reviewing them
[2050]
I know that B.C. Ferries provides free passage, as part of the province's social programs, for school children travelling
[ Page 12863 ]
to and from school and also for B.C.-resident seniors from Monday to Thursday, and I understand that those have not changed. I think that the costs that were determined to be associated with that were to the tune of $7 million or thereabouts and that there was actually a shortfall in the province's funding that, or providing a subsidy towards that. I'm wondering whether the minister is looking at establishing a provincial subsidy to cover those costs, or whether he is going to continue to allow it to be a set amount. The shortfall of the subsidy ends up being a part of corporate services, which ends up being allocated to all the routes, etc.
Hon. G. Wilson: The '98-99 figure, which will be new to the member, is actually $10 million. There was no attribution of subsidy, or on highway equivalence to any one particular program. That money is not earmarked or tied to any one particular program.
I. Chong: I thank the minister and the members of his staff who have provided the answers. I'm going to conclude my questioning; I know the critic has a few more to ask.
I just wanted to leave the minister with the comments made in the '96-97 annual report, where there was a comment on page 29. It says: "In 1997-98, we estimate that we will be able to reduce our operating deficit to $10.4 million on forecasted revenues of $386 million, and to eliminate that deficit entirely by fiscal '98-99." So I'll be very keen on seeing the 1998-99 fiscals that will be out shortly.
Hon. G. Wilson: I always like to see optimistic people, and I too will look forward to the financial report of next year.
D. Symons: We are all optimistic tonight, I hope, and we all look forward to next year and to seeing how things are following the plan.
Just speaking of the plan, if we go back to the construction -- building the assembly shed in North Vancouver -- I gather that there were some problems when fast ferry No. 1 was being removed from the building with the ferry going out through the opening of the doors. At least -- I wasn't there when this took place -- I was told that part of the front end of the building had to be removed to do that. Was that also true with ferry No. 2, or are these just rumours going about? If so, what was the cost of that particular process?
Hon. G. Wilson: It was an hour and 45 minutes. It took an hour and 45 minutes to take No. 2 out of the shed and out of the drydock. Nothing had to be removed, and nobody here is aware of having to remove anything else in the first one.
D. Symons: Another one of those pesky rumours that proves to be untrue. An hour and 45 minutes for a ship that size moving out sounds good.
I asked earlier about safety concerns raised in the McMullen report. I don't know whether an answer has come back yet or whether I'll have to wait till staff is available during the working hours of the day.
I'm just wondering if there are any recommendations from the McMullen report that have yet to be completed or have yet to be worked on. If you know the one answer, great. Otherwise, are there any portions of that report that still have to be acted upon?
[2055]
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, we've worked on all parts of the JJMA report, and we've completed some and not others.
With respect to the issues that the member raised around the anchor windlass, that's been thoroughly analyzed by operations staff. The first issue was that the windlass operator was endangered. This was assessed as being incorrect, because the operator stands to the side and is not in any particular danger, and the layout, apparently, is not dissimilar from most fast ferries. The second is the relationship between the ramp station and the anchor winch, and the likelihood, frankly, of the ramp and anchor being deployed simultaneously is so incredibly remote that nobody believes that that's a particular problem. Beyond that, there is some protective shielding that would mitigate against any harm. So those were the two issues, I think.
D. Symons: I gather that at the terminals there's a ramp default system, so that if the ramp deflects too much due to motion of the vessel or those vehicles entering the vessel, basically it stops the ramp. It sends a signal and the ramp raises and it stops the loading process.
I'm wondering: on the fast ferries
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, nobody's anticipating any problems with that. Apparently, the ramp automatically adjusts, and it's not anticipated to be any different on this ship.
D. Symons: The minister made comment earlier about reservations on the fast ferries, and they haven't quite decided the proportion of the space that might be for reservations. I gather that you're also trying to increase the reservation part on remaining ferries as well.
I'm just wondering how much it costs to operate the reservation system that you have and what the revenues are from the $15 fee that's charged for reservations. Can you give me an idea of whether the reservation system is making huge amounts of money for B.C. Ferries? How's it working?
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, what I can give the member is that the cost is $4.50 per
reservation and the revenue is $15 per
D. Symons: That's fine. In some of these, you might want to supply me with the answers at some future date in order to move things along a little bit here.
I notice that the JJMA report was basically sent to the Crown corporations secretariat, so it seemed to be, I guess, initiated through that organization. I noted the beginning of the process when Mr. Bawlf was involved and Mr. Williams was involved. The Crown corporations secretariat was heavily involved then, but we didn't seem to have much activity from the secretariat between the start of the project and now, when things seemed to really go off the rails.
I wonder if you might give me an idea of what the involvement of the Crown corporations secretariat is in the
[ Page 12864 ]
Ferry Corporation and, in particular, its involvement with the fast ferry program. Do they monitor it? What is their process and involvement in this?
Hon. G. Wilson: The member makes a good point. In the early stages, the Crown corporations secretariat was fairly involved in the preparation of the ten-year plan, which brought about the notion of the establishment of the fast ferry program. That's correct. Since I've been minister, the Crown corporations secretariat has been involved predominantly in the JJMA report and the provisions of that and now has a sitting member of the board. Keep in mind that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is a Crown corporation. As minister, I had some concerns with respect to reporting procedures and how they fit within the general scheme of the corporate model that we have here. Their involvement is pretty much defined to that level of interface between government and the corporation.
[2100]
D. Symons: A few minutes ago my fellow member here asked about basically the social programs aspect that you said is now in the $10 million range. Is that money given to B.C. Ferries by the government because these programs are mandated, or is that simply going to be part now of the dedicated fuel tax? Has it, in the past, been part of any subsidy to the Ferry Corporation? Was it a fee paid, or was it simply an expense that the Ferry Corporation carried?
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that we want to be clear that there's
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: Right.
Just to come back to the member's question, '98-99 gross sales, reservations, $1.9 million; 120,000 reservations; cost, $540,000.
D. Symons: If we can look again, for a moment, at the document that you refer to
as a leaked document
Now, I've heard over the years -- in the Highways ministry that I was responsible for critiquing -- that they were making savings in certain areas. Indeed, we've heard for a number of years that the wait-lists in hospitals are going to be reduced. I'm surprised. What I'm going to ask is: how are you going to make these savings? What efficiencies do you have in mind? I guess the following question I'll ask, once you give the answer, is basically: if you can identify those efficiencies now, why weren't they identified earlier and done long ago?
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, that document -- which was the subject of some discussion and debate at the last Coastal Council meeting in Nanaimo on May 3 -- reflects their numbers and their proposals with respect to an inflation-driven rate increase and also their anticipation of where they think savings could come into play. Now, they are participating with the corporation to try and find ways to make savings. So much of what's in there is actually their recommendations on how those savings could be made. We have some ideas on top of that, in terms of the new approach toward the financing of the corporation.
I think we should not underestimate the significant change in direction the corporation is taking, given that we are now financing this corporation -- as an extension of the highway -- with a dedicated portion of fuel tax. The whole conceptual framework within which we deliver service has changed. The idea that we're now going to integrate with transit and those sorts of things -- that's a focal change. We've changed with respect to the route-by-route financing, and we expect we're going to get some kind of user-pay ratio that actually covers the costs of these ferries. All of that has changed.
Now, in planning this -- and I think the member would appreciate that I've only been minister for a short period of time -- we are going to have to find ways to reduce costs, and we're looking at every aspect of the corporation to make those cost savings. I hope to be able to include the member in discussions around both the capital plan, as well as the operating plan, later this year. I'll commit today to make sure that what we come forward with is made available to that member so that the member can scrutinize it. And if that member has some ideas as to how we might do things differently, I'll be happy to hear about them then.
D. Symons: Just one other question regarding the information in that treasury
group's report. That is, they talked in there about interest expense impact, and it's
going to $2.2 million for this financial year, and it rises to, actually, $35.8 million by
2004. I'm curious -- I don't know, and maybe this is a question here that you should be
asking
[2105]
Hon. G. Wilson: It is effectively a benefit, if I could use that word, that you get as a result of having to pay less interest because you have to borrow less money. So as you gradually borrow less money, the amount of interest you pay is gradually reduced, and that's where you benefit.
D. Symons: I don't know how much I want to explore that. You talked about "borrow less money." We have right now a debt that's probably not up to the cap yet, but it's around the $1 billion mark. We have already borrowed a fair amount of money. So are you saying, then, that this is money saved by not borrowing money, because we're going to reduce our rate of borrowing? Therefore you're saying that because we're not borrowing as much, this is where we're making savings. If we keep on going at the same rate, we'll have a really high interest amount; but if we go at a slower rate of borrowing, that's where we're going to make these savings. That's false savings if that's how you're saying you're getting $35 million by 2004.
Hon. G. Wilson: I think this is where one needs to really look at the document
here, because if you look at the document, you'll see that on this chart
[ Page 12865 ]
of the following were done, then you would have to borrow a great deal more money in order to cover those costs. So by doing the following cost-saving measures, you are in fact borrowing less, therefore paying less interest, and therefore there is a net savings.
D. Symons: That answers my question quite thoroughly, actually. It's an interesting bookkeeping concept, I guess.
I want to ask a few specific questions on routes or vessels for a moment. The Queen of Skeena is a newly built ship. It manoeuvres very well, I'm told. You had the question asked earlier about some problems in the engines, but I gather people don't like riding it. It's a vessel that's disliked by the public out there because it's extremely noisy, and they have trouble when they go into the little waiting rooms or passenger compartments because of the noise level in there. They don't feel the waiting places are that comfortable anyway. So I'm just wondering if you might be able to give me an answer as to whether you do something about the noise. The vessel does handle well, and it carries a fair number of vehicles.
Hon. G. Wilson: I must confess that I rode on it recently and didn't find it particularly noisy. But that just might be me, because I'm used to riding on really noisy boats. The vibration issue is an issue that has caused some concern, and I imagine that is the source of some of the noise. That is why we're examining the engines. We hope to have that resolved, and hopefully, people then will find the noise diminished.
D. Symons: I'm wondering if we could take the midcoast service. I do remember
that a few years back, when that was being proposed, there was a private firm that was
offering to put in the service. The Ferry Corporation was considering going out to bids
for $1 million a year operating
I'm also told that last summer, the summer now past
Your numbers on that route are very small. I gather your cost recoveries on there are
somewhere in the
[2110]
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, employees were permitted to use their pass on that route,
primarily so that they could familiarize themselves with it and help promote it. Nobody
was displaced or denied access as a result of those services, so it was generally seen to
be a worthwhile promotion. It is true that the midcoast run is not
We are looking at ways in which we can expand the promotion of it. We are currently in discussions with B.C. Rail, as the member may know, with respect to rail and ferry service in the north, on the larger circle route. We're looking at doing something on the smaller portion. I was just at the Premier's economic summit up in the Cariboo, and the people from that region attended in significant numbers. We came up with some excellent ideas for cross-promotional work, and I think people will benefit from the commitment we've made to make sure that that service is maintained.
D. Symons: I'm gradually going toward the end here. Relating to the captain's
prerogative, I guess they have
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm told that no B.C. Ferries captain has been disciplined for not taking the vessel out, and nor have they married anybody.
D. Symons: Good. I'm pleased to hear that answer, because I think the person that has to make the decision is the guy who's driving the boat. I suppose the ferry captains would not prefer me to call it "driving a boat," for that would be an insult to them, but I didn't mean it in those terms at all.
A few very quick questions left here. Dealing with the attempt of B.C. Ferries a year ago, or more than a year ago now, to find prospective buyers for the fast ferry program. They offered plan A or plan B -- Plan A being to buy the three fast ferries with a lease-back arrangement, and Plan B being that you get the three fast ferries along with the right to build a few more of the ferries that B.C. Ferries wanted to build. It seemed to drag on well past the date when these RFPs had come in. The answer was going to be given to these proponents. It dragged on so much that I think the Washington Group sort of got out there in the press, saying that it's hard dealing with this government, and they walked away from the process. Can the minister tell me whether he is still actively looking for purchasers of either the fast ferry program or purchasing it in a purchase-lease arrangement for other ferries in the Ferry Corporation's stable of ships?
Hon. G. Wilson: As I think I mentioned earlier, CFI has a new board. They are positioning the company now, while the original plan A-plan B strategy is not in itself alive, to use the member's word.
[2115]
Certainly the expression of interest is very real out there, and we are positioning ourselves to take advantage of those expressions of interest. I would say -- contrary to the member's assertion -- that Mr. Washington has had a hard time dealing with the B.C. government. I'd say he's done extremely well dealing with the B.C. Ferry Corporation.
[ Page 12866 ]
D. Symons: It just shows that maybe you can't always believe what you read in the media. Some comments were made at that time of some frustration in dealing with the Ferry Corporation, I believe.
Just reading from the Vancouver Sun on December 8, 1998, the previous predecessor in your position confirmed that "there is a 'chance' that Swedish-based Stena Lines will sign a contract to purchase two of the made-in-B.C. vessels." He's talking about the fast ferry program. He said -- and this is the part I want you to note: "I would also guess there's a good chance they'll be sold at less than what they cost."
So I'm curious, then, how we, as the public and basically the owners of the Ferry Corporation, can be absolutely sure that if you're going to sell off the fast ferry program, we're going to get back the money that's been invested in the fast ferry program in that sale. Are we going to sell it at a cut-rate price, but then pay back that difference over the years in high lease costs? If you can sell them off totally, and they're off and gone, and we put in some other ships on that route, I'd say: "Go for it." But I'm concerned that if we do a sale-leaseback in the long run, it'll look good in the front end, because you'll pack a lot of money to pay down the debt. In the long run, I've got a hunch that the people of B.C. are going to pay a lot more.
Hon. G. Wilson: I don't want to take ownership of the Vancouver Sun's reporting of a former minister's comments. But I do want to tell you that we would not enter into any agreement that was not in the long-term and short-term interest of the corporation -- short-term interest, financially, for the corporation and long-term interest for the people of British Columbia.
There are two things that I think should be on the record. One is that we have made a significant investment in the shipbuilding industry. We do not intend to forfeit that investment through any kind of privatized plan. Secondly, we believe that there is real opportunity for CFI to be a long-term producing corporation in this province.
D. Symons: Just a very few more now. In this process of possibly a sale-leaseback arrangement, I would hope, if you're going to do that, that the leaseback will leave the maintenance and repairs and all those things to the owner rather than to the leaseholder. Is that in the plans in the discussions that have been going on? How have the maintenance and repairs been put into that bid process?
Hon. G. Wilson: I can advise the member that there is no negotiation in place right now. It would be really inappropriate for me to set out terms and conditions of what we would or wouldn't expect in the lease arrangements here. That obviously tips our hand to any prospective private sector person who is interested. But the member should be assured that the corporation is not going to enter into any contract that would put us into a liability situation with respect to the operation of the vessel.
D. Symons: Yes, we'll be watching that carefully. I hope everything will be done in a wide-open manner, so we'll be able to know exactly what we're selling and what it's worth.
Have you determined at this stage -- at least, looking at it; it may not be perfect yet -- the book value for the fast ferries -- the starting point you're going to have before you start devaluating them? I gather you're going to have to amortize them over a period of time. So you'll be starting with what book value?
[2120]
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is no. That hasn't been determined yet, but that will be in the financial statements when they're released.
D. Symons: I'll run two questions together. There has been talk of premium fares on the fast ferries. I gather that while that's only in conjunction with the current ferries, that won't happen. But when the three fast ferries are in operation and the only ferries on that route, will there be premium fares charged? Will they be like it's being considered on some of the other routes now -- that besides the premium fares, you may indeed have a fare structure during the day, so that peak hours will have higher fares than others? Is it planned that something of that sort will be in the operation of the fast ferries as well?
Hon. G. Wilson: All of those are under discussion. We're analyzing the situation carefully. There has been no decision taken on premium fares, except to say that when the vessel goes into service on July 1, it will not go on a premium fare basis.
D. Symons: I have just one last question on the fast ferries. On the trip I took
on the ferry, you know, it ran smoothly. It was a beautiful glass-like sea, so it was a
beautiful day for going out on the ferry. The one thing I did notice, which I'd like to
draw to the minister's attention, is that if you are on the lower car deck at the aft end
of the ship, the noise is quite loud -- very loud, as a matter of fact. It's a place you
don't stay, actually, when it's going. I assume you won't be having people
Hon. G. Wilson: The regulations require that all people be removed from the car
D. Symons: It seems the wrong question to ask somebody involved in operating the Ferry Corporation, but questions have been asked. I think Pat McGeer, a number of years ago, suggested a fixed link between Vancouver and the Island. I'm just wondering whether, through the Ferry Corporation or through the government, there really have been any serious discussions on looking at that and costing that out as an alternative to operating a ferry system.
Hon. G. Wilson: No.
I understand that concludes the B.C. Ferries portion. I thank the critic and the members of the opposition for their questions. I think that they were thoughtful questions, and I hope that the answers given were useful.
I would now move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:24 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada