2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 23
[ Page 17127 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
ACCESS TO PROSTATE
CANCER SCREENING ACT
G. Clark presented a bill intituled Access to Prostate Cancer Screening Act.
G. Clark: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. Fully one in nine men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetimes. In our province, approximately 2,700 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer last year, and an estimated 540 men will die of prostate cancer this year. The aim of this bill is to increase the knowledge and availability of prostate cancer tests for early detection of the disease, in the hope that early detection will save lives and nurture B.C. families.
This bill provides for improved access to prostate-specific antigen tests and a digital rectal exam, which are currently only funded by MSP if a man already has symptoms of illness. This act proposes optional annual prostate-specific antigen tests and digital rectal exams for men between the ages of 50 and 70 under the Medical Services Plan.
[1010]
Another key portion of this bill is the recommendation of a prostate cancer awareness fund to increase public awareness of prostate cancer issues. My hope is that this bill will encourage British Columbians to seek more information about prostate cancer and provide them with an option for early detection.
I'd like to particularly thank the member for Okanagan-Vernon and the member for Victoria-Hillside, both of whom in this House have been very active on this issue, although I know that several other members have also been touched by this issue.
We have screening for women for breast cancer because one in ten women get breast cancer. One in nine men get prostate cancer, yet we have no screening for men. It's time that we have prostate cancer screening for men in British Columbia, paid for by the B.C. government.
Finally, hon. Speaker, I'd like to thank Deborah Cooper, an intern working for the NDP caucus, who did a lot of work and helped on this bill.
I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply to consider the estimates of the Minister of Labour. And in Committee B, I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 28.
[1015]
BALANCED BUDGET ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 1.
R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could explain to the people of British Columbia the definition, in language that they can understand and that we can understand here, of what "maximum deficit" really means under this legislation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: What it means is that for the following years, the government of British Columbia -- regardless of which party forms that government -- will run a deficit of no more than the tabled estimates for this year, of $950 million next, $700 million the year after, $400 million the year after that and zero in 2004-05 and beyond; these are set. And the term "maximum deficit" is used because, as I said in second reading, if we can do better as revenues improve and move faster towards balance, we intend to do so. Those are the maximums allowed.
R. Thorpe: I'm just wondering if the minister could clarify how section 6 interrelates to this definition. According to the minister's first answer, then, it would have no impact on the $950 million. Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Section 6 provides for adjustments of those maximum deficits in the event that revenues drop by more than half a billion dollars year over year and in the event that the government then recalls this House to consider the circumstances of that drop in revenue and seeks approval of the House for an adjustment to that maximum deficit.
The way it works is quite simple. What could occur is that you have a revenue drop, for example, of -- just to pick a number out of the air -- $600 million year over year. Now, that would mean that the government of the day could come back to the House and say: "Look, we've had this sort of drop. We wish the maximum deficit target adjusted by $100 million, the amount by which revenues drop in excess of $500 million." That could occur.
As I said in second reading debate, that magnitude of drop in revenues has occurred precisely once in the last 20 years. I do not think this is a likely occurrence. But we thought it was prudent to include in the bill that provision, in the event that we did have some sort of unexpected and very significant general economic downturn that hit revenues -- if we had a huge curtailment of revenues from the federal government or other circumstances.
R. Thorpe: So the first kicker: we have to have that drop of $500 million. That has to be the first kicker before anything else happens.
With respect to section 7 having an impact on here, where are the words "emergency" or "unexpected circumstances?" Where are they defined, and who defines what those are?
[ Page 17128 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, the language of section 7, which we discussed at second reading, allows for a variation in that deficit in cases where an expense is required because of emergency or unexpected circumstances detrimental to the health or safety of persons in British Columbia. We took the approach of having a general statement. There could be an emergency; there could be unexpected circumstances detrimental to the health or safety of persons in B.C. Again, it's required that the government of the day come to this Legislature and explain what those circumstances are and defend those circumstances that require a variation in the maximum deficit before this House.
[1020]
We chose the approach, frankly, that is incorporated in the Leader of the Official Opposition's bill on balanced-budget legislation, of having a general statement that targets have to be varied in case of emergency or unexpected circumstances. The other option in drafting this bill was to do what some other provinces have chosen to do. That is to get a huge long list of specific circumstances that could trigger this sort of a clause: war, natural disaster, on and on -- essentially famine, plague, pestilence, you know, the seven plagues of the Bible or something.
The decision, at the end of the day, in drafting this bill was that the test should be one of defending that emergency politically, of saying in this House: "We think that this" -- whatever it is, emergency or unexpected circumstance -- "is more important than meeting that deficit target, and we're prepared to come in here as government and defend that." Obviously some of them would be very easy to see.
As I said during the press conference after introduction of this bill, one can surely foresee where a natural disaster -- a huge flood, a significant earthquake causing intense damage and the like -- could be an emergency of such a scale that it would threaten health and safety of people in the province. The government of the day, whatever government it is, would need to say: "Look, we intended to meet those targets. We've had these unexpected expenses because of this natural disaster. We are going to come to the House and say that this is an overriding issue that goes beyond the necessity to meet the targets in the Balanced Budget Act."
R. Thorpe: Am I correct that the $500 million does not have to kick in for this provision to kick in?
Hon. P. Ramsey: That is correct. We've got two separate clauses here. One says: "So what
On the expense side what we're saying is, first, it's got to be something that's an emergency or unexpected circumstances that are detrimental to health or safety of people in the province. The approach we took, as I said, is very similar to the approach the opposition took in their proposed bill on this, to say: "We know it's going to be there." Unlike the bill proposed by the opposition that says, "You do this, or you use that, and then approve a special warrant," this bill says: "Come back into the House, defend what those reasons are and get approval of the Legislature before you get to vary your deficit target."
G. Farrell-Collins: This always happens when you deal with the definitions section; you sort of end up wandering off into the bill a little bit. But I will try and keep it to the definitions, if I can, at this point.
If I heard the minister correctly, this is how it works. The revenue is defined as it is in the bill. If there is an unexpected revenue drop, for whatever reason, that's less than $500 million, the government is required to absorb that revenue loss by adjusting its priorities, reducing spending in some areas, in order to accommodate it. Or it seems to me that the government also has the ability to increase revenues through taxation. Is that not correct?
[1025]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is accurate, in that this act does not incorporate provisions on taxes. We thought that was a prudent way of doing it. I'm not sure that the private member's bill
G. Farrell-Collins: So despite all the definitions, despite section 6, despite section 7, if there's a drop-off in revenue or there is an increase in spending pressure that does not fall within the purview of the emergency as defined here in section 7 -- emergency, unexpected circumstances, health or safety to British Columbians
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is an interesting debate. This act does not address taxes; neither does the private member's bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. Both of them focus on the necessity of balancing budget. Neither the Leader of the Opposition's bill nor this bill address the issue of taxes. I would only say this: any tax increase obviously has to come back to this House for approval. You're not going to be able to do that in the middle of a fiscal year. You're going to have to seek approval of this House for doing that.
I look at this bill. The purpose of it -- and it clearly sets that out -- is to bring revenues and expenses into balance. That's the goal here. We have reduced taxes this year and last and intend to keep on that track.
G. Farrell-Collins: I suspect that the government intends to keep on that track up until the election. I have no idea whether they would intend to keep on that track after an election. This bill certainly extends well beyond the next election. The minister is also aware that fees, permits, licences, etc
[ Page 17129 ]
government has raised those costs and those revenues to government -- in some cases, very significantly. Those, I think, almost without exception, don't require legislative change. They are done by order-in-council and don't require the House to be called. They in fact can be done by the minister at any point in time that he so chooses.
There are also other ways, I suppose, and I would like to talk about that a little bit on the definition of revenue section. There's revenue, as defined here, in two subsections, (a) and (b), and it's the sum of the two. (a) is "the revenue of the taxpayer-supported government reporting entity for the fiscal year." That's pretty straightforward. But (b)
Hon. P. Ramsey: "The increase or decrease in unremitted earnings to the taxpayer-supported government reporting entity of self-supported government enterprises
So what it seeks to do is capture, again, all revenue in the summary entity in the definition of revenue. That's the intent of subsection (b) under the definition of revenue.
[1030]
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand, now that we've gone to summary statements, that is what we're trying to capture. But I just want to clarify for people that that means that if
In a good year, for example
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is accurate.
G. Farrell-Collins: The provision that appears in section 6 and section 7 as it relates to the revenue
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member is looking at one of the effects of moving to summary accounts. I think it will be an interesting process to see how government controls on Crowns evolve over the next little while to make sure that Crowns have the necessary independence to do what they're charged statutorily by their legislation to do and yet adhere to overall fiscal planning of government. The constraints on different corporations raising fees exist whether or not this bill is in place.
We've frozen Hydro rates, and this fall there are going to be BCUC hearings, I understand, on future rates. B.C. Rail competes in a market for transportation of goods. If it raises its fees beyond what can be sustained, it's going to lose business. It serves a vital role, frankly, in my part of the province in making sure that the transportation network is there. ICBC is in a very competitive position on optional insurance coverage with the private sector right now.
So you can speculate and say: "Yes, I suppose they could raise rates massively." I think there are a lot of constraints on Crowns as they do that, in provision of service to the public.
[1035]
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has identified a few of those constraints. There is a legislative rate freeze for B.C. Hydro -- nothing to stop the government from removing that for some reason, certainly nothing to stop ICBC from increasing their revenues by changes in their non-competitive sectors, including this $250 crash responsibility charge that they've got out there. If you have an accident, it doesn't seem to matter who's at fault; you pay the $250.
Crown corporations under this government, freeze or no freeze, have been relatively creative in raising revenues when they felt it was to their advantage. I raised the question initially in the context of what happens if there is a revenue drop-off in these Crown corporations as a result of some unforeseen circumstances: a glut in electricity which reduces the value of the electrical sales from B.C. Hydro, something happens at ICBC -- a bad series of events, etc. -- and their costs go up.
There's another scenario that could happen as well, and that is that ICBC and B.C. Hydro and other Crowns are doing just fine, thank you -- maybe even running surpluses -- and the government has huge spending pressure from one of the ministries in government that, for political reasons, they don't want to deal with. Perhaps it's the impact of the various accords that the government has signed over the last number of years. Perhaps there's a rolled-in cost that we've yet to quantify in future years as a result of these accords that the government gets surprised by. Or perhaps there's another round of negotiations at a very difficult time, just leading up to an election where the government decides that it wants to accede to the demands of the public sector unions in an attempt to win political support and, as a result, finds out that the estimates for the future years -- in the case of this bill, in the schedule, the forecast deficits -- will end up being larger than that. The government can then merely try and raise revenues at the Crown corporations, without legislation, in a myriad of creative ways, in order to offset that cost driver. Is that not correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think where the member is correct is that in the summary accounts world of government budgets,
[ Page 17130 ]
which we have now moved into, you do need to look at broad revenue right across the piece and broad expenditure. The member is right: the definition of revenue captures Crown corporation revenue whether remitted to the government or kept on their own books, in both good times and bad times, both up and down.
As far as raising rates or raising fees, that's again subject to the same external constraints -- and there are some -- or to the same political constraints of raising rates as direct government raising of rates or fees or licences. It's all captured in there. This is the whole point of summary accounts and why auditors have urged governments to move towards that. It's that government does need to plan that across the piece. It's not acceptable anymore to simply look at what's happening, say, with the Ministry of Environment or Ministry of Health, without considering what's happening out in the broad range of government services. Raising fees or other charges on the public, whether it's direct government or Crown corporation, I submit, is subject to the same sort of political constraints and overall consideration of government.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not quarrelling with the minister's assessment of how summary accounts work and the differences, both positive and negative, that arise from going to that model. And I don't think we need to debate that; I think that's clear. What I'm trying to establish is: how tight is the balanced-budget constraint in this legislation that we're debating today?
