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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 11

[ Page 2431 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the honour of reaffirming that order-in-council No. 845 has proclaimed June 6 to 14 as Tennis Week in British Columbia. It is particularly appropriate that sitting in the gallery today is the president of the South Cowichan Lawn and Tennis Club, Mr. Greg Carter. You should be aware that this unique tennis club is nestled among the ancient oaks in the Cowichan Valley on some donated farmland, which has to be used in perpetuity for these grass courts. This is the oldest club in Canada, probably the second-oldest in the world, missing Wimbledon's establishment two or three years prior to that.

The current interest in this proclamation and the reason that I'm bringing up this splendid facility is that the South Cowichan club will be hosting the annual Press Gallery-Legislative Assembly Tennis Tournament on June 20.

You should know that the contest is one between the fine, sportsmanlike players on the Legislative Assembly team and the press gallery, who are known affectionately as the "scrum of the earth." Modesty prevents me from mentioning who has won the Speaker's trophy, but it has been in the exclusive possession of one team since the inception of this tournament; but there are rumours around that the press gallery have been practising five hours a day to try and remedy that situation on June 20.

Would the members of the Legislature please extend a warm welcome to the host from South Cowichan, Mr. Carter.

Hon. T. Perry: I'd like to invite members of the House to welcome Mrs. Mary Potts of the great state of Nebraska in the neighbouring United States of America, who is accompanied today by her son, my ministerial assistant, Randall Garrison.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two people who represent local government in a remarkable way in British Columbia. I refer to Joyce Harder, who is the current president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and Richard Taylor, who is the executive director of the UBCM. They are here today having meetings with me -- in particular, referring to a piece of legislation that I will be introducing very soon. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure today to welcome a good friend from Victoria, Mr. Phil Fawcett, who is hosting a group of 11 aboriginal students and five adults, who are visiting from Old Crow in the Yukon. I can't resist mentioning that Mr. Fawcett ran as a candidate in Victoria for the New Democratic Party back in 1969, before it was fashionable -- as it is today, of course -- to run in Victoria under that label. I'd ask everyone to make him welcome.

C. Serwa: Today I'd like to introduce to the House a group of 60 grade 7 students from Westbank Elementary School. They are accompanied by a group of adults and their teacher, Mr. George Waldo. On behalf of my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton and myself, who share Mr. Waldo -- myself in the case of Westbank and my colleague representing Peachland -- I would like to say that Mr. George Waldo is the colourful mayor of the most beauteous community of Peachland.

J. Pullinger: It's appropriate that on the heels of the Tourism and Culture estimates I introduce to the House someone who has contributed a great deal toward culture, particularly for children, in this province. He's also a good friend: Mr. Eric Wilson, who's a writer of children's books in B.C. He has written a large series and continues to do so, I'm happy to say. Will the House please make Eric welcome.

B. Copping: In the gallery and touring the precincts today is a very large contingent of grade 5 students from Forest Grove Elementary. They are accompanied by their teachers: Ms. Wong, Mr. Mundie and Mr. Cawston. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX

REFORM ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1992.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This legislation contains a number of provisions relating to assessments and property taxation in the province of British Columbia -- all issues that concern those who own property in this great province. One provision restores annual assessments, which will provide taxpayers with more gradual property tax changes. Another provides for municipal averaging and phasing options, which will allow local governments to level out year over year changes in property taxes, and thus dampen the fluctuations that have affected taxpayers; it will give local government the opportunity to take care of those, in terms of assessments that often affect taxes in many municipalities.

This legislation also eliminates municipal options for a general residential flat tax and for separate tax rates on residential land and improvements. In terms of the flat tax, those seven municipalities that are currently using it will be permitted to continue until they decide not to.

Another provision of this legislation moves assessment dates to three months later in the year, which makes more efficient use of existing assessment resources. The act also provides more consistency among the mandates of assessors, courts of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board.

[ Page 2432 ]

I believe this legislation will be welcomed by local government.

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RACETRACK PROPOSAL

G. Wilson: My question today is to the Attorney General. We in the Liberal opposition note that the Racing Commission -- which we understand to be separate and independent from the Attorney General, but nevertheless under his ministerial jurisdiction -- has essentially offered an ultimatum to Western Delta Property with respect to the provision of a one-mile racing track. This would require that the racing on the lands that would be developed would be done in perpetuity, and the tenure of the property would be maintained, should they fail to be able to maintain that service.

Could the minister tell us what kind of guarantee this government would look to with respect to the provision of racing in perpetuity, and whether or not that guarantee would be something that would be documented before this House?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're at a very early stage in this exercise. As members know, earlier this year I asked the Racing Commission to report back to me on two issues, so I could report to cabinet. One is the question of a site for a thoroughbred track in the lower mainland, whether or not to pick a new site or to refurbish Exhibition Park; and secondly, to report back on the question of teletheatre wagering. They have reported on the first of those questions.

The authorization from cabinet to the Racing Commission is to meet with the proponents from Western Delta, to talk to them about the possibility of racing on their site. The conditions include that there would be no subsidy from the taxpayer for such a site, and also that the racing site itself -- not the full property that's owned by the proponents -- would be dedicated in perpetuity for thoroughbred racetrack purposes. That's at a discussion stage with Western Delta now. This happened on Friday. I don't know if they have come back to the Racing Commission or not since then.

I intend to keep the House fully informed as to the progress we make on this issue. That's all I can say at this stage.

G. Wilson: Supplementary to the minister. I think the minister would agree that for a private business, whether they're running a racetrack or any other business, to be required to provide land or a site in perpetuity for said purpose regardless of the profitability is a proposition that very few would be able to maintain. The minister must recognize that this decision is going to be intrinsically tied to the operation of the track and the future dedication of the PNE site.

Can the minister assure this House that essentially this government has not given an ultimatum to Western Delta Property that they know full well they can't accept, so that this government can in fact get its long arms into the racing at the track, and use the profits off that to subsidize a new and increased Pacific National Exhibition on the PNE site?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The word "ultimatum" is simply wrong. We have indicated to Western Delta that, because of their expressed interest in operating a track and their willingness to do so, we're willing to talk to them. That's simply what's going on at this stage. We do not want, in British Columbia, to have a situation where a thoroughbred track is built and operating, and then a company like Boeing comes along and buys it, as happened at Longacres. That's unacceptable to this government.

G. Wilson: Final supplementary to the Attorney General. We note, however, that there is at least one other agency -- Colony Farm -- interested in running a one-mile track which does not seem to have been given the same kind of opportunity that has been given to Western Delta. We note also that even if an agreement happened this week, the possibility of running a one-mile track could not happen until 1995. Yet the track loses its tenure on the Exhibition Park site in 1994.

Could the minister share with us his thoughts and ideas on who would pick up the hundreds of thousands of dollars required in severance payments to members of the B.C. Jockey Club? What are his ideas with respect to the literally millions of dollars that would be involved in a one-year lost racing season in B.C.?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I counted four or maybe five questions there. Let me say first of all, in respect of Colony Farm, that one of the instructions I gave to the Racing Commission was that there would be no track located on agricultural land -- period. Another question relates to the expiry of the current contract. The commission is well aware of those issues and has spent considerable time in the last few months dealing with that particular issue, and had the question well in hand long in advance of the member's suggestion that it's a problem.

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Minister of Finance. Lifting the freeze on senior public servants' salaries doesn't seem to make much sense given the size of the deficit tabled by your government this year. How can this government justify opening the issue of senior public civil servants' salaries, given the fact that taxpayers in the private sector are being asked to in fact freeze or reduce their salary demands? How do you manage to justify those two positions?

Hon. G. Clark: We believe in local autonomy and local accountability. What we have tried to do is make local decision-makers accountable for their actions, and lifting the Bill 82 wage controls on the bargaining unit employees has required school boards to make the necessary adjustments. If school boards entered into

[ Page 2433 ]

agreements which they didn't have the ability to pay, then they have to deal with the consequences of their actions, and they're doing that now.

Similarly, if we repeal Bill 82 and allow local school boards to have to deal with their senior management employees, we fully anticipate that they will deal responsibly and within their ability to pay.

J. Weisgerber: We saw what the effect was with school boards. School boards, when you cancelled the last Compensation Fairness Act, increased teachers' salaries, and we're now seeing layoffs in schools as a direct result of that. Will the minister at least agree to continue this freeze until the Korbin commission has tabled its report?

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to remind the member that he was a part of a government that set up the structure which allowed school boards to negotiate collective agreements, and it's our view that if they negotiate the collective agreements then they deal with the consequences of it. That was a structure that we inherited from the previous administration which had some problems. We are reviewing those questions, but in the meantime, if we are to have local school boards at all, then they must be held accountable for their decisions to the taxpayers in their vicinity.

We anticipate that with the kind of open disclosure of information that comes out, there will be some moral suasion applied to school boards to deal responsibly with their senior management compensation. We expect them to do so.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: The Attorney General has stated that the wage and benefit demands of Crown prosecutors should be referred to the Korbin commission for a decision. Can he explain to this House why Crown prosecutors making $39,000 a year should expect their salaries to be dealt with by the Korbin commission when the government is abandoning the process as it applies to senior civil servants making twice as much?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At no time have I ever indicated that the salary portion of the discussions that are now being conducted with Crown counsel should be referred to the Korbin commission. Yesterday in the hallway, in an answer to questions, I suggested that some elements of the dispute could appropriately be dealt with by the Korbin commission. I would that the Crown Counsel Association would recognize that that might be an appropriate avenue for discussion and resolution. But that did not include salary issues.

EXHIBITION PARK RACETRACK

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and follows on from what was stated by my colleague the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Can the minister tell us who has ownership and jurisdiction over the racetrack? Is it the city of Vancouver, the province of British Columbia or the track itself?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will defer this to my colleague the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is a most interesting legal question, and you can get answers on just about every side of that question, depending on which lawyer you talk to.

A. Warnke: I'll try this question once again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but if any other minister over there wants to take it, that's fine too. Perhaps this should even go to the Premier.

Prior to and during the provincial election campaign, the New Democratic Party committed itself to a full and complete consultation on the future of Exhibition Park. Can any of those ministers tell us what the timetable is for the public input into the future use of Exhibition Park?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm the minister responsible for the Pacific National Exhibition, so I assume.... I was going to make a comment about the best legal opinions money can buy, but I won't do that.

We are engaging in a discussion about the future of the PNE. The PNE board has struck a futures committee at my request. They're engaging in intensive dialogue. There are civic representatives on the PNE board as well. Obviously the key decisions are the racetrack and the coliseum. They do impact dramatically on the future of the PNE. We're working as hard as we can. The Racing Commission is working hard under tight deadlines, instructed by government to try to make a decision on the racetrack question. It seems to me that the future of the PNE will become.... The discussions and debate and community input that we envision will be clearer after decisions are made on those two key facilities.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

A. Warnke: In light of the answer that the Minister of Finance has given, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance again. Does this government favour a renewed PNE, or does it prefer returning Hastings Park to the people of that area?

Hon. G. Clark: The member has set up a potentially false dichotomy in asking me to choose between the two. We are engaging in a dialogue with the community. We want to work with the community. It's my personal view that it is possible to have a revitalized and different style of PNE and a dramatic and exciting park in the east side of Vancouver. As someone who represented that area, who still represents east Vancouver and who grew up in that area, I am acutely aware of the interests of the community, as is my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

I can assure you that the decisions we make will be appropriate for the people of Vancouver. My colleagues and I are particularly proud that we will do something that will be a lasting legacy for the people of east Vancouver.

[ Page 2434 ]

NORTH AMERICAN

FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. Yesterday, regarding the major shift on the North American free trade agreement, he said that the government had been passed secret document after secret document and had been told not to discuss it with anybody. Judging from his revelation of these secret documents, it would seem that the interests of British Columbia and Canada are in grave danger. Does the minister not feel that the people of our province have a right to be aware of what is taking place? Will he now commit to tabling those documents in the House rather than hiding behind innuendo?

[2:30]

Presenting Petitions

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise to table a petition. This petition parallels one that will be delivered today to the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

"The petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of the province of British Columbia, states that we are concerned with the" -- pending removal -- "of free parking at the Langdale ferry terminus of B.C. Ferries. Your petitioner respectfully requests that the hon. House pass a resolution in support of the residents of the Sunshine Coast and encourage the B.C. ferry authority to give consideration to this matter."

Motion without Notice

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FORESTS, ENERGY, MINES AND

PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Hon. D. Miller: I would ask leave of the House to move a motion of referral to the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Leave granted.

Hon. D.

Miller: I would move that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the availability of lumber to remanufacturers, and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider (1) the lumber supply requirements of the remanufacturing sector, and (2) barriers or impediments to increasing the supply of lumber to the remanufacturing sector; and to report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be, to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment; and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House the Chairman shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said committee by the House, the committee shall have the following additional powers, namely: (

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; (

b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session, and during any sitting of the House; (

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and (

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee.

On the motion.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm pleased to be able to make this motion, and I think that we will have agreement in the House on the intent of the motion and the work that the committee should undertake. The remanufacturing sector -- or value-added industry, as it's sometimes referred to -- is of vital importance to the well-being and evolution of the forest industry in this province. A recent survey indicates that there are some 150 such firms in British Columbia employing some 3,500 British Columbians. These firms produce in excess of three-quarters of a billion dollars in sales.

In B.C. we have a competitive advantage in lumber remanufacturing. Much of our lumber is strong, clear and fine-grained, ideally suited for remanufacturing. No other country has a comparable quantity or quality of such fibre. The remanufacturing sector has definite possibilities for growth and expansion. Many associations and firms have stated that constraints on lumber supply is their key obstacle. More importantly, the expansion of this sector will go a long way to mitigate the economic and employment displacement that is occurring in the dimension lumber sector.

It is not the only solution or by any means a panacea for the complex difficulties facing the forest industry, but it is a vital step in the right direction.

Expanding this lumber supply will require effort by the large firms who control the vast majority of sawmills in B.C. The remanufacturing sector requires small volumes of lumber, often of a special size and grade. The large firms have not always been able or willing to respond to this need.

The expansion of this sector can only be a benefit to the province. It will mean more jobs, diversification in products, markets and sizes of firms and a reduction in B.C.'s dependence on commodity lumber markets. I urge all members of this House to support this motion.

W. Hurd: The opposition certainly expresses its unqualified support for the work of this particular standing committee. It is critically needed at this time in the history of the forest products industry in British Columbia. The minister will well know that it was the

[ Page 2435 ]

last Select Standing Committee on Forest and Lands that looked at the Vancouver log market question and provided some excellent recommendations to this House on reforming the Vancouver log market and looking at other issues pertinent to the movement of logs in the province.

We also note that it has been a tough six months, particularly the last six months, for the value-added manufacturing industry in this province. I know the opposition has received many submissions from individual reman operators, who are facing some of the most difficult operating circumstances they have faced in the history of their involvement in the economics of this province.

I believe this committee is badly needed at this time. The opposition looks forward to participating in providing the recommendations we need to strengthen this important segment of our industry.

J. Weisgerber: The Socred caucus also supports the referral to the select standing committee. I think it is fair for us to say that we're a bit disappointed that there aren't more issues being referred to standing committees. We heard a great deal of talk over the last years about the importance of referring issues to committees. Unfortunately, in our first three months here we haven't seen much activity along that line. We are pleased that the forests committee will again be active.

As the previous members recognized, the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands in the previous administration dealt with a number of complex issues. I believe they brought back some good recommendations to government. We look forward to dealing with what is an important, albeit small, part of a very complex forest issue in this province. That's not to in any way downplay the importance of the issues that the committee is to resolve.

I think it's important to understand that there are a whole range of commissions and other organizations looking at forestry-related issues, and that the select standing committee will be dealing with a fairly narrow range of issues. I believe that it's a good process that would encourage the government to look at other issues which might be referred to select standing committees.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 63, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

(continued)

D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, it is with increasing pride that I take my place in this chamber to add my support to these long-overdue amendments to the Human Rights Act.

I am gladdened to see this government bring forward in this House a piece of legislation that will help to create a society based on equality and tolerance for all British Columbians. This is good news. This legislation is about respect and dignity, hon. members, and I look forward to the clause-by-clause examination of Bill 63, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to add to the comments of the member for Mission-Kent by speaking in favour of this bill. I'd like to make a couple of brief comments about the intent of Bill 63, the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992.

We're speaking on second reading of this bill, and it's a very important piece of legislation that was introduced by the Deputy Premier last evening in the House -- not introduced, but her major comments on second reading were made last evening in this House. It was introduced to the House the day before, so we've been moving very quickly with this bill.

But last night, hon. Speaker, something very special and significant happened in this Legislature. It was an awkward time, but at the same time when we reflect upon the events of last night, in terms of the debate on second reading of this bill, I think we can say that the Legislature and the system that we have here actually works -- the parliamentary system of democracy.

A bill came forward, and I think there's a consensus among all members of the House that this is a good bill and an important bill. I would hope that it's going to be supported in principle unanimously by members of this House in the second reading stage.

There were a number of concerns raised last evening. There were concerns about process. I think the Deputy Premier should be proud of this piece of legislation. She should be proud of the fact that the Human Rights Act is being amended to broaden its scope, to expand the definition of age and to add sexual orientation and family status to the prohibited grounds for discrimination under the act. I think these are very progressive moves that we all applaud. But there is a problem with process.

We agree with the principle, but not the process by which the bill came into the House and the fact that it was introduced in the House for first reading on the day before yesterday. Very quickly, without any exposure to the community at large, the government wanted to call it for second reading with only one day's introduction. We've had a chance to look at the bill for only one day. It is an important piece of legislation, but surely the bill requires, warrants and deserves to be out in the world to receive comments from interested groups for longer than that. We're concerned about the process and the fact that it's come through so quickly.

It has been hasty, and what we're looking for from the Deputy Premier, when she closes debate on this bill in second reading, is her response to some of the concerns raised last evening in debate by a number of members. This is not a partisan issue. This is a bill that, as I said, can hopefully be supported not only by the majority but also by this House unanimously.

There were a number of valid concerns raised: concerns about education, whether or not some of the issues addressed in this bill can be handled in terms of educating the community at large about the important issues, about the statute of limitations provision, equality of distribution, about the administration of the

[ Page 2436 ]

expanded terms under the Human Rights Act by the Council of Human Rights.

A number of concerns about discrimination were raised as well. These are valid concerns. They will be addressed in the committee stage of the bill, and I know that during the committee stage we look forward to having some good discussion. But again, committee stage should not be too hurried. We should take time. Good legislation is made by taking the time to make it fully considered, to make sure that the concerns of all elected representatives are heard, and to make sure that the concerns of the community at large which we all seek to represent in this House are heard as well.

Last night I think something very special happened here: a debate broke out. Every once in a while a debate does break out in this chamber, but it was a good debate and members from all sides spoke in the debate. They all made a contribution. We perhaps tended to get off track a little from time to time, but that's okay because the debate was broad-ranging.

I think the fact that second reading was not agreed to last night is actually a healthy thing, because it has given us overnight to think a little bit further about this bill. It has given the Deputy Premier a chance to think a little bit about some of the concerns raised last evening, and hopefully she will address those concerns as she closes debate on second reading.

With those few words I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this bill in the second reading stage.

S. Hammell: I rise in support of this bill, and want to speak on the

section that prohibits discrimination based on family status in the area of tenancy. In particular I want to focus on the single-parent family.

The heads of the majority of single-family households are women. Only 7 percent of the women of B.C. make over $30,000, and I would dare to say that we would probably find even a smaller percentage of those women making over who $30,000 are women heading single-family households. This makes finding affordable accommodation critical to the welfare of this particular family unit. To be told one is not suitable for an apartment or a suite because one has children is unacceptable and often an unbearable burden.

Families in our society should be celebrated and supported whether they are headed by single parents, dual parents, foster parents or whatever. Raising children in this complex world with its technological dimension is difficult enough for parents. There should be no impediments or additional stresses placed on these families.

Therefore I welcome the amendment in Bill 63, and am delighted to stand here in support.

[2:45]

S. O'Neill: It's a pleasure for me also to stand here today and support this bill. Listening to the debate last night, I realized that I have led a charmed life. I have never faced discrimination because of race, colour or religion, and basically I think I was the June Cleaver who was mentioned last night by one of the members.

When I became a single parent after the death of my husband, I had my own home, so I didn't have to worry about finding shelter for my family and being told that we weren't welcome. So I can only imagine the loneliness and the fear that must be felt by some of those of different sexual orientation, or the frustration felt by single mothers as they try to find shelter for their families. I'm proud to support a bill that helps to create a more equal and tolerant society.

Another important aspect of this bill is the removal of the barriers to employment equity. Surely in this day and age we have to ensure that employment equity is not only easy for public sector employees but for private sector employers as well.

As legislators we have a duty to ensure that all the people of this province can live in freedom and dignity in an open and just society. I feel this bill goes a long way to ensuring that. Therefore I'm proud to speak in favour of it.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. A. Hagen: I note that almost a third of the members of this Legislature have spoken on second reading of this important amending bill, the first significant human rights amendments in a long time in British Columbia.

First of all, I want to take the opportunity to say that the importance of the bill and the importance of the issues that are raised are amply testified to by the discussion that has occurred in this House.

These amendments have been a long time coming. I believe that the vigorous debate around the amendments is significant testament to the support that they hold in the House. Some members have talked about the fact that we've moved speedily into the debate on this legislation. We will have several days of debate on the bill, which is not something that has been characteristic of a number of the bills that have come before us. That signifies our attention to these important amendments, and our wish to go on record as being in support of them.

I also want to put the amendments in the context of our term as government. I mentioned in my opening remarks that the legislation was signalled in the throne speech more clearly than legislation sometimes is signalled. We spelled out quite a number of the amendments that were coming, and that elicited interest and anticipation from a broad community of British Columbians. I've had correspondence about the proposed changes. The B.C Council of Human Rights, members of our caucus and I'm sure members of the opposition caucuses have had the opportunity to explore these issues, because they knew that they were going to be a part of our discussion during this legislative session.

I look forward to the committee debate. It will allow us to expand on quite a number of the issues that have been raised by colleagues in the House. We want to ensure that not only have we set the framework for improvements in human rights legislation but that we also have the tools to do the job. I believe the opposition critic will remember that during our estimates debate in April -- the very first estimates debate that we entered into as a new government and a new House -- one

[ Page 2437 ]

the matters that we highlighted was that this government had provided additional resources both to the B.C. Council of Human Rights and to the employment standards branch for the processing of human rights complaints and questions. For people who may not be aware of the way in which this works: the issues come into the B.C. Council of Human Rights, and the investigation is put in the hands of the employment standards officers or the industrial relations officers, who are found in every part of the province. So access for the person bringing in a complaint is available near where they live.

We added to the staff of the employment standards branch. We also added to the staff of the Human Rights Council. The very nature of the legislative changes that are proposed are designed to make it possible for the Human Rights Council to deal with complaints in a more efficient manner. The class action part of the amendments, for example, will assist in clearing backlogs. Now each complaint has to be dealt with one by one, as an individual brings it forward or as someone brings it forward on their behalf. There are elements, in terms of both staffing and administration, that have been addressed by the budget and by the proposed amendments.

I take very seriously, too, the questions that have been raised about education. I want to commend the members who participated in the debate in a way that would allow anyone reading or watching the debate to become aware of the issues and the amendments. Speaking to the opposition spokesperson, we're aware, as are all members of the House, that we haven't covered everything in this set of amendments.

Over the course of the debate, we looked back on our human rights history. Sixty years ago I and my women colleagues were not recognized as persons in this country. Forty-five years ago aboriginal people did not have the right to vote. All of us know the stains on our history because of what we have done to Japanese people, East Indian people, Chinese people and people of Jewish extraction.

We all know the concrete issues around human rights violations that are a part of our history and of the expiation that all of us live with as we recognize that those ills leave scars on people and their families; that it doesn't take just a couple of days or a few weeks but years and decades and generations to eradicate. It's timely for us as a House to move forward on these issues and deal in the broader arena with the kind of education that we, as people who support these changes, can provide.

These changes recognize the right of every human being in our society to live in dignity, to have access to basic needs and have that accorded to each and every one of us without the expectation that we may be pilloried or questioned or subtly or overtly discriminated against. That's what this legislation is all about. That's what these amendments provide.

I want to assure the members of this House that we have looked very carefully at the range of amendments that we've brought forward. We believe that they fill some very major gaps in our human rights legislation. As I have signalled them to equity groups -- to people of colour and ethnicity, to people of disabilities, to people of sexual orientations that are recognized broadly in this legislation -- they have recognized that this province is opening up, which we needed to see.

We need to see that with the support of every member of this House, because that brings us out into the sunshine, recognizing the rights of every person. That's part of education and the statement that we make as responsible legislators as we proceed with the legislation.

I just want to acknowledge and state again that this is a process that goes on. I don't anticipate that everything that we as a parliament might do or will need to do is encompassed in this legislation. It was our initiative as government to move forward on important, major statements that would provide for all of us the opportunity to affirm to our population, to all citizens, our belief in human rights as a fundamental value in this province.

I can assure members that when you carry the word to your constituencies of what you, as members of this House, have helped to pass, you will, like I as the minister, feel a sense of pride and accomplishment at what we have done, and a recognition that we have worked together bringing this legislation to fruition.

When looking back over the history of this parliament, I think what we have accomplished will be a signal of our intent and demonstrable achievement in its own right. Members of this Legislature have a commitment to the rights of all of us men, women, people of disabilities, people of colour, people from our first nations, people of all kinds in terms of their values and their personal lifestyles; that every person has a right to live in our land with dignity, with freedom and with access to the fundamental needs of life that we believe are most important and valuable.

So I thank the members for their participation, and look forward to our ongoing discussion of how each of these amendments will serve us. With that, it's my pleasure to move second reading on this important piece of legislation.

[3:00]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 63, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A and B.

Section A is Ministry of Women's Equality, and

section B is the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 35: minister's office, $325,213 (continued).

F. Gingell: If there is a silence at any point, hon. Chair, you can assume that I'm on my feet for a little while.

[ Page 2438 ]

Hon. G. Clark: For the sake of the committee, I'll list the number of employees by group and gender. There are a total of 16,443 male employees and 21,036 female employees. Of our employees 56.1 percent are female. If you would like a breakdown, I could certainly give it to you in terms of management. I'm not sure that's required.

By Group: within the BCGEU, 57.7 percent are female; within the Professional Employees' Association, which is mostly management, 14.7 percent are female; of the nurses who work directly for the government, 83.8 percent are female; in management staff, 31 percent are female; and with salaried physicians, 20.3 percent are female. Then there are sundry others as well.

In terms of the last question you just asked me, within the B.C. Government Employees' Union bargaining unit females make 84.1 percent of what males make; within the Professional Employees' Association it's 88.8 percent; and among nurses it's 101.7 percent -- for a total, within the bargaining unit, of 84.7 percent; in other words, that women earn as much as men.

In the management sector women earn 87.5 percent of the salaries made by males, and in the salaried physicians it's 90.9 percent -- for a total, in all of government, of 79.2 percent for female earnings as a percentage of male earnings.

If you'd like more detail, I can certainly provide it. As a matter of fact, I don't have any problem providing this to members across the way, if they're so interested.

F. Gingell: When I was listening to you, it was a little hard to.... I had problems. When you read down the lists of percentages -- 84, 88, 101, 85, 87, 90 and 80 -- you came up with averages that were below the lowest number. If you'll look at the last number, the average above is 69.7 percent; below it's 79.2 percent. Is there some form of weighting in there? I think that's almost a mathematical impossibility.

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good point. When I first saw this table, I actually asked my staff to look at that. If it's okay, I'll certainly provide you with the detailed information to justify it. This is my information from my staff, and I have every reason to believe it's correct, of course. Generally speaking it is.

In terms of male versus female employees in general, in terms of the bargaining unit employees, obviously the gap is not as wide as in the private sector. The recent initiatives in pay equity have, very modestly of course, started to close that gap.

We do have problems with some male-dominated classes which are not competitive with the private sector. As a result, if there's any adjustment there, that increases the gap, which is very unfortunate. But that's certainly a possibility, so I don't want to pretend otherwise; it's part of collective bargaining.

Any exacerbation of the gap as a result of collective bargaining simply means that the 1 percent of payroll that's applied to pay equity goes on for a few more years, as you close the gap. But it's extremely difficult. As you know, in this new burgeoning debate around pay equity plans, this is a constant problem. Trying to deal with this in a regulatory way and the market moving in a different direction sometimes causes big challenges for a government that is committed to trying to deal with pay equity. We're dealing with that as best we can.

F. Gingell: I certainly don't want you to do any more with this. That's fine, thank you. If we need anything more we will contact you.

I have one last question on government personnel services. With your care in bringing down the cost in the majority of the divisions of your ministry, government personnel services is one that has increased by some $600,000 in '92-93 over '91-92, not in the form of salaries but in what I think was classified as operations. I was wondering if you could advise us what that is?

Hon. G. Clark: It is a collective bargaining year. That's the long and short of it. Collective bargaining puts an enormous burden on the personnel services division from arbitrators to mediators to costs of hotel rooms. That number you see is solely attributable to that. Frankly, it may be more, it may be less. We tried to budget realistically, but when you're in this kind of bargaining it would be difficult for government to say: "Oh, gee. We've reached our budget so we can't rent a room." These are challenging bargaining sessions and they do cost some money.

[3:15]

K. Jones: What affirmative action plans have been implemented by the ministry in the employment area? What do you plan this year?

Hon. G. Clark: Policy in this regard is the domain of the Minister of Women's Equality, who is sitting right now in her estimates. To answer your question specifically, no action has been taken.

K. Jones: I note that there is actually a female majority of workers in certain areas. A census probably wouldn't fall under the area of Women's Equality. Is there any plan to work at gender equity in those areas where there is actually a predominance of women? Is there any affirmative action plans to bring balance to those female-dominated areas?

Hon. G. Clark: Our ministry has a women's equality task force within the ministry. I'm not sure if you were here for the debate yesterday. The Ministry of Women's Equality is the lead ministry on employment equity and on the gender question. The government personnel services division ends up essentially implementing policy and does work for me, and I don't mind discussing that question. The lead ministry and

minis-

[ Page 2439 ]

ter are taking this issue through government. It is simply under review at this point. Responsible for all of those questions is the Ministry of Women's Equality.

K. Jones: I'm not sure if the minister actually heard me. It was with reference to the female-dominated areas and as to whether there was going to be any equity -- to bring a balance by having more males employed in those areas.

Hon. G. Clark: To the best of my knowledge, no special or affirmative action is required for white middle-class males. I don't believe it is contemplated, certainly not by me. All of those questions are under review, but certainly not in my ministry.

F. Gingell: Perhaps now we could turn to B.C. Ferries, if we may, seeing that Mr. Rhodes is here. I was wondering, Mr. Minister, if we could commence this

section with your giving us a generalized mission statement for B.C. Ferries, and some general ideas as to their plans.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all I'd like to introduce Frank Rhodes, who's the general manager, and Glen Brown, who's the assistant general manager of finance. So we have staff here on the subject.

I'm delighted to talk about the Ferry Corporation. First of all, you will see a prepared mission statement, but I will just give you my views on the subject since you've asked for them. The Leader of the Opposition has some questions, so I will try to be as brief as possible, but it's hard to be brief because this is an exciting area, and with all due respect to my other staff here, one which I take great interest in and enjoy a great deal.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation has several policy goals, one of which is to provide the least costly form of transportation for people on the islands, both for economic development reasons and for transportation reasons, and secondly, and equally as important, be an instrument of public policy in British Columbia.

W.A.C. Bennett, of course, was the founder of the Ferry Corporation and he, like many leaders in the west in the fifties, sixties and seventies, I think could be characterized as a province-builder -- Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney, W.A.C. Bennett. They believed in something that I think Quebec also believes in, which they call

maitres chez nous , which means being masters in our own house, and using the tools available for governments to develop this great province of ours.

The Ferry Corporation can be and has been an exciting instrument of public policy to promote economic development, to promote a shipbuilding industry, which in many respects there was a great deal of effort on by W.A.C. Bennett -- weakened somewhat, unfortunately, by the previous administration and by the Bill Bennett administration in terms of those linkages, in terms of making sure that ships for the Ferry Corporation were built in British Columbia with the highest possible British Columbia content, and that they were designed in British Columbia by naval architects.

We have some very fine naval architects in British Columbia as a direct result of that public policy initiative who can now compete around the world.

We have a shipbuilding industry which is in difficulty, and in this regard the Ferry Corporation has again -- and I give credit to the previous administration -- come up with some innovative ways in which we can help the shipbuilding industry but remain cost-competitive. Integrated Ferry Constructors is a model, looked upon as such elsewhere, which allowed some work to be moved around between yards and maintained workforces in British Columbia. So it has an economic development component, because it is a big Crown corporation which requires big capital demands. We want to make sure that capital is working in British Columbia.

On the service side, we want to work to improve service to British Columbians generally and to tourists in British Columbia, which is why I am so pleased that the latest innovation of 24-hour sailings -- and some other changes -- improves the capacity from last year to this year by 57 percent on the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay route. That's service to Nanaimo, because you count the Mid-Island Express as well. That is a very positive change in British Columbia. It has improved service to people, and we believe it can be cost-effective. It is an experiment.

We want to make sure that it's cost-competitive and cost-effective, and we want to make sure, in fact, that the local communities have input into how we can best mitigate some concerns that have arisen as a result of that policy initiative.

We do have some big challenges, I don't mind saying to members, and I guess they can be summarized as two. First of all, we have an operating subsidy which we cut by 15 percent this year. I'm pleased with that, but clearly we want to work to reduce that operating subsidy. Obviously the taxpayers of British Columbia have a limit to how much they can provide for subsidy in that area. Secondly, there are big capital decisions to be made, and those capital spending decisions are ones which we take very seriously.

But we do have about 40 ships in the fleet that have an average lifespan of about 40 years, so it's quite fair to say that we should be replacing one ship a year just to deal with capital depreciation. As a province, we haven't been doing that in recent years. We have been building for increased capacity, but we need to look at reviewing both increased capacity and replacement of existing vessels. Traffic is now 8 million vehicles and 20.5 million passengers annually in British Columbia. This is a big corporation that does a good job in terms of cost recovery on the operating side.

We have some major capital projects now under way: two superferries, the largest of their kind, using a British Columbia workforce; two small ferries -- one which was just completed; and the question of major terminal development taking place on both sides of the water. As well, we have the question of a new terminal in the Nanaimo area under review, but we need to make some changes there.

We want to make sure these changes are cost-effective. We're now embarking upon -- for all the Crowns, actually -- the whole question of how we review capital to try and make sure that rational decisions are made.

[ Page 2440 ]

There hasn't really been any way of dealing with capital in a general sense.

The Ferry Corporation is a dynamic one, employs hundreds of British Columbians, and has tremendous spinoff effects as an economic generator in its own right. In the past we have opened up parts of British Columbia to tourism -- and to service the people with the corporation. We look forward to continuing that and, in fact, to improving service.

On the fast-ferry side, we're looking at opportunities there as well, as new technologies become available. I'm very bullish, as they say, on the Ferry Corporation. We have an excellent staff there. We think it has great potential. But I'm also wary, I don't mind saying, about the cost implications for the government of British Columbia as we deal with a tough fiscal environment.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to have a chance to address some questions to the minister with respect to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. For the edification of the minister, the opposition caucus has divided the Crown corporations, and I am, in fact, the critic for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, which will come as no surprise to some members opposite. This Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the close relationship that exists between the minister and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, especially with respect to ongoing matters of correspondence relating to particular riding associations.

Having said that, my comments are going to be actually broken into four classes, just for the ease of following through the kind of line of thought that I've got.

The first is with respect to the proposition of ongoing service within the coastal communities that are outside of route 1, the main route, or routes 1 and 2. I'm really talking about service to the Gulf Islands, service to the Sunshine Coast and service in the northern route.

The second line of questioning is with respect to the priorities that have been given to the development of terminals, and what kind of general philosophy exists within the ministry with respect to integration of vehicular ferry service with passenger ferry service.

The third line that I'd like to discuss is with respect to the construction program and where it is going.

Lastly, I'd like to talk more specifically about some issues that are current with regard to ongoing construction projects within the B.C. Ferry Corporation. That is the general line of questioning. I think there are other members that will want to come in and talk about late-night sailing and all-night sailing and that kind of thing.

With respect to the first matter, it's the policy position of the Liberal opposition that the B.C. Ferry Corporation should be seen to be and considered to be a natural extension of the highway. If we recognize that as a general philosophy, we would also recognize that given that this is a natural extension of the highway, we are also going to have to be cognizant of the fact that there is a limited amount of capital that can be put in place to make sure that these highways -- if I can use that word -- are open at all times.

But we have to, as our primary concern, meet the travel requirements of existing residential populations and commercial operations in the province, without giving overall consideration to the larger questions of cost recovery through enhancement of tourism programs and those kinds of things. That's the philosophical base from which we come.

I wonder if the minister could comment with respect to that: to what extent decisions are taken with respect to the potential for cost recovery, and to what extent the rates and fares that are structured are driven by the corporation's attempt at providing a cost-recoverable base on all routes, given that there is a fairly different demand between routes 1, 2, and 3 of the Gulf Islands and the northern route.

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously, if we were to look at simply cost recovery, we would have a radically different tariff schedule. I'm not sure if the member knows that route 1 has about a 30 percent return on capital, so we make money on the main route, where we carry the most passengers. The southern Gulf Islands loses a lot of money, and so do the Queen Charlottes. So in fact there's a lot of cross-subsidy between those routes.

Frankly, there probably always will be, as we struggle with this balance of trying to be fiscally responsible and efficient for passengers and providing necessary service to people who live, in some cases, in isolated communities like islands. It's a bit of a balancing act that we try to undertake.

For members opposite, I'll give the cost recoveries for '91-92: on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay route it is 130 percent; on the Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo route it is 132 percent; on the Tsawwassen-Nanaimo route it is 90 percent. The Horseshoe Bay-Langdale route has over 100 percent cost recovery, so it actually pays for itself.

But then we get down to the Langdale, Gambier Island and Keats Island passenger-only service at 11 percent cost recovery. Powell River-Texada is 13 percent cost recovery, and Swartz Bay-Saltspring is about 50 percent. Many of the Gulf Islands look to be about 40 percent or 50 percent cost recovery. So there's a great deal of cross-subsidization in the service now, and that is always going to be there. We're never going to go to full cost recovery, it seems to me, in some of these isolated communities with small passenger loads. I think that would be too difficult.

So we have this balance between fiscal responsibility, trying to make sure that we don't have general taxpayers -- people from Prince George, essentially -- dramatically subsidizing ferry service to isolated communities.... We at least try to limit that amount, but at the same time I do agree with you that these are necessary services. The B.C. government, as a responsible government, is required to provide them and to make sure that they're available to people. That means we have to be very conscious of the tariff schedule. So we are conscious of that.

I guess that I can't give you a black-and-white answer, because we're not going to move to cost recovery in all routes. We'd like to try to move a bit closer to that if we could, but there are different ways of doing that -- some are more innovations to improve service. I like to think that the 24-hour sailing is one of those win-win situations. I say that carefully, because I

[ Page 2441 ]

know that communities affected are concerned. We may -- I say may -- be in a position of improving service to people, of improving service to the communities affected on the Island, and in fact making money.

It doesn't necessarily mean, as we move to try to be more efficient, that we can in fact improve service. So I can't give you a black-and-white answer. It's a balancing act there. We want to try to reduce the Ferry Corporation subsidy generally over time, if we can do that reasonably without great rate shocks. I am conscious of the cost-recovery factor, because there is a lot of cross-subsidization within the ferry service. But I'm also conscious of the very great public need of ensuring service at reasonable cost to people in isolated communities.

[3:30]

G. Wilson: Coming back to the question of this general philosophy and how one approaches it, the B.C. Ferry Corporation, in history.... I hope that the minister will correct me if my information is not 100 percent. It seems, from my reading, that essentially the marine routes from the Island, or islands, to the mainland were originally under B.C. Ferries,

whereas mainland ferries were originally under the B.C. Highways ministry. It was fairly recently that there had been some switching of some of the routes that were formerly Highways, even though, I think, Campbell River was a Highways route.

Can the minister tell us how one can justify -- and it's a question that comes to me all the time from constituents -- that interior ferries and ferries across rivers maintained and run by the Ministry of Highways are free, when on the coast you have communities that are isolated and stranded without ferries and are essentially subject to the whim of government and the rates of ferries going up annually? What's the philosophical justification for those differences?

Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a good question. I understand the concerns. There is an enormous subsidy to those routes now -- enormous. As you can see, some of those routes are only 10 percent cost recovery. So we're maintaining that historic difference. In 1985, I gather they shifted only the northern Gulf Islands route into the ferry service. The ferry services run by the Highways ministry are very few now -- one less, as you know, fairly recently -- and the subsidy is very modest, because they are fairly modest routes. I think it's fair to say that there is a great deal of cross-subsidization now.

I understand the concerns. As a practising politician, I'm sympathetic to people who have to deal with these and rely upon the ferry service.

I can assure you that we have no intention of moving radically to cost recovery in some of those areas. This would require massive rate increases because of the equity considerations that we have. Nevertheless, balancing them in the interest of the broader public, making sure that the corporation is as efficient as possible, and providing that balance that we struggle with all the time on the tariff schedule. That degree of cross-subsidy that exists now is likely to continue indefinitely, because we're conscious of the concerns of people in those isolated communities.

I recognize the inequity. I think it's partly a historical question that has developed. We obviously have to review all of those things. It's my view that some of those interior communities would be better served by bridges and roads, and that's obviously one area which I know the Minister of Highways is looking at, certainly in the one major community that has been the subject of a little bit of debate in this House, because people in those communities are concerned about it. It is, in many respects, a highway, and there is a great deal of subsidy that goes to highways as well, I might remind members. We do provide some subsidy.

G. Wilson: Actually, the last point that the minister made is a point I'd like to come back to and restate now. If one can accept the proposition that the ferries are a natural extension of the highways, if one can accept that communities dependent upon the ferries are equally dependent upon them as communities dependent upon efficient highways to transport people and goods and services and commodities and so on, would it not make more sense for government to look at the proposition that the maintenance and operation of all capital infrastructure on B.C.

Ferries would in fact be financed through the Ministry of Highways, and that only operational costs and the functional part of operational costs would be picked up by the Ferry Corporation? Would that not be an easier way to amortize the cost provincially, and be able to provide for greater flexibility in the financing of services that are needed on board and the types of ferries with respect to the community served?

Hon. G. Clark: I need some further explanation as to what you're getting at, because all borrowing now for the Ferry Corporation and for Highways is done by the Ministry of Finance, so there's absolutely no difference. We could move the borrowing to the Ministry of Highways, but it would have absolutely no material impact on anybody -- except for a book question. Unless you're suggesting we expense it -- as opposed to capitalize it -- and borrow against it, I don't see any advantage to that.

To be candid, knowing how government works from my limited time here, I think that a Crown corporation is a better vehicle for maintaining a service, in some respects, than a line ministry, which is subject to people like me and Treasury Board who have to deal with tough fiscal environments. I'm not sure that moving anything to the Ministry of Highways would be advantageous to individuals. We have a Crown corporation that's working very well. It is borrowing lots of money through Ministry of Finance at very low rates and is providing a highly subsidized service, which will continue for some time.

G. Wilson: I was referring to both capitalizing and expensing of those services. Let me give you an example. It becomes difficult, if you look at a proposition of the B.C. Ferry Corporation that takes a decision, as was taken although reversed later, to spend -- you

[ Page 2442 ]

can correct me on the figure -- upwards of $30 million on the expansion and improvement of parking and loading facilities at the Horseshoe Bay terminal, even though that did not come about as an expenditure....

When people who are being serviced out of that terminal are told that there is no money to put on an additional sailing, and therefore the road closes at 9:15 and nobody can get home, the question that is asked of me and other members on this side of the House is: if the corporation essentially is going to finance a $30 million project, why would you not look at the construction of highways and the maintenance, expansion, construction and development of ferry terminals as a functional part of the Highways ministry?

Why would you not simply allow whatever dollars are generated in revenue that can be accrued to the Crown corporation to go directly into the service provided to the people who are in need?

Hon. G. Clark: I understand the point you're making. Let me make two points. First of all, in some respects we're going in the opposite direction. We want to make sure that operating decisions and capital decisions are made in an integrated way. That really hasn't been the case in the past. Capital has been largely free. If it's capitalized and isn't given the scrutiny.... I'm not sure my staff here would agree with me, but I think historically the capital budget hasn't been scrutinized that well, because it's not part of your current account deficit.

We have these huge capital demands by Crowns, which they generally get. We're trying to make sure that the operational decisions and capital decisions are put on an equal footing, so that we can decide, as government, what makes the most economic sense: hiring more staff and running the ferry longer or building bigger holding tanks for people to park in. That integration is a big part of what we've been doing over the last six months.

I agree with you, though, that there needs to be better integration between the Ferry Corporation and Transportation and Highways. I might say that, surprisingly, when we took office and I was given responsibility for the Ferry Corporation, I asked my then-deputy to secure for me the staff in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to scrutinize the spending and policy decisions governing B.C. Ferries. Much to my surprise, there wasn't a single person identified in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways who was responsible for B.C. Ferries. There was nothing happening in that regard. We will be doing a better job of integrating the decisions.

Some of the discussion around Duke Point took place. When you look at the capital cost of that or the Horseshoe Bay one, you find out the Ministry of Highways hasn't got anything in their budget to hook up to these new facilities. That's a big, hidden cost driver for government. We're just trying to get on top of that right now. I think it's an excellent point. We're working to try to ensure a better continuity between ministries.

It may well be that your suggestion may make some sense in terms of moving it there after we do this review, but I doubt it, because we're really trying to get a handle on reviewing operating and capital costs within the Crown corporations, at least at first, so that we can make what I think are more rational decisions like the 24-hour sailing initiative. If it works, that may in fact forestall tens of millions of dollars in capital spending, which would otherwise be required to have bigger ships on a shorter schedule.

G. Wilson: When the minister opposite took office and was given the Crown corporation, for a minute I wasn't sure if he was surprised that he took office or surprised that he was given the Crown corporation, or perhaps both.

Nevertheless, we're pleased to see that there is some review being given, because from our point of view not only would there be a great cost saving, but we can develop a much more efficient process for making decisions on what kind of service can be developed that will provide maximum service to an area with minimal impact to the infrastructure construction that has to go in place to service those areas.

That brings me to the next question, which is with respect to the berthing of ferries and the development of terminals. It won't come as any surprise when I ask the minister when Powell River can expect to have the Powell River-Comox ferry berth there as was promised and is yet to be delivered.

Hon. G. Clark: I guess I could say when the financial resources of the corporation allow, but that may be some ways hence. As you know, that was a difficult decision, which we took early on. I must say that I was somewhat sympathetic to some of the problems that both communities had, and I'm really uncomfortable with the way it became a political football with the previous administration. Obviously it has been part of politics in the last few years. That's unfortunate, because no one wins in that regard. We've saved about $10 million by leaving the ferry in the Comox area. We want to engage in a process of involving the communities to make the best, most rational decision.

I'm hopeful that over time, at least, it may well be the most rational decision to have two smaller ferries berthed on both sides. It depends on what happens with load patterns. The loads are growing quite dramatically. I think there's great potential for the Sunshine Coast-Powell River, which causes other problems in terms of some of the letters I'm getting from residents in your constituency who are concerned about improving ferry service to that community because of the growth pressures that will inevitably arise. That presents other challenges.

Not to open up a whole other can of worms, but if we were to provide fast-ferry service to the Gibsons area, that could be a dramatic improvement of service and dramatic in terms of what it does to stimulus in that region. If that happened, you would have growth. If that were desirable -- we could work with local communities on that -- you might find a dramatic increase in traffic as well at the north end through Powell River and across, as we start to develop other linkages in the region. So that has a certain impact.

[ Page 2443 ]

At the moment, we decided to leave it in the Courtenay area. That was the best, most rational decision, frankly, in terms of the cost to the government, even though I'm conscious of the concerns that people have in politics. We are actively reviewing it. We want to work with the communities on both sides to make sure that the decision is not a political one but one which makes the most economic sense for British Columbia generally, and makes most economic sense for the government in terms of efficient service.

G. Wilson: With respect to the proposition of moving the ferry from the Island over to Powell River, I ask this question without trying to open another political can of worms. I recognize that it did become very much a part of the last election campaign, and promises were made in the heat of that campaign that haven't been delivered on. What I'm really more interested in looking at is getting specifically at what the....

Hon. G. Clark: Your promises or ours?

G. Wilson: No, not our promises. We deliver upon our promises. The trouble is we didn't get quite enough members to do it effectively here; otherwise we would have been in government. Nevertheless we're prepared to wait the few years that it'll take for us to get over there and sort it out.

[3:45]

With respect to the policy of the corporation and the development of ferry terminals, my question is a political one. Let's be quite clear that they are a purchasing agent and an employment base. Most isolated communities in British Columbia have directly benefited from a terminal in the community because there are people hired directly out of the community, it stimulates economic growth and development, and the fact that you have the terminal there is useful for the community.

Powell River is an anomaly in British Columbia in that it is one of the few isolated communities that does not have the ferry terminal in the community, but rather has the ferry terminal over on the Island. I believe it was a political decision many years ago that was made at that time. It becomes difficult now simply to rob Peter to pay Paul, and I understand all of that argument.

But in the Powell River question itself, the difficulty is that the waterfront development project underway is dependent upon that terminal, and with the significant downsizing of the Powell River pulp mill and the reduction of employees in that area, any expansion of the base is something that is going to be looked at as a potential economic stimulus for the region.

I wonder if the minister has some thoughts on one of those ideas as to whether or not as a policy of his government there's a recognition that decentralization of services and the location of these services in isolated communities is a benefit to the community, as well as a potential cost-saver to the corporation.

Hon. G. Clark: I think that those comments were well made and well taken by myself, Mr. Chairman. The Powell River side would lose about $3.5 million a year -- I'll just get the numbers here. The cost of the new terminal would be $10 million to $14 million, in money from the taxpayer, and the employee relocation cost would have been $1 million. So I appreciate that some of those.... You're absolutely right. It is one of the few isolated communities that hasn't benefited by a ferry terminal.

It can be an economic development tool. It has been elsewhere. Even if you could argue they're a subsidy or money that isn't required, you can see by these dollars that if you pump that kind of money directly into a community and they are hard-pressed, it has some positive spinoff benefits. I'm advised that the Powell River council, which we've been meeting with, hasn't made a final determination. Obviously they'd like the terminal there, but that's not in the cards at the moment because of the decision we made.

But we are working with them and reviewing with them how the ferry which does arrive there would be integrated. Obviously it would be desirable from Powell River's point of view to have that kind of economic development initiative, looking at it as an economic development tool.

But it's not the only thing that Powell River has to exploit to have development in a harbour. I think Powell River has been undersold. It's been viewed as a kind of a mill town. This is just rhetoric, which I don't anticipate many people there would be very happy with; they'd like some concrete money and some action. But I think Powell River has real positive potential, including that harbour facility, even if there is no major terminal expansion or payroll located in the community. We're trying to work with them to see what we can do, but again we have to make the rational decision at this time.

G. Wilson: Indeed Powell River does have great potential, and the citizens there are quite excited about it. As a matter of fact, they celebrate it every summer with a festival and parade, which I think the minister might know something about.

But with respect to the decision on the financing of these terminals and the policies around it, I would move, with respect, to the question of commuter passes and the book fares you can buy. You probably have a term -- and I wouldn't know what that would be -- for buying a book of tickets at a reduced fare. Can the minister tell us what criteria are in place for communities to benefit by that, given that there are a number of communities that don't have it and would like to have it?

Also there is the question of the fare that is charged and whether or not there is a specific formula for the establishment of a tariff based on distance or time. What is the structure for the tariff that is in place?

Hon. G. Clark: That's an excellent question. It is a historical anomaly. There is absolutely no formula that dictates when a community can take advantage of those books. It is one of the things that came to light in my briefing book when we took office. We haven't really had the chance to get a handle on it yet. We do have to look at that whole question of subsidies to commuters and, I think, probably narrowing that subsidy. I know

[ Page 2444 ]

that isn't particularly popular, but we have to look at it. Assured loading was originally lower rates and ended up becoming so popular that they filled the boats with assured loading tickets. Assured loading tickets were discounted to try and get people to buy them. There are now, I think, thousands of them out there. It's like airline points. We have a big liability which we've sold and spent, and there are all those discount tickets out there. We got to the stage where some ferries were completely filled with assured loading tickets. What do you do?

The answer, frankly, was that we had to do a little demand management: we had to eliminate the subsidy for assured loading and, in fact, charge a premium for the advantage of assured loading. I know that's not very easy to do, and I didn't like doing it, but in terms of any rational analysis, people were prepared to pay at least a small premium in order to get access to the boat and not have to wait in the large lineups. It became -- and still is -- a fairly big problem for the corporation. We have this sort of liability hanging out there that we have to get a handle on.

Before we expand the commuter question, we're reviewing the whole pricing structure, because it does make certain logic to try to deal with a bit of demand management in terms of pricing. If we could provide -- as we have -- half-price for the 1 a.m. sailing, then the next thing would be to try to do the opposite in very high peak periods and maybe charge a small premium. We don't want to have a disincentive for commuters or people who rely on the service. We're trying to grapple with how we might deal with that question.

At this point -- and again, another small surprise for me -- there is absolutely no formula. It's completely driven by some historical accident.

G. Wilson: Were these rates politically driven or were they decided by management?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that it has been going on for 15 years, and they are approved, as all rates are, by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by cabinet. Management recommended this earlier. The Ferry Corporation has gone through an evolution, where in fact they were trying to get more passengers because they overbuilt -- we could argue that, anyway -- and then they provided discounts for everything to try and get people to take the ferry. We have the opposite problem now, where we have a big demand on the service.

We have a difficult time financing it, and we're trying to deal with it as best we can in a rationale way. It doesn't appear to be anything too nefarious, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some political direction. I'm advised that Highways had one policy and B.C. Ferries had a different policy.

G. Wilson: I take it that there is an active and ongoing review, and we certainly welcome that. We hope that the review doesn't simply bring all the fares up to the highest common denominator but rather that it takes into account the impact of increased fares on both residential and commercial operations in the communities that are dependent upon them.

If I could draw one matter to the minister's attention that I think should be included in such a review, which would not only be a cost benefit to the residents but would make the pricing structure on ferries consistent, it is the circle tour. If a circle tour is promoted -- as it has been with respect to the lower mainland-Vancouver Island-Powell River-Sunshine Coast region -- but isn't provided with a consistent rate, it detracts from what is being promoted, with some considerable sum of money, with respect to tourism potential in the circle route. That's one point.

The other point is with respect to the fact that there is no tariff rate structure. Because of the scheduled service available, we could end up with a person who wishes to travel from point A to point C possibly having to travel past point C to point B and then paying an additional fee to go halfway back to get to point B. The actual distance travelled is required because there is no direct service. There are a number of examples where that exists.

I wonder if it isn't possible to have a destination fare that can be charged so that you're not charged a double tariff because of the distance that you're forced to travel simply because there isn't a ferry that takes you there.

Hon. G. Clark: That's another good question. It's nice to have an informed spokesperson on the issue. That is precisely under review as part of the general tariff review that I've asked for.

Another issue which is interesting.... To be candid, I don't know whether these are possible yet. I don't want to give any sense that we're actually going to do it; we are just reviewing it. One option would be, for example, to have a circular tour rate -- one ticket that you could buy for a circle. That's exactly the kind of thing we're reviewing and the kind of innovation that we're trying. We have to really think through the ramifications of it. We don't want to give a circle-tour rate to a tourist that, at the same time, appears to be less than the rate for a British Columbian trying to make a living or to get across the way. So we have to look at these, and they are interrelated issues.

There is an issue that you've talked about. You might be alluding to Comox-Powell River-Texada Island, where you have to go back again. The precise question of having a ticket that would give you a destination price is under review.

G. Wilson: Since we're on a bit of a roll here, I wonder if we could get something else under review and implemented. It would appear to me that it's a very simple matter. Maybe there's a bookkeeping problem, or whatever. It's with respect whether or not the book of tickets that can be purchased in advance could be made available for commuters to purchase on the ferry -- either in the book shop or from the purser -- so that they don't have to go down to the terminus and find that they're not available. It would seem to me to be a service that would be quite acceptable.

Hon. G. Clark: Some small ferries don't have a purser, which might make that difficult. But that's an

[ Page 2445 ]

excellent suggestion. It's not one that I had thought of, but we'll certainly look at it.

That's a good example of the kind of service-quality initiatives we're trying to look at. You may know, for example, that there will be cappuccino on every ferry this summer. I know it's a small thing, but it's the kind of initiative.... Part of the reason why I like having this responsibility is that you can see little concrete things that are improvements for people. That's another example, and we're certainly looking at it.

G. Wilson: I can tell you that there were rounds of cheers of delight for the improved service when French fries finally hit the Langdale run after 20 years of trying to get them served. Things are really looking up on the B.C. Ferries; there's no doubt about that.

With respect to the routing now, I wonder if we could talk just a little bit about what the priorities are concerning ridership and the extension of service. Is there generally a formula that is followed for the provision of additional service? We're looking at the potential for one additional service in the day or expanded service at midday. It would seem that there is some kind of a formula that is used. Could the minister tell us what the trigger is that would allow the Ferry Corporation to recognize the need for additional service?

[4:00]

Hon. G. Clark: There is some pressure to improve the sailings on the route that you allude to. We are driven by that kind of demand. We want to make sure that it's cost effective. We're in an overtime situation if we try to do that right now. That's part of the economic problem. We can and do provide service when demand requires it. We have discretionary sailings on that route when there is a demand, and we try to accommodate it. We look at the economics of accommodating it. It's close to being there. There is pressure on us to provide increased sailings. I would be delighted to do that. We're just reviewing it to see if we can do it in a cost-effective way.

At this point I'm not optimistic that we can do that, at least in the next few weeks. We have to see how the load develops and how we can best accommodate it. We do have some staffing problems that result in overtime at the moment. As you can imagine, we have a certain number of ships and crew. In order to make that extra step, the marginal cost jumps up dramatically at a certain point. We're almost there on that route. That's giving us a bit of a problem in improving the service, which we'd all like to see.

G. Wilson: With the provisions of these additional sailings in mind, my understanding is that it's usually at the discretion of the captain or management either on board or at the terminal. It's dependent on an overload situation. What I'm talking about is the implementation of a scheduled service. One could argue that the economy of running a hit-and-miss operation really is not.... You can't compare it to the potential of scheduled service, where people know that they have the opportunity or the potential to pick up an additional sailing at a particular time.

Even if it isn't done seven days a week, there could be an obvious Thursday-through-Sunday demand that could be scheduled and offer staffing assistance.

If I'm getting into an area of collective bargaining that you think I shouldn't get into, then just advise me. There seems to be general support throughout the system for five days on, five days off, which would allow the opportunity to have longer working hours and therefore greater flexibility in the scheduling of vessels. That would provide exactly the kind of service that I'm talking about. It would seem that the union is in support of that. I understand that most management people are in support of that. Certainly the residents are in support of that. If the government was in support of that, maybe we could do it.

Hon. G. Clark: We have to be careful of this sort of Field of Dreams approach: put on the route and they will come; build the stadium and they will come. In some respects that's been the history of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It hasn't been particularly rational. There is a certain chicken and egg thing. If we put on more sailings, and people know it with some certainty, then we will increase demand by that. What we're trying to do with that route.... I don't mind saying that there is clearly some pressure on it. We're really monitoring that very carefully.

The terminal manager is the one who determines discretionary sailings. As part of the next year's service plan, we review discretionary sailings, load factors, traffic and all these questions to see whether the economics start to change and if we can justify improving service in an efficient way. That is precisely what we're doing. The particular route that you're concerned about is under review for a 1993-94 service plan. We're getting close to being economically justified.

Again, it's not that it has to be fully cost-recovered either. We're losing money on a lot of routes. We're not being absolutely ruthless in that we wait until the lineups are huge and then we put on the service. At the same time, we're really trying to be more sophisticated than in the past and make sure that these things make some economic sense. That is one of the areas -- and there are several others -- where we are getting close to having it making sense to put on the improved service.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I would agree that the Field of Dreams approach is not the best way to plan for things. There is a fair bit of somewhat sophisticated transport modelling that one could look at that indicates that in most areas where you develop the potential for capacity in an area of regional economic growth, that capacity is soon insufficient. One only needs to look at the lower mainland bridges as a case in point. Not only did we build it so they will come; they came in such numbers that you can't even get across there between six and nine in the morning.

The member for Okanagan East said there are exceptions. Possibly the Coquihalla is one of them. That was a different field of dreams with a different approach by a different government. If we could come back to this question of five days on and five days off,

[ Page 2446 ]

which the minister didn't comment on, I wonder if there is some active review of that. What I hear from the grass roots and in my discussions with members of the union is that there would be tremendous benefit to both the workers and management in terms of flexibility. If that isn't correct, I'd like the minister to say so.

Hon. G. Clark: We do have five on and five off for the mid-island express. It's a labour issue. I wouldn't say it's a labour problem, but it is one we have to work out. I'm not opposed to looking at it on that route, but that may not necessarily be the answer required. Maybe we could do bigger ships. It depends on the number of ships in the fleet and the way in which we can manage that service. I know that in some respects it's beneficial to most people to extend the hours of sailing, because there are other reasons that are attractive to people.

I asked the Ferry Corporation about a couple months ago to do a major review of commuter service to your community, the Sunshine Coast, with particular reference to fast ferries and some other alternatives. We have to integrate the review we're doing of loads and improving service with what may transpire in terms of the opportunities for other technologies and other service. That is an ongoing study. It's a fairly major initiative.

At this point I would say that I have asked the Ferry Corporation in the past to discuss these questions with the member. I hope and expect that they're almost getting to the stage where that might make sense. We wanted to get the study up and running. I'm actually making an announcement here that is not widely known, but it is something I asked the Ferry Corporation to do a couple of months ago. There is a lot of opportunity there for improving service.

It may be a secret, and I may have just announced it. But I can sense from letters I'm getting the concern of residents in the Sunshine Coast about "too much development" and "please don't improve service to our community." That is a bit of surprise to me, to be candid. Maybe it's because I'm from the city, but I'm having a bit of trouble grasping some of the concerns. We want to make sure that we are working with the community affected. I remember that the previous administration announced some private deal, and there was absolutely no consultation. There were some hard feelings around that, so we are very conscious of that.

G. Wilson: The minister's comments actually lead directly into the next line of questions that I have, and that is in the ongoing development of specific areas with respect to either vehicular or fast-ferry service. I welcome the fact that the study is underway, and I also welcome the fact that the minister has indicated there will be some open communication. I hope that that will happen.

In fact, I would be prepared to host the minister and any other officials who would like to travel through that area, and to set up necessary meetings if I can facilitate that with local industry, business and municipal representatives, who were not consulted in the last round. As a result, it did create considerable concern.

With respect to the fast-ferry proposition generally, is it the minister's feeling or is it the policy of government -- if, in fact, a policy has been taken -- that should fast-ferry passenger-only service be implemented it would be run by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, by the private sector, by a combination or by B.C. Transit? Who would have the authority over that jurisdiction?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. Let me say this: the previous government had given instructions to the Ferry Corporation that they were not allowed to pursue fast-ferry service, that it was the domain of the private sector. They were simply not allowed. When we took office it was a bit of a surprise that little work had been done in this area. Again another surprise; practically every day there's a surprise.

That rule no longer applies, and the Ferry Corporation is actively looking at the question of fast ferries. In my view, that does not preclude the private sector from taking a risk and getting involved in fast-ferry services. As the minister responsible for both transit and ferries, I did nothing to stop the Sealink fast-ferry service. To be candid, I'm delighted that the private sector has filled the void that the public sector was not allowed to fill.

It might have been filled by the public sector had it been given the opportunity to review that question. I think there are some advantages to the Ferry Corporation now that there is a private sector model we can review. We can see how they're doing and what's happening in that regard, what their costs are and how they're performing. They are a very aggressive corporation looking at other routes. I have no intention at this time of saying that they shouldn't do that, but I want you to know that we are actively looking at the Ferry Corporation getting involved in the fast-ferry technology. One possible option for that, should it transpire, is the Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: It does come as a bit of a surprise that B.C. Ferry Corporation was not permitted, insofar as B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries paid for the study that was done to look at the viability of it. Given that they financed the viability study, it's strange that they would then be told they couldn't involve themselves, unless, of course, the study demonstrated -- as it did -- that there's only a marginal level of profit without some kind of subsidy.

This does raise an interesting question, though. If the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going to get involved in passenger-only fast-ferry service, the question will inevitably be raised that there is a taxpayer-subsidized service that will make it impossible for the private sector to compete. I wonder what the minister's thinking is on that question and also.... Well, maybe answer that first.

Hon. G. Clark: Let me first elaborate a little more, because this is an interesting area. In 1991, before the election, the Ferry Corporation sent a technical team to Europe and actually took an option on a fast ferry, and then were told they weren't allowed to exercise that option. So they did do some work and pursued it. That's

[ Page 2447 ]

why there were some studies done and paid for by the taxpayers, and then they were ordered not to proceed, and they lost the option. Because of some good staff work, frankly, there wasn't a big bill attached to that option expiring -- just to give you a bit more background on it.

We're just reviewing it. I don't think a subsidy is required for a fast-ferry fleet. I think we have to look very carefully at whether we are to proceed with a subsidy. I agree with you that we have to be conscious of private-sector competition in this regard, and we are. So we'll move cautiously. In other words, we have no intention at this time of putting on a fast ferry, nor are we even looking at putting on a fast ferry between Victoria and Vancouver to compete with the Sealink private sector model. That's out of the cards.

We're looking at other options: Bowen Island and Sunshine Coast, what kind of technology makes sense, and how they are doing in the private sector. This is not done simply in-house. We also have consultants reviewing this question. We're actively pursuing it. The work that was done prior to the order not to get involved.... The staff had some familiarity with it, and we're pursuing it.

[4:15]

G. Wilson: This is interesting news. I wonder if the minister could tell us the extent to which the service that is being examined is being looked at with respect to an integration with rapid transit or B.C. Transit, because a passenger-only service obviously means that your car has to be left somewhere if you're to be able to drive to it. And if you're not driving to it, then you have to have some other means of transportation to get to it.

One of the difficulties we had with respect to the former proposition on the Bowen Island and Sunshine Coast run -- and I think a similar thing has been proposed in the Gulf Islands -- is that if there is no means to get to the ferry without taking the car, you end up with massive parking lots and a park-and-ride proposition, which creates a lot of difficulty in communities that have to deal with that problem. That's where the municipal elected officials are going to want to have some input. Is this going to be integrated with Transit, or is that a part of the study?

Hon. G. Clark: Another good question. Yes, obviously there has to be public transportation on both connections, and that's another reason why we're starting to begin to review it with municipal politicians and people. Certainly we'll be doing that. It's early in the study and the evaluation process, so we're not there yet. You're absolutely right, we want to make sure that there are good public transit connections, and that's why we need the cooperation and support of both communities.

G. Wilson: With respect to this, I think there is a proposition, some would argue, that the existing ferry service could be seen as passenger-only. Certainly there are a number of communities -- Bowen Island is one, Sunshine Coast is another, some of the Gulf Islands -- where you have a substantial number of people who actually commute to work as walk-on passengers. And what they end up having to do is leave their vehicle, often in an area that is under the jurisdiction of B.C. Ferry Corporation.

The petition that I tabled today in the House that parallels the one that was given to the B.C. Ferry Corporation has specifically to do with the introduction of a new parking facility and an agreement with B.C. Highways to remove free parking in the vicinity of the terminal. That will cause, I understand, residents on the Sunshine Coast to pay $4.50 a day to park their vehicle. This puts the cost of commuting up substantially for those people because there is no early morning transit. We're working on it. We're trying to get there.

Once these estimates are done, maybe we might convince you, as the Minister responsible for Transit, that the additional bus for the early transit would be useful. That puts the cost up substantially. Recognizing that there is a cost to construction and that we're in a tight financial situation, realizing that government can't be irresponsible and not wanting to walk into the trap that is only occasionally laid by the minister opposite to suggest that we're trying to increase the cost of government.... "There the Liberals go again, trying to give away the farm."

If we could recognize that this is a significant burden to a number of people who commute daily and are going to find that their cost of commuting is much higher, would the minister consider and possibly take under consideration a possible solution to that question? That is that the $4.50 would be assessed after 6:30 p.m., so that you essentially could park during the day, but vehicles left over the long term would have to pay that cost. There would simply be an assessment of a rate at that hour by somebody coming along and stamping any vehicle in the parking lot at that particular time with a ticket that would therefore have to be paid in order to redeem your vehicle.

Hon. G. Clark: It has been such a polite debate, Mr. Chairman, and I won't rise to the temptation to make another speech about the fiscal irresponsibility of the Liberal Party or the fact that they've been demanding more and more services. I haven't had that from the Leader of the Opposition on this debate, so I won't engage in that.

Obviously I take no pleasure in assessing any kind of parking fees. That $4.50 is consistent with all the terminals. We have to be in the position of trying to deal with the costs of building those facilities. It's going directly into paying for the costs of land and service. The construction is not complete yet. I do agree with you that there needs to be better public transit, and that's the trade-off. I think that's a fair comment and one that we have to look at.

There are some other interesting questions that I face on transit to the Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen terminals. I don't want to segue into something completely different, but we have a private sector bus line that goes from downtown to downtown. There's great demand on B.C. Transit to provide regular bus service to each end. The appeal of that is that then you won't have big buses on the ship the whole time. At the same time, we're conscious of the concerns of the private sector.

[ Page 2448 ]

Subsidized service would completely eliminate their use. We're trying to grapple with these questions.

I'm afraid that pay parking is here to stay in that regard. I know that $4.50 is onerous for some people, and I take the equity considerations. For environmental reasons, for efficiency reasons and for cost-recovery reasons we've chosen to try to do that. I'm prepared to accept the fair comments. We're working on improving public transit as a trade-off to that.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

G. Wilson: With respect to that particular problem, the situation is not unlike what exists on the Sunshine Coast, where the Gibsons bus is a private bus company, and there is B.C. Transit. As someone who was formerly the chair of the transit committee for the regional district and for the Sunshine Coast, I can tell you that we would welcome the expansion of transit service to be able to deal with this question. This is going to be a very difficult problem for a number of people who commute on a daily basis. It will be a disincentive for people on the Sunshine Coast who are forced to commute.

Without getting too parochial with respect to the riding, let me address another question which I know has been raised in a number of townhall meetings I've been at for various coastal communities. I've brought it to the attention of the management, and I'd like the minister to comment it. It has to do with trying to remove vehicles from ferries, where possible, to encourage people to either ride, cycle or walk onto the ferry and also to take into account people who wish to commute into Vancouver by park-and-ride, basically, on the B.C. Ferry. They can pick up a transit bus on the opposite end of their journey from where they're travelling.

The design of the B.C. Ferry terminals squarely puts the cart in front of the horse. The design is such that it provides for those people who are sitting in their car waiting to drive on to be right next to the ferry, and those people who are parking their car to walk on to be as far away as the B.C. Ferries owns property. As a result, people who are senior citizens or who have physical disabilities.... We often have inclement weather, which I realize is infrequent in the province, but nevertheless it's there.

We find the design of the ferry terminals discourages people from parking and walking on, which is an environmental consideration, and provides the benefit to those who are sitting in their car waiting to drive on. Given that you've got the same land mass or surface, would it not make sense for B.C. Ferries to provide parking for those walking on close to the ferry? It really makes no difference to those sitting in a car, whether they're sitting within walking proximity of the ferry or sitting a quarter of a mile away.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, and the concerns you have are shared. This was an initiative of the management of the Ferry Corporation that I inherited. There is a major rebuilding of the Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen terminals. One of the main motivations is to make sure that passengers are closer to the ships. I see the member for Saanich and the Islands here. I might take this opportunity to make sure that he's invited by the Ferry Corporation to tour that facility in his constituency, because it incorporates some interesting changes precisely along the lines you've suggested.

In keeping with the first part of your question regarding passengers and bikes and the like, I should say that as part of the tariff review that I've asked for, I've asked them to look at the possibility of treating high-occupancy vehicles differently. I don't know the results of that review. Nothing may happen. It may simply not be economical. But we want to try and look at those kinds of questions to see whether we can't be innovative in terms of ensuring that again we reward, if we can, or don't penalize vehicles that have more than a couple of passengers in them.

G. Wilson: I have one more with respect to the question of the tariff, and it has to do with over height regulations. What's the rationale for over height penalty? Given that most ferries have ample headroom, certainly on the larger class vessels -- it doesn't take up any more space; you can't park a car up on it -- what is the rationale for that? I can understand width; if you're over wide or over length, you're taking up space that could otherwise generate revenue, but what is the rationale?

Hon. G. Clark: The rationale is that in half of the ferries we actually have platforms that we can't use with overheight vehicles; secondly, overheight invariably means oversized, and there's a direct correlation. So it's not perfect, but we do try to design the tariff system to maximize the use of the space, and we want to minimize the cross-subsidy which still exists. It is cheaper in some respects for trucks than for cars, on a per-square-foot basis. So that's the rationale; half the ferries do have platforms which can't be used.

G. Wilson: I am down now to number four in my list of four, and so I'm almost complete.

If I could turn my questions now to the construction program -- I'm talking now more specifically about the building of ferries. The minister in his opening statements said how beneficial it was to have a shipbuilding industry, and that we were involved in the construction.

I can tell you that the Liberal opposition opposed in its initial stages the proposition of the construction of the superferry. We do not believe that that was the way to go. However, we recognize that since you had one in the fleet, it made absolutely no sense, given that you had to build the infrastructure to service one, to not have a second one that could counter the first one. It was a bit of a question of being into the pot, and once you were there, it didn't really matter if you were just scalded or boiled, if you know what I mean.

Having said that, what is the overall policy with respect to the construction of superferries? What are the costs associated with the building of these new terminals? What kind of coordination is happening with Highways to deal with what effectively is going to be rush hour every time these things dock?

[ Page 2449 ]

Hon. G. Clark: That's essentially the rationale that I use as well. I think the S-class ferries, had we looked at it rationally, probably wouldn't be required at the time; but once decisions were made, there was a logic to building two.

The whole question of the capital construction is now under review, and my sense is that.... Well, I don't want to preclude any options, but the original plan was for four superferries. My inclination is that we won't build the other two, but I don't want to be hard and fast about that. It depends what happens to load factors and a whole variety of things. These are in some respects much more efficient ships; very impressive ships. The second one's price is coming down somewhat, or at least it's the same, so in real terms it has come down.

They only carry 70 to 90 vehicles more than the larger ships now, so I don't want to overstate the significance of the rush-hour question. We'll also have to see, in some respects, how they perform. I guess what's happened is that there's been a quite dramatic building program for increased capacity. My concern at the moment with the capital construction is that we're not doing enough replacement construction. I think I said in my opening statement on the subject that we have -- this is very crude -- about 40 ships, and the life of the ship is 40 years.

[4:30]

So we should be building one ship a year just to replace the existing capital. We haven't been doing that, and they are getting older collectively. We need a capital construction project just to maintain the existing capital stock. What's been happening is that most of the direction for new activity has been geared towards incremental demand. I don't want this to be a copout, and it sounds like it.

It would be more efficient to try to reduce it if we can; but recognizing that, even if we reduce it in terms of the incremental capacity, either by some demand management or some 24-hour sailing initiatives and the like, we're still going to require a significant capital spending program in the ferry fleet.

I might say also that it's my view that the shipbuilding industry generally would be better served if we had a rational, ongoing capital replacement project, rather than a sort of feast or famine with lots of big ships, which I fear is coming down the pike if we don't get on top of it. So by and large, we're probably in agreement on that. A lot of expenditure has been sunk into those terminuses. There have been some really positive answers to that in terms of innovation, which we talked about a minute ago, but they're big and in some respects underutilized facilities.

We also can be creative about what might be used at those terminals. We now have two major superferries underway and two small ferries being constructed. We've slowed down the pace a little bit while we review it.

Some big expenditures are coming down which we're still reviewing, such as the Duke Point terminal. My Ferry Corporation staff are persuaded of the merits of this, and, to be candid, I'm not yet. It's a big expense and is not incorporated with highway planning. On the other hand, I don't think Departure Bay is acceptable in the long run. We're reviewing that question. I may well be persuaded of the Duke Point option. I don't want to preclude that by my remarks, but my biases are showing.

We're very concerned about the cost implications of the capital requirements of all the Crowns. I guess it's fair to say, from my perspective, that I'm most concerned about Ferries and Transit, because they are subsidized Crowns. They can have an explosive effect over time if we don't get on top of it. We are just now doing that. There will continue to be -- will always be -- a major capital program on ferry corporations, but it may well be redirected somewhat to more replacement efficiency gains, rather than bigger and bigger ships and bigger and bigger terminals.

G. Wilson: I think the minister might take a

chapter out of the aviation industry, where jumbo jets were all the rage until they found that it took you as long to get off and collect your bags as it did to get to your destination. We're likely to have a similar kind of problem with these superferries. Of course, in the aviation industry they went to smaller, mid-size aircraft and more frequent service, which is exactly what we need in the B.C. Ferry Corporation -- more mid-size vessels sailing more frequently.

This brings me to my final set of questions. Then I'm going to turn it over to my hon. colleagues here, who are going to get tough with the minister. I've not been that way, of course. It has to do with the construction of the

Queen of Capilano and the Queen of Cumberland . The minister will know that I requested he provide information some months ago with respect to the

Capilano . We know that the Capilano seems to have spent more time in drydock for repair, refitting and reworking than it has in service. I'm just speculating on the number of days; I don't have that information. I'm well aware of the technical-mechanical problem -- I understand what's wrong with the vessel -- but could the minister tell us who's paying for trying to get it correct, and is it under warranty? If it is under warranty, is there currently a dispute with respect to the warranty, or are we going to have smooth sailing -- no pun intended?

My second question is, given that the legs which were put into the Capilano were put into the

Cumberland with some modification.... I understand the Cumberland now faces similar problems, and I wonder if the minister can comment on that. This seems to be a kind of cost nightmare in terms of trying to get these two vessels into service.

C. Serwa: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

C. Serwa: In the gallery this afternoon are 28 grade 6 students, accompanied by parents and their teacher Ms. C. Ireson, from St. Joseph's Elementary School in Kelowna. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: The member wanted....

The Chair: Could you please return to your seat, hon. member.

[ Page 2450 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, the member can't speak from someone else's chair.

In answer to your question, it is under warranty, absolutely no cost to the taxpayer, and the

Queen of Cumberland is performing fine. There haven't been any problems yet; however, it is under warranty and it will not be costing anything to the taxpayer. There is a dispute, and it's a result of the management of the Ferry Corporation withholding final payment to Ulstein Maritime. I guess it's maybe a way of enforcing the warranty to make sure that there's no cost to the taxpayer. In spite of the warranty, they haven't been completely paid.

One of the things we've done in the Ferry Corporation historically is to ensure Canadian content -- British Columbia content -- and this is a local supplier we were trying to work with to deal with this question. And while there are problems, they are working hard to solve them, and it isn't costing us anything.

G. Wilson: Could the minister give us a figure as to how much the cost of the repair and the service work and all of that kind of thing has been with respect to the

Queen of Capilano ; and how long has the Cumberland been in service without problems?

Hon. G. Clark: We don't know how much it's costing because we're not paying and we haven't asked. I suspect it's quite a bit. There's a fair amount of retrofitting. No, we're not paying. They're the ones dealing with it entirely. The

Queen of Cumberland hasn't been, it's true, in service very long. The legs were modified, which is part of the problem. They're in trials, and it's performing fine as we speak. So it's true that it hasn't had months and months of service yet to test it, but it was modified. They have been modified again in keeping with concerns that have been raised, and because that other corporation is paying the bills, you can be sure that they took extra care in the way in which they were designed for the Cumberland. There have been some design modifications, but it does appear at the moment to be performing well.

G. Wilson: Surely, though, the corporation must be billing Ulstein Maritime for the costs incurred of having to take the ferry up in service and take it back out of service when it ran aground. I know there was welding or some service work and repair work done on it. There was a tug required to stand by and to essentially escort it in and out of its dock for a number of days, which would have cost money. Are all of those costs to the B.C. Ferry Corporation going to be handed off to this company with respect to the warranty?

Hon. G. Clark: Those are some of the issues we're negotiating with the company now. In fact, Frank Rhodes advises me that they met yesterday on some of these very questions. I don't know the answer to how much in fact we've paid out, which we're dealing with. I don't know the answer. I can provide the answer if the member wants, but I don't know precisely.

G. Wilson: I'm receiving notes that I have to terminate my part of this. I realize I would just as soon carry on; however, other pressing matters are before us. I would like to thank the minister for the responses that were made. I look forward to receiving the information that he said he would make available to me, and I would turn this back over to the critic.

F. Gingell: I wonder if we could just get a quick snapshot of the current operating results. Without worrying about the subsidies or about the fact that you leased three ferries for $4.8 million and passed them on to the Ferry Corporation for $1, the ferries had an operating loss of $31 million in 1990. In '91 that came down to $26 million. I wonder if you could tell us what you anticipate the number will be for 1992, the year just finished, and what the projections are for this current year.

Hon. G. Clark: The operating loss expected for '92 will be about $30 million, and for '93 we're anticipating that we'll get it to about $20 million.

F. Gingell: These are the amounts of the operating losses before any operating subsidies and after depreciation. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

F. Gingell: The financial statements of B.C. Ferry Corporation talk about a commitment made some years ago for a ten-year subsidy of $51 million a year. I note that in 1991 they cunningly paid very early and deducted some amount to present-value it. Is that $51 million still the policy of this government?

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is no. We are reducing it. We're more efficient, and we have a better tariff policy. But you're right that there was a ten-year plan that was predicated on a $51 million subsidy forever. I said that wasn't acceptable.

F. Gingell: Earlier in this debate we canvassed certain sailings and hours. I wonder whether the Ferry Corporation has any plans at the moment for any additional routes.

Hon. G. Clark: Routes are approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in the annual service plan. There are no additional routes this year. We're not anticipating any next year, but that's always under revision.

F. Gingell: Just going back to the matter of the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay and Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo runs being profitable and the other ones losing money, roughly what kinds of numbers do you have?

Hon. G. Clark: The profit on those three routes, 1, 2 and 30, which are Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay, Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo and Tsawwassen-Nanaimo, is about $30 million.

[ Page 2451 ]

F. Gingell: Do I assume from that, then, that the amount you lose on the other routes is roughly $60 million? In arriving at the $30 million, you have allocated overhead.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

F. Gingell: That is correct, okay. You were talking during your opening statement about the ques