1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 14

[ Page 1049 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

K. Jones: Visiting us today are two very special women who are members of the national and provincial executives of the Council of Women. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mrs. Bette Pepper, a resident of Cloverdale, vice-president of the National Council of Women and past president of the Provincial Council of Women. She is accompanied by Mrs. Mary Ozolins, who is a resident of Surrey, president of the White Rock and District Council of Women and vice-president of the Provincial Council of Women. Please give these distinguished women a warm welcome.

V. Anderson: I would like the House to welcome with me three classes that are here today from Churchill Secondary School with their teachers, Wendy Shaw, Terry Howe, Ms. Bailey and Dick Williams. Please welcome them.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I have two introductions today. One is mayor for a day, a young woman from Lake Cowichan. Her name is Miriam Davidson. She's a very talented young woman who is going on next year -- she is a grade 12 student -- to do a bachelor's degree in music. I'm sure we will all hear much more of her. She's the acting mayor of Lake Cowichan for today and is accompanied by Earle Darling, the mayor of Lake Cowichan for the other 364 days of the year. I'd like the House to make them welcome first, please.

I have another introduction I'm pleased to make. This one is closer to home, if you like. In the gallery with us today are Brian Appleby and Audrey Appleby from Mission. Brian is the regional director of the Fraser Valley Regional District and also a relative of mine. Bringing them down today is my mother, Diana Pullinger. Will the House please make them welcome.

D. Schreck: With us in the gallery today from North Vancouver are Douglas and Edna Baldry. Also from North Vancouver-Lonsdale and in the gallery today are Craig Keating and Daryl Masato. Mr. Keating and Mr. Masato are largely responsible for my being here today. I still speak to them, nevertheless.

With apologies to Hansard and to our Italian guests: Benvenuti alla sede del parlamento della British Columbia qui a Victoria. Siamo lieti di avervi �spiti oggi con noi. That, of course, means: would the House give them a very warm British Columbia welcome.

G. Brewin: I have the honour to present to the Legislature three women named Beth Loring, Doreen Burgess and Judith Kereszti. They are volunteers in the community office which I share with the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your sense of democracy today in the order of the introductions. I too, along with the member for Vancouver-Langara, would like to extend a very warm welcome to the students and teachers visiting from Sir Winston Churchill high school -- the Winston Churchill bulldogs. It's the old high school that I used to attend. They had very high academic standards. People wondered how I made it out of the high school. It's where I used to play basketball. That's when I had a jump shot; it's now a set shot. I would like to welcome you, and I hope you enjoy the proceedings of the Legislature.

Hon. E. Cull: As you know, hon. Speaker, this is Volunteer Recognition Week, and I would like to introduce three volunteers from my office who provide many, many hours of service to the people in Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I'd like the House to make welcome Milo Ringham-Gold, Barbara Gravenor and Jennifer Fisher.

Hon. J. Cashore: Visiting today are the executive members of the B.C. Environmental Network: Anne-Marie Sleeman, Gayle McGee, Douglas Gook and Lloyd Manchester. Would the House please join in making them welcome.

J. Pullinger: I have one further introduction to make, this time in my capacity as government caucus chair. With us for the next four days -- today and three other days -- are the constituency assistants from all of the government constituency offices. They are here for their annual meeting, which they have every year to inform themselves better of the issues and to share information. I think all of us in this Legislature know how very important those people are in our successful functioning as MLAs and in our constituencies to provide our constituents with what they need.

I would like to ask the House to help me make all of those people, and some of our federal assistants who are with them, very welcome indeed.

Hon. P. Priddy: I know that one of the members of the official opposition has welcomed some members of the Provincial Council of Women. There are a number of women here, and the Provincial Council of Women has, for a very long time in this province, been a strong advocate for initiatives that enhance the quality of life for women in this province in education, housing, child care and health care. I would ask the House to welcome the entire group.

[ Page 1050 ]

Oral Questions

STEWART-FIRESTONE CASE

A. Warnke: My question today is for the Attorney General. In the House yesterday and once previously, the Premier told us that he could not recall receiving a letter that he might be subpoenaed in December 1991 to testify in the Stewart-Firestone case.

With respect to the out-of-court settlement in this case and the apparent rush to complete it, would the Attorney General confirm that prior to the settlement the Attorney General himself received a letter dated November 27, 1991, notifying him that he might be subpoenaed as a witness at that trial in December? And what was his advice to the Premier and members of the executive council?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That letter is news to me too. But I'll do the same thing: I'll check the records to see if such a letter exists.

A. Warnke: At any time in his capacity as Attorney General, did he advise the Minister of Labour and the Premier that they could be subpoenaed to testify in the Firestone case, and did he render legal advice to them as the chief law enforcement officer in this province?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, the answers are no and no.

J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Attorney General. Yesterday the Attorney General stated that there was a confidentiality clause in the Firestone settlement that was agreed to by his ministry's officials. Will he confirm that the confidentiality clause exists in written form?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that as part of the settlement that was reached between the parties, a standard confidentiality clause was included in the settlement.

J. Weisgerber: Yesterday the Attorney General stated it was not the case that the Minister of Labour initiated the Firestone settlement. This implies that he knows who did initiate the settlement. Will the Attorney General tell us who initiated the settlement in the Firestone case?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I knew the answer to that question I would give it. I don't know the answer.

Deputy Speaker: The leader of the third party on a final supplementary.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps a question that the Attorney General can answer. The Attorney General has stated that the Crown contributed $12,500 in settlement costs on behalf of Bill Stewart. Will he confirm that the taxpayers were not the only party left holding the bag for the settlement costs? Will he tell us what proportion of the total settlement costs were paid by the taxpayer? The people of British Columbia have a right to this information.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only information I have in respect of the settlement and the costs is that the taxpayers, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, contributed $12,500. I don't know if there was any other money. I assume there was, but I don't know that. I don't know what the total amount was, and I don't know what the proportions are.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL COSTS

W. Hurd: A question again for the Attorney General. Our questioning yesterday confirmed that the personal damage award assessed against the Minister of Labour was not paid out of the $36,000 in caucus global funds. In fact, the funds were paid by persons or parties unknown after the minister was sworn into office. At any time, did the Attorney General ask the Minister of Labour to confirm to him the source of any outside funds to defray the costs of his personal damage awards, or did the Minister of Labour confide to the Attorney General the source of any outside funding?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure what the question really is asking me to do.

An Hon. Member: Tell the truth.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The suggestion is that I should tell the truth. From the first day I was asked this question by a reporter in December, I have told everything I know about the subject, and I have continued to do that. The question now is about settlement costs about which I have no knowledge. I do know -- as do the public and, I assume, most members of the opposition -- that there was a confidentially clause in this civil suit, which was resolved out of court. There is some amount of damages. I don't know what those settlements were. It's not my business. It was a civil matter.

It was decided by the parties in a way that's traditional in our system and our society. I have no other knowledge to convey to members of this House. If I had, I would be delighted to give it to you.

W. Hurd: Again to the Attorney General. Would the source of any funds to defray the cost of the personal damage award assessed against the Minister of Labour be required by law to be included in the member's conflict-of-interest statement?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There was no award.

W. Hurd: Is the Attorney General satisfied that the Minister of Labour has fairly and openly reported all sources of funding that he might have received to defray the costs of his personal damage award in connection with the Stewart-Firestone case, funds that have the potential to place the minister in a conflict-of-interest situation?

[ Page 1051 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like to take a half a moment to expand on the answer to that question. It's important for members of the House to know that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew was acting on behalf of the opposition caucus at the time of those troubles -- acting on instructions, as it were, as part of a caucus initiative. The caucus agreed that if there were any costs associated with that particular initiative, the caucus as a group would be responsible for them. The caucus lived up to its commitment to that member.

None of the activities surrounding that particular case and its settlement had anything whatsoever to do with this government or any of its ministers in any of our ministerial capacities.

C. Serwa: My question is to the hon. Premier, and it is regarding the Stewart-Firestone case as well. Yesterday, in response to the question from the leader of the third party, you stated the following: "...and that the member from Esquimalt was reimbursed through the caucus global budget of the NDP caucus at that time." I have a letter in my hands sent to Mrs. Eileen C. Williams by your Minister of Labour dated April 21, 1992. The minister states: "My fees were paid for by the caucus budget. That amounted to an expenditure of approximately $37,000." Will the hon. Premier advise this House if all or only a portion of those fees went directly to that member's pocket?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Social Credit Party would be continuing to bring up this Bud Smith matter. I'm not surprised that they'd be trying to handle the matter the way they are. As the hon. member knows, this matter has been checked out by the auditor general, by the Deputy Attorney General and by the conflict commissioner.

All three of those very distinguished, impartial people have said that all of the events surrounding the $37,000 paid toward the provision of legal services for the previous member from Esquimalt were done legally, properly and with full payment for services rendered by lawyers, with not a penny going into the member's pocket -- as the member infers, which I think was quite unfortunate. There was not a penny.

Mr. Speaker, rather than take up the time of the Legislature in question period, I would be quite prepared to table the letters from the auditor general, the Deputy Attorney General and the conflict commissioner saying that this is so.

C. Serwa: I'll quote from the letter from the Ministry of Attorney General, from the deputy minister. The letter was in fact indicated as confidential, but now I'm pleased to quote from it. In the second paragraph it clearly states this: "It is not suggested Mr. Sihota" -- excuse me, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- "accepted money directly. However, it is acknowledged certain legal bills were paid from the opposition caucus budgets for fiscal years 1990-91 and 1991-92." But I have here the letter from the minister indicating: "My fees...."

Deputy Speaker: With the greatest of respect to the member, do you have a question?

Hon. member, I've tried to allow some latitude in light of the seriousness of the matter. However, question period is for the asking of questions to get information, and the answers should provide information. If you wish to table documents, that is acceptable, but extensive quoting from documents at this time is not appropriate.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. The purpose of that was only to advise the House at the moment what was contained in that letter. I again quote from the letter sent by the hon. Minister of Labour: "My fees were paid for by the caucus budget." Hon. Premier, how much of that money was spent -- or was all of it -- and directed to the hon. Minister of Labour? That is the question.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will not refer to some of the statements that I made yesterday, but again, I have given an answer. We have answered all of these questions about the expenditure of taxpayers' money in a forthright way. The people of this province are quite clear that $92,500 was the amount of taxpayers' money paid by Mr. Stewart as the assistant deputy minister for his legal fees and for the settlement of this private matter.

We have made it very clear that the amount of funds from the previous NDP opposition budget was $37,000, that every penny of that went to pay for legal fees for a lawyer who was representing the Attorney General critic, the member from Esquimalt. It went to his lawyer; not a penny went to the member. I said that in the last answer, Mr. Speaker. The member for Okanagan West heard that answer, and I can only assume that he either is refusing to accept that answer, which I think is unfortunate, or he is continuing to press this matter for some reason other than obtaining information.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

On a point of order, the government House Leader.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know, of course, on this side of the House we're delighted to answer questions during question period. We're delighted to give the same answers every day. If the members opposite want to ask questions which are of no relevance to the public debate, that's fine with them. However, it seems to me -- having reviewed the Blues for the last week -- that questions by the member, particularly the member for Okanagan West, and others, that pertain to moneys paid out by caucus global budgets in a previous parliament are clearly out of order. I don't know how often we have to canvass these questions.

In order to have full debate, in order to assure members of the House that this side is quite open and has nothing to hide, we're delighted to answer questions in spite of the fact they are out of order. Clearly there comes a point when these questions have to be

[ Page 1052 ]

taken very seriously, and they're completely out of order.

[2:30]

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment. The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order at the time we are in a point of order, which does complicate matters. Would you care to raise your point of order on the one that we're now...?

D. Mitchell: The reason I was rising on a point of order is that the government House Leader is clearly out of order in being on his feet right now. He's been away for a week. He may not be aware of a ruling that was brought down by this Chair last Friday. That ruling was very clear, and I think members of the House have all paid very close attention to the ruling about question period in general, and question period on this specific matter.

If the government House Leader would wish to review Hansard for the ruling that was brought down by the Speaker last Friday, I think he will note that in that ruling there is a reference to page 132 of Beauchesne's fifth edition: "A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of a specific minister to whom it is addressed, is in order." As long as a question is addressed to a minister within those guidelines, I think the question is clearly in order. I'd just ask the government House Leader to review the Speaker's ruling.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the point of order, the government House Leader should clearly understand that simply because questions make the government uncomfortable, that in itself doesn't make a question out of order. A question out of order would seem to me be one that contradicted the Speaker's ruling of last Friday. We on this side of the House have looked carefully at the instructions given by the Speaker, and we have followed those instructions carefully.

We have been sure that the questions pertain to actions by the government during the time after November 5, and questions that directed themselves to the use of taxpayers' money in that period of time. With that in mind, those questions clearly are in order.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the matter of order on this issue has been quite onerous on the Chair, to say the least. However, all the points are well taken, and the Chair will review the comments made by all the members. Hopefully we can resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the House.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like leave of the House to table the three letters I referred to during question period from the auditor general, the Deputy Attorney General and the commissioner for conflicts.

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

FARMWORKER SAFETY

Hon. M. Sihota: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today has been proclaimed a day of mourning for workers killed or seriously injured on the job. Last year 183 British Columbia workers lost their lives. These workers are mourned by their families, friends, co-workers and employers. We mourn them because we all know that workplace accidents can be prevented, yet every year more lives are lost and more workers are injured on the job.

This government -- and I'm sure every member in this House will agree with me -- says that this kind of situation is completely unacceptable. It isn't good enough to say fewer people died on the job this year than last year. It is the responsibility of each of us to help prevent accidents on the job. Each working person, each employer and the Workers' Compensation Board in British Columbia play a role in building a safer and healthier workplace. As an individual, I'm distressed by these statistics, but as Minister of Labour and a part of this administration, I'm determined to do something about it.

In particular, I am most concerned when I consider the plight of British Columbia farmworkers. Here we have an industry with a fluctuating workforce averaging around 24,000 workers, and we don't give them the benefit of the same protection given to other workers in British Columbia. Unbelievably, farmworkers are still not covered by health and safety regulations, a situation which we intend to rectify immediately.

Farmworkers are being injured, maimed or killed when they work on machinery that doesn't have proper guards, when they are not wearing the right protective clothing or when they just don't know the proper safety procedures. Farmworkers are being poisoned by improper handling of chemicals because of ignorance or carelessness. Farmworkers are putting themselves at risk every day, because they don't know the proper health and safety procedures.

I think of an individual on southern Vancouver Island who recently passed away when a tank he was welding exploded. I think of a Fraser Valley worker whose arm was nearly torn off when she was caught in a machine. Another Fraser Valley farmer, looking for a drink of water, used an old coffee cup that had previously been filled with pesticide. Just last year on a Chilliwack farm, a worker was killed when his clothing was caught in the mechanism of a sugar beet machine. All of these accidents were preventable. As I say, these incidents are completely intolerable to this administration, and we are acting today to rectify the situation.

Many times in this House, members have called for farmworkers to be afforded the same protection as other workers. As far back as 1952, the Sloan royal commission on workers' compensation recommended that the Workmen's Compensation Act be amended to cover agricultural workers. Today I want to send a message to all farm and agricultural workers, regular and seasonal employees: protection under the Workers Compensation Act will be extended to you soon.

[ Page 1053 ]

It is the first priority of the governors of the Workers' Compensation Board and this government to include farmworkers in health and safety regulations and to ensure that there is protection for farmworkers who deal with moving machinery, just as there is for all workers, and to ensure that chemicals are properly labelled and handled. In fact, we are reviewing all of our occupational health and safety regulations at the Workers' Compensation Board to make sure that they provide the protection all workers need in today's workplace.

I have been in correspondence with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the Worker's Compensation Board and the Canadian Farmworkers' Union. All of them have now agreed to participate in a forum that's necessary to bring together the regulations that are so long overdue in this area of activity. Public forums, which we started in April, are taking place right now in 11 communities in this province. This government and the Workers' Compensation Board are committed to soliciting the greatest possible participation from employers, workers and the public.

In 1991, 20 workers died in the logging industry; 388 were permanently disabled. It is no consolation to say that numbers were higher in previous years: 29 people lost their lives and 467 were permanently disabled in 1990. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should lose their life on the job or be seriously injured. This government, in partnership with the logging industry, is committed to dealing with this very serious issue.

During the last year a series of logging industry safety forums initiated by the previous administration have taken place in British Columbia to elicit suggestions from people as to how we can prevent accidents on the job in the forest industry. Their ideas are being drafted into a final report. Subsequently, a plan of action will be developed by the various stakeholders.

I am pleased to say that the Workers' Compensation Board is doing more than ever to crack down on unsafe worksites and unhealthy work environments. We're doing more safety inspections than before, we're issuing more compliance orders, and penalties against employers who fail to meet their compliance obligations have gone up. But the best way to save lives and prevent injury in the workplace is to give workers the skills, knowledge and direction to prevent accidents from happening. Prevention starts with education and getting the message out to employers and workers.

In that way, again, the Workers' Compensation Board is taking a number of steps to publish workplace safety materials, including manuals, videos, posters and other educational devices.

In conclusion, it is the right of every worker to expect a safe and healthy workplace regardless of the industry or employer. Workplace fatalities cause needless grief to families and loved ones. Every life lost is a tragic loss to British Columbia. Workplace accidents can be prevented and they must be prevented. It is my wish, and I'm sure the wish of every member of this House, that next year on this day of mourning we can tell the people of this province that our farms, forests, mines and mills -- wherever British Columbians work -- are safer and healthier places in which to work.

G. Farrell-Collins: As a member of the opposition and the opposition critic for Labour and Consumer Services, I too am pleased to participate in the statement made by the Minister of Labour on a day that is very serious and emotional for many people in the province, in recognition of their family members who have perished in the workplace. We also feel that some important changes have to be made in British Columbia to ensure that when all workers go to work, whether they be farmworkers or forestry workers, the workplace is safe and they aren't taking their lives in their hands just by going to work.

However, I do have some concerns with the process by which the minister intends to achieve this goal, a goal that we all feel is important. I believe that the simple extension of the Workers' Compensation Board to another sector of the economy is not going to accomplish anything; it's merely going to enlarge the bureaucracy and burden the industry -- in this case the farm industry -- with an added set of regulations.

Given the number of complaints and concerns that I have in my constituency office about the workers' compensation process, I'm not sure that that in itself is necessarily the best way to go about it. I would suggest that by just adding regulations, by incorporating another sector of the economy under workers' compensation -- a process that has become an extremely large bureaucracy -- we're perhaps not using the best way and the most efficient means to achieve the results we all want to seek.

The prohibitive costs of the Workers' Compensation Board alone, it seems, go to bureaucracy, and day by day less and less goes to compensating the worker who has been injured or to help workers readjust to new jobs, etc. I think that is a trend we should try and reverse.

In the agricultural industry specifically, the workers and farmers together should be the people who are consulted to develop an efficient process to ensure that the dollars that are spent on improving the safety in that industry are devoted to education and compensation. Education and compensation are the key to workplace safety issues. I would like to see -- and I think all members of the House would like to see -- less of a tendency on the part of government to go towards regulations which would just sit on paper and would have to be enforced by some bureaucracy.

We'd rather see the majority of the funds go to education so that workers have the skills -- as the minister mentioned but didn't stress -- and the security on the job site and the knowledge that they are not going to be injured on the job. I think that is the stress and the tack that the government should be taking as opposed to just simply relying on education.

In closing, I think the minister should attempt, through the Workers' Compensation Board and through his ministry, to stress the education, stress the compensation factor, and ensure that the players, the people, are involved. They are the ones who are going to be drafting the guidelines -- not necessarily the regulations, but the guidelines and the programs -- to ensure that we all have a safe workplace.

[ Page 1054 ]

L. Hanson: It is my responsibility to express on behalf of my members how we'd like to join the Minister of Labour in recognizing this day of mourning for people who have been injured and killed in the workplace. I would like to make one statement about the minister's statement. There is a suggestion in it that the farm community is not covered by compensation. They are, in fact, covered by compensation. What the minister is referring to is that the farm community wishes to, very energetically and vigorously, enforce their own safety regulations within their organization.

I believe the minister is suggesting that that enforcement should be passed over to the Workers' Compensation Board. In fact, the people who work in the farming community are covered. They do pay an assessment and are covered by workers' compensation if they are injured in the workplace.

[2:45]

Over the years that the WCB has been an entity in our province -- and in Canada and, I guess, in most of the world -- they have made tremendous strides towards the safety of workers in the workplace. There's no question of that. But as long as anyone is injured or killed in the workplace, there is still work to be done. We support the continuance of that work. We support that in any accidents of any kind, or whenever anyone is killed in our society. We should have more recognition of safety and more education so that all people who get in that difficult situation -- and their families -- are not punished by death and the loss that goes with that.

So we in the third party support the recognition of this day of mourning for those killed in the workplace. We have some reservations about the actual applications of the regulations to the farm community. To make absolutely certain everyone understands that, the farm community is covered now by workers' compensation.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 60: minister's office, $392,000 (continued).

D. Symons: I'm just continuing with the questions on B.C. Rail, if we can. I am wondering whether the amount the Highways ministry is subsidizing B.C. Rail has been increasing, decreasing, or fairly static over the last decade, and what the future projections are for those particular aspects of B.C. Rail that are being subsidized? Are they likely to become self-sufficient, or are they going to remain as a subsidized entity?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can give you a bit of a breakdown on the changes in the current fiscal year. The passenger service subsidy has been reduced by about $900,000, and Treasury Board has urged a marketing plan to see that that would decrease further in the future.

The Royal Hudson has temporarily gone up about $145,000. I believe much of the expense had to do with some capital work in the yard and the refurbishment of the additional engine. We are also giving general direction that that subsidy should be reduced in the future.

On the Fort Nelson extension, the operating costs are up about $2.5 million this year; capital, about the same. If you add up all of the figures, the total subsidy has increased from $11.5 million last year to about $13.2 million this fiscal year.

D. Symons: On the Fort Nelson part of the subsidy, is the increase partly because of the slowdown in the economy, and therefore the earnings for that particular part of the railway are less?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The revenues on the line have been generally static, and the subsidy has been up and down a little from year to year. Essentially, both revenues and subsidies have been static.

K. Jones: Hon. minister, I'd like to ask you, in reference to the proposed or contemplated Amtrak rail service between Seattle and Vancouver, whether you have been involved in discussions with regard to restoration of that passenger service.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, neither I nor the ministry have been consulted on this most recent concern, which is the idea of re-establishing the Amtrak service. I think much of the impetus of that is related to the upcoming American elections. However, from time to time in the past we've been in consultation with Oregon and Washington regarding the establishment of a high-speed train that might at some time in the future come up all the way from Portland to Vancouver.

K. Jones: In that discussion about a high-speed train, have you discussed possible routes that would be rerouting the present facility? Obviously that present facility would not be possible as a route for any high-speed train -- certainly not through White Rock, Crescent Beach and the area of population where I and the adjoining members have representation.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Anything up to the present time has been strictly pre-feasibility -- economic feasibility. It has not at all gotten down to the point of route selection or design, and probably we're some distance from that.

K. Jones: In future discussions can we believe that you will also be considering such things as local commuter rail usage of the existing trackage? Have you had any discussions with Burlington Northern with regard to providing, or having B.C. Rail provide, an existing urban or suburban service from the White Rock area through the Vancouver and New Westminster areas?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Within the Transport 2021 study going on in the Greater Vancouver Regional

[ Page 1055 ]

District, the possibility of commuter rail is recognized. They've been asked to compile an inventory of possible rights-of-way that might at some point be useful in a commuter rail system. The possibilities that come to mind immediately are a commuter train on CP Rail coming in on the north side of the Fraser and of another commuter service on Southern Rail on the south side of the Fraser; but the possibility of something coming up from the White Rock area on Burlington Northern trackage could also be considered. At such time as any of these things come a step or two closer to reality, there would certainly be an ongoing public consultation procedure.

K. Jones: Does the minister or his staff have any plans to bring under the envelope of B.C. Rail Southern Rail, which was previously government-owned and is now privately owned.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: For the past several months B.C. Rail has been undertaking a study to determine whether or not we should show interest in purchasing Southern Rail. I'm anticipating the results of that study to me in the not too distant future.

K. Jones: Through the centre of my riding -- Cloverdale -- we have the B.C. Rail line coming right down beside Highway 10. We have a major intersection there -- a major highway, the Pacific Highway, 176th Street. There seems to be a lack of response by Southern Rail to the concerns of the businesses immediately adjoining trackage there. With their speed of travel through that area, they're really shaking the buildings drastically. People are concerned about the structural problems they may be having in their buildings as a result of the speed.

They've asked them to reduce their speed, and it still doesn't seem to be resolved. Have you had any communications, or have you had other people expressing a concern about the speed of Southern Rail throughout its trackage?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have not had any other complaints related to Southern Rail. As the member opposite would know, it's a private railway, of course, owned by Itel Corp. out of San Francisco. However, their operations are subject to regulation under Municipal Affairs, I believe. If you or your constituents have specific complaints, if they were to be passed on to me, I would pass them on to the appropriate regulatory agency.

K. Jones: I appreciate your kind offer, hon. minister. We'll bring that forward to you soon, with details.

There's a further area of concern, and that is that there appears to be a problem with the intersection of Highway 10 and the Pacific Highway, where trucks containing loads such as gasoline come to a stop and then proceed across because there is a train stopped just up the tracks doing something. I don't know what they're doing there. Maybe they're going off for coffee or something. In the meantime, the trucks are waiting for the light for Highway 10 to change, and they're proceeding into that area.

There's a great concern that this train may proceed right into the side of a tanker truck or some other vehicle because of the design there. Has your ministry, either the Highways or Transportation section, taken a look at this problem?

[3:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: All the way along that

section there are numerous conflict zones, and the only real solution is a combination of road closures and grade separations. As you would know, grade separations with railways are extremely expensive. So we know what the problems are -- there's been extensive study and analysis of those problems -- but we don't have a solution.

K. Jones: I might remind you that there is an overpass of the CPR main-line coal-train service about 2,000 feet or less immediately south of this location, where the Pacific Highway actually rises up and over those tracks. Is it not feasible to consider moving this B.C. Rail, which is now Southern Rail, into that area and eliminating this dangerous situation, and also, in doing so, to consider moving it further away from our business community so that it's not so impacted?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The railway that you're making reference to -- you've indicated B.C. Rail a couple of times -- used to be part of the old B.C. Electric Railway. It has nothing to do with B.C. Rail directly. It's now owned by Itel of San Francisco, and if there's a case of relocating trackage -- at, no doubt, some considerable expense -- this issue would have to be broached with Itel. It's my understanding that the company is already under considerable financial stress, and that is why they're looking to sell Southern Rail -- which is what it has now become.

It would surprise me if they have the money to do it, but you could certainly approach Itel or the successor company -- whatever that turns out to be. At the present time, given the financial straitjacket that we're in, we don't have the money to construct grade separations for our highways.

K. Jones: Minister, just to diverge slightly in that regard, Itel is a U.S.-owned company. Are you telling us that they own the trackage right-of-way as well as the operating rights on those rails?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No. The province has the ownership of the right-of-way. The railway running on the right-of-way is owned by Itel.

K. Jones: Just to clarify further, does that mean that the rails and ties are owned by the province or by Itel?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: They are owned by Itel.

K. Jones: Itel is in financial difficulty and is proposing to sell their operations. Is your government going to allow them to sell to another foreign-owned company?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think possibly it's premature to say what might or might not be allowed. I

[ Page 1056 ]

think we would have to look at the benefits to the taxpayers, citizens and industry of British Columbia. To my knowledge, the only groups contemplating purchase at this time -- although there may be others -- are CN, CP, B.C. Rail and an employee group.

K. Jones: Did you say that only these B.C. companies were contemplating purchasing Southern? I hope that, philosophically, you will stand by the direction of the NDP, as it has been in the past, not to allow the basic infrastructure of our province to go to outside interests. Would that be paraphrasing the philosophy of this government fairly well?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member opposite would like to stand in the House, or write -- drop me a note, send me a line, telegram, anything else -- urging that this government retain the ownership of critical infrastructure within British Columbia or Canada, I'd be willing and quite happy to accept that letter.

K. Jones: I was really asking you whether it was the philosophy of this government to do that. Could you clarify what the philosophy of the government is with regard to ownership?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is our philosophy that we maintain ownership, but there may be instances around the province with short-haul rail lines where one of our majors might, for example, want to get out, and the choice is either abandonment or having a short-haul line come in to take over. If we have to make a choice between abandonment or allowing a short-haul line to be owned by a non-Canadian firm, we will have to make that determination at that time based on the merits of the particular case.

K. Jones: Do you consider Southern Rail a short-haul operation?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Most of their operation is short-haul. Most of their operation is moving cars from one of the Annacis terminals onto either CN or CP, but their line running out the valley is in a slightly different category. All of us in this province have an interest in being mindful of the value of that right-of-way for purposes of establishing commuter rail coming out along the south of the Fraser. I would not see the loss of that right-of-way lightly.

K. Jones: I'd like to change the direction to another area of concern of my constituents, and that's the question of the dangerous cargo that is being transported on the Burlington Northern railway. What action is your ministry taking to protect the people of White Rock and Surrey, whose houses and lives would be directly impacted by any spillage or accident which could occur on this right-of-way at any time? Those trains are going throughout the night, as well as during the day, and during the peak tourist season, with thousands of children playing on the beach at White Rock. What action are you taking?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The transportation of dangerous goods falls under the control of the Ministry of Attorney General, so I would respectfully submit that you hold onto that question and put it to the Attorney General in his estimates.

K. Jones: The minister is fully aware that the Attorney General's estimates have already been completed, and he is trying to pass the buck to an area where the questioning isn't possible. Surely the minister is going to have to address the fact that the right-of-way on which those trains travel and also the rolling stock that is transported on that is within his jurisdiction and responsibility. I would ask you to answer the question, please.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I hesitate to, but I will have to point out to the minister opposite that he's wrong on two counts. First, it's federal regulations, not provincial, that govern Burlington Northern; and second, it is the responsibility of the Attorney General. If you have questions relating to Agriculture, Aboriginal Affairs or Education that you happened to miss when the appropriate minister was standing to take those questions, you can't wait until I'm standing and then put them to me.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I appreciate the fact that he addresses me as hon. minister. I will hold that for three or four years, and then I'll be willing to accept that.

Hon. minister, you still have a responsibility to protect the people within the routes for which you have the responsibility by being the Minister of Transportation. I want you to tell us what you are doing to look at this problem that falls under your jurisdiction by being responsible for transportation. Please give us an answer, not pass it off.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: All members of this House have responsibilities to each other and to the citizens as a whole. In the highway system, if you want to talk about drinking and driving, the transport of hazardous materials and anything like that, the Minister of Highways is not the responsible party, even though these offences might occur on the highways.

Those issues, including the issue you're mentioning, are not within my realm of responsibility. The purpose of these estimates is for the members opposite to ask me questions about matters within my realm of responsibility. The question that you have asked, as has been pointed out to me, goes beyond even that. It actually falls under federal regulations for the transport of dangerous goods on that particular rail line. You will simply have to put your question elsewhere.

K. Jones: I'd like to thank the hon. minister for his forthright answer, and I appreciate the opportunity to deal with these. We will bring up those questions further in some other venue.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, earlier in a little spat with the other party before lunch, you mentioned the expression "holus-bolus" twice. I think you have the

[ Page 1057 ]

wrong expression; this is merely for your own edification. I think you are really looking for "hocus-pocus."

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the third party, I agree.

C. Tanner: My question concerns another area of federal jurisdiction unfortunately, but I would like your opinion. It obviously refers to the railway that we have on this island, the E&N. What ambition does the minister or his ministry have toward the E&N?

Hon. A Charbonneau: As the member opposite pointed out, it is a federal responsibility. But having said that, I also want to point out that there are certain elements of E&N that are of great interest to us, and, I'm sure, to members opposite: the general transportation of passengers, in addition to freight, on the line; the possibility of the E&N route at some time in the future being available for commuter rail; and the further possibility of utilizing part of the right-of-way on the E&N for a busway.

We have a whole range of reasons why we have interest in that line, and we will, when the appropriate time comes, deal with the owner and with the federal government to make sure that we protect the long-term interests of the citizens of British Columbia.

C. Tanner: Of course, this opens up a whole can of worms and begs for many other questions. I suspect that I'm going to get much the same answer, but I'll give you a chance to give a different answer than for the previous question.

During this morning's discussion the minister talked about subsidies to the Lillooet and Prince George area for the passenger service. He talked about subsidies on the Royal Hudson, and he talked about subsidies on the Fort Nelson line. He stated that you were attempting to reduce those subsidies somewhat, although I think they've gone up a million or so this year, but that the long-term objective is to reduce them.

If, in the minister's view, it necessitated a subsidy to take over those lines now, and that's all it necessitated, and appreciating the fact that the rolling stock and the roadbed are owned by two different entities -- one being Via Rail and one CP -- would the minister be prepared to give some commitment to this House now on a timetable or on what he particularly seeks?

[3:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I would not be willing to give a commitment on a timetable. I'll just reiterate that we have an interest on behalf of the people of British Columbia. We are also, as you would be aware, conducting a transportation study in the Capital Regional District which is one-half funded by the provincial government, and the possibility of transit and/or commuter rail could raise its head in those areas as well. So for a variety of reasons we want to make sure that that right-of-way and the Galloping Goose right-of-way are preserved, that the options are preserved.

C. Tanner: Would the minister visualize a transference at a nominal amount of dollars from the federal government to the provincial government, or would he be looking at something else as an actual payment?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The responsibility for passenger transportation on that line, and any subsidies that must flow with that responsibility, are purely a federal matter. So if they would be so kind as to transfer it over to us, I would anticipate that they will transfer some subsidies at the same time.

C. Tanner: Earlier this morning when commuter traffic was discussed for another area -- and frankly, I've forgotten where it was, but I think it was on the lower mainland -- the minister referred the member asking the question to a different department. With your advice, Mr. Minister, should I be asking these questions of another department of government, or am I asking the right minister?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's a bit of a grey zone in commuter rail. Shorter commuter rail is typically called transit and would fall within the ambit of the Minister of Finance. I have taken the liberty of making some general comments about rail and about transit as well in other discussions. But the responsibility for transit, of course, is with the hon. Minister of Finance. The responsibility for railroads within British Columbia, other than the federally regulated railroads, lies with me.

C. Tanner: This is my last question. My interest is twofold. This is not only the fact that I live on the island and it is important to us, but it seems to me that there's an occasion here, with that rail bed and with a different rolling stock, to repeat what we've done with the Royal Hudson, or to repeat what we're doing to Whistler, or to repeat what we're doing in the tourism aspect. Does the minister foresee the cooperation between his ministry and the Tourism ministry enhancing those things for the province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Definitely. Furthermore, several months ago I got up at a terrible hour in the morning to tour some of the traffic woes of the western communities with the Hon. Moe Sihota and the Hon. Rick Kasper. As part of that, after we had a look at the Colwood crawl, we boarded the E&N morning train and went up to Duncan for breakfast, the idea being to have a better look at the right-of-way but also to see firsthand what the tourism potential was for that. We came back and I met at the Hon.

Sihota's offices with the historical railway society and listened to a presentation of theirs about establishing some kind of a tourist service -- in particular, a supper train, a dining experience -- with them. I'm quite interested in it. I think it is a very good idea, and I would do whatever I could to further that.

P. Dueck: I have a couple questions or concerns relating to my community and the community just east of ours, which is the Abbotsford community. Mine is

[ Page 1058 ]

Matsqui. I think senior people are aware of the problem, but I think I should bring it up at this time. There is a highway from the Sumas border crossing to Highway 401. This issue has been going around for years. The highway is completely inadequate. They are now reconstructing the offices and buildings at the Sumas crossing, but when the tourists come further and get into British Columbia -- as a matter of fact, it's the gateway to Canada and British Columbia -- it is a very bad situation. It is practically considered a trail rather than a highway. I tried to influence the previous government, without much success. I thought perhaps my success would be much greater at this time.

Since you have so much money that you are giving away in the fair wage policy, just a small portion of that would cure our ills very easily. Quite seriously, it is a major problem. I think it is also a black mark for British Columbia and for the highway system in general when we have people coming from the United States -- thousands and thousands of cars that use our route every day -- into British Columbia. The entry to British Columbia is this particular Highway 241 which then enters Abbotsford and Matsqui municipality. That is one concern.

The other one is the Mount Lehman overpass. That's been in the works for many, many years, and I see people already nodding, you senior people. There have been drawings done; I think all the drawings are complete. It doesn't take that much money. Again, I want to stress that a very small portion of the unfair wage policy would correct this. I would really like to ask the minister whether he would look at it again; if there's anything that can be done for those two areas. They showed up as a priority in the transportation committee report, and I think they must be two of the major, very negative points in British Columbia -- never mind our particular municipalities.

The constituents in our municipalities are undoubtedly right in being very concerned and very disgusted with that situation. We don't seem to get any relief. The Mount Lehman road overpass is something promised in the past; studies have been done and I think even the blueprints have been created. As a matter of fact, there have been changes. At one time it was quite a minor overpass or interchange; now it's become quite major. Again I would like to implore the minister to look at it and show what this new government can do that the previous administration could not accomplish. Is that sort of leading into a reply that you could say "yes" to?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Not likely. Let's take your problem areas one at a time. First was the border crossing at Sumas. The costs to make the long-term improvement required, as I recall, were $4 million or $5 million. I wouldn't want to dispute with you too much, but I think that the vast majority of traffic on that road is cross-border shoppers. Frankly, the line-up problem that backs up along that portion of the road is due to people on their way down into Sumas for cross-border shopping. So I really wonder why we would want to go out of our way to improve facilities in order to encourage cross-border shopping.

Nonetheless, although we could not afford to do the $5 million worth of work there this year, we did offer an alternative to the municipality which would have resulted in a substantial improvement of the traffic flow to the border crossing. They turned that down some months ago, so we reverted to a low-cost couple of hundred thousand dollar solution to make some minor improvements to the existing traffic pattern. Now my understanding is that perhaps there is some further negotiation going on as to whether or not the municipality will accept our previous offer.

But it is not in the cards for the current year, and I would doubt that it's there for the next year, to expend the $5 million to make the major improvement that is necessary in the long run.

At the Mount Lehman crossing of the Trans-Canada, that would be an $8 million or $10 million interchange. Again, it's one of probably dozens and dozens needed around the province. There's no debate there. It's strictly a question of when it can be afforded. Given that we are trying to dig our way out of a budget deficit of $2.4 billion from the last fiscal year, projected to be $2.8 billion this year, we've had to make that tough choice of cutting back quite severely in highways construction.

Some of these projects you're referring to, and members opposite have referred to, simply have to be delayed for a year or two, or some of them more, before we can, within the perimeter of fiscal responsibility, proceed with them. None of them are cancelled. They are delayed, however.

P. Dueck: I think I should correct the minister when he said it's mostly cross-border shopping. This problem was there before we had any of that volume of cross-border shoppers that we see today. So it's a problem that's been going on for years, when people came this way rather than us going south of the border.

I think you mentioned something about a municipality turning down a lesser amount for some upgrading. I wasn't aware of that. This is not in my constituency, although it affects the total area of all of central Fraser Valley. I still think that moneys could be found for these projects.

I'm sorry that it's not your ministry, but I have to again refer to this fair wage policy. It is money that your government found that is really thrown out, and we figure it is $200 million that could be spent in bringing people to this province, rather than something that people aren't even asking for. So I take exception to the money spent in one area. The priority is all wrong.

[3:30]

The Mount Lehman interchange, of course, is more than just for that specific area. It's for the total community and also for traffic that comes back and forth from Vancouver or from the valley to do business in that particular area and that has to use that particular off-and on-ramp. It's a dangerous situation. Like I said, it's been going on for years and years, so it's not something that's been on the wish list for six months or a year. This has been on the agenda for a long time. It was identified as a priority. It was not only identified, but it was also more or less promised to be going ahead in the very near future. To see it being delayed not only

[ Page 1059 ]

this year but perhaps next year or the year after is unacceptable when this current government can find hundreds of millions of dollars in other areas, but don't recognize a much higher priority than what they're spending the money for.

So having said that, I can see that I'm not going to get any results this year. I thought perhaps I could either compliment the minister into making some kind of commitment, or shame him into it. I didn't know which was the better, but I can see that it's not going to be done now. But I would plead: please keep it on the hot burner, because we do need it for both communities and the total central Fraser Valley.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, I agree that the Mount Lehman interchange is needed. It's a case of when can it be afforded.

With respect to the border crossing, the funds were available to allow the lower-cost alternative -- an alternative that resulted in a substantial improvement of the traffic pattern through the Sumas border crossing. The municipality has decided that they did not want to do it that way. But I believe we're still in some discussion with them, and it may turn out that at the end we will still do that for them.

P. Dueck: Just one more question. Is that money still available if they should change their mind?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Unfortunately the offer was made to them in the latter part of March when we had some surplus funds from the previous fiscal year. We had a fairly narrow window of opportunity, and they turned it down. That has slipped the situation into the current fiscal year where things are much tighter. We are continuing to discuss the situation with the municipality. Given the tightness of the situation, it may not be possible to proceed with the intermediate solution, but we are discussing it with them.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if we might truck on back to the rails then. Just a few questions, and I hope we'll be able to tidy up the rail aspect of this debate.

I'm just curious if you could fill me in, because my memory doesn't serve me too well on this. A few years back there was some concern about the maintenance of the buildings in Squamish where railcars were refurbished and that sort of thing. What's the current state of that sort of maintenance with B.C. Rail, and are there any plans for changes to the current arrangements for that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The refurbishing facilities in Squamish are busy refurbishing the moving stock of the railway, and there are plans that go on into the next four or five years for continuing work at those shops.

D. Symons: Those shops then are still under the control or still part of B.C. Rail? I had the impression that the employees had bought it out when there was....

Another question I have regards the rail line, and I'm not sure if this is B.C. Rail or what it comes under. The rail line that goes along Arbutus and then eventually heads out to Steveston through Richmond.... Years ago, as you mentioned earlier, it was part of the old B.C. Electric line, and then it was taken over by B.C. Hydro. Who owns it now? I'm curious because that's a possible rapid transit route. I realize this isn't related to your ministry.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It was a new one for me. It's the Vancouver and Lulu Island line, and it is owned by CP.

D. Symons: I have a couple of questions here from members who are in the other committee, and they have passed notes along to me, so I hope I get the questions the way they would like them to be asked. One of the members wants to know about the B.C. Rail line between Hope and Vancouver -- you referred to it earlier -- which is now Southern. How often is it used, and what's the state of repair on it? Is it in fairly constant use? Number of trips per day...?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're referring again to what's now called the Southern Rail. It used to be B.C. Electric. The right-of-way is still ours. The track and the rolling stock is Southern Rail, again owned by the Itel Corporation of San Francisco. I would not want to comment on the condition of their track or roadbed.

D. Symons: Back to B.C. Rail, another question. A member whose interest is the mines wants to know what the tonnage might be for mineral products carried by B.C. Rail. I'm concerned about dollar value, tonnes and maybe percent of the cargo carried.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Virtually the sole mineral hauled is coal. It constitutes 42 percent in terms of revenues -- some six million tonnes hauled. If you'd like to know some of the commodities other than coal: lumber is 14 percent; pulp, 9 percent; miscellaneous forest products, about 6 percent; coal, 42 percent; wood chips, 18 percent; and all other commodities combined, about 11 percent. Those are the revenue tonnes by commodity.

D. Symons: Just a few last questions here. A concern has been expressed about property taxes on B.C. Rail property and whether the municipalities and areas receive taxes to help the municipality in relation to the property that the B.C. Rail has in various communities. Can you comment on that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As a general policy B.C. Rail does not pay property taxes, but in some locations we pay some grants in lieu of property taxes. The general reasoning is that it is the construction of the rail and the service provided by the rail that permit the development of industry in various towns and communities along the way, and that is a very substantial benefit to the towns. We have tried to minimize costs in order to maximize the efficiency and profitability of the

[ Page 1060 ]

railway. So it's not as though the towns and cities involved do not realize substantial benefits; they do, from the very presence and activity of B.C. Rail. But no, as a rule we are not paying property taxes.

D. Symons: I suppose the same might be said if you have a pulp mill or some other industry in your community; it brings benefits to the town in the way of jobs and income, but I'm not sure it's always fair to the communities involved.

I'd like to move on to the Squamish area again and the interrelationship between the possible Squamish port development and the railhead for B.C. Rail there. Can you comment on what the project's future would be of both the port development and B.C. Rail's integration with it?

A. Charbonneau: I mentioned earlier today the Squamish estuary study that's going on. As time passes and as time permits, our negotiations with a variety of bodies -- including the town and the native bands -- will move toward the development of a deep-sea port there. We're quite interested in making that investment, but the entire project has to be developed with the cooperation of local bodies, all of the potential players and stakeholders. A long and perhaps difficult public process lies ahead of us. Our goal would be to develop a deep-sea port capacity there.

D. Symons: My final question regarding rail deals with B.C. Rail telecommunications, and they have a joint venture going, I gather. If you could just give me a rundown of the progress of that, whether this is going to be a successful venture, and what your plans are in the future for it.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Our present application to the CRTC has not yet been ruled on. We've been in the telecommunications business for some time and would like to proceed with further business development in that area, but we are awaiting the CRTC's ruling.

D. Symons: That begs just one more question, I guess, in that same vein. Is the telecommunications aspect of B.C. Rail then a money-making aspect of it? Will this joint venture, if it does go through and the federal government rules on that, increase its capacity to be in good financial condition -- money-making?

[3:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, it is profitable. And yes, if the joint venture is approved, we will have further business development, and that will be profitable.

L. Fox: I want to follow up on a question that dealt with grants to municipalities in lieu of taxation. As I understand it, at least, all other provincial corporations pay a grant that's equal to a taxation based on what the assessed value would be. In other words, rather than paying direct in taxation, which of course would also mean that if you paid it in the form of taxation you would be required to pay school taxes.... So to get away from that portion of the taxation, they pay a grant equal to what the taxation would be based on the assessed value. Is that consistent with B.C. Rail?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I guess we have to keep in mind that the province alone, first of all, contributed all of the capital to the construction of this line -- all taxpayer dollars that went into the construction of the line all the way. It's not as though it was a private corporation making money and being taxed property taxes on their operation. I'd also point out that on all of the industrial land along our system, the lessees do pay taxes on their leases. I'm not certain whether I've answered all of your questions.

L. Fox: With respect to your last comment, are those taxes on the land as well as the taxes the lessees pay.... Are they paying it on the land as well as on the improvements, or just on the improvements?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: On both.

L. Fox: I just want to come back to my original question, then I'll have that clarified. I'm sure the minister would understand that the BCBC buildings are also paid and built with taxpayers dollars. However, they do pay a grant in lieu of taxation which is based on the assessment which would equal taxation if it were to be taxed by municipalities. I don't understand the logic of how B.C. Rail is different from BCBC or B.C. Hydro or other Crown corporations.

I know this has been an argument that has been put forward by municipalities up and down the line, because they are creating, at a substantial cost to themselves.... They're delivering service to your particular sites as well as to the employees of those sites.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's interesting to note again that the member of the third party is from the very same party that has turned down the municipalities on numerous occasions when they sought the right to impose property taxes on B.C. Rail. Am I correct in assuming that in the past you have also been raising this issue with your own party? However, I think the issue that is raised is a fair issue. Should B.C. Rail be paying property taxes? Our national railways pay property taxes. There are other elements and you've named one: BCBC do pay property taxes. I think the whole issue should be taken under advisement.

It should be debated and analyzed -- probably through the Minister of Finance -- as to whether or not it might be proper for the government to move in that direction. The answers that I have given you are the answers as things stand today. I've attempted to give you the rationale behind that. I think the question is open, I think it's a fair question and I think it's something that our government should undertake a proper investigation of.

L. Fox: I'm sure the minister will recall, in fact knows, that I wasn't here in this House when those previous deliberations were taking place. If the minister wants to look at my record in terms of a municipal

[ Page 1061 ]

politician, you will find I, as other northern mayors, have criticized governments at all levels where the delivery of service to the municipalities, in our view, was not fair, irrespective of what government was in power. I am one of those. Perhaps that will reassure the minister. [Applause.] Great audience here.

I do appreciate and respect what you say, Mr. Minister, with respect that this is an issue that should be explored and addressed further. I'll pass that on to the municipalities that have argued so strongly in the past that they in fact should receive some taxation from the holdings that B.C. Rail has within their municipalities.

One final question: can you tell me, in finite terms, what the impact of the corporation tax is on B.C. Rail?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The corporate tax paid is $3 million a year.

Just to add a comment to my previous ruminations on the payment of property taxes: the members opposite will understand, of course, that as B.C. Rail is being asked to operate as a profit centre, if their costs of doing business go up, then of necessity their freight charges have to go up. As freight charges go up, we become marginally less competitive, which then feeds back all the way up the system toward making some of the products from the mills and mines we have been discussing here today more expensive and could actually give then, ultimately, back pressure to reduce economic activity in those areas.

It's a matter of moving money around. If we're going to move more money into the pockets of municipalities, that money has to come from someplace. It doesn't simply appear. It must come out of the pockets of the corporations that pay B.C. Rail to haul their products.

L. Fox: I almost believe that the minister read Hansard and used my argument that I used in opposing the 2 cents a litre increase in jet fuel, because that logic was indeed part of my argument when we argued that bill.

I have to ask -- and certainly your comments beg the question -- what kind of an impact this further burden of $3 million has on delivering services to the northern part of this province.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm a bit puzzled. It is a tax paid by profitable corporations. We expect them to be profitable. If they are profitable, there are taxes to be paid. So if we run it less efficiently or do whatever in order to not generate the profits, then I guess we won't pay the taxes. But we can't have one without the other.

L. Fox: I think the minister better meet with the Finance minister and get some advice as to what the application of this tax is. In fact, this capital tax has no bearing at all on profits of a company or a corporation. I'm really almost angry that he should give me such an answer.

My question specifically was: what impact would this $3 million have on delivery of service to the northern part of this province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I hope I haven't created apoplexy over there. I misunderstood. I thought you said corporate tax, not capital tax. The impact of the capital tax that we originally brought in is $3 million, which will decrease the dividends that B.C. Rail is able to pay the government by $3 million.

C. Evans: I'm sure you are aware that the people of Nelson-Creston sometimes argue about various kinds of land use. But one area where industrial workers, persons concerned about the environment, small businesses and local government come together is on saving the railroads. We are losing railroads at an increasingly rapid rate in the West Kootenays. This summer we may make a park out of what used to be a railroad, or a transportation corridor, from Summit Lake to Sandon. We lost the railroad from Grand Forks to Castlegar a couple of years ago. Now there appears to be an application pending, and we'll lose the railroad from Slocan City to Nelson.

I have several questions about the railroad situation. The first one is: are there people in your ministry working on the question of rail abandonment who you could direct me to to do research?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there are people in our rail policy section. I can arrange a meeting for you or obtain information on your behalf.

C. Evans: I would appreciate going to that meeting. The people who asked me to ask these questions were IWA members in Slocan City, three of whom were killed in a collision with a chip truck a year or so ago while trying to go to work. It is of particular concern to them that the product of their work six miles down the road could be killing their members on the highways. They would like to know if our government has considered changes to the taxation policy on the short spur lines adjunct to the mainline system, in order to perhaps lighten the load for CPR and make those runs more profitable.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Determining that kind of taxation is a federal responsibility, but the provincial impacts are considered.

C. Evans: Is there something members here could do to stir up the discussion on short-line operations for rail lines that are perhaps going to be abandoned? Is there a way that members could assist you in encouraging the CPR to see if there are people willing to lease the short-line, say from Slocan to Nelson?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The issues are dealt with by the National Transportation Agency and can be raised with that body. I'm not sure, though, if I've given the answer that you're looking for. Was there another element to it?

[4:00]

C. Evans: I guess the answer I'm looking for here is on how we can be advocates. As you know, the National Transportation guidelines have been changed, and it is

[ Page 1062 ]

now a great deal easier for a railroad to abandon service. I'm wondering if there are ways that members here or you, through your ministry, can generate small-business possibilities for people to lease the lines that the CPR is interested in abandoning, rather than letting the CPR simply abandon them.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think that any time it would appear in the interest of the province to maintain a line that one of the majors is interested in getting rid of, it would seem to me that it quite clearly falls upon us to do what we can do in the way of promoting someone to take over the line. Whether or not we can become financially involved, of course, is another matter. Anytime we have an interest, we should not just idly stand by and let something happen. We can make attempts, particularly through this ministry, to influence the decisions of the National Transportation Agency.

C. Evans: I think that's precisely the answer I wanted, Mr. Minister -- that we could take a proactive position. Could your ministry supply me with a list, or do you think it would be possible to generate a list, of lines that the majors intend to abandon over the next few years in order that I might inform the MLAs who represent those areas?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, I believe we could do that. I'll make, perhaps, a small digression on behalf of the majors, if you will. I've looked at their total operating burden and compared it to the operating burden on competing American lines, and we're losing the war. As I recall, we're okay on personnel, on employment costs; we're competitive. But the American lines are operating under substantially lower tax regimes, particularly fuel tax regimes.

As a result of that, we're seeing a certain bleed-off of business from the Prairies, sometimes with the assistance of governments, to the establishment of so-called inland ports. There's one in Shelby, Montana, and there's one, I believe, in North Dakota as well competing directly with our main lines to truck grain south, establish the grain-cleaning facilities and everything there, ship across on American lines and out through American ports. It's starting to have a fairly significant impact.

One thing that would help our major lines is the judicious abandonment of spur lines, particularly on the Prairies. Because the economies have changed over the past several decades, it now makes more sense to truck grain from a greater distance to the main line, or in other instances it would make more sense to have a small corporation actually operate the short-haul lines, feeding down to the main line. So I don't think that we should just automatically oppose spur line abandonment; we should look at them on a case-by-case basis and either bring in short-haul or bring in alternative means.

Generally we have to seriously look at the overall transportation problem in western Canada or our majors are going to be squeezed to the point where they're not going to be able to offer a competitive service at all.

C. Evans: Does your ministry have figures? Can you tell me where I could go to research the question of how much it costs the province in extra wear and tear on the highway to take the rail traffic per carload and put it onto the people's highway system?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are very rough estimates available, but there's no hard data, unfortunately, to underpin such an analysis. It's a valid point, and the railway people, both provincially and federally, raise the issue constantly that they have to completely build and maintain their rights-of-way, their roadbeds,

whereas the rubber tire industry uses the public. Of course, the rubber tire industry pays taxes through licences and through fuel and a variety of other ways, but I believe that the contention of the railway that there is a tilt one way is probably correct. Unfortunately, we don't have the detail, the breakdown, the means of analyzing just what the truck traffic implications are on the cost of our infrastructure. That is not to say that it wouldn't be worthwhile determining whether or not we could start to establish such a database so that a little further down the line we could make more rational decisions about our transportation system.

C. Evans: If I'm standing here next year, I'll again ask you -- and every year thereafter -- if we have the database, because I think it is in the interest of the people where I live that we gather that data.

The issue for some of us, and I don't think it's just in the West Kootenays -- there might be people representing other mountainous districts.... This is not like the Prairies; there isn't any other place to put the highway. That brings me to my next question. In the case of those rail lines that are abandoned because we simply cannot show an economic alternative, is it the policy of your ministry that we hang on to the base -- the rail system -- intact, in case sometime in the future the cost of fuel changes or the policy changes? Then we still have the rail line roadbed intact, not lost, and we could put the rail back.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As part of the abandonment process they have to tear up the ties and the track, but there are a variety of government departments that would then get involved in negotiation regarding the potential disposal of the right-of-way. Of course, the right-of-way would probably be owned by CN or CP, and they could choose to hang on to it; it would be their right. But if we see a provincial interest again, then Crown Lands, Environment, Lands and Parks and others would all get their oar in the water to try to influence again the way that the land or the right-of-way may be disposed of.

However, there is no automatic procedure whereby the right-of-way reverts to the Crown or anything like that. It's not deeded over, unless something like that were to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

[ Page 1063 ]

C. Evans: I would like to suggest that we review that policy. I know that it's their land, the railroad's land. I know that they sell it, or Marathon Realty sells it. I would like us to review the policy and consider that your ministry, as the ministry responsible for transportation 50 years in the future, might say to the majors: "If you're going to sell that land, you sell it to us. We'll hold it in escrow for future generations, because we might need that right-of-way."

My last question is: are there places you could send me to look for safety studies about the impact on our constituents of moving industrial traffic, previously moved on the rail, onto the highway system, and the increased deaths per tonnage -- or is there any way to figure it out?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's apparently some American data available under the Association of American Railroads comparing some safety issues on rail transport versus highway transport, but we don't have any home-grown data. We could make the source of that other information available to you.

C. Evans: This is really the last question, minister.

Interjection.

C. Evans: Hey, that's pretty neat. Nobody's ever heckled me here before. Way back at the first question, you said that you could arrange a meeting between myself and your rail policy people. Perhaps you could refer each of these other questions to them, and they could bring what data they have to the meeting. Could you tell me whether I would be allowed to bring citizens like these concerned IWA workers to the meeting as well?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Absolutely. Whoever you would wish to invite to the meeting is fine. If you will get in contact with me outside of the chambers or through my office, we'll facilitate the setting up of that meeting.

F. Gingell: I was fascinated, Mr. Minister, by your reference to the fact that compared to the American railroads we're losing the war. Going back to the question of the corporate capital tax, as the minister responsible for the B.C. Rail, which I understand does have to pay the corporate capital tax, and going back to an earlier question from the Minister of Finance at which time there was discussed the value of the coal line from Tumbler Ridge to Prince Rupert on which the province doesn't make any money, the number that was mentioned was roughly $600 million.

How do you feel, as the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, that you will pay $1.8 million in 1992 in corporate capital tax on this asset that doesn't earn any money, and that you'll pay another $1.8 million in 1993 and another $1.8 million in 1994 ad infinitum unless the rate goes up and then it will cost you more? Would you, as the minister responsible for B.C. Rail facing this additional cost that has nothing to do with the profits that B.C. Rail earn, make representations and arguments to the Minister of Finance for him to repeal this tax?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As far as paying the tax goes, we will pay the tax just like any other good corporate citizen, because we realize the benefits that come from paying your taxes. If you wish to debate the relative merits of the tax, you'll have to take that up with the Minister of Finance.

F. Gingell: I will accept that challenge.

Mr. Minister, is your ministry responsible for the coal rail line from Roberts Bank, which I think goes back to somewhere in the mid-Fraser Valley where it joins up with the CP? Or did CP take that over on the breakup of the old the B.C. Hydro Rail?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's B.C. Rail, from a point in Cloverdale to Roberts Bank, a distance of some 23 miles.

F. Gingell: I intend to deal with the questions on the expansion to Roberts Bank and the implications for your ministry later on. But for the moment, on the rail line alone there has been substantial pressure from the municipality of Delta, which I can assure you is backed by the residents of Ladner and Tsawwassen, with regard to the rail crossing on Arthur Drive. Arthur Drive is the main road from Ladner to Tsawwassen, and it crosses that railway line.

It is a very highly travelled road -- a lot of traffic, a very high traffic count -- on the one hand; and on the other hand, those trains are terribly long; they just go on forever and ever. I was wondering, Mr. Minister, if it is in the plans of B.C. Rail to construct appropriate overpasses there so we can get rid of this rather dangerous situation.

[4:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It would not be within a five-year time horizon, in all likelihood. We have pressing problems on the North Shore, and elsewhere on the system, that on a corporate priority basis would be of a more important nature. That does not in any sense downplay the legitimacy of your observations, the concern of the citizens that use that crossing and the inconvenience that it causes. It is, again, a matter of fiscal restraint. It would be a point that we would address when we are able to.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I was interested when you were saying earlier how important it is for B.C. Rail to sectionalize their operations and measure, naturally as any good businessman would, the profit from certain systems. I'd be most interested in the profits that B.C. Rail earns on that Roberts Bank line. Could you tell us, please?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The profit in the past fiscal year was $2.5 million. The profit is based on a formula. It's essentially a rent, and the rate is prime plus one, on a monthly basis.

[ Page 1064 ]

F. Gingell: How do you mean a formula and the rent based on prime plus one? Who is charging it to whom?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Just so that you understand first: we don't run trains on that. We own the right-of-way and the track, but CP or CN or Burlington Northern run trains on it and bear all of those costs. What we do is look at the capitalized value of that track and rent it to the users at an agreed-upon prime plus one per month. So it's a rent of our system.

F. Gingell: You say prime plus one per month. I presume you don't charge them prime plus one each month -- you just charge them one-twelfth of prime plus one per month. Not to be funny, but in dealing with an asset of that type and a well-known profitable run, which I think B.C. Electric Rail or B.C. Hydro Rail -- when they ran it -- knew was a very profitable run, that doesn't seem to me like a terribly good rate of return. Was there some other consideration given by CP or Burlington Northern to offset the exceptionally low rate?

F. Gingell: So this arrangement goes back to the original deal when the province and the federal government agreed to allow the National Harbours Board to proceed and develop Roberts Bank, and the deal was made that B.C. Electric Rail -- as it was at that time -- would develop that railway line. It goes back to those original days, does it?

Further to the question -- because it's on the same thing -- is the amount on which the prime plus one is charged the original cost of the development of the line and the acquisition of the right-of-way? Or is it revalued every five, ten, 20 years for this to be charged on an updated valuation?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is essentially on the original cost, but when additional capital investment is put in from time to time, that is brought into the formula. Your understanding of how that originated was substantially correct.

L. Fox: I hadn't intended to rise again, but given that you made this statement to the member for Delta South just a few moments ago -- that you as B.C. Rail wish to be good corporate citizens and pay your fair share of taxes -- is that the new policy with respect to the municipal taxes along the B.C. Rail line?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: My previous words to you stand.

R. Neufeld: Just for clarification on an earlier question on the capital tax. You said that it would cost B.C. Rail approximately $3 million a year, but the subsidy would decrease by that same amount, so it's a nonentity. Is that correct, or did I misunderstand you?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The dividend that is paid at the end of the year will be lower due to whatever the capital tax is in that particular year. Does that answer your question?

R. Neufeld: Yes, it does.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It has a direct impact on the dividend paid.

D. Symons: I would like to rise and say that the questions from all the members on B.C. Rail have been answered. I would like to thank you on behalf of members on this side of the House for your being here today and assisting the minister in the answers to these questions. Thank you, sirs.

G. Wilson: I wonder, now that B.C. Rail is over, if we can come back to the matter of highways. In particular, my question has to do with capital construction. I wonder if the minister might explain the prioritization of budgets for capital construction, recognizing that the ministry has had its budget reduced in terms of expenditure. What was the rationale for the approval process of highways? Why did the ministry not undertake to complete construction that was already underway, when I understand it is embarking on new program construction in other areas?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The projects and rehabilitation projects that were chosen to continue were chosen entirely by staff with no input from myself at all. They chose them on the basis of longstanding priority lists that the ministry had worked up in each region of the province. The only instructions I gave were of the broadest nature, which were: (1) treat everybody fairly; (2) treat every region of the province fairly; and (3) in this time where we're going to have a substantial cut, make sure that we're distributing the work around the province as much as we can.

With respect to your question of why we are interrupting some projects while initiating others, I'm a bit puzzled. We're certainly not initiating any other major projects anywhere, and any of the minor projects, even that were ongoing.... There are elements, for example, of multi-year contracts that we're continuing. There are elements where we're filling in a gap to allow a project to be delivered. But we haven't undertaken, to my knowledge, any new projects. So perhaps you could clarify for me which new projects you had in mind.

G. Wilson: Let me be a little more specific then. If we talk about the Gibsons bypass, which clearly had to be, in terms of long-standing promise and

obliga-

[ Page 1065 ]

tion.... This highway construction project has been on the books by way of promise for well over 20 years. Finally, under the previous regime, it received funding for phase one, which is essentially a

section that commences construction from North Road toward the ferry terminal. Phase two construction was scheduled to be underway this year, and phase three was scheduled to be completed in the subsequent year. That project has now been terminated -- effectively creating a highway that goes nowhere. You can't get to it or from it; it essentially is going nowhere.

It is my understanding that there is a proposition for construction of a fast-lane commuter lane to facilitate cross-border shopping and a new facility -- a building in construction -- that's being set up on the border with respect to that. I wonder if you could verify, first of all, the cross-border shopping lanes and the capital construction that has gone into that. And could you explain why the Gibsons bypass is not proceeding?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm quite puzzled. According to the figures I have, for the Powell River-Sunshine Coast-Gibsons bypass, phase one, we're entering into some $4.59 million of construction. That's the 1992-93 allocation, and that is out of a grand total of some $52 million on minor highway capital. So in terms of the 75 electoral districts, it's a pretty fair allocation in a tight year.

With respect to the Sumas crossing -- I presume that's the one you're referring to -- the understandings that had been reached between the federal government and the previous administration were to spend some $5 million on our side of the border to facilitate -- as far I'm concerned -- cross-border shopping. I did not permit that project to go ahead last year. What I've offered them instead is a fairly minor amount of money to rejig a couple of right-hand or 90-degree turns in order to make things just a bit safer. But it's a very minor allocation.

I'll get out that specific number for you. But by no means are we expending significant dollars in regard to that border crossing. As I've said, I essentially abrogated unilaterally an understanding with the previous administration and to not go ahead with the project.

G. Wilson: The $4 million-plus that you refer to is currently committed in capital construction on phase one. I understand that is going to be finished, and much of that work will be done in the latter part of the spring and early summer of this year. That phase one doesn't connect to the ferry terminal; in fact, it doesn't connect anywhere of any substance.

When the mayor of Gibsons and council met with the minister, the minister assured them that there would be moneys put toward a connector to make sure that the phase one construction that has already cost the taxpayers $4.6 million or $4.7 million -- I don't know what the figure is; you have the figure there in terms of the $4.6 million plus or minus -- was going to be in place. We're now told that phase two, which is the rather critical

section that connects the ferry terminal to phase one, is not proceeding. I wonder if the minister can tell us why that is so when the engineering work has already been done, the design work is all complete, much of the purchase of property is complete, and much of the stream work for maintenance of the environment is done. Why was that not a part of this budget, given that the project is well underway and that we're going to be stuck with a highway that is basically not usable. It's much like an airstrip, if it wasn't so steep.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are legitimate demands for roadway improvements in every electoral district of the province. Every mayor out there could easily put on the table millions to tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of needed improvements. We have an extremely tight budget, an extremely tight allocation. I have seen to it that that allocation we do have is spread around quite evenly, quite fairly, without regard to political party or to region of the province. If you're complaining that there was not enough spent there, every other member could give me a similar complaint. We are doing the best that we can with the allocation that we have.

Unless you're willing to stand up and give up some other allocation from the government to your constituency, be it for schools or hospital.... I'll let you choose what you might want to give up. Or, perhaps you could write me a letter suggesting that we should have increased the deficit by $100 million in order to facilitate further construction. We have decided that we are not going to do that. We've made a tough, tough choice to pick up from the fiscal mess left by the previous administration, and the transportation mess left by the previous administration. We've made some tough decisions.

We're willing to live with those decisions. But in the process of carrying through on those decisions, we have done so in a fair, open and honest manner.

G. Wilson: My concern isn't whether this is my riding, whether it's another's or what political party happens to represent the riding. My concern here is one of fiscal responsibility, and being sensible in the way we budget our money.

Contractors who are currently at work on that project have indicated to me that not completing phase two means rehabilitation work will have to be done and new contract work going back on when that project is eventually funded, since everybody who is currently on-site working and doing project construction work will have to remove all of their equipment because they're all going to be going away. It is likely to increase the cost of that project by as much as 20 percent, depending on how long a project is left uncompleted.

So my question to this minister is: with respect to that specific project, in terms of prioritizing your capital construction, how much consideration was given to the additional cost that will be incurred if you haul off all your contractors, and their equipment and material, and do not complete the project -- especially in light of the fact that this is now a project that doesn't connect anywhere? It's a highway that doesn't even have marginal use for the $4 million that you spent in the last fiscal year.

[ Page 1066 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We had a trade-off to make. Were we going to sink our available funds into new infrastructure, whether it was completing projects or starting new projects, or were we going to put that money into rehabilitation? The advice of my ministry, the auditor general and Peat Marwick was that we were not spending enough money on the rehabilitation of our existing infrastructure. So in a time of scarce fiscal resources, we have applied those resources where we will get the best return.

If we allow the existing system to deteriorate, we will pay far more on the reconstruction of some of that infrastructure than on rehabilitation at a timely point now. So we have closed down uncompleted projects.

We have sections of roadway that connect to nowhere. If we had had an additional $300 million, I might have been able to address all of those problems and a few more. If I had had $2 billion or $3 billion, I might have started to make a real dent in the transportation problems of British Columbia. But I don't. I had a grand total of about $350 million to apply. I've chosen to apply $180 million to rehab and $175 million to complete the most pressing projects around the province. We've done it, again, in a fair way. We've done it in a fiscally responsible way.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted that the minister has brought up the question of rehab. If there was ever an example of a major highway in British Columbia that is in desperate need of rehabilitation, I would suggest that the minister might want to drive Highway 101, especially the

section that is from the Pender Harbour turn-off, right through the ferry and on to Lund. Never has there been such a highway in British Columbia. It's a 1940s highway carrying 1990s traffic. If there was a shift to rehabilitation of the highways, perhaps the minister could tell us why another project, previously approved, where land acquisition has been done, where there was scheduled work to commence this spring, which was the Rat Portage Hill section, which was number one on the priority list in terms of the regional transportation planning committee....

After buying and preparing land and doing the design work, why did that not get funded? It was certainly something that right up to January of this year was anticipated by staff in that region to be a project that was desperately needed because of the number of fatalities and because it is generally considered, by all engineering standards, to be an extremely dangerous passing lane. In fact, I would argue it isn't a passing lane; it's a pull-out that passes for a passing lane.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the television ad says, this is not difficult to understand. When you're paring down a budget by $180 million, you have to postpone some construction. You have to interrupt and delay projects. I have done that. I have done it all over the province. I've fully recognized the needs out there. I've fully recognized the safety concerns and the environmental and social implications. The gravest problems in the province are not in your constituency. The severest safety and environmental problems are in the lower mainland and on the Vancouver Island Highway.

We have grave problems on the Trans-Canada through the Rockies, up the Golden hill. We have grave transportation problems down the Okanagan with tremendous congestion and accident records all over the place.

If you can suggest where we can wave the magic wand and find the hundreds of millions, if you can point out what part of the Education budget we can cut, if you can point out what part of the Health budget we can cut, do so. If you want to make a statement that we should have run the deficit up another couple of hundred million to do this, do so. But don't try to imply that we can do all of these difficult things and still be fiscally responsible. We've made the tough choices, and I'm willing to live with those tough choices.

G. Wilson: It's a sad day when the Minister of Transportation and Highways leans to the Leader of the Opposition to try and figure out how he should have sorted out priorities and expenditures in the Highways budget. I'll tell you that the problem we have here is with respect to prioritization of expenditures of dollars; it's not a question of who has the most hazardous highway.

It's a question of what is a fiscally sensible way to proceed given that certain land acquisitions have already been taking place -- i.e, you have already made investments -- and given that there is obviously a hierarchy of projects that had been established through regional districts, through local planning, through local regional planning processes; and given that there has to be a proposition that your ministry is going to adequately and properly fund those projects that were already scheduled for construction in this year; and given that that investment has already taken place.

Earlier on the minister said he would be happy to give me the amount of money that's being spent on the Sumas crossing. I wonder if he might do that. Could he give me a comparative analysis of how much it would cost to straighten out Rat Portage Hill, which is an area that has had a significant number of fatalities and very serious traffic accidents.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't have the figure to a great accuracy, but the rejigging of a couple of intersections on the Sumas crossing might be running in the order of $100,000, or something like that. It's a truly minor expenditure.

[4:45]

G. Wilson: I'd be very anxious to see exactly what the expenditures are. The "rejigging" as the minister puts it.... This may be a new term in engineering that I'm not familiar with; I thought it was a fishing term, something that perhaps the minister might want to spend some time at given that his budget is so low. But it seems to me that if we're going to look at priorities in expenditure, those are the kinds of details that the minister should be aware of, because it is precisely that kind of prioritization in expenditure and planning that the people of British Columbia want some answers to.

It strikes me that if we are going to look at the overall development of the economy, which is what clearly seems to preoccupy this minister, it must be clear that

[ Page 1067 ]

we're not going to see economic growth and development in communities that are desperately needing it unless there's some investment in infrastructure that allows the economy to grow. I would argue that those comparable figures between Rat Portage Hill and the Sumas crossing are figures that we would like to see here, and if the minister can't provide them today, perhaps he could do so by providing them to me in writing so that we can look at that comparison.

I have a question with respect to highway rehabilitation. Can the minister tell us how much money was spent on the highway from the ferry terminus in Saltery Bay to Lund in the last year and how much has been committed for highway rehabilitation on that

section of highway this year? I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to drive that

section of the highway, either during the day when it's relatively safe, or at night when it's not.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would imagine that your amateur acting career has given you quite a handle on feigned indignation. You do a marvellous take.

I have not driven the highway that you are speaking of; at least I haven't in the last ten years. I certainly don't recall from the one time that I did drive up that way, but I think it's irrelevant, as a matter of fact.

You seem to keep coming back to the notion that somehow money can be made available, somehow we were to look in one of the cupboards of the old government and find a billion dollars in there and say: "Oh, here we are. We're going to now solve the transportation problems." If we're going to spend money, we have to perhaps raise money. If you want to suggest that we increase taxes, do so. We can borrow money. If you want to tell me that we should increase the deficit, do so. Or we can cut in some of the other areas.

In order to get on top of a difficult fiscal situation, we have a net cut from last year in 15 ministries. There are three ministries that we spent additional moneys in: Education, Health and Social Services. If you want to indicate which ones of those you would like to carve money out of so we can spend more on highways, please do.

G. Wilson: It is interesting that the three ministries that have received additional money.... In Health there's a major crisis because this government can't solve the strike. In Education there are teacher layoffs all over the province, and this area is in major difficulty. In Social Services we've only just begun to see the crisis that's going to occur in social service delivery as we start to see more and more people hit the unemployment roles, because this government has cut every single ministry that has an opportunity to increase the revenue by expanding the wealth of the province. We talk about the kind of commitment to economy; I find this to be quite unacceptable.

Clearly if the minister doesn't have a handle on the expenditure of dollars on rehab in these sections, and if those figures are not available, perhaps he could also provide that by way of written comment.

Could the minister now talk a little bit about this government a policy to build a second superferry and about it being a proposition for the transportation of the provincial public. Can he tell us how much money has been committed to the expenditure of dollars on the ferry terminus, on either side, to accommodate these new rush hours that are going to be created every time a superferry docks? What kind of proportional expenditure of Highways' construction money has gone into dealing with these new traffic problems that are going to occur when these superferries come on-stream?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member opposite would read the paper once in a while, he might have heard that there's a transportation study going on in the lower mainland. We're going to be looking to the municipalities there, to the regional district, for their advice on exactly how we should start to solve some of those problems. I have met with the mayor of Delta on a couple of occasions to discuss her problems and the problems of that community and have gotten good cooperation from them in terms of defining what it will be.

In the capital region you would also be aware that there is a moratorium at the request of the local governments, with the exception of a couple of intersections, and we are proceeding on those two intersections.

G. Wilson: I was rather hoping I would get more from the minister than I did from the newspaper. However, it seems that's not the case.

The question of a commitment to superferries is something that has already taken place. This is under construction. Very soon the superferries are going to be a reality -- be that a good idea or a bad idea is not at debate here. However, I am concerned that within this year's budget there does not seem to be any provision for additional moneys or moneys of any kind outside of a handful of dollars that may be committed to studies, which seems to be the solution of the government opposite when it can't make a decision.

What is the proposition with respect to this minister to a commitment to those communities in which the superferries will dock for the provision of some kind of service, so that we don't end up with the same kind of problems we find in Horseshoe Bay? When you get to a weekend sailing there, you have lineups all the way along the Upper Levels Highway because of the inadequacy of the services provided. With the superferries, you're going to have increased expectation, increased ridership, and you're going to have a major traffic problem every time it docks.

What is the proposal that this minister is putting forward in this budget to start to build an alleviation of those problems, given that it's going to take time to do the engineering and design work, to buy the land and to get the highway constructed?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member opposite may think it's best to operate on the basis of the whims of a petty tyrant in order to determine what should be done when and how, what the design should be and

[ Page 1068 ]

where the road should be. That is not the way this government proceeds.

The municipalities involved have asked us to wait until the studies they are participating in are done so that we have the benefit of their wisdom and their recommendations before we start to construct a new infrastructure. I think that is quite a reasonable approach. Perhaps the approach of the member opposite would be to ignore the input and the will of the local municipalities and the local politicians, to brush them aside and to simply go in and start building blacktop. I don't think that's quite the way we work in the modern world.

We've entered a period, I hope, of considerable consultation between levels of government. It is the regional district that has requested the moratorium. If you, in the circumstances of being government -- which will probably never happen -- wish to brush them aside and proceed in a dictatorial fashion, and if that is your wont, then go ahead and believe that. I don't.

They have asked us for the moratorium. We have granted the moratorium, and we will proceed when they are ready with their recommendations.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, the minister certainly pushes the patience of this member, I can tell you. I recognize that this minister is a rookie and new to his job. Maybe he's not aware that there are already transportation committees underway. I am chairman of a regional district transportation committee and have participated in transportation committees for the last five years. Under the previous government, regional transportation committees have been working at prioritizing their highway construction budgets for the last five years.

It seems that this minister has somehow landed from Mars and has come upon this new world in which there has never been any process of planning until he became minister. We have been planning for the last five or six years. The proposition of what various municipalities want is quite clear. To suggest that this minister is going to do a consultation process and that we should feel confident in that....

Clearly the municipality of West Vancouver had no such consultation when the trial balloon of all-night sailings for the ferries was proposed -- something that was going to have a major transportation impact on West Vancouver, Horseshoe Bay and Lions Bay. There was no consultation there. So what faith have we got in this minister when he doesn't even understand that under the former government, there was such a consultation process and that there is such a series of priorities and recommendations?

Those priorities and recommendations are fairly specific and clear, one of which, I would point out, dealing with the rush hours that come off the ferries, is called the Gibsons bypass, which was prioritized and was under construction and which this ministry has now cut.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell that not only does this minister not understand that expenditure on highways is an investment and not simply an expense, but it seems to me that he doesn't understand that the concept of planning takes some time and some dollar commitment. It's going to take a little more than some cheap one-liners to try to pass the buck to the opposition, which is doing its job in this instance by trying to get the minister to at least tell the people what he has in this budget to put in place the capital construction that is going to be desperately needed if we are to accommodate the travellers from Vancouver Island to the lower mainland.

I wonder if he can give me a little more than simply empty comments about consultation. What is the overall plan?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You may have been chairman of a transportation study, but you weren't chairman of the transportation study of the Capital Regional District. That is the district you were asking about -- the impact of ferries and what would happen when the new superferries come on. The superferries, number one, are not my jurisdiction; you should ask those questions of the hon. Finance minister. The superferries transit from Delta. I spoke of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's Transport 2021. They have asked us to wait until they have the results of the study. That's one terminus.

There is another terminus related to your question, which is Swartz Bay. That is part of the Capital Regional District. That district has asked us for a moratorium; we have granted the moratorium. So I've answered your questions which relate to what are we going to do when the terrible traffic flows following the implementation of the superferries. I've told you what happens at either terminus. We will do it when the answers and the recommendations are available, and then we will proceed as our fiscal resources permit.

G. Wilson: It will be interesting. The Minister of Highways is obviously telling us that the original plan for superferries -- which indeed is Delta but the second terminus was Nanaimo, not Swartz Bay -- has obviously changed. Maybe the B.C. Ferries Corporation is now going to take these superferries through Active Pass and try and put them into Swartz Bay; it should be an interesting proposition for transportation. If that's the case, the question is with respect to the superferries that may be in fact routed into Nanaimo. What is the minister doing specifically to assist Nanaimo with respect to the development of highways and facilities that are going to accommodate the people of Nanaimo?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm pleased to again bring the member opposite up to date on news that's about three or four months old. I sat down with the mayor of Nanaimo and several members of the council; I listened to their representations in support of the inner route. I have discussed the matters of the inner versus the outer route with members of my ministry, and announced that the inner route would proceed. That is what the mayor and council of Nanaimo wished. We will be proceeding on it again as fiscal resources permit.

[ Page 1069 ]

G. Wilson: So you can tell us, then, that there is no commitment for planning, for design work, for any kind of construction work at this time in either the terminus at Swartz Bay, the terminus at Tsawwassen or the terminus in Nanaimo, that there are no current plans underway to put in place a program of expenditures either in this year or.... Presumably the planning would have to be accommodated in this year to be able to get construction underway, so that when the superferries come on there is going to be some highway built on either end for those ferries to be able to accommodate the rush-hour traffic you're going to create every time they dock.

[5:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm certainly happy that the 40 or 50 mayors that I've dealt with around the province have a little more appreciation for fiscal policy than the member opposite. The mayor of Nanaimo is pleased and understands the difficult situation we're in. We're proceeding in the direction that she has requested. We're dealing on an ongoing basis with a variety of mayors in the Capital Regional District. They understand the situation that we're in. We are proceeding with the Lands End interchange; it will be operational before the superferries commence.

We are proceeding with the initial work -- partially at the request of the mayor of Saanich -- for the McKenzie interchange. We are proceeding with initial design at the Thetis Lake interchange, and have good cooperation with that mayor. On the Tsawwassen side, we have good cooperation with the mayor there as well. We have agreed to study some specific intersection problems that she has identified.

Further, I've met with the chairman of the Vancouver Port Corporation and the mayor of Delta to discuss the impact that that may have on her community, and again received indications of her cooperation in these matters. I'm quite pleased to inform the member opposite that in my dealings with all the mayors all over the province they have understood the need to get the deficit under control. They have appreciated the straightforward approach, and the fact that I have talked to them directly to give them the bad news for this fiscal year.

It's very easy for the member opposite to stand and posture about how much money he would spend on this or that when the member opposite, of course, has no responsibilities.

D. Symons: Just continuing on with the questions of the previous member regarding Nanaimo, there seems to be some concern in the city of Nanaimo about the possible decision to continue with the Departure Bay ferry terminal without community consultation, and the serious longstanding concerns associated with that operation. The road network is woefully inadequate for that facility. You made comments about consultation.

I have here a letter from the mayor of Nanaimo dated April 9, 1992, which outlines the city's concerns about a potential decision to remain at the Nanaimo ferry terminal, Departure Bay, without any consultation with the local community about the province's plans to deal with the serious and longstanding concerns associated with this operation.

I remind you that the Nanaimo terminal, Departure Bay, is the only major terminal located within the core of the host municipality's residential area, and that the provincial road network to the facility is woefully inadequate. Obviously, this city is terribly concerned, and it's the roads as well as the ferry terminal that are a concern to them. If you could comment, sir....

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I believe that you should put that question to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: I find it inconceivable that you're going to put a ferry dock in, and the Highways minister is not somehow connected with the decisions to do this -- that you should refer me to.... The roadways leading to the terminal are a concern to them. Where the terminal is, is going to be a concern. But the roadway that goes from the inner route down to the ferry terminal and get's that traffic up into the city is a Highways responsibility, not Ferries.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I understood the letter as you read it, there was a complaint of lack of consultation regarding the continued use of the Departure Bay terminal. I suggested that the minister responsible for that is the Minister of Finance. You should raise that question with that minister.

D. Symons: If we could continue on this just for one more question, regardless of that aspect that you just mentioned, it's going to affect the roadways within the community of Nanaimo. I don't know if you have been in contact with the city of Nanaimo. I'm sure they've expressed this concern to me, and they would also have expressed it to you: it's the roadways they are concerned about, and the traffic in the city of Nanaimo from the ferry terminal. Whether the consultation is with B.C. Ferries or with the Minister of Highways, they want to know that the