[1040]
The government has chosen, over eight years, never to call the Leader of the Opposition's bill for debate. But if he wants to have that debate, we can call that bill and have the debate on that bill, if he would like to do that. But I'm debating this piece of legislation here today, which is the one that in all likelihood is going to become the law. I'm trying to find out from the minister where the loose areas are in this legislation, as all legislation has loose areas.
It appears to me that if the government has uncontrolled spending growth in any of the ministries or agencies of government, there is nothing to preclude the government from sending directives out to the Crown corporations to boost their revenues. Politically, they don't want to come back into the Legislature and have to amend the schedule or raise taxes. That need not require legislation; it need not require a public statement by the minister; it need not require debate. It doesn't require anything -- no press release, nothing. All it requires is the minister or the government to pick up the phone to the various Crown corporations and say: "Beef up the revenues."
Now, I'm sure the minister could assure me that that has never happened in the nine years that his government's been in power, that at no time have any ministers ever picked up the phones and issued directives to Crown corporations to increase their revenues. I'm sure that's never happened in the last number of years.
One example we had this last year was that somewhere in the last budget, out of the blue came this demand for BCBC -- I think it was BCBC at the time -- to sell assets to generate revenues in the nature of $232 million, which is ten times higher than they've ever had in the past. It was a figure that was pulled right out of the blue and was probably one of those last-minute items to try and get the budget on target or at least in some range. It was a completely unrealistic demand that was made of the Crown corporation, but it was made. Eventually they had to back off of it, because it was unreasonable. It was just not doable; it was fantasyland.
Now, I doubt that BCBC came to the minister and said: "Hey, we'd like to liquidate $232 million worth of assets so you can put it on your books and spend it." I somehow doubt that that's what happened. I suspect it was the other way around. It's not unheard of, despite my somewhat facetious comments earlier, that ministers of the Crown would make demands of Crown corporations to increase revenues and to informally give that back to the government in terms of dividends.
It was publicly announced very recently that B.C. Rail was selling its real estate division. I don't know what the dollar figure will be, but I expect it will be significant -- in the nature of hundreds of millions of dollars. If that happens, under this legislation it appears to me that all of the sale of assets that is occurring in B.C. Rail right now will appear as revenue in this year and will help the government to hit its $1.278 billion deficit forecast for this year.
If there were other Crown corporations that were to sell off divisions or themselves in their entirety -- for example, if Bob Williams had his way and ICBC were moved into the private sector in one form or another
Hon. P. Ramsey: Boiling it down to its essence, I guess the question is: is it true that if a Crown corporation sold an asset, that would be of benefit to government books generally? Is it true that if a Crown corporation increased its revenues, that would be a positive impact on government revenues generally? And the answer is clearly yes. That's the way summary accounts work. Is it also true that if a Crown corporation had an unexpected expense, that would impact government revenues? Is it true that if they chose to lower rates or fees or whatever, that would impact negatively on government revenues? The answer is yes; both of those things are true.
[1045]
G. Farrell-Collins: Previously, one of the things, I believe sort of politically within government, within the Crown corporation sector, that I would say made Crown corporations themselves leery of selling assets was that the money would just go into government coffers and be spent overnight. That happened with WesTel. I think that of a $65 million sale, $55 million went to government and was spent in a flash. One of the reasons that Crown corporations themselves -- not government, but the Crown corporations themselves -- have been leery about doing some of those ventures is because they expected that government would just claim any revenues in the form of a dividend. Whether that's right or wrong, I'm not going to argue with it. It's just what I think was going on in the mindset of the Crown corporations.
[ Page 17131 ]
Under this act -- now that we're with summary accounts and the way this act is set up -- the government can spend the revenues from the sale of a Crown asset, without ever actually getting its hands on the revenues from the Crown asset, and still hit the targets that are laid out in the schedule to this bill. Is that not correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: My answer to the previous question stands. Clearly if a Crown corporation has additional revenue, that benefits overall government revenue figures. That's the way summary accounts work. That's the way this act works.
What cannot be done, I submit, is a sort of stealth fee increase or stealth disposition of an asset. I think that rates at ICBC or rates at B.C. Rail or rates at B.C. Hydro are watched intensely and with a high degree of interest by the general public, by specific sectors and by the business community and others. Those are looked at with a great deal of scrutiny. The idea that somehow this sort of happens and nobody notices is surely simply contrary to my experience of fees and rate increases or decreases or freezes over the past little while.
I would also say this: the decision on whether or not to dispose of Crown assets is a broad policy decision that goes far beyond this. I surely received lots of advice during preparation for Budget 2000, some from representatives of the business community, particularly the Business Council of B.C., that the government should look very aggressively at a program of asset disposition in the Crown sector. They were not talking about a piece of property here or a small item there. They were talking about major areas of asset disposition. So the idea that this is not out there for public debate and might be considered by government is simply false. We've chosen to look very hard at what we do with it.
Yes, WesTel was sold. It was a policy decision. Should B.C. Rail be in the business of telecommunications and competing with the private sector? The decision, at the end of the day, was: probably not. That was a government decision, a policy decision. Yes, if there are unneeded assets that Crown corporations possess, maybe they should look at their disposition, and we've worked with them on what those might be.
We have, over the years, disposed of a number of government operations, B.C. OnLine last year being the most recent example. This is not untoward. This is what happens. All of that activity, whether revenue or expenditure, is now captured within the books of government.
[1050]
G. Farrell-Collins: Again, I'm not trying to say that there was something nefarious in the government moving to summary accounts as a basis for calculating the deficit; I'm not trying to say that. What I am trying to do is scope out the parameters of this legislation. What are the possibilities? So I think the minister should take it at that.
He says he has never seen fees or licences or costs or rates increased by stealth or any of these provisions I've been talking about. The sales happen by stealth. I don't remember the press release that said BCBC had been ordered to sell off $232 million of its assets; I don't remember that. It's a generation of revenue for the government; it's one of those directives. Whether you're increasing the fees or you're selling an asset, it's in the context of what I'm saying.
I don't remember the press release that announced the government was going to start charging people a fee to use a kayak; that sort of came out of nowhere. It was one of those things you sort of find after you sift the sands of the budget with a fine screen, like an archaeologist, and up pop these little nuggets. It's not something that the government
The concern I have, though, is that the idea behind balanced-budget legislation
When people talk about the sale of government assets, they generally want that to mean the government will get out of that business, first as a policy thing -- get out of that business, because maybe we shouldn't be in it -- but second of all, the sale of that asset should go to pay down the debt that was accrued in acquiring that asset. Under this act, the sale of an asset could occur, and at the same time, the government could spend that in an operational sector of government. Nobody would be the wiser. It wouldn't show up under this act.
I think what the public is looking at with balanced-budget legislation is that they want to see some discipline in government. Yes, if a ministry overspends its vote, it requires a special warrant, and there's that process. That's sort of been in place forever. It certainly hasn't stopped government from doing what it has done in the past.
In this case, the only thing that triggers forcing the minister to make a statement, or to come back into the House for a debate to either raise taxes or lower or increase revenues in some other way or to change the schedule to this act through the exemption, is if you miss the forecast for the summary deficit. So Hydro could go and sell $700 million worth of transmission lines, for example. The government could increase spending in whatever way it wanted to prior to an election, and nothing in this act would stop that from happening. The government wouldn't have to come back to the Legislature; the minister wouldn't have to make a statement.
Under the other act -- budget transparency -- I believe, if I'm correct, that he would have to make a statement on a special warrant. I can't remember that far back. But I think in that legislation there was some requirement, for the issue of a special warrant, that there needs to be a statement made. I'm not sure; maybe I'm incorrect. I think a statement by the minister is what it was. But there's nothing that requires the minister to contain the spending on the government side.
There are really, I think, two fatal flaws to this legislation. One is that there's no restriction on raising of fees and licences at all, because there's no requirement to come to the Legislature. Even if the government wants to come back to the Legislature or wants to raise taxes, they can come back to the Legislature and raise taxes. So this doesn't protect the taxpayers from fee, licence, permit or tax increases; this legislation does not do that.
[1055]
As well, nothing in this legislation requires a restriction on spending within the operational side of government. So
[ Page 17132 ]
there is no control. What the minister will find himself doing is holding this bill in his hands as it turns to sand and runs through his fingers. There's no connection. And I think that's two fundamental flaws with this legislation.
I think it's an attempt to create something that's called balanced-budget legislation; it's done that. It's an attempt to have a piece of legislation that looks like it's going to be firm, and there are real penalties for ministers, etc. But there are a number of significant holes in the legislation that will allow behaviour as normal to continue. There's no discipline on spending if the revenues can be obtained elsewhere. There's no discipline on taxes, and there is no discipline on restricting fees, licences, etc. And there's no restriction on increasing revenues from other sources to government. So the two just don't connect; the operational and the summary side don't connect very well in the legislation. That may be a fault in other legislation that's around the country.
I think it comes down to the immortal words by the current Attorney General -- who was Minister of Finance for a period of time, but prior to that, even. He said that balancing the budget is really about political will; you have to have the political will to make it happen. And no amount of legislation is going to force you. You can't write the legislation that the government can't get around. I think legislation is good in that it forces some discipline -- tries to force discipline -- on the legislators; but I don't believe that it's the be-all and end-all. It really requires political will.
I think that I've just highlighted a couple of areas here this morning where, if the political will is lacking, there is nothing that this legislation will do to force some backbone into the Minister of Finance or the Premier or the members of cabinet. They can avoid the penalties. They can avoid being accountable. They can avoid being publicly accountable for increased costs and runaway spending through a number of ways that I've highlighted. I think that's a fundamental flaw in here. At the end of the day, the government will be very creative, if it wants to be, in making sure that those penalties aren't levied and that there's no public embarrassment. I've itemized a couple of ways the government could do that very easily, without huge public outcry or huge public knowledge even, and I think that is a problem.
Given that all of this legislation rests on the government's political will, we know how strong that political will is to balance the budget; it's non-existent. Therefore I believe that this legislation will not do what the Minister of Finance thinks it will do or has told the public that it will do. I think it will do almost nothing if the political will that we've seen in the last nine years continues to be lacking.
[1100]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member seems to be debating what the bill is not rather than what the bill is, and that's surely his right. We seem to have gone back into debate on principles rather than the specifics of the act. There is a certain leeway in committee that I recognize.
I would point out this: neither the bill that the Leader of the Official Opposition tabled nor the bill that we're debating now has the sort of limitations on government action, in areas of spending or taxation or what it does with Crowns, that the member is debating. We can have those debates on other bills, and that's fine.
I would also point out this, though: some of the scenarios that the member outlines -- fancifully, I would say -- simply don't make sense. Let's take the one that he has repeated several times -- that government would choose to sell a significant public asset and spend it all in order to meet a deficit target for a particular year. What happens in that case, of course, is that it becomes increasingly difficult to meet the target for the subsequent year. These are falling targets. As we outlined in response to the member for Okanagan-Penticton, it goes from the $1.27 billion tabled this year to zero, compounding the difficulty by getting $500 million or $700 million -- a one-time revenue -- and creating a huge problem for the subsequent year. It simply does not make sense.
The decisions on what you should do with assets in Crown corporations is a good debate. And yes, the member is right: government as a whole does benefit from what Crowns do, particularly in the summary accounts world of budgeting, and that's where we are. When I did the prebudget consultation, some members of the business community said very explicitly not only to "sell assets" but to "use it to offset that one-time revenue that you're getting, then reduce taxes by that amount." That makes it incredibly difficult to get to balance in subsequent years.
There's a variety of ways that people have approached this whole issue of Crown assets. I think Crown corporations serve valuable roles for the people of British Columbia, and we need to make sure they're working in concert with government.
Hon. Chair, I recognize that the member opposite and I have different views on government will and adherence to the principles of Bill 28. The Premier has said very clearly that we are seeking to turn a page and set a new tone for fiscal management in this government and that Bill 28 is part of that. We differ on that. I don't think we differ much in our reading of the definitions section.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think we do differ a little bit on a whole range of issues. The definitions section, I think -- particularly around revenues, etc. -- is the frame upon which the operations of this bill in action will hinge.
The minister said that it would make no sense for government to sell an asset and use that asset, through an accounting process that's contained in the way the summaries are put together, to offset runaway spending on the operational side, because the schedule that's attached is a declining schedule. Those targets are declining, and it would make the next year even harder to hit.
I agree with him: it would make it harder to hit. But that wouldn't matter if you were introducing balanced-budget legislation, that you didn't think you were going to have to live with after an election or that you intended repeal after the election, and you really only had to get yourself through one fiscal year up to and prior to an election. The minister can say that would never happen, but it did happen. It happened in 1995 and 1996, where government came in and misled the public about the state of the finances of the province in an attempt to look fiscally responsible and get re-elected.
The Balanced Budget Act is a deathbed repentance, as we've said before. I don't believe that it would survive a third NDP mandate. I think it would be one of the first things that was amended or repealed after an election, if the NDP were to be re-elected. Therefore the way the act is drafted fits in very well for exactly what the government wants this bill to be, which is a political document to try and convince the public
[ Page 17133 ]
that the government has become fiscally accountable, that they've finally changed their ways, that they are fiscally responsible and have a plan to balance the budget.
[1105]
So this year, as we approach the election -- if it's in the spring and approaches the fiscal year -- the minister
Heaven forbid that that would ever happen. Heaven forbid that a government would be that cynical to try and pull the wool over the public's eyes just prior to an election. I'd be shocked that that would ever happen in the province of British Columbia. It might have happened in the past, in 1995-96, with the same lot that sits on that side of the House now, which came into the House and misled the public about the state of the finances. They wouldn't try that twice, though -- would they? They wouldn't try some little shenanigan prior to the next election that would allow them to look fiscally responsible, when in fact they're really spending the assets of government through an accounting process.
Political will and political record are the lights that are shining on this legislation and provide the illumination that we need to see what the government's motivation is. I think that both those cases, whether it's political will or political opportunity
This bill is not about fiscal accountability. This bill is about an even more elaborate scheme to convince British Columbians that after nine years, this government has become fiscally accountable and fiscally responsible. They have not. The balanced-budget bill reflects that. There are holes in this legislation that this government will be able to drive an election-year bus through. I expect that the public won't be fooled by it, and I intend to help them, over the next number of months, see what it is that the government's doing with this bill. And I will watch very carefully how the government accounts for its sales of assets, how it manages its spending on the government side and how it employs this legislation. I think it is an amazingly adaptable, flexible charade that's been constructed in an attempt to fool British Columbians that after nine years, this government has changed its ways. With this legislation, this government can continue to do exactly what it's done in the past. It can do it exactly like it's done in the past, with this legislation, and I expect that's exactly what will happen.
R. Thorpe: In this next five-year period that this bill covers, up to the year 2004-05
[1110]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Both the amortized cost of capital and the interest of servicing debt are built into the expense portion of budgets, and they are part of what must be managed as we move to a balanced budget and then preserve balanced budgets.
R. Thorpe: I would have actually been shocked if those things hadn't been covered in these financial projections. Let's just take two examples of capital spending by this government: (1) the convention centre, $75 million without a business plan, and (2) fast ferries, just under $500 million.
Let's just take those two successful capital projects of this government -- noting that "successful" was said with a fair degree of cynicism. How does this balanced-budget legislation impact and put in place controls for -- never mind the amortization; never mind the interest costs -- the excessive capital spending record of this government in the past? How are those safeguards built in here?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We've just finished debating in this House Bill 18, which talked about some of the constraints and reporting mechanisms and how government manages capital spending. I suspect that third reading will take place today, and that'll become law. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act has talked about the need for upfront business cases at the time commitments are made. All of those are things that we have debated in this session, hon. member, and I think you're well aware of them. We are putting controls on how capital spending is done to make sure it's done well.
R. Thorpe: Just for the record, I want to clarify that there are no controls put in, in this balanced-budget legislation, to control the capital spending. That's just my point. Thank you.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Regrettably, the member is wrong. If you spend more than you can adjust for in your amortization and interest costs, you will not meet your deficit targets; you will not achieve balanced budgets.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know if my colleague has more questions on this section, but I wouldn't mind moving into a couple of the other sections, and we can sort of focus the debate at that time.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
[ Page 17134 ]
The Chair: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton on section 3.
R. Thorpe: This has to do with penalties. Let's
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: Oh, it's section 4. Sorry.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
R. Thorpe: Just explain, minister, please. In the year 2000-01 the deficit comes in at $1.35 billion. There have been no emergencies; there's been no $500 million drop. Members of the executive council now face a 20 percent drop in their salary. Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: If there's a quarterly report -- and the first quarterly report will be due out mid-September, the second quarterly in November -- or if there's another public or minister's statement that the fiscal year forecast says that that deficit is missed, then the penalties begin immediately. So if as of mid-September it appears, as the member posits, that the deficit for the current year would not be $1.278 billion but $1.35 billion, cabinet ministers would start a 12-month period of losing 20 percent of their cabinet salary as of that time.
R. Thorpe: So if that happened in the first quarter, they'd lose now for the whole next 12-month period? Or is that removed potentially, with the next quarterly report that shows you back on line?
[1115]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is accurate. If, for example, the first quarterly report showed that sort of excess, not meeting that target, there is clearly an incentive -- a personal incentive as well as a political incentive -- for cabinet to make sure that the remainder of the fiscal year corrects that situation and you meet your deficit targets.
So the triggers for imposition of the penalty on salary are actually several. They are reflected in section 4(1). If you table estimates or supplemental estimates that show you're not meeting it, if there's a quarterly report that shows you're not meeting it, if you have a public statement that says you're not going to meet it, or at the end of the year if public accounts show that you didn't meet it for the year -- in spite of what you thought you were doing during the year -- the penalty is imposed.
G. Farrell-Collins: What if the quarterly report is delayed in being made public?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act does set out a schedule for when quarterly reports are to be produced.
G. Farrell-Collins: I was hoping he'd say that. Mr. Chairman, some time ago during the debate -- I think it was on that bill -- the minister made a commitment to the Legislature to produce a list of all annual reports for Crowns and agencies and ministries of government that were yet to be tabled in the House, which remained outstanding -- that were due but outstanding. Not to mention the fact that it took me a couple of weeks longer than what the Premier committed to to actually get the list of the overdue reports.
I did finally get it, and it's astounding. Despite the fact that legislation in many ministries requires annual reports to be tabled at specific times, there are dozens
The Attorney General tabled reports three or four weeks ago that brought up to 1998 fiscal year. I think he tabled three: '95-96, '96-97 and '97-98. He still has two annual reports that are outstanding. The person who was responsible for those annual reports now sits in the Premier's chair. So despite the Attorney General, who's responsible for upholding the law and advising government to ensure they uphold the law
[1120]
Two years, according to the minister's documents. The Ministry of Finance had the
Mr. Chairman, I'm not convinced that the quarterly reports are going to come out exactly on time either, because, if I recall, that hasn't always been the case. In fact, quite often the quarterly reports have been delayed for a period of time. What I'd like to ask the minister is: does this kick in when the report is made public or when the report is due?
Hon. P. Ramsey: When the report is made public. Let me just say this: I'm glad the member had fun reading the list of reports that are out of date. I suspect it made uncomfortable reading for some of my colleagues, who know that they have to make sure they do get the reports into this House in a timely fashion and that there are new requirements for getting them here.
As far as the dates for quarterly reports, I can only say that you'll have to watch. Since I've taken over, I think we actually met the dates set out in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act before that act was in this House. I also referenced the expanded scope of those reports, which didn't used to contain the forecast of full-year outcome reported only on the activity of the three-month or six-month or nine-month period of actual government activity on revenues and expenses.
We substantially changed what's contained in those quarterly reports. They are far more complete and complex. They
[ Page 17135 ]
reveal all the risks and assumptions for both revenue and expenses. I think they now form a very good base for determining whether budget targets are going to be met for the fiscal year.
G. Farrell-Collins: The point I'm trying to make is this. Heaven forbid that the government should choose to call an election sooner or even later and be in the possession of a quarterly report that shows the budget is not on track, and that the government decide to refrain from releasing that report on the very eve of an election because it would show that the government wasn't being fiscally accountable, that the ministers were not holding things to account and that in fact the ministers were subject to a 20 percent pay cut. It seems to me that would be something the public would respond relatively negatively to, particularly if it occurred just prior to or during a work period.
What I want from the minister, and I don't think I'm going to get it, is a commitment that despite the fact that the government has failed repeatedly and almost constantly over the years to release reports on time, he will not hold back an annual report or a quarterly report -- that prior to or during an election period, those reports are going to come out on time.
It's a personal commitment I want to receive from the minister. I'm not sure that it will matter. I'll look for it, because the commitment he made in the House on his other list didn't come to fruition. I didn't give him the date; he set the date. I was two weeks late, I think, in receiving it, despite my repeated requests for it. So I'm not convinced that
Secondly, I'd like to say to the minister this: he may not always be the Finance minister. Certainly the length of time various New Democrat Ministers of Finance have occupied that chair has not been long. There have been six Finance ministers, I think -- five or six -- in the last little while. While he may commit to that, nothing in the legislation commits future Finance ministers to comply with those quarterly reports in a timely fashion, and the penalties don't kick in until it's made public.
I mean, if one wanted to be cynical, heaven forbid, one could easily say that the government could delay one quarterly report for a period of time until the other quarterly report was ready early and showed a change, after having picked up the phone and talked to the Crowns, resulting in higher revenues. It's another example of if the political will is lacking or, quite frankly, if the political will is moving in a different direction and is more concerned about getting re-elected, this provision could be manipulated to keep the truth from the public during a period leading up to and during an election.
[1125]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's talk about political will a little bit. I think part of the political will has to be to adhere to the provisions of this act and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and to demonstrate that we are serious about meeting these targets and getting reports out in the timely manner the member talks about. That has to be there, and it will be there.
I'll put it on the record formally that I do apologize for the tardiness in getting that list to the member. My staff had it some time ago. I had assumed that we had closed the loop and got that information to the member. I'm glad he has it in his possession now.
As far as the dates for quarterly reports, I intend to meet them. The date set out in the Budget Transparency Act for quarterly reports will be met as long as I am Minister of Finance.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to ask the minister about section 6(4). Subsection (4) says: "The following apply for the purpose of subsection (1)." It's relatively complicated. Subsection (1) is adjustments for significant reductions in revenues -- if the revenues drop off, how the government deals with that. Subsection (1)(a) states that if the revenues drop off for unexpected reasons by more than $500 million, then the minister has to do a bunch of things. Subsection (4) alludes to that $500 million figure and the way it's calculated, and it says:
Now, aside from the grammatical drafting of that -- I will leave that to the teachers in the Legislature -- can the minister tell me what the heck that means?"The following apply for the purpose of subsection (1):
"(a) the revenue of the fiscal year for which the maximum deficit is being calculated must be calculated excluding any reduction of revenue directly resulting from an enactment that is enacted after March 31, 2000."
Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, as a former professional in the field of writing, the language of that distressed me as well. Drafters tried a couple of times to satisfy me and couldn't. So I threw up my hands and said: "Okay, leave it there."
What this means, very simply, is that if you cause yourself a drop in revenue as government, say, by tax reductions or changes in fees or licences, that doesn't count as part of an overall reduction in revenue. For example, in this budget year we reduced, quite explicitly, personal income taxes by some $225 million, effective July 1 of this year. But it's an enactment; we're going to pass it; I think we do third reading today. So that is an enactment that affects revenues for this year.
What that means, very explicitly, is that if revenues in this fiscal year start to drop halfway through the year, we don't start from the base that's up here, pretax reductions, and get to count that tax reduction as part of the $500 million in revenue drop. We have to start and any government has to start after accounting for any decisions that government has made that would reduce revenues.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is my point that I made earlier about tax increases. If there's a provision here for a tax reduction not having an impact, why is there no provision for a tax increase not having an impact?
[1130]
Hon. P. Ramsey: What the member is referring to is a restriction on when a revenue drop can be used by government to say: "We were not going to meet our target." That's what this is; it ties government hands in that way. We've already discussed why this act and, frankly, the private mem-
[ Page 17136 ]
ber's bill from the Leader of the Opposition don't contain information on tax freezes or reductions; those are dealt with elsewhere. Actually, when we passed this piece of legislation and we passed the Income Tax Act, we've locked in income tax reductions for the 2001 year as well; those are in law. Yes, I can conceive of governments doing different things, but those are the actions that we have taken in this year's budget and next.
G. Farrell-Collins: Here's how I see that this could work, and the minister can tell me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me that the point I was making earlier is that for the
The reason I would mention that is this. If there was a possible unexpected
There may be a political price to pay for that as well, unless it's some punitive taxes on cigarettes and alcohol or something, one of those taxes that's the big crusade of the government just prior to an election. There's some political issue around it where they think they're actually going to get some benefit from increasing the tax. That would have an impact on the $500 million figure. So the government wouldn't have to explain why the deficit was on its way down.
It's a little convoluted, but it's yet another hole that shows that the government can use the legislation; it's drafted very specifically to leave those venues open to the government. Now, the minister can perhaps explain to me why I'm totally wrong on that. He probably will say that that's just hypothetical; it would never happen, it's too complicated. But it seems to me that that could work under this scenario, and certainly nothing would restrict that. It certainly restricts tax reductions, but it doesn't restrict a tax increase.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hypothetically, hon. Chair, in the example that the member uses, he is correct , though I would say this: I haven't seen lately where increasing taxes is a political winner. Now, I know that you looked at a couple of examples where, you know, you say: we'll do a sin tax -- boost the taxes on tobacco, hit the beer drinkers of the province. I'm not sure those are wise things to do before an election, or whatever. But as the member says, that would have to be something that's brought into this House, debated, passed. It's not going to be done in some dark corner of this building. Any increase in that sort of revenue would have to be done with full public debate, full disclosure.
[1135]
G. Farrell-Collins: Heaven forbid that the government should bring in tax policy that was geared at attacking large corporations as a political move or attacking homeowners whose homes are above a certain value with a punitive property surtax, or a surtax on high incomes as a political manoeuvre. Heaven forbid that governments would do that.
I remember there was another Finance minister, one of the ones before this Finance minister, who did those very things as part of a political move. It's not unheard of. So I just want to raise with the minister that that is not as unusual or hypothetical as he might think it is. In fact, it's been done. It's been done by this government previously.
R. Thorpe: Just talking about some taxation issues here, I think there was a tax increase in some earlier legislation; I think it was Bill 3, section 56. Can the minister confirm that that tax is not going to be put into place? Has he made that commitment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I do believe we'll be debating recommitting Bill 3 later today, and we'll discuss that at that time.
R. Thorpe: With respect to this section, can the minister just give us a feel of why he picked the $500 million? Where did that number arrive from?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a fair bit of debate on what sort of figure you should incorporate in this. Other bills have various provisions for it, either a dollar figure or a percentage figure. What we chose was a number that, one, I think is seen as significantly large by the general public. Half a billion dollars is a significant amount of government revenue, even in a $22 billion budget; that has a real significant impact. Second, we wanted to make sure that it wasn't something that happened with some frequency. In the last 20 years that sort of revenue drop has occurred once, and the drop was $514 million. So it's not a figure which is going to be available to government with great frequency. It is, however, a significant drop in resources that would be required to maintain services.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 7 is the adjustment for emergency expenses. Can the minister tell us what he means by subsection (1)(b)(i)? "The minister issues a public statement that states" -- again, I love the drafting -- "the expense is required because of emergency or unexpected circumstances that are detrimental to the health or safety of persons in British Columbia." What type of provision is he talking about there? When you talk about health, in particular, is that an outbreak of some disease or something unforeseen? Or is that included as just a cost overrun in the normal operations of the Ministry of Health?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, it's any emergency or unexpected circumstance that affects the health or safety of British Columbians. It might be nothing to do with disease. It might be, as we talked about earlier, some sort of natural disaster. It could indeed, I suppose, be an outbreak of some sort of disease which had huge consequences. But what this provision does is say you have to actually describe the circumstances of that unexpected circumstance or emergency. The language, as I said, is identical to the opposition's bill.
No, I do not expect that this means the usual pressures that the Ministry of Health faces. For example, we recently
[ Page 17137 ]
concluded an agreement with physicians in Prince George to attract and retain health professionals for the regional referral and training centre that Prince George is building. That amount is incorporated within the Ministry of Health budget for the year. It's not an emergency or unexpected circumstance that would trigger this.
Neither would I see something like the difficulties that the ministry has had with Pharmacare over the years -- and we've discussed that often in this chamber -- as an emergency or unexpected circumstance. I can conceive of a health issue that might be. I mean, if we had a repetition -- God forbid -- of, say, the 1919 flu epidemic or the equivalent of that in modern terms, you might have health expenditures that would constitute that sort of emergency or unexpected circumstance.
[1140]
G. Farrell-Collins: I just wanted to make that clear, because each and every year that I've been here and that this minister has been here, the Health budget has gone over, sometimes by a significant amount, sometimes by a very small amount. In the same way that the minister gave us some idea of
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think it's tough to figure out and point to specific instances in the last 20 years that might have triggered this sort of provision. We did do a fair bit of casting about as we thought about this provision or what it might be.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member for Peace River North is getting exceedingly creative. I'm not sure that political events constitute natural disasters. I would say that perhaps the 1996 event was an unexpected circumstance for the members of the opposition.
Let me say this. Here's the sort of thing we were thinking of as we looked at this. Say, for instance, that the huge and devastating fire season we had in the southern interior a couple of years ago around Kamloops and Salmon Arm wasn't restricted to that particular area of the province -- that we had that magnitude of fire event all across the forests of British Columbia, and we had to mobilize huge resources to try to contain it. That's the sort of event that you might contemplate. We are looking at natural things, health events and other things that would constitute an unexpected circumstance. You can go through and say: "Okay, that might work."
Let me give you another one which has nothing to do with any of that. What would happen, for example, if for some reason -- frankly, I can't imagine, but let's just assume -- between the end of one school year and the start of the next one you had not the usual increase of a few thousand or 5,000, but because of huge in-migration you all of a sudden had 25,000 more kids show up in school, one year over the next? All of a sudden you have a huge challenge of acquiring facilities, hiring teachers, doing all this. That's an unexpected circumstance that would be well outside the realm of anything the Ministry of Education could plan for. So those are the sort of circumstances that are contemplated by this, not the normal stresses and strains of living within a ministry's operating budget.
G. Farrell-Collins: I was with the minister right up until the last one, because I thought he was setting out some real clear parameters. The last instance of the school case is something that I guess you could try and manoeuvre into health or safety, just in the accommodation of the children. But this doesn't mention education as something
I get from the minister that there's really been nothing in recent history that he feels would qualify under this -- not the forest fires one year, not the bad weather, not the flu season we had at the beginning of this year. Nothing like that would qualify. He views those as normal ups and downs that you have to deal with in government on an ongoing basis. I accept that. I think that was my colleague's question as well.
I think we agree more or less on what the definition of that is, and I'm prepared to move on, Mr. Chairman.
[1145]
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
G. Farrell-Collins: This section is interesting because it talks about the penalties and talks about the schedule and hitting the targets, etc. If there's a change in government -- if there's an election and a different party becomes the government -- I'm assuming that doesn't apply to what just happened with the NDP. They've changed the Premier, and despite their contention that it's a new government, it's really the same government. I guess that doesn't apply here. I just wanted to make sure about that, first of all.
More importantly, I want to ask the minister about subsections (2)(b) and (c.) Those are the ones that release a future government of a different party
An Hon. Member: Bring in some advisers from Fiji.
G. Farrell-Collins: Bring in some advisers from somewhere else. Well, I think they've got enough inside.
Subsection (b) states that if the voting day for the general election is on or before December 31
An Hon. Member: Take October.
An Hon. Member: He wants December.
[ Page 17138 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: No, I want to take December. I'll start with December. We can work back to October, if the minister wants to. But let's say there were an election in December. This states that
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, that member doesn't get to decide anymore -- after today -- unless he decides to defeat the government. Then he does get to decide, but he sort of lost that opportunity to decide when the election was when he lost his office.
So if there were an election, say, sometime in December, this states that this bill
But you've also got a government in power right up until the end of December, which may spend like a drunken sailor in order to get re-elected in December. It may commit to all sorts of expenditures both publicly and quietly, and a new government from a new party arriving into power some time in January, trying to cobble together a budget for that fiscal year, would come across forecasts that bore no relation to being able to comply with estimates and forecasts that would comply with this act. It appears that at that time, as soon as that budget is tabled on March 31 -- or sometime in March, less than three months away -- the new government would be subject to the penalties in this bill as a result of the actions of the previous administration that's just been voted out of office. Isn't that correct?
[1150]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Having argued against what he sees as excessive flexibility, now he wants more in this section of the act. So let's walk through the scenario.
First, the member is correct that at some point as we drafted this, we had to say: "So what's the point at which an incoming government could reasonably be expected to have the ability to plan and deliver its budget -- new government, new party -- and get it tabled by the date set in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, in mid-March?" And the decision was made that that was the end of the calendar year. A new government assuming office in early January would have the ability to do that. A government selected in December would have the ability to do that. A government selected after January 1 would not.
But let's get a little real here. We haven't had many December elections in this province, if we want reality. The other real part here is that the second quarterly report, with a forecast for the full year, is due out at the end of November, so you have a view of what's going on with the finances of the province as of that time. So it's an interesting theoretical debate. There is additional information on where the government is at the end of November, which would be known by the public during any election called in December.
Having said all that, maybe the member knows of one, but I'm unaware of any general election in British Columbia called in December. It would not be well received in the part of the province I represent.
G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, it wasn't well received, and the NDP were thrown out of office in a landslide in 1975. So it's not unheard of for December elections. And they're not received well outside of the lower mainland in particular, where it's a cold time of year and it's difficult to run an election.
If the government comes back into the Legislature this fall, and the Premier throws down the gauntlet on another confidence motion sometime in October or early November, and the member for Vancouver-Kingsway decides that he just can't support the government on this one and decides to vote against the government and there's an election this fall, heaven forbid that the government would delay by a few weeks the release of their third quarterly report, which is due at the end of November. They wouldn't want it coming out during an election period. I mean, I'd be shocked if that happened. So it's not as hypothetical as the minister claims it to be. In fact, given what's happened in the last nine years, it's not out of the realm of possibility at all. It fits right in there. I don't see that as being unusual.
I want to ask another question about this, because it applies to our comments earlier about the sale of assets for Crown corporations, etc. What if a new government comes in and finds out that they are required, on the basis of prudent fiscal management, to write down the values of some of the assets of the government or a Crown corporation because the value that the government is currently ascribing to them is not realistic? What if it changes and becomes apparent that they're not realistic?
Let's say, for example, that the ferry fleet really isn't good for another ten years, as we've been told, but in fact is going to be good for only another five years, which we were originally told, or another two years, which I think we were originally told. Let's say that we find out the fast ferries sell for -- I don't know -- $15 million or $20 million instead of what the government's planning to sell them for and that a new government has to come in and write down some assets that have been inflated unreasonably by the previous government. Let's say a new government comes in and finds out that the asset base of ICBC, for example -- the investment portfolio -- is valued too high and has to write it down to some lower amount. Those appear as expenses on the balance sheets of those Crown corporations, and that affects the figure in this bill.
Certainly a government that came into power in the fall of a fiscal year or in the spring of the fiscal year prior to that -- and in this case, really, either section doesn't give much room to manoeuvre -- may find that the public hasn't been told the truth about the finances of the Crown corporations or that the government has been overly optimistic in its valuation of assets or portfolios and that the new government has to take a more prudent approach. It appears that they would be immediately penalized for the actions of the preceding government, through no ability of their own.
[1155]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the new scenario that the member posed was a write-down of Crown assets. The rest of it I think we've covered before. The write-down of Crown assets would occur in the year that the incoming government would not be bound by the budget targets. For example, if the new government assumed office -- I don't know -- at the end of December, because that's what the member's talking about, and that there was clearly a misevaluation of assets
[ Page 17139 ]
it comes to light, and we've sought to deal with those as they've come to light. In the three months from the end of the fiscal year, they have every ability to look at re-evaluating and revaluing Crown assets during the current fiscal year.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think there are, as well, certainly scenarios where a government would come in around the middle of December -- it's happened before, if it happened -- and would not being able to do sufficient analysis of those assets in the intervening months in preparing the next budget. It would not discover those problems until after March 31 of that year and then would find themselves in that situation.
I guess the minister is telling me that those write-downs would be applied to the previous year. I'm not convinced that would be the case. They'd be for the next year. It depends on when they're discovered and when the government makes the decision on the write-down. It's when you decide; it's not
I just want to raise the point that there are some land mines in here, where a current government could bury its fiscal irresponsibility through all sorts of methods, and a new government could discover those later and end up suffering the consequences for the bad administration that preceded them. Heaven forbid that would ever happen.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's assume the other case -- that after the next election, it's the same party in power in British Columbia, and we have, again, an unexpected write-down of a Crown asset
An Hon. Member: That section doesn't apply.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This section doesn't apply, but it surely creates a difficulty for the government in dealing with meeting the targets in the balanced budget. But I've got to tell you that having argued that the bill is too flexible in many aspects, now he submits that the only people it's too tight on are an incoming government of another party. I don't believe that. I think we have tried to make the appropriate caveat available for an incoming government of a different party and to provide that an incoming government has the ability to adhere to the principles of this act, assess finances of government and get on with meeting the targets in the Balanced Budget Act.
G. Farrell-Collins: What the act is about is trying to design accountability. It doesn't work very well when you make people accountable for the actions that they didn't engage in. That's not accountability; that's unjust. I'm not going to get wound up about it, because you have to deal with that if that ever happens.
But the minister is stating that if the current government were re-elected, and it was the same government in power afterwards, they would have to deal with it; and if it presents problems for them
I had a wonderful e-mail the other day from somebody who had looked through this bill, who said that what you should do for the next two fiscal years if items are discovered from the previous administration that would have changed, that would have forced non-compliance with the schedule, is penalize them their severance package or their pension, whichever it is that they're drawing upon. That's a little more creative and certainly more accountable for a government that, hypothetically, may be wondering whether they're going to be re-elected -- that's certainly up to the public to decide -- and spending like a drunken sailor. There might be some restraint on that government if they knew that there would be some accountability after the election in the event that they weren't elected, as well as if they were elected. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Sections 8 and 9 approved.
Schedule approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
[1200]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Chair, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 28 complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 28, Balanced Budget Act, reported complete without amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Later today, hon. Speaker.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:16 a.m.
[ Page 17140 ]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)
On vote 38: ministry operations, $29,752,000 (continued).
D. Symons: I'd like to start, if I can, by just revisiting a topic we discussed last time we were on Ferries. That related to a question I asked on the possible putting into place of a passenger-only service from Vancouver harbour to Swartz Bay. The minister said, and I think we can quote her here: "We're not actively looking at any passenger-only vessel at this time. It will be considered as part of a five-year capital plan." Then later on she goes on to say, in relation to my continuing on the question: "Oh dear. The member was leaked a draft, unfortunately. The final plan doesn't include that, and the new management of the corporation isn't considering that."
So we have asked for that draft plan -- and I admit it was a draft plan -- dated November 1999. We now have what is referred to as the five-year capital plan, with no mention of draft on it, dated January 26 of this year, in which, almost word for word, is "passenger-only opportunities." And it talks again about a Swartz Bay-Vancouver passenger-only fast ferry service. The minister did say I had a draft plan; I didn't at that time have the real plan. We have received the real plan. This plan was given to us just a few days ago, so I assume it's the current plan. Are you still considering, then, the use of a fast ferry program from Vancouver harbour to Swartz Bay?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume the member means passenger-only.
D. Symons: Yes.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll read from the plan. It says: "If the market conditions are right, the corporation intends to pursue this strategy, again, with a private sector partner, in year 4. The capital costs for initiating the service, estimated at $11 million, would be carried by the partnership, and therefore are not included in the capital plan -- carried by the private partner."
D. Symons: So indeed, then, you are still considering that aspect of it. I did ask after that, also, if in the plan the business -- I think it's been changed now -- where there was some
The minister, in response to that, said that I shouldn't reply on drafts; they're only discussion documents on which people make decisions. The CEO of the corporation took some offence at what that member articulates and had it deleted. Well, in the non-draft plan -- the original capital plan now -- that phrase is still here.
The Chair: Member
D. Symons: I gather that the minister, when she said that it had been deleted, was in error, and I'll take that as the answer.
I'd like to now move on to some questions relating to the issue of reservations. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to tell me what the status of the reservation plan is. Is there to be a reservation fee? Will those without credit cards be able to reserve? How far in advance will customers be able to reserve and how close to sailing time? I'll lump them all together, so you don't have to bounce up and down.
Hon. J. MacPhail: All of those are the questions that are under study, and nothing is finalized. But the corporation does hope to have a report finalized by the end of the year.
[1020]
D. Symons: The end of the year is quite distant from this point, since you started studying this question earlier. It's a long-term study obviously.
Pricing differentials, then. It's been suggested that on route 2, when we had the fast ferries there, there would be pricing differentials during the day and other ways in order to encourage a levelling, I guess, of traffic loads. Is that still an option for the non-fast ferry vessels that would be operating on the various routes?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Part of the study is looking at using pricing as a demand-management tool. But of course demand management means that pricing can be higher or lower than regular rates.
D. Symons: One of the previous ministers responsible for B.C. Ferries basically floated some ideas on various things that might be done to encourage traffic. One of them was the idea of a frequent-ferry-rider's-reward -- in other words, a frequent sailor's program. I'm wondering if that is still under discussion.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation, of course, in its move to become completely customer-focused, has been examining programs that would reward customer loyalty. While people thought that was a very good idea, the studies show it would be costly to implement and therefore is not being pursued.
D. Symons: So "Sea Miles" is out. Another option that was suggested
Hon. J. MacPhail: The priority for the corporation is working on equity issues. So that one is currently not under active consideration, nor is it off the books either.
D. Symons: Also, I gather that when the corporation was considering a mandatory reservations system, particularly on the fast ferry routes, you did some sort of public research or research on that to see what the issues were. I'm just wondering if you might be able to give me a copy of the market research that was done on the mandatory reservations system.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll provide whatever we have.
M. Coell: Just a few questions with regard to reservations. The ferry advisory groups in my riding have repeatedly
[ Page 17141 ]
tried to get information on the number of people that are being turned away on the reservation lines. I have a few questions with regard to that. Can the minister tell me what numbers of vehicle reservations are being turned away when travellers are trying to book travel between the southern Gulf Islands and Tsawwassen?
[1025]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, people who try to reserve and are unable to do so.
M. Coell: That's correct.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll certainly try to get that information.
M. Coell: It's maybe redundant. Are there records kept for the turn-downs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I said that we'll look into it.
M. Coell: I'll ask the minister a few questions, and if she's unable to answer them, I would look forward to a letter outlining the answers.
What are the average waiting times while on the reservation system? Does the corporation keep track of the number of callers that hang up after waiting too long? Does B.C. Ferries track the number of people who are unable to book because they don't have credit cards? How do the empty spaces on route 9 ferry relate to the standbys left behind and the turned-away reservations? I believe the reservation system estimates 20 feet per vehicle. How has this translated into actual space taken up on the vessels from the southern Gulf Islands to Tsawwassen?
The other question that I suspect the minister may be able to answer is: why do they charge an overheight fee on the ferry from Swartz Bay to Fulford, when it's an open-air ferry and it wouldn't matter how high the vehicle was -- whether it was a car or a bus?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume the member wants the information on the reservation system only for route 9. Is that correct? There's a general reservation system as well.
M. Coell: Route 9.
Hon. J. MacPhail: All right, fine. We'll get whatever information we have.
I'm not sure what point he's trying to make on the overheight vehicles. The overheight really is a measurement across the system that deals with the length that an overheight vehicle usually takes. So it's not necessarily about air space, but about floor space.
M. Coell: I appreciate the minister making a commitment to get back to me on those questions. They are questions, as I said, that the advisory groups have been trying to get through B.C. Ferries. They believe that if Ferries had the answers to those questions, the service would be greatly increased, because they could effectively make some changes. So I thank the minister for her comments.
D. Symons: Just a question going back to the five-year capital plan. This is the January 26 one. This is the current capital plan? I saw a nod that that's true. Thank you.
The next paper I'd like to look at is the discussion paper on tariff equity, and just discuss a few items in there. We have on page 7 of that document
The thing that interests me in this one is that I thought this had been the general goal of the corporation for quite a number of years. In fact, I've seen it in the annual reports frequently, even to the point of one being to make each of the routes that are operational self-sufficient. I'm just curious that it's in here as part of this. That's been a long-term goal, I would suspect, and it should be -- and I'm not knocking it, by the way.
Then on page 15 there are a series of questions asked under equity issues. So maybe if you care to comment on the first. If not, I'll go on to the next part. There are some questions they ask here, and these are ones that I suspect the stakeholder groups would be interested in and you want to get feedback on: "Should fares be based on a level of service; i.e., distance, frequency, vessel capacity, utilization," and so forth? "Should route financial performance determine fare levels? Should the discount rate for prepaid discount tickets be uniform across all routes?"
[1030]
My concern on all of that is that those are all issues that I think everybody would like to know the answers to, and I'm wondering what you have in mind on that. Mainly I'm concerned whether this document or discussion paper on fare equity is a sincere effort to find out from the people around -- the ferry users particularly on the Gulf Islands and Vancouver Island here -- their views and then react to them. Or indeed, is this a chance for them to feel they're doing something, but you've already set your mind on what's going to be done?
I read from the Nanaimo Daily News of June 24. "The ferries will raise fares, but intend to find the most equitable way to implement increases into routes first, says the corporation president." And later on, under some other quotes from the president, we have: " 'We need to find out what is the most equitable way to increase tariffs,' he said." And then, further down: " 'If a route is too high, it may not be cut, but the fare might stay the same for five years,' Lingwood said. 'Others may go up.' " Regardless of what we have in this document, "Discussion Paper on Tariff Equity," it seems the intent is to raise fares. So I'm curious why we just don't do it rather than go through the process of letting people think they're having some actual input.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm unclear why the member is linking the two. Maybe he could express why it is that he links those two aspects.
Cabinet has made no decision and government has made no decision about whether to increase or decrease tariffs. But the member is well aware, from the performance plan and the fact that the corporation is going to be required to remain solvent after having a huge injection of public funds and public support, that there are challenges that are faced. One of the biggest challenges that the corporation faces is the
[ Page 17142 ]
increased price of fuel. So the corporation is examining every way possible to make sure that the books are in balance -- and perhaps even turn a profit. But that certainly is not a requirement by the government whatsoever.
So that's the nature of the discussion. Is it sincere? Absolutely. Absolutely. Are there inequities in the tariff system? Yes.
D. Symons: I thought the connection between the two was obvious, because it's called the "Discussion Paper on Tariff Equity." Indeed, there are some comments regarding the fact that fees are going to go up now. I guess you just are meaning, then, that they're going to go up equitably, in a sense. I'm not sure if the people involved in the stakeholder groups and the Coastal Council are quite aware that that was basically the end result of this tariff equity discussion paper.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I said that no decision has been made. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that no decision has been made.
D. Symons: Well, I'm just reading from the CEO of B.C. Ferries, who seems to say that fares are going to go up, and so be it.
T. Nebbeling: I would like to ask some questions on Horseshoe Bay and the expansion plans. I will not spend much time on rehashing the whole history. I'm sure the minister is fully aware of this. However, after the last presentation by B.C. Ferries about their expansion plans -- a presentation that was less than kindly accepted by the community because, again, many of the questions that the community had about the expansion plans were not answered. It was, in the presentation: "So here it is, folks. This is it, and we're going to do it."
After that, the minister was interviewed and was asked the reaction to the public opposition to the expansion plans. The minister stated that nothing was going to happen without everybody being on side. Does the minister still feel that that kind of consensus-seeking has to continue until B.C. Ferries will indeed start with the expansion plans, which ultimately will be agreed on?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, what I did say was that what the community thinks is very important to us and to the corporation. We did have discussions in estimates about the Horseshoe Bay expansion, so I'm sure that the member has had the opportunity to read those. My comments stand.
[1035]
But I just want to once again reiterate that the ferry service in this province is key to economic growth. There would be members from Vancouver Island who would suggest that increased ferry service is necessary in order to stimulate the Vancouver Island economy. There are others that would suggest that with the de facto recognition by our government that the ferry service is part of the highway system now -- by us injecting huge amounts of revenue into the Ferry Corporation in this last budget -- the ferry service is here to stay and stay with great support from this government.
So how do we cope in that context? Well, community input is extremely important, and that means all communities that are affected by the ferry service. Community pressures that need to be addressed are important as well, and that means every community that's affected by the ferry service.
T. Nebbeling: I agree with the minister that the ferry service is an integral part of the economic growth of this province. Nobody is looking for the extinction of ferry services in the province, I believe. However, it is often where the ferries are located or the departure and arrival points allocated that, with the increase of use of the ferries, become real hot points. Horseshoe Bay, of course, being a very charming little village, had no problem with the ferry service at all up to a couple of years ago. As a matter of fact, Horseshoe Bay was very supportive, because it did add to the economic well-being of the area because of the tourism aspect. Rather than people sitting in their car, they would come out and then visit the area, buy postcards, have some fish and chips. But it is the growth.
I've always tried to find a way of describing what the impact of the ferry service and its expansion plans is in my view -- the impact of it. To me it is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. We all know that if you hammer long enough on the wooden peg, it will go into that wood where the round hole is. But the wood will actually split; it will break down. That's how the square peg will fit.
That's the problem with Horseshoe Bay. This expansion is breaking up the community. It is breaking up the community because of the change of character, the visual change, the other impacts that are associated with the influx of more traffic. It will change to an unhealthy community because of various factors such as noise and car emissions. It will change, I believe, as a healthy community because people who have been very content living together with B.C. Ferries now are in a frame of mind and in an emotional mode that is eating people. I think living in Horseshoe Bay will never be what it was for a long time, and I don't think these kind of factors can just be ignored.
The second part, of course, is that this expansion is, I believe, accommodating the next 15 years of growth, if it would indeed go forward. Well, there's a lot beyond the 15 years as well. I think we may well have to have a debate very soon if ferries indeed are the only way of getting to Vancouver Island. Has there been any study done about the potential of a land line, as has been done in the past -- what I believe Mr. Lingwood would reject as an undoable deal? Has there been anything further done recently to look at the option of a land link? I'm convinced that 50 years from now, there will be a land link. So why wait 50 years? Why not consider it now and solve the problems of many communities in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island?
[1040]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the member's comments about the changes that are occurring at Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal. I find them very thoughtful. I would note for the member that I will be meeting with community leaders over the summer, starting next week. The goals are the same for the community as they are for the Ferry Corporation. Right now, when I take that ferry, the pressure is unbelievable on the community because of ferry traffic spilling over into the entire community and basically blockading -- a virtual blockade of people who aren't ferry users -- that community, Horseshoe Bay.
The goal of the Ferry Corporation is to contain and absolutely minimize the current pretty deleterious effects of ferry
[ Page 17143 ]
traffic on the community by moving all of those traffic problems into the ferry terminal compound and minimizing the effect of those changes at the compound on the broader Horseshoe Bay community. So we'll continue to work together on what I think is a common goal.
On the issue of the bridge, it's very important that we not raise the anxiety around the issues of ferry traffic between Vancouver Island and the mainland. I expect the colleague sitting to your right would have a different view than you do about a fixed link by virtue of the communities that he represents. A couple of factors that have to be taken into account are the incredible costs for a fixed link; it's in the billions. And even the ability to achieve a fixed link is a matter of substantial debate. For instance, the English Channel is 100 feet to sea floor level, and the strait is, I'm told, 1,000
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: How many? Six hundred.
We have to be very aware of the fact that it's an earthquake zone as well. We also have to be aware that the number of communities affected by a fixed link is substantial. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi wasn't here when I made the opening comments, but I am constantly aware -- now that I have direct responsibility for the B.C. Ferry Corporation as a ministerial responsibility -- of the huge issues that this corporation faces and the importance of the service to so many communities. Everyday the corporation finds itself on the horns of a dilemma of how best to meet its obligation to be part of the highways system, to do that in a completely customer-focused way and to make sure that its costs are kept in line and that it's a community-focused corporation as well.
T. Nebbeling: Before I ask some questions on the expansion plan itself, I just would like to make a quick comment to the minister in regards to the links between continents or countries or, in our case, between the mainland and Vancouver Island. Two weeks ago a link between Sweden and Denmark was opened, which is a 17-kilometre road. They do not have any islands that they would use to jump from. They have created spots where they had to find the foundations for that bridge to anchor to a certain extent. Otherwise, the bridge is basically a floating bridge. So I'm not saying that it is the answer, but I really think it merits study at this time of day in our province, with the tremendous pressures that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going to constantly be under to deal with community and other social impact issues.
What I would like to ask the minister is: as part of the expansion plans, has the B.C. Ferry Corporation been part of an environmental impact study on that expansion?
[1045]
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no legal requirement to do an environmental assessment. However, the corporation is doing air quality-environmental impact surveys right now about the change in air quality due to, perhaps, changes in car emission patterns.
T. Nebbeling: I don't know how long these studies are going to take. Can I be assured that nothing will happen until these studies are in and, again, shared with the communities so that people at least deal with that particular concern they have -- this impact of air quality? Obviously this particular expansion will take away close to about half a mile of roadway, which will be turned into a parking area for waiting cars, and there will be lots and lots of blasting, I believe. One of my questions to the minister is: how much rock has to be blasted to create the lanes where cars can be parked?
The other impact, of course, is the noise impact. One of the reasons, I believe, that the fast ferries, when introduced in Horseshoe Bay, were so welcome was that it eliminated the heavy truck traffic that Horseshoe Bay experienced -- and truly experienced as a big noise nuisance. Now that the fast ferries are gone, the trucks are back in their communities. As well, it's not only the starting up and the unlocking of the air brakes but also the reefer trucks, especially, when they have the units constantly on and off, on and off. It's very close to the residential component of the community. So I would also like to see if there is consideration for a noise study, as it will have impact now because of the lengthening or the additional parking facility or space that you are creating. That's a request to consider a noise study as well.
How much rock will be blasted away in order to accommodate the additional lanes that are planned in that area?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The effect on air quality of different car patterns is a study being done in response to the community and will be made available to the community. It will be available in the coming weeks.
The issue of blasting. I'm told that there will be very little blasting; most of it is rock that can be removed by equipment.
[1050]
Truck traffic is one of the horns of the dilemma. I meet with the Trucking Association, who rely on the ferry service to stimulate the economy of Vancouver Island and vice versa. They have concerns about access to good quality ferry service and are pleased about the restoration of truck traffic.
So again, it's balancing. One of the Liberal opposition's colleagues, Delta South, was raising concerns around the same issue. The corporation is trying to balance the concerns of the communities, whether that be Delta or West Vancouver or Nanaimo, for that matter. They're working with the communities to minimize the impact and, at the same time, provide a good, viable economic route for the transportation of goods.
T. Nebbeling: I understand the job is very difficult. I have no qualms about the fact that some type of decision will ultimately have to be made to meet all the needs and expectations, including the economic opportunities. I mean, just the food supply alone for the Island is always going to be an issue.
Two quick questions. The removal of the gravel will actually then bring the land mass closer to the existing rock wall, I take it. If that is the case, as the minister is aware, the B.C. Ferry Corporation has already given notice that on four different occasions they had cars waiting parked close to rock walls where accidents did happen. Rocks came down; damage was done. The Ministry of Highways has basically told B.C. Ferries under no circumstances to park in these areas where these rock walls exist. With the expansion, you're again
[ Page 17144 ]
getting lanes very close to these rock walls that, by nature, crumble all the time. How are you going to deal with that problem? That's the number one question.
Just for expedience, the second point is: the Ministry of Highways has always insisted that if indeed this expansion goes ahead, a $5.6 million revamping of the road corridors has to be part of the expansion plan, to get a convenient safe passage for Horseshoe Bay and, maybe more important for volume, for the traffic up to the Sea to Sky corridor. Up to now nothing has been done by B.C. Ferries to comply with that demand from the Ministry of Highways. Is that particular $5.6 million expansion requirement included in the expansion plans?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the member is referring to a different plan on this access to Sea to Sky Highway than the Horseshoe Bay. The corporation has worked and has met the test of satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in its plans for access to Sea to Sky Highway. Secondly, the point that the member raises about parking and walks and safety issues are all points of consideration. There are engineering factors that have to be taken into account and addressed from a safety point of view as the corporation proceeds.
T. Nebbeling: Just a quick follow-up on the highway concerns and how future traffic will be channelled towards the Sea to Sky corridor. I have in writing -- and I have the plans given to me by the Ministry of Highways -- the minimum requirement of what has to be done to guarantee safe passage for traffic into the Sea to Sky corridor. I am baffled to hear that the contrary is now the case, because when I spoke with the Minister of Highways, and when they gave me the plans, they very clearly stated that without these changes, it would always be an accident in waiting. So I don't understand the statement by the minister, and I wanted that on record.
[1055]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We'd be happy to meet with the member and clarify all of this.
D. Symons: I'd like to revisit for a moment some questions I asked earlier on the MV Quinsam, because I believe that vessel is now back in service. I'd just like to follow through a little bit on the questions I may have on that. I understand that approximately 200 square feet of metal on the bottom has been replaced on the vessel in two different places. I'm curious about the fact that that amount of metal has been replaced, when it was said to begin with that it was a hole of one inch, or a 1 1/2-inch hole. The condition of the hull seemed to be considerably different than was first thought. Can you give me some idea of what was discovered when the ship was out of drydock and what repairs were necessary?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The extra square feet were replaced at the suggestion of Transport Canada as a precautionary measure, a safety measure, in case the metal had been weakened. The tests have not been complete on what, if any, weakness was there. While the ship was in drydock, the corporation also did some extra maintenance as well.
D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister can tell us whether the whole hull was ultrasounded while the ship was in drydock. There are portable ultrasound things that can give you the condition and thickness of the metal. Was that test done on the ship?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and there were no other weaknesses.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll begin by saying there are no determined links between these two events as I described them. There was sludge found in the area that was more corrosive than saltwater. But whether that led to the leaking is still undetermined.
D. Symons: I think we have a concern here that there has been inadequate maintenance for the ferry and possibly of the sewage system as well. Either it's been the case that that hasn't happened over the period of time
[1100]
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's been no determination yet of the cause. Transport Canada requires that the hull be first surveyed at 20 years, and the ship is not yet at 20 years. I think it's a bit unfair for the member to leap immediately to the fact that it's improper maintenance or whatever. The corporation is doing everything to make sure that this ship is sound and meets all the safety requirements set by Transport Canada.
D. Symons: Ships generally have sacrificial anodes or zinc placed on the hull in order to cut down on electrolysis that happens automatically between saltwater that works in an electrolytic solution along with the metal. So I'm curious whether the anodes in this ship have been properly placed and properly replaced as the necessity arose over the years or whether indeed this is an outcome of the fact that that hadn't been properly done in the past.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to have the corporation meet with the member, take him to the ship and give him a full briefing on all of these matters.
D. Symons: Just one last question on this. I have a letter here from a gentleman on Gabriola Island. He basically has written a letter to Transport Canada. He's calling for Transport Canada to probe into the safety and maintenance procedures used by B.C. Ferries. So I thought I might give you a heads-up
[ Page 17145 ]
on the fact that people are somewhat concerned about what happened with the Quinsam, and I think it's going to move over into other issues dealing with B.C. Ferries in general.
There also seems to be some concern that the firefighting equipment on that particular ship, even after it was in dock for a while, is not really up to standard and that some of the pipes on the ship are corroded. I'm wondering if you're aware of that. What's going to be done about that particular issue?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation was informed by a licensed crew that the pipes that assist in firefighting needed to be replaced, and it was done while the ship was in drydock.
D. Symons: The information I had was a little bit outdated, then. I thank the minister for that answer and am pleased to know that that work was done.
I'm now on to the annual report that I just received earlier this week. The first comment I'll have is that, reading through the annual report, it reads much like many of the other annual reports I've read over the last nine years, in that it outlines the direction the Ferry Corporation is going, and it is generally fairly optimistic in outlook. This one's a little bit different, in the sense that there's some belated recognition, I think, of the fact that they've had some problems, particularly with the fast ferries, and that they're working on that. I find that encouraging and hope that everything that's commented on -- the optimism in here for the turnaround that's now being done -- will indeed occur over the coming years.
On page 13 it says that this year "B.C. Ferries undertook the first comprehensive bottom-up review of its capital assets in many years." I just find that a little bit disconcerting, I guess, in relation to the comments I was making earlier. The Quinsam and other vessels
[1105]
On page 17 there are some comments about consultation. I know that in the past we've had some problems with consultation. I think there are still some concerns on the part of some of the ferry users that the consultation process often seems to be co-opting them into something, rather than actually using them in a consultative process with the intent that their consultation and recommendations will be taken seriously -- the fact that the decisions are made, and they're being consulted after the fact. I hope that will not happen. And particularly, I think, that might be true regarding the recent comments about reservations.
On page 18 again we have that tariff equity review, which we talked about earlier, so I won't revisit that. Certainly there are issues relating to that, I think, that will still be coming to the fore in the next short while.
The first question I do have relates to the table on page 34. At the end there, we have the net loss for the year of roughly $300 million. A good portion of that, I guess, is because of the write-down of the fast ferries. I note that the fast ferries are $240 million and this is $300 million. There's roughly $60 million that I'm not quite sure
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's $300 million, just so I'm not misleading
If you raise your eyes above the bottom line to a line under "Earnings or Loss before Interest, Amortization and Other" you'll see "Net Financing Expenses"; it's $53 million.
D. Symons: I missed that, and I appreciate that. It's there.
My second question deals with leases, on page 40. Two vessels mentioned here, the Queen of Surrey and
Hon. J. MacPhail: We can certainly find that information out. The member is quite right that the Social Credit government did this sale-leaseback in the early eighties. We'll get that information for you.
D. Symons: I'll ask the same thing for the Queen of Oak Bay, which comes up further down the page. I'm curious what the total pay-out will be by the time all the payments are made. In relation to that, if you can tell me what we got when we sold the ships and leased back -- the figure that the Social Credit government then received in payment for the vessels and the total amount that we will have paid by the time it's all paid off on the lease. Then the last question will be: what are the book values of those two that the Ferry Corporation is currently using for those two vessels?
My last question out of the annual report is on the five-year review on page 26. I note that there's a disturbing trend in a few of these things. I think I made a comment about the return on assets prior to this, but certainly it seems to have dropped, from '96 up to 2000, to a very dangerously low figure for any corporation. I even notice that the percentage of operating and net financing expenses recovered from tolls, catering and other income has also gone from 90 percent down to 80 percent in that four-year period. We seem to have the things that we would hope are improving the situation for B.C. Ferries going in the opposite direction.
[1110]
I guess the last comment I would make goes down to total assets, which are $700 million there. I do remember. I read into the record earlier that the CEO made a comment that the replacement value of our assets was $3 billion, and therefore we could go out and borrow a billion. But the actual assets that you have down here -- your own book value of them -- are $700 million, which is considerably short of the $3 billion that was spoken of earlier. I think that the figure there that you'd have to go out and use, if you were going to the bank, as how much you can borrow in a safe way
Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, we don't need to engage in who-said, what-said. The issue here is that the CEO is referring to the fact that when you borrow against a replacement
[ Page 17146 ]
asset, the value is the replacement, not the book value of the current asset. That's the principle on which banks and financial lenders lend money. That was the nature of the CEO's comment, and it stands.
On the issue of the trends, the member is exactly right. That's why the government in this budget took very concerted action with debt recision and the dedicated fuel tax to cope with what were negative trends.
D. Symons: I realize that's indeed why you are doing some of the things you're doing. I don't know whether the dedication of the fuel tax will help the ratio of revenue from tolls and from food sales. That also has been dropping. But it will certainly make up for the shortfall you have on that aspect of the operations.
I wonder if I might ask a question or two relating to the Powell River situation there, particularly the ferry terminal on the dock. The previous minister responsible made some promises in that community about upgrading the materials there. I think the upgrading was supposed to start this year, and they've see no sign of it in Powell River. I'm wondering if you might give us an idea of the promises made relating to the improvements of the facilities at Powell River at Westview, where they are in the capital plan, and when that work will begin.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation will be meeting with the town council this month. The construction will start this year and be completed next year.
M. Coell: I'd like to have a discussion with the minister with regard to two issues that affect services and residents in my riding. The first is the Mill Bay ferry. As the minister may remember, yesterday I tabled in the House, as well as the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, approximately 5,000 petitioners that are in favour of this service. In the five-year capital plan, there's just one statement here that the Brentwood-Mill Bay route 12
[1115]
The corporation is out now having public meetings and information sessions. It seems to me that this hasn't been presented in those sessions as a done deal, as it has in the five-year capital plan. It strikes me as unfortunate that the corporation would do that. I think that that's not as up front as it should have been.
That particular ferry has been in service as long as I've been alive. It is a valued service. It strikes me that instead of the method that B.C. Ferries has gone to, to basically cancel it -- usually, when you make a decision to do that, you can find all sorts of reasons to do it -- they should have taken the other tack and said: "What can we do to save it? Do we set up a separate company that doesn't have the overhead that B.C. Ferries has? Do we look to the crew to be an independent agent, contracted to B.C. Ferries?" There were a whole range of things -- a different tack, rather than the tack that I think they've taken.
Judging from the popular support from businesses, from Butchart Gardens through to the chambers of commerce, in Mill Bay and that, there is a desire to see that succeed. I would have liked to see B.C. Ferries look for ways to make it succeed, rather than just put up reasons why it should be cancelled.
The minister may want to comment on that. I know you're looking at some large amounts of money to keep it going. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't require capital infusion. Can the minister tell me: is the corporation looking at other ways to make it succeed, rather than just through the present system and through the present accounting procedures that B.C. Ferries uses?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The five-year capital plan deals with the issue that the corporation must contain costs. In the five-year capital plan they rightfully put forward to Treasury Board -- and signed off by government -- some assumptions about where costs could be saved. So that assumption is articulated. Is a decision made? No. But what will happen is that if the Mill Bay ferry continues, then those savings have to be found elsewhere in the corporation. And I think that's appropriate for the corporation to do. But there is no predetermined outcome. And frankly, I think the goodwill has been demonstrated in the public meetings that have been held. Those public meetings will inform any decision taken by government about the future of the Mill Bay ferry. No decision has been made to date.
Starting in 1998, the Ferry Corporation did examine alternatives for the Mill Bay ferry. All of those different terminal sites, different routes, have been examined. That information will inform the discussion about the future of the Mill Bay ferry.
Lastly, it's interesting to note that the member perhaps suggests a contract arrangement with the current crew. I'm sure he's well aware that the collective agreement prevails regardless of whether the Ferry Corporation continues to operate that or whether there's a contract arrangement. The collective agreement determines the costs of those arrangements.
M. Coell: I am aware of the contract arrangements. I think what I'm looking at more is the overhead assigned to the vessel from B.C. Ferries and whether that has a greater dollar figure to it than it would if other arrangements were made.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There have been no overhead costs assigned to the route in the public discussions.
M. Coell: Just to follow up on that, there is no administrative overhead allocated to the Mill Bay-Brentwood ferry by B.C. Ferries?
[1120]
Hon. J. MacPhail: In this round of discussions with the community, there have been no overhead costs assigned. That's a change. So it's full marginal costs that have been assigned, and that's it.
M. Coell: I guess what I'm hoping -- and I think probably the vast majority of my constituency and that of the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca are as well -- is that B.C. Ferries will try and find a way of keeping that route open, that it will be innovative and that it will involve the citizens as well as the employees of B.C. Ferries. Historically, that route has been there for many decades, and it creates an option to the Malahat. So I look forward to being part of the discussions and the consultations in the future.
The next issue is one that I guess I have had representations on from constituents ever since I was elected. It's the
[ Page 17147 ]
Landsend Road issue, where the Spirit-class vessel docks at Swartz Bay. I've been in most of the houses along where the ferry docks. I guess the comment I would make is that, for the most part, I believe B.C. Ferries is a good corporate citizen, when you look at many things they do. But in building this dock, they certainly weren't a good corporate citizen -- to actively block approximately 15 houses, not so much with the view of a Spirit-class vessel but with the noise attributed to that and the lighting. The residents, I think, have a very legitimate concern. If that was a corporation other than a Crown corporation and there was a municipal noise bylaw, you would be actively changing the ways of B.C. Ferry Corporation. All other municipalities in greater Victoria have noise bylaws, and if someone pulled a superferry up on the border of Oak Bay or Saanich, the residents would have an actual reason to complain. They don't in this instance. And I think that when Crown corporations -- and B.C. Ferries is one -- change their pattern of operation, they should be considering what effect they have on residents around them.
There's been an ongoing battle for four or five years. I believe there's a court case in some instances. I believe B.C. Ferries has been in and replaced windows, insulation. I don't know whether they've purchased houses. There have been a whole range of things they've tried to do after the fact. Unfortunately, there are 30 or so houses, I would say, affected by the change. Obviously now that the change is made, you're looking at millions and millions of dollars to effect changes. All I'm saying -- and the minister may want to comment -- is that in future, I think, B.C. Ferries has to pay more attention to its effect on the residents where they make changes to terminals.
I don't know whether there is an option in this instance for having that Spirit-class dock, at least in the summers, in a different position or whether at this stage it's just too much money for the Ferry Corporation to change the decision they made five or six years ago.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, just to make a couple of comments about the difficult situation the corporation faces. The ferry terminal was there first. I certainly appreciate that that doesn't take away the anxiety of the homeowners on Landsend, but the ferry terminal was operational there long before the houses were built. In that context -- that it's a major transportation facility and that, subsequent to that transportation facility being built, houses were built in juxtaposition -- the corporation is taking that into account as much as possible and trying to make changes that ameliorate some of the problems that the homeowners face.
[1125]
M. Coell: The ferry terminal, I think no one disagrees, was there, and the land they own. I guess the expected expansion is probably bigger than the residents had anticipated, but the minister's correct that it's a major terminal. I think the expansion out into the water and water leases are the concern here. When Swartz Bay is developing in the future, whether it continues to develop down the coast of North Saanich or whether it goes back into its own property and into the more commercial areas next to it, that would be appropriate expansion, in my opinion. The effect of noise bylaws, I think, is something to be considered in the future.
I realize that the Ferry Corporation has a huge variety of issues that it deals with on a daily basis, and those aren't always going to be easy. I mean, I'm not saying that they're small, by any means. All I'm suggesting is that in future expansion or in changes to the present configuration at Swartz Bay, if noise and mitigation to residents can be taken into consideration
The final question I have is: is the corporation actively looking for more land in the Swartz Bay area?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. I would just add that I do take the member's comments seriously, and the corporation also does, in that future changes must involve the concerns of the community.
D. Symons: I have paper here called "Schedule of Remuneration and Expenses of Employees for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1999," and the page I'm looking at deals with elected officials, employees appointed by cabinet, etc. And it is the Ferry board, actually, for that particular fiscal year
I know you won't be able to explain all these things at the moment, but I would appreciate it if I could have a copy of the same document for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2000. If I could have that, I'd be interested in comparing the expenses of the past fiscal year with the fiscal year previous to that -- from board members. So if you could supply that to me, I'd appreciate it. I don't know if you want to make any comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Those disclosures are part of the Financial Information Act -- FIA -- and the information for the fiscal year ending 2000 goes to the board of directors at their September meeting and then will be released after that.
D. Symons: Good. I'd appreciate that.
Another paper I have here is "British Columbia Ferry Corporation Schedule of Guarantees and Indemnity Agreements for the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1999." One of them that I'm interested in here is -- this is under subject -- the "Financial Adviser Engagement Agreement to Lease Pacificat Fast Ferry." CIBC Wood Gundy Securities are the people mentioned as the indemnity. I wonder if you might give just a little bit of background on what that particular arrangement was.
[1130]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We'd better take that question on notice to make sure that we've got the facts straight around it.
D. Symons: And related to that, there's a letter of agreement outlining scope of services, etc., between B.C. Ferries Corporation and the province of British Columbia and CIBC Wood Gundy re B.C. Ferries long-term ferries project. I'll just pass this over; you can take a look at it, and then I would like it back. If you can get that information to me at a later date, I'd appreciate that.
That gives me a rather good segue, I think, into dealing with the larger topic that we haven't touched yet in any detail, and that's the fast ferry project itself. It was in June of 1994 that
[ Page 17148 ]
the government announced its ten-year capital plan for B.C. Ferry Corporation, with two aims. One was to revitalize the province's shipbuilding industry, and the second one was to meet the operational needs of B.C. Ferries. I'm not too sure, when you look back in history and look at the current situation, whether either of those aims and goals has been achieved.
We were told that the poor condition and age of many of the vessels
The auditor general in his report "A Review of the Fast Ferry Project" sought the answer to three questions. I'm just reading from the auditor general's report. Was the decision to undertake this project properly supported? Did the government and B.C. Ferries manage the project well? And is it likely that the government and B.C. Ferries will achieve their objectives? I think that when you read through the auditor general's report, you'll find that the answer to each of those three questions turned out to be no.
The decision to undertake this project involved a number of groups: the B.C. Ferries Corporation's board of directors, the minister responsible, Crown corporation secretariat, Treasury Board and cabinet. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to tell me who was on Treasury Board in the 1994-95 period, when the decision on this particular project was being taken.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I can't. But I'd be happy to get that five-year-old information in the course of the year 2000 estimates.
The Chair: Member and the minister -- and for the committee's interest -- standing order 61 requires strict relevance to the administrative year under examination in estimates. We're bumping in and out of future policy and past practices. The Chair would just remind the committee of the need to be relevant under the current year's estimates.
D. Symons: I appreciate the Chair's caution on that, and I will comment that I think the relevancy of the past will fit in with questions coming up to do with the present and the future as well. So they are relevant, as we'll see shortly.
The minister, I believe, was on Treasury Board at that time. I'm told -- and the minister could maybe confirm this -- that Treasury Board staff recommended against the fast ferries on the grounds that they were overpriced, unproven and unlikely to perform as advertised. I'm curious, then, why the minister can't confirm that for me, since she was on the Treasury Board at the time. Why did Treasury Board ignore the concerns of the staff? And at any time while the minister -- and this is a direct question to the minister -- was on Treasury Board, were questions raised regarding the costs associated with the fast ferry project?
[1135]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, this line of questioning is completely inappropriate, as you well know and as the member well knows -- sorry, not to challenge the Chair on this. But let's just go where the member really needs to go on this matter. Were the fast ferries a failure? Yes. Has the government, in this current year, taken action to deal with mitigating the failure of the fast ferries experiment? Yes. Has the government taken its full responsibility and admission of failure? Yes. Does that include today's Premier? Yes. Does that include me, as minister responsible and as a participant in government at the executive council from September of 1993 onward? Yes.
The Chair: I will caution both the minister and the member that the standing orders are there for the benefit of all members of the chambers and the minister and the critics. Standing orders will be adhered to, and standing orders require strict relevance to the item under examination. That's the current fiscal budget for the Minister of Labour and responsible for Ferries, not 1994 estimates, hon. member. With that caution in place, this second time up, we'll try it again.
D. Symons: Well, the next question I have relates to a Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations document of March 30, 1999. It will lead, as you'll see shortly, into the current one. Under "Debt" it says: "B.C. Ferry Corporation's statutory debt limit will be increased by way of legislation to be introduced on budget day from $975 million to $1.3 billion. This should be sufficient for at least two fiscal years. Notwithstanding the increased limit, B.C. Ferry Corporation's net borrowing may not exceed $135 million in the year '99-2000 without the prior approval of Treasury Board." I am asking whether it was necessary for the corporation to go back to Treasury Board and make a change in that particular limit.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The $135 million limit, I'm informed, was set because that was the limit the Ferry Corporation could accommodate with the flow of the gas tax revenue. However, there was a two-month period where the gas tax revenue did not flow to the corporation. I'm informed that the Minister of Finance did allow for $12 million to be added to the $135 million to compensate for two months of no revenue from the gas tax.
D. Symons: I think the figure is $1.35 billion that we were discussing from the article here.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's $135 million. That's what you asked about.
D. Symons: I beg your pardon if I said million. It should read "from $975 million to $1.35 billion." I said $135 million, or I may have said $1.35 billion. Those large figures, I guess
I wonder if I can go on in the same document, and this will lead up to this fiscal year in a moment: "B.C. Ferry Corporation's 1999-2000 capital expenditure limit is set at $46 million for projects exclusive to the fast ferry program." Then it goes on to say: "Conditional approval of $93 million in '99-2000 is given for the fast ferry program. This conditional approval is based on the estimated completion costs for the fast ferry program and is subject to Treasury Board staff and Crown corporations secretariat evaluation of financial review and technical assessment."
My question on that is: was that $93 million for the fast ferry program spent in the last fiscal year, or has some of that been carried forward to this particular fiscal year? This docu-
[ Page 17149 ]
ment said for the completion of the fast ferry program. Did the $93 million do it in that fiscal year, or is some of that money carried on to complete fast ferry 3, which is still under construction this year?
[1140]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not sure what document the member is referring to. What is the document that the member is referring to -- the date on it?
D. Symons: March 30, 1999, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.
The Chair: I would ask for clarification. The Chair needs some education on how a document from two fiscals ago fits within the current budget estimates of this ministry. This is the third caution from the Chair. If the committee -- either the critic or the minister -- could explain to me the relevancy of this under the current fiscal year under examination, the Chair might be inclined to let the questions go.
The member for Richmond Centre on an explanation, please.
D. Symons: The explanation was in the question: was the $93 million for fast ferries spent in the last fiscal year, or has some of that been carried forward into this fiscal year? That was the question I asked of the minister.
The Chair: Thank you.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, again, the answer involves last fiscal year, so your caution is still noted, hon. Chair. The member refuses to recognize your caution.
Working backward, the auditor general determined an overall cost of $463 million for the three fast ferries. That has not changed. The completion of the three fast ferries is within that figure. So I'm not sure where the member is going with this.
The $93 million allocated in '99-2000 was toward completion within that budget. That expenditure was substantially fulfilled in '99-2000, and there was no carry-forward.
D. Symons: Then the point is, yes, the $93 million that was supposed to be there for the completion of the fast ferry project didn't
Hon. J. MacPhail: Toward the completion.
Hon. Chair, I answered the question. The point is that all of this has been in the public record, about what the cost of the fast ferries is -- $463 million, in the auditor general's report. There is no additional cost beyond that for the fast ferries.
The Chair: The Chair's going to try this one more time. Finance ministry documents are not appropriate for examination in this committee under these estimates, nor, I believe, are the auditor general's report or references to it. I would ask the member to bring the questions into order and to be relevant with the current year's estimates on the B.C. Ferry Corporation.
D. Symons: Indeed, these questions relate to spending on the fast ferry program, and the fast ferry program comes under the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for B.C. Ferries. So although the documents might come from somewhere else, the spending is related to the program under this minister's responsibility, and I do feel that they are indeed relevant to this particular discussion we're currently carrying on.
The Chair: Member, I thank you for your input. But the documents are from a fiscal year or two ago, as put on the record by the member's own evidence. And that's not a current fiscal year that's under examination. The Chair is bound, as the committee and all members are, by the standing orders. The relevancy rule is very, very rigid. It's in the book; it begins on page 136.
The members may want a five-minute recess to read that relevancy rule, or over the lunch hour. And noting the time, we'd be entertaining the motion -- member or minister, either way.
D. Symons: I'm willing to carry on, or go later this afternoon. It's up to the minister, then.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have no idea what the schedule is that the member's offering. Perhaps he could clarify.
D. Symons: Well, it's just that I want to finish the fast ferries today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, we're going to adjourn today. So what is it
[1145]
D. Symons: Heaven forbid before
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, then, we'll rise. It's irrelevant to me.
The Chair: Well, we would
D. Symons: Well, I don't mind moving that. I'm just trying to shorten the afternoon by putting it in the morning. But I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: The minister on the motion. It's an odd motion to speak to.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I expect that the member is not going to be able to get his full three hours in this afternoon. There will be other pressures put upon him. So carry on. We don't want to cut off debate.
The Chair: We've already had the motion on the floor. The member may want to negative
Motion negatived.
The Chair: The motion has been negatived. We will exist for another minute or two here.
[ Page 17150 ]
D. Symons: Just something I want to put on the record here
The Chair: Member, the Chair regrets the interruption again. But the member is an experienced member of the assembly and is well aware of the prohibition on mentioning a member by name in the chambers in debate. The riding identification is the appropriate method of identification.
D. Symons: Thank you. I'll rephrase it. Every time the critic for B.C. Ferries opens his mouth or the leader of the Liberal Party opens his mouth, he tells everyone that we can't build ships of any quality, because people listen to that. I would challenge the minister to show me anywhere in any record where I've made any comment that we can't build the ships here. I have made comments about the costs of the ships and the length of time it's taken to build them and raising the costs. But it's certainly unfair comment by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and I know that you have no responsibility for that.
I'm wondering. The Ferry Corporation bought 14 engines for the fast ferries. Twelve were installed in the three Pacificats, and there are two others. When one of the Pacificats broke down -- its engine blew out -- I don't think it was replaced with one of those spare engines. Have they been cannibalized for parts? Or are those spare engines
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
D. Symons: Then I might ask: when the one engine had sufficient trouble that it had to be removed, was one of those spare engines put in place? Or were you waiting for the removed engine to be repaired at the factory and come back again?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
D. Symons: I'm sorry, minister, I asked an either-or question, and a "yes" answers both parts of it. So I'll have to know
Hon. J. MacPhail: The spare was used.
Hon. Chair, also, I'm more than happy to have the member be provided, as he does call the corporation on a regular basis for these technical operational questions
D. Symons: Earlier this year B.C. Ferries -- the fast ferry program
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. We'll have to take that question on notice. Again, as I say, the day-to-day operations and maintenance routine of the Pacificats is completely
[1150]
D. Symons: I'm just asking for a report here. I have, I think, an e-mail communication back and forth between people. Unfortunately for the Chair, this is a while back.
Mr. Patrick F. Freeman wrote this. He mentions at the end: "Lastly, you mentioned that John Wells's assessment of the fast ferry program was provided to Tom Ward last month. Can it be shared yet?" Since this is two years ago, I'm assuming that that letter would be a public document now. So if I can have a copy of the letter referred to -- and again, I'll share this, so you'll know the letter I'm referring to -- I'd appreciate that.
We were told that the fast cats would carry 250 auto equivalents and 1,000 passengers, that they could handle up to four buses and that the service speed would be 37 knots. We now know that all of that is not correct. I'm wondering if you might tell me what the actuals are.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Full auto equivalency is about 235. It's 1,000 passengers and 34 knots.
D. Symons: Just a heads-up for the minister. If you might check your web site, I think they still have the other figures on it. At least, they did up to a week ago.
Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada