Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 31, 1999

Volume 15, Number 14

[ Page 12943 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

I. Chong: Today I would like to pay tribute in this assembly to a former constituent of mine. Mark Scott was a resident of Oak Bay, and he was known in this local community for his sense of community responsibility. To that end, he actively participated in many local organizations. He volunteered and served on many boards and commissions, and he basically did a majority of the local fundraising for the social services that we need in this community. Mark Scott passed away on Friday while on a much-deserved vacation. I know the community of Oak Bay-Gordon Head will dearly miss him, as will the greater Victoria area. I would ask you, hon. Speaker, to send a letter to his wife and family on our behalf and express our condolences.

[1410]

The Speaker: Thank you, members. I'd be happy to do that on your behalf.

J. Weisgerber: In the precinct today is a group from Portland State University. They are a public administration grad class, and they are here to examine and understand better the workings of their neighbours in British Columbia. Please don't disappoint them in question period.

C. Hansen: In the gallery this afternoon are two very good friends of my constituency assistant who are visiting from London, England. They are Nilakshi Banerjee and Tom Stacey. Will the House please make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the building today we have a group of young people visiting from St. Joseph's School in Smithers. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

ACCESS FOR SMALL CONTRACTORS TO HIGHWAYS WORK

Hon. H. Lali: In answer to the question from the hon. member on the HCL local-hire model for Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies, this is a small contract that's been let out. It's just the beginning. There'll be more contracts coming up in the future. As we ramp down the spending on the Vancouver Island Highway, we'll be increasing the spending on projects on Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. There'll be ample work available for anybody within a 100-kilometre radius of contracts that are let on Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. I also want to point out that 92 percent of the workers on the Vancouver Island Highway project were from within the local areas of the Vancouver Island Highway.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: The minister's words will be cold comfort to Lindsay Blackburn and his non-union crew in Salmon Arm. Mr. Blackburn has been providing service out of Salmon Arm to the Ministry of Highways for about 30 years. The minister's HCL office called the other day and told him that they would hire one piece of his equipment, but they wouldn't hire any of his workers. Will the Minister of Transportation and Highways tell Lindsay Blackburn why, after 30 years of local service, the ministry will hire his equipment but they won't hire his local workers?

[1415]

Hon. H. Lali: I wish the hon. member across the way would quit misleading the public. He knows full well that both union and non-union contractors are eligible to participate in HCL projects. I also want to point out that on the Vancouver Island Highway, 60 percent of the contracts were awarded to non-union firms, and 50 percent of the workers hired had previous union membership.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member across the way knows full well that local hire means that people from the local areas would be hired. What are the hon. member and the Liberal Party across the way saying -- that we should be hiring Alberta firms and Alberta workers to work on B.C. projects?

R. Thorpe: Jim Zappone and his brother had been contractors in the Salmon Arm area for 35 years, employing up to 28 people. Jim used to have seniority on the ministry's hired-equipment list, but now, thanks to the NDP's discriminatory HCL list, Mr. Zapponi has been bumped to the back of the list because he's non-union. Will the minister tell Jim Zapponi why he and his Salmon Arm workers are being shut out of work on this highway upgrade?

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member across the way knows full well that all those workers who want a job in those local areas have to do is apply with HCL, because HCL is the employer. The hon. member knows that, and for the hon. member to play politics with these very important issues. . . . He also knows full well that we have equity hiring on HCL projects. For the first time, you've got people from visible minority groups -- people with disabilities, people from aboriginal groups, as well as women -- who for the first time are getting work on HCL projects -- which was not there before.

[ Page 12944 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I would like to ask the hon. member: what's the hon. member saying -- that we should have no HCL and have people from Alberta coming to work on HCL projects?

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: Thirty contractors and more than 150 local residents recently met in Salmon Arm to protest the NDP's discriminatory HCL policy. This policy is hurting local contractors, local employees and taxpayers. Will the minister explain why he is soaking B.C. taxpayers for millions more in higher costs for his discriminatory HCL policy?

Hon. H. Lali: I also want to point out to the hon. member across the way that there were 17 HCL contracts for day labour and equipment in the Sicamous-Revelstoke area. And of those that were dispatched, half were to non-union firms.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member across the way also knows full well that HCL is discriminatory against Alberta workers and in favour of local workers from British Columbia.

A. Sanders: A month ago this minister told us that HCL was going to help our local contractors. Now we see that. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

A. Sanders: . . .in fact he's given them the bum's rush. He's in fact driving independent contractors out of business. To the Highways minister: why is the minister intent on imposing policy that discriminates against local contractors? Why is he intent on implementing job-killing plans? And will he stand today and tell the people in my area that he will scrap this ridiculous policy?

Hon. H. Lali: When that party there sat in this House as government, when they were under the name of the Social Credit Party, they discriminated against workers who were from a visible-minority background. It was those people who in 1992, when we introduced equity legislation in this House, voted to a person against equity hiring and equity provisions -- those people across the way. And when those people sat as Socreds, they discriminated against aboriginal hire, and they also discriminated against women getting jobs on these kinds of projects.

[1420]

Hon. H. Lali: It's high time they recognized. . .

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: . . .that people from all of these ethnic backgrounds. . .

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: . . .deserve jobs on these projects as much as anybody else.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: The only discriminating going on is by the Highways minister against independent contractors in my area.

This government bragged about its support for small business, and it's precisely small business that's being affected by this particular policy. These are the ones being shut out by government's discriminatory action towards them. All these contractors want is an opportunity to have. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

A. Sanders: . . .government contracts on an equal basis.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. It's difficult to hear the question with all the noise.

A. Sanders: To the Minister of Highways: for the benefit of people in the areas we've been talking about, could you please tell us why you are so intent. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

A. Sanders: . . .on bringing in policy that puts small business people out of business? Why are you intent on. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. member.

A. Sanders: . . .taking away their jobs? And could you please tell those people. . . ?

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. member.

A. Sanders: Could you please tell those people, hon. Chair. . . ?

The Speaker: Hon. member, through the Chair. All I heard was "you." Through the Chair, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We need to hear the question.

[ Page 12945 ]

Hon. H. Lali: It may be news to the B.C. Liberals, but family-supporting wages are not a bargaining chip in this bidding process. If the hon. member and any one of the Liberals across the way. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. H. Lali: If the hon. member who just asked the question and any one of the Liberals would like, we can arrange a private briefing for these hon. members, because they sure don't understand HCL. I say shame on the Liberals, who are again advocating for Alberta workers to be working on B.C. projects. Any contractor, no matter where they are in Canada, is allowed to bid on these projects, and the hon. member should know that.

I think the hon. member should also know that for the first time, we've got people working on Highways projects under the HCL model who are from within British Columbia; 92 percent of the workers on the Island Highway project were from Vancouver Island. If they had bothered to check, all municipalities on Vancouver Island supported the Vancouver Island Highway project with this local-hire provision.

S. Hawkins: If this minister had the guts, he'd go to Sicamous, he'd meet with those private contractors, and he'd listen to their concerns. But he hasn't done that. This minister knows -- and he should know -- that it's only getting worse and worse for contractors who won't toe the NDP line.

Now we hear that the twinning of the John Hart Bridge in Prince George. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

S. Hawkins: . . .will also be done only by HCL. That is shameful. Will the Minister of Highways tell local contractors in Prince George, whose workers don't belong to the right union or don't belong to any union at all, whether or not they too will be consigned to the bottom of the list?

Hon. H. Lali: If that hon. member has any guts, I'd like her to go to Prince George and tell the people of Prince George that they should not have local hire on the John Hart Bridge. If that hon. member has any guts or if any one of those Liberals has any guts, I want them to go out to any one of the communities on the Vancouver Island Highway project and tell those people that they don't deserve to work on the Vancouver Island Highway project.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1425]

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

S. Hawkins: It is local workers and local contractors that are affected here. Why doesn't it get through this minister's head? It's unbelievable. Who do you think is meeting with us? It's not people from Alberta who are coming and meeting with us. It's people from our local communities that we're talking about.

Now we see that the Minister of Highways is quoted as saying that local hire and equity hire will be the priority in the Aspen Grove-Merritt upgrade of the Coquihalla. This sounds an awful lot like HCL all over again. I want to know if this minister will be honest enough with the local contractors in his own area who don't belong to the right union -- whether he'll tell them that they're out of luck and they'll soon be out of work.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. H. Lali: On this side of the House, we're. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. H. Lali: . . .proud of the fact that we've got equity hire as a part of the provisions of HCL.

I want that hon. member who just asked the questions to go to any community where there are Indo-Canadians and tell those Indo-Canadians that they should not be allowed to work on these kinds of projects. I'd like that hon. member to say that, or to go to the aboriginal communities and say that they should not be allowed to work on HCL projects, because that party over there, across the way. . . . We know that they discriminate against aboriginal people and ethnic minorities. We know that, because they voted against the equity legislation that this government brought in, in 1992. To a person, they voted against it.

M. de Jong: Only this minister could take this House to new lows, as we've just seen.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Interjections.

[ Page 12946 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the members on the government side please come to order.

M. de Jong: This is not about local hire, Madam Speaker. This is about a government that is so desperate to shore up disappearing support amongst the one constituency that they think they might be able to buy off. It's not even about joining a union; it's about joining the right union.

Why doesn't the minister stand up today, cut the charade, cut the games and admit to British Columbians that this is a desperate attempt by an NDP government to do a favour for the big unions and, in the process, kill the small business people that have put this province on the map in the first place?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. H. Lali: If the member wants to talk about lows, he still hasn't apologized for the slanderous comments he made to Herb Dhaliwal. He still hasn't done that. We're still waiting for him to apologize.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, members. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: Speaking of lows. . .

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: . . .this Liberal Party still hasn't paid back the $800,000. . .

The Speaker: Minister, on the question.

Hon. H. Lali: . . .they owe to the B.C. taxpayers -- the money they stole for their partisan advertisement.

The Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Highways will come to order. On the question.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, if the hon. member across the way wants to talk about charades, the charade that he had when he went to India in order to tell his local Indo-Canadian supporters that he went to the Anandpur celebrations. . .

The Speaker: The minister will take his seat.

Hon. H. Lali: . . .when he wasn't even there on the 12th -- the day the international dignitaries were invited to. . . .

[1430]

The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All members, come to order.

The Chair is happy to entertain any debate that is to happen on the floor, but one needs to stand up and be recognized.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE
(continued)

R. Coleman: I understand that right now we're going to spend a few minutes on BCBC. First of all, before I get into BCBC in any length. . . . I've been dealing with this corporation for three years, and I've had a good working relationship with this particular company as a Crown corporation. So today I don't want to spend a great deal of time on its business plans or what have you, because I've been briefed over the last year on a regular basis relative to the business plans and the operation of the corporation. I do have some concerns about the corporation, though, and I'd like to bring them to the minister's attention.

In 1997-98, this corporation paid a $20 million dividend to government, and in 1998-99 it was able to pay a $2 million dividend to government. It's now being asked, in 1999-2000, to provide a targeted dividend of $246 million. I have some concerns about that. If I look at the balance sheet of the corporation, the real estate assets and investments of the corporation actually total about $977 million, and the liabilities of the corporation are about $800 million. The retained earnings are $186 million, and the contributed surpluses to the corporation are $52 million. I'm concerned, hon. minister, frankly, about where the $246 million that is targeted as a dividend is going to come from.

[1435]

[ Page 12947 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Thanks, hon. member, for your question and your comments about the corporation. I know you have been the critic and know well of the corporation and speak well of it, as I do. It's a very well-run corporation.

It's going to be a challenge. We'll have to see how the year unfolds, in terms of our ability to meet the target set by the Ministry of Finance. As you know, in some years Crowns exceed those expectations, and in others they fall short of them. We'll just have to watch what happens through the course of the year. But we're working on a plan, and we'll see how it unfolds.

R. Coleman: Maybe, just as we look at that, you know. . . . If we have a corporation that doesn't have $246 million in net assets, I have a couple of questions. First of all, are the real estate assets of the corporation devalued from what their true market value is? And what is their true market value, if that is the case? And if that isn't the case, have we taken into account in your calculations for the 1999-2000 year -- when we start to, obviously, sell off some of these assets to get some money -- the drop in the real estate market that's taken place, particularly in the commercial sector, in the last 14 to 16 months?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yeah, it's a book value, not a market value. Obviously as market conditions change and/or improve, the extent of the realization to the capital gains can be enhanced.

R. Coleman: Does the corporation today have, then, a sense of what the market value of its assets is?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, $1.5 billion.

R. Coleman: And that $1.5 billion which is in the asset value. . . . Do we include in there the value of B.C. Place Stadium or any other non-performing assets? How much in non-performing assets do we have in that $1.5 billion?

Hon. M. Sihota: I was just checking this question with staff, because it wasn't clear from your answer. . . . First of all, B.C. Place is not included; I'm aware of that. But if by non-performing asset you mean land, then yes, there are landholdings within the portfolio of BCBC. In that context the answer is that there would be some non-performing assets, and I'm referring there to land.

R. Coleman: Maybe the question should be rephrased then -- rather than non-performing assets, non-marketable assets. We do have assets within the corporation that, frankly, are not that marketable because of their revenue stream and the uses of the properties throughout the province. If they're included in the $1.5 billion. . . . I'd like to get a sense of the value of those types of assets that are in that $1.5 billion.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I would say that it's all marketable. There are going to be some assets which the private sector may not want to acquire -- like a jail. But even with that, we're seeing in other jurisdictions that those are marketable and have been marketed in other jurisdictions. No, they're all marketable.

R. Coleman: The plan for BCBC, currently, is to look at the process of reviewing its portfolio and to prepare a plan for the disposal of properties. It has always concerned me that you dispose of assets -- assets that have been acquired at a lower value and that have a value to the taxpayer -- in order to meet something such as a dividend target. That could be short-term thinking. If the corporation managed to give us a $2 million dividend in the year 1998-99 -- when we were actually moving out a lot of government assets, because we were having. . . . I don't know if the minister's aware -- but I'm sure that he is -- that if a ministry decides to shut down an office, within six months BCBC gets the asset back and has to find a new tenant, whether it be in the marketplace or within government. During that period of time, they still managed to turn a $2 million dividend to government.

My concern is that we're going to either borrow $246 million against the asset stream or dispose of our better-performing assets in order to achieve the maximum return on the money and to pay this $246 million dividend. In so doing, we'll actually hamstring the corporation for its future, either for a higher debt load -- which at $246 million would be somewhere around $18 million worth of interest, even at today's interest rates, and which, if you look at the revenue stream of the corporation, could be very damaging to its long-term future. . . . If you devolve yourself of the performing assets and end up with a non-performing asset, you put the corporation in a worse position than actually borrowing the funds, because you have no revenue stream coming in.

I'm just wondering what the minister's discussions have been with the corporation in that regard.

[1440]

Actually, the discussion has been similar to what the member has raised. These are concerns that all members should have. BCBC is a Crown that one would not want to jeopardize, in terms of its viability -- and not to undermine the quality and the level of services that it provides, both from a fiscal point of view and otherwise. Clearly, in trying to meet these objectives, we're going to have to juggle all of those considerations and arrive at a determination. But I think the underlying tenor of what the member is saying about maintaining the integrity of the corporation is one that is shared by this side of the House and obviously with the members opposite.

R. Coleman: I don't think that the minister is in a position to go back to the Ministry of Finance and stand up for the long-term health of this corporation, rather than to basically suck $240 million out of it in a short period of time -- which would be a short-term objective for long-term damage to the corporation.

Hon. M. Sihota: Obviously all the ministers have a collegial and positive working relationship. Sometimes, if targets cannot be met or objectives secured, we have a dialogue about that. At the same time, we set targets for ourselves that we challenge the public administration system in the province to try to meet. I've never been reluctant to go back and talk to a minister -- a colleague -- when we're not able to achieve our objectives. At the same time, you know, you always want to go and talk to a member when you are exceeding your targets. But we're going to try to do this in a somewhat thoughtful,

[ Page 12948 ]

R. Coleman: The corporation has a number of objectives in its business priorities. The objectives lead towards reducing costs of occupancy to government. I'm just wondering if the corporation could answer -- through the minister -- on the number of objectives it has in its corporate business priorities for 1999-2000. Were these corporate business priorities put in place prior to the requirement for the $246 million dividend? And if that's the case, how does that dividend now affect the ability of the corporation to meet the priority goals, such the million dollars towards the corporate goal of reducing accommodation costs for government by $30 million? Also, the cost of how they are going to get their base lines and achieve the other cost reductions that they've outlined in those priorities if they're going to be spending their time on the dividend pay-out. . . . I'm just wondering how the corporation itself feels about those priorities today compared to what the priorities were prior to the Ministry of Finance's budget wanting to have the dividend.

Hon. M. Sihota: The parameters that the member referred to at the outset of his question were developed before the new instructions from Treasury Board. So they predate those instructions. Obviously they'll have to be amended to take into account the new objectives that the government has laid out. At the same time, there's a million dollars' worth of savings -- relatively modest -- that were referred to. Over the last three years I think there was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $39 million worth of savings that had been returned to the taxpayer -- again, evidence of a very well run Crown. So yes, they predate. Yes, there will have to be amendments as we move through. No, we're not going to undermine the integrity of the corporation.

[1445]

The other thing is that the corporation has a relationship to Victoria through the Victoria accord, and I'm just wondering how the Victoria accord, which began a number of years ago. . . . It was a ten-year plan, with a $200 million cap, for a development program in the Victoria area. I'm just wondering how this reduction in dividend is going to affect the time frame of that accord or whether it has any effect on the Victoria accord's business plan.

Hon. M. Sihota: The Victoria accord was a plan that was predicated on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have been altered in the sense that the civil service is not growing at the rate that the accord envisioned. There have been reductions in the size of government, and as a consequence -- as I said at the outset, plans constantly change -- part of the evolutionary process here has meant that we've had to revisit some of the assumptions that we made then.

We have to go back to the city. . . . We are indeed in discussions with the city about elements of the accord. There are certain lots -- properties, for example -- that we have here in these precincts, which may not be developed as fast. They may indeed be surplus and hence available for disposition. They may be more eligible for public-private partnerships than one had originally envisioned under the terms of the accord. So I would say that it's an evolving process, because the market impacts on so many of these variables as you work your way through a document like the accord.

R. Coleman: Maybe the minister could just give a sense to the House, then, of what percentage of the accord has been completed and how much of it is outstanding.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think that's a fair question. I think it's more fair to point out the fact that the dynamics in the market have changed a fair bit, and I think government's desire in terms of proceeding in as vigorous a fashion have also been impacted because of what has happened in the market and also because the decision to downscale part of it. Given those determinations, there are, however, still things that we'd like to do with the city here in Victoria.

We obviously have some work to do, and we are indeed in dialogue with the city on what we do with Belleville Street properties, for example. I think that was part of the initial plan. There has been some ongoing dialogue about Ship's Point -- a very controversial piece of property with quite a notorious history here in Victoria -- and we will continue to try to work out something there. So to some extent, I guess, in that regard, there is ongoing work. Other Crowns may also have an interest in some of these properties for their own needs.

Generally speaking, I would say that I wouldn't want to quantify whether we're at a two out of ten or a five out of ten on the accord. I think it's fair to say that a lot of the underlying assumptions have changed, and I don't foresee us moving in a way that would. . . .

The other point I'd make to the hon. member is that I am worried a little bit about the impact on the private sector market. Obviously we have people in the private sector who've made investments in building stock here in the greater Victoria area, and I do worry about the impact of an aggressive public construction program on private sector holdings. I mean, I think it's only fair to expect people to make a reasonable rate of return on what they have, and if we were to withdraw space from the marketplace, I'm not sure that that would be the best in terms of building relations between the province and the local business community.

[1450]

I was reading some old documents last night, and I came across this. This is why I asked the question about B.C. Place Stadium earlier. At one time, it appeared that this was actually booked on the books of BCBC as an asset at approximately $150 million net of depreciation and that it was being run by the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. Could the minister tell me -- or could BCBC tell me -- where the asset is now booked as an asset?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's with the B.C. Pavilion Corporation.

[ Page 12949 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to thank the hon. member for those points, and I want to comfort him in this sense: we're not out to sell off the silverware. We're not going to do that. I want him to understand that the very concerns that he's mindful of are the ones that I'm mindful of, so we're not going to do anything that is simply, in my view, short-term gain that undercuts what we have here. It's a very well-run corporation.

Vote 54 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

[1455]

The past year was a busy one in the Highways portfolio and for me personally as well. I was lucky to have several opportunities to get out of Victoria and into several of the regions to talk to people about transportation. From Fort St. John and the Peace River country up in the north, through the interior and the East and West Kootenays and also on Vancouver Island and in the Vancouver suburbs, I was constantly impressed at the knowledge that British Columbians have about transportation issues. The citizens of this province are very much aware of the role that transportation must play in any government plan to create jobs, stimulate business and support communities.

During the coming year, the BCTFA and the ministry will take on a very ambitious program of highway improvements, offering benefits to all regions. The BCTFA will invest $490 million in a highways capital program this year. That's about $110 million more than last year. Much of that will go to rehabilitate and upgrade secondary roads and secondary highways. Our intention is to support the diversification of regional economies -- oil and gas in the Peace, agrifood in the interior, tourism and service industries across the province.

[1500]

In northern B.C., we are in the second year of a northern roads initiative. We doubled our capital investment in the north in 1998, and we plan to provide another slight increase in the coming year. This is a program that supports side roads and secondary roads around the north, as well as our major highways such as Highway 16 and Highway 97.

One special highlight for the north is the launch of the seven-year program to upgrade the Nisga'a Highway. In the Kootenays, I would single out our plan to construct the new Kootenay Lake ferry in the Nelson area. This has been welcomed as very good news by all interested in that community. Our long-term focus in the interior is on the Trans-Canada Highway corridor from Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies, and we are making a number of significant improvements this year. We are in the first stages of developing a long-term investment plan for that particular corridor, but it will be a few months before I can offer details.

In the lower mainland, we have recently launched several high-profile projects. I recently had the pleasure of signing a contract to begin the rehabilitation of the Lions Gate Bridge. We will also begin work on new interchanges in Surrey and Langley; these are two innovative partnership projects of the BCTFA, which will utilize proceeds from land sales to reduce costs to taxpayers. Work on the design of a new airport connector is moving ahead in partnership between the BCTFA and YVR -- the Vancouver Airport. We will soon begin seismic upgrading on the Port Mann Bridge, and we'll add a fifth lane to the bridge starting this fall.

This summer, we will start work to provide improved access to the Trans-Canada Highway at the Cape Horn interchange, just west of the bridge. The Vancouver Island Highway will be the scene of very intense activity over the summer, with a new section from Mud Bay to Courtenay opening in the fall. Construction work on the new fully four-lane, Courtenay-to-Campbell-River section is already underway.

Along with the highways, we continue to plan for the future. Corridor and area studies are ongoing along Highway 97 from Cache Creek to Mackenzie, in the central Okanagan on Highway 11 and along the Trans-Canada Highway corridor in greater Vancouver. The past year has seen the growth of an increasing number of partnerships with local governments and the private sector. The BCTFA has joint investments with Surrey, Mission and Castlegar on highway interchanges, while my ministry has partnerships with towns such as Quesnel and Vanderhoof to address local traffic issues and highway access issues in a phased and cost-effective way.

Starting this year we have a new partner in the lower mainland -- the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, the GVTA -- which will now be responsible for more than 700 kilometres of former provincial highways, for three bridges and also for the Albion ferry. The GVTA is now developing its long-term strategy for greater Vancouver, and I am confident that its regional perspective will help resolve many of the key transportation issues in our largest urban area. It is important to note that the province continues to retain responsibility for the provincial highway network in the lower mainland.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates that it will invest $312 million this year in payments to mainte-

[ Page 12950 ]

[1505]

Before I turn the floor over to my hon. critic, I'd like to introduce staff. To my left is Blair Redlin, who's the deputy minister and also president and CEO of BCTFA. Sharon Moysey is the executive director of management services. David Marr. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: Okay, he's actually up in the gallery; he'll join us later. He's the executive director of evaluation and monitoring. Frank Blasetti, to my right, is the senior vice-president of project development. Also, John Doyle is up in the gallery; he's the director of communications and will be joining us later.

D. Symons: One thing that the minister and I will agree on is the importance of highways in the province of British Columbia. That is something that I think we can all agree upon. It provides for our commerce in the province and provides for the comfort of people and the enjoyment of the roads, and we must look after the infrastructure.

I guess there are a few things that have happened, though, over the years, in the way that the highways have been treated that I'd like to discuss first before we lead into the actual questions. Back in what I'll refer to as the good old days of W.A.C. Bennett and the growth of the province during the postwar years, our highways saw phenomenal growth. That was what really opened up the province of British Columbia to much of the success we've had financially since that time. However, they had an advantage at that time that we don't have, and that was that the growth in the province was quite phenomenal, and the money was there to do much of what they did at that time. We have seen not-so-good times in the last few years, and certainly that has put more constraints on our ability to emulate what was done back in the fifties and sixties in this province.

Something else we've seen, though, that's taken place over that time, as well, is the way that we fund the roads that we're building in the province. During the years I referred to a moment ago, and up until the election of this particular government, all the highways capital projects and expenses for highways were paid out of that year's allotment to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It was all budgeted for in the budget books. It all came out of the consolidated revenue fund, and we accounted for it under that particular accounting procedure -- in the Legislature in questions, and for keeping the books.

What we did see happen in '93, I believe, was the introduction of a bill -- the Build BC Act -- that had a portion in it that set up an organization called the TFA, as referred to by the minister earlier -- the Transportation Financing Authority. Basically what the Transportation Financing Authority allowed the government to do was to take capital projects -- and, as we've seen more recently, other projects -- and move them off the ledger of the usual ministry expenses and put them into a Crown corporation and really debt-finance much of the highways work in the province of British Columbia.

So what we've seen happen over the years since the introduction of the Transportation Financing Authority -- through '94 and '95 and up until this year, '99 -- is more and more of the expenses of the Highways ministry move from an expense of the ministry over to a debt financing in the Transportation Financing Authority. This year it's roughly a 50-50 split between the ministry and the Transportation Financing Authority in the moneys being spent on highways, used for highways, in the province of British Columbia.

Now, that may seem good, but I think. . . . I will say in defence of what was done that there are situations where you do need long-term financing. You have to have a reasonable degree of certainty for a project such as the Island Highway, which is ongoing, can't be built in a year or two, has to be built over a period of years. You do need the certainty that the funding will be there. Under the old system, basically, it was whatever the Minister of Finance of that particular year felt could be allocated out of the overall expense of the province for the Highways ministry, and then they had to work with that sum only. Now at least there's a continuing source, through some dedicated funding and other things, to promote or at least to lever money to build the highways that are needed.

But I think what we're getting to is a stage now where the amount of money that has been borrowed over these years is going to create some problems in future years, and we find that the interest that we're going to be paying on that, and the debt we've run up, may produce some problems in years to come. I'll spend some time later on speaking of that. If we look at the role and the mandate of this Transportation Financing Authority, we find that in that act it says: ". . .to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure throughout British Columbia and to do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- that is, the cabinet -- "may authorize." That is a pretty wide mandate, and it's pretty wide open, too, as to what the government can do under the Transportation Financing Authority. Indeed, they've interpreted and acted under that wideness I've just referred to.

[1510]

[ Page 12951 ]

The act also requires that the business plan contain an expenditure proposal. Then it says: ". . .the plan must also include revenue proposals indicating how the expenditures will be funded." The one thing I notice there is that it says "how the expenditures will be funded"; it doesn't necessarily say how the debt is going to be paid down. I'm hoping -- sincerely hoping -- that that was intended in there, even though it's not spelled out that way in the act.

I'd like to start off with a few questions. First I'm asking for some reports. I thought I might do it this way. There are a number of papers I would like to have, if not today, certainly in the next short while. If I could just read off a rather lengthy list of reports, etc., that I'd like to have. . . . And I will -- I see some grimaces over there -- supply them to you in writing later on, if you don't get them. I would like a copy of the BCTFA statement of financial information for the period ending March 31, 1998, and for the fiscal year just ended, at March 31, 1999. Those statements of financial information would be very handy -- also the BCTFA business plan. I gather, from the one I got, that you're doing these annually and updating the business plan then. So the one dated March 31, 1998, and the business plan, if you have it ready, for March 31, 1999. . . . I assume you would have it ready for the coming fiscal year that we're now in.

I would also like, if we can, to have a copy of the BCTFA auditor's report for '98-99. That may not be quite ready yet, but I'm sure it's about time that that auditor's report will be coming out. I would also ask, maybe, in a moment -- you can answer this later: does HCL produce annual reports? I have not seen one if HCL does, but I would like the HCL business plan for April 1, 1998, through to March 31, 1999. And if there are any of those annual reports for HCL, then I assume there would also be an auditor's report for HCL. If we could have those. . . . And I'm wondering: for HCL, are there consolidated balance sheets and that sort of thing done yearly? Maybe you can answer whether those reports are available, and then I will go on to the other questioning.

Hon. H. Lali: I'd like to thank the opposition critic for his comments in his opening remarks. All of the reports that the hon. member mentioned -- I'll have staff forward them to the hon. critic. Also, he asked a question about the HCL financial statement. That's actually consolidated within the BCTFA report, so it's not something that is done separately.

[1515]

The hon. member made a statement about the BCTFA and how it's been set up with long-term financing of the projects under its jurisdiction. I want to point out to the hon. member that the BCTFA is required by law, under the Build BC Act, to be financially sustainable, which means that BCTFA must have a revenue plan to match the expenditures. BCTFA structures its debt portfolio such that borrowings will be fully repaid at the end of an asset's useful life.

As far as his comments about supporting Highways spending, the auditor general actually does not support Highways spending or spending on other long-service infrastructure being expensed as incurred. As a result, the province is capitalizing these assets.

During slower economic times it's precisely the time to actually make greater investments to kick-start the economy, such as we are doing this year. BCTFA is spending $490 million on capital projects to help jump-start the economy in all regions of the province. Three of the regions -- the Kootenays, the north and the interior -- have seen a marked increased in spending over the last couple of years, especially in and around those communities that have been hard hit by the downturn in the forestry sector due to the Asian financial crisis.

All BCTFA data is fully consolidated within government's financial management plan and reviewed annually. Highways, our fiscal assets. . . . One can define the useful life of a highway using debt financing. It's consistent with other assets like buildings, transit, schools, etc.

P. Calendino: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

P. Calendino: I see in the gallery a good friend, a former president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation and a fellow teacher at North Delta Secondary School. She is here with a number of students, I believe, observing this wonderful debate and learning how the parliamentary process works in B.C. I would ask the members to make them all welcome. She's Alice McQuade, former president of the B.C. Teachers Federation.

D. Symons: I would add my welcome to Alice McQuade. I was involved with the BCTF annual general meetings and frequently would see her doing her work -- very well -- at the federation.

Just carrying on now, I wonder if the minister might give me a feeling for any changes in the management structure that have taken place in the TFA over the last year -- any organizational changes or personnel changes of significance that might have taken place.

Hon. H. Lali: We've completed an efficiency review and actually removed one of the vice-presidents' positions from the BCTFA. Doug Hibbins, who was the senior vice-president, has gone outside of the TFA. He's replaced by Frank Blasetti as the senior vice-president of project development.

D. Symons: I'd like to get the minister's comments straight. He said he'd removed a position and replaced. . .so it means that the one individual now is doing the two jobs. Or have you kept the same number of people involved, then?

Hon. H. Lali: We have one less person working with us now. The workload of that position is spread over the other three.

[1520]

Hon. H. Lali: Doug Hibbins left voluntarily. There was no severance. He's in the private sector now.

[ Page 12952 ]

I wonder if you might be able to tell me, then, the TFA's accumulated debt as of March 31, 1997, '98 and then up to the last fiscal year, '99. I just want to see how the debt is accumulating, please, over that three-year period.

Hon. H. Lali: Before I answer the question on the debt, I want to go back to the previous question. I just want to clarify something. Mr. Doug Hibbins was an excellent public servant. He had been in the public sector in British Columbia for about 20 years. There was no push factor involved in it at all. It was his desire to move on to bigger and better things. That's why he left for the private sector. I know the hon. member across the way knows that. I just want to clarify this for the record. The viewing audience or somebody reading Hansard might get the wrong idea. Mr. Doug Hibbins was an excellent public servant and did a remarkable job on behalf of British Columbians for the 20 years that he was involved in the public sector.

Moving on to the question that the hon. member asked on the debt, for 1998 it was $1,101,323,603; for 1999 it will be $1,437,851,177. We don't have the figures here for '97. As soon as we have them, we'll get them over to the hon. member.

D. Symons: Yes, I have that figure. It's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900 million, I believe.

This year, on March 6, the Transportation Financing Authority announced $490 million of capital earnings, so I guess it would be fair to add the $490 million to the $1.437 billion. I get confused by all the zeros here. But anyway, we've got close, I suspect, now to the $2 billion mark of debt that the Transportation Financing Authority must be holding. I'm wondering if you might be able to give me, then, what you consider the total debt will be at the end of this fiscal year, as an estimate.

Hon. H. Lali: The figure I cited for '99 was the total debt at March 31, 1999 -- $1.437 billion. The other is attached to that. Roughly, the $490 million that the hon. member just mentioned. . . . That figure would be added on, and it would be counted as debt at March 31, 2000.

[1525]

I'm wondering, then, if you might give me an idea. . . . Over those same years. . . . Now, you said that you didn't have '97 before, so I suspect that you will have it for '98-99. How much debt reduction has taken place? You had a debt of roughly $1.101 billion in '98 and $1.4 billion in '99. That debt is going up. But I'm sure, at the same time, that if we have a debt that's sustainable, there's also some money paying off the principal as well. This principal's growing, mind you, but you're paying off some of the principal from previous debts that you've run up. Can you give me an idea of how much money in each of those two years has gone into paying down the debt?

Hon. H. Lali: We have sinking funds that are set up to pay for the projects throughout their life terms, and we fully expect to have those funds to this top level and have those projects paid off. As at March 31, 1998, the figure was $15,617,379. On March 31, 1999, the sinking fund accumulation was $27,461,863.

D. Symons: So far, then, in those two years the sinking fund has grown somewhere in the neighbourhood of $12 million. As our debt is continuing to increase, of course the money that's going into the sinking fund is going to increase as well. So I'm wondering, then, if you can give me an idea of whether indeed the funding stream that we now have is going to manage to take care of the debt. We seem to be collecting a lot of money. We're spending a lot of money. I'm wondering at what point we're going to find that the 3-cents-a-litre gasoline tax, $1.50-a-day car rental levy. . . . How long is it going to be before that isn't going to be able to lever more borrowing? We're in a situation now where I believe we're getting to the stage that we're going to hit a debt ceiling fairly soon if we don't have some further forms of income.

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, starting tomorrow -- June 1, 1999 -- the BCTFA will be getting another 1-cent-a-litre fuel tax, to make it 3 cents. It's not a new tax; it's from the existing revenue that's already there. On the issue of the car levy -- the $1.50 a day -- that will be staying the same. There are no plans to change that.

D. Symons: If we look at the fact that you're really financing the highways out of gasoline tax -- which seems appropriate. . . . The vehicles are paying for the highways, so that part seems appropriate. But if you also look at the fact that supposedly. . . . Earlier I read that thing from the TFA when they sent it up about it not coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. If you take money away from general revenue that was there. . . . We've now seen 3 cents a litre for gasoline. There's 4 cents a litre for the GVTA. There's now 1 cent a litre, going to 11/4 cents a litre, for B.C. Ferries. All that money, then, is coming out of the general revenue and is going to be dedicated. That money out of the general revenue will probably be got somewhere else. One way or another, the taxpayer's going to be filling that void that's there, now that moneys are being dedicated to highways. We're going to have some continuing problems.

I wonder if the minister might just sort of take his crystal ball out and look down the line 20 years from now. If we are to continue on the path we're now on, with our debt going up in the Highways ministry by $300 million a year. . . . There certainly are a large number of capital projects within the province that need doing. But if we run a debt up $300 million a year, year after year, at what point are we going to reach the stage where you say that we can't sustain that debt unless we

[ Page 12953 ]

[1530]

In terms of debt reduction and paying off the debt for rehab, it's a 15-year life span, and for capital it's 40 years. The member, I think, made a comment about some of the savings that we've had for our P3 projects, such as the Mission interchange and others. The cost-sharing with beneficiaries is $52.5 million.

On the other issue, the hon. member made a comment about having expenditures of $300 million a year, year after year, and the debt rises. I guess it comes down to a choice of what this government believes in terms of protecting the infrastructure we have in place. Obviously, if you have an infrastructure that is near the end of its life span or is falling apart, it will be a detriment to the economy of the entire province -- such as the safe and efficient movement of goods and people. We have the British Columbia economy, which is heavily dependent on the forest sector and mining industry, as well as on tourism. Also, for their day-to-day activities, people depend on a safe transportation network in order to access health and educational facilities.

As minister, I believe -- and certainly my cabinet and caucus colleagues believe -- that we need to protect the infrastructure that is in place. Not protecting it or strengthening it or even expanding it would mean that our industry and our economy would suffer in the end, in terms of not having the availability of safe and efficient movement of goods and people around the province -- which actually would act on the bottom line of big and small business.

D. Symons: Yes, agreed. But I guess we have to concern ourselves with what has happened in the past and what is likely to happen in the future. If we take a look at the past. . . . You know, the member was elected at the same time I was, back in 1991, and maybe the member wasn't as cognizant of highways as I was as critic at the time. But certainly what happened in '92 and '93 was basically that the Minister of Highways of the day closed down capital construction in the province of British Columbia.

Any contracts that were let were carried through with -- the contracts had been done. But the intersection of Highway 97 and Highway 3 in the Okanagan was left half done for two years. They didn't finish it off, because they just let the contract go to the point they had gone -- where they had done some preliminary moving of water pipes and things of that sort. The thing was left as an unfinished intersection.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

The Gibsons bypass was another one where work had been done. It had been done to the stage where it was ready to be blacktopped, and they had left it half finished -- at the gravel stage, at the beginning stages to finish the project. Those two years of a fair amount of rain, and so forth, actually undid some of the work that was done.

It's the same thing with the road up to Parksville, the Island Highway portion that was built. Those projects were left to sit idle for two years, and basically they deteriorated in that time. The overall expense of doing it later on was considerably more. So we find that that was happening.

At the same time, we take a look at the rehabilitation of highways. The minister will get into rehabilitation later on, but I think the minister will agree with me that we have a real deficit in the province in terms of the rehabilitation that needs to be done. We have a lot of highway that's reached its life expectancy to be rehabbed. A lot of highways have passed that point, and we're not catching up on that backlog.

[1535]

Of course, soon after the election of '96 we put capital projects into a freeze mould, and we waited a few years. Now we're ramping up again, because, lo and behold, we're going to have an election within a year or two. So we find the minister saying that they're doing lots of projects around the province. I agree with him, you are. I won't criticize too many of them, actually. But indeed, we see a cyclical thing going on here. It's tied in more with elections and electioneering than it is to a real commitment to the province of British Columbia, and we're running up a lot of debt in the process of doing it. I still believe we should be paying for some of this stuff out of current-year money rather than mortgaging the future of our children to pay for our expenses today.

I wonder if I might look at the next topic I want to talk about. I have problems, as I said earlier, with whether we are working in a situation that will be sustainable over a long period of time. I'm also looking at the decisions that have been made in relationship to the projects that are being done, and I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give me some sort of idea of the prioritization of projects.

What process does the ministry, the planning department. . . ? How do you go through the process of laying out which projects. . . ? When you decided to do, for instance, the John Hart Bridge, what processes did you go through to decide, with the limited money we have, that that's one of the projects we need to do this year. How do you determine it? Is it safety? Is it the economic needs of the area? How do you balance all the needs around the province to come up with a prioritized list of projects to be done?

Hon. H. Lali: I'll answer the hon. member's last question first and then go on to the other ones afterward. In terms of the prioritization of projects, it's actually a fairly rigorous process. Members of the travelling public, local communities, municipal mayors and councillors and regional district reps, etc., are all involved in the process, as well as ministry staff,

[ Page 12954 ]

There are also issues of safety of the travelling public on a particular stretch of the highway or a particular bridge, and environmental considerations as well as economic development considerations. For rural areas, this is something that is very important. There are financial considerations, and last but not least, there's also the social aspect of all of this. This is very, very important in rural British Columbia. There's the North Peace Rural Road Task Force that was set up. Two years ago, they produced a document which was actually as thick as this document here. It was done by volunteer workers, people who represented communities and chambers of commerce, elected officials and people who were in the transport sector. They came back with a report and listed their priority projects, from one to well over 200, I think it was. The ministry had developed its own list, and when we compared the two lists, they virtually matched in terms of the priorities, so we were able to fund those in last year's budget and obviously again in this year's budget.

[1540]

So the member is correct in that regard for '92 and '93, when former Highways minister Art Charbonneau was the minister of the day. That policy was continued on -- what had been there in place before, under the Socreds in the late eighties. It wasn't actually until a few years ago -- I think it was '94-95 -- that spending on capital projects was actually ramped up, and it continues today.

We also have to take a look at another part of this whole equation. I know that the hon. member will agree with me that British Columbia's population has grown by leaps and bounds. We've led the country for almost a decade in terms of the number of people, the population that was growing in British Columbia. We're growing at a rate of almost 100,000 people a year. So, obviously, services had to be provided for a growing population.

I also want to point out that last year the rehabilitation budget for the ministry and the TFA was actually more than doubled from the year before. It was down to less than $70 million in 1997. Last year we jumped it up to $153 million. Almost 50 percent of that actually went up into the northern half of the province. In 1997 the investment in both rehab and capital in the northern part of the province was less than $30 million. That was jumped up to $60 million last year and $69 million this year, in order to live up to our commitment for a multi-year northern roads initiative.

In 1998, BCTFA expended roughly $380 million on capital projects; that was $100 million more than the year before. In this year, the 1999-2000 budget, the BCTFA will be spending $490 million; that's a jump of $210 million from 1997. Obviously job creation is something which is a cornerstone of the investments that we're making, especially in rural areas, where the resource economies in rural areas have been hit harder than other parts of the province because of the Asian downturn, the Asian flu.

D. Symons: I guess the minister tends to forget some things. Indeed, I got involved in politics because of the antics of Mr. Vander Zalm, actually. He was no slouch when it came to building highways, particularly doing it, I suspect, for election purposes. It wasn't -- as the minister suggested -- that they weren't doing anything after the Coquihalla Highway. Certainly that Coquihalla Highway did create real problems. There was pressure to meet a time schedule that was unrealistic, to have that highway in place for Expo in Vancouver. They were foolishly going ahead, working at night under snow conditions and all the rest. They really blew the budget on it. It reminds me a little bit of the fast ferry program.

We find that, during that period, in the last little bit, the Cassiar connector was built -- a fairly major project, the minister might agree. The Hastings-Barnet Highway in the lower mainland was being built -- also a fairly major project -- as an HOV project along there. The Gibsons bypass was done on the Sunshine Coast.

Indeed, it was the Social Credit government -- whether we care to give them credit for it or not -- that instituted the beginning of the Island Highway project. They did most of the plans and so forth in their time. Your government had the good fortune to be able to carry on and do it -- and do it, I think, in a way that you managed to do it maybe more quickly than would have been done under the previous government, doing it bit by bit as elections came along. That beside the point, we have had that sort of situation in the past.

[1545]

You can get them in the Legislative Library here -- a copy of the reports that they brought out for each of the highways districts. In there, they looked at the needs of these areas. They involved the public a great deal in prioritizing and identifying those needs. They put out a report so that everybody could see what each of those regions thought were the projects that needed doing, the justification for it and the prioritization of those.

I'm assuming from what the minister said a few minutes ago that something of that sort exists within the TFA or the ministry. I'm wondering if you would be willing to share with the opposition those lists of prioritized projects that are to come in the future.

Hon. H. Lali: Surely the hon. member isn't defending the Socred government of the past. I was just trying to be a little

[ Page 12955 ]

I'd like to just take him back a little bit further. The initial survey done on the Coquihalla Highway was by Dave Barrett's government in 1975. There is always ongoing planning by the ministry, regardless of what party happens to be in power at the time. But planning doesn't stop simply because there's a change in government, whether it's NDP, Socred or whatever.

Obviously, since the BCTFA has come into existence, there has been major investment all throughout the province, in every region of the province, to make sure that we have those investments to jump-start the economy -- especially in this year's budget, with the $490 million that I announced way back in March.

Some of the things that the hon. member is looking for are actually future policy. I mean, the capital plan is reviewed every year, and then, given the finances, certain projects are moved forward. Others are put forward until the next year or years afterwards. The Freedom to Move documents that the hon. member spoke about, which were developed many, many years ago. . . . Obviously there were a lot of good things in there as well as some things that may have been part of a wish list and all that. Certainly the hon. member also knows that not all of those projects or those proposals that were put in there were pushed forward by the Social Credit government of the day.

D. Symons: No, they weren't all. In a sense, that document is still a valuable tool for looking at roads. I use it periodically even today, although it's a decade old now.

What I was asking the minister was: if you've gone through the process, as you told me earlier, of looking at safety issues, economic issues and all the rest to determine projects that need doing around the province and possibly even prioritizing them to a certain extent. . . . I'm not asking for a timetable when each would be done. But if you've gone through that process and you've done due diligence on it, surely there's no reason why those documents couldn't be given to the public so that everybody could see. If you want input into them to make sure, as you said before for the northern road ones, that the two dovetail very well what the ministry had in mind and what the people in the north decided would be good for their particular area. . . . If they dovetailed, why not release them? If you've got them studied, let's see them.

[1550]

D. Symons: I don't think the minister is familiar with the Delcan study. If you'd look at it, you'd see what I'm asking about. It was certainly made public at the time. In fact, the public had a lot of input into it. All we're asking is simply that we can see what projects in other areas are considered projects for doing. I think that would be worthwhile, and then eventually we'll get around. . . . In future years, possibly -- of course, the future is that we'll be on that side, and you'll be on this side -- you can use it back on us and ask a few questions: "What are you doing with this project or that project, and where does this fit into your scheme of plans this year?"

I think that's fair game, because that's basically what the people throughout the province want to know: what do you have in long-term plans, and what do you consider needs doing? They'll give you some input into what you consider and they consider a match. If they do, well and good; if they don't, we've got some problems. If they do match, then the only real problem is: how do we get the funding to get the thing going? That's a big enough problem in itself, but I think it's the first part we should be able to do. So I would love to see that.

You indicated that there are a lot things that go into prioritizing the capital projects. It was a rather fuzzy answer for me to be able to determine if we could end up measuring the decisions you've made, and which projects go ahead, against some sort of criteria. I don't know if you use a point form -- or whatever you use -- in those decisions. You did mention some things that you look at when prioritizing projects. But if we see that project A is being done and that project B isn't being done, how are we going to be able to determine whether you've used a set of fixed guidelines for determining that?

I'm wondering if you might use, in one of the areas -- working on highways -- the idea of traffic counts to determine whether you've got to do some more capacity along the highways. Do you use traffic counts as one of the criteria for determining whether the capacity of a given highway should be increased or not?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, we do use traffic counts as one of the criteria that the hon. member just asked about. In terms of the information the hon. member is asking for, I'd be more than happy to provide him with the information. It's actually contained in the corridor management plans that we've got and also in the business plan which will be coming forward. The lower mainland corridor management plan has already been announced, and the other ones coming soon are obviously the Okanagan corridor management plan, Highway 97, Highway 11 and also Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. So they will be made available to the hon. member, and most of the information that he's looking for in terms of projects is in there.

D. Symons: Great, and I'll look forward to that.

I'm wondering. . . . I'm not sure if you have traffic counts here with you today.

Interjection.

D. Symons: I'll ask for some. I know I'm not going to get them today, but if you could look them up, I would be interested in the traffic count along Highway 97, somewhere in the Armstrong-to-Sicamous area where I believe it's still a two-lane highway. I would be interested. . . . Also, I believe there's a two-lane section between Summerland and Peachland on Highway 97. If we could have a daily traffic count and possibly the summer count -- which is going to give you the highest numbers possible, I believe. . . . I would also be interested in the traffic count on Highway 99 between Horseshoe

[ Page 12956 ]

[1555]

Hon. H. Lali: With the announcement that I made for four-laning from Courtenay to Campbell River. . . . Obviously the local people spoke fairly loud and clear. We're listening to the taxpayers as well as looking after the economic development needs of North Island. They're resource-based and tourism-based economies. So this would give them a shot in the arm for economic development. I know that all of the mayors and councils of regional districts and the chambers of commerce have been on board with the four-laning in that neck of the woods. Also, once the machinery is in there, there are economies of scale. It's cheaper to do the project than to come back years later to try to four-lane when the traffic on it would have gone up. So there are a number of factors where I had to change my mind to four-lane rather than stick with the original plan to two-lane.

D. Symons: Thank you for that answer. You know, if you double the lanes -- basically, let's say on that area of the highways up between Armstrong and Sicamous leading up to Highway 1 -- that's one thing. You're taking a highway that's already a fairly good highway and adding the two lanes to double its capacity. But it's interesting that on the Island Highway, what you have now, from that portion of the highway that goes from Courtenay to Campbell River, is basically a city street winding along the edge of the water most of the way and a lot of driveways coming into it. So the traffic moves very poorly there. However, if you were to build only two lanes. . . . And I'm not promoting this; I'm just talking about the situation here, because I don't mind a four-lane highway. But I want to look again at the criteria you use in judging and making judgments on highways.

If you look at building two new lanes totally removed from the two that currently sit there, move them inland, away from all the congestion and so forth that happens along that highway now. I've driven it many times and been frustrated at the slow movement of traffic at times in the year. . . . But you move that inland and you have, in a sense, more than doubled the capacity of that road, because now you've got a road where the vehicles can move. They're not impeded by driveways and all the other little communities they're going through along the Island Highway. So what you've done, in a sense, is probably tripled the capacity of the highway by simply adding those two new lanes -- much more modern, good highway lanes -- further inland, removed from the traffic congestion of the current highway. So I'm just bringing that up to say we have that situation where there's quite a difference in how the capacity of the road will be increased by having that alternative route, so to speak, that will look after that.

I have figures for the Island Highway -- and this is summer traffic of '98 -- of about 10,000 vehicles per day on the current Highway 19. So I would look for those other highway numbers that I asked for at some future date, because I believe they will be considerably higher than that.

The original portion of the Island Highway that I was talking about, from Courtenay to Campbell River, was initially going to be completed in 1998. So I'm wondering if the minister, then, might give me an idea of what the projected completion date is for that project now.

[1600]

But one of the determining factors in that, obviously, is that along the coast of the Island. . . . It's fairly heavily populated, and there are a number of municipalities along the way. Obviously in terms of trying to build an additional two lanes, that actually would have cost more because of all the property purchased and appropriations and the other things that were needed. It would have driven up the costs there, as opposed to going inland where the property values are lower than they actually are on the coast. There aren't as many people living there.

D. Symons: I gather that the minister misunderstood what I said, because certainly I was never suggesting -- nor was the plan for the Island Highway ever -- to increase the current road to four lanes. I was simply saying that when you build a new highway inland, which the Island Highway was going to be, things will move much quicker along there because they're going to be removed from all that interference with the movement of traffic along the coast. Basically there's a multiplier factor. Whatever you're moving along the coast now, you can probably move not twice as much along that whole corridor on the two different routes. . . . You can probably triple it, because they'll be able to move so much more efficiently on the new highway.

So the argument is now: do you want to put another two lanes there? The minister has now decided -- last November, I think -- not only to put the two new lanes in -- which I was never, ever questioning, because that was automatic. . . . It's happening to the Island Highway. But do you go to four? I was just suggesting that when you've got the two new lanes, you've certainly pretty well tripled the capacity of the route, between Courtenay and Campbell River. By putting in four lanes there, you've probably much more than quadrupled it. I'm not sure what word you could use to indicate that degree of. . . . You've sextupled, possibly, the capacity of that particular route between those two towns. Let's leave that one, because I think we've hashed the Island Highway a little bit there.

[ Page 12957 ]

Hon. H. Lali: We don't have the traffic count figures here with us, but we can certainly supply them to the hon. member at a later time.

The other considerations for the announcement of $10 million over two years to four-lane six kilometres of the remaining 14 kilometres that's now two lanes, between Aspen Grove and the top of Hamilton Hill. . . . Safety was an issue. We had four lanes on either side, where the speed limit is 110 kilometres and hour, and then for the remaining 14 kilometres people are driving at 90 -- or that's the posted speed limit. People were taking chances all the time. Actually, on the day of the announcement I had, travelling with me, my regional manager as well as one of my assistant deputy ministers, Dan Doyle. In those 14 kilometres there were actually three people that passed me illegally. They were passing on double lines and also with oncoming traffic. One or two of those people were actually travelling at speeds which were in excess of 110 or 120 kilometres an hour, when the posted speed limit was 90 kilometres an hour.

[1605]

Also, it gets congested during the peak times, from having gone from four lanes down to two lanes. Economic development is also another factor involved in this. The hon. member was actually present when I made the announcement on March 7 of this year for $490 million worth of investment under the Transportation Financing Authority. I announced at the time that economic development and job creation were cornerstones of the announcement that I was making.

W. Hartley: Hon. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: We have number of young visitors with us today from the United States -- some 65 grade 12 students and ten adults. They're here with their teacher, Mr. Cook. They're from the Walla Walla Academy, Walla Walla, Washington. Would members please make them welcome.

D. Symons: To deal with that particular portion of the highway. . . . I suppose there's a debate going on, which I know the minister is fully aware of, between the people in Merritt and the people in the Okanagan as to indeed a four-laning of that section or whether you should maybe build another route that would save the going down and going up that's taking place there and that's rather difficult for the trucks. Or at least it's more time-consuming and harder on the trucks than taking a cut-off route that's been suggested as well. The cost difference is considerable in doing the two, I must admit. But nevertheless, it's something that possibly should be considered if you're looking at safety and all the rest. At the economic parts, there's some advantage to that particular project as well.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

However, the minister did mention that they're doing a $10 million four-laning of six kilometres over two years. We might say, then, that it's three kilometres a year. It seems like it's just a fairly short piece. You've only got 14 kilometres altogether. By doing six kilometres, now, if I was a roadbuilder. . . . If you're putting out for bids, and you say, "Well, you can put in a bid for three kilometres this year, another bid for three kilometres next year and another bid for another three kilometres, till we get the whole 14 done, or you can bid for a six-kilometre stretch this year," I'm going to bring my workers and my equipment out, and do the whole thing. I could do the six kilometres for considerably less than doing two threes, I would suspect. So you have to ratchet up all that work, get the workers out and all the rest of it. You're paying for it. Is it not economically poor policy to do it in tiny sections like that? Shouldn't you take a little larger bite to get the best economics out of the situation?

Hon. H. Lali: I can certainly take the hon. member's comments under advisement. But first of all, I want to explain to the hon. member that it's one project over two years. It's as simple as that. It's not a matter of divvying it up into three-kilometre sections or one-kilometre sections, or whatever, and putting it over a number of years. It's one project over two years.

I think the hon. member's been in this critic's portfolio long enough to know that you just don't move the bulldozers out there and start building a road. There's a lot of work that needs to be done. There's the survey and the design work that needs to be done, the planning and the engineering that has to be done, as well as looking after the environmental issues that are out there, the agricultural issues and a number of other issues. Those take time. Doing up the engineering, the drawings and the plans all take time. I think the hon. member understands that. It's not a simple matter of dividing up the six kilometres into two sections, then doing three kilometres one year and doing the other three kilometres the next year. It's one project spread over two years.

[1610]

Looking at the particular portion of the road there, the concern I have, I suspect, is that once you do four-lane that -- and the Okanagan people, I think, realize this -- that's pretty well going to preclude, if you put money into upgrading that portion of the highway, the other one being built some time in the future, which might protect the minister's backside during the next election or two in the area that he represents. So there's that possible political thought, and that's certainly passing through the minds of many people in the Okanagan.

If you look at need, in a sense, I think we can find other places around the province. I believe the Kaleden bluffs or the Skaha bluffs and so forth, and Highway 99 going south. . . . There's some real traffic problems there. Moyie bluffs in the Kootenays, Three Valley Gap near Revelstoke and Goldstream

[ Page 12958 ]

If not, I'll move on to the next, which is simply to look at the use of what was discussed during question period -- Highway Constructors Ltd. as a vehicle for doing the highways. Would you. . . ?

Hon. H. Lali: I didn't meant to interrupt the hon. member, but if I can maybe respond to that, then we can go on to the second part of the hon. member's question. On the issue at hand, the Aspen Grove-Merritt section, and on the other issue that the hon. member mentioned -- what is commonly known as the Kingsvale cutoff, which would bypass Merritt -- let me just explain the two. We have the existing Okanagan connector between Merritt and Peachland, with Aspen Grove to the top of Hamilton Hill, outside of Merritt, which is 14 kilometres of two-lane, while the remainder is four-lane. The communities of Merritt, Kamloops, Spences Bridge, Logan Lake and Ashcroft are asking that that would be four-lane. Then you have the Kingsvale cutoff, which many residents of the Okanagan Valley favour, which is to build a road from the vicinity of Aspen Grove to Kingsvale, thereby bypassing Merritt. The argument is that it would be good for the Okanagan Valley in terms of economic development and that it would also save about 15 minutes' drive to the coast by car and approximately half an hour by truck.

I want to point out again. . . . I've done this in the public arena already, but for the record here, for Hansard, I just want to point out that the announcement of $10 million that I made is not a case of one option versus the other. That was never the case. I think that in terms of the road that already exists and that comes down into Merritt from the Okanagan Valley. . . . That was a decision made by a prior government -- back in 1987, I believe it was -- that the government would be connecting communities rather than bypassing them. I think there was a strong clamour not only from the residents of the Nicola Valley, where I happen to live, but also from the people of the Okanagan Valley, who wanted to see the Coquihalla Highway system connecting the community of Merritt and also the Okanagan communities. I think the original plan before that was to bypass both communities. To their credit, the communities were successful in getting that connection to take place.

The decision between Aspen Grove versus the Kingsvale cutoff was made by a prior government before the NDP got elected in 1991. This announcement is simply about trying to get rid of the congestion point of the 14 kilometres on the existing road. It's about safety, and it's also about economic development. The moneys that were available this year and next year were $10 million, and that's the announcement that I had the pleasure of making. It was never pitting one option against the other.

[1615]

So it's not an option of one versus the other. Rather, what we're doing is protecting the infrastructure we've got in place right now, looking after the safety of the travelling public and also the economic development in the area.

D. Symons: It's interesting that the previous government, when they did build the road where they did, nevertheless took the right-of-way and had the corridor planned for the Kingsvale connector as well. Actually, I think Highways gathered most of that land in, so they must have had in the back of their mind that that was something worthy of consideration in the future. Although they put it in to connect communities, they had that in the back of their mind as well.

We'll leave that and go on to HCL. As I said, it began in 1993-94, I believe, with the Island Highway. About two years later that project management way or project labour office -- union hiring hall you want to call it. . . . Two years later that spread to the lower mainland for the HOV lanes that were being built along Highway 1. We now find that we're going to apply that HCL model to the Cache Creek-Rocky Mountains project as well. Basically we have this HCL type of union hiring hall spreading like an insidious virus around the province. So I'm wondering if the minister might be able to tell me, then, what the parameters are that apply to the designation of a project as an HCL project.

Hon. H. Lali: For clarification of the previous issue that we were talking about, I just want to. . . . The hon. member mentioned corridor protection done by a previous government. Actually, there was some corridor protection -- certainly not all -- and it was at the proposed intersections that would take place at Kingsvale and also at Aspen Grove.

In terms of the parameters that are set for HCL, it's $30 million and over.

D. Symons: Yes. I have documents that talk about $50 million, so I'm just wondering when it went to $30 million. I have one here from the TFA that says: "On March 31, 1997, the government announced it would apply the project agreement model used on Vancouver Island Highway to all provincially funded projects valued at more than $50 million. For '97-98 the only project affected is the construction of the high-occupancy vehicle lanes on the Trans-Canada Highway in Burnaby and Coquitlam." So when did it move from $50 million down to $30 million, and where is the bottom going to be?

Hon. H. Lali: I don't know the exact date, but it was in April of '99 that the ceiling went from $50 million down to $30 million.

D. Symons: I'm just wondering, with the way this HCL is working, if the minister can then explain. . . . If it's $30 million, what is the cost of the John Hart Bridge project going to be?

[1620]

[ Page 12959 ]

D. Symons: Yes. Of course, we went around that tree during question period earlier in the day, and I intend to spend little time with it. But it's interesting that the figure I saw for the John Hart Bridge was $27 million. It's rather interesting that the minister announced that it's $30 million, and he said: "We've reduced the floor for HCL projects down to $30 million." So it looks like you're going to adjust the level, where you say, with this union hiring hall sort of technique for doing business in the province: "We'll move it to whatever the cost of the project is to suit our needs." You don't seem to have a philosophical level where, at a given amount, that's where you'll call it in, because you've done it in this particular project here as well.

The minister was quoted back in March of this year, when we were talking about the Port Mann Bridge that will be high enough in cost, I think, to meet the old HCL ceiling -- or floor, I suppose. Certainly we'll meet the newer floor. But the minister was quoted in the Vancouver Province as saying: "The work will be done at night beginning in September. Union and non-union firms will be invited to bid." Yes, they're invited to bid, to go through union. . .to go that way, but I'm wondering what happens after a period of time. When they're invited to bid, will the project be subject to the HCL union hiring hall program for that particular project as well? It doesn't mention it. It just says that union and non-union firms will be bidding. Will it be an HCL project for the Port Mann Bridge?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to clarify for the hon. member on the John Hart Bridge. He mentioned a figure of $27 million. That's a five-year-old figure that the hon. member is citing, so the $30 million figure is for the John Hart Bridge. And the Nechako interchange has to be changed as well. There's no effort by anybody to stop the costs so they can come under the HCL model, as the member may try to suggest. I think that by trying to cite an old figure -- a five-year-old figure -- he's trying to use that as evidence for his statement.

The hon. member wanted to know about union and non-union firms being eligible to bid on projects. I want to point out to the hon. member that on the Vancouver Island Highway project, 60 percent of the contracts went to non-union firms. So there's no effort to shut out non-union firms. It's a fair bidding process where union and non-union firms are eligible to bid on an equal footing. And as the results have shown, both on the Vancouver Island Highway project, where 60 percent are non-union contractors, and also on Height of the Rockies, where out of the 17 contracts already let, eight of them have gone to non-union firms and owner-operators. . . .

The only stipulation there is that after 30 days, the workers working on the project must belong to one of the unions as a part of this agreement. And that's only for the term of the contract -- for the term of the project. Once the project is over, then the workers are eligible to do whatever they wish, whether they want to be union or non-union. That's their priority; that's their prerogative to do so.

[1625]

Hon. H. Lali: Each successful contractor is allowed to name up to five of their own employees, and then beyond that the workers apply at HCL for positions. They are hired based on their qualifications and merit. They're not placed in any kind of order. Whether they were belonging to a union or non-union firm prior to working on the HCL project, they would go and apply under HCL and be hired in a fair process. Qualifications and merit are at the top of the list.

D. Symons: Yes, but what the minister is saying is that beyond the five, you don't get the workers, and you don't get to choose your workers. They're going to be decided by somebody else. That's the rub in that particular aspect of it.

Also, there's the other thing. You can say that well, after the work is finished. . . . And that worker might be working, so after 30 days he must join a union to keep his job, or he's out the door. So he joins one of the operating engineers -- or whatever -- unions. After two months, when that particular job that he's doing is done, he's out the door because the project is over. He may apply later on when another section of the road is being done -- and I'm thinking of the Island Highway as an example of this. Maybe the firm he's working for will win another contract further along and do another section of the road, but that worker has this union card in his back pocket. I mean, he signed up for the union; I don't think it ends the day he walks out the door.

We have Bill 84, passed in 1992 in this province, that basically says that we don't have to have a certification vote in the province of British Columbia anymore. Once over 55 percent of the members of a given workforce of an employer are signed-up members of a union, that firm is now going to have a collective agreement put upon it. I'm just curious whether, after an employer goes through two or three iterations of his employees having to join a union in order to be able to work in the province, those employees in that firm necessarily want their employer to become certified or not. It will happen pretty well automatically because of the provisions of Bill 84. Could the minister sort of comment that that's a distinct possibility -- the way that things are rigged up between the HCL agreement and the conditions of Bill 84? It's the way of this particular government: favouring its friends and insiders in certain -- and I will say certain -- unions. Certainly it's only some unions that are recognized as being legitimate by this government for working on the Island Highway project.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member suggested that once an employee finished working for HCL, had finished their con-

[ Page 12960 ]

I think the hon. member already knows this, but I just want to clarify for the record that employees are eligible for work if they live within 100 driven kilometres of a particular worksite. So on the Vancouver Island project, the first chance is given to those workers who live within 100 kilometres of a particular worksite. And if there are not enough eligible employees found, then obviously a person living elsewhere on the Island is eligible to work on a particular worksite -- and then beyond that, people from off the Island.

[1630]

All right -- so they don't work for him on this project; they work wherever operating engineers are needed on the project. However, when that Island Highway moves further up -- we move outside the 100-kilometre radius the minister was speaking about a moment ago -- and these fellows come back to the ABC Construction Co., they've all got a union card in their pocket. They've got the operating engineers card in their pocket. All one of those members has to do now is go to the Labour Relations Board and say: "We have more than 50 percent of the employees of ABC Construction as members of the operating engineers. We want the operating engineers to be the bargaining agent for ABC; we want them to be a bargaining unit for the ABC company."

The company would not necessarily know it. A number of the employees there -- the 20 employees that I referred to a moment ago -- wouldn't necessarily have had any desire to unionize ABC Construction. It would have happened automatically. That's the way things are set up in the province. I just posed to the minister earlier: is that not a possibility?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to clarify for the hon. member that the Labour Relations Board has ruled on an issue related to HCL that the workers who are working on HCL projects are employees of HCL and not of the contractor. If those employees that are part of a union under HCL go back to their old company to work, that firm does not automatically unionize. They'd have to go through that entire certification process which is there as part of the Labour Code. I think this is where the confusion of the hon. member is coming from.

[1635]

What I might look at now -- I wasn't going to before the minister mentioned that somehow I was using an old figure on the John Hart Bridge. I don't think it really mattered whether it was $27 million, $30 million or $35 million. It's apparent that the government will move that floor for HCL agreements to wherever they want it to be. You moved it from $50 million down to $30 million. You could have moved it to $25 million, and you probably will at some time in the future when another project comes along.

But I wonder if we might look at the other movement you've made on this, and that has to do with day labour. We're not dealing with $30 million or $20 million. We're dealing in the tens of thousands of dollars, where often people will come in and hire the equipment out in a given project year. You're saying: "Well, they're going to have to go through the HCL model again -- the same thing."

I've got the letter that went out to companies -- a long to-do about the Cache Creek-Rocky Mountains project and hired-equipment registration. They were basically told that any equipment can be registered but that owners affiliated with the B.C. Highway and Related Construction Council union will be given priority placement.

Now, if we take what the minister was saying earlier in the day during question period. . . . We'll move up to Sicamous for a moment on this. Take the situation where there are people who have worked for years doing day labour. They've rented or hired their equipment out to the ministry, and they have one or two or three or four workers -- not a large number -- that work on a daily basis. Often this is in moving earth and things of that sort with the highway. We now have a situation where you're saying: "Well, these people will have to register first with HCL, and even if they do, the company is a non-union company. Then they're still at the bottom of the pecking order." The workers may have to be in HCL if they are working for any more than 30 days, but the company itself will be at the bottom of the pecking order, according to this letter that went out from the ministry. They'll be down there. And what will also happen is that you'll still look for a union company within the 100-kilometre radius referred to earlier.

What seems to be happening in Sicamous is that you're looking for union companies outside of that 100-kilometre radius to come in, and you're leaving the non-union firms who are right there -- with the project going on at their front door, basically -- and you're saying: "Sorry, you guys can't work here." I'm wondering if you might explain if that isn't exactly what's happening in the Sicamous area now.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to clarify for the hon. member that the workers are employees of HCL and work under a collective agreement between HCL and the building trades. They're not employees with the individual contractors when they're working on HCL projects. So if they go back to their own company, the one they previously worked for, they would have to re-sign cards to become union members again. They have to go through that process.

The hon. member also mentioned why we reduced the $50 million down to $30 million for HCL projects. Well, if one

[ Page 12961 ]

[1640]

The hon. member mentions the issue of day labour. This is not something new for Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. This is something that existed in HCL on the Vancouver Island Highway project. I just want to give the hon. members some numbers here. This is a fairly small project. In the Sicamous day labour, Kerr Road to Craigellachie, there are 29 people who belong to a union, and there are ten people on that particular project who are non-union workers. In terms of equipment rentals, five firms were union and four of them were non-union. Subcontractors: zero were union and two were non-union. It's quite fair. Non-union firms are competing on an equal footing with unionized firms in terms of getting the contracts. As I mentioned previously in our discussions today, 60 percent of the contracts that were awarded on the Vancouver Island Highway project had gone to non-union firms.

D. Symons: I'll just read again from this letter that went out to hired-equipment registration. It says: "HCL is currently building a call-out list for equipment to be used on the Cache Creek-Rocky Mountains work. To be considered for any day-labour hire on this work, you must register equipment with HCL." Fair enough. It goes on and says: "Any equipment can be registered, but owners affiliated with a B.C. Highway and Related Construction Council union will be given priority placement."

It's not an equal footing, as the minister was suggesting a moment ago. It says that you're going to give those companies that are affiliated with a union priority. Basically and historically in this province, day labour has gone out to local people. You're saying: "Well, this is local hire and so forth." Primarily, even if a firm came in from Alberta, they do not bring all their workers from Alberta. They use day labour and that sort of thing, in areas. I'm not suggesting that we bring them in from Alberta, but I'm saying that the majority of workers on projects have generally come from around the area where the project is taking place. This is just a case of it's much easier.

Basically what we seem to have here, then, is that you've moved your sort of HCL model into small, independent firms as well. The way this is set up -- by giving priority -- you're basically blackmailing people into joining a union if they want to work in this province. You know, it's only in B.C. and former communist countries that we see this form of intimidation used. I'd ask the minister to at least be honest and show this government's true intentions, then. Would he please place signs at all entrances to the province of British Columbia announcing: "All highway work in B.C. is a closed shop. Non-union need not apply"? That's basically the direction this government is going with this HCL model and the expanding of its roads and all the projects in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. H. Lali: I read out some of the results of the successful contractors in the last question that the hon. member asked. If he looks at the results, the member will know that the process is fair, and it's evident in the results that are here in terms of equipment rentals and subcontractors -- five going to unionized outfits, six going to non-unionized outfits.

[1645]

"Qualified union members in the local area -- within 100 kilometres -- are given hiring preference. HCL will hire other qualified workers in the local area -- within 100 kilometres -- when qualified local union members are not available. For [the Vancouver Island Highway project], the next level of hiring preferences is other local residents on Vancouver Island, qualified union members first, followed by the mainland qualified union members. For the HOV project, this sequence operated in a reverse fashion -- i.e., the mainland first, etc. Hiring for work on the Lions Gate Bridge will operate similarly. Qualified equity candidates can be hired by HCL at any time to meet employment objectives."

Hon. H. Lali: I'm not actually, at this moment, aware of an invitation to meet. I mean, there may be an invitation, but I am not aware of it. So I'll find out if there is any letter or invitation or fax that has come in and get back to the member on that.

G. Abbott: I guess I have a number of questions. I've been quite intrigued by some of the discussion I've heard at different meetings about why the province is moving in the direction of HCL and what its implications are for union and

[ Page 12962 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member makes a statement that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and I think that in most instances that would be applicable. But I want to point out to the hon. member that Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies is such an immense project that there will be lots of work available in the future. As Vancouver Island Highway spending is ramping down, is nearing completion, we'll be ramping up the spending on Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. It is a priority corridor. We've had a corridor management plan on there, and there will be work available in successive years totalling in the hundreds of millions, so all local operators will be able to successfully bid on projects such as this.

[1650]

G. Abbott: The minister's response invites questions in a number of areas, but I do want to continue on with the current theme. That is: what was there in the previous policy which wasn't working? For example, were there complaints in the Cache Creek-Height of the Rockies area about the lack of equity hire? Were there complaints, for example, from visible minorities and women that they were being discriminated against in terms of hiring? Frankly, there are provisions in employment standards. . . .

The Labour minister can probably get up and tell us about the sundry protections that exist in statutes to protect people against discriminatory hiring. Perhaps the minister is familiar with some instances here of where people have been turned away, have been told that they can't work because they are from a visible minority or other. I would be interested in hearing that. Having been a resident of the Shuswap for 46 years, it's not a suggestion that I, frankly, have ever heard. But if it is a problem up there, I would be interested in hearing about it. If we are fixing something that's broke, I want to know that we're fixing it on the basis of solid evidence, not some presumed problem that may or may not exist.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member must know, if there were complaints arising in terms of people not getting hired -- if they were women or visible minorities -- that the whole nature of discrimination is that it is silent. People will give you all sorts of excuses, if you happen to be a person from an equity group , for not hiring you. That is a reality that exists not only in British Columbia but across the country. If you happen to be a person from an equity group -- such as I am -- that discrimination is rampant, and it is silent. People will never come up to you and say, "I am not going to give you a job because your skin colour is brown" or you happen to be a woman or you happen to be an East Indian. But it is there, and it is rampant.

[1655]

In terms of HCL, 17 percent of the people who work on HCL projects -- actually, it's gone up to 19 percent now -- are from equity groups. Now, it's not quite where we want it to be, but it's certainly a long way from where it was before HCL, with its equity provisions, was introduced in this province a number of years back. That is a goal and a direction that I as an elected official am proud of, and I'm proud of expounding it at every opportunity I get. It's something that is a social injustice that needs to be corrected. And if it isn't happening on its own -- and it's highly likely that it won't be -- we have to put mechanisms in place in order to make sure that people are being hired on the basis of merit.

I'll give you an example in government. In the private sector, 18 percent of the population is a visible minority. Yet in management and upper management positions in the private sector, you have representation from visible minority groups that is actually in excess of 18 percent. The banking industry was the first to realize it -- the retail industry and other industries as well. But if you look at it in terms of government. . . . Where visible minorities are 18 percent of the population of British Columbia, we have only 6 percent from visible minorities in government positions. I'm just using that as an example, because that is the example that I am most familiar with. That is shamefully low. It is not something that I am proud of as a Canadian and as a British Columbian. But it is something that through processes such as HCL, I can be proud of, because we're doing something about it.

It is happening for the first time in the history of British Columbia. We are getting rid of the barriers of discrimination against women, visible minorities, people of aboriginal background and people from the disabled category as well. For the

[ Page 12963 ]

There have been complaints, which have been coming from all parts of British Columbia, in terms of the lack of representation of equity groups in government contracts and also within the public service and Crown corporations. This is one area where we are responding, and we're responding in a very positive way, so that people from those equity groups can access employment on roadbuilding projects. We have had complaints from people who wanted local hire in their communities. The further east you go towards the Alberta border, the greater the clamour from local people to have projects such as HCL projects so they can have people in the local areas hired on local projects which are financed by B.C. taxpayer dollars.

I am standing here, and I am proud of the fact that we have HCL in your constituency, hon. member, so that visible minorities, women, aboriginal people and people with disabilities can access employment on government projects in your constituency.

[1700]

Hon. H. Lali: The advocacy groups for women and visible minorities, in particular, have been raising this alarm bell for many, many years.

In roadbuilding, in particular, it's women's groups that have been raising it. This is the one industry where women have actually been discouraged in the past from applying for jobs. So where there is active but silent discrimination taking place, it acts as something to discourage women from applying for positions in the roadbuilding industry. It's not just related to the roadbuilding industry; it's in almost all facets of life, in terms of the public dollars that are being spent in the public service or on public contracts, that people from equity backgrounds are systemically discouraged from making applications.

The hon. member asks whether people who have been applying have not been getting the jobs. Obviously if there's systemic discrimination against women, you're not going to get the number of applications coming in. But by encouraging women to apply for projects, such as we are on HCL projects, obviously one will get a number of applications coming in because women will know that for the first time there will be no systemic discrimination against them applying for construction jobs in the roadbuilding industry.

G. Abbott: If in fact it is the case that the sort of systemic discrimination exists in the roadbuilding industry that the minister has outlined, why did the government stop with the Cache Creek-Rockies section? Why didn't you apply the model all over British Columbia if you have the apprehension of systemic discrimination in the roadbuilding industry?

Hon. H. Lali: It's easier to do that on larger projects as opposed to doing it on every small project. Administratively, it's a little bit difficult to try to execute. On a larger project such as CCR and the Vancouver Island Highway project and Lions Gate and Port Mann and others, it's easier to do that, because you have a greater number of employees, as opposed to having smaller projects and having to then try to set up HCL offices for every single project all throughout the province.

G. Abbott: Again, where I'm experiencing a problem here with the responses I'm receiving from the minister is this. The minister claims to be propelled by a moral imperative in moving the HCL model into the Cache Creek-Height of the Rockies section of the Trans-Canada Highway and including in that areas where there are very small day-labour projects, which the minister has just referred to. But on the one hand, while we appear to propelled into that by a moral imperative, on the other hand, the minister is saying: "We don't need to extend it to the smaller projects, because there are complications in terms of the management of labour and equipment there, and they are smaller projects." In fact, there are some projects which are substantial in that CCR area in 1999, but there are also a lot of little projects. I'm wondering what's different about those little projects between Cache Creek and the Rockies that bring the moral imperative on board but which does not bring it on board in other parts of the province?

[1705]

On a project such as Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies, we can set up an HCL office for day labour in Kamloops which can service the entire corridor, but it becomes a little difficult to try to send a labour relations officer on a small rehab project, for instance, up to the Fort Nelson area or in the Peace River area of this province. It's easier and more manageable to be able to do that on a large project, such as Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies.

The hon. member talks about a moral imperative. I think if it were feasible to be able to do that, I would like to see all projects in government -- not just in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- have equitable representation of equity groups for all kinds of work that B.C. taxpayers' dollars fund. But we have to start somewhere, and I think the hon. member should realize that. We have to start somewhere to start ending the systemic discrimination that exists so we've got people entering the workforce from equity groups. It would serve as a model and an example for other areas of the province to follow -- for other industries to follow, as well, not just the roadbuilding industry.

G. Abbott: I had some experience with the issue of the HCL model when Forest Renewal B.C. introduced a require-

[ Page 12964 ]

Hon. H. Lali: HCL is not the only way, obviously, but it is a model that has been proven to work. If something. . . . The hon. member earlier on said that if it ain't broke, don't fix it -- I don't know if it was the hon. member here or the critic who said that, but one of the two. Obviously this is an area where it does work. HCL works, and that's why it's preferable to extend HCL: because we know what the results are. We know that it is effective and that it works.

The hon. member also mentioned some legal remedies, and obviously there are a variety of legal remedies that exist right now, but people who -- not just in this particular aspect but in other areas as well -- may be discriminated against often are too afraid to go out and complain, because they feel that they may be blacklisted for any future opportunities that may or may not exist in that particular field of work. So they're often quite afraid to complain to any kind of an authority or take legal action for fear that employers will blacklist them.

[1710]

Also, I want to point out another very, very important part of HCL, which is the training and development of local workers from traditionally underrepresented groups so that they have better work opportunities in the future in the construction industry. Also, we're moving people from the unemployment and the welfare rolls into positions of training on HCL projects.

Another example I want to give you is in the category of unpaid-wage complaints. Now, the industry average is 2,145, and the value of unpaid wages is $3.3 million. On HCL the unpaid-wage complaints is zero. Everybody gets paid.

G. Abbott: It's not surprising that they do, because the government simply has taken over the hiring, the implementation, the payment of employees. They have taken away the right of contractors to manage their own labour and resources. So I'm not surprised to hear that.

Let me go on to this, and I'll try to phrase this in a way that keeps it relatively brief. Up until this year and the introduction of the HCL model into the Cache Creek-Rockies section, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was guided by a ministry hired-equipment policy. I just want to make a few notes about this, because I think this goes to the heart of some of the concerns that have been expressed by contractors in my constituency and in others. I'll just quote from the general section of the ministry hired-equipment policy. It reads: "The object of the policy is to fairly and equitably distribute the available work to equipment owners within the province in the most cost-effective manner, recognizing local seniority in providing historical service to the ministry."

Now, I think one of the most prominent and most compelling concerns of the contractors I have spoken to is that some of them have spent 35 years, 27 years, 20 years or 15 years working through this system. It has worked very well, thank you. They have acquired seniority and experience with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways over those years. Yet that is simply blown out the window with HCL. There is absolutely no recognition of seniority, of their local hire in the past in the new policy. Is there something about this policy, this predecessor policy to HCL, that caused concern? Did it not address the local-hire issue which we have talked about?

[1715]

I know that the hon. member was not in the House at the time, but I read something into the record which I want to read again for the hon. member. "On Kerr Road and Craigellachie 29 employees are from union outfits, and ten employees are from non-union outfits. In terms of the equipment rentals, there are five that are union outfits and four which are from the non-union outfit. Under the subcontractor's category, zero are under the union and two are under the non-union." The number of contractors who are non-union who have been accessing successful contracts on CCR are from. . . . The non-union sector is equitable with the unionized sector, so I want to read that into the record.

Having HCL is a benefit to local communities along the corridor of Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. If we did not have the HCL with its local-hire provisions, then we would have workers working on projects from Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies that would be coming from Alberta. This is a point that the hon. member either doesn't see or fails to recognize. So the benefit of HCL in terms of local hire is something that people all across the province, especially the further east you go in British Columbia, have been asking for. They want to see local people, within the local communities, accessing work on provincial projects.

G. Abbott: We'll come back to the former policy around local hire presently.

The minister mentioned that on some of the day-labour projects -- he mentioned the Sicamous-to-Revelstoke, Kerr Road and Craigellachie projects, in particular -- something like half were non-union. Can the minister advise whether the non-union contractors and employees that may be involved in those projects at this point are obliged to pay union dues and to pay into the union pension fund immediately upon obtaining work?

[ Page 12965 ]

G. Abbott: That's interesting. My understanding of the contract was that the dues were paid immediately but that the obligation to join the union came into effect after 30 days. Perhaps the minister might want to have a quick look at that, because I think that fact is the case.

Hon. H. Lali: If a person is working over 30 days, they're required to join a union. If they aren't a part of a union before the 30 days, why would they pay union dues? I think the hon. member must have some misinformation from somewhere. Beyond 30 days, they're required to pay union dues.

[1720]

One of the other concerns arises from the previous answer of the minister as well. He mentioned the accident record on HCL projects -- that it was better than the industry average or whatever. Nevertheless, one of the concerns that certainly I have heard is that HCL assumes decision-making control over -- at least, beyond name-hire -- who will be operating what equipment where. Yet if that individual -- who may or may not, in the opinion of the contractor, be well trained and ready for the job -- has an accident, that accident goes against the WCB coverage of the contractor, not of HCL. Can the minister confirm that that's the case?

Hon. H. Lali: I'm sorry; would you mind repeating that? We kind of got into a bit of a sidebar discussion, and I lost the gist of your remarks.

G. Abbott: I'd be happy to repeat it. A prominent concern here is that while HCL assumes authority for hiring and for placing employees on equipment and the contractor -- at least beyond name-hires -- gives up that authority on HCL projects. . . . Nonetheless, should one of those employees hired and placed by HCL unfortunately have an accident, will that accident not be registered against the contractor's Workers Compensation Board coverage rather than HCL's?

Hon. H. Lali: There are two parts to this. The original comments the hon. member made regarding HCL having all the control. . . . In terms of the employees that are sent to work on these particular worksites, if there is a problem and the contractor is unhappy, they are not forced to take that particular employee.

Secondly, in terms of the accidents that may occur, the hon. member asks if it's registered against the contractor. Yes, it is, but the 38 percent figure that I gave applies to the overall contract, including HCL and the contractors.

[1725]

Hon. H. Lali: First of all, the people that are hired are highly qualified, and the hiring is done based on merit before they are sent out to work on a particular worksite. There's also training programs that are available to make sure that people do get qualified. That's one of the aspects of the HCL -- to make sure that we have training available for new apprentices who want to enter work opportunities in that particular field. Also, that's one of the benefits of having people from the building trades applying for these positions, because they are already qualified from their past experience of having worked in the industry.

G. Abbott: The minister says that the people that the contractor or employer will be in receipt of will be highly qualified, well trained and so on. Yet I guess, going back to the initial response and exchange we had in here, somehow that qualification and that training would be overlooked by the employer based on some concern about the individual being from a minority group or being a woman or something else which would keep them from participating.

If that's the case, then HCL presumably. . . . Somehow there's something in this mechanism that breaks down the obligation that it has to be the building trades, it has to be union. That's where I'm losing the connection here. It seems to me that we're arguing in two different directions in taking this position, as the government has.

To go back to the seniority issue that concerns not my constituents but a number of contractors in the interior, is there going to be any recognition given by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to the 25, 35 or 40 years -- whatever it is -- of seniority and experience which people have accumulated in the past?

Hon. H. Lali: The short answer to the last part of the hon. member's question is yes. Obviously we'll continue to give recognition to those people that have longtime experience.

Now, the hon. member raises an interesting question about my comment that obviously HCL would hire qualified workers. Yet he raises the issue that people from equity groups who would be accessing employment on HCL projects would not be qualified somehow because they are accessing employment in the roadbuilding industry for the first time. Well, it's the old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Obviously if there was no HCL and business had been going on as usual in roadbuilding contracts, when contractors hire new, young employees. . . . They don't always come qualified or have experience. They have to start somewhere in order to get that 25, 30 and 40 years experience that the hon. member mentions. Why should equity groups be any different from non-equity groups in terms of accessing jobs for the first time? The big difference here is that now we have, for

[ Page 12966 ]

[1730]

G. Abbott: Let me tell the minister about my neighbour in Sicamous, Eric, who has probably been driving dumptrucks for 40 years. Eric owns his own dumptruck now, and he gets work when he can and where he can. I'm sure that he struggles, a lot of months, to make ends meet and to make payments on his dumptruck. But after driving truck for 40 years, Eric is not about to let the government tell him that he has to join a union in order to get work in the great province of British Columbia, so he has not got any work. There are ten dumptrucks at least from out of town that are working on the Sicamous project while Eric sits at home with his dumptruck because he's not prepared to pay union dues and he's not prepared to join a union.

Eric says to me that here's what the Ministry of Transportation and Highways used to do. Here's their old hire-a-dumptruck policy. I'll quote from a few instances on primary, secondary and open hiring: "Primary list -- limited to local owners residing within a local area." Pretty clear-cut. "Secondary list -- limited to local owners residing within a local area. . . . Open list -- all remaining local equipment to be listed on an individual unit basis."

There was nothing in the old policy that said that you've got to join a union in order to get work in this province, but that's what Eric's feeling right now. He, frankly, is feeling betrayed by this government and by this policy in particular. Up until a couple of months ago, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways managed its own day labour. It had work for Eric. It had work for a whole bunch of other people who like to drive dumptrucks for a living, but now they can't do it unless they're prepared to get in line and join a union. So what's wrong with Eric? Why should he not be able to work as he has for the past 30 years on day-labour projects in his hometown?

[1735]

Hon. H. Lali: Under the HCL provisions, the preference is obviously given to union firms and workers. But one of the things the hon. member needs to remember is that the actual number of people from union and non-union backgrounds -- and also the contractors, in terms of equipment rentals, and the sub-contractors for union and non-union firms -- is about the same. People are accessing work on CCR regardless of whether they were from a union or a non-union background.

In terms of the hon. member's neighbour, there's not a lot of work going on between Cache Creek and the Height of the Rockies right now. I'm the first one to admit it, because I think we've only got about $30 million worth of work. I've stated previously, when the opposition critic was questioning me earlier, that as we ramp down the spending on the Vancouver Island Highway project -- because it's nearing completion -- we will ramp up the spending on Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. That's the next major project in British Columbia that will get the attention of the government in terms of infrastructure development. Obviously there will be a lot of work that will be available in the ensuing years.

Also, in terms of the ministry list that exists right now, not everyone on the ministry list works all the time, including the hon. member's neighbour. In terms of day labourers, if the neighbour has a dumptruck and he's working for a few days, he doesn't need to join a union. If he's going to be working for over 30 days, then obviously he does need to join one of the appropriate unions in order to be working on Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies.

G. Abbott: Just to be clear, why is it that an owner-operator like Eric must join a union in order to get over 30 days' work? I'm not interested in hearing that that's the policy, because that means nothing. I want to know, from the perspective of Eric's ability to work, what it is about Eric that he should be compelled to join a union.

Hon. H. Lali: We have a collective agreement with the building trades, and that's why the hon. member's neighbour is required to join a union.

I want to also point out to the hon. member that this is not something new. W.A.C. Bennett, when the Socred government of the day built many hydroelectricity dams throughout the province, used a similar model. This HCL model was actually based on that particular model. It was solely designed so that throughout the life of the particular project, there would not be strikes and lockouts, which would either add to the cost of a particular project or cause undue hardship for people who live in the local area.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I see the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who is heckling out there. He should be one of the people who sits in the Legislature who should be most grateful for the fact that we are paying attention to a major highway in his own back yard. In last year's budget, we spent $25 million -- more than any other rural MLA -- and that investment was made in that particular member's riding. This year it's almost $19 million. Of any rural member, that member has, over the last few years, had the most investment going into his riding, and I think he should be thankful that we're paying attention to his riding and his workers.

G. Abbott: I'd suggest to the minister that it's a far cry from a major dam project to. . . . I don't know what Craigellachie's project is. Maybe it's a $30,000 project -- I don't know. But there's a whole bunch of little projects between Sicamous and Revelstoke that are being done on a

[ Page 12967 ]

I'm not understanding why a little project like Craigellachie requires the imposition of the HCL model. The day-labour thing, by every account that I have heard. . . . The previous day-labour policy was working just fine; there was no need to bring HCL in. Frankly, you know, the minister said that we need it for equity hiring; yet, for a million other little projects in B.C., we apparently don't need it. Why bring it in on day labour between Sicamous and Revelstoke?

[1740]

The small projects -- the $30,000 or so that the hon. member is mentioning -- are part of the large, major project that we have in mind for Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. By the time all is said and done in the next few years, we will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of building and rebuilding the Trans-Canada Highway -- No. 1 -- between Cache Creek and the Height of the Rockies.

G. Abbott: I don't think we're going to come to any meeting of the minds between the minister and me with respect to that. I hope -- and this is a completely naïve hope -- that when the minister, when and if he sits down with the representatives of the contractors community, the small contractors community up in the Shuswap-North Okanagan-Columbia area, and they say, "For heaven's sake, move away from HCL for day-labour projects," he agrees to listen to them and agrees to reconsider that. Frankly, it makes no sense at all. I'm not going to spend the rest of the day banging my head against that particular wall, but I do hope that the minister, if and when he meets with them, will give some consideration to that suggestion, because I think it's common sense to move away from that and back to the policy that was in place prior to 1999 that was never broken and didn't need to be fixed.

The last area I want to canvass briefly is the issue of pension benefits to employees of Highway Constructors Ltd. Shasta Consulting Group prepared a report on pension benefits for employees of HCL back in February of 1997. I want to quote from the summary of that report, because I'm concerned that the problems that prompted this review are still in place today as a result of the nature of HCL hiring policies and HCL benefit and pension policy. I'll quote from the Shasta Consulting Group report.

"In this report, we present an analysis which indicates that Highway Constructors Ltd. is making contributions to various union pension plans which are unlikely to deliver any pension benefits to certain employees. The employees affected are those employees who were not affiliated with a council union at the time of hire by HCL and who have returned, or are likely to return, to non-affiliated employment after their work on the project is completed. These employees make up between 45 percent and 75 percent of HCL's workforce. The magnitude of contributions in respect of this employee group which will not result in corresponding pension benefits could be up to $9.6 million.

"Some HCL employees are directly disadvantaged. In order to work on the Island Highway project, HCL employees may have been required to suspend or terminate membership in another retirement program, even though they continued to work under the direction of the same employer who previously contributed on their behalf to such a plan.

"The common-law principle of 'unjust enrichment' may be applicable to this situation. A number of union pension plans are receiving a benefit at the expense of a significant number of HCL employees who have, by the nature of those pension plans, little expectation of receiving any benefit payment from those plans."

[1745]

It seems to me that this is a very serious problem in terms of fairness and equity, to use one of the minister's terms. I am concerned that a problem which clearly existed on the Island Highway project is still a problem today with HCL. I would like the minister's comments with respect to that.

Hon. H. Lali: Just going back to the previous question, the hon. member mentioned something about $30,000 for one of those projects. Actually, the two projects, on Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies and the Kerr Road and Craigellachie rest area intersection. . . .

I'll start with the Kerr Road one. That's a project worth $900,000 in total. It's a two-lane section of the Trans-Canada Highway between Canoe and Taft Road. It is a winding alignment with significant grades and very few passing opportunities in either direction. This has resulted in poor safety performance and queues forming behind slow-moving vehicles. The Trans-Canada Highway corridor management plan has identified the need to construct eastbound passing lanes in the vicinity of Kerr Road.

The other one is the Craigellachie rest area intersection. The Craigellachie rest area historic site is located on the south side of the Trans-Canada Highway, 100 kilometres to the east of Sicamous between Gorge Creek Bridge and Prosh Frontage Road. The CMP -- the corridor management plan -- has identified the need to improve this intersection, based on the relatively high accident frequency and the significant amount of tourist traffic using the rest area during the summer months. There's a lot of buses and recreational vehicles. That has a total price tag of $500,000, so it's not small change. It's part of the larger Cache Creek-Height of the Rockies project under HCL.

The issue of the pensions that the hon. member raised. . . . The opposition has been corrected in the past, and I think it's unnecessary for the hon. member to start raising alarm bells once again. It's been done in the past. I also want to point out that the hon. member is quoting from an old report by CLAC, otherwise known as the Christian Labour Association of Canada. That report was totally discredited -- absolutely, totally discredited -- by Sherallyn Miller, superintendent of pensions. Here's what she says in a letter to CLAC

[ Page 12968 ]

G. Abbott: I know the contempt in which some members on the other side may hold CLAC, but what relationship there is between that organization and this report, frankly, I don't know. I certainly didn't receive this report from them. The report I have is by the Shasta Consulting Group. It's entitled "Report on Pension Benefits for Employees of Highway Constructors Ltd.," dated February 28, '97.

I don't think it has anything to do with the CLAC union that I can see. So I don't think I want to accept that it can be dismissed the way it has been by the hon. minister. Is the hon. minister saying to me, then, that it is not true that some 45 to 75 percent of HCL's workforce during the Island Highway project did not have sufficient employment to ever benefit from the union pension plan payments that they made?

[1750]

The concerns raised by CLAC and the Shasta report have been refuted by the superintendent of pensions. The changes implemented on January 1, 1998, to the Pension Benefits Standards Act have improved pension benefits for all workers who move from employer to employer or from project to project, as is common in the construction industry.

The Speaker: Member -- noting the time.

G. Abbott: The minister is then saying that in response to the concerns around the pension plan entitlement, changes were made. Now how long does Joe Smith have to work in order to benefit from his labour on the CCR project?

Hon. H. Lali: If they're in CLAC, they can transfer that to the other pension plan, to the HCL pension plan. They can do that.

Hon. Chair, I want to thank the hon. members opposite for their questions today, and I would like to report considerable progress in the estimates and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Minister, could you move that the committee report resolution of the Public Service ministry and progress in this ministry.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Chair, the committee reports resolution of the Public Service minister's estimates and asks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress and resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the House do now stand adjourned until 6:35.

The Speaker: I think there is particular wording that is important on this resolution, which the Clerk will give you some advice on.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:55 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. S. Hammell: In Committee A, we'll hear the estimates of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In Committee B, we'll hear the estimates of Transportation and Highways.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

[1840]

D. Symons: In that figure we don't hear of the other $490 million that's going from the TFA, so you have to add those two together to get a concept of the full spending of this ministry.

We were discussing, before the break, the issue of HCL and pension funds and the union involvement in the awarding of work on this project and various projects around the province. I have a copy of the Vancouver Island collective agreement -- HCL and B.C. Highway Construction Council. It's essentially the same for the mainland, I believe. I'm looking at the trades section, under "Electrical." I just chose electrical, because there are similarities for reference's sake with page 59, which I'm starting on. We see, for an inside wire journeyperson, that the rate that was set when this was put together was $23.74.

We were talking earlier about the pension plan. I notice that if we flip over two pages, we find some of the various funds that are here. One of them is the pension fund. It's EL-131, for reference: "Contributions of $3.05 for each hour for each employee shall be remitted to the affiliated union pension and/or retirement fund." I wonder if the minister might

[ Page 12969 ]

Hon. H. Lali: Employer.

D. Symons: Most people who work at a job -- at least the salaried people -- contribute into a pension plan, and usually there's an employee's portion that gets deducted from their paycheque as part of their contribution. The employer then often matches it and in some cases puts in a bit more. In this case, this is a totally employer-funded pension plan. That's fact number one, I seem to have got here.

If we look further on, we find some other plans that apparently the employer will be paying into. There's welfare: "Contributions of $1.25 for each hour for each employee shall be remitted to the electrical industry's welfare trust funds." I wonder if the minister might give me an idea of what an electrical industry welfare trust fund is. Why is the government contributing $1.25 for every hour worked by electricians on Highways projects?

Hon. H. Lali: That is actually the health and benefits plan for the electrical employees in the electrical industry.

D. Symons: Electrical employees. . . . I would assume that this is through the union that represents electrical employees.

We find other ones here. We find a joint industry promotion fund. It's only 5 cents an hour, but as we'll see in a moment, that can add up a bit. The electrical construction industry and British Columbia indemnity fund -- 10 cents an hour. Then we have industry funds: "Contributions for each hour in the following amount shall be to the administrator, electrical industry welfare trust funds, in trust, training funds of 10 cents an hour and apprenticeship bursary fund of 5 cents an hour and apprenticeship bursary fund of 5 cents per hour." Then we even have a special one here: "Library fund for local 993 only." The other locals apparently don't have libraries. But you would contribute 3 cents per hour to that particular fund.

Those numbers aren't very great, except if you think of the number of hours they're working each day. This project has basically been about a five-year project for the Island Highway. That begins to add up to a lot of money which, basically, the government is funding through various union organizations. I just read the one for the electrical, but there's a carpenters and cement masons and quite a pile of various unions that basically have things very similar to these. It worked out to $1.55 per hour for this particular union -- not counting the pension plan, which is another $3.05 on top of that -- that is going into various union funds.

Can the minister give me some assurance that if we're putting $1.25 into something called the electrical industry welfare trust funds, those moneys are indeed used in their entirety for that particular purpose? Can they be used somewhere else within the electrical industry once they have their hands on it? Do you audit the government money that you're putting into the hands of these organizations? Do we have some audit to find out where the money goes and if it's used for that purpose?

[1845]

D. Symons: In other words, the minister is saying: "No, we don't audit it. We're just leaving it up to the union -- the particular representatives on those committees that will look after the moneys in the way that they see fit." That's what I was afraid of, actually.

Can the minister tell me -- because the HCL model was put together, and all the various payments into funds and so forth -- whether what is being done here is also paid by employers who have a union representative with the electrical trades unions? Do they have the same affairs where the employer puts in those moneys to those particular funds? Or are they as in things I've been used to, where the employees have payroll deductions that go into various things as well -- pensions and other funds also, or employee deductions or shared expenses between the employer and employee? There's nothing about any shared expenses here. This is all out of the employers' side, from what I can gather, reading this book.

Hon. H. Lali: It is actually done in the other sectors, such as the CLRA. These include medical and dental benefits and sick leave. It's also up to the employment standards branch to make sure that it is well protected. They look after that.

D. Symons: That's reassuring to know that. Now, I have a concern because, in one sense, we would like to know that the moneys are going into those particular funds. I think that if the employees themselves are contributing something toward a fund, there might be a little more interest on the part of employees as to the use of those moneys. When it's sort of gifted to them through the employer -- in this case, the taxpayers of British Columbia -- you know, it's maybe not as good as employees having some ownership of it as well.

I'm wondering if I could just ask one more question. Prior to our break, the minister was telling us the importance of using the HCL model. One of the reasons for that was that what we were doing was making sure that we'd have a no-strike or a no-lockout arrangement happen during the construction, first of the Island Highway and now for any other projects that come along. Can the minister tell me, prior to the introduction of the HCL way of building highway projects, when did the last strike on a major highway project take place in this province?

[1850]

D. Symons: I happen to know the answer: it was 30 years ago. I mean, what you're doing by telling us: "Well, we're protecting the possibility of a strike. . . ." It hasn't happened very much in the highway-building industry in this province. So you're protecting us against something that isn't likely to happen. You're buying insurance for an event that isn't going to happen, and we, the people of the province, are basically paying for it, as we found out just now from some of the questions I've asked.

[ Page 12970 ]

S. Hawkins: Yes, there's quite a bit of concern about the four-laning to Merritt. As the minister knows, there has been a coalition formed in the interior called the Coquihalla Connector Coalition, and there are leaders from the community all through the Okanagan and the interior sitting on this task force. It's interesting, because they've written to this minister; they've written to quite a few other ministries -- the Ministry of Environment, the Premier's Office, the deputy minister -- asking for information. I understand that there was a meeting requested of this minister by this coalition, and unfortunately that meeting never took place. The minister actually made the announcement of the four-laning without meeting with this coalition. I could be wrong on that. He can correct me when he stands up, but I understand that's what happened.

I think what's important to understand here is that the coalition is quite concerned that $10 million of taxpayer money is being spent on four-lane access into Merritt and that perhaps other areas of the province that could use that money for road safety or whatever reasons aren't getting it. The second concern they have is: do we really have that money to spend at this time? The province is posting over a $1 billion deficit, and to four-lane a road. . . . I understand that the minister said at his news conference in Merritt that it was for safety reasons, and I also understand that the Merritt RCMP have stated, on the record, that this road is safe. There are a couple of times in the summer when there are accidents on this road, but for the large part I understand that the road is reasonably safe.

I do have quite a few questions that the coalition forwarded to the minister. The first one I want to ask is: has the ministry conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis of this four-laning project with any other projects in that area, as far as updating the roads or safety concerns or priorities? Why is this road taking priority over any other road in that part of the country?

Hon. H. Lali: In regards to the meeting that Mr. Mitchell was asking for. . . . I made the announcement on the $10 million four-laning between Aspen Grove and Merritt almost a month ago. It's actually a partial four-laning. It's a 14-kilometre section; we're only doing six kilometres over the next couple of years. My staff is actually working to find a day when we can meet with Mr. Mitchell and the Coquihalla Coalition -- the coalition group that he has formed -- to discuss the issue that residents of the Okanagan Valley are pushing for, which is actually the Kingsvale cutoff -- or the bypass, as it's generally known. I'd be more than happy -- and I told Mr. Mitchell this -- to talk to both himself and representatives of his group on the merits of that particular issue.

[1855]

I know the hon. member was not in the House at the time, but I put it on record at the time, and I'll repeat it again. Since 1990, when the Okanagan connector was opened, there have been 238 accidents that have taken place on that stretch from Merritt to Peachland, and 55 of those have been at the Aspen Grove turnoff -- the intersection of the Aspen Grove-to-Princeton road with Highway 97C. It is from that point northward to Merritt that the six kilometres will be four-laned -- starting at that point. What we are actually doing is getting rid of the worst accident spot on that entire stretch from Peachland to Merritt. Those are figures that are readily available, and the hon. member can access those.

In terms of the debate that is going on, I just want to point out to the hon. member that it was not a choice of Aspen Grove versus the Kingsvale cutoff. Rather, what we're doing is. . . . These are two separate issues. We're getting rid of a bottleneck area where we've got a 110-kilometre-an-hour speed on either side. We're starting this year and also next year to get rid of the six-kilometre section first, and then, when moneys are available, we'll continue on by doing the remaining eight kilometres that is there. I'd be more than happy to talk to the hon. member, and even to Mr. Mitchell and his coalition, about any issues they may have regarding the Kingsvale cutoff.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister would table some of those studies with us, as far as the safety concerns on that stretch of highway.

I wonder if the minister can tell me and, for the sake of the coalition. . . . Mr. Mitchell was also, I understand, on the task force back in 1990. He was the chairman of the regional transportation committee for the Thompson-Okanagan region. I understand that he was also on the original committee that looked at the original Coquihalla connector. So he has quite a bit of experience in this area. But I'm wondering, for his information and for mine, if the minister wouldn't mind telling me how they prioritize spending for roads in this province. What criteria do they use -- what terms of reference? Where does this one rank on that list? Do they have a list that says: "These are the most dangerous roads, and these are the ones we're going to start with first"? Or does the list say: "These are the ones the minister wants, because they're in his riding"?

That is the impression that's out there, and that's certainly the impression that members of the community are led to believe. If the minister can give us some solid information -- you know, some solid studies that show the cost-benefit analysis, the safety analysis, the benefits of doing this stretch of road over any others in the province -- we'd like to see those studies. If the minister can tell me where he has that list that says, "Here's the most unsafe road in the province, and that's where we're starting, and we're going to work our way down" -- if that's how they're prioritizing -- and where this four-lane project fits on that list. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member's request for accident stats -- we committed earlier, and certainly I'll recommit, to providing those stats to the hon. member.

The hon. member also mentioned that Mr. Mitchell was on a task force that did a report. It was actually the late

[ Page 12971 ]

[1900]

Secondly, the hon. member repeated some allegation which has been made out there that the $10 million investment on the Aspen Grove-to-Merritt section is in my own riding. That is correct; it is my own riding. But I'm wondering if the hon. member is aware that the Kingsvale cutoff is also in my riding. The total cost for the project from Aspen Grove to Merritt for four-laning is roughly $35 million. The Kingsvale cutoff, in 1987 dollars, is roughly about $80 million. So if one wanted to favour their own riding, I think they would go for the bigger sum. I think that argument out there is just folly; there's no truth to that.

The other thing is that Aspen Grove to Merritt, to the top of the Hamilton Hill, is not being done under HCL, because, you know, we're not spending the entire amount. If we were, it would have gone under HCL. For instance, if the government had the money and we were to do the Kingsvale cutoff, surely that would be over $30 million. It would fall within the HCL threshold. There would be local hire. Most of the workers on the Kingsvale cutoff would come from my riding. If that were to happen, it would extend all the way. . . . In terms of hiring, it would extend all the way out to Ashcroft, Logan Lake and to Merritt, Douglas Lake, Princeton, Spences Bridge and, I think, even Lytton. So, by far, most of the workers would come from my riding.

So if one wanted to pork-barrel, as the mayor of Penticton has alleged, then one would actually go for the Kingsvale cutoff and make sure that most of the workers would be from the riding of Yale-Lillooet. That's certainly not the case. I want to point that out to the member. Both Aspen Grove and also the Kingsvale cutoff are within the minister's riding.

S. Hawkins: The minister got onto a tangent of other stuff that I wasn't even talking about. I'm glad he mentioned the comparative estimates between the two, because he is talking about 1999 dollars here and 1987 dollars back then. But I'm wondering, and the coalition is also wondering -- the task force for the Coquihalla connector is wondering: has the ministry done any cost analysis of the two alternatives? Have they done it? The minister keeps talking about the 1990 dollars. Well, we don't know that. We know that's what they might have estimated back then.

But we also know -- because apparently some of the detailed design plans for the new road are out, and there are copies that have been made available to the coalition -- that it is not just the widening of a road. It's apparently two brand-new lanes. So there will actually be six lanes of pavement. There will be all kinds of land to be taken out of the ALR, so that's going to have to be bought. There are all kinds of costs around that. So I'm wondering: can the minister tell me if they've done any cost analysis between the two routes or any other routes?

Again, the minister didn't answer my first question: where on the priority list of safety does this four-laning fall?

Hon. H. Lali: First of all, I just want to start off by saying to the hon. member that the decision not to do the Kingsvale cutoff was made by a previous government. It was made in 1987 by a Social Credit government and not by an NDP government. The decision made at that time was that the road would come down from Aspen Grove into Merritt, rather than bypassing and cutting off Merritt and going on to Kingsvale and then to the coast. So that decision was made a long time ago.

Also, the decision by myself and the TFA to four-lane six kilometres from Aspen Grove towards Merritt is separate from the issue of the Kingsvale cutoff. Aspen Grove and Kingsvale are not two options of the same issue; they're two totally separate issues. So when the decision was made to complete the Aspen Grove section -- the $10 million -- it was not done with a view to comparing or contrasting, or whatever one may want to call it, with the Kingsvale cutoff. It is a separate issue.

[1905]

Just to give you an example, the North Peace Rural Roads Task Force came back with some recommendations two years ago which actually mirrored the recommendations that the ministry had come up with at that time. All of these issues are forwarded on to Victoria where I as the minister, along with my staff, actually put forward the recommendations to the BCTFA, where most of the money for the capital projects comes from. The plan goes forward to Treasury Board and then on to cabinet before they are approved. It's not something that is done overnight. It's a lengthy process. It takes months and years, and it is an ongoing process of prioritization and planning that takes place year after year regardless of what government is in power or what party is in office. Business cases have to be made for a particular project. There is a multiple-count evaluation that is done by the BCTFA. Safety of the travelling public is also a prime concern, as are environmental issues and economic development issues.

When I made the announcement for the Aspen Grove section at $10 million, safety and congestion and economic development were all issues that I cited. There are financial

[ Page 12972 ]

S. Hawkins: Well, the minister was wrong again when he said the decision not to do Aspen Grove to Kingsvale was made by the previous government. The minister knows. . . . He has a copy of this press release from July 1988, when then-Minister of Transportation and Highways Stephen Rogers said that the Aspen Grove-to-Kingsvale option would be considered in future expansion plans. That's a press release from the government of the day, from 1988. When the minister says that that option was axed by the previous government in 1987, he's wrong. There is a press release from the year after, which the minister quotes, that obviously says that it was still on the books. So either the minister doesn't know that, or he's just clearly wrong, or he's denying it.

You know what? When taxpayers are on the hook for $10 million, they don't separate the options. They don't care. What they want is the best bang for their buck. Taxpayers in this province know that they are sitting on more debt from this budget that this government introduced, and certainly over a billion-dollar deficit. This coalition of interested citizens is saying to this government, which refuses to meet with them. . . . I'm hoping the minister will keep his commitment tonight, when he says that he is going to arrange a meeting and talk to these people, because these people are leaders in the community, in the Okanagan and in the interior. They look after taxpayer bucks as well. They want to sit down and talk to this minister and say: "Look, first of all, do we have $10 million to spend on projects like this in the province at this time? If we do, then are we doing it at the right places?"

This coalition, which extends from one end of the valley to the other, is citing in their letters to this minister a stretch of road from Peachland to Summerland that they say is very unsafe, very dangerous and has high accident rates as well. They're asking the minister: "Listen. If you are saying there's $10 million to spend, surely you would take local interests and concerns into account and sit down with local people and say: 'We've got $10 million to spend in the interior. Where should it be best spent?' "

[1910]

I also want to ask the minister -- because there are huge agriculture concerns around the $10 million four-laning to Merritt and. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: The minister says he already anticipated my question. This. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: If he'd stop talking for a minute, I'd get my thoughts together and be able to. . . . Maybe he's already anticipated my question, but I certainly don't anticipate his answers, because I usually don't get them.

There are huge ALR and agriculture concerns. My understanding is that when the Aspen Grove-to-Kingsvale option was being considered, there was a huge amount of land -- I believe it was about 700 to 750 acres; I could be wrong -- that was bought by the Crown in anticipation of a future connector there. In the option that the minister and his ministry have decided on. . . . I don't know if the ministry has actually decided on it, because I know there's conflicting information there. But the minister's choice of the Merritt proposal certainly cuts into a lot of ranching land. As far as environmental concerns, there are some fishing lakes up there that will be affected.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I'm just wondering if the minister has done the studies that the ALR has requested of him. I understand there was a letter that was received back from the Agricultural Land Commission by the coalition, and it basically supports the coalition's position. It points out that the existing two-lane road "is the most heavily used livestock-driving lane in B.C." I understand that the ALR did suggest an overpass to be built across the proposed freeway. Apparently the ALR feels that the proposal we've seen is to leave the existing road where it is and build a parallel freeway with the existing road remaining as a service road. That was quoting Tony Pellett. He said that in an interview.

Apparently there's a huge impact on cattle ranching. The problem for ranchers is that their cattle are on the north side of the freeway and the access road is to the south. Apparently the ALR has asked the ministry to report back on the impact of the upgraded road that goes through the grazing lands. I'm just wondering if the minister can give us an update on if that's happened and where they are with that. I also understand that this proposal. . . .

I'm not going to let him get up until I'm finished here. I understand that this proposal of four-laning the Merritt option will have ranchers losing more than 450 acres of land as a result of the project. The Quilchena Ranch is particularly concerned, because apparently the rancher there will lose 80 acres of cattle-grazing area. I want the minister to comment on those two concerns.

The Chair: The Minister of Transportation and Highways -- and the Lions Gate Bridge.

Hon. H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I'll wait for the Chair to stand up and question me, in my estimates, on the Lions Gate Bridge.

There were a number of comments that the hon. member made, actually -- a number of questions there. So I'll just sort of start from the beginning here and work my way down. First of all, I don't want to stand here and actually debate history with the hon. member, as to who said what and when it was said.

Interjection.

[ Page 12973 ]

Interjections.

Hon. H. Lali: I'll wait until the hecklers are settled down here, hon. Chair.

[1915]

Now, the letter that the hon. member read, I think, is from the former minister, Mr. Stephen Rogers. I'm not going to get into the history as to why the minister of the day made that comment at that time. But I can tell you that Mrs. Johnston, when she was the Premier -- in 1990, I believe it was -- announced and actually once and for all put that debate to an end when she said: "We do not have the money right now, and neither is there a need to be able to do the Kingsvale cutoff." We could sit here and debate history, but that was the decision that was made by a previous government.

The hon. member wants to know if the $10 million investment -- Aspen Grove to Merritt -- is a good decision. Yes, it is. It is a good decision. Do we have the money? Yes, we do. We have the money, and it's debt-financed as capital projects are, so that they are paid for during the life of that particular project.

The hon. member also made a comment that all we're doing is bringing in more debt. The coalition's concerned about that, and that we shouldn't have more debt. Yet, over the last two years that I know of, maybe even three, the hon. member has been lobbying this government to spend anywhere from $80 million to $100 million on rebuilding the Okanagan bridge. I think that would only do one thing: it would add more to the debt. The hon. member cannot have it both ways -- unless the hon. member is suggesting that we shouldn't add more debt, still do the Okanagan bridge and spend anywhere from $80 million to $100 million, in which case other projects would have to be dropped. I'm just wondering which projects the hon. member would then identify and say we should drop.

On the ALR issue, on the Aspen Grove connector that we have before us, the ministry is working closely with the Agricultural Land Commission to mitigate the concerns that they have on behalf of the agricultural community. We have already been talking to them, and I think the member clearly understands the procedure: that until an announcement, the ministry doesn't approach the ALR about issues. Once the announcement is made, then we write to the Agricultural Land Commission regarding those issues, and then there is an ongoing dialogue back and forth to make sure that those concerns are mitigated. We are working very closely with not only the Agricultural Land Commission but also the individual landowners and ranchers along both sides of the road.

S. Hawkins: When the minister started off, I think it was the first time I'd ever heard someone from that side of the House agreeing with a decision that was made by the previous Social Credit government. Congratulations. Whether rightly or wrongly, my information is that the decision hadn't been made to axe it. I've got the press release, which I know that the minister has if he reads his mail. Mr. Mitchell did send him a copy with the letter.

[1920]

In reference to the bridge in my riding, I think the minister should go back and read the estimates and refresh his memory. I don't think I ever once said: "Spend $80 million in my riding." You know what I said? I said: "Why don't you, for a change, be honest with my constituents? Instead of leading them on and saying, 'Someday a bridge will come,' why don't you just tell them: 'We don't have the money, and we'll look at other options'?"

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Yeah, exactly.

I know this province doesn't have the money. When I see a deficit of over $1 billion and $3 billion more debt added to the provincial debt load, I know this province doesn't have the money, and I think that is basically where this coalition is coming from as well. This is a coalition of very concerned citizens and taxpayers. They're saying to this minister. . . . Again, I reiterate that I really hope that this minister is committed to meeting with this coalition and listening to their concerns.

They are concerned that we don't have $10 million. Is this the road that is absolutely the highest priority in this province? They know there's another road in the interior that is a higher priority as far as they're concerned, and that is the Peachland-to-Summerland section. How is this minister making this decision? Would he please sit down and talk to them about it? What is the rush to ram this through? Why not do the studies first or at least share them with the coalition? So if the minister will commit to doing that. . . .

I don't know if the member for Okanagan-Penticton has any other questions, but I will close with that and pass on to the coalition that this minister is planning to table some traffic studies and to arrange a meeting with them in the very near future and, hopefully, will listen to their concerns.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out that the hon. member is actually quite wrong in suggesting that Merritt lobbied to have the highway bypass the Nicola Valley. Mr. Henry Norgaard, along with Mr. Paul Mitchell, was on the

[ Page 12974 ]

The Okanagan bridge -- which I believe is in the hon. member's riding -- certainly impacts the hon. member's riding in a significant way. We have spent, over the last three years, including this year's budget, a total of $6.4 million to find a solution. That's not a small amount of money. The Okanagan bridge is a high priority for this government. Otherwise, we wouldn't be spending the kind of money that we are to find the right solution for that. I don't think the hon. member, who stated that she doesn't want me to rush into the Aspen Grove or the Kingsvale issue. . . . Obviously I think they would respect the fact that they don't want the ministry to be rushing into the Okanagan bridge issue as well.

She made a comment that the government should be more honest and that I should read her statements in Hansard regarding the estimates in past years -- to be more honest and tell people of the Okanagan whether we're going to build a bridge or not. I think that my response last year to the hon. member was that for once the hon. member should be honest. On the one side, she should not be saying to the people of British Columbia that there should be no more debt, yet at the same time asking for a nearly $100 million investment in her riding, without trying to identify -- if there were to be no more debt -- $100 million worth of cuts in other areas in order to build the bridge. So I repeated last year that she should be more honest with the people of British Columbia and say where the money is going to come from, if there's not going to be more debt.

[1925]

S. Hawkins: Just for the record, I think the minister should go back again and read the estimates and refresh his memory, because I think he's propagating his own rumours there, about this member asking for a $100 million bridge in her riding. I haven't. The minister should go back and read the estimates for the last three years. What he'll see is this member asking the government to say, one or the other, whether they are actually going to build that bridge. For the last eight or ten years, that riding and those constituents have been told that this government was going to do something there. If it's not going to be done. . . . That's all I ask for: if it's not going to be done, then just say that. It's been studied to death, as far as those constituents are concerned.

This member isn't asking this minister to spend $80 million. And you know what? My constituents aren't asking for it. They know that this government has frittered away the money, and there isn't money for it now. So what we're asking for is for this government to prioritize their projects and set up some terms of reference and criteria so that the taxpayers know that when money is spent, it's spent in a fiscally responsible way. That's what the taxpayers and my constituents are asking for. And the same constituents asking for that are the ones that are sitting on the coalition and questioning the government's judgment -- whether $10 million should actually be spent four-laning the Merritt connector.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, on the issue of Aspen Grove, I've already repeated several times that it's related to safety. It's also related to congestion taking place in that 14 kilometres, as well as economic development in the Nicola Valley area, which is fairly heavily dependent on the resource sector. Obviously when I made the $490 million announcement in March, one of the cornerstones of that announcement was to make sure that we have job creation taking place in rural areas, especially those areas that have been negatively impacted by the resource sector, as indeed Merritt has been.

Again, on the issue of the Okanagan bridge, I beg to differ with the hon. member. The issue has been alive for at least 20 years that I know about, and we're the first government to actually do something about it. And we are doing something about it. Otherwise we wouldn't be spending that kind of money -- the $6.4 million -- in order to try to find a solution to that problem. Again, I beg to differ with the hon. member. I think she should go back and read her own statements. She has been lobbying for the nearly $100 million investment, and for her to say this right now is actually going back on her words.

You know, in terms of prioritization of projects, there are projects all throughout the province that are prioritized. Safety is a prime concern for this government and always has been, and also the other sets of criteria that I read into the record for the hon. member.

B. Barisoff: The minister indicates that he's basing the decision for the Merritt-to-Aspen Grove section on accident statistics. Could the minister possibly get me the statistics on accidents from Manning Park to Keremeos, and particularly from Princeton to Manning Park -- the Whipsaw area -- and how the four-laning of the section of road from Aspen Grove to Merritt will affect the communities of Princeton and Keremeos on Highway 3? If it's based on accidents, I'd like to see a comparison of those two areas, because there's an awful lot of traffic on Highway 3.

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of the figures that the hon. member is asking for, we don't have them right now. But we'll certainly commit to providing those figures to the hon. member. The impact on communities like Keremeos and Cawston and Princeton. . . . I've talked to the people of Princeton and the mayor and council. There'll be no impact; they're not impacted in any way by the Aspen Grove-to-Merritt section of the road.

[1930]

[ Page 12975 ]

B. Barisoff: So the minister is indicating that Princeton council and Keremeos council are in favour of this and the fact that there will be no negative impact and more traffic going on the Coquihalla than going on Highway 3.

Hon. H. Lali: Just to correct the hon. member, I said I talked to the mayor of Princeton and council and also to people in Princeton. I didn't say Keremeos; I've had no correspondence with people in Keremeos on this particular $10 million announcement.

R. Thorpe: I'm just wondering, since the minister is going to be gathering some accident-rate figures, if he would undertake also to bring the accident rates for the Peachland to Summerland portion of Highway 97. Or perhaps he has them there. Do you have them?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Okay.

D. Symons: I asked for the traffic counts. He's asking for accidents.

R. Thorpe: Accidents.

D. Symons: You brought the accidents into it.

R. Thorpe: Yeah, the accident rate. I guess the minister's saying he'll bring that tomorrow.

With respect to the 97C four-laning, what are the traffic counts on the portion that you're going to four-lane?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, that was information that was asked for by a previous speaker, so we committed to bring that information later as well.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise how much money the TFA has spent to date on studies and consultations on Highway 97 south of Kelowna in the Okanagan? How many millions, to date, have been spent on studies?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, we don't have that figure readily available. We'll have to supply the hon. member with that information later.

R. Thorpe: When the minister undertakes to supply it, I assume that we'll receive it reasonably quickly, not a year from now.

Can the minister advise on the funds -- the millions -- that have been spent on studies to date? Are those costs expensed when the studies are incurred? Or are they collected and eventually capitalized in the project if and when it's ever completed?

Hon. H. Lali: If the project does not happen within two years, we expense them. If the project does happen, then it becomes a cost part of the project.

R. Thorpe: Earlier I heard the minister saying -- that it's so important to do work based on safety, and that only he and his government are concerned about safety. Well, first of all, hon. Chair, you know that, and I know that. We're all concerned about safety. Of course, in the area between Penticton and Peachland, we're very concerned about safety. Actually, the citizens have taken it upon themselves and done some work there to stop a number of wildlife from being killed and accidents happening on the highway. My question, because this is such a treacherous part of the highway, is: are any pullouts planned in the near term between Peachland and Summerland, both ways?

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, I want to thank the hon. member. That's a very good question. I just talked to my staff. There's none planned in the foreseeable future, but I'll make a commitment to work with the hon. member across the way to identify some areas, so that we can perhaps bring it forward as a priority in next year's budget.

[1935]

Just going back to the questions to do with the Merritt-to-Aspen Grove project that you have in mind, can the minister tell me the portion that you're going to be doing? The whole project. . . . When you're doing it, are you following what I'll refer to as the footprint of the current road in there, by adding either lanes on each side of the current road or possibly two lanes on one side of the current road to make your total of four? Or will you be changing the course of the road in places? Roughly, give me an idea of how much you're going to vary from the given footprint.

Hon. H. Lali: The plan is to smooth out some of the curves. We're going to use the same alignment. Part of the road will also become frontage road.

D. Symons: From what the minister has said, I would think, it sounds like a fair amount of this road is basically new road. Rather than simply widening the road a little bit and adding shoulders and so forth, it sounds like new road. So when the minister's giving us a price comparison between the upgrading of this one and the cut-off route, maybe the difference isn't quite so much, because there you're constructing new road as well. It sounds like you're doing a fair amount of new road here. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it certainly sounded like it.

The other question I would like to ask, then. . . . Since you are varying from the footprint, from what I gather, you are definitely going into land that is currently agricultural land reserve. Have you approached or will you be approaching the agricultural land reserve to ask for this land to be exempted from that? What has the response been so far to that request?

Hon. H. Lali: As stated earlier, yes, we have approached the Agricultural Land Commission. We're working closely with the ALR, as well as working closely with the agriculturists who have been affected on both sides of this particular stretch of the road. That's something that I've already stated on record.

D. Symons: I wonder if you might give us an idea, then, of how much land is involved, and how much. . . . I suspect you've costed out the compensation you'll have. This will be

[ Page 12976 ]

Hon. H. Lali: It's in the neighbourhood of about 450 acres of agricultural land that will be affected.

D. Symons: There was a second portion to my question. I assume that some of this land is currently owned by ranchers in that area, and therefore there would be some compensation for removing land from their land title. Have you worked out what the cost of that would be?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes. This area of the province would not be any different from any other area of the province. Where there's land that needs to be purchased, obviously compensation would be paid for that.

D. Symons: Since the minister hasn't given me an answer to the question, which was, "How much is the compensation going to be? I assume, since you're planning the highway now, that you've got a pretty good idea. When you talk about $10 million, the $10 million is going to include this compensation, so you must have costed it out in some form. You're flying by the seat of your pants if you can't give answers to that question.

Hon. H. Lali: This minister never flies by the seat of his pants, hon. member.

I just want to point out that, obviously, we are in discussions right now. Some of them may involve trading and swapping some of the land that the ministry currently owns. Another might be outright purchase. So I can't give you an exact figure. Obviously we don't do negotiations through the open airwaves either. I think the answer should be fairly self-explanatory.

D. Symons: So then, I would gather -- and I was hoping to be leaving this topic, but it keeps bringing other interesting points in here -- that $10 million is somewhat of a flexible number on this particular portion, because he really doesn't know what the costs are going to be, from what the minister's been answering. Is that $10 million flexible? Or are you going to narrow the shoulders or do something if you find that you have to pay more compensation for expropriated land than you had planned? Really, what has your planning process been?

[1940]

D. Symons: I gather the minister is saying that we've got a cap of $10 million, and he'll go with the six kilometres if he can. Maybe it'll be a nine-kilometre project. Let's hope we get something fairly long out of this.

I wonder if I might move on, because what I've been trying to do and got side-tracked from during the evening. . . . I was working on the TFA and some problems I had with it. First were my concerns about sustainability of the debt that's being raised by this corporation, getting up to $1.5 billion. I was concerned about the priorities which are used for determining what projects go ahead. In a sense we seem to have been talking on that topic here as well. I've shown some concern about the spread of the HCL model being used on highway projects.

I'd like to look at a final concern, related to these others, that deals with the capital investment plans that are part of the Transportation Financing Authority -- and the priorities, therefore, that flow from those. One of those plans is, I think, something called the lower mainland congestion relief program. On March 6, the minister made an announcement -- and I was there -- about the $490 million spending on capital spending and rehab programs around the province. In that news announcement -- I think I have it here -- he makes a comment about $92.5 million. That was for this lower mainland congestion relief.

I'm wondering what the main projects of that program are, how much of this year's $92.5 million for the lower mainland congestion relief funding is earmarked for each, and what the projected total cost of these will be. One of them is no doubt the Lions Gate Bridge. So basically, how much of the $92.5 million is going to be for that project -- and some of the other major portions of that $92.5 million this year? If he wouldn't mind, at the same time give me the estimated final cost of the project. So he's going to tell me, for the Lions Gate Bridge, for instance, of the $92 million. We're spending $20 million this year, and that's going to leave us $72 million in future years. So the total cost is -- whatever.

Hon. H. Lali: I'll just read the list for the hon. member. The projects in the lower mainland congestion relief program are the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver -- bridge renewal for this year is $33 million, and the total cost will be $99.8 million; the Sea Island connector in Richmond is a new crossing -- $14.9 million this year, and the total cost will be $30 million; a traffic management program in the GVRD, Highway 1 pilot, is almost $7 million, and the total cost is a touch over $20 million; 88th Avenue to 100th Street in Fort Langley, an interchange reconfiguration, is $2.14 million this year, and the total is $3.14 million, TFA portion; the 152nd Street and 32nd Avenue interchange in Surrey is $470,000 this year and $5.96 million in total; and the Lougheed-Cape Horn interchange in the Coquitlam reconfiguration is $1.95 million this year and $3.82 million in total; the Port Mann Bridge-Cape Horn interchange in Surrey and Coquitlam, five-laning and the seismic on the bridge, is $26 million this year and a total of $74 million; the Nordel Way extension in Delta and Surrey, a new route, is $5.8 million this year, for a total of $8 million; the Highways 17 and 99 HOV conversion in Delta and Richmond, is $1.3 million this year, for a total of $1.7 million. These are our costs.

[1945]

[ Page 12977 ]

D. Symons: That's under the lower mainland congestion relief program. The largest single sum of money the minister gave me was for the Lions Gate Bridge, both in this year's spending and in total spending. I guess I have a concern if you're going to lump that as an expenditure under something called a congestion relief program, because, from what I can gather, if you're going to take the current three-lane bridge. . . . If you're going to rehab a three-lane bridge, you have not increased its capacity at all. Nor are you increasing through Stanley Park or anywhere. So I'm curious why it would be labelled under a congestion relief program. It might come under some other program. Certainly it's needed as a rehab program; there's no doubt of it. But it's not congestion relief; it's not going to help the congestion in the lower mainland one little bit. So is it misplaced?

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member said that the Lions Gate Bridge is just a three-lane rehab. We've got three lanes now; we're going to get another three lanes. All of the municipalities in the region have said that they don't want an expansion of that particular bridge; they wanted the three-lane rehab. But, I mean, the alternative, if we do nothing. . . . If the bridge has to be closed, obviously that would add to the congestion in the lower mainland in terms of the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge, also known as the Second Narrows. It is congestion relief. We're also doing wider lanes, wider sidewalks, as well as reconfiguring part of the interchange on the north side of that -- all of that in the interest of congestion relief -- and also signalization that we're going to be doing in moving the traffic quickly.

[1950]

This person suggested that rather than have this slow merging, really what might be better is to have traffic lights located basically where the merging goes on now and have the traffic lights so that one lane, once they've got into this single lane from North Van and a single group of cars from West Van. . . . You would have a traffic light that would let in, say, 40 cars. So you'd have surges of traffic from one and then 40 from the other at the traffic lights. Place them that way so that rather than the cars having to take the very great care that they have to take in merging, you'd be able to have a set number of vehicles go through on a light, and then the other direction would also have a set number of vehicles go through.

Have there been studies done to see whether the merging -- slowing to merge and then going onto the bridge into your lane -- is preferable to pulses of traffic going alternately? Have the studies been done to do that, and would this be a good place to try it?

Hon. H. Lali: It's actually a fair bit of detail to try to comprehend all of that without a map in front of us. But I think the hon. member has some good ideas, and I'd be more than happy to line up staff of the Lions Gate project with the hon. members to try to coordinate some of the suggestions that the hon. member has made.

D. Symons: I won't take them as being my suggestions. It's something a constituent passed along or, at least that the Province passed along to me. I assumed, from the format of the letter, you might have it on your desk as well. It's something that I think might be looked into, and obviously from the response, the idea of using this way of feeding traffic onto a bottleneck maybe has not been discussed or considered with the ministry. It could apply to other places, as well, around the province where large numbers of traffic merge into a given line. I'm thinking of the Deas -- or George Massey -- Tunnel, as well, as being another location where that possibly would be a system that might work.

I still have concerns, you see. You've got three lanes of traffic going over the bridge currently, and you're going to have three lanes when you're finished. They may move a little bit better because you will have wider lanes and so forth. I've made a suggestion that possibly will allow them to move even better. But it's not really changing much in the capacity of the bridge.

Yet I'm concerned. You say that people on the North Shore don't want more capacity. The reality is that the North Shore is going to grow even though it's not part, really, of the growth strategy for the lower mainland. It's going to grow, as is happening in Richmond now. When we've filled the land in, we're going up. You're finding more and more highrises and condos and that sort of thing going up on the North Shore, as they are in Richmond. The population of the North Shore is going to grow. Not only that, but we're going to have the population begin to grow up in the Squamish Valley as well. Things are going there. Add to that the fact that Whistler is still a going concern and a world destination place, and that Whistler is trying -- and going to have a very good bid in, I believe -- for the Olympics not that many years from now, and the need for more capacity over Burrard Inlet is only going to get greater. It's not going to get less in the next short while. I know you're thinking of adding one more lane on the Iron Workers Bridge. I'm not sure whether one more lane there will handle it. Certainly the interest in getting over to the North Shore, for many of the people, is going to be to head further north along Highway 99. The quickest way of doing that, basically, is to go through Stanley Park over the Lions Gate.

I think you're spending $99.8 million, did you say, on upgrading a bridge that not too long from now is going to prove to be inadequate for the capacity that's going to be needed for crossing somewhere on that end of Burrard Inlet. I'm wondering if the minister might give me some idea of the studies that have gone into it and the thought for the future, rather than the thought for today, that seems to be the project's impetus for today.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member actually made a correction. I think he's quite right in that the North Shore munici-

[ Page 12978 ]

Also, in answer to a prior question that the hon. member asked, Lions Gate can correctly be categorized as congestion relief. Wider lanes also mean -- and obviously we will be widening the lanes on the Lions Gate -- fewer accidents. Accidents on the Lions Gate are a major cause of the congestion that has taken place in that particular area.

The suggestion that the hon. member put forward in an earlier question is actually being looked at in other areas, such as the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge. Certainly the suggestion that a constituent of the hon. member had made. . . . We'd be more than happy to have a Lions Gate project team talk to the hon. member. If he chooses to bring his constituent along, it might be beneficial.

On Highway 99, in the Olympic bid proposal that has gone in, obviously there's a lot of long-range planning needed if we're going to be successful in attaining the Olympics. If they do come to British Columbia, then we're going to have to make some fairly hefty expenditures in terms of meeting the demands that are needed there. That's why we have the study that is being done on Highway 99, so that we can look at events such as the Olympics coming that way. Even without it, there's obviously a need to try to improve that particular corridor.

[1955]

The other concern, I guess, is that if you get them going a little quicker over the bridge because the lanes are the standard width and it gives them a little more feeling of safety when they've got more space between cars, particularly when they're in the counterflow situation. . . . How about Stanley Park? You get off the bridge and go into Stanley Park, and you have a rather. . . . I gather you're going to resurface that one, too, because it's quite a well-worn one there. Are you widening Stanley Park so that the lanes within Stanley Park will match the lanes on the bridge? What's the plan for that?

Hon. H. Lali: The Vancouver parks board is in charge of Stanley Park. Obviously they've given out a flat no. They said there is absolutely no way that they are going to allow the ministry to go beyond the current width of the road and sidewalk that exists within Stanley Park right now.

D. Symons: So we'll have a wider bridge, but we'll still have a bottleneck -- or at least a constriction, shall we say, rather than bottleneck -- in Stanley Park.

Just looking at capacity and the needs for that on the North Shore, I mentioned. . . . We have other what I'll refer to as choke points, or bottlenecks, around the lower mainland that are a concern too. They do the same sort of thing that happens at Lions Gate Bridge -- the Port Mann Bridge, for one; the Pitt River Bridge -- you've done some work on that one; you're going to be working on the Port Mann by adding a lane on there; the Massey Tunnel. . . . All of these are areas where traffic tends to back up as it goes through during rush hours. I don't know if just improving the capacity at these locations tends, in a sense, to move that bottleneck situation or that congestion further down along the line.

Let's say we put in another tube -- which I would urge the minister to do, but I won't tell him to go spend the money on it -- at the Massey Tunnel. I know what you'll say if I say: "Go build it." But let's just mentally put it in there for the moment. We've got it through there, so now the bottleneck that occurs on the south side of the Fraser, and Highway 99 and Highway 17 feeding through there in the morning -- and it's horrendous -- will move where? Well, it'll move on to the Oak Street Bridge or the Knight Street Bridge. You've moved it further ahead.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

In Richmond we used to have real bottlenecks for the Dinsmore Bridge, getting onto Sea Island to get into Vancouver. Well, we built the No. 2 Road Bridge. Now the bottlenecks just occur at the Arthur Laing Bridge. So we still have that situation occurring. So really, what seems to be the case is: wouldn't it possibly be better if we looked at putting in more access, if we added access routes, rather than necessarily trying to funnel the traffic further down into another bottleneck situation further along -- another crossing on the Fraser River, you know, to spread traffic out, rather than just sort of funnelling along the same routes? You might move some bottlenecks along the route, but wouldn't it be better to spread the traffic out through different routes?

[2000]

Hon. H. Lali: I quite agree with the hon. member. We are actually doing planning for corridors, rather than looking at one-off, one-on situations. I'll forward a copy of the lower mainland highway system report to the hon. member. It talks about exactly the same kind of things that the hon. member has talked about.

D. Symons: I appreciate that very much.

I'm wondering if we might look at, while we're on the same topic of bottlenecks, the South Fraser perimeter road. It has been identified as a fairly important project to be done. I gather that little portions of it. . . . I think Surrey is even building some on its own hook, so to speak, because they got sort of tired of waiting for the government to do it, over a number of years. I'm not totally blaming this government for that; I think it's been a project around. . . .

But it's a rather interesting project, because I think it lends itself to some innovative funding techniques to get the thing done -- using partnerships with both the Fraser Wharves and other businesses along that route that could profit by it, using

[ Page 12979 ]

Along with that, of course, if there is some sort of traffic congestion -- an accident on the Pattullo Bridge or something of that sort -- people have an alternative that they can get on and get to another alternative route fairly easily. It would stop, maybe, some of the real bottlenecks that occur when accidents occur on one of the current routes, because it's very difficult to get from the route you're then on to one of the other crossings of the Fraser River. So where is that particular project in this vision, in looking at priorities, which we talked about much earlier this afternoon? Where is it sitting in the situation of priorities in the minister's mind?

Hon. H. Lali: On the South Fraser perimeter road issue that the hon. member raised, we are actually currently studying the alignment on that. It is a fairly high priority for the provincial government. We're also looking at cost-sharing with not only the municipalities but, certainly, with the federal government. We've been pursuing that quite vigorously. I know my predecessor, the Minister of Highways before me, and also I have carried it forward in the last year and a quarter that I've been the minister. Actually, I'd urge the hon. member across the way to join me in calling on his federal cousins to loosen their wallet a little bit so we can have more economic development taking place in this province. I'll be looking forward to the hon. member's support.

D. Symons: Let's just see if I can find that support right here. I believe it's Motion 41 on the order paper. It's been on the order paper for seven years now: "Be it resolved that this Legislature urge the Government of Canada to spend at least 50 percent of the money collected through Federal taxes on automotive fuels on highways in the province of origin." That has been on the order paper for a number of years. Since the member has called upon my support in dealing with the federal government, I'll call for that member's support to allow this motion to come forward before the House. Get your side to allow it -- because we don't have that ability -- and we will support that. I will give you that assurance: if you can get Motion 41 brought before the House, we will certainly support it.

[2005]

I've got here the "Lower Mainland Highway Improvement Outlook," October '97, and it does mention that the lower mainland highway system report is a continuation of this "Going Places."

"Several priorities for future highway initiatives in the lower mainland over the next ten years were recommended by the report. They include:

"Development of an HOV network, development of a traffic management program" -- that was mentioned earlier by the minister -- "Highway 1 corridor improvements, including the possible expansion of the Port Mann Bridge" -- we seem to be doing that -- "Highway 99 corridor improvements" -- Well, HOVs are doing that -- "development of the South Fraser perimeter road (Highway 1 through Highway 99 section)."

We can also look at the next page here. It talks about major road improvements. We find that initiatives considered for the Highway 1 corridor are improvements to the Cape Horn interchange to process traffic and to provide continuity of and/or connectivity with the Highway 1 HOV lanes. I gather you're moving in that direction -- great. The North Fraser perimeter road has possible HOV-lane capacity, so we might ask where that's going to be. Again, on this section, they mention the South Fraser perimeter road as well, and the Nordel extension. I will congratulate the minister on the fact that we're beginning to do those.

So these things are mentioned in here, and it will be great to see some of them come forward. But I'm wondering. . . . There was heavy emphasis in 1995 and then '96, in the "Going Places" document, on the use of HOV lanes. The success of HOV lanes in alleviating traffic problems seems to be called more and more into question. I know that I was in this House six or seven years ago, suggesting to the Minister of Transportation then, Mr. Charbonneau, that the bus lane on Highway 99 should be changed into HOV -- three or more people. They put a van pool in, and in September -- not too long from now -- you're going to make that an HOV lane. I'm not sure if it's three or more or two or more on that route. I think you're saying three or more on that one and two on the other. I'm not sure how you decide on that.

But there seem to be more and more places that have gone HOV, and they're basically saying that it really has been a failure as far as reducing the number of vehicles on the road. It simply means that the fellow taking his girlfriend out for a date now, if he's on a two-lane one -- as Highway 1 is now -- has a nice lane to himself. Or a mother taking her child to day care or a husband and wife going into the city together, who did before, now have a nice route that gets them to the head of the line much faster. But there doesn't seem to be very much difference in the actual number of vehicles using the lanes. At least, that's what American studies have shown. So I'm wondering if we should be putting as many eggs in that basket of HOV as the outlook and the plan back in '95 seemed to indicate. It had the whole lower mainland networked with HOV lanes. I'm wondering if we might just discuss the overall merits, then, of HOV compared to other types of traffic management.

Hon. H. Lali: First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member across the way for having taken the same position

[ Page 12980 ]

[2010]

A ten-year program would mean $16 billion to be spent on our national highway strategy for investments in roads and bridges and other national transportation systems across the country, in order to counteract what's happening across the border in the states, where the U.S. Senate has passed a bill allowing for $213 billion to be spent in the next six or seven years. They're actually providing some very good stiff competition for Canada, and a lot of our traffic is skipping across the border into the States and then taking the interstate highways to the Great Lakes and vice versa. It's actually hurting our economy. In order to stay competitive, we need to have a transportation infrastructure in place that is going to be safe and efficient and lower the cost for industry and also for individuals who use it.

On the HOV lanes on Trans-Canada, Highway 1, the hon. member wants to know what some of the benefits associated with HOV are. Obviously when the HOV is open, it's two-plus. It's saving 20 minutes each way, and in some cases even half an hour each way, for individuals who are travelling that stretch of the road. The hon. member mentioned a couple of instances where a husband and a wife. . . . Even a couple of friends who normally would travel on that stretch are now being allowed to go into the HOV, and it's saving them time. The whole idea of making it two-plus was to make sure that people who are in single-occupancy vehicles will take a look at their counterparts in the HOV lanes and see that they're saving time and be moved to find somebody else to share a ride with so that they, too, can benefit from the time saving that people have in terms of people getting to work on time and also getting home to their families in the evenings when they get off work.

D. Symons: I know the theory behind it. The problem is that in Seattle and other areas, it doesn't seem to work. Can the minister tell me whether, prior to the opening of the new HOV lane on Highway 1, you took traffic counts and whether you've got traffic counts now -- and how those counts compare for roughly the same time of year? Have those counts been done, so you will have some feeling, at the end of a period of time, as to what the effect has been of adding HOV as far as the number of vehicles using that particular portion of the highway?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, we have done counts before and after the opening of the HOV lanes. We don't have them here with us right now, but we'll be more than happy to supply them to the hon. member.

D. Symons: I wasn't asking specifically for the counts. What I'm asking for is. . . . If you have them, maybe you have in your mind, then, how they compare. Are they roughly the same? Was there more traffic before or more traffic now, using that particular route? From the top of your head, having looked at them, has there been any significant difference? I think we'll want to look at it a year after the HOV lanes are open, to give people a chance to decide to get together.

[2015]

Hon. H. Lali: The HOV lane on the Trans-Canada Highway is actually still fairly new. It's been less than a year since it was were opened. Actually, there's more traffic in the HOV lane than was originally anticipated and estimated. I don't have the figures with us right now, but we will certainly provide them to the hon. member. It's also still too early to tell right now, because we're waiting for the traffic patterns to settle down before we make any kind of permanent determination as to whether or not it's going to be remaining at two plus.

D. Symons: This government has talked a great deal about -- and, as a matter of fact, had studies on -- design-build and public-private partnerships, but you really haven't used it in very many instances. I will say that you have done a few design-build projects. You've done -- if you count Mount Washington Road as a public-private partnership. . . . I don't know if it quite fits in that, because you've got a fee on a lift ticket that helps pay a portion of it. You have used various methods, but I don't think you've utilized that particular format for dealing with purchasing highways. I'll call it that, because that's what we're doing. We're purchasing highways now which we might not otherwise get, if we had to debt-finance them or take money out of this year's budget. Which projects, either last year or to be done this year, have gone to a design-build or to a P3 nature? Are there any projects that you did last year, or ones that you are now going to be doing this year, where you've used that approach for purchasing that particular highway or highway infrastructure work?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the hon. member that we've actually had some fairly significant success with

[ Page 12981 ]

D. Symons: I'm wondering if you can just tell me. . . . Since you've named some there, I assume that you are planning to continue using P3s, shadow tolls, build-operate transfer -- something of that sort. You're going to continue looking at those in the future?

Hon. H. Lali: We have a number of projects that are actually in the works. I can't discuss them here, because there are still negotiations going on back and forth. Certainly stay tuned for announcements in the future, with more projects coming this way for P3s.

D. Symons: In 1988 an advisory committee on P3s put out a best-practices guide to P3s -- public-private partnerships -- and the minister is obviously familiar with that particular guide. I'm wondering if you've used its principles in evaluating methods for proceeding with capital projects. Do you use this each time you have a capital project, to see whether that project might be suitable for a P3? Is this standard procedure?

[2020]

D. Symons: The minister mentioned a moment ago that he is involved in a P3 arrangement with Quinsam Coal. I'm wondering if the minister might describe exactly what that particular arrangement is.

Hon. H. Lali: We built the barge -- and also the facility -- and improved the road. We're leasing the barge facility to Quinsam in return for a fee. The fee is there in order for us to recover our investment.

D. Symons: Since that agreement has been made, Quinsam has run into some financial difficulties. I believe they've closed down now. What happens. . . ? Was there something built into that, when they made a cost-sharing agreement with the company -- a bond or anything -- that means the government isn't going to be on the hook for the whole program?

Hon. H. Lali: We're actually currently working with the job protection commissioner to keep the mine open and viable. Also, in 1998 the BCTFA agreed to change the royalty structure so that the rates are increased or decreased in direct proportion to fluctuations in world coal prices. This change has given Quinsam some relief during the current period, when coal prices are actually 13 percent below 1995 levels.

D. Symons: I think that is, maybe, a good way -- that you'd end up making your fees related to, basically, the profit margin of the company. If they have no profit, there's no point in trying to take money out of them and causing them to go into bankruptcy. I might also ask why the government doesn't apply that same principle to the corporate capital tax that they have in the province, because you seem to tax a firm whether they're in a profit situation or not. But at least for Quinsam, you seem to have made some recognition of that point, and I would congratulate you on that.

I hadn't realized, until the minister mentioned it a moment ago, that the barge on Williston Lake was a TFA project or something. You mentioned it as a public-private partnership, so you might give us a feeling for the financial arrangements on that particular project -- which I might add, since I haven't gone off the air yet, is also one that has run into financial difficulties at this time. You might also explain, once you explain what the situation was, how you're dealing with that now.

Hon. H. Lali: We provided the financial package for that particular project, and it has been paid back to us in full.

D. Symons: The barge, then, is totally owned by Northland Navigation. If they do go bankrupt, it will be part of whatever the liquidation sale is of that. Fine.

I'm wondering if the minister might give me, then, what the TFA's operating and administration budget, for both last year and this year, would be.

Hon. H. Lali: For both years the figure is the same. It's $4.79 million each year.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if you might give me the total, for both last year's grants and this year's grants, for the grant programs.

[2025]

D. Symons: I have the TFA 1997-98 business plan here, and on page 27 what I have down for the total of the grant programs is $5.5 million. So I'm wondering how that managed to go up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Last year was '98-99.

D. Symons: Oh, am I running a year behind? Then it went down.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah. This is 1999-2000.

D. Symons: Well, then, last year should be '98-99. Yes, we've moved ahead, haven't we? So there was a huge jump in those last two years.

I am going to pass the floor over for a moment to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson for some questions relating to his area.

K. Krueger: The Ministry of Highways launched what it described as the corridors project, involving the Trans-Canada Highway, a couple of years ago, and a number of us in Kamloops and the region were invited to meetings discussing the corridors project. This very capable young man was quarterbacking it. Can the minister update the House on the status of the corridors project, specifically with regard to the Trans-Canada Highway?

[ Page 12982 ]

K. Krueger: Well, one of the considerations of the corridors project, as I'm sure the minister is aware, is to increase the efficiency of the highway and also deal with the fact that communities tend to blossom alongside the highway. Some communities seem to want to turn the Trans-Canada into their main street, and of course traffic lights and accesses are then proposed, and the highway is slowed down and so on. That's one issue.

Another issue is how to deal with existing communities, such as Kamloops, through which the Trans-Canada passes. The Trans-Canada through Kamloops has an 80-kilometre-per-hour speed limit at its slowest point. There are other communities along the highway where it has a 50-kilometre-per-hour speed limit and stop lights and so on. A lot of people in Kamloops who were taking part in the corridors project in good faith, including myself, appreciated being kept informed by the people who were conducting the project.

I don't think it was the same people, of course, but abruptly, a short time ago, one of the intersections in the Valleyview portion of the east Trans-Canada Highway through Kamloops was closed, to the absolute consternation of a number of businesses whose customers accessed those businesses through that intersection. It wasn't completely closed, but it was closed as far as exit for traffic that wished to head westbound. This is a real problem. It was something that occurred without discussion with the very people who had been giving their time to participate in the consultative project which the corridors initiative seemed to be. I wonder if the minister could explain the sequence by which that occurred and comment on it, if he'd like to.

Hon. H. Lali: That is actually a ministry issue and is more appropriately canvassed under the ministry estimates.

D. Symons: Thank you. We'll come back to that tomorrow.

I'm wondering if we can go back again to the summary of the TFA's operating budget. The next one I am going to ask is a breakdown of the grant programs. How much has gone into the ATAP program for this coming fiscal year?

Hon. H. Lali: The ATAP grant program for this year is $1.22 million.

[2030]

Hon. H. Lali: That's actually federal government off-loading of responsibility onto municipalities. No, the BCTFA will not be picking that up.

However, I want to inform the hon. member across the way that two weeks ago, when I was in Ottawa at the council of transport ministers quarterly conference, there was unanimous support by all provincial and territorial transport ministers that the federal government has to go back and review this federal off-loading that they are doing onto the municipalities. The federal Minister of Transport, David Collenette, committed to us to take that message back to Mr. Martin, the Finance minister, and his cabinet colleagues.

D. Symons: Yes, I would agree with what you said about the devolving. It seems that various governments devolve some of what had traditionally been their responsibility onto some lower level of government. We've seen it happen both federally and provincially. So it's a fact that seems to be taking on nowadays. . . .

I'll ask later if you might be able to give me -- and I've asked earlier -- the budget for the Transportation Financing Authority and its annual report. I suspect that some of the spending in these programs and the ATAP programs will be listed in there. So if that's going to be in one of the reports that I've asked for, I won't ask you to rattle off a pile of numbers now. I would ask for just the various parts of the grants program, but I won't break down each individual one. For the cycling network program, how much is the budgeting for this year?

If you want, I'll just run down the list to give all three in a row: the cycling network program, the outstanding grant commitments program and the alternative transportation program, which I want to talk a little bit about. Can you tell me the funding for those three other programs -- part of the grants programs for this year?

Hon. H. Lali: I'll start from the top. As I stated earlier, ATAP is $1.22 million. The cycling network program is $2.03 million; newly incorporated territories is $2.92 million; and the alternative transportation program is $100,000.

D. Symons: The ATAP program seems to be down somewhat from previous years. Is that evidence of the devolution of responsibility from the provincial government as well? Since the federal government seems to be hitting them, I don't think it's a good time for the provincial government to also cut back support for the airport programs around the province. I'm wondering if the minister might respond with how these airports that are now locally funded -- or going to be -- are going to be able to continue to survive, if they find that both levels of government are basically cutting them free.

Hon. H. Lali: Just a point to clarify to the hon. member: ATAP applications were also down this year compared to last year. So there wasn't as much need as there has been in the past. I also want to point out that ATAP grants are to maintain and rehabilitate the existing infrastructure that's in place. It's not available for operating moneys; that's the responsibility of the municipalities and the federal government.

[2035]

[ Page 12983 ]

As the minister may know, the British Columbia Aviation Council happens to have its headquarters in my riding, and that's why this is of particular interest. I happen to be the MLA they come to when there's an issue relating to air issues around the province.

What are the debt-servicing requirements for the TFA this fiscal year? I don't think I've asked that particular question -- how much you're going to need to pay off your debts this particular fiscal year.

Hon. H. Lali: The debt-servicing requirements for the TFA for this year are $82.050 million.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister could tell me if there's been a cost-benefit analysis done on paying for highway infrastructure in the year that those costs occur -- and for rehabilitation that way -- versus paying for it by debt financing. Have you done a cost-benefit and a longitudinal way of weighing whether, you know, paying for it year by year out of that year's budget or. . . ? The current way you're doing it is debt financing, most of it.

Hon. H. Lali: The short answer is no. It's actually not appropriate to do that. Also, the auditor general is in favour of capitalizing these kinds of assets rather than expensing them.

D. Symons: I suppose you can still put money into a sinking fund to prepare and have that money waiting to pay for the new highway, rather than as we seem to be doing now, which is. . . . You know, we're paying for the highway over a long period of time for what's currently there, rather than doing as you would when you buy a car: you put the money up front and then get it. If I were to put money in the bank now, waiting for the day that I will be able to purchase the car, I'm earning interest on that money. Then I'm able at that time to buy the car when I need it and have the cash to pay for it.

You know, there are the two options of doing things. You save for the future to have the money available when you need the product, or you buy the product on time and pay for it later, with all the interest charges going along there. One way, you're earning the interest toward the purchase of the product. The other way, you're paying the interest to somebody else.

So I thought you might simply do a cost-benefit analysis. You can still capitalize, in a sense, by having money set aside for the cost of the project as it depreciates. It would be interesting to consider, I think, maybe taking a look at it from that angle.

I'm wondering if the TFA. . . . I gather they had a risk management of a $1 million liability fund that they've been putting money into year by year. I think they're putting -- what? -- $200,000 for five years into that. So you should be partway toward the $1 million. Then the fund will be self-sustaining. What I noticed when I saw that in an old briefing book notation. . . . I thought, you know, I carry more than $1 million liability on my one car. You've got a whole organization out there, with all the business that you're involved in and the highway construction that you're related to. It would seem to me that a $1 million liability coverage is woefully underestimated. You're exposed quite largely by having that small a risk management.

Hon. H. Lali: On the first part of the hon. member's question, if one were to wait for the sinking fund to grow, one would be waiting for the benefits of a particular project as well. If we did that, then one would actually have to wait. . . . The prices will go up with each year as well. It's like waiting for an account to grow in order for a person to actually have all the money there available to buy a house, for instance -- by which time the price of the house will have also gone up.

On the second part, the $1 million is actually for our own operations. It's not for each capital project. It's important for the member to know that each contractor will bring their own insurance for each contract. And for the government, the government self-insures.

[2040]

Another interesting thing that I suggested and that I notice that this government is very much into talking about -- and you'll notice that I used the word "talking" -- is consultation. We find that sometimes they get around to doing it and sometimes they don't. But two years ago there was talk of setting up regional transportation advisory committees. I wonder if the minister might give me the current status of those committees. How many committees are up and running, and what money is put there for funding of the regional transportation advisory committees?

Hon. H. Lali: Rather than setting up individual regional transportation advisory committees, what we are doing are a number of corridor management plans throughout the province. The local people are consulted; they're part of that whole process in each one of the regions in the local areas. As these corridor management plans are developed and local people are consulted, they're shared with them, and their comments are invited back on these. So it's actually been working out pretty well since these corridor management plans have come into existence.

D. Symons: I would refer the minister to the briefing book of June 1996, page E-8, where they have regional transportation advisory committees. This was one of the projects which the ministry, or the TFA, had set up here. They've got a mandate of what they will do, the organization, the membership and the funding all listed down. The only thing that's missing here is the implementation schedule, which it says has been postponed. From the minister's answer, it sounds like it's not only been postponed but it's been killed. So much for consultation on that level.

I'm wondering if we might also get, then. . . . The next one is the spending by economic development region. There's a paper here I got a little while ago that has the spending by the different regions. It very nicely gives the population, the total spending and the spending per capita. Since this was done sometime in the past, I simply would ask if I might get an updated version of that, because mine's a few years old. If I

[ Page 12984 ]

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has some further questions. Again, we'll discover whether it's a TFA or a ministry question, because for some of these things we're not quite sure. I have some concerns. I've told people: "No, you can ask that tomorrow when we're dealing with the various regions." I hope you're not going to come back and say, "That's a TFA, and you should have asked it last night," because I would hate to have to bring those gentlemen back. I think one of them will be here anyway and can probably answer most, I hope.

[2045]

Hon. H. Lali: There are many, many instances similar to Vavenby's case all throughout the province, where we can't fully meet the demand of every municipality or every community in the province. We try to do it on an incremental basis and also look at the advice that is given to us by our district and regional staff as to what is a priority and how much of the road surface can be resurfaced at one particular time. You know, they do all sorts of analyses on the surface to see if something is of an immediate nature or not.

I think the hon. member across the way should be quite happy. He's been getting some good record investment in his particular constituency, beginning three years ago -- especially last year, when it was a $25.4 million investment in roads and bridge infrastructure in Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: Could the minister tell us what the cost would be to do the Vavenby project all at once, compared to the cost that there will be for doing it in two or more stages?

Hon. H. Lali: We'll have to get back to the hon. member. We don't have that figure available here today.

K. Krueger: Are projects listed as safety projects on the constituency list provided by the ministry TFA projects or ministry projects?

Hon. H. Lali: TFA.

K. Krueger: Then I think we do need to return to the question I posed earlier which discussed the corridors project but specifically referred to the closure of an intersection. That is listed under "safety projects" on the constituency list as Comazzetto Road, Kamloops, and that is indeed the intersection where left-turn traffic out of Valleyview was closed. It was closed quite abruptly, and there has been considerable consternation from the businesses and merchants around the area and their customers. Also, there's a concern that over 200 businesses situated in Valleyview will suffer similar treatment. I'd like the minister's comments on that. This whole issue of what the ministry is going to do with the Trans-Canada Highway through Valleyview is a very pressing concern in my constituency.

Hon. H. Lali: That's actually an operational issue. The ministry staff are not here -- or some of them are here, and some we sent home because we didn't think we were going to get to the ministry. So we'll discuss that under the ministry.

D. Symons: This is another one of those questions as to which ballpark it belongs in. It has to do with some resurfacing and concrete work that was done on the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge recently. Would that again be a Highways-type question most likely?

It's TFA? Good. We'll carry on with the question, then. I gather there was a new concrete surface done on there, using a silica sort of arrangement. It's supposed to cut down the permeability of the concrete. But this has a habit of changing the setting rate of the concrete. In the process of doing that on the bridge, what happened was that as the concrete was being poured, because the bridge deck was sloped, the concrete tended to run somewhat and then ripple. The surface of the bridge tended not to have that good a surface on it. I'm wondering (1) whether that was noticed, and (2) how you're going to remediate it on that bridge and how you're going to prevent it in the future use of that particular product.

[2050]

Hon. H. Lali: These kinds of surfaces are actually fairly costly to fix, and even costly to build to begin with, on a sloped surface. Unfortunately, we don't have endless sums of money. With that particular surface there's also the issue of the traffic congestion. Obviously when that surface was done a while back, there were a number of concerns associated with that traffic congestion. Basically, it's fairly costly to try to fix that problem.

D. Symons: The minister will find in his mail a letter from February 11 of this year, outlining the question which I'm alluding to. The gentleman actually wrote about that particular problem, I believe. I beg your pardon -- I'll have to take that back because apparently he wrote you on another matter, and he sent me a whole pile of things. He is on a number of topics here. You will have a variety of mail from this gentleman. Anyway, I'll leave that one.

I believe that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has another question, determining again the pigeonhole it fits in.

K. Krueger: This question again relates to the list provided from my constituency and refers specifically to passing lanes on Highway 5. I'll ask the question, and the minister can tell me if he'd rather deal with it tomorrow.

There's been discussion for years now about increasing the number of passing lanes on Highway 5. It's a necessary

[ Page 12985 ]

I believe there have been five passing lanes on the drawing board between Barrière and Clearwater. The ministry's list that was provided to me says that the Badger Creek passing lane is going to proceed, which is nine kilometres south of Barrière. In a previous batch of estimates I had been advised that the Fishtrap canyon passing lane was a higher priority, and that Devick and Darfield were both under active consideration. The minister previous to this minister had said that when more money was available, they'd definitely be proceeding with these passing lanes.

It's a serious concern, because there are fatalities on the highway relating to driver impatience and what the ministry has referred to in its documents as platoons of traffic that build up behind the slow-moving industrial and recreational vehicles. I wonder if the minister could comment on the status of the other passing-lane projects besides the Badger Creek one, which has apparently been approved, according to the list I received.

Hon. H. Lali: In 1996 we did a passing-lane study on Highway 5 North -- Heffley Creek to McMurphy -- and there were three projects that were identified. Of them, the ministry felt that Heffley Creek to Avola, which was a $1.2 million project -- it's a 1.2 kilometre southbound passing lane on the highway near Badger Creek, nine kilometres south of Barrière -- was the one that was of the highest priority. The others obviously. . . . We'll have to wait for finances to become available in the future to see if we can do those or not.

[2055]

Hon. H. Lali: It's still being looked at, so I can't give the hon. member any kind of position of priority.

K. Krueger: Once again, for the record, this government had made a promise that in the Little Fort area a bypass would be built -- an actual commitment that the ministry was going to proceed with it. I believe the cost stated at the time was $2.5 million. I believe, and I think the consensus of my constituents would be, that the passing lanes are a higher priority than that bypass project, which originally was pushed by people because of concerns around the elementary school population in Little Fort. The elementary school is closed in Little Fort, probably permanently. So I would like to continue to advance the ministry's plans with regard to these four passing lanes, because it is a serious safety concern and a major arterial highway that depends on efficiency of travel. So if the minister wouldn't mind a quick comment about whether the rationale of building the passing lanes instead of spending the money on the Little Fort bypass, which had been previously committed, is one that he and the ministry will embrace.

The Chair: The minister -- noting the time.

Hon. H. Lali: This issue of the bypass in Little Fort was part of the capital review of 1996 and, as a result of the review, was not funded for construction. Certainly, in place of this bypass of Little Fort, we are looking at this whole issue of passing lanes in the member's constituency.

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

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. M. Sihota: I wish to advise members of the House, if they haven't been so advised, that we'll be sitting on Wednesday at 2 o'clock. We've had a great debate today. The only question that wasn't asked was: when is the Johnson Street Bridge going to reopen, which to you and I, hon. Speaker, is the only relevant question in Tourism estimates.

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRIES
(continued)

M. de Jong: Last day when we left off, we'd been dealing with a document that was created by the Treaty Commission. We actually spent a fair bit of time exploring some of the issues and questions and concerns that arose out of that document. I have one other document that emanates from the Treaty Commission that I want to spend a bit of time on. I will reference the document now. I don't know if the ministry staff have it -- the B.C. Treaty Commission's "Update: February 1999."

Let me preface my remarks by saying this. In a previous set of estimates we had a discussion about the role of the Treaty Commission. We -- as part of a select standing commit-

[ Page 12986 ]

[1440]

Hon. G. Wilson: I would say, generally speaking, that the BCTC is set up to facilitate, or to help facilitate, negotiations and to basically be a keeper of the process. Because they are a keeper of the process, I think it would be inappropriate for the BCTC to comment on mandates, whether they're federal, provincial or first nations. I think that some first nations have made it pretty clear that they don't want BCTC coming in and talking about what is or is not appropriate policy to be discussed at the table. Similarly, I think it would be wrong for a minister of the Crown or government to come in and try to tell the B.C. Treaty Commission how to do their business with respect to the mandating of or the facilitation of the negotiations.

But I do think there is a role with respect to a review of the process -- for there to be an engagement in discussions of what is and isn't working. I think that's a useful proposition. I think it's a little different from what the member is making reference to. I don't think that it's ever a good idea for a politician to try to directly engage the B.C. Treaty Commission with respect to the rights or wrongs of any one particular negotiation. Neither do I think it's the commission's role to try to make comment on what's going on at the table.

M. de Jong: That is helpful. I will say that at the time we had the discussion -- and it was with the minister's predecessor -- the government did make it clear that it was unhappy and felt it inappropriate that the B.C. Treaty Commission would choose to criticize an approach that the government had chosen to adopt with respect to the negotiation of interim measures. What the minister is saying today may signal a slightly different approach to the interaction between the Treaty Commission and the government. That is helpful to know.

I will make this observation. In the debate that occurred around the Nisga'a treaty and that ratification process -- and I do want at this point, I think, to limit my comments to the ratification process -- the minister will know that there was a lengthy and at times aggressive debate around how that debate ultimately wound up and the invoking of closure. For the purposes of this discussion, I will say that I recall very clearly the Treaty Commission being invited to comment on how that may or may not have been appropriate or how that may or may not have contributed to an atmosphere that would further and foster the settlement process. The Treaty Commission politely declined to become involved in that discussion, suggesting that discussions around ratification as they relate to the individual parties to the negotiations are matters for those parties to settle internally. In our case, that presumably means within the Legislative Assembly. Let me just ask this: was that a position or a response that took the minister by surprise in any way, or is it one that he substantially agrees with?

[1445]

I just want to go back, just to underscore it. Keep in mind that in the case of Nisga'a, this was not negotiated under the Treaty Commission, so that even further removes them from having a role.

M. de Jong: The minister's last comment has, for the moment, shortened the follow-up question, because it may not surprise the minister to know that one of the things that troubles me about the February 1999 "Update" document is the space that is dedicated to commenting upon the Nisga'a ratification process as it relates to the province, and particularly the opinions expressed around the issue of referenda. If we begin with the obvious observation that the minister ended his comments with, this was not a Treaty Commission negotiation.

Let me start there, perhaps, and ask the minister to explain how -- as best he can, recognizing that he is not the Treaty Commission -- if this is an exception to the general proposition that we've just heard, it is a justifiable exception.

The Chair: I'll remind the members that we are here on the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs estimates and that we're not to rediscuss the Nisga'a treaty. It was passed in Bill 51, I believe.

[ Page 12987 ]

[1450]

I think what the commission was attempting to do was to set out some guidelines that suggest that the integrity of the table will be severely compromised if there is not trust at the table that the mandates the negotiators carry to those tables will be honoured at the end of the day -- if it somehow has to go through some other, broader kind of consultative process. Frankly, I agree with that. I don't know how you could possibly sit down and negotiate the terms of an agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and a first nation, and have an agreed process of ratification -- which, in the case of the first nations, is to go back to their own membership and have their membership ratify; and, in the case of the province, is to come to the Legislative Assembly, where the duly elected members will either ratify or not ratify, and similarly in the Commons -- and then suggest that there is some other kind of more arbitrary process that takes it out for a broader referendum and comment. I think their argument was that the integrity of the table would collapse and that you're likely to see the Treaty Commission process fail. Frankly, I think they have a valid point.

M. de Jong: This may be where the minister and I part company with respect to our understanding of, or agreement with, what the Treaty Commission was trying to do. The difficulty that I have is with trying to reconcile the notion that ratification, for any one of the three parties to these negotiations, is ultimately a matter that they must settle upon. The comments that the Treaty Commission made in their February document, at a time when this was very much in the public mind and very much the subject of commentary via the media, were intended to be a much more blanket statement, it seems to me. It seems to me to be a deliberate attempt by the Treaty Commission to suggest that any attempt by one of the parties to these negotiations -- in this case, the provincial negotiators -- to invoke broader participation through the ratification process was misguided and wrong. We can have that debate -- the minister and I have had that debate, and his predecessor -- and that's fine. We will live with the results of that debate. But I have difficulty reconciling those broad comments with the role of the Treaty Commission as the keeper of a negotiating process, as opposed to the keeper of a ratification process.

If we flipped this on its head and speculated as to what the reaction of the Treaty Commission would be if a first nations group decided that they weren't going to ratify via. . . . Or if a larger group of first nations decided that they weren't going to seek participation via a referendum and attempted to change their internal ratification rules in a rather dramatic way, what would the response of the Treaty Commission be? Or would we again see them back off, suggesting that that was not a matter for them to comment on?

[1455]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I guess there are two points I'd have to make. First of all, first nations are dealing with rights, and therefore there's a need to get a release from the membership at the conclusion of a treaty. That's point number one. Secondly, the process with respect to negotiations and how those negotiations proceed and how they are therefore ratified is agreed to at the table. There is a section in both Nisga'a and Sechelt as to how a ratification will commence and be terminated or finalized.

I think that what the Treaty Commission is saying is that if you agree at the table to a ratification process, and if all parties sign to it, you can't, then, after the event, turn around and impose something else. And frankly, I agree with them.

M. de Jong: The minister might enjoy more success convincing me of that argument if that's what the Treaty Commission restricted its comments to, but they went much further than that. It is difficult, for example -- it will be exceedingly difficult -- for any government to come to a Treaty Commission-sponsored table in the future and say, "We believe that there is a role for a referendum in the ratification process," and to negotiate that point when the negotiating colleagues across the way can point to comments from the keeper of the process that say that that is an inappropriate mechanism for ratification. That's what the comments say. It goes far beyond the point that the minister is making that you shouldn't be changing midstream. The Treaty Commission articulates very clearly its view that there is no role for a referendum in the ratification process -- ever.

Hon. G. Wilson: I can't make too much comment on or try to do too much analysis of what the Treaty Commission may or may not have meant. I actually don't yet have a copy of that paper in front of me, but it's coming.

I think, certainly, that the advice presented to government from the Treaty Commission -- and, I would say, from many other players who are engaged, especially on the first nations side -- has made it pretty clear that if the province suggests at this point, at the conclusion of negotiations -- or even in advance of any additional negotiations -- that mandates are set by broad-based, provincewide referendums, then that the process will fail. And I think that their advice is sound. If we now went out to try to establish in advance what the param-

[ Page 12988 ]

I could be wrong, but my guess is that they won't even sit down at the table; it will collapse. They'll go to the courts, and they'll win in the courts what they can't get at the table. I think the courts will provide them far more lucrative settlements than we might do at the negotiation table.

[1500]

I don't know that I'm going to enjoy much success, but if I read -- and the minister doesn't have the document. . . . I must confess that it troubles me that the Treaty Commission, the keeper of the process, would make statements of this sort: "That's because a referendum is too blunt an instrument for deciding a multifaceted subject." That's an awfully blanket statement for a body that I thought was dedicated to exploring and maintaining an open mind on all avenues of settlement. To simply state that a mechanism by which settlement might be achieved is not valid. . . . We can say that first nations people aren't supportive -- all right, maybe they aren't. But the same data we use to support that position suggests that for one of the parties at the table, the province -- non-aboriginal peoples in British Columbia -- there is tremendous support for it.

We don't have to argue the substance of the point. The reason I raise the issue is to make clear how troubled I and the opposition are -- maybe the minister isn't -- that the Treaty Commission appears to be imposing itself on this debate very selectively with something of an agenda that it has chosen to keep somewhat hidden. I think that's wrong. I think this is a process that needs to be seen as being fair to all of the parties at the table. If the Treaty Commission continues to proceed in this manner -- and there's one other item from the document that I do want to refer to -- I think we are in jeopardy of the Treaty Commission losing that regard for impartiality that is fundamentally important to this exercise working.

Hon. G. Wilson: Let me remind the member opposite that the commission is not made up only of first nations people. It has representatives from the federal government and from the provincial government, two from the First Nations Summit and an independent chair. They are very much responsible for the process of negotiating treaties in the province. They are very much engaged in discussions with all three parties and are probably best placed to be able to provide advice to government on what will or will not work within the process, because they deal with everybody at the tables all the time. If there are problems, the commission is frequently called upon to chair meetings, to mediate sessions, to try to get players back together to facilitate a discussion. So I would say that they are very well positioned to offer advice.

I think that the advice they provide with respect to the referendum is sound. I would caution the member opposite. Should that member, through some change in circumstance, be standing where I am and have a chance -- as I have had -- to meet with first nations people and look at the process and engage in what are and are not the priorities of the federal government, the first nations and the province, I think the member would quickly come to the same conclusion that I have: first nations in this province don't need the Treaty Commission. They don't need the treaty process.

[1505]

So when the member says that the province can essentially be hard in their position -- that whatever they do, it's going to go to a referendum and that we're going to take a very complex set of negotiations which members opposite, by their own commentary, have said require extensive debate, extensive discussion, extensive understanding. . . . To take that out to some kind of referendum that would, by virtue of what referendums are, boil it down to a yes or no, or something along those lines. . . .

The commission is saying: "You won't get first nations back to the table." And I think they are right. You will kill the process; you will force them to court. They will go to court at great expense to Canadian taxpayers -- first nations as well as non-first nations -- and they will win in court what they don't get at the tables. I think history is beginning to demonstrate that that's the case. In addition to sitting down at bilateral negotiations with the federal government, they can do so without any provincial involvement whatsoever.

I would caution the member opposite. Until you actually sit down and fully understand the complexities of the situation, it is easy to suggest that you could somehow just put it all out to a referendum and end up with some kind of conclusion that's workable. I don't think it's workable; I think it will kill the process. And for those aboriginal people who do not go to court, what they're likely to do is go to the land and create disruption there. That will kill industry, especially those that are land-based: forestry, mining. So I would really seriously caution this kind of direction or approach with respect to public policy.

M. de Jong: Well, we're obviously not going to agree on the validity of the referendum as a tool for ratification, and so be it. If the minister is correct and the position of first nations is that in the event that such a tool were utilized by one of the two levels of government at the table. . . . I suppose that is a position they can take. Maybe my quarrel is this: maybe first nations should be the party saying that, and not the Treaty Commission. Maybe that is the distinction, if I leave this part of the discussion, that I would leave with the minister for his comment.

[ Page 12989 ]

M. de Jong: If I was troubled by the comments that I read on page 6 of the Treaty Commission's "Update" for February '99, I was positively astounded to read the comments on page 7 under the heading: "Court Challenges to Nisga'a Final Agreement Concern Treaty Commission." I don't doubt that the Treaty Commission was concerned, but the commentary that is on page 7. . . . I don't know if the minister has the document yet, but I will read these opening remarks from the article into the record: "The Treaty Commission believes lawsuits launched by the provincial Liberal Party and the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition are a challenge to the treaty process."

[1510]

Hon. G. Wilson: I think it is appropriate for the commission to observe -- and that's all they were doing on Nisga'a -- where the added complexities will fall when treaties are signed through to AIP -- if they're not challenged at the AIP stage -- and then they get to treaty and they're challenged in the courts at a political level or through a particular lobby group. I think that their advice -- again, I think it's sound advice -- is that if this is going to be the course of action being taken, you'll find it more and more difficult to allow anybody at the table.

Remember that within the Treaty Commission you've got people at the table representing the federal interests, people representing the provincial interests and people representing the summit, and you've got one person who is an independent chair. If all three of them are saying, "Listen, we're telling you that this is not the way to go if you want to get treaties done," I think they're making fair comment on the process. They're suggesting that if this is going to be the action taken, especially by those who would purport to be engaged in the public policy description of mandating at the provincial level, then you're not likely to get very much confidence from first nations or others at the table. Frankly, I think that's true.

I think it's appropriate for them to make that commentary. This is not a negotiation that they're directly involved in. They're making simple observations. And they were looking at ratification of the first treaty, and I think they had some useful observations to make.

M. de Jong: I am going to invite my colleague from Richmond-Steveston to commence his participation.

Let me say this for the record. The minister can respond or not respond. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about whether or not I believe the Treaty Commission has crossed the line -- that is the terminology we were using earlier -- I believe they have, in a dramatic and, I would suggest, misguided way. I think they have again been horribly selective in when they chose to comment on matters -- in this case, judicial involvement -- and I think there is another agenda in play. Ultimately, I will ask the minister to explain more fully how he. . . . I think he shares the observation made by the Treaty Commission and I'll ask to explore that and for him to provide his reasoning, but I think Richmond-Steveston has some questions -- not to preclude the minister from responding, if he desires.

Hon. G. Wilson: Now that I have the document, I disagree with the member. I think that these are observations that are being made. They're not directed in any way, except to say that from their position, their observation is that if these are the courses of action that will be taken, then it's going to set the process back by five years. They're probably in the best position of anybody to make such an observation.

G. Plant: This is a subject of some interest to me. I was listening with interest to the minister's answer to the first question that my colleague asked about the article in which the Treaty Commission expresses concern about the challenges to the Nisga'a final agreement. In the course of his answer, the minister made reference to the AIP and the absence of a court challenge to the agreement-in-principle.

[1515]

Hon. G. Wilson: The difficulty with the way the question was phrased is that it implies that the court challenge should have taken place at the AIP, but an AIP is not binding on any party, so there's really nothing to challenge until you have. . . . In the final analysis, even the ruling from the court, when it got there, was to wait until this thing is ratified. Then you have something that is ratified and therefore something to challenge. I simplified it a bit, but in essence, I think that is where we're going.

My concern is that if there is a concern with the mandate of the province with respect to the order or structure of government or how the first nation's government is being negotiated, it is important that those concerns be raised at the very first opportunity. If the concerns are so paramount as to believe that somehow what is being discussed is a violation of the constitution, it's important for that be articulated as early as possible.

I can recall that when the AIP came out, there was very little discussion around the third order of government. There was a considerable amount of discussion around the fisheries section. There was some discussion around this question of

[ Page 12990 ]

In fact, through the '96 election, which was when the government and elected members were mandated, there was virtually no discussion of the need to challenge this matter, and if it proceeded in accordance with the language of the AIP, that this would be something to be challenged in court. In effect, I think that if there is a concern about the lateness in which the court challenge came in, it isn't because I believe that it should've been challenged formally at an earlier stage, because I don't think there was anything to challenge until it was finalized in court.

But my concern is that these positions were not taken forward and expressed with the gravity in those early stages that they were later. I don't think you can allow a process to conclude and at the conclusion of a process. . . . Given that there's a mandate, given that an election had occurred, given that there were all kinds of opportunities to raise these matters with the severity and gravity that a court action would warrant, I don't think that came forward.

I think that that led the Nisga'a, certainly, and others who are in the process within the Treaty Commission to give serious consideration and concern to how the integrity of the process could withstand that, given that for all intents and purposes it looked like there was a lot of politics being played and less adherence to the process. Now, whether that's true or not, I guess, is a matter for debate.

G. Plant: While I listened to the minister's answer. . . . It was a brave attempt. But the fact is that he's caught on the horns of a monstrous piece of hypocrisy, because on the one hand he's complaining about the fact that the issue wasn't raised, but on the other hand he is instructing his lawyers to oppose the court challenge on the basis that, even today, it's premature. Those are the instructions that his counsel, the government's counsel, took forward to court even as late as three or four months ago -- however long it is; the time seems to pass faster than I want to admit. Faced with a court challenge to the treaty in the form in which the government had said it would remain irrevocably, the government's response was to argue that the court challenge was premature.

[1520]

I'm sure the minister doesn't want to admit that he's tried to have it both ways. But I've always been struck by the fact that there's really not even the slightest foundation for a complaint that this lawsuit is too late, at least coming from the mouth of someone who's instructing his lawyers to argue even now that the lawsuit is premature. I mean, those are the instructions.

If the minister actually believes that the issue is ripe, and if the minister actually believes that the legal question should be disposed of quickly, it's a simple matter of a telephone call to his lawyers to say: "I changed my mind. Let's get this lawsuit on the table. Let's get these issues decided, so that they can be resolved one way or the other." I'm always struck by the attempt by the government to argue that this lawsuit represents some exercise in obstruction, when in fact it's the minister who's obstructing access to the courts for the purpose of having these issues resolved. The minister will have an opportunity to respond to that comment.

But I want to make the second comment, which also comes from a deep sense of unease about the logic behind the government's complaint here. The government's complaint, as expressed by the minister, is some variation of: "How dare you go to the courts? How dare you" -- anyone out there in the public -- "seek to have the assistance of the courts on a question as fundamental as whether or not the government has signed a treaty which is lawful?" It's regarded by the government as being nothing more than a kind of low-level political opportunism for someone to undertake a court challenge. We're at that point in the cycle of that court challenge -- largely because of the government's obstruction of it -- where we don't know the answer to the questions that are put before the court.

I invite the minister to think about his position on this, in the event that the courts should actually decide that the treaty that he's made is unconstitutional. Where is he then? He's in the position of saying: "Well, it was crass opportunism for people to go to the courts. It was really wrong. It was really political. But oops. Yes, well, you know what? The courts have said that the treaty was unconstitutional."

It seems to me that that's a wrong-headed approach -- that if there are people who are raising issues. . . . I have to say that I haven't seen the argument yet that says that the issues that are raised in some of these court challenges are entirely without any substance whatsoever. In fact, if the government thought that was so, it would probably not have taken the positions that it does of obstructing the court challenge but rather would have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate convincingly, at an early date, that there was no substance to the arguments.

I question whether it's a sound approach to the relationship between the political and the legal process for the government to say in effect to citizens who challenge the legality of this treaty: "That's wrong. Please don't do that. It's very inconvenient. You might be right, and then where will we be? We'll have been caught negotiating and executing an illegal document, and we certainly don't want to be in that position. Please don't go to the courts, because the courts might get in our way. The courts are terribly inconvenient. We want to be able to do at the negotiating table whatever we want to. We want a political solution to this problem" -- which I support. I support the idea of a political solution to the problem, but it does seem to me to be a striking position for government to take -- to say, in effect: "How dare you go to court?" You may actually find the courts. . . . Who knows? They may actually find that the governments have signed a treaty that is unconstitutional.

[1525]

[ Page 12991 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: That was a nice try, but I think a strike nonetheless. First of all, this line of questioning didn't come out of the government's outrage at the court case. It was largely in response to questions about the Treaty Commission's concern that if we were to proceed to court, through court action it might send a signal out that would be detrimental to the negotiating process -- which, frankly, I think is sound advice. That's point number one.

Point number two. In my response to the member's first question, I said that the difficulty in the way the first question was worded is that at the time of an AIP, or even through the time when we have a treaty before parliament, it is premature to advance a court action, because there is nothing to challenge that has the force or effect of law. That, I believe, Justice Williams even acknowledges is true. So we are fully aware that there is a time when court action should be taken: that is, at the conclusion of the process, when in fact there is the effect of law. And the judge agreed with our position.

What I do find somewhat hypocritical, however, is an opposition who speaks in favour of treaty negotiations; who says that they're not opposed to sitting down at the table and working out agreements; who, when an agreement-in-principle comes to us, aren't prepared to sit down and challenge the language they believe to be offensive, counterconstitutional, overriding the rights of British Columbians and, in that challenge, go to the negotiating team and seek change. The agreement-in-principle and the language between the time an agreement-in-principle was signed and the time we got it to treaty was open to a much broader and wider range of discussions and negotiations.

I sat in opposition at that time. The member is quite correct when he says that I raised a whole number of issues and concerns -- predominantly with the fishery. Because of the way that the language in the AIP initially was struck, I believed at that time that there was a constitutional allocation for commercial fishing; it was a commercial allocation that was built in constitutionally.

Now, what did I do? Did I sit there and wait and twiddle my thumbs until such time as we got to ratification and then say: "Aha! Now I'm going to go to court"? No. My response was to go to the negotiators -- Nisga'a, provincial, federal -- and express the concerns, go through the language, engage myself in the process and seek ways to try and find language that I believed would be more suited to what we were trying to do. That was the appropriate response. And when I was asked, "Do you think this should go to a referendum?" I, like the members opposite, said no. I didn't believe, and I think the members opposite said that they didn't believe, that going to a referendum was the route to go.

[1530]

G. Plant: The minister presents a false dichotomy. It's a good rhetorical device, but the dichotomy is not between the courts and parliament; what actually should win is the constitution. That's the issue -- the constitution. Parliament can no more violate the constitution than can the citizens. That is the issue raised by the court challenge.

The minister has his advice. Obviously the majority of that advice says that this treaty doesn't do that. But I think the minister is also being selective in his recollection. If it is truly his recollection that these issues have not been. . . . We're not talking here in this specific context about the referendum; we are talking about the issues raised in the opposition's court challenge around self-government, voting rights and the status of self-government in treaties, among others.

I don't think that this afternoon we're going to go on at any length to continue that debate. But those questions and issues and concerns have in fact been on the table and have been part of what has passed for the public debate since 1996. I certainly recall, in my limited tenure as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, that many people raised those issues. I believe that my colleague the member for Matsqui would confirm that recollection; he was part of the committee for an even longer period of time. I think that even the minority report dealt with some of those issues.

What happened was that the government chose to ignore those concerns. That does happen in politics, and that's legitimate. The minister is being too cute by half when he pretends that the debate never took place. I think a more politically appropriate response would be to acknowledge that the debate took place, that the voices were there, and to just say that the government chose deliberately, for public policy purposes which it believes in, to take a different approach and to say: "We will not follow that perspective on self-government rights. We will negotiate and conclude a treaty that takes a different approach." The government believes that's the better approach, and that's the approach the government has succeeded in negotiating with the Nisga'a. We could argue. . . .

That becomes, in my view, a better political debate and the kind of debate which sometimes the minister might like to have in mind when he talks about building bridges and creating a constructive opportunity for all parties to participate in government. It's not the kind of debate that happens when the minister says: "Well, the real problem with the self-government issue is that the other people never raised it until

[ Page 12992 ]

[1535]

Now we come full circle. Doesn't it seem that in that context, it is crucially important for this Treaty Commission, if it is to do its job, to stand back as far as it can from that process and to not wade into the kinds of issues that are raised by the two questions that my colleague has brought before the committee this afternoon, and to not express such categorical opinions about referendums -- which have nothing to do with the time at which the referendum issue has arisen and everything to do with the question of if a referendum would ever work in the treaty context?

It seems to me that raising that issue and this issue about court challenges, the way it has, is just a recipe for trouble for the Treaty Commission. The Treaty Commission should be out there trying to build confidence in its integrity and impartiality. It has taken what amounts to political positions on those two issues. It's taken a side when it doesn't need to and when it shouldn't, in my view. This did begin for me with this treaty "Update." When I got it and looked at it, I thought that it was a surefire way for a commission that wants to see itself as -- and that should be -- independent and impartial to undermine that independence and impartiality.

I'm not surprised that the minister disagrees. On this occasion, he agrees with the two opinions expressed by the Treaty Commission. It's easy to find fault with the questions we raised in circumstances where the two opinions expressed by the Treaty Commission are opinions that the minister personally shares. It'll be a little harder for the minister, if there comes a point when the province is on the receiving line of criticism, to say: "Well, no, that's not the role for the Treaty Commission. They shouldn't be commenting on our policies."

He appears to think it's quite appropriate for the Treaty Commission to wade into the politics of these issues. I guess I want to join my colleague in recording my concern that the Treaty Commission has done so and that the minister doesn't even seem to get the point.

Hon. G. Wilson: In response, I would say that it is interesting that the member for Richmond-Steveston challenges his leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who not only thought it was appropriate for the Treaty Commission to respond, but on April 21, 1999, actually wrote and asked them to directly intervene. He said that he wanted the Treaty Commission to take a stand directly -- I mean, not even in a peripheral way but to actually directly intervene. It says: "I urge all commissioners to stand up for a full and thorough debate of the Nisga'a treaty and Bill 51. . . ." And he said: "The commission has an obligation to help us try" -- not to keep the process clean. . . . It says: "The commission has an obligation to help us try to correct that mistake. . . ." So it wasn't even a request for independent observation and to stand back, as the member for Richmond-Steveston says; they wanted a direct action taken by the commission. So I find it interesting that the member for Richmond-Steveston is prepared to challenge and contradict his leader's view -- which I applaud, by the way; I think it's appropriate that he would.

[1540]

G. Plant: It's interesting. Personally, I have enjoyed watching the minister's transformation, although maybe it wasn't much of a transformation.

Yeah, it's true that on April 21 the Leader of the Opposition wrote the letter that the minister refers to. Interestingly enough, it's also true that the Treaty Commission "Update" that we've been talking about came to my attention on March 5. So in fact on April 21 we were faced with the fact that the Treaty Commission had chosen to become overtly political on two issues. It's really too bad that the minister didn't do what a good minister should do, and that is, you know, to make inquiries of members of the opposition privately, as he's constantly urging people to do, to find out about that instead of doing what he did, which was to embark on that kind of tiresome partisan stuff that he is so unhappy about all the time.

We actually sought to invoke the assistance of the Treaty Commission, because at the end of April we thought: well, if they're going to be political, if they're going to be out there on these two issues, then maybe they'll be political on this issue. It turns out that they didn't, because -- well, who knows? Perhaps someone following the debate might ask the question. I certainly wouldn't want to be that one, but I could imagine someone asking the question of whether the Treaty Commission's politics all go one way -- and that maybe that's part of the problem. That is, they have a perspective on the treaty process which dictates their response to the issue that was raised in the letter of April 21, and it is pretty consistent with the kinds of stuff they said in the two articles that we're drawing attention to now, which is a variation of: "How dare you interfere with our idea of the right way to do things?" So I think that it's important to put those things in their temporal context. Just in case the minister is left with any lingering

[ Page 12993 ]

As to the Sechelt agreement, the interesting thing, I suppose, for all of us will be to see whether the final agreement is consistent with the AIP on the issue of self-government. I had the experience of observing how, on a number of fronts, the provincial government abandoned principle during the course of the progress from AIP to final agreement on the Nisga'a agreement. It abandoned principle, for example, on the front of overlaps.

Here we have an AIP, in the case of the Sechelt, that says, essentially, that the model for Sechelt self-government that's been in place for well over a decade is going to be the model that will be carried forward after the treaty is concluded. I can't comment now on whether the final document will be written in a way which both honours that commitment and does so in a way that does not violate constitutional principles. But Sechelt and models like it are the kinds of approaches that we in the opposition consider to be entirely appropriate -- at least including, first and foremost, a recognition that the way to give effect to self-government aspirations for aboriginal people at this point is not to do so under the umbrella of section 35 of the constitution.

That represents a big concern for me about the Nisga'a final agreement, and the fact that alternatives do exist is evidenced by what appears to be the approach taken in the case of the Sechelt AIP. But we'll see what the final agreement says on that front when the final agreement appears. And we'll see what the provincial negotiators do when it comes time to actually write the final agreement on that issue. It was a good question the minister asked, and I was glad to have the opportunity to answer it.

[1545]

Listen to what the Treaty Commission says.

"In lawsuits filed in the B.C. Supreme Court in October, the Liberals and Fisheries Coalition say the Nisga'a final agreement has the effect of amending the constitution of Canada."

"Among their arguments are that the agreement creates a third order of government" -- again, an arguable point -- "and conveys lands and resources, including a share of the Nass commercial fishery, to the Nisga'a."

But here's the interesting part about the Treaty Commission's response to that. Again I'm quoting.

"The possible implications, if these arguments are successful, is that governments would have to either amend the constitution or renegotiate the Nisga'a final agreement. Either course of action would be difficult and take time, maybe years. . . ." And it goes on to say that it "would effectively undermine or even halt all treaty negotiations in British Columbia."

The minister is in a difficult position, particularly after the discussion he has just had, where his own government's approach to these things has been probed yet again. But surely that is an astounding statement to come from the keeper of the process. I can't for the life of me understand why they would write such a thing. Maybe I'm dreaming in Technicolor to think that the minister would willingly comment on a statement like that. But if he were in any other position than the one he now occupies, I'd have to believe that he would agree that that is an astoundingly inappropriate and indefensible statement for the Treaty Commission to be making.

[1550]

What they're saying is that by going to the court, the treaty process is challenged. They're providing advice to the parties at the table. There's a challenge that is being taken here as to the viability of the tables, which I've already spoken to. They're saying that the implications of a successful argument. . . . They're not suggesting the argument may not be successful; it may be successful. What they're saying is that in the event that it is successful, the governments would have to do one of two things: either they're going to have to deal with a constitutional amendment, which is going to be a very complicated little process, or they're going to have to renegotiate the final agreement. And that's going to be very difficult, given the fact that it's taken hundreds of years to get the thing to where we are -- and certainly in the last 20 or some-odd, in intensity.

"Either course of action would be difficult" -- I think that's true -- "and would take time" -- that's certainly true, maybe years; in the constitutional amendment, I think that is definitely true -- "and would effectively undermine or even halt all treaty negotiations in British Columbia." Well, any rational person is going to say: "We're not going to go ahead and negotiate with the provincial government to set out a treaty if it's undermined by a process of law that's before the

[ Page 12994 ]

It says: "That could wipe out five years of progress and make other options such as litigation and direct action by first nations much more likely." I believe that is an absolutely true assessment of the situation. I fully concur with it; I've said so many times before. I think that it's an entirely appropriate observation for the Treaty Commission to make. They haven't in any way tried to impugn the motive of anybody who's before the courts, whether it's the Liberal Party or whether it's the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition. All they're doing is providing advice to the parties at the table that, given this course of action, this is likely to be the kind of consequence should there be successful challenges made.

M. de Jong: But if the challenge is successful, the document is unconstitutional. Surely neither the Treaty Commission nor the government of the province of British Columbia wants to erect as a foundation to the new society something that is unconstitutional. Surely there is, running through this argument the notion that we just don't want to know. If the scenario painted here is correct -- if it is, and let's say it is, for the sake of argument -- does the need or desirability to avoid that justify relying upon a document that might be unconstitutional?

Why do we have a constitution? I mean, it is this disregard -- that it would be inconvenient. Well, maybe, but one reads what the Treaty Commission has to say and comes away with the notion that, for the Treaty Commission at least, the process which it believes is appropriate for settling treaties must be protected at all costs -- even at the risk of settling and negotiating a treaty or treaties that will not withstand the judicial test of constitutionality. For one last time to the minister, I think that is an indefensible position for the Treaty Commission to be taking and for the government, via this minister, to be defending.

[1555]

If we didn't believe that, we would not have negotiated it and signed it. To suggest that we're in some way doing this to protect a process, even though we're flying in the face of the Canadian constitution, is just nonsense. Nobody is doing that. What the commission is saying is that one hopes that all the legal arguments that have been advanced and the advice we've been receiving is sound advice, because if it isn't -- if it's found not to be sound advice -- we could be hitting some pretty serious problems.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to enter the Aboriginal Affairs debate. For something a little bit different, I want to talk to the minister about the aboriginal women's issues that were discussed somewhat during the Nisga'a debate. At that time, it was expressed that this might be an opportunity to raise some of these issues as well, so that's what I would like to do.

Aboriginal women and treaty-making. What I'm hearing from the aboriginal women's groups is that they don't have the level of participation that they would like to have, and they don't feel that their interests are being represented at the negotiating table. I wonder if the minister could just perhaps talk a little bit about whether or not the gender lens that the government uses to look at different pieces of legislation and government decision-making is in fact followed through the treaty-making process.

Hon. G. Wilson: Certainly the province supports the involvement of women in all levels of treaty-making. I know that there is considerable work done through the Ministry of Women's Equality and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to strengthen the voice of aboriginal women in the treaty process. The first nations who come to the table negotiate on behalf of first nations, and one assumes. . . . I think it would be inappropriate for the province to decide or to determine who should or shouldn't sit at the table.

I can tell the member that some of the most articulate and most forceful voices that I have come across among first nations chiefs are those of women. Some of the people who are leaders in some of the negotiations at some of the tables that I've been involved with are women. I think that while it may be true on a case-by-case basis that you may find that some women don't believe their voices were adequately represented at the table or that they're not being properly considered in the language of treaty negotiations, that's probably also true in non-aboriginal society. If you look at the representation of elected members of the House that are women to non-women, I think you could argue the same thing. If you argue the voice of women in our society, there are many who believe that there is still a glass ceiling, that they can't reach parity and equity. So I think those are issues that run broader than simply those of aboriginal people.

[1600]

L. Stephens: Much of what the minister has said is true as far as the participation of women generally in society broadly, as well as in aboriginal communities. But aboriginal communities have a much, much more difficult row to hoe than the rest of us.

There is a Bill C-49 that is before the Senate in Ottawa at this time. I know the minister is familiar with it; it's the First Nations Land Management Act. It applies to 14 first nations across Canada, and five of those are in British Columbia. Section 17 of that particular piece of legislation deals with native women's property rights on marriage dissolution and the fact that the bands will have about a year to get a framework, a process and policy in place to deal with this. This particular piece of legislation, as I understand it, applies only to those 14 first nations and those five that are in British Columbia.

[ Page 12995 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know if my answer is going to give a lot of comfort to the member opposite or not, but let me just say this: the problem with bilateral negotiations between the federal government and first nations in British Columbia such as is represented in Bill C-49, as the member knows, is that the province has no input or role to play. We have taken a position that opposes continued bilateral negotiations when treaty processes are available and when those first nations are prepared to engage in treaties. The reason is that within treaties we will negotiate no aboriginal right over divorce. All of the laws as they apply to any other individual will apply to first nations, which is why I suggest that I'm not sure if that gives a lot of comfort to the member opposite. Nevertheless, as inadequate as divorce laws may be, they will apply inadequately to everybody equally.

Having said that, we also take a very strong position at the table that section 35 provides guarantees equally to men and women and that the Charter of Rights must apply.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Now, that is a sticking point, without doubt, for some first nations to enter into an agreement, because there are some who do not believe that there should be equality. They tend not to come into the process. But we're certainly not going to sign treaties that will provide, in some way, for first nations governments to violate the equality provisions of section 35 or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

L. Stephens: Will there be some kind of language in these modern-day treaties that will attest to that -- that the laws of general application apply and that the Human Rights Act and all of those and the Charter apply as well? Will the language actually be in these agreements?

[1605]

L. Stephens: The powers of expropriation in Bill C-49 are also a big concern. Again, many aboriginal women believe that with the enormous power that band councils have regarding expropriation, their rights will again be in danger and that there needs to be some protection afforded them in that regard as well. Is this an issue that your ministry is looking at, and will it make sure that there is appropriate language in further treaty negotiations as they're being pursued?

Hon. G. Wilson: Both the Sechelt and the Nisga'a have limited rights with respect to expropriation. The issue is, on property rights, that it still must conform to section 35 and Charter rights, so if there is a provision that is ultra vires in that sense, it would be challenged.

L. Stephens: The other area I'd like to move into is the social framework agreement that the province and the federal and territorial leaders have been discussing for some time as it applies to off-reserve aboriginal people in the province. A number of aboriginal organizations. . . . This particular instance that I will quote here is from Viola Thomas, the president of the United Native Nations, in an article that she wrote in Western Native News in April of 1999. She says: "The continued exclusion and marginalization of the urban and rural status, non-status, Bill C-31 aboriginal persons can be stopped by revisiting the fiscal arrangements with the provincial and federal governments."

I wonder if the minister could talk about what kind of arrangements are being made with the federal government with regards to status-non-status aboriginals living off reserve -- urban aboriginals.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member has put her finger on a huge, huge issue. It's a huge issue for several reasons. First of all, as I'm sure the member is well aware, the minister who is responsible for Indian and Northern Affairs, Jane Stewart, is not the minister responsible for urban aboriginal people, but rather it's Minister Goodale. If one looks at the comparative budgets of the two, you can see that Mr. Goodale has a minuscule budget in comparison to the massive budget that is provided the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. As a result, there seems to be, I think, many, many first nations people who are living in urban centres who are falling through the cracks because of programs that are not delivered through the reserve process and allocations of per-capita grants to tribal councils. Neither are they being directly picked up provincially by line ministries here. So these are people who just seem to not fit anywhere, and it's a huge problem. It's one that when I took over as minister, I tried to sort of stick my nose into pretty quickly to see what we could do. The difficulty is -- and the member maybe will understand -- that because of the complexities of jurisdictions and because of the lack of willingness of the federal government to bring forward moneys through provincial line ministries, that it's very difficult to first of all establish what the base is. Who's looking after whom is what I'm coming to here -- and how does one identify and find who is eligible for programs and who is not? Which of those people are counted as part of a tribal council or part of a reserve, and which of them are not? How does one pick up each of these individuals and make sure that they have the needs met that they require?

At the first ministers' conference and at the aboriginal affairs ministers' conference in Saskatchewan recently, not only did we have all the aboriginal leadership there, but we had the Premiers and aboriginal affairs ministers. It was agreed that as aboriginal affairs ministers across the country, we need to develop a strategy to work with Ottawa to find a much more cost-effective way -- a more efficient way -- of delivering service to those people who are currently not being caught up in the system.

[1610]

[ Page 12996 ]

All of this discussion is underway. I have asked within our own ministry. . . . I know that within the Ministry for Children and Families, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Human Resources -- because they're all line ministries. . . . They're all involved; they're all trying to sort out this delivery of service. I've asked that we engage in that and come up with a broader sort of White Paper that might give us some idea about how we're going to deal with urban first nations people in British Columbia. We will then meet again. I'll meet again with all the aboriginal affairs ministers nationwide, along with the first nations leadership. We will make recommendations to the federal government as to how those moneys might be disbursed to the province more appropriately, so that we can in fact provide the services that are needed.

Having said all of that, the other group who will not be left out are the Métis. That is another whole set of problems associated with the Métis.

L. Stephens: It is an enormous problem, and one that has been largely ignored for a very long time. A lot of aboriginal people living in the urban centres are, I would suggest, in many cases living in less than Third World conditions. The downtown east side is a perfect example of that. The statistics show that it's 17 percent, I think -- the suicide rate for youths off reserve as opposed to on reserve.

Does the minister have a time line for when he would like this to come together and when he feels he may be making a presentation to the federal people?

Hon. G. Wilson: The discussions have actually been active only for a little over a month, so for me to put a definitive time line might be kind of unfair. But I think it is fair to say that in July the AFN is having a major conference here, and they are going to be discussing this issue. They've asked me to come and speak about it. They want to make greater representation. We will have more information available, I think, through our line ministries probably sometime in mid-September. Realistically, we're probably looking at a couple of months beyond that to be able to come out with a definitive White Paper. That's not to say that we're not doing anything for these people in the meantime; we definitely are. I have met with the UNN -- the United Native Nations, which Viola Thomas is connected with -- on a number of occasions and will continue to meet with them to make sure that we do provide services through the existing organizations in the interim.

L. Stephens: A number of aboriginal agencies are funded by the government to provide some of these services. How many of those agencies are funded through Aboriginal Affairs? What would the dollar amounts be that they receive?

[1615]

L. Stephens: Is there any way to get a comprehensive list from the government -- and, I would presume, your ministry -- on the number of agencies that are funded and the dollar amounts they are funded with that are under Children and Families, Health, Education and all of the other line ministries of government? Somewhere there must be a comprehensive list of who the government funds and for how much.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that list is available. We were just having a bit of a discussion as to whether or not there are sensitivities around the names of those people receiving it, but I don't think there are. The answer is yes, we can get you that list. We are now working through Treasury Board to do a much more comprehensive analysis of this for the reasons that I mentioned earlier on. This is a problem that we really do have to make some progress on. I'd be happy to have staff get that list to you forthwith.

L. Stephens: I appreciate that very much. With some luck and a little bit of hard work, there can be some changes made to the lives of families that are in very, very dire straits.

The whole issue of bands and band councils and on-reserve living conditions. . . . Many cases aren't as good as or, rather, are almost on a par with some of the families that are living off-reserve and in the urban areas. There has been a lot of media attention in the last couple of months or so about allegations of fraud, nepotism and unaccountability on reserves and the fact that some of the band councils practise some discriminatory ways of dealing with individuals.

How much authority does your ministry have in that regard? What kind of accountability mechanisms can be put in place with the new treaty negotiations? I know that there is nothing that can be done, virtually, under the old Indian Act and under the federal jurisdiction. But under the provincial government's jurisdiction, with the new treaties that are being negotiated, what kinds of safeguards and accountability mechanisms can be put in place? Or is it desirable? Is this a desire of the government -- to make sure that these kinds of historical practices don't go forward into the future?

Hon. G. Wilson: We were just searching to make sure I give you an answer that truly reflects the situation without offending anybody.

The current situation among some first nations -- and I say some, because this does not universally apply, but on occasion it has -- where there is a relationship between the federal government and the Indian Act and where moneys were simply transferred for use within a particular band council without accountability or without any kind of accounting for process, has created a great deal of division between politically diverse factions within the bands themselves. I hear about it all the time, because people come to me.

[1620]

[ Page 12997 ]

But the final test, obviously, is going to be the willingness of the band to challenge those people they believe are corrupt. In order to do that, there has to be some safety in the provision of law so that they can do so without fear of personal retribution and so that they can actually effect those challenges. It's very frustrating as a provincial Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I have to tell you, to hear these complaints and to be able to do very little else except take them to the federal government in the hope that the federal government is somehow going to deal with these -- and to find that in some cases, the federal government really doesn't. That is a problem, and we're working through that. I think that the way we solve that problem is by making sure that the treaties have those kinds of mechanisms in place.

L. Stephens: Another area that's causing a great deal of difficulty is the educational grants, those moneys that go to the bands from the federal government to be used for education. The same sort of thing is happening there. I've had a number of letters from women, in particular, who have been authorized either to attend university or attend college. Their funding has been approved; then, mysteriously, it is just revoked. There are requests for appeal, but the appeal doesn't happen.

I wonder if perhaps the minister has been looking at this whole issue of education funding where money is provided from the federal government for aboriginal people's educational purposes. In fact, there's a great deal of difficulty around that particular issue, too, where people are not getting the funding or where they're being approved and then the funding is being rescinded. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not he's aware of that and whether or not that will be part of, I guess. . . . How is education going to be dealt with in the new treaties? Is it going to be part of those considerations at all?

Hon. G. Wilson: I've learned something new today. I was not aware of that problem, but now that you've brought it to my attention, I'll certainly investigate and find out more about it. If you have more information, I'd be happy to learn of it.

As far as the treaties are concerned, we have a fiscal framework that ties money to those provisions so they can't use them for anything other than that. So with respect to the treaty, the fiscal framework would actually tie that money specifically to that use, and there would be no opportunity for them to use if for anything else. But I will check that out.

L. Stephens: I have a couple of letters here that I will pass on to the minister. I'm sure that the people that are affected would be happy to know that this has been noted and that something will be done to try to rectify the situation. Those are all the questions I have, and I thank the minister and his staff.

[1625]

Hon. G. Wilson: I wonder if this might be an appropriate time to take a five-minute recess.

The Chair: Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess? Five-minute recess granted.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. G. Wilson: I appreciate the indulgence of the committee. If the member wants to start his questions.

J. Weisgerber: Last week the minister brought to the House a statement about some significant progress on McLeod Lake's desire to adhere to Treaty 8. First of all, I want to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the agreement in advance. I also want to acknowledge that I had an opportunity on Friday to speak by telephone with Murray Rankin, the negotiator on the agreement. We covered much of the agreement, but there were some issues that, first of all, I want to put on the record. Secondly, having thought through some of that conversation, some additional questions have arisen.

In looking at the proposed settlement agreement, it starts out acknowledging Treaty 8, acknowledges the fact that there have been a number of adhesions to Treaty 8 since 1899 and again expresses McLeod Lake's desire to adhere to Treaty 8. Interestingly enough, except for an attachment near the rear the agreement, it doesn't actually contain a copy of Treaty 8 within the agreement itself. I'm wondering whether the minister could tell me: when we move to a final agreement, will the original text of Treaty 8 become part of a final agreement?

I raise this issue for a particular purpose. It seems to me that the certainty language -- the cede, release and surrender that was in Treaty 8 and, I assume, makes a part of this agreement -- is never actually spelled out. I think that's rather significant. I'm wondering whether or not, in some form or another, the text of the original treaty will actually appear in the agreement.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that there are really two processes. The agreement that I made reference to in the House last week is an agreement that settles the litigation. Having settled the litigation or removed it from court, now McLeod Lake will have to actually sign an adherence to Treaty 8. At that point, the language you refer to will be included.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps some confusion is from the document that I'm working off of. I have in front of me something entitled "McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement. Initialled and recommended for approval by the negotiators for each party on the day of. . .1999" -- and then the day is blank. So I assume that this

[ Page 12998 ]

[1635]

Hon. G. Wilson: That's a good question. We assumed as part of the ratification process that the band members are made aware of the provisions of the treaty. I can't give you that confirmation today. But we certainly will inquire as to how that process is being undertaken. I'd be happy to get back to you with a more full answer.

J. Weisgerber: I appreciate that. I'm assuming that there's ratification taking place only because, in my discussions with Mr. Rankin, I was aware that a deadline had been established for band members to make a decision with respect to the selection of land either in severalty or in common. That's something we'll get to a little bit later on.

I'm particularly interested in the certainty language itself, because I believe that for a decade or so British Columbians have been led to believe that those words -- "cede, release and surrender" -- were so unacceptable to aboriginal people in today's context that to go and ask the band to sign a treaty using that kind of certainty language was simply out of the question and that no one would ever insult or offend bands such as the Nisga'a by asking them or the Sechelt or any of the others in the negotiating process to sign such an agreement.

So I find it interesting that those words don't appear to have caused difficulty for McLeod Lake. McLeod Lake, in recognition of their desire to simply adhere to the treaty, appear to have found that language within the treaty acceptable -- in this situation, at least. Aside from ensuring that band members are making an informed decision in this respect, I don't think that there should. . . . I would be troubled if there was any attempt to gloss over the fact that the old certainty language is very much a part of this rather innovative decision by McLeod Lake to seek adhesion, as opposed to going into the comprehensive treaty process.

[1640]

I don't think there's any doubt in the minds of the McLeod Lake band about what they're doing. I don't think there's anybody under any illusions. I can't account for why McLeod Lake would say, "This is a good deal for us," except for the fact that they are adjacent to Treaty 8; they believe that they have a right to it. We got into a very protracted legal dispute over it and have now been able to come up with an agreement that takes it out of court and will finally ratify their adhesion.

J. Weisgerber: I don't have any doubt, either, that McLeod Lake have had broad discussions around Treaty 8 and the implications of their decision to sign it. What I want to make sure of is that in the broader public debate in British Columbia around treaties, there is a recognition that this negotiation process is about compromise and concession, that there are areas where we might think we could never go and that history might show us that those things are not the taboos that we perhaps thought they were at one time.

Having said that, let me say that I think the language we finally have in Nisga'a is as good or better than the language that was in Treaty 8. But I think it also casts a bit of a shadow on those really strong assertions that were made earlier about the unacceptability of this kind of language. I guess maybe I'm musing out loud about the kind of evolution of certainty language in the process.

Having said that, I think it also speaks very well to the people who, 100 years ago, drafted Treaty 8. With all of the myths that there have been around the lack of legitimate and informed consent which many of the bands, including those in northeastern B.C., had when they signed Treaty 8, the fact that 100 years later, a band who are very well informed and advised have made a conscious decision to accept an agreement that's 100 years old says a lot about the treaty-making process of a century ago, which was held in very serious disrepute at one time in our process. I find it fascinating that in the year 1999, we're back with a band who have made a conscious and informed decision to accept a 100-year-old treaty in preference to pursuing a comprehensive land claim.

I wonder if the minister has any comments. I'd be interested in them.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member makes a good observation. I'm not in a position to account for why the McLeod Lake band would have taken the position that they have taken, except to say that they've always believed -- at least this is my understanding -- that they were part of it. They believed that they should have been part of it. Therefore their great argument was not that they wanted to essentially get into this as a new approach to treaties. They believed that they should have been part of it -- they wanted to be part of it -- and they took us to court to prove that they should have been part of it. We've now been able to come up with an agreement that provides them the opportunity to adhere to it.

[1645]

There are, for example, some first nations for whom self-government is not really on the table right now, because they

[ Page 12999 ]

To give the member some comfort, I certainly don't believe that we should necessarily impugn any approach or that there are any taboos out there where we would say, when it comes to looking at some flexibilities in our negotiating position, given that there are some baselines that we're obviously going to adhere to, that we shouldn't move ahead on some of these fronts.

J. Weisgerber: My understanding is that in 1982 the McLeod Lake band, after some considerable research and debate within the band, decided to pursue an adhesion to Treaty 8. I can't tell you whether or not historically they felt wronged by being left out. But I believe that as the comprehensive land claims process picked up speed in the eighties, the decision was taken by the band leadership to pursue an adhesion. I don't know whether, historically, they felt wronged by the Treaty 8 process or not.

It seemed to me -- and I looked at the matter quite closely when I had the responsibility that the minister has -- that the treaty commission, the Treaty 8 group, were sent out with instructions to sign treaties in a geographic area. The instructions were unclear as to whether the western boundary should be the height of the Rockies or, as I've come to believe in reading it more times than a few, that -- in fact the position now taken by McLeod Lake -- it was the arctic watershed and all of the geography within the arctic watershed that was the western boundary for the treaty commission.

Having said that, and going back to this draft agreement, subsection 5 on page 2 says: "Canada and McLeod Lake assert that the western boundary of Treaty 8 follows the height of land separating the waters draining into the Arctic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean" -- i.e., the arctic watershed. The next line surprised me a bit: "British Columbia does not agree with this assertion." I know that that was the position of British Columbia when I was the minister. I know that it was a position taken by the Ministry of Attorney General. Despite attempts that I made at the time to change the position, we seemed rather dug in on that position. I wonder, in this age of enlightenment, whether the minister can tell me why British Columbia continues to cling to this assertion, which on examination appears difficult to justify.

[1650]

My words, not hers, to respond to the member are that the Attorney General's office has been labouring long and hard with a shovel digging us further into that position since that member was minister. That's exactly where we stand today: in the same place we were then.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously the McLeod Lake band have succeeded in getting an agreement in spite of that. I understand from the discussion I had on Friday that the compromise position has been to stake out what would best be described today as the McLeod Lake traditional territory and acknowledge that there is an application to Treaty 8 in that area but not necessarily the broader watershed.

Hon. G. Wilson: My advice is that we're not going to take a position with respect to where the boundary is. The boundary is where it is. McLeod Lake's rights will be protected on either the east or the west side.

J. Weisgerber: I'm also advised that McLeod Lake is or will be constrained from attempting to argue this whole question in court at some later date. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that is correct. But they won't be constrained from defending themselves against some claim of right against themselves.

J. Weisgerber: What troubled me about that position, in reflecting on the discussion I had on Friday with officials, was that I think people living in northeastern British Columbia -- the more historic Treaty 8 area -- believe today that there is a high degree of certainty enjoyed in the northeastern part of the province, the Peace region or the more broadly acknowledged Treaty 8 area, with respect to claims-related issues or aboriginal issues. Is the minister in agreement with that sort of conclusion? I get a sense that there is a degree of apprehension about acknowledging Treaty 8 for fear of opening up a range of issues. I don't know if the minister can comment on that.

[1655]

J. Weisgerber: There may be. I'm prepared to move on from this. There may be some opportunities at some point as this agreement moves to completion to look again at that issue, but I think that for the purposes of this debate, at least, I won't belabour that anymore.

As the minister is well aware, Treaty 8 and most of the numbered treaties have a provision in them for something called "enfranchisement." Basically, in my readings of it and in taking ourselves back 100 years, it suggested to aboriginal people signing treaties or preparing to sign treaties that they really had two options. One was to get land in a reserve --

[ Page 13000 ]

Aboriginal people had another option at that time. Remembering that aboriginal people in those days didn't have a vote, they could choose to become enfranchised. They could choose 160 acres of land severally or separately away from the reserve, and part of that process gave people -- those aboriginals who made that choice -- the right to be enfranchised or vote. I suspect -- and I'm not certain, but I suspect -- it also deprived them of status and band membership. The two would seem to go hand in hand. Recognizing that because this is an adhesion to Treaty 8 and there is an option under article 8 for land to be provided in severalty. . . . I'm wondering whether or not those historic implications have been considered, whether they should be considered by British Columbia and whether they should be considered by Canada, and what those considerations might be.

[1700]

With respect to the matter of land and severalty, I'm told that in this negotiation those who may choose land and severalty will remain status aboriginal people but may not remain members of the McLeod Lake band. Apparently McLeod Lake is now doing a membership code, and in establishing that membership code they obviously will have a clearer picture.

J. Weisgerber: I only raised the whole issue of enfranchisement because while I believe there is a benefit to this clause to allow people to take land separately that might even have some application in the modern-day context, it's also important to recognize that historically there was a significant decision attached to that taking of land severally -- that aboriginal people were, in fact, being taken out of the band, out of status and integrated. I think there has to be a recognition of that in this modern-day process. While I like the idea, at the end of the day, of people being able to make a choice, I think that that choice has to have with it a recognition that there is an option that could be beneficial but that there are also penalties attached to it that make it balanced in terms of the choice people are making. I happen to support McLeod Lake's position of saying: "Look, we're not at all sure, if you choose to take land separately, that you should continue to be band members."

I don't think constitutionally that you could deprive a person of their status. I think we're past that point -- and should be. I also think that to suggest to band members that they can take this land away from the group but that they can still enjoy all the benefits that all of the other folks will enjoy off their reduced land quantum is a bit unrealistic. People have to understand that the choice to take that 160 acres reduces the amount of land that is going to be transferred to the band by 128 acres. At some point, before we're done with this discussion, I'd be curious to hear thoughts about other reductions, such as cash and other things, that might follow along with that.

But having moved that far along, I wonder if the minister can tell me if that choice can be made by parents and guardians on behalf of minors or others who might not be in a position to make that decision?

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes. Parents and/or guardians can make that decision. However, Canada has taken the position that they have a fiduciary obligation on this question and are now exploring whether or not the public trustee has a role to play in that process. We haven't heard back from Canada yet, but the short answer to your question is yes.

[1705]

It seems to me, going back to the original treaty, that the decision was made. . . . I want to now just flip to schedule H on page 63, which spells out portions of Treaty 8. When this decision around enfranchisement was on the table, it seems to me that the federal government, who were signing the treaty, were offering this: "On the one hand, take your 160 acres, the opportunity to vote and to integrate yourself into the broader society; on the other hand, should you choose not to do that, we'll provide these 128 acres, with the add-ons." But there was a lot more to it. They provided an annual stipend to the chief, to headmen, to band members. They provided. . . . I don't have to go through them. Some of them appear so out of touch with today. But they included farm equipment, farm implements, etc.

It seems to me that what has evolved over this 100 years is that now the federal government is saying: "Instead of these archaic provisions, what we're going to do is provide cash to the band in the amount of about $9 million" -- which I take to be the modern-day equivalent of schedule H, an amount of cash to provide some economic opportunities on this land base. I'm wondering, if that's the case, whether in the. . . . My assumption is that 100 years ago, those benefits in schedule H were extended only to those people who chose not to take land severally, who chose to take land in common. I'm wondering why, then, a similar formula wouldn't be applied by the federal government. I realize that I probably should be in Ottawa talking to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. But I neither want that opportunity nor am likely ever to have it, so I have to ask the questions here if they're ever going to be asked.

Hon. G. Wilson: Let me see if I can work through this. I'm not sure I'm answering the member's question, but I'm sure he'll come back to me if I'm not. It's our view that of the amount. . . . Those portions that were underlined, that the member was reading -- the collective sum of $500,000 is allocated to deal with that. The balance of the $9.3 million is to

[ Page 13001 ]

G. Plant: Do you have a question for his answer?

[1710]

Hon. G. Wilson: I would say at the very most, yes.

B. Penner: I'd like to take this opportunity to ask the minister if he can provide us with an update as to the status of land claims negotiations with the Stó:lo, who reside in my area of the Fraser Valley.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, the Stó:lo nation is in stage four, the very early stages of agreement-in-principle. The framework agreement was signed in a formal ceremony on January 30, 1998 -- as the member I'm sure is aware. The next task, which we're engaged in right now, is stage four work planning. Tentative meeting dates for '99 have been established and are being met -- or were being met. We are now deferring further negotiations until the completion of band elections, and their negotiating team is reorganized.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister is in a position to tell us when those band elections will be completed and when we can look forward to the next step in the treaty negotiation process.

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know the precise date, but I will make sure that you get that information. It's soon.

B. Penner: Is it correct to say then that actual negotiations have not commenced between the various representatives of the tripartite Treaty Commission and the Stó:lo?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think it's fair to say that the discussions we've had to date have been around process and meetings and getting the discussions toward the final AIP in place. There have not been hard, detailed negotiations with respect to movement toward an AIP. We're hoping to get that happening as soon as possible.

B. Penner: A few weeks ago the minister was in my constituency of Chilliwack and, I believe, made some comments with respect to Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. The minister will recall that the federal government announced the closure of that facility in the spring of 1995, and it is now effectively closed. There are a few operations still taking place, from a military perspective, but most of the 2,000 personnel have left and the majority of the buildings are sitting idle. In Chilliwack, it's a topic of considerable conversation as to what will take place with the base. Is the government taking the position that the base itself should be a subject of land claims negotiations? As a matter of principle, are they willing to enter into that discussion?

Hon. G. Wilson: Our view is that it's federal land. In fact, I believe that I'm about to send out a letter that will be addressed to the three parties -- federal, municipal and Stó:lo -- to see if there's a way to get the three of them engaged in some level of joint venture work or some kind of interim measures, discussions, to see how that base can be more effectively used as a functional part of the economy and community, both first nations and non-first nations.

[1715]

B. Penner: Some businesses have already signed two-year lease agreements through the Canada Lands Company and have moved their operations onto the base. Other business leaders tell me that a two-year lease doesn't provide them with enough certainty to make long-term business decisions, and therefore they have ruled out moving onto the base to conduct their business. The federal government, in turn, says the reason for a two-year limit on any business lease arrangement is the fact that they anticipate that a formal claim will be made by the Stó:lo for those lands. So in my community there's some frustration that the future of CFB Chilliwack is clouded by the still-unresolved land claim negotiation process.

I believe that when the minister was in Chilliwack a couple of weeks ago, he indicated to a reporter from the Chilliwack Progress, a local newspaper, that he had heard of a suggestion to use one of those buildings on the base as an aboriginal university. I believe the building in question is the newest building -- the $13 million engineering facility that has 27 classrooms and 40 offices and a total of, I believe, 27,000 square feet in classroom space. That is a building that's sitting completely empty. It was used by, I think, two classes of Canadian military engineers prior to the base closing, so it is virtually brand-new. It's got fibre-optic links, computer modem terminals, and every classroom is wheelchair accessible. A 300-person theatre is in the building. It is an impressive facility, and unfortunately it's not being used. I just wonder if the minister is in a position to comment more about the suggestion of utilizing that building as an aboriginal university.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes. I've been approached by a group from Chilliwack suggesting that there may be an opportunity to do some first nations educational training work out there. I brought that to my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and Training. Certainly the concern we have is that, not

[ Page 13002 ]

I think there is some work being done in the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training to look at that. That wouldn't fall under my ministry, but we can certainly open the door to some discussions. The problem is that the federal government seems to be completely intransigent on the question, and trying to get them to recognize that there is some need for us to put something together that would assist the community is difficult.

B. Penner: The minister's answers provide me with a few more questions. I wonder if he's in a position to tell us the name of the group that approached him with the suggestion for an aboriginal training facility. And would that then be different from the suggestion of an aboriginal university? If so, how would it be different from the concept of an aboriginal university, if it were to be an aboriginal training facility? Is that a matter of semantics, or is there something considerably different?

[1720]

The mayor of my community tells me that it took five months to get a response to his letter to the Premier at that time, Mike Harcourt, asking for the province's assistance in challenging the federal government about their intentions to close the base. That response, when it came, was far too late. A special committee of the Legislature was struck about six months after the federal government announced their plans to close the base. At that time it was a fait accompli. Very little happened as a result of that committee's report -- sadly, I think, for all of British Columbia. So I'm not a huge defender of the federal government as it relates to their actions in handling the closure of the base, but it seems to me that the provincial government could have been a bit more vocal on behalf not just of Chilliwack but of the province of British Columbia, when the federal government decided to close B.C.'s only land-based military base. I look forward to the minister's answers to my numerous questions.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm just trying to keep a log of all of them. To be honest, I don't have the names of the people who approached me. I'm happy to get them for you and give them to you. I actually thought that they were already working with you, because they seemed to use your name freely. I just assumed. . . . I believe they're actually connected partly to the community college system.

M. de Jong: That could describe any number of people.

Hon. G. Wilson: That's right. It could describe any number of people.

I use the words "aboriginal training facility," because I don't think there is any real serious view toward the establishment of a specific aboriginal university. Part of the proposal was to have it broadly based and dealing with aboriginal people worldwide. I don't think, to be honest, that's very realistic, and I don't think there was a very realistic presentation made on that. However, with respect to a more specific set of training options that would be available to first nations as well as non-first nations on the capacity-building side of things, there may be some uses for that particular building. That's something that we're taking a look at.

I don't disagree that the loss of CFB Chilliwack is a serious blow not only to your community, Chilliwack, but to all of British Columbia. I do know that there was a considerable effort made by your predecessor, Mr. Chisholm, who used to raise it on a regular basis, and he raised it with everybody he could raise it with. I know that you've been very vocal on this issue as well.

I think the difficulty is that we don't seem to be getting. . . . I, of course, have raised this matter with my federal counterparts and former colleagues of mine who are now sitting on the federal side of the bench in Ottawa. I have suggested that we need to get some meaningful dialogue or some process, or something happening, that will resolve the issue on the land. The problem is that we're not getting a positive response back. If I could give the member -- advice is maybe not the right word -- a suggestion. I think that what we have to do jointly -- I'm happy to work with the member on this, and I think other members on this side would be -- is get the senior member of the federal cabinet from this province to realize that he has to become a representative of British Columbia to Ottawa, and not a representative of Ottawa to British Columbia. He's going to have to start to stand up and fight for those kinds of issues that we want resolution to, because the practical fact is that when these issues get advanced up the ladder, no matter what ministry you're going through, ultimately it gets shifted sideways to get his view or opinion on these matters, and if there's not support there, it just goes no further. And there is not a lot of support for anything we're trying to do in British Columbia right now, which is sad, because I think it's a disservice to all of us.

I'm happy to work with you on that, and I will try and get that group together. I honestly thought they were working through your office, but if not, I'm happy to get you that material.

[1725]

[ Page 13003 ]

I'll let this go in a moment, but I'll say that, in the past, in debating the Premier I've asked him what his plan was with respect to challenging the federal government to make use of that asset called CFB Chilliwack. I didn't get much of a useful answer, frankly. A bit of frustration was expressed by the Premier -- but nothing in terms of a concrete action plan about how we would try to capture the federal government's attention with respect to the base. Again, I note the contrast of how, when a military facility closed close to the provincial capital here in Victoria, the government was quick to take action. But when something happened in Chilliwack, which was a base of more significance to the province, we really didn't get any response from the provincial government that was timely or effective.

Hon. G. Wilson: You might want to take that up with the Minister Responsible for the Public Service. Royal Roads is in that member's riding, and I know that member fought hard and long to get a university established there. He may have some suggestions as to how we might proceed on Chilliwack.

For my part, though, with respect to these particular estimates, this is a matter that I think has potential within the land claims process. This is a matter that I think the federal government and my ministry need to talk about with respect to the whole land question, in terms of the Stó:lo claim. This is an issue that we want to keep very much on the front burner, because there's tremendous economic opportunity for the community of Chilliwack to be realized out of that -- out of some useful venture in that. I will seek to do what I can to build some kind of stability on the land matter, so if people have an intention to invest there, they'll have more than a two-year window to be able to make that investment. I pledge that to the member, and I'm happy to work with him on it.

M. de Jong: We have spent some time in these discussions dealing with issues around mandate development and process around negotiations. One of the things we haven't done is spend a lot of time crunching numbers, going through the blue book -- and we're not. But I do want to do this, because it is indicative of a larger problem around these estimates debates generally and, I have to say in all candour, a problem that this government continues to experience. I do want to revisit an issue that we dealt with last year in the estimates. It came up during the course of the debate around the Nisga'a treaty -- and I think remains a relevant issue -- and that is the Nisga'a implementation committee. I'm not certain what the present status of that committee is, but I think we'll hear about that momentarily from the minister. I want to point out and take a moment to try and illustrate why it is that people are pretty skeptical about both these debates -- or at least I am -- and the government's management of the public purse as well.

[1730]

There are, admittedly, things that will occur over the life of the budgetary cycle that can take a government by surprise. There are contingencies that can't always be planned for. But for the life of me, I cannot understand how this could be one of them, given that we were having this discussion. The budget had been set. It was clear -- or it should have been clear -- to the government what it intended to do. Yet the minister is, I think, now going to tell us to what extent that budget figure was overspent. He can at least take some solace from the fact that the majority of it, presumably, was overspent on someone else's watch. That may provide him with some defence, but it provides the government with none. So I am interested to hear, as at May 31, 1999, what the figure is for that particular committee.

Hon. G. Wilson: First of all, the committee or group that the member makes reference to has been disbanded. It no longer exists. The budget to the end of fiscal '98-99 was $6,926,929. Did I say that too fast?

M. de Jong: The committee was disbanded effective when?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm told that the office was finally closed and that everything wrapped up at the end of April.

[1735]

A Voice: By 300 percent.

M. de Jong: Three times -- that demonstrates a lack of discipline that I think is unconscionable. Is it any wonder that any other project. . . ? I feel myself slipping perilously close to launching into a speech that we're probably not interested in hearing here. But it really is symptomatic of a problem that has plagued this government with respect to just about any project you want to consider.

What happened? Did advertising costs go up? Did printing costs go up? Or, as I rather suspect, did the government simply decide that it was politically expedient or necessary to triple the amount of money it was spending on a propaganda campaign?

[ Page 13004 ]

Is it any wonder that people have no faith whatsoever in the information that they get from the government? Is it any wonder that people are so skeptical about an estimates process that in the final analysis is supposed to be about getting, to the greatest extent possible, honest information from government about how it intends to spend taxpayers' money?

Hon. G. Wilson: Let me take a shot at answering this. I think there is no question that on an original budget of $2.3 million, to have that then pushed up to $6.9 million would necessitate the opposition asking some questions. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

Certainly, in defence of the expenditure, there are several issues or answers that I can offer the members opposite. I don't know how satisfied they'll be with them, but let me put them forward. First of all, the demand for materials far exceeded the expectations of government. There were more than 28,000 copies of the agreement-in-principle, for example, and 31,000 summaries of the AIP distributed. There were 35,000 copies of the final agreement put out, and 75,000 copies of a summary were distributed after the signing ceremony. The minister's staff recorded more than 20,000 calls to the ministry -- the 1-800 line -- which necessitated some additional resources. There were 250,000 visits through the Internet web site and 2,500 copies of the video provided to public libraries, organizations and institutions. There were more than 300 community outreach events that were sponsored for business, labour, ethnocultural, social justice, youth and faith leaders, and more than 600 organizations and individuals contacted and offered presentations, publications or information about the treaty. So a good portion of that went to sending out of factual information and the distribution of material with respect to the treaty.

[1740]

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, he is able to point validly to the fact that he came to his post in January, I think it was, and I rather suspect, candidly, that most of these expenditures and overexpenditures had been incurred before he assumed his post. If that is the case and he would have us believe that today he wishes to be forthright about accounting for these overexpenditures, then he should demonstrate a willingness to do that.

I listened to his answer, and the one thing he didn't talk about is advertising. Let's not kid ourselves. The minister and the government didn't go $4 million over budget on printing costs. The fact of the matter is that the government decided it wanted blanket TV coverage and blanket radio coverage, and it spent a ton of dough on its media propaganda campaign. Don't play us for fools. The minister stands up and gives me essentially the response I got from his predecessor a few months ago during the Nisga'a debate: "We've got more people accessing our web site." That doesn't account for four million bucks. It's not printing costs.

I mean, we can do this. I can go through the figures; we can go through salaries. The budget was $300,000 for printing and publications. I can ask him: what was the final figure? And we can break it all down. The original budget called for $1 million in television. I don't know what the final figure was.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'll give it to you.

M. de Jong: The minister says he's going to give it to me, so I'll wait for that with bated breath.

Hon. G. Wilson: The summary is as follows. In coordination, outreach and public information, there was $1,036,340 spent; on printing production, publications and media, there was $2,574,556 spent; on the 1-800 line, there was $121,000 spent; on radio, TV and print advertising, there was $2,804,200 spent; on events and event planning, there was $282,100 spent; and on cost and benefit studies, there was $108,733 spent; for a total of $6,926,929.

M. de Jong: So the question is fairly straightforward: why was it necessary to triple the amount that was spent on television and radio advertising? Why did the government feel compelled to do that, when it had earlier provided assurance that the amount would be significantly less?

[1745]

It's my understanding that there was an expansion of the radio and television and print production for two reasons. First, it was felt that the government needed to get out its message around Nisga'a -- the fact that there should have been no fear of the treaty, that the treaty was a positive thing for British Columbia and that it provided opportunity for British Columbians. Given that there was considerable action taken by those opposing it, it was felt that the government's message wasn't getting clearly through to the people. So that was expanded. Second, the print, production and publication

[ Page 13005 ]

The Chair: Noting the hour, member.

M. de Jong: With respect to the media component to this, who made the decision to triple the amount spent?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm told that that was a decision taken by cabinet and approved by Treasury Board.

M. de Jong: Was that on the recommendation of the minister of the day?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm told that this would have been a discussion that would have taken place at cabinet. Since I wasn't there. . . . Even if I was, it would be privileged.

M. de Jong: Maybe I'll ask this question and then make the usual motion. I'm interested to know where I would trace this expenditure through the blue book, through the various STOBs that show up in the ministry, and where the overexpenditure would show up.

While that information is being sought, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.

The committee met at 6:42 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRIES
(continued)

M. de Jong: I think the minister was going to enlighten the committee as to where the additional unbudgeted funds for the Nisga'a implementation committee came from.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that they were primarily made from STOBs 20 -- professional services -- and 40 -- advertising and publications.

M. de Jong: Do I understand, then, if we just delve into this a little bit. . . ? The overall amounts for those STOBs did not increase. So presumably money that was budgeted for other uses was reallocated. Where did that reallocation of about $4 million come from -- in excess of $4 million?

Hon. G. Wilson: The expenditures were from Treasury Board's contingency fund, so there was no reallocation. It was approved by Treasury Board from their contingency fund.

M. de Jong: Let me display a level or ignorance that members opposite might often assign to me. But we have a debt; more than that, we have a significant deficit. We can call it a contingency fund. Governments run on a deficit. Which vote did that $4 million -- in excess of $4 million -- come from?

Hon. G. Wilson: It comes from the contingency vote, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.

M. de Jong: So, if the minister could, explain to me how that works. Is that a catch-all vote that when ministries find they have run beyond their budgeted amounts, in this case very deliberately, they simply dip into that amount? I can't recall what the budgeted amount on that vote was, but I'm sure the minister can tell us.

[1845]

M. de Jong: Thanks. That is also helpful. How was this unanticipated? We had a lengthy discussion in last year's estimates. There was a specific program. There was a budgeted amount that the minister assured the Legislature would be abided by. How do any of these expenses qualify as being unanticipated?

Hon. G. Wilson: I can only speculate, because I wasn't the minister of the day. But my speculation would be that the reason it was unanticipated is because the debate continued longer. Contracts were renewed, advertising was carried further, and publications were greater than anticipated because of extended demand. Therefore, if the original budget was no longer adequate, there would have to be argument made to Treasury Board to dip into the contingency vote to be able to get additional money to fulfil what the minister today -- or those who were administering this particular project -- would have perceived necessary.

M. de Jong: I just want to be clear on what the government's definition of an unanticipated expenditure is. Should I take from this discussion, therefore, that in any of the ministerial estimates that we are discussing, if any those estimates relate to pending legislation, the government reserves the right to arbitrarily assign a length of time for that debate? If that debate should happen to take several weeks longer than the government believes useful or appropriate, would that be used as justification for dipping into the contingency fund? I'm a bit puzzled as to what the. . . . I will ask the minister to be very specific in talking about, in this case, $4 million -- in excess of $4 million.

I think the government is playing fast and loose with the books. This was not unanticipated. The one component to this that I think the minister could say was unanticipated might be printing costs relating to demands around the agreement. But you know what? If those were higher, then the government had a choice. The government could have cut back on advertising, but it didn't. It wantonly disregarded the amount and now seeks to hide behind some goofy contingency fund that is supposed to be for unanticipated expenditures. There was nothing about this, with the exception of what I just mentioned, that was unanticipated.

[ Page 13006 ]

[1850]

Let me ask this: by what. . . ? Prior to the dinner break, the minister alluded to the criteria or the objectives the government was seeking to achieve. Again, with respect to the advertising component to this budget, he provided an indication of what the government's objectives were. Presumably they didn't meet those objectives with the original budget of $1 million. I presume he's going to tell the Legislature and the committee that they met their objectives with the expenditure of the additional $4-point-whatever million. Or did they?

Hon. G. Wilson: That's a somewhat subjective question, I suppose. Did the government meet its objectives? I don't know how you would measure whether they did or didn't. I think, certainly, that one source of measurement which might give some positive response to that would be the fact that there were over a quarter of a million visits to the ministry's internal web site, which was largely fuelled by this information. There were 75,000 copies of a summary and 35,000 copies of a final agreement sent out. I think that demonstrates that there was a large interest. Certainly a lot of British Columbians wanted to get information.

When you get into the issue of the television advertising campaign, how effective was it? How ineffective was it? I think that's somewhat of a subjective measurement. Obviously the government at the time believed it to be a necessary expenditure. Otherwise they would not have committed those moneys.

With respect to the contingency vote, I don't think it is fair to characterize it as a slush fund. The contingency vote is largely there for expenditures that are required through an unanticipated set of events. Now, one would assume -- and I am assuming, because I wasn't minister at the time -- that the decision was taken by cabinet and Treasury Board to commit to an already approved expenditure -- additional moneys -- out of that contingency vote. They believed they needed to extend both the print and the radio and television advertising as a result of the extended debate on Nisga'a. Whether that was a prudent and wise political decision or not, I guess, is up to the individual members and ultimately the public to decide.

[1855]

Hon. G. Wilson: I would make a couple of points. This wasn't a simple overexpenditure of the budget. As it was explained to me, this was a decision to expand the number of dollars that were already approved for that project and therefore increase the budget. That decision, I'm told, was taken at the end of December.

M. de Jong: To make sure I understand this correctly. . . . At the end of December, on the recommendation of Treasury Board, cabinet approved the expenditure of a specific amount of money -- changed the budgeted amount. If that is correct, will the minister confirm the amount that it was changed to on that date? And I would like a specific date.

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't have the specific date that Treasury Board made the decision -- and that's where the decision would have been made -- except to say that it was a decision that was made in late December. The information I have at hand here indicates that it was through the course of December that it was decided that the amount of money that was originally allocated for this project was insufficient, and representation was made through cabinet to Treasury Board to expand it. It was in the latter part of December, close to adjournment of the House, that the decision was taken that they would expand that budget. But I don't have the specific date that Treasury Board met. I suppose we could look it up.

M. de Jong: Maybe I wasn't listening carefully enough. Did the minister refer to a specific amount? Was a specific amount allocated at that time?

Hon. G. Wilson: At that point, the decision was to go from the original $2.3 million to $6.8 million.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister can help me to better understand why I and the opposition shouldn't be left with the feeling that we have been misled, at least at one level, when we receive in December documents from the ministry that include a budget for 1998-99 that continues to tout the figure of $2.281 million. That we would receive that information in December, at a time when clearly the government was intending or -- let me put it this way -- considering tripling that budget -- that they would, in response to a specific request, provide information suggesting information that was clearly inaccurate. . . .

[1900]

[ Page 13007 ]

M. de Jong: I'm referring to a letter dated November 30, 1998, signed by Gail Leatherdale from within the ministry. If the minister is seeking some degree of understanding from me that a release on the eve of Christmas Eve about an overexpenditure of the sort we are dealing with here is somehow worthy of forgiveness, I'm afraid I'm not in a position to offer him that.

Let me just return momentarily, then, to the question of objectives here. On December 23 -- that's the closest we've got to a date -- the public became aware that the government intended to spend a whole lot more money. Again, presumably, that was for a specific reason. If it were just for printing costs, I suppose that would be easy enough to establish. But it wasn't; it was more than that. I'm not going to be cute with the minister. The longer this advertising campaign went on, the more opposition to this agreement there was, according to any poll I've seen. It begs asking the question: what was the government intending to do?

I heard the minister say at one point that the government must have concluded that they weren't getting their message out. We were told all along that that wasn't the objective. It wasn't about the government getting its message out; it was supposed to be about providing information.

Now we're hearing something quite different. Maybe it had something to do with the by-election that was going on at the time. The minister, in his former capacity, was closely involved in that by-election, and it coincided very closely with the time that the advertising hit its peak. I remember that. I remember saying that; I remember saying it during the debate. So maybe there were some other dynamics at work here. But the facts speak for themselves.

The minister enjoys the luxury, for the moment, of being able to say: "That was those other guys." But he's one of those guys now, and I think he has to do a little better than that. The one thing I recall hearing from this minister, in his former life as a member of the opposition, was an occasional speech in which he would chastise members of the government benches for not recognizing where there had been blatant abuse by government -- and saying that. Well, that's pretty blatant and it's pretty apparent. It happened within the ministry that this minister now runs. I think it's his chance to say very clearly that what went on here was wrong. It was irresponsible, it was contrived, it was deliberate, and it was wrong. It makes a mockery of any kind of public budgetary process that you can think of. This is his chance to do that. This is his chance, I think, to show how different he really is. Or he can defend it. It's up to him.

[1905]

Now, I don't want to either support or defend its success in the polls, because I haven't seen those polls in direct correlation to the advertising campaign. So I can't really suggest whether it was or wasn't successful. I've heard both arguments made. But I think what the member can read into my comments in any way he wishes is that within a matter of weeks -- in fact, a couple of weeks -- of my taking over this ministry, that project was cancelled.

From my point of view, the Nisga'a debate has concluded in an appropriate way. Time allocation is something that I think is used frequently in mature legislatures. What that does is provide people an opportunity to put out a sensible information package and to conclude. in a timely way, debate on issues that may be contentious between parties. I'm going to leave it there. From my point of view, certainly around Sechelt you'll notice that no such campaign exists. We have 15 other tables mandated; we have three that are very quickly moving toward an AIP. We're doing so in an orderly, professional and businesslike manner, and that's the way the ministry is being run.

G. Plant: I'm certainly not going to go down the time allocation road that the minister referred to a minute ago. I want to ask a few other questions, just about the arithmetic here and the implementation project.

The original budgeted amount for the implementation office reads something like just under $2.3 million, and that amount was increased. I understand from the minister's answers here that the increased amount came by way of the contingency fund -- through the process involving Treasury Board and cabinet that he described earlier. I probably missed this, but was the $2.281 million that was the original budgeted amount an appropriation from the vote for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, it was.

G. Plant: How far back in time, then, did all that go? For example, there were. . . . I'll get to some of the details of this in a minute, but there were presumably expenses around the initialling ceremony in New Aiyansh in early August 1998. Were those expenses incurred in what became the budget for the Nisga'a treaty implementation office, or did those expenses come from somewhere else?

Hon. G. Wilson: The short answer to the question is yes, they were.

[1910]

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes, they did come from that fund. Where staff are cautioning me is that some staff may have travelled there through normal travel budgets which are part of the line ministry expenditures. But generally speaking, the expenses and costs of that came out of that fund.

[ Page 13008 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is no, we haven't actually gone through each of the individual STOBs and pulled out whatever may be associated expenses. If that's something the opposition would like to see, I think we could probably do that without much trouble.

G. Plant: Well, I'll certainly think about the minister's offer. In terms of responding to the request, I take it that part of the complexity is that some of the costs associated with that event are not allocated to the budget of the Nisga'a treaty implementation office, but they come from, as the minister says, the budget of line ministries in some cases.

Hon. G. Wilson: They may be. I mean, I have a very cautious staff here that don't want me to say unequivocally that all of the money came from that particular fund, because there may have been one or two members of staff who travelled on a line travel budget. But any of the dollars that would have come out of the ministry would not be substantial in the overall cost of that event. The vast majority of those dollars would have come out of that money.

G. Plant: With those caveats, is there an order-of-magnitude figure for the cost to the province of its participation in that event?

Hon. G. Wilson: We actually don't have it broken down by individual. . . . For example, initialling ceremonies aren't broken out, as opposed to the December events that took place here. But all of them inclusively, from June 1 to December 31, amounted to $167,196 -- say $167,000.

G. Plant: That, if you will, is the event attendance and arrangement costs, which would include the dollars the province spent in respect of the attendance of Nisga'a elders and the ceremonies at the Legislative Assembly on November 30 -- or whatever the day was. That's all included in that $167,000 figure -- is that right?

[1915]

G. Plant: Looking at the summary of the Nisga'a implementation team budget -- the $2.281 million budget -- the question is: where would that $167,000 be? It's clearly not going to be in publications and media -- 1-800 line, postal, e-mail and so on. It's going to be in the Nisga'a coordination group office. There's a project manager, $50,000; a project coordinator, $39,000; travel, per diems, administration, $40,000; outreach, planning, production, $156,000. I suspect that the $167,000 is not entirely incorporated within that and that the cost, for example, associated with the bringing of Nisga'a elders to Victoria was probably rolled into the request for the additional money from Treasury Board in December that the minister talked about earlier. Or is the minister able to say whether this original $2.281 million budget in fact included all of the $167,000 that the minister has been talking about?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that what would be easiest and probably most helpful to the member opposite is if we do a correlation between the original planned $2.3 million budget and what transpired from that period through to the end of the year, culminating in the $6.8 million. We don't have that actually broken out, but we. . . . The difficulty we're having is that much of this information shifted. In terms of finding dollars, they came from various STOBs, were brought in, and the moneys were compiled to make that up. So if the member is interested in seeing how we got from that figure to the $6.8 million -- which probably would be a useful exercise -- I'm happy to do that, and we'll get it to the member.

[1920]

We made an FOI request that disclosed the usual collection of notes and memos among people in various departments talking about who might go and what the travel options were. It may be that something after that comes close to creating a base for scrutiny and consideration. So if the minister's staff want to contact me about the logistical challenges in terms of complying with that particular request, I welcome the call.

One final element, though, of this issue for now. . . . Another document that I've got in front of me is an e-mail from, I guess, the person who was responsible for the implementation office, Mr. Heaney, back in the middle of August. There's reference to a particular person on contract and a discussion about someone in CPCS having run out of funds to fund a particular contract, or someone doing work that was entirely for the Nisga'a project, if you will -- and that the funding for a renewal of the contract, in effect, was going to come out of Aboriginal Affairs. The correspondence suggests that in addition to the other dollars we've been talking about, there may have been funds from the cabinet secreteriat, cupcakes, -- I can never remember what the initials stand for; cabinet policy and communications secretariat -- that may also, properly speaking, be attributable to the Nisga'a file, if you will. I'm wondering if the minister is in a position to indicate whether that is so -- there were other dollars that were essentially Premier's dollars that really ought to be added to the $7 million to get a complete sense of what the province spent in order to reach the stage of implementation along the lines we've been talking about.

Hon. G. Wilson: My advice is that the vast majority of the dollars were captured in the $6.9 million. Now, that's not to say there may not have been other people who were engaged in the course of doing government business that would attach them to Nisga'a and therefore either loosely -- or, more directly, potentially -- tie them into work that was being done by this team.

My advice is also that the team was created to try to keep to a minimum those other people who would become appended to this work so that it didn't get too broad through government. That's the reason there was the decision taken to create this team of people who were going to be doing the

[ Page 13009 ]

G. Plant: I think the minister's answer is at least somewhat helpful. I know that, for example, the documents we've seen for the Nisga'a implementation project or the Nisga'a implementation office or team, insofar as they list people who participated in the project, don't include any of the negotiators. If the notional time period for this $2.281 million budget goes back as far as June 1, my assumption is -- and I'm sure the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- that throughout June and July, there was probably an awful lot of work being done by at least some of the dozen, 15 or 20 people who were presumably working for their own ministries -- like the Ministry of Attorney General or maybe the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs -- doing the work of getting the treaty completed.

I assume the minister, when he is being cautious in his last answer, is intending to include those figures. Pulling out those numbers in order to create an overall dollar figure would involve a fairly complex process of allocating the amount of time spent by some of those individuals who may not have been full-time on the project and so on. I get all of that. But is there, specifically, any amount that the minister knows -- or that his staff can say that yes, this was kind of a project within the CPCS for a time, before this team got up and running and there was a specific amount of money or a specific allocation of staff or resources within CPCS -- that really ought to be included in a consideration of the kind of stuff that the Nisga'a implementation team was eventually charged to undertake?

[1925]

Hon. G. Wilson: My advice is that the Nisga'a negotiating team was a dedicated team that was paid for out of the ministry budget and that was financed out of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. It was not included in this number. All of the communications, initially, were done out of the communications shop of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs until this team was created. Once this team was created, they then took on that responsibility for communication. Certainly to my knowledge and the knowledge of the staff present, there was no other line ministry or agency of government actively involved in any substantive way other than those that were involved in this project.

G. Plant: Having established a dedicated negotiating team within, or funded by, the ministry, can the minister indicate what that cost was in fiscal '98-99, for example?

Hon. G. Wilson: What I can supply the member with. . . . We don't have the definitive figure for the Nisga'a team, but what I can give you is the pro forma direct average annual cost for a regional negotiating team, which is what it's currently costing us now for a dedicated team. Nisga'a, I'm told, was slightly smaller and a little bit cheaper. But that team -- which would include a treaty negotiator, a negotiator, contracted professional services, assistant negotiator, negotiation analyst, communications consultant, secretary, information adviser, mandates development officer and the work that was associated with that, along with meeting, travel and accommodation costs -- right now is costing us, on an annual basis, about $1.5 million.

[1930]

Hon. G. Wilson: We were just trying to find the exact reference in the information. The Angus Reid Group would have been doing public opinion polling.

M. de Jong: The document I just referred to references an April 15 memo from, I take it, Mr. Reid. It is attached. It refers to the need to conduct public opinion research. "Public opinion research is required to ensure the public information campaign provides the information the public expects in forms that are accessible to the public." That sounds to me like the government wanted to have a pretty good idea of what the public would find favour with, so that they could tailor the campaign to meet those expectations. Tell me it isn't so.

Hon. G. Wilson: It isn't so. Having told the member that, he can take great comfort.

A Voice: I think we're just about done.

G. Plant: Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hon. G. Wilson: Maybe I should just sit down with that and say it isn't so.

No, I think what the member refers to is a need for the government to analyze where public concerns are and to make sure that information the public was not aware of was made available. In public opinion research, it's not unusual to seek to find in advance areas where the public is misinformed, uninformed or has anxiety about information, and to make sure that the information in fact meets those anxieties and needs. It doesn't necessarily mean. . . . Frequently it does not mean -- and in this case I don't believe that it does -- that you simply go out to try and find what will sell and what won't. Rather, you try to target the information to make sure that you meet the needs of the people who want it.

M. de Jong: Great. There's an easy way to test the theory that the minister has expounded upon, and that is to release all of the documentation. I don't think it has been released. There may have been reference to certain results, but let's see the questions. Let's see how they were dealt with and how the poll was conducted, if in fact it was actually conducted.

[ Page 13010 ]

[1935]

M. de Jong: The document, if we just examine how this came into being. . . . The memo of April 15, 1998, talks about the difficulties associated with following normal procedures in retaining a research firm -- to quote quickly: "Due to the nature of the negotiations and the potential for treaty issues to be resolved quickly, a research firm cannot be engaged under the normal procedures prior to the completion of negotiations." I note this is research to support the Nisga'a final treaty settlement, and it is dated April 15, 1998. The observation included is that there's no time to retain a firm under normal procedures. What would normal procedures be for a case like this?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, truthfully, I don't really know. I'm not sure what the member is reading from. I could speculate, but I'm not sure that would be very useful. It might be more helpful to ask the minister who may be responsible for CPCS, who I think did most of the early contacting of services through the Angus Reid Group and is responsible for doing most of the opinion polling for the government.

I would speculate that what they're referring to is taking a large sample size and doing a fairly broad-based survey based on a population that is representative of the public at large, recognizing that a large number of them would have no knowledge of the content of the treaty or of how that treaty might affect their lives. I guess it's problematic when you go in to do broad-based, focused research if you're selecting from a sample of people who don't have any baseline data to make decisions or give adequate responses to. What you're likely to find out is that the information you get is not very valuable. That's pure speculation on my part. I mean, as somebody who has been a social scientist and involved academically in public opinion research work for some time, that's an informed guess, but nothing better.

M. de Jong: Let me try to take the discussion in a slightly different direction. It may be that what they were referring to is the need to go to public tender. On a contract of this sort, the ministry and CPCS presumably have policies in place for when an RFP -- request for proposals -- must be issued and when that contract must go to public tender. I'd be interested to know what that policy is, as it would be applicable to a project like this.

Hon. G. Wilson: That's a good question. I wouldn't mind knowing the answer to that myself. I'm not responsible for signing contracts. If those contracts were done through the cabinet planning priorities, they would have been handled and managed through the Ministry of Finance. That's probably a question better put to the Minister of Finance, who would ultimately be responsible.

I would assume that tendering on projects of any size would be pretty standard throughout government, but I'm not engaged in actually doing that survey work, so I can't give the member a more definitive answer.

[1940]

Hon. G. Wilson: Under most circumstances the threshold is $25,000. However, there are provisions for direct award under exceptional circumstances.

M. de Jong: Can the minister advise whether this contract went to public tender?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm assuming that he's talking about the April 1998 survey, so that's considerably before my time. I will find out for him. I don't have the answer here; I'm certainly happy to find that information and make it available to the members opposite.

M. de Jong: The document, just to follow this through to its logical conclusion, from Angus Reid to Mr. Savas indicates that the cost would be between $40,000 and $60,000, and then that is refined down to a total of $49,000. I'd be interested to know (a) if that was the final cost for the project and (b) who paid for it. If $49,000 is the correct amount, what budget did that come out of?

Hon. G. Wilson: Honestly, I am going to have to get back to the member on this. This is all last year's budget. I have had -- certainly in the preparation of it -- no direct knowledge of it. I can't give the member a clear answer, but I'm happy to find the answers to those questions and make sure that the information is available.

M. de Jong: Before moving on, I'm just going to press the point a little bit. There is reference in these documents to the fact that this was the first public opinion survey relating to this topic undertaken by the government since 1996. Presumably it is not a daily occurrence that the ministry, directly or indirectly, becomes involved in public opinion surveys of the sort contemplated and described here. I could ask a more general question, and that is: how much money has the ministry spent and how much has been budgeted for public opinion surveys, both in the year past and the year coming? It struck me that a fairer question would be to point to a specific survey and ask whether that came out of the ministry's communication budget, out of the Nisga'a implementation project budget or out of some other budget.

[1945]

[ Page 13011 ]

M. de Jong: But just so I understand, following from our earlier discussion, if the ministry -- or ultimately, the government -- deemed it necessary and worthwhile to engage in public opinion polling that isn't presently budgeted for, they would have access either to CPCS or perhaps a subsequent submission to Treasury Board for access to the contingency fund. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Wilson: Under STOB 20, I suppose we could set aside a small amount of money for a public opinion poll, but that is apparently not the tradition within the ministry. I certainly don't have any plan to embark on any polling at this point. CPCS, I would guess -- it's just a pure guess, and it's something that you might want to raise with the Minister of Finance in the Finance estimates -- has a budget established for polling, because I know that they poll fairly routinely on a whole broad range of issues. Now, we may be asked at some point to contribute a small percentage of money from STOB 20 to buy a question or two on a poll, but that's about the extent of the work that we'll be doing on polling.

M. de Jong: A couple of related points. When we made the FOI request for information pertaining to the Nisga'a implementation project, we received some information -- contractual information, some of the e-mails. But we also got some documents that I find curious. I'm always grateful when we get a document from the government that isn't whited out so as to render it incomprehensible.

But amongst the documentation we got was a copy of a letter. By the way, I should, in fairness to the minister. . . . The covering letter that came with this material was to the B.C. Liberal caucus, dated November 5. It refers to the documents we requested in an FOI application. Amongst those documents was a copy of a letter dated August 6, 1998, on the MLA letterhead of the member for Cariboo South. It's a letter to the editor that begins: "This letter is in response to your headline article on August 4, 1998. It is important that I clarify statements made by the MLA for Cariboo North."

It then goes on to do that. It indicates that the signature at the conclusion of that document was the MLA for Cariboo South; it's written here. That puzzles me. Can the minister explain why, in response to a request for information about the Nisga'a implementation project, I would receive a copy of a letter presumably written by the MLA for Cariboo South?

[1950]

M. de Jong: Well, in addition to that letter I was provided with a copy of a letter dated August 13, 1998, addressed to Steve Wallace, mayor of Quesnel, again with the signature of the member for Cariboo South and again touting the virtues of the Nisga'a treaty. I was provided with a copy of a similar letter written on behalf of the MLA for Victoria-Beacon Hill, the Speaker.

I'll speculate. It looks like the office was in the business of writing letters on behalf of MLAs. If that's the case, I'm sure that the minister's staff would be in a position to assist him in confirming whether or not that is the case. The minister himself would be in a position to advise the committee whether he thinks that was appropriate use of the project's resources.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that because a project office is collecting information with respect to Nisga'a and the discourse that's going on between the public and the private, they were somehow engaged in drafting material for individual members. I mean, my guess is that the file also included a lot of material from the Liberal opposition. I doubt that you would conclude, if the files included letters from Liberal MLAs about the virtues or lack of virtue of the Nisga'a -- and that was included in those documents -- that it would somehow suggest that they were doing work for the Liberals.

I can't give you a clear answer on that. What I do understand is that this shop, if I can use that term, was gathering information from all sources on the public discourse between government, agents of government, MLAs, the public, official opposition and others who were writing or musing or in other ways commenting on Nisga'a. However they gathered that information together, if it sat in a file and somebody sent it out on an FOI request, they did.

[1955]

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't know why they would. I mean, there's a caucus communications branch that drafts letters for MLAs. It's done through the caucus communications. Certainly as minister I can tell you that I've never been approached by, nor would I accede to a request from, an MLA to have my staff write them a letter or write a letter on their behalf. I don't know why they would. I mean, there is a communications shop out of the caucus that would handle those letters.

M. de Jong: Let me ask the minister to just briefly cast his memory back to those salad days of opposition. I don't recall being asked by anyone associated with the shop, the project, whether I would require correspondence prepared on my behalf. The minister anticipates the question perfectly. Maybe he could simply indicate whether he received that kind of offer as a member of the opposition.

Hon. G. Wilson: No, I was never given such a luxury.

M. de Jong: Well, if we've helped narrow the description of what would be appropriate use of the project's resources, I

[ Page 13012 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: Once again I find myself having to speculate on an answer. One would assume that if the MLA for Bulkley Valley-Stikine or the MLA from Terrace in particular. . . . I take those two as examples, because they're right in the back yard of Nisga'a. If they needed to get information, where documentation was available through the Crown, it would be made available to caucus communications to prepare materials. I would assume that's the same for any other government MLA. If they're attempting to communicate to the public on questions that they may need answers to, the Nisga'a implementation team would be designed to provide information to caucus communications and, through them, to the MLAs so that they could adequately answer the questions. I'm just assuming that that would be a natural course of the distribution of information.

[2000]

The battleground is uneven enough. The ministry and the government have all of those resources available to them. Quite frankly, I have this distinct recollection of the minister's predecessor articulating a dramatically different view of what were appropriate and inappropriate activities for the committee. I want to be as fair as I can. But I have to believe that amongst staff, for whom the last year has been devoted in large measure to seeing through the Nisga'a treaty and to participating in and managing the affairs of the Nisga'a treaty implementation project, there would be knowledge of the activities that that group was participating in, especially insofar as and with respect to liaison with the government caucus.

I think, quite frankly, the minister can do better. He's adept at sidestepping the issue. He does have the ability to remind the committee -- as he has time and again -- that he wasn't there when these documents were apparently produced. But it would be nice to get a straight answer about what the committee was doing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if I got copies of these letters, this wasn't about collecting information. These were copies of documents that were produced in that office. Let's at least, with the talent that we have in the room and that is aligned to be at the minister's assistance, call a spade a spade. Let's not try to be cute about what's going on here.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I'm trying to get the best advice I can from staff. I can't tell you definitively where those letters were produced, because I don't know. I think that certainly there was. . . . I know there were offers made. . . . I'm reflecting back, because it was some time ago now, but I know that there was an offer made to the official opposition. The member for Peace River South and I had to sort of do a "me too" thing for some money to assist in preparation and distribution of materials to even the playing field, as the member suggests. But I don't. . . .

All I can tell you is this. One thing I can say with certainty is that that doesn't go on now. It does not go on under my tenure as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. That project group's work is now terminated. So if the member has concerns about those things, he will be able to sleep with great comfort tonight knowing that that no longer continues in this ministry -- if it in fact continued at any time before.

[2005]

Hon. G. Wilson: Yeah, as we probably all do.

So I'm sorry, but I just can't give you a definitive answer. I don't want to speculate on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of something that I don't even know took place.

The Chair: I'll remind the members that the debate is on the estimates for 1999-2000.

M. de Jong: I'm going to move along, but I'm going to say this. I and my colleague, I think, have a fairly distinct recollection of comments that the minister's predecessor made when confronted by similar information, which we are trying to track down and may or may not before we wind up things here tonight. He launched into a sterling defence of this kind of activity, directly contrary to what this minister has said. I suppose I can take some comfort from that, but we're going to try and get that information. I want to put it to the minister, because it flies in the face of what we are hearing now. It's difficult to take this process seriously when at the first sign of difficulty or when it is confronted by information that it finds disturbing, the government hides behind a cabinet shuffle. The minister professes disappointment at those comments, but that's really what it amounts to.

Let's talk about '99-2000. Let's talk about money for advertising and communications in the budget year '99-2000. I heard the minister the day before -- last week when we started this exercise -- talk about his belief that there is a need for an enhanced public information and public education campaign around the issue of treaty negotiations. I don't know if the minister recalls, but I heard remarkably similar words to justify the advertising campaign that we've just spent some time talking about. The minister says no; I say otherwise. His predecessor went to great lengths to assure us that this was about public education; this was about public information. So excuse my skepticism, but what does the minister have in mind? More importantly -- or at least as importantly -- how much of the public's dough does he intend to spend on his public information campaign?

Hon. G. Wilson: First of all, let me say that I'm not hiding behind anything. I can't give answers to the member opposite to questions that relate to something that happened a year ago, which I don't have the answer to or staff don't have the answer to. I would only suggest to them that if there's

[ Page 13013 ]

With respect to the. . . . Well, maybe I shouldn't help the opposition in suggesting it. There are other routes for finding this information, of which I'm sure they're well aware, given the other committees that are operational. One of them is even chaired by the opposition. It seems to me that might be a venue, but far be it from me to give advice as to how you might want to go after that.

[2010]

That, provided in a non-political, non-partisan way through the Open Learning Agency, can provide a useful set of information for people so that they can familiarize themselves with the treaty process and understand how third-party interests -- be they corporate interests, municipal interests or special interest groups such as backpacking organizations or guide-outfitters and those kinds of people -- can plug themselves into and implement their ideas. So that's one.

Secondly, I think that what's woefully lacking in British Columbia is a more comprehensive explanation of the history of first nations people. Very few British Columbians that I come into contact with on a day-to-day basis understand one group from another. They don't understand the difference between people who may be Haida or Kwakiutl or people who are involved in the Sechelts. They don't understand who the Nisga'a or the Carrier-Sekani are.

They don't understand what their histories are, where they are geographically or where they're located, what their evolution is or how their tribal councils operate. They don't understand the relationships between each of them, and neither do they understand what the traditional territories amount to. I'm suggesting that a second part of the three-part component I'm talking about is a program that would provide a historical framework within which British Columbians can start to understand how the Treaty Commission is progressing, so that people have a much better understanding of exactly what we're able to do on the treaty side.

Thirdly. . . . I feel very passionately about this, and it's a difficult one for this ministry because the lead is actually federal. On the third side, I think it is really important for us to establish a venue for first nations people who have experienced residential schools and the abuse that has taken place there, and other kinds of initiatives, to have the opportunity to tell their story in a manner that non-aboriginal people can hear, can understand and can therefore put into perspective what many, many first nations people felt has been their historic relationship with non-aboriginals in B.C.

I want to do it in a way that tries to unplug the litigative mood and attitude around those questions. I want to do it in the spirit of understanding and healing that is necessary. To only sign treaties won't end the pain. In order to end the pain, we have to also attack the almost systemic hurt that many first nation people feel. The way we need to do that is to give them a venue to be able to tell their stories, so that we can understand the pain that they feel and understand their history through their eyes with respect to how we're going.

So those are the three initiatives that I'm asking to have put together. We do not have, as I said, a definitive amount of money as to how that package is going to work. We are now in discussions with the Open Learning Agency; we're in discussion with other post-secondary institutions to see how we might be able to tie that into a broader-based curriculum. I'd like to see it also be able to be tied into a curriculum that might work for the high schools.

Our communications branch budget for 1999-2000 in total is $1.1 million -- $1,164,000 to be precise. Roughly $390,000 is specifically for the expenditures on advertising and publication, so that's what is budgeted in this year. Out of that we are going to start to look at how we can start to put this material out. It will be non-partisan and non-political, and it will be designed to be educational. The member can believe that or not.

[2015]

Hon. G. Wilson: Most of it would come out of the $390,000. That's a bit of our dilemma, because the $1.1 million is inclusive of office, of salaries, of a whole broader range of issues, so the $390,000 is the figure that the member would want to deal with.

M. de Jong: The minister indicates that as yet there isn't an assigned budget amount, but surely the ministry, in fairly rough terms, is in a position to indicate what it is prepared to allocate to see the minister's vision through.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, roughly half of that is where we would make an initial allocation. We're obviously going to seek a source of funding from outside of the ministry. If we engage with Open Learning Agency, there may be opportunities there; and if we do so, we might also look for other corporate sponsorship of this program. I think it's a broad-based program that's in the interest of all British Columbians.

M. de Jong: The $390,000 figure that was mentioned refers to both print and electronic media advertising?

[ Page 13014 ]

M. de Jong: What should television viewers look forward to in the coming months with respect to electronic advertising? What should newspaper readers anticipate when they open up their local or larger-circulation daily? What are they going to see in terms of governmental advertising from this ministry?

Hon. G. Wilson: I guess one might want to speculate as to what people may see on their local televisions this summer and fall. My guess is some mediocre reruns of sitcoms, because they're not going to get much from this ministry with respect to television advertising.

Most of the money that we see here in the balance, left of the $390,000, would go to the advertising, for example, of all of the main tables, because they're open to the public. It's important for us to let the public know that they're happening. We are publishing and distributing, in some tables, chapters as they are agreed to and distributed for open comment. In the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua, I think there's another five chapters that have just been concluded, and they're being sent out. That information needs to be sent out now and be properly made available to the public.

[2020]

M. de Jong: Okay. So there is some speculation and hope that negotiations around the Sechelt table will result in a final treaty being negotiated before the conclusion of this calendar year. The minister is, I think, telling the committee that if that occurs, there is no provision in this budget for celebratory advertising of the sort that we saw stretch over some weeks and months with respect to the Nisga'a round of negotiations.

Hon. G. Wilson: None that I'm planning.

M. de Jong: But presumably that is subject to being overruled by cabinet on Treasury Board's recommendation. Is that the process that would follow? I just want to. . . . When we come back here, if we do, a year from now and are having this discussion and dealing with a multimillion-dollar budget for advertising, I want to be clear on how the minister's intentions and wishes were so blatantly disregarded by others within government.

Hon. G. Wilson: So would I.

No, there is no plan. The Sechelts are not anxious to have a huge media campaign; they've made that very clear to me. It's kind of not my style of doing things. I don't think anybody has a plan to engage in a Nisga'a-type advertising campaign. One has to remember that the Nisga'a was the first modern treaty in many years, and that puts it in a category and a status that's quite different than those that will follow.

M. de Jong: Okay.

Well, as promised, I think we're in a position now to revisit briefly a matter we discussed earlier. I'm not going to ask for the tape to be read back, but I think I recall hearing the minister say or express surprise that members of the government caucus would be utilizing the Nisga'a implementation group as a resource for the drafting of letters -- that there are, as I think he put it, resources available to caucus members specifically for that kind of work.

We have located portions of the debate where the minister's predecessor gave a dramatically different reply. I don't actually feel guilty about reading this, because the minister indicated that staff weren't aware. So let's all listen and learn, shall we? The question was to the Aboriginal Affairs minister of the day, on January 18, 1999: "Were members of the Nisga'a implementation team involved in the drafting and review of correspondence relative to the Nisga'a treaty by the member for Cariboo South?" The reply from the minister: "The answer is yes." Then I asked: "And was similar work performed by members of the committee on behalf of other individual MLAs within the government caucus?" The minister said: "Yes, it's true."

If this minister can believe this, his predecessor defended that on the basis that this was a service available to all members -- ask and ye shall receive. I guess it's worth pursuing today because. . . . I don't know -- maybe members of the opposition should stop complaining. Maybe there is a wealth of government resources out there just waiting for us to access it. Maybe there is a correspondence pool that the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca has access to, and if only I'd asked, he'd have shared that clerical assistance with me.

So we have a bit of a dilemma, in that we are getting directly conflicting signals from government. The minister can say: "It wasn't me." But he's a member of the government, and there is a member of this government today who believes committees of the sort that we have been discussing are available to government MLAs. He says all MLAs are to prepare correspondence when the position being articulated is one that the government finds favour with. That's the bottom line.

[2025]

The Chair: I'll just remind the members again that by the member's own reading of Hansard, Bill 51 was discussed and debated at length last year. Today's debate is on the estimates of 1999-2000.

Hon. G. Wilson: Information has actually just been handed to me. It's interesting that if the member opposite knew that -- the answer to his own question -- my question is: why did he ask me, who didn't know that? However, I can only speculate that this was somehow a bit of a setup. But if so, it was well executed, let me say that.

Let me just say that the team provided. . . . What I'm told here is that the Nisga'a team provided support to government caucus members who were important communicators of the government's messages. However, many briefings were

[ Page 13015 ]

M. de Jong: Actually, it doesn't speak for itself. It's not about style; it's about something much more important than that. The minister's predecessor said -- and I'm quoting from Hansard on the 18th: "I said that the intention of the group was to promote the treaty, and one part of that was to respond to and indeed provide an antidote or alternative to what we regarded as misinformation."

The minister's colleague is saying that this is a government which will make executive resources available to Members of the Legislative Assembly who are prepared to promulgate the government's line on any given issue. That's a big problem; that's an abuse. That's got nothing to do with style; that has nothing to do with theories of government. That is a violation, I would submit, of the principle that governmental resources, except those specifically allocated to individual members, are to be devoted to the business of government. So what is the policy? That doesn't speak for itself. The committee wants to hear what the policy of this minister is with respect to putting ministerial resources at the disposal of government MLAs. It doesn't speak for itself; it needs to be addressed.

[2030]

So I don't know where else this member is intending to go with this. It sounds to me like this was an issue that was well canvassed in the Nisga'a debate in the Legislative Assembly, which in fact puts it on a borderline with whether or not it's even an appropriate question to raise now, given that it was raised during legislation, in terms of the rules of the House. But let me just assure the member that with respect to this minister, in this ministry my actions speak clearly. That project team was cancelled.

The Chair: I'll just again remind the members that this a very difficult debate within these estimates. But I would also like to remind them that you're going very close, actually, to opening up debate again on Bill 51, which we thoroughly debated last year. So I would ask the members, if they can make their questioning relevant to the estimates for 1999-2000, to please do so.

M. de Jong: Madam Chair, I find myself in dire need of your guidance. The question was: what is the government's present policy? In response to that the minister tried to answer. I may agree or disagree with the answer. But in response to that question, I have been admonished by the Chair for somehow delving into an area that I can only assume the Chair believes somehow falls outside of the ambit of these estimates debates.

If that is the case, I am at a loss to understand how one could conduct these debates. It is not an esoteric point, Madam Chair. You have on the record admonished a member for asking a question that you have suggested is very close to being out of order. Unless the Chair is in a position to offer some further assistance, I am at a loss as to how we would continue with this debate. I am at a loss. One of us is horribly wrong or has a horrible misunderstanding of what this is about. The Chair's intervention, I would suggest, needs to be a little more well thought out, but I am looking. . .

[2035]

M. de Jong: . . .for guidance, hon. Chair.

The Chair: The member will come to order, and I will remind the members that we are debating the estimates.

M. de Jong: You don't need to remind me of that. I asked a question about government policy.

The Chair: The member will come to order. The member will. . . .

M. de Jong: But why don't you think about what you're saying before you say it?

The Chair: The member will come to order. Now, the Chair has ruled that the debate is on the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, estimates. I will caution all members of the House, and this House will come to order. And that is: if the member can make the questions relevant to the debate, then please do so without opening up the debate on Bill 51.

Interjection.

The Chair: I will caution all members of the House to keep relevant to the debate at hand, and that is on the estimates for '99-2000 without opening up the discussion again and the debate on Bill 51.

M. de Jong: Through you, hon. Chair, it is one thing to demand of the opposition relevance in questions. I am at a loss to understand how you would require the government to maintain relevance in their answers, but that's a challenge that we'll have to see if you can deal with.

I didn't get an answer to the last question; I'm going to ask it again. I don't think the question, was an unfair one. The minister says he has ended the committee that we were talking about. All right, I understand that, but the question is this. The question that I put to the minister's predecessor was pretty straightforward, and that was: is it appropriate for ministry staff to be writing letters on behalf of individual

[ Page 13016 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer to that question is no.

M. de Jong: Given what we know was the previous practice of this government, hon. Chair, can I ask the minister to confirm that therefore there has been a change in policy on that matter?

Hon. G. Wilson: As members opposite would know, I am somewhat unpractised as a member of government, but I'm fast in becoming practised. I don't believe that's a change of practice, but I can assure the member opposite that I certainly have no resources in this ministry for such a service. I think that'll give him some comfort.

M. de Jong: Maybe I'll leave it at this. On January 18, 1999, the then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for the government of British Columbia, the New Democratic Party, said that it was entirely appropriate for staff within his ministry to be preparing correspondence on behalf of government MLAs. On May 31, 1999, the present Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said that that would never happen within his ministry. I think that's what he said. He then follows that up with the observation that there has not been a change of policy.

I don't know. Help me out here. I'm colour-blind. The sky was blue in January, and it's green in May, but the colour of the sky hasn't changed. I just want to make sure I leave this place with as clear an understanding as I can.

Hon. G. Wilson: Let me try and help the member without getting into the various colours of the sky. I'm not familiar with -- nor do I believe there is any such policy per se -- the policy the member speaks of. The previous minister may have made reference to it; I don't know the context within which that comment was made, neither do I know specifically to what he's referring, so I can't make any comment on it. However, let me tell you that the practice of this minister in this ministry will be to not make resources available for such a service.

[2040]

I just want to go very quickly to the Treasury Board staff document dated July 29. I'm sorry -- I actually should have a copy for the minister, because it would be easier to do this if he knew what I was looking at or if he had what I am examining. All I want to do is. . . . This is a memo to the deputy minister to the Premier from the economic development policy branch, Treasury Board staff, talking about the cost of treaty settlements over a 20-year period. It references an earlier KPMG report.

Here's what I find curious. This is from Chris Trumpy to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, and it's attached. "Subject: post-Nisga'a treaty settlement costs. In 1996 KPMG produced a report that estimated the cost of settling treaties with every first nation in the province over a 20-year period. Treasury Board staff have updated this estimate to reflect 1998 dollars and revised population estimates based on current Department of Indian Affairs projections." Then, of course, it's all whited out. Presumably the projections are whited out. It sounds like there has been an updating of the '96 KPMG report. Why would -- and I don't know if the minister has the document -- those numbers not be available to the public?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that what the member may have accessed are the planning estimates of government, which would obviously not be made available. But I would point the member to the Grant Thornton report, which is public and which includes all of the documents and costs that are relevant in considerable detail. So rather than rely on an internal planning document which. . . . I can't comment on it; I don't have it in front of me. But that information would not be available. The Grant Thornton report has a full accounting of the treaty process and the cost of the treaty process and breaks it out in considerable detail, and I would suggest that that's what the member should use.

M. de Jong: We've already, I think, captured a glimpse of how important it is to know what the cabinet considers to be the most accurate figures and what they are dealing with. I haven't been around here that long, but I know there are lots of exceptions which cabinet and government can find for withholding information under FOI. There's any number of exceptions provided for in the legislation. The question is: why? Why is an update on the KPMG report that cabinet and Treasury Board was considering. . . ? What's wrong with sharing that information? The minister can say: "We're not required to." Fair enough. I know that; most people know that. But why? If the KPMG estimate from 1996 has gone up, we'd like to know that. If it's gone down, we'd like to know that. If there's a particular percentage associated with the increase or decrease. . . .

[2045]

Hon. G. Wilson: I don't think the member opposite would seriously consider that policy advice to cabinet is something that should made freely available. Internal Treasury Board planning documents are routinely severed, and that's the practice of government. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual. There's nothing sinister about it. If the member wants the figures in considerable detail -- just to prove there's nothing to be hidden here -- I would refer the member to the Grant Thornton report. That is a very exhaustive set of documents and figures that that member can feel comfortable relying on. It's been scrutinized by many people in industry who all, I think, concur that those numbers are sound.

M. de Jong: I know that as these debates have unfolded, it is important to the minister that he knows my mind has been put at ease. Let me simply say that he could do that with relative ease by telling me that the numbers that don't appear

[ Page 13017 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I can't -- because I haven't seen the document that the member is referring to -- suggest for a minute that the numbers will be identical. I can tell you that one of the reasons you don't allow those internal documents to be handed out is primarily because internal planning documents are staff estimates, and you don't want staff estimates to run counter to what may be a more formalized and more detailed study and analysis of what costs are going to be. So I don't think it's at all inappropriate to sever internal staff estimates from public scrutiny, provided that there is an opportunity for the public to take confidence in information that is released to the public. That was done under Grant Thornton.

M. de Jong: Of course, part of the problem I have is that if I spend too much time referring to the Thornton report, which was prepared with funds from a former budget year, the Chair is likely to call me to account for dealing with a matter. . . .

A Voice: But not the government -- not the minister.

M. de Jong: Not the minister, who of course is referring to that report, but I undoubtedly would quickly find myself running afoul of the rules. In the time it has taken me to say that, the minister has had an opportunity to quickly peruse the document and now, with the benefit of having reviewed it, can offer to the committee his opinion as to whether or not the figures which are deleted from that document are precisely the same as those reflected in the Thornton report that he has referred to.

Hon. G. Wilson: The members know that there are no figures in here, so therefore. . . .

A Voice: But there were.

Hon. G. Wilson: There were figures in here.

This is an internal staff estimate, and in effect, this would have been, at least in part, some of the information provided to Grant Thornton Management Consultants and would be some of the material that Grant Thornton would have then based the study on. I can't tell you precisely -- I don't know what they are; I'd have to go and look up the original document -- that these are exactly the same.

I can give you some assurance, though, that the Grant Thornton figures are likely to be more accurate and are likely not to be. . . . These figures certainly would be no higher than what you're likely to see in Grant Thornton.

[2050]

M. de Jong: I'm just grappling with this notion of independence. If the Thornton report relied heavily on a document that the minister says was prepared internally for consideration. . . . I'm having some difficulty understanding the relationship between the two documents.

Hon. G. Wilson: There would be no heavy reliance on this document. There were a series of internal documents that were used. There was also external work that was done on evaluations, so this would have simply been one of a part of a whole host of information that would have been provided for Grant Thornton to complete the report.

M. de Jong: Well, I want my document back. Thanks.

For a moment I thought that the figures might magically appear, having passed through the minister's hand -- but, I lament, it isn't so.

When we began this earlier last week, I mentioned to the minister that I wanted to get a bit of an update from him on the discussions that were taking place with. . . . The Interior Alliance of B.C. Indian Chiefs is one group of first nations that has chosen to come together and is united in their reluctance to embark upon Treaty Commission-sponsored negotiations.

Perhaps we can just start with an update from the minister as to where those discussions are. There was reference made to some initiatives that the minister indicated he intended to launch as a means of moving that process forward. I'm interested to know what they are and some estimate or attempt by the minister to provide the committee with assurance as to where we will be if and when this committee reconvenes at some point in the future so that we can measure, in a practical way, whether those objectives have been met.

Hon. G. Wilson: What we're doing with the Interior Alliance is establishing a protocol, essentially. We are doing that through some exploratory talks with the alliance to be able to set an agenda that we can both agree on and come forward and commence some discussions.

I'm encouraged that the rapport that has been developed is a good one. I'm very encouraged that initial meetings have been cordial and very much committed to moving on a relatively short timetable to try to move discussions along so that we can do some post-Delgamuukw work and establish a protocol that will allow government and the Interior Alliance to work more closely together. All of that, I think, is a very positive step forward. I don't want to mislead the members into thinking that we're somehow on the brink of moving into treaty negotiations with them. We're not. But we're certainly talking about a number of outstanding disputes that now, I think, we're able to get a reasonable dialogue on.

[2055]

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:56 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada