1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 21

[ Page 1245 ]

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

J. Weisgerber: It's a real pleasure for me today to introduce to the House a former Premier, Rita Johnston, who has joined us on the floor of the Legislature today. She, like me, didn't expect to be sitting on this side of the House. I know you're much more used to seeing her sit on the other side of the House. Rita is someone whom I think all members of the House have been and are fond of. I would like you to join me in sincerely welcoming a very fine lady to this chamber, the former Premier of British Columbia, Rita Johnston.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would also like to express some very warm welcoming words to Rita Johnston and say that she looks terrific -- relaxed, tanned and has a benign look about her. I can say that we have been friends for a long time. I went on an extensive trip through China in 1978 and got to know Rita extremely well at that time. We've been friends ever since. Rita, on behalf of the government, I too would like to welcome you and wish you and George well.

G. Wilson: I too would like to welcome the former Premier to this House -- following the now Premier in his welcome of the former Premier. I have a particular affinity -- albeit about an eight-second affinity -- for the former Premier. I would certainly like to welcome her back to this House. I think we should acknowledge the contributions of this fine British Columbian, who has given so much to the people of B.C.

B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted today to welcome a family that is very special to me -- well known to yourself; they are your constituents -- all of the Angelos. Mark Angelo was my first patient when I graduated and stayed as a patient until I ended up here. I got to know the others as they came along. Mark depicts how fortunate Canada is by people who chose to move to this country and take their citizenship here. He was raised in Hollywood High. His mom was sister to Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind.

He came to this province and has become one of our foremost advocates and experts in a provincial river strategy. We welcome the entire family. He is also a very close friend of Mrs. Rosenbloom. I would like to welcome Kathie Angelo, Mark Angelo, Kelly Angelo and Lindsey Angelo.

D. Mitchell: I would like to ask members of the assembly to welcome to the public galleries today Prof. Don Balmer from the political science department at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, who's here today with 18 students from throughout the United States. They're here for a special parliamentary seminar. I had a delightful meeting with them this morning, and I know that they are meeting with other members of the House this afternoon. They are here for a special parliamentary seminar, as I indicated, to understand how our Legislature works. I would ask only one thing: if they figure it out, would they please let us know? Would you please welcome them.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Would the House welcome nine residents from Kiwanis Village in my constituency. Kiwanis Village is a well-known retirement residence for Victorians. They're also accompanied today by their activity coordinator Serena Tait. Will the House please make them all welcome.

G. Wilson: I'd like the House to welcome some distinguished guests from my riding in Sechelt. I wonder if the House would please welcome Chief Thomas Paul; former Chief Stanley Earl Joe Dixon; Gordon Anderson, the financial adviser of the Sechelt Indian government; and Graham Allen, their legal adviser. I would point out that former Chief Stanley Earl Joe Dixon celebrates a half-century on this earth today, he's 50 years old. Please make them welcome.

[2:15]

J. Pement: I'd like to introduce to the House today some members from my constituency and from the District of Houston: Mayor Tom Euverman, council members Ted McAfee and Dan Parish, their administrator, Kip Gaudry; also, from Vancouver, Mr. Don Fairburn, president of NW Energy Corp.

C. Evans: I'd like to introduce to the House my wonderful niece Sara Kahn and a few of her friends. I will read their names so they can read them in Hansard : Katherine Bechtel, Elena Burn, Jarad Dickinson, Mary Christine Hulse, Anne Jackson, Alexis Johnson, Erik Johnson, Michelle Karch, Margaret Kruger, Wood Moyle, Mark Rogers, Summer Rosswog, Brenda Shum, Melissa Toney, Phillip Wong and Kristine Zaback.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of the MLA for Cariboo North and myself, I would like to introduce to the Legislature 13 grade 9 and 10 students from Likely Elementary Rural Secondary School in Likely on Quesnel Lake, which is a mining and forestry town. Along with them are Marty McClusky, their principal; Lisa Kraus, their teacher; and Louise Nelson, a teacher's aide. Please make them welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this is Mental Health Week, and I'd like to introduce people from the B.C. Mental Health Communications Council who are in the gallery today. From the Canadian Mental Health Association, we have Barbara Grantham, Merry Wood and Catharine Hume; from the B.C. Friends of Schizophrenics, Anne Bowles; from the Manic Depressive Association of B.C., Robert Winram; from the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C., Winnifred Miller; and from the West Coast Mental Health Network, Julle Mayo, Gladys Lloyd, John Sheckleton, Ann Alexander, Georgine Foley and Alex Verkade. Would the House make them welcome, please.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, it is with some deep regret that I rise today to pay tribute to David Brousson, a former Liberal Member of the Legislative Assembly

[ Page 1246 ]

for North Vancouver-Capilano, who passed away on Sunday last.

Dave was first elected to the Legislative Assembly in a by-election in the summer of 1968 and was re-elected in the general elections of 1969 and 1972. He reluctantly resigned his seat in 1973, when his private business commitments became too demanding to allow him to continue to serve as an MLA. Dave Brousson was a very hardworking member for his constituents, and he will be remembered by those who served in this assembly while he was here for his leadership on a variety of issues such as saving the Skagit Valley, which is still an issue today.

He also worked on an Iona Island ferry crossing from the mainland to Vancouver Island -- still an issue of discussion today -- and on many other topics of interest to his profession, which was engineering -- and, of course, the work he performed on behalf of many constituents in North Vancouver.

After leaving the Legislative Assembly, Dave was appointed to the joint board of teacher education by the Social Credit administration in 1977. Earlier he had been appointed by the NDP administration in 1974 to the board of trustees for the Islands Trust. In recent years he gave yeoman service to the British Columbia Institute of Technology, the University of British Columbia, Lions Gate Hospital and a number of other provincial and national agencies.

He was, of course, the federal candidate in 1984 in West Vancouver-Capilano for the Liberal Party. Of some interest to this parliament were Dave's comments at the time, when he took to task the patronage appointments of his own federal Liberal Party, calling them intolerable and unacceptable. He said at the time that these types of appointments should be announced by government, but validated through the parliamentary process.

Dave Brousson was a model parliamentarian, an accomplished businessperson, and a citizen who admirably served his constituency and his community in retirement as well. He was an honest individual, above reproach, a friend to many. He was a husband of Trix, a dedicated father and grandfather. On a personal note, I might add that he was a close personal friend of mine and a strong supporter. He played an important role in my decision to enter public life.

I would ask that all members of this parliament join me in asking our Speaker to send sympathies in written form to his family.

Hon. T. Perry: On behalf of the government, hon. Speaker, I would be delighted to second the suggestion of the opposition House Leader that you send condolences to the Brousson family.

I knew Dave Brousson when the Skagit Valley issue first came to public light in 1969 or 1970. He was one of the few politicians in those days eager to get involved with working directly with a citizens' group on a conservation issue. He used to attend meetings of the ROSS committee. I remember attending one in his living room at one time -- the old Run Out Skagit Spoilers, or ROSS, committee -- and he maintained his interest for many years along with John Fraser, the Member of Parliament, and many other Members of the Legislative Assembly.

He was someone who distinguished himself for a long-term commitment and serious commitment to an issue. Without his help in those early days, I think it might not have been possible to save the Skagit Valley.

He was also someone who served the universities of British Columbia and the B.C. Institute of Technology. Most recently he was a very valued member of the University of Victoria board of governors, someone who represented the broader provincial context of the University of Victoria, not just the local community. From discussions with members of that board and the University of Victoria, I know how sorely he is going to be missed there.

I join with all members of the Legislature in regretting his passing and extending condolences to his family.

The Speaker: On behalf of the House I will ensure that those condolences are sent.

Introduction of Bills

GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT

MORATORIUM ACT

Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Golf Course Development Moratorium Act.

Hon. B. Barlee: I move the bill accompanying the message be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 33 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.

[ Page 1247 ]

Hon. T. Perry tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology for the fiscal year 1990-91.

Hon. A. Hagen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education for the fiscal year 1990-91.

Oral Questions

SECHELT INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

G. Wilson: My question today is to the Premier and has to do with the settlement of the Sechelt Indian government claim. I'm aware that the Premier has been extensively briefed on this matter by the Sechelt Indian government, and I'm also aware that this settlement is not being held up by the federal government.

Given that the Premier has committed to a 25 percent share in the settlement of claims, and given that the federal government is committed to a 50 percent share, and insofar as the Sechelts have announced that they are prepared to commence negotiation on the proposition of a 75 percent settlement, with 25 percent being handled through arbitration at some later date, will the Premier today instruct the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to start negotiations with the Sechelt Indian government immediately for resolution?

Hon. A. Petter: The commitment of this government was to pay a fair share up to 25 percent with respect to settlements of aboriginal claims, not a categorical 25 percent. Secondly, as I think the Leader of the Opposition is aware, a Treaty Commission is being established which will oversee the treaty negotiation process in this province. I'm very optimistic that the Treaty Commission will be up and running in the very near future.

The question will then arise as to how the Sechelt band fits within that overall framework of the Treaty Commission, if it does, and whether or not it might be handled independently of that commission. I have instructed my deputy minister and officials to consult and to advise me on that issue.

G. Wilson: A supplementary to the minister. He has repeatedly said that his government is interested in negotiation, not litigation, and has repeatedly indicated that they want to get speedy resolution of land claims.

Notwithstanding the facts that we're talking about up to 25 percent and that we have a Treaty Commission in place, can the minister explain -- when we have self-government in place, when we have already established the specific claim and when we have agreement basically on the number of dollars involved in the comprehensive claim -- what is stopping this government from negotiating a resolution to the comprehensive claim today with the Sechelt Indian government? There is no reason why this government cannot pursue that course.

Hon. A. Petter: We are very anxious to negotiate, and that's why we accepted the recommendations of the B.C. Claims Task Force, which recommended the establishment of a Treaty Commission. We don't intend to undermine that process by proceeding with negotiations in advance of that process. We intend to proceed with negotiations in an orderly way that takes account of that process recommended by the B.C. Claims Task Force, the Treaty Commission, which should be established in the very near future.

G. Wilson: My final supplementary is to the Premier. The minister and the Premier are well aware that the task force makes it very clear that there is a possibility for individual claims to be advanced where there is a potential resolution for those claims. The task force does not say that the government has to find another way to stall so that there is no proposition for a resolution of the question. Insofar as there is no reason that this government cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion with respect to the Sechelt Indian government, will the Premier today instruct his minister to commence negotiations so that this claim can be resolved?

[2:30]

Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition isn't aware that many first nations in this province are very anxious to get on with negotiations, as are we. But there is such a thing as process. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition isn't aware that there's such a thing as process. One of the functions of the Treaty Commission will be to provide a process whereby all first nations can proceed to the treaty negotiation table and feel that they are being dealt with fairly.

The fact that a particular first nation resides in someone's constituency -- or any other reason -- ought not to be the consideration; it ought to be which first nations are ready to proceed through the treaty commission.

CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

J. Weisgerber: My question today is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why he bothered to put people through the charade of holding public hearings on the constitution when in fact he has demonstrated so clearly that he's prepared to sell out to Quebec even before he gets to the bargaining table? Can the Premier explain why he has rejected an equal, elected and effective Senate when British Columbians have demonstrated so clearly that their number one priority in any constitutional deal is a triple-E Senate?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think British Columbians' first priority is a united Canada. I was very pleased to be able to give the message directly to Premier Bourassa yesterday that British Columbians are going to work very hard to make sure that this round of constitutional change is a success. It means that, in the Canadian tradition, we're going to have to do some compromising, some give and take. I expressed that very clearly to Premier Bourassa.

As a matter of fact, I made it clear yesterday that the issue of Senate reform is one of the priorities of British Columbians and that that issue is going to be before the negotiations. I also made it very clear that it is important that Quebec be at that

[ Page 1248 ]

negotiating table so that those matters can be negotiated.

J. Weisgerber: It's discouraging to see the ease with which the very skilful and very experienced Premier of Quebec has managed to snooker our Premier. Doesn't the Premier understand that the kind of thinking and position that he's trying to set for himself is exactly the same rationale that got us the Meech Lake accord last time?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As a member of the party that rushed.... Your own Premier rushed to sign the Meech Lake accord; I don't know why you're disowning it so rapidly. I may say that I think we want to leave a lake behind us and deal with a country. That's what this is about -- a Canada round, this time. This is a new government that is going to be a positive player in the Canadian constitutional process. It's well underway right now. As a matter of fact, our minister for constitutional affairs is in Saint John, New Brunswick, right now, working on some of those details.

I think we'd be better served if the leader of the third party would urge Quebec to come to the table so that we can get a negotiated settlement to our constitution.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: At least one party from this government learned something from the Meech Lake accord process.

All across this country, British Columbians have told us loud and clear that they don't want any special status for Quebec, that they want to see each and every province treated equally. Will the Premier agree today to take to those negotiations the position that there should be equal status for all provinces in Canada and no special status for Quebec or any other province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was quite prepared to take that position before the last election, during the last election, and I still say that. Even though Quebec may be a distinct society -- and it is; it has a distinct language, culture and the Napoleonic Code -- it will not have special status. This means that we are saying no to sovereignty-association. Quebec, we want you in Confederation -- and a renewed Confederation -- but you're either in or out. Sovereignty-association is not on the table. You cannot have political sovereignty and economic union. I've made that point very clear: yes to distinct society, but no to sovereignty-association and special status.

MUNICIPAL TAX RATES

A. Cowie: Municipal tax rates across the province are rising at an astronomical rate. The figures include 17.8 percent in Port Moody, 18.2 percent in Kelowna, 20 percent in New Westminster and an outrageous 28 percent in West Vancouver. What message does the Premier have for the mayors of these communities?

Interjections.

A. Cowie: Supplemental, again to the Premier.

The UBCM, in a special executive meeting recently, called for the immediate restoration of the supplemental homeowner grant for the 1992-1993 fiscal year. Will the Premier agree to a delay of the repeal of the supplemental homeowners' grant for one year, allowing for negotiations between the province and the municipalities?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We finally had a question from the hon. member that's answerable.

The question was: will we either raise taxes on other British Columbians or go out and borrow more money? The answer to both is no, we will not do that. These are difficult times. We've had to clean up a very substantial financial mess from the previous government, and we are well along the way to dealing with that. But if the answer that the Liberal opposition are bringing forward is that they either want to increase the size of the deficit or increase taxes on working British Columbians, the answer is no to both.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

A. Cowie: Perhaps I can remind the Premier of a more recent statement he made during the election campaign: "I want to stop downloading of new burdens on local government. I want to work with you to review the whole question of tax fairness. We need a review of the property tax."

Who are the mayors to believe -- the Premier when he was electioneering or the Premier who is scrapping the homeowner grant without a shred of consultation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Speaking about consultation, none of the taxpayers of British Columbia were told that the deficit the taxpayers were going to be facing wasn't going to be $395 million; it wasn't going to be $1.2 billion; it was going to be $2.5 billion for this last fiscal year. This government was prepared to say yes, we inherited a financial mess, but no, we're not going to just let it sit there and fester and have more and more deficit and have this province's finances become even more of a mess. We made sure that the tax measures taken were fair and that they were fairly distributed.

All British Columbians know that we cannot live with deficit financing, and we are not going to live with deficit financing. We were able to reduce the deficit at the same time that we maintained the basic health, education and social services for British Columbians. A tough budget but a fair budget.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

W. Hurd: A question for the Premier. In light of the dire economic straits in which he has described the government finding itself, we are wondering if the Premier is comfortable with the $600 a day being paid to one of his former caucus colleagues as a consultant in the Aboriginal Affairs ministry.

Since the minister has acknowledged that the stipend is "a bit high," could the Premier explain how his

[ Page 1249 ]

government arrives at salary figures for their patronage appointments?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was away yesterday when this matter was first brought up, meeting with Premier Bourassa. I understand that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs took that question on notice yesterday. He will, I understand, be answering that question at the end of question period.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

Hon. A. Petter: Last day the leader of the third party asked a question relating to contracts held by Gordon Hanson and Associates with my ministry and with the First People's Heritage, Language and Culture Council, which I took on notice. The question contained a serious allegation, and I want to provide a comprehensive answer.

Prior to my ministry retaining Mr. Hanson's services, he informed me that he had established some form of relationship with the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Council -- a Crown agent with majority aboriginal representation on the board. I asked my former deputy minister at the time to take steps to ensure that there was no institutional conflict between Mr. Hanson's relationship with the council and his proposed contractual relationship with my ministry. My former deputy minister determined that no such conflict existed. Moreover, a provision was placed in Mr.

Hanson's contract with my ministry, by which Mr. Hanson undertook to avoid any conflict or perception of conflict while engaged as a ministry consultant.

Yesterday the leader of the third party suggested during question period that Mr. Hanson had been, as he put it, double-dipping while receiving remuneration from the council and from my ministry. Following question period I spoke with Mr. Hanson and with Chief Manny Jules, who is the chairman of the council, and reviewed information concerning Mr. Hanson's relationship with the council. In the process, I learned that Mr.

Hanson's relationship with the council took the form of a contract proposal initiated at the request of Chief Jules and made conditionally effective by means of a letter sent by Chief Jules to Mr. Hanson on December 12 of last year. I understand that this contract was subsequently terminated by the council in January.

I also learned that Mr. Hanson entered into a second 10-day contract with the council in late January. There could be a perception that the terms of this second contract imposed obligations on Mr. Hanson that were inconsistent with the contract with my ministry. Accordingly, I have asked my deputy minister to refer this issue -- along with the question raised yesterday by the leader of the third party -- to the deputy Attorney General for review.

In my opinion, it is important to clear the air on these matters, and I believe that an independent examination by the Deputy Attorney General is the best way to do so. In the meantime, I have instructed my deputy minister to suspend Mr. Hanson's services with my ministry while these matters are under review.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, on the ministerial statement that was provided....

The Speaker: With respect, hon. leader, the minister rose to answer a question that had been taken on notice from yesterday's question period.

[2:45]

G. Wilson: On a point of order, the detail that has been provided by the minister on that question goes well beyond the amount that would be normally provided in question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Wilson: Because the response goes well beyond that which would be normally provided in the bounds of question period, I request the right of reply.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I do have the question period from yesterday in front of me, and the minister clearly stated that he was answering the question on notice. It is the Chair's

interpretation that his answer was certainly within the scope of the question, and there is no right of reply to an answer taken on notice.

G. Wilson: Then I request leave to reply.

Leave not granted.

Ministerial Statement

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Hon. E. Cull: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Copies of the statement were sent to the opposition offices a couple of hours ago, and I see them nodding that they have received them.

This week, May 4 to 10, recognizes a serious health issue that impacts on us all. That issue is mental illness, and this is Mental Health Week. One in six British Columbians will experience serious mental illness such as manic depression or schizophrenia sometime in their life. Mental illness knows no social boundaries or age limits. It can strike anyone at any time. Because mental illness most often strikes during the twenties and thirties, it can be a tremendous blow to both an individual's earning potential and their self-esteem.

It's important to the recovery of individuals with mental illness that they have the understanding and support of not only their family and friends but also the general public.

The British Columbia Mental Health Communications Council, of which I introduced some members earlier, representing the major mental health organizations in this province, is working to achieve greater public understanding during this important week. These organizations will be sponsoring events and

[ Page 1250 ]

activities throughout the province to engage the public in a two-way discussion on this important subject.

The council's activities are a significant part of the Ministry of Health's plans to deal with mental illness. A five-year plan is being developed to provide a framework for the delivery of a combination of mental health services intended to promote mental health, prevent mental health problems wherever possible and treat those suffering from mental disorders. These services, representing a major restructuring of the mental health system, will involve specialized mental health services, along with a variety of supportive living, employment, education and social and recreation programs. The budget for mental health services has been increased by 27 percent this year to start the work on that.

The core of this plan is the creation of caring communities capable of taking responsibility for the broad mental health concerns of residents of all ages in their midst. Communities must play a pivotal role in helping people with mental and emotional problems to achieve lives of dignity and to assume meaningful and viable places in their families, social networks and the mainstream of society.

We have much work to do to break down the fears and harmful myths that isolate those with mental health problems. I ask all members in this assembly to join with me in this important mission of making your communities caring communities and in passing on the word to your constituents about the valuable contributions that people with mental illness have to make.

L. Reid: As the minister stated, May 4 marks the start of National Mental Health Week in Canada. Throughout British Columbia representatives with the Mental Health Communications Council are hosting public education events that highlight the need for all persons to have adequate housing. Housing is the issue in Mental Health Week. This council has brought together a unique collection of people, including organizations representing family members, people with mental illnesses, community health organizations, mental health professionals and government.

For the most part, persons with mental illnesses are like anyone else who is sick: they are sometimes unable to work, and they always need a place to live -- a home, not an institution. Imagine recovering from a severe illness and having the added pressure of convincing someone that your illness will not be a detriment to the neighbourhood. We need to understand that the needs of people who have mental illnesses are the same as for everyone else: acceptance into a caring community.

We're all aware that adequate shelter is a basic need shared by everyone. This shelter should not just be a roof over our heads, but a stable home base from which we have the security to build our lives as we choose. A sense of home and security are as important for people with mental illness as for anyone else, and efforts toward rehabilitation are often not successful until personal housing problems are resolved. A comprehensive range of housing should be made available not only in Vancouver and the lower mainland but also throughout the province.

This is critical in order to ensure that people who require a specific type of housing are not forced to move away from their family, friends and community.

In closing, I can assure you that the Liberal caucus will work diligently to ensure that housing opportunities for the mentally ill are found in abundance in our province.

L. Fox: On behalf of the Social Credit caucus, I would like to offer my voice in recognizing the importance of Mental Health Week. Approximately 150,000 people in our province -- one in every six British Columbians -- suffer from some form of mental illness, such as schizophrenia, manic depression or Alzheimer's disease. About half of these are clients of public mental health services; the rest receive mental health care through their family physicians or a fee-for-service psychiatrist.

In 1990 our Social Credit government began a B.C. health initiative to strengthen the community services for the mentally handicapped to enable these people to live more independently. By adding some $20 million to the base mental health care budget, we hoped to improve the quality of life of the seriously ill by allowing them to move out of institutions and into the community. Over the long term this sort of initiative will reduce the strain on provincial institutions such as the Riverview Hospital and allow us to deal more effectively with those who must be confined to institutions by separating them from those who require less consistent supervision.

During the first year and a half of that initiative, our government created the Provincial Mental Health Advisory Council and provided new funding for such initiatives as mental health research, increased housing, community-based mental health services and public education to create more understanding in the community of the needs and aspirations of mental health patients.

We believe the funding of mental health services is not just an expense but an investment in the future of British Columbia. The personal and social costs of the 150,000 mentally ill people are enormous. Any progress that government can make towards improving their treatment and increasing their participation in society will be welcomed by our caucus and British Columbians everywhere.

Our caucus urges the government to continue to expand upon the B.C. mental health initiative, and we're happy to stand in support of Mental Health Week '92.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Pursuant to standing order 2(2), I would like to inform members of the House that we will be sitting tomorrow.

Secondly, I'd like to advise members of the House who are members of the Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsman that the meeting which was scheduled to start at three o'clock is now scheduled to start at 2:30, and if those members would hurry, they should be able to make the meeting on time.

[ Page 1251 ]

Thirdly, hon. Chair, I'd like to call Committee of Supply, both committees.

The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURE

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before calling the vote for Committee B, may I alert members and others to the fact that in Committee A this afternoon we will be continuing, and I expect finishing, with the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

On vote 58: minister's office, $308,000 (continued).

C. Tanner: I must congratulate the Chair for sort of short-circuiting the system, and see if we can get it out of the way. While I'm inclined to agree that I might perhaps be wasting my time because of the answers I'm getting, I think I'd better have a few more attempts this afternoon.

As I said this morning, I have a huge sheaf of letters here from all sorts of people who are concerned about the decisions this government has made. I'd like to read just two of them. This one is from the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia. It's addressed to Mr. Clark, Minister of Finance:

"The Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. believes that the 1992-93 budget allocation for the Ministry of Tourism is bad business for both the public and the private sector of British Columbia.

'When you cut your marketing budget, you cut your revenue,' says Council chairman Pat Corbett. The current government's budget for tourism marketing has been slashed by over 37 percent.

'Would Coca-Cola cut its marketing budget in a bad year? Would Proctor and Gamble? Would Montana State? The marketplace void created by these budget cuts will be filled by B.C.'s competitors,' says Corbett.

'When you lose market share, everybody's revenue goes down -- government and business.' Considering that tourism generates $1.05 billion in taxes, with the B.C. Ministry of Finance receiving over $460 million of this revenue, and B.C. municipalities receiving over $140 million in tax revenue, the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. feels that the Minister of Finance better find a way in a hurry to identify funds for an immediate short-term supplementary marketing strategy for this current year.' If Mr. Clark errs on this, general revenues to the province will suffer and decline.

Those of us employed in the tourism industry realize that where you cut your marketing budget, especially by 37 percent, you lose revenue and market share. If this trend continues, you will no doubt end up bankrupt.'

"The Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. encourages the Minister of Finance to do what is right for the province; that is, in very short order find a couple of million dollars for marketing Super, Natural British Columbia."

[3:00]

I have another one, from the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island, and I have many more from private operators. "Tourism budget cuts hurt everybody. Following, please find the latest press release from the tourist councils of British Columbia..." -- oh, this refers to the previous one.

"The NDP election platform stated: 'Tourism is vital to our economy. We'll boost it.

A New Democrat government will aggressively encourage tourists to come to B.C. by protecting our spectacular environment that draws tourists to British Columbia, working closely with the industry to address taxation, transportation, accommodation, and training issues, actively marketing all of B.C.'s nine tourist regions and coordinating tourist services.' To the tourist associations, this provincial budget shows rejection of the importance and value of billions of dollars, numbers of jobs and small businesses that tourism in this province supports.

The tourism regions, in actuality, stand to lose double the amount of the budget cuts announced by the ministry. Partners in Tourism funds are activated by the private sector's 50 percent contribution. Private sector businesses who benefit from tourism in their region must first commit their dollars to the coordinated marketing projects. Therefore the total marketing dollars generated through this partnership are at stake, not just the government's contribution. For example, the 47 percent cut in TAVI's budget of $348,000 translates to 696,000 actual marketing dollars lost. Tourism is a clean, green industry.

With the inevitable shrinking of our natural resources, can we afford not to invest in tourism?"

Over the lunch hour I had occasion to talk to a couple of these tourist associations -- two of the regions -- and they tell me that you're not in negotiation with them. They can't find somebody to sit down with, and in fact they're having the immediate problem that they've had to invest this summer's dollars already, and the position you've left those tourist regions in is that they're gambling.

They're gambling on the fact -- because you don't have a plan -- that they've invested this summer's money, and what they're looking for now is not for new money, from their point of view, but for money to cover the investment they've already made. In fact, any extra that you give them over and above what is spent will be used to advertise the ski season hence, not the summer season coming.

Could the minister assure the House that the regions that need the money -- and in the minister's description, as being absolute gold in the industry -- are going to receive immediately at least the decreased amount of financing the minister has promised?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe we covered most of these issues this morning, and I must inform the member that in fact negotiations are ongoing with the writer of the letter, which you so eloquently quoted a few minutes ago. The chair of the Partners in Tourism....

C. Serwa: On a point of order, I notice that the general apathy and disinterest of the government members in the affairs of the Legislature and in the best interests of the people of the province has resulted in no quorum in this Legislature. I would suggest that a quorum be convened.

The Chair: Point well taken; I will now ring the division bells.

[ Page 1252 ]

Hon. members, it appears we now have a quorum, and the debate will continue.

Hon. D. Marzari: Thank you, Madam Chair; I notice even a member of the third party strolled in after the quorum bell was rung.

C. Serwa: Fifty percent of the members on our side are here, so the same should be true for the NDP.

Hon. D. Marzari: A full 50 percent -- all three of you. I'm pleased to see you in the House.

Mr. Pat Corbett, who is the chair of the Partners in Tourism program and of the association of the nine regions, is in active negotiation and is working through budgets with the nine associations, I am assured by my senior staff. These negotiations began on the morning of our budget debate some weeks ago. The final numbers are not tallied, and they will be put forward to this House the second they are available.

Can I assure the House that suddenly more millions of dollars will appear out of the blue or out of the taxpayers' pockets for marketing in the regions? No, I cannot assure the House of that possibility. I can assure this House that the associations themselves will be respected and that the relationship between the government and the associations as partners will continue to be respected; that the three items you quoted as party policy -- most notably protecting the resource and working closely with the industry, actively and aggressively marketing, and coordinating tourism services -- all stand. They stand for this ministry; they stand for this government.

Will extra millions be made available this year? I would doubt that very much, Mr. Member. It would be very nice to think that we had millions of dollars; it would be very nice to be a knight in shining armour and appear with extra millions of dollars in the form of styrofoam cheques or whatever to offer to the industry for marketing purposes. That, however, is not in the books, because the money is not in the books. This year we will do with what we can: we will market smarter; we will focus our marketing; and we will do our best to ensure that schedules are not thrown off.

Spring activities have to do with winter season. I'm aware of that, and the associations have not been told to curtail all activity. They are presently pulling together what they normally do in spring, which is winter marketing.

So it's no to the second question and yes to the commitment to the Partners in Tourism and to the association.

C. Tanner: I'm pleased to hear the minister say that she would do what she can; but "do what she can" is not good enough. She's left the tourist regions hanging out to dry, because at the meeting you went to immediately after leaving this House on that Thursday morning, you told them: "I'm sorry, I thought it was going to be a 5 percent cut; it looks more like a 40 percent cut. Now we're going to divvy up what's left for you people to operate with. We'll give you the money for the organization, but we haven't got anything or very little left for marketing."

That is a bad economic decision. You've made an error, Madam. Whether it was you, whether it was your deputy minister, whether it was Mr. Clark, whether it was the Treasury Board -- who knows who's in charge over on that side -- whoever made the decision made it in error. There are now nine regions hanging on the very words of you, the minister, this afternoon. They don't know where they stand. They don't know whether they're in debt; they don't know whether they should invest more; they don't know which season they should be advertising for; and they can't commit their own dollars until they know what you've got. I don't think the minister has adequately answered this question.

The minister said this morning that in marketing beautiful British Columbia in the United States, she felt that we had an opportunity to sell British Columbia in California. As a consequence, she made a trip down there to promote, I think, the film world, but she also spent some time down there promoting B.C. It seems to me that it's a peculiar set of circumstances that when you are supposedly marketing and promoting British Columbia, you would close the British Columbia tourism office in San Francisco. Why would you close that office when in fact that is one of your target areas for marketing?

Hon. D. Marzari: The San Francisco office was closed a year ago, long before this government came on stream.

C. Tanner: Does the minister intend to reopen it?

Hon. D. Marzari: You have just very eloquently outlined a number of priorities that exist close to home in terms of injecting dollars to the close-in markets through our Partners in Tourism. I would suggest that were money ever to become available, we would look first and foremost to our close-in markets and not necessarily to the reopening of offices on the west coast.

C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister's taking my advice. I've worked for months to get it ready for her, and I hope she will take my advice further and reinvest dollars where they're best spent.

The Ministry of Tourism and the marketing division within her ministry is presently undergoing two audits, one from the AG and another from a North Vancouver alderman, Bill Bell. Can the minister tell this House what those two audits are about?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is a routine audit being conducted inside the ministry by the comptroller general at present, and there is an audit of marketing procedures being conducted by a consultant to make some assessments about the effectiveness of our existing marketing practices.

C. Tanner: Is the consultant an alderman from North Vancouver called Bill Bell, who's a member of the NDP?

[ Page 1253 ]

Hon. D. Marzari: The name of the consulting firm is Pradinuk Advertising, which is the firm that has been contracted to do this particular contract inside the marketing division.

C. Tanner: Could the member inform the House who the principals of that company are and what their expertise is for doing this audit?

Hon. D. Marzari: I will take that question on notice and bring a full and detailed list of the principals involved with Pradinuk Advertising to the House.

C. Tanner: The second part of the question, as to the expertise of the company...?

Hon. D. Marzari: I will bring the qualifications of this company to be involved with an audit of the marketing back to the House.

C. Tanner: The minister suggested this morning that the 2 percent gross of hotel room tax rebate that's going directly into the ministry.... I understand it is a precedent to collect the tax and have it go directly into the Partners in Tourism program. Is that a commitment your ministry is continuing to make?

Hon. D. Marzari: Perhaps I should outline something about the hotel tax for the member. The hotel tax in British Columbia, which presently sits at 8 percent, in the early seventies was a tax that was collected by municipalities in this province. The provincial government took over the hotel tax. I'm not sure whether the former government increased it to 8 percent, but 8 percent is the position where it now sits.

Municipalities have the possibility or the potential of requesting the provincial government to allow them to tax an additional 2 percent on top of that 8 percent, which is handed back to those privileged communities. So now there are five municipalities in the province which receive 2 percent in addition to the 8 percent.

There was a policy of the previous government to take 2 percent of the 8 percent and devote it to marketing in tourism. However, this never materialized. So it was a policy which remained on the books somewhere but never actualized itself in terms of real dollars to the marketing division of the Tourism ministry.

[3:15]

At this point the policy of this government and of the ministry is to rationalize, focus, spend better, market better and research better to ensure marketing dollars are going in the right areas and that the demographics are lined up; that we have a reasonably good idea who is coming and how much they are spending and what our potential and future markets should be. There never was an actualization of the previous government's 2 percent, and it is not a policy of this government.

L. Hanson: I thought I heard in the preliminary remarks the minister made this morning that the removal of the asbestos from the museum is complete.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's in the process of being completed. The final dollars are being spent. You can look out your window and see the orange chutes, attached to the Fannin building, taking the remaining bits of asbestos out of the last six floors of, I believe, a 12-storey structure.

L. Hanson: The cost of removing the asbestos is not in this year's budget. It was in last year's budget, and has been allocated as such. When do you anticipate that it will be complete?

Hon. D. Marzari: The packing and the removal of all the artifacts which were stored in the building is complete. The inventorying has been done by the museum staff; it was a mammoth task. However, the actual removal of this infernal asbestos will take -- I am told -- until the fall of this year; a remarkably tedious procedure.

L. Hanson: I have some familiarity with the problems that were being experienced with that removal, and it was a tremendous task. I just forget what the total cost was, but it was in the $12 million range, or something like that, so it was obviously a very large task.

I see, by the estimates for the allocations to the museum, that there is some considerable decrease in the amount of money for the museums, as in others. What is the museum doing to compensate for that? Are they restricting their hours, or what in their operation are they doing to offset that revenue?

Hon. D. Marzari: The museum's operating budget will be reduced by $500,000 to $600,000 this year. In the blue book, $1.3 million showed up as a cutback in the budget. It isn't in this year's budget. It was in last year's operating budget, so that's why you see that $1.3 million cutback in culture and arts. The museum is still working on its operating adjustment to the $0.5 million cutback at this point in time.

L. Hanson: In the budget for the museum.... I'll have to beg your indulgence, because I can't remember the name of the program. The program where underwater exploration was being done through the museum, is that to be continued this year or has that been discontinued?

Hon. D. Marzari: That is the Jason Project, and yes, it is being continued. In fact, the museum is actively pursuing fund-raising activities to maintain the quality of the presentations and special programs that they put on by creating partners in the community, through private corporations, to ensure that the planned programs will continue. There is every intent for museum activities not to cut back on major projects, such as the ones we've talked about.

L. Hanson: I'm pleased to hear that, because the Jason Project was very well accepted around the province and certainly would be a loss if it were to be discontinued.

[ Page 1254 ]

To continue along that same line to get some understanding of the budget difficulties and how they affect various operations, how have Barkerville and Fort Steele fared in your budgetary process this year as compared to last year?

Hon. D. Marzari: Barkerville has fared quite well in the budget by having received an additional three people to work as security in the Barkerville precincts. Barkerville is being upgraded and sprinklered for fire so that as a heritage resource it will not burn but will be protected. That, of course, is being done in consultation and in full partnership with our partners in Barkerville, the Friends of Barkerville Heritage Society, who have been working very hard over the last two years preparing a report with the cultural division of the ministry to ensure that Barkerville remains a strong and thriving tourist destination and heritage location.

Fort Steele, similarly, is receiving fire upgrading, and its safety standards will be upgraded. I believe that an additional one or two people are being given to Fort Steele to ensure that it is safe for tourists and to preserve the resource.

L. Hanson: I know that there was difficulty, particularly at Barkerville, with fire protection and the risk of losing that historic site. While I understand that the sprinklering of both operations is a very necessary process for protection, I would like it if the minister could tell me how those two operations fared in their promotional budget for attendance and promotion of the sites this year versus last year.

Hon. D. Marzari: The code 40 money, which was set aside for promotion of both the sites, remains intact, so Barkerville and Fort Steele will receive the same amount of support as they have received in the past. We hope that will result in an increase in the number of visitors.

L. Hanson: I am pleased to hear that, because they are two very important sites in British Columbia's tourism potential.

I have a special interest, as the minister well knows, in the Festival of the Arts, because it is being held in my own community this year, near the end of this month. I expect that maybe the minister will be in the community to visit the Festival of the Arts. Has funding for the Festival of the Arts been affected by financial difficulties?

Hon. D. Marzari: This year $800,000 has been secured, which is the equivalent amount -- status quo -- as last year. There is considerable interest, of course, in the Festival of the Arts. There isn't a young person or an arts and culture group in the province that is not aware of the festival or has not participated in one way or the other.

We are taking a careful look at budgets and ways in which we would like to help the Festival of the Arts to rationalize its programs and to produce a better show. That's what we'll be doing over the next while, but this year the budget is protected.

L. Hanson: The hotel industry has long been concerned with the level of taxation that is applicable to its operations, particularly the additional tax on drinks -- which I know is not the minister's responsibility. They have been very concerned about the level of taxation on their rooms. I'd like to have the minister's opinion on that method of raising funding for tourism, although I know it doesn't all go to tourism; it goes into general revenue and then there's an allocation.

Of the communities increasing the government levy of 8 percent to 10 percent with a prepared tourism promotional plan, does the ministry actively promote that in the communities? It's true in a number of communities, but not in all communities.

Hon. D. Marzari: As a technique of raising dollars for tourism marketing, the 2 percent has been very valid. We as the government do not go out and actively promote it. All we can say is that it's available to communities if they wish to come forward.

Some concerns have been expressed around that additional 2 percent on top of the 8 percent; that perhaps it's not coordinated well enough, either between communities or between communities and the provincial government. That remains to be seen. I think that Vancouver and Victoria have done an excellent job with that 2 percent in terms of promotion. I have just been told that Whistler doesn't necessarily see as much of that money as they'd like to see, because some of that money goes into municipal infrastructure, which in turn upgrades the tourist value of Whistler. We do not go out and actively promote the additional 2 percent, but it is available.

Smithers is also a recipient of that 2 percent. I should tell you that across the country a room tax is pretty much an accepted tax -- if you can say any tax is an accepted tax. Newfoundland charges 12 percent room tax. Nova Scotia and P.E.I. charge 10 percent. Quebec is the only province that doesn't have a room tax. It has a sales tax of 8 percent, however. Ontario is at 5 percent, but it has a special commercial concentration tax in Toronto, which brings that up. Eight percent room tax in British Columbia is not out of the spectrum of what has been accepted across the country for room tax.

It would be -- in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the marketing division of the Tourism Ministry -- a good idea to spend some of that money and allocate some of that money on marketing and tourism. However, that isn't at present a government policy.

L. Hanson: I would expect that the minister recognizes the difference between an added-tourism tax in communities like Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler, and would recognize the difference in communities like Prince George, Nelson, Trail and the Kootenays. The small hotels in most of those communities are not only an asset to the tourism industry but are also an asset to the community, because they are usually the gathering place for minor conventions, community meetings and that sort of thing. The B.C. and Yukon Hotels' Association has long been concerned that the viability of those operations in the smaller communities is very seriously threatened, not just by the room tax but also by the

[ Page 1255 ]

alcohol tax and the other things. I'd like to hear the minister's opinion of how important those hotels are to those smaller communities in relation to tourism.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: I have before me a position paper on major issues affecting the British Columbia hotel industry which was prepared in February, 1992, for my perusal by the British Columbia and Yukon Hotels Association. It's an excellent presentation from the body which represents hotels from small to medium to large across the province. They are very clear and succinct in outlining their impressions of what liquor tax, for example, does to their business. They are very clear about what they are asking from this ministry and from this government.

They are asking for a long-term commitment to tourism marketing, of course, and stability in the ministry itself; long-term planning, strategic planning that they can plug in with, and consultation, obviously. I have worked with them -- I've spoken to them twice formally, and on numerous occasions informally -- and I intend to work with them around tasks that need to be done, such as to look at implications of the 10 percent alcohol tax, for example.

It was a major relief and a major struggle during the budget process to ensure that an additional 2 percent restaurant tax didn't go onto our food and beverage services across the province; in fact, that in itself was an accomplishment.

The ministry now is looking at taxation structures: not just the alcohol tax, but the GST and the provincial sales tax in terms of the amounts they collect -- or don't collect -- and the ways they are collected. It is the opinion of many that the additions at the bottom of the check -- food, beverage, alcohol, hotel tax -- are very often disincentives to the traveller. We are looking both provincially and federally at ways in which we can mitigate some of the downsides of the GST, and we're certainly looking provincially at the alcohol tax.

L. Hanson: Just one final question. I'm sure the minister is aware of it, but the hotels have made me aware of their concern -- and certainly before the budget was brought down -- that there might be an imposition of a tax on meals. They've now given me to believe that after the increase in corporate tax, the tax on assets and the increase in school tax to businesses, they're not so sure that they wouldn't have exchanged that for the meal tax.

But in any case, the minister is aware of the difficulties that those hotels are facing in the smaller communities, and I think generally in the smaller communities is where the greatest need is. She also recognizes what an important part they play in the smaller communities.

So, with that, I'll relinquish to my colleague.

C. Tanner: If I might just add my comments on the preceding conversation between you and the member down the row here, the biggest shot in the arm that you could give this industry would be to remove that tax. The cost to the government, in my view, would very easily be more than replaced by the increase in business. If it were advertised and promoted that every time you came to B.C. you weren't stuck with another 8 percent on the bottom of your bill, I think you'd find that all the other jurisdictions would very quickly copy you. You'd have a year's jump on them, of course, and you'd have that much more business.

The fact of the matter is that as you and I both know, when business is rough, you offer inducements and you advertise more heavily or you promote more widely. You don't pull in your horns. It's a bit like when a retail business is in trouble: instead of opening the store hours longer, they go in the back room and close the store for five hours while they talk about it. That's exactly what your ministry is doing.

Irrespective of the income it brings in to the government, the removal of that tax, particularly in light of the report that you got from the vice-president of the Business Council, would be more than offset by increased business, particularly in the smaller areas of this province. Would the minister like to comment?

The Chair: Before you answer, minister, may I remind both sides of the House that only the administrative action of a department is open to debate in this venue. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

Hon. D. Marzari: Fine, thank you, Madam Chair; it's good to be reminded every so often.

I was simply going to ask the member where he would choose to raise the $60 million in general revenue that the hotel room tax generates for the coffers of British Columbia. That $60 million, properly spent, I could think of 100 ways to spend in Tourism alone. But I would ask the member if he could think of how he would raise that $60 million in a deficit year.

C. Tanner: I can think of a number of ways, and they start with some of the people in your department, Madam. While you're sitting with your department heads talking about it, people out there are trying to make a living and to generate revenue for this province, and you're killing them. You're not hurting them with the policies of this government, your treasury department, your Minister of Finance and yourself in giving them any promotion. You're not promoting business; you're killing it out there. You should have spent more money in your department; that's an area you could easily spend it in.

In that same view, perhaps the minister could tell us if she has commissioned any value-for-money studies or return-on-investment analyses with regard to tourism. In particular, could she tell us what the results were?

Hon. D. Marzari: As of this moment in the overall administration, I have not commissioned a value-for-money audit. I have commissioned a contractor to look at the marketing division of the ministry to ensure that our marketing money is best focused and best spent.

I have started conversations with the comptroller general about the possibility of doing a

value-for-

[ Page 1256 ]

money audit on the Tourism and Culture ministry, because we are a small ministry and the balance inside the ministry is very delicate. For example, the whole wage bill in Tourism is $3.7 million; it is not a substantial amount.

So when you're talking about staff not doing their jobs while people outside are dying, those are very dramatic words. But you must know that the ministry itself is very small, and the services it provides are very crucial. So I would not be quite so dramatic in suggesting that we toss out the staff that gives the support the industry wants. The industry wants stability and continuity, and I intend to see that the industry gets stability and continuity. That is what is going to help them survive, and that is what I intend to do.

But I do have the beginnings of a conversation, as I say, with the Finance ministry and the comptroller general about the possibility of doing an ongoing, comprehensive value-for-money audit as the ministry makes its management decisions and moves down the line to implementing a strategic plan. I can think of no better way to prove the value of a comprehensive audit and a value-for-money audit than to start with a small ministry as it is beginning to develop a long-range plan. I'm hoping that something comes of this effort on my part.

L. Fox: Throughout this morning and early this afternoon I've listened very closely and with great intent to what the minister has had to say.

Before I get into that, let me first say that I personally take no issue, Madam Minister, with the fact that you've hired a deputy who has a similar philosophical approach and similar management wishes to yours. I perceive that if I were in the same position, I would want to have an individual beside me who would agree with my ideology as well as my management style. So I understand the need and your rationale for hiring your deputy.

I would, however, like to point out that in terms of why and how you justify the budget cut to your ministry, a lot of your answers this morning and again this afternoon have referred to a financial mess left to you and your government by the previous administration. There are a couple of issues that I'd like to point out with respect to that.

While I agree that Music '91 was well-intentioned, I also agree that Music '91, for whatever reason, got out of control. It came in at far over the budget that was planned. Although it did that, it may very well have created a net gain to the province in terms of its overall impact on the local municipal economies of those communities that were fortunate enough to host the Music '91 program.

While you suggest that the last fiscal year was a financial mess, for five months of that year, Madam Minister, your government was in power and could have taken the necessary steps to ensure that there would have been less of a deficit at the end of the year. That's one point. The other point is that in my observation of the spending of your government during those five months, you used that opportunity to look after some of the wish lists that each of you had prior to being elected.

Let's come to the 1992 budget year. This budget, without question, was a budget of choices -- choices that were clearly made by your government rather than the choice of trying to balance the budget. You've made a choice to hire 1,549 new employees, of which, I note in the budget, 13 are in your ministry. Your Finance minister has quite effectively put forward a smoke-and-mirrors report that is now being seen as such almost daily by the people of British Columbia. That, of course, is the Peat Marwick report. It was very effective and gave you the platform on which you could use the previous mess to bring in the largest-ever deficit tabled in this House.

I suggest that there are other opportunities that could have led to balancing the budget and giving you more opportunities in your ministry to go on a more effective marketing campaign, whether it be through the Partners in Tourism exercise or directly by the ministry. Both opposition parties in this House have suggested the $200 million that has been committed towards a fixed-wage policy. All these issues impact your particular budget and the opportunities for marketing tourism in this province.

[3:45]

I should also point out that there are many other issues on the revenue side that are negative issues to tourism. I speak now of the increase in jet fuel, which will increase airfares to many parts of this province. We've seen articles in the newspaper already that have confirmed the arguments we put forward that the jet fuel tax was going to be a negative item in tourism.

We'll soon see a capital tax increase. Many of the hotels that supply the rooms for our tourists and that create our tourism are going to be impacted in a negative way, whether they make a profit or not.

All these factors make it appear to me that this government does not recognize the impact and the opportunity of tourism. In fact, it's the opposite. It seems to have.... If you take the cost of the 13 employees out of your projected budget, I submit to you that it's more than a 10.5 percent decrease. In fact, without those employees, there is a percentage decrease of substantially more than 10.5 percent.

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe that the House is going to transfer to a debate around Transportation estimates, but I cannot resist one partial answer to your.... I'm pleased that the member chose the Ministry of Tourism in which to make his major address on the budget. Of the 13 employees registered with my ministry since the new budget year.... They reflect my own office -- in fact, my own position -- my staff, and the deputy's office and staff. Most of the rest are, in fact, conversions from contract to employee status. So the money was already being spent. We were just plugging people into FTE employment.

That was not an increase, in fact, in dollars. We added two security people for Barkerville and Fort Steele. So that answers that question.

As for the business of whether or not the government is committed to tourism, I can only say that the

[ Page 1257 ]

last four hours in this House this morning and this afternoon -- as we've gone through questions and answers -- have been a testimony to the number of things that have been done and the number of things we are going to do and are wanting to do and are capable of doing with existing staff complement because of smarter marketing and because of better strategic planning. I am making an assumption that the member will bear with us and go through this estimates procedure and hear some of the technical detail and ideas going forth from the ministry right now as we consult with our partners in marketing, our regional associations and our sectoral industrial colleagues.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

D. Symons: At the time we adjourned last day, I had only a very few questions left. I would like at some time to go into a summation of everything that's taken place, but I'll save that for a later date.

Back to the specific questions. These seem to be from the municipalities that have raised these questions with me -- in some cases a wish list -- and the one I have from Maple Ridge falls into that category. They have quite a few concerns in that area. They want a high-level bridge crossing at the mouth of the Pitt River and connectors to it. I think this has been commented on. I believe this is where the trial balloon was floated regarding this particular issue. Is there any hope you can give them for a crossing at the Pitt River?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The residents of that part of the lower mainland are certainly in need of some improvement in their infrastructure. We will be looking to the recommendations of Transport 2021 by the GVRD, and some of the outlying communities that are not part of the GVRD, such as Maple Ridge. The ministry gathers information with regard to those demands, and feeds that into the Transport 2021 study. We will be identifying, and they will be recommending, out of that. It is a very major project, or it would be -- in the $200 million-plus category -- in order to give the clearance required.

It will certainly be a project that is a way off. And yes, there is the possibility of looking at alternative funding.

D. Symons: In the same area, the next suggestion, question, or wish they have is for a new bridge crossing the Fraser River. I suppose this would replace the Albion ferry. They suggest placing it near 230th Street. They are also asking if they might have more input into the location of a northern transportation corridor through the district. They suggest that this bridge connect the northern corridor with the Trans-Canada Highway and eventually the U.S. border, so we will have a sort of interconnection of those three areas. Are there any plans for something like that in the future?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We certainly will be consulting with the community. I've already had a town meeting there and have had several delegations from those communities visit to discuss their problems, as well as the problems identified by members of this House. We will be consulting on the potential location of the freeway -- should we go in that direction -- and certainly in regard to a new bridge over the Fraser. We're talking a quarter of a billion dollars, so that might be quite some time away.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to refresh my memory on the third point.

D. Symons: It was the bridge connecting into the Trans-Canada Highway and carrying on to the U.S. border, making a north-south corridor-connector.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That will come back to the Transport 2021 study. There is the potential for extending it all the way down, and connecting it up with 99 at some point, in order to bear that part of the traffic.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to respond to a couple of points that the member opposite raised when B.C. Rail was here. I can read you some answers to your questions, or at your choice, I can provide you with a copy of the letter. You had asked about annual remuneration of the B.C. Rail board; you also wondered if they had a mission statement. I'm prepared to provide you with that information, either orally or written.

D. Symons: I think written would be fine. It would save the time of the House.

Just one last question for the Maple Ridge area, and this concerns the completion of the Mary Hill bypass. They would like it upgraded to four-lane standard. Also, I have had some concerns expressed to me about the whole interchange system with the Mary Hill bypass, the Trans-Canada, the Lougheed Highway and the Cape Horn interchange; it is quite a nightmare to manoeuvre between one and the other of those. I'm wondering if there are any plans, again, to redesign that and make it much more traffic-friendly.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Mary Hill bypass is a longstanding and well-known problem. One of the major problems is the grade crossing of the CP. There may be about a $25 million bill associated with improving anything at that point. The interchange as a whole has been studied as part of our Trans-Canada study -- part of the Highway 1 study; a separate consultant -- and the results of the Trans-Canada study will be fed into the Transport 2021 study. Again, we look forward to the recommendations of that study in order

[ Page 1258 ]

to help resolve the problems at the Cape Horn interchange.

D. Symons: Just one remaining specific area question. It's one of my own concerns that I've heard over the past few years. There are three aspects to it. It's the Duffey Lake-Lillooet road, in there. There seem to be some land claim problems in that area, some problems upgrading the road to make it more traffic-friendly and problems with safety -- mudslides, etc., occurring in that area. What is the future of Duffey Lake Road?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The

section through the Mount Currie Indian reserve is the sole remaining piece of that road not paved; it's a ten-kilometre length. We have been attempting to establish some communications, which would lead to negotiations, through the good offices of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but I cannot at this point in time report progress on that item. It is something that I certainly want to see solved to the satisfaction of all parties so we can complete that road and make use of the not inconsiderable tourist potential, for one, and to give an alternate transportation route into the interior should there be some of the problems that we are aware of that can occur in the Fraser Canyon.

With regard to the mudslide on Highway 12, there are several difficult points along that road that need to be addressed. The member would be pleased to know that I am going to carry out an inspection on the ground within a very short period -- next Monday or the Monday after, I'm not certain -- and in particular will be looking at all the problems on Highway 12.

D. Symons: I appreciate that answer. I'm down to the last of the questions; I'm sure that will make the members happy. There are some questions on the order paper that have been there since pretty well the opening of the House, and I would request again that they be looked at and maybe answers would be forthcoming. Also, in the debate on the supply bill there were some questions taken on notice, and I would look forward to answers to those.

[4:00]

Is it also possible that I could have a list of the highway projects such as supplied in these little books? Maybe not give me 75 of these, but maybe the page in there; possibly just a computer printout. I would appreciate having the information in this for each of the ridings in the province. If that could be supplied -- if it's possible a computer could put out the particular printing in here for each individual riding -- I would very much appreciate that.

Would it also be possible that I might have a briefing book for the Highways ministry? I know such books exist. That would again greatly assist me in my job as Transportation and Highways critic.

With that, I would leave it to other members of the House to continue questions that they might have.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the issues raised in interim supply, a draft letter has in fact crossed my desk, and I think it's back at the ministry for finalization. As to your request on the highway projects throughout the province, I'll take that under consideration. Your last point was the briefing. I would suggest that you contact Vince Collins, my deputy minister, and arrange for a couple of hours of briefing at your convenience.

L. Hanson: I have a few questions about specifics, and I suppose now is as good a time as any to canvass them. There's been a lot of difficulty in that

section of the Trans-Canada Highway just outside of Golden -- a fair amount of study being done, I believe. If my memory serves me correctly, it has been the site of a number of very serious accidents. I don't know the exact name of the road, but there's quite a hill and a piece of road that is very winding and twisting and ends up on a bridge. That has been an area of great concern to the travelling public.

I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us where they are with the examination and what the plans are for that piece of highway.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are well-known problems in the Kicking Horse Canyon coming down to Golden, and there has been a severe accident there. That was where the truck carrying steel, I believe, crashed with a bus. There have been studies. Members opposite happen to be hitting a whole number of problem areas that are solvable for in the order of $200 to $250 million. It would take a major project to probably move the road to the other side of the Kicking Horse River and bypass the present road altogether.

But there is a second area which, from your description, seems to be more to the west of Golden, where the Trans-Canada makes a rather large switchback on its way up to the Pass. Where you referring to that second area?

L. Hanson: No, I was referring to the area where I think there have been a number of accidents. The most recent one was about a year and a half or two years ago, between a truck carrying steel and a bus. That was the area that I was concerned about. I recognize from some past experience the costs of these various projects and some of the limitations. By the same token, I suppose there are some things that eventually have to be faced and rectified, because we can't continue to have those difficulties.

I have another question regarding a highway. I know that there has been a fair amount of work started on this. I'm trying to get some understanding of when the completion date might be -- and how high a priority it might be within the ministry -- on the famous Beatton River crossing.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll go back for a moment to your previous comments about the Golden hill and your recognition of the costs. One area in which I plan to actively press the federal government is for participation in a national highways program. They have not invested in the Trans-Canada within British Columbia for decades, as the member opposite would know. I think it's about time that they did so. We will

[ Page 1259 ]

apply some of those funds with some of our own to start to resolve some of the major problems along the Trans-Canada.

With respect to the Beatton River bridge, presuming that we have no fiscal surprises in the coming year or two, we see it as a high priority that we would be delivering probably in the '93-94 fiscal year.

L. Hanson: Yes, I certainly support the minister's attempts to have recognition by the federal government of some of the highway problems in British Columbia -- not only the need for some of those repairs, but the recognition of how difficult and costly it is to build roads in British Columbia compared to the rest of Canada. I would think that, without any question, you'd have the support of every member in this House to try and get that participation. I have some reservations about how successful you might be, but certainly we would support that initiative.

Mr. Minister, a rather minor one -- and it's a bit confusing to me -- is that in the capital rehabilitation briefing package there's some $80,000 allocated for 32nd Street in my home community. Could one of your staff give me some indication of what that might be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is a contingency amount on a longstanding settlement item on the 32nd Street overpass.

L. Hanson: Mr. Minister, you shouldn't come to my community and mention settlement, because the 32nd Street bypass has had some difficulties with settlement. In any case, thank you.

Another local question that I would like to get some indication from you on is regarding a small

section of Highway 6 on the way to Lumby which has long been in the planning stage and long been, in the community's eye, a high priority. It's my understanding that that has been abandoned for this year. Could the minister give some indication of when it might be resumed or how far the planning and design work is for that section?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That

section of road was identified in the regional transportation study as being a problem of relatively high priority and likely would have commenced the current fiscal year if the fiscal situation had permitted. It will remain relatively high on the priority list, and when fiscal conditions permit, we will proceed with it.

L. Hanson: Having had some experience in the ministry before, I could go on for some time on the various projects. I'm not sure that I can't find that information by talking directly to you, so I will spare you that.

I'm interested in the minister's opinion and attitude towards the highway signage policy that is in place. There seems to be some concern by the business community about the flexibility of the sign policy. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the sign policy in detail and how he may feel about reassessing it and creating maybe a little more flexibility in the ability of businesses to sign for recognition of their operations.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The general policy, which was probably developed partly under your administration and partly under the administration of ministers before you, is of beautifying the highways and keeping them beautiful by keeping a lot of private signs out of the right-of-way. It's an excellent policy. All one has to do is drive through parts of the United States, where it's a continuous clutter. They have taken something that's potentially quite pretty and have ruined it. The policy of going to our large signs, where we put in the names of the various businesses in an orderly and well-maintained way, is the way to do it.

If you are referring to parts of the province where we still have some private signs up in the public right-of-way, it continues to be the policy of the ministry that we will look to the eventual removal of all of those private signs.

L. Hanson: I'm sure no one in British Columbia wants our highways to become a second example of the United States, such as the Burma-Shave signs and those sorts of things. I do hope, though, that the ministry will continue to ensure that there is a method of appeal to some of the decisions that are made in the regional offices, so there truly is the reflection of a flexibility and a recognition of need. Sometimes I have seen that get lost. I just hope that the minister will continue with that policy.

As I've said, I could go on for some time with these various questions. I know the minister exhibited a sense of humour the other day when he suggested that engineers could do anything. I might just point out to the minister that part of his discussion the other day was that he no longer has his name on the signs of the projects around British Columbia. Might I suggest that that's because there are so few projects, and maybe the minister is embarrassed to have his name on the signs. In jest, again, Mr. Minister.

[4:15]

I know that my colleague for Okanagan West was giving the minister a number of suggestions -- and some of them rather innovative -- about various areas that he might look to for extra funding to carry on the highways work that British Columbia obviously needs. I believe one of the issues was the fixed-wage policy, and the minister suggested that somebody had been smoking something funny. I know that engineers can do anything, but if the minister is sure that the fixed-wage policy is not going to cost British Columbia taxpayers any money, he had better check his slide rule, because I think it's stuck somewhere.

In any case, Mr. Minister, thank you for the answers. From the point of view of the critic for the third party, I appreciate that. I have had, as I said, some knowledge of the ministry in the past, as you are aware. I am truly disappointed in the amount of money that is allocated to capital projects. I think that if you had your druthers, as the saying goes, you would probably like to see more on construction in capital projects also. Hopefully, Mr. Minister, your suggestions, or your hopes -- not guarantees -- that next year things will allow some of those projects to continue that are very much needed in

[ Page 1260 ]

British Columbia.... I certainly hope that is the case too.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I appreciate your reference to slide rules, but this being a very technologically advanced party, I can barely remember what slide rules were. It might be that we have had a change of calculation mode in the last year or two.

With respect to signs on the road, I can only say that I've been handed this -- and it's a good emblem. There is no need to fear the very sensible decisions that will be coming out of the ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: I wasn't going to rise on this, but I couldn't help but rise after the comments from the member opposite. It couldn't be more timely, as I was just reviewing a letter from BCBC which comments on the first two projects that were advertised under our fair wages and skills development policy. I think we should be stressing fair wages there. The first project went to a non-union company, but it is $300,000 lower than the corporation's internal estimate. The second project did go to a union company, but it is about $1.1 million lower than the estimates by BCBC.

So the fears that have been rampant by the members opposite about the fact that this is going to cost this government money are totally unfounded. The facts speak for themselves, Mr. Member.

W. Hurd: I welcome the opportunity to question the minister on a few projects pertinent to my own area of Surrey-White Rock. In particular, I have a question pertaining to the possible resumption of passenger train service by Amtrak on the Burlington Northern line. There have been a number of trial balloons floated about this initiative over the past few months. There appears to be a real effort building on the part of Amtrak to resume service on the line. I'm just wondering if the ministry has developed any strategic plan or any idea about what they'd like to see regarding passenger service on the Burlington Northern line once it passes the 49th parallel and proceeds to Vancouver.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The particular Amtrak project is a trial balloon, and nothing more, raised by someone interested in election in the United States. At the present time I don't think it's overly feasible. Nonetheless, the ministry has not received any formal approach regarding this potential project.

We have a request under consideration from, I believe, the state of Washington regarding the potential for a high-speed train connecting Portland through to Vancouver. But at the present time that is something that would be far off and very costly.

If I could just add, under the Transport 2021 program we are conducting an inventory of rail in the area so that we will have a better idea of the potential for commuter rail. Should something come to pass with regard to Amtrak, that might include commuter rail coming up from the White Rock area.

W. Hurd: It's my understanding that the Congress in the United States has actually appropriated quite a large contingency fund to resurrect some of the passenger lines throughout the United States. I understand that the Seattle-to-Vancouver line occupies one of the higher priorities. I'm getting quite a few calls of concern about the possibility of trains on this particular corridor reaching speeds of upwards of 120 to 130 kilometres an hour, in order to make the high-speed run from Vancouver to Seattle.

Does the minister or his staff not see some rationale in investigating this proposal now so that if there is the possibility of a commuter-train component to that run, we can make our wishes and concerns known to Amtrak as soon as possible?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't think that your constituents need concern themselves about this too much at the present time. I don't think there's any track in the province that could handle sustained speeds of this order. Should the time come that a high-speed train link does become a reality -- and we should take that seriously -- it would have to come complete with overpasses. You simply cannot operate a high-speed rail system like that where you have level crossings and possible zones of confrontation with other ground traffic.

There is nothing in sight regarding anything like this -- no need for any worries about high-speed trains and our present limited capabilities at level crossings. Should it ever come about, it will be well planned.

W. Hurd: Further questions about the Burlington Northern line, in particular the movement of dangerous cargoes on this line. I am referring specifically to sulphuric acid, chlorine -- dangerous goods that are passing not only through the waterfront in White Rock but also through the Boundary Bay area, which is ecologically sensitive and a world heritage site in terms of being a bird sanctuary.

Just a question about the entire movement of hazardous cargoes: is there any intention by the ministry to more closely monitor what is moving on lines like the Burlington Northern through ecologically sensitive areas and heavily populated areas before the idea of passenger-train service is contemplated? Is that something the ministry is actively pursuing?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Several of the questions that the member opposite has asked I think were asked on his behalf by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale -- a very similar question to what you've just asked. The jurisdiction for the movement of goods on those lines is a federal matter and not a provincial matter.

W. Hurd: That would also pertain to the costs of cleanup and, if there were a derailment, the costs of dealing with the environmental problems that might accrue? Is that also a federal responsibility?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, they would be.

W. Hurd: Just pursuing other issues of concern to the region I represent.... I refer specifically to the future of 176th Street in south Surrey, which is the designated truck route from the Trans-Canada Highway to the border. The minister may be aware of a letter

[ Page 1261 ]

I wrote him recently about a serious accident that occurred at the intersection of 16th Avenue and 176th Street. I'm just wondering if there are any immediate plans, in view of the population growth in the entire Surrey area, for this rather critical intersection to be dealt with, either via an overpass or underpass or some other route, to minimize the danger to the travelling public.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The level of traffic at the intersection you've mentioned does not warrant a grade separation. That in no way downplays the potential for an accident or the multiple-death accident that occurred at that corner when, if I'm correct, the lights failed due to a power failure. There certainly are areas, particularly where you have a light at the bottom of a hill with an intersection....

This is something that I have not yet tried out on my ministry, but at utterly critical situations like that where there is a power failure, I think that we ought to consider the possibility of a battery-powered system which can kick in and at least give flashing reds, so that tragic incidents like that can be avoided.

W. Hurd: Further to the situation on 176th Street, the minister may be aware that the 16th Avenue interchange occurs at the bottom of a rather steep grade. This being the major truck route from Highway 99 or Highway 1 to the border, I'm wondering if there's any provision for a mandatory brake inspection for truckers before they come down that rather steep grade -- which, I might add, is a four-lane road -- and speed towards the international border. This raises the issue of mandatory brake checks throughout the province.

This intersection is of particular concern, because if there is a power failure as the minister has described, and the trucker misses the flashing lights at the top of the hill, it's virtually impossible for that truck to come to a complete stop by the time it gets to the 16th Avenue intersection. This was probably a contributing factor to this tragic accident which involved the loss of a family in my riding. I would ask the minister whether there's any possibility of a mandatory brake check for this particular hill leading to the international border.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I understand that the area in question is fairly well developed, such that there could be a substantial cost to putting in a proper truck pullout along there. Nonetheless, my officials would be quite willing to sit down, perhaps with officials of the Attorney-General and local officials, to determine whether investment in a brake check would be warranted.

[4:30]

W. Hurd: Further to the truck route to the border, is the ministry concerned at all about the movement of truck traffic to the international boundary, and in particular the rather serious congestion that occurs at the truck crossing on 176th? Is there any provision for possibly rerouting truck traffic to the border or eliminating this particular grade altogether? I might add that this constitutes a hazard not only coming south towards the border on 176th at 16th, but also going the other way towards Cloverdale and the grade at 32nd Avenue.

Is the ministry at all concerned about the truck traffic movement to the border and the likelihood that we're going to see a significant increase in the amount of trucks, the type of cargo being moved and the whole issue of public safety on that particular route?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is no easy solution to the problem, but my officials indicate that this has not been a problem of major magnitude. There may well be congestion, but there is no simple solution to it. Nonetheless I think that looking at a solution should be considered, because anything we can do in terms of clearing commercial vehicles through quickly and ending congestion is ultimately an economic benefit both to the northwestern states and to our own economy.

W. Hurd: Further to that particular intersection, it's my understanding that 16th Avenue, which connects the Abbotsford airport with the 99 freeway from the border, is destined in the future to be a major perimeter freeway connecting the Abbotsford airport with the international airport in Richmond. Would it not be more appropriate for the ministry to establish 176th and 16th as a priority area in terms of planning for future traffic movement on the lower mainland?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The possible upgrading of 16th was looked at and was recommended by a regional study under Freedom To Move as something that should be done, but with a very long-time horizon -- not within ten years probably. The issue will be looked at again in the process of Transport 2021, so we will wait to see the recommendations of that study.

[Mr. Kasper in the chair.]

W. Hurd: Further to the 16th Avenue project and the potential for Abbotsford airport becoming an international destination -- a second airport, as it were, in the lower mainland -- has the ministry plugged any studies into the future of the Abbotsford airport as a destination point for international flights as an alternative to Richmond? Would that have the impact of making 16th Avenue more of a priority area, if it were patched into an alternative use for the Abbotsford international airport?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Any studies that would entail upgrading or modifying the use of the Abbotsford airport would be a federal matter. We're not aware of any such plan. Until such time as the federal government or a local airport authority come forward with a proposal and advise us as to the consequences and implications of their proposal, we have nothing in mind in terms of a study related to that.

W. Hurd: Returning briefly to the issue of the border, I understand that the municipality of Surrey has pledged funds for a cost-sharing proposal to upgrade 8th Avenue, to improve the rather serious traffic problems that have occurred in the south Surrey area.

[ Page 1262 ]

In view of the fact that the municipality has pledged to involve itself in financing this project, I'm wondering whether it is a priority of the ministry in the next year or so.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no funds planned for expenditure in the current fiscal year with regard to 8th Avenue. It may be something that will come in a coming fiscal year.

W. Hurd: Further, one other traffic issue in the south Surrey-White Rock area would be the possibility of a third interchange on the 99 freeway. I believe that there's a proposal for 32nd Avenue that has the active support of the municipality. In view of the rather serious traffic problems experienced by people in the Surrey-White Rock and Surrey-Cloverdale areas with access to the freeway, I wonder whether that particular project is contemplated as a top priority for the ministry in the coming fiscal year.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There have been meetings at the staff level and at the political level regarding that. There is agreement on an interchange but, as I understand it, not on where the interchange should be located or perhaps the exact design of it. But there is an agreement in principle that there should be an interchange. It will proceed on a priority basis when funds are available.

W. Hurd: One other issue I had hoped to canvass with the minister was the entire question of privatized highways contracts. I note that when the government was in opposition there was a great deal of concern expressed about the monitoring that was in place to ensure that privatized road contractors were meeting their responsibilities. If this question has been asked previously, I apologize to the minister. I've tried to follow the debates at closely as I can.

I'm just wondering if there are any funds allocated in the current fiscal year to improve the monitoring of the performance of private road contractors in the province, particularly in heavily travelled sections like the Coquihalla Highway, Highway 1 and other major arteries.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are approximately 140 people across the province who are part of our quality assurance program. Those numbers haven't changed from last year to this. That program will carry on.

W. Hurd: I'm a little bit confused. There was a problem identified by the opposition under the previous government regarding the performance of some road contractors in the province. A concern was expressed that there wasn't the appropriate monitoring in place to ensure that the terms of the contract were being met. Surely the ministry, in light of those problems, must have some mechanism or some program in place to deal with the problems identified with privatized road maintenance over the past three years.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Just to correct something I said a few minutes ago about the 32nd Street interchange, we do have agreement on the location. The design is not done, nor do we have agreement on the timing. It will happen when funds are available. But I had said earlier we did not have agreement on location, and that was not correct.

With regard to the monitoring of the maintenance contractors, as part of the new contract and the process of selecting new contractors for the new -- roughly -- three-year contracts, we insisted that they have a management plan in place, and a full description of it such that we would better be able to evaluate their capabilities in carrying out the maintenance program.

I receive letters on an ongoing basis from around the province complaining of specific items, from snow removal to potholes to the size of gravel being used, but by and large we're satisfied that our quality assurance program is on top of the problem. It does determine, by constant monitoring in the field, what is happening; and when we find a contractor not responding in time, or not taking care of that

section of the road in a manner in which they should, then they are so advised. We have penalty clauses within the new contracts that we can make use of in order to increase the probability that they will do it right in the first place.

W. Hurd: I'm still at a loss to rationalize some of the problems that have occurred previously with privatized road contracts, and whether there are any new initiatives or new personnel deployed in the field for monitoring. Are there more resources available in the field? Are there more inspectors in the field or within the various ministerial branches of Transportation and Highways to ensure that the contracts are being honoured and that...? What are the reporting mechanisms? What new programs do we have to eliminate some of the very real problems that occurred in the past two or three years in privatized highways contracts?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I said in my previous answer, the new contract has penalty clauses involved in it such that.... In the previous contract there was only one penalty clause, so to speak. You had to take the entire contract away. So things would have to get pretty bad, and they did in part of the Cariboo area, to the point where the contractor lost the contract. That has been corrected by the addition of penalty clauses to address it on a step-by-step basis. I think, as well, that the first three years was a learning process both ways, and for the new contract, as I said before, part of the selection process was to evaluate the contractors' management plans.

[4:45]

Having said all that, there are still elements of the privatized maintenance that I'm not satisfied with. I have announced that we will be conducting a comprehensive review of the whole program, which I expect will get underway this year. We will determine whether the public is receiving value for money paid, whether the job is being done in accordance with the standards set and whether the personnel of these companies, the employees, are being treated in a fair and equitable

[ Page 1263 ]

manner. When the results of that review are available to me, then I will make a decision as to whether we will stay with privatized maintenance.

W. Hurd: To the minister, does he have a budget for this audit? I assume it will be done during the current fiscal year. Can he advise the committee how many dollars will be expended in this monitoring process?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have some discretionary funds available, and I will scope the work that I expect to be done and see to it that that scope of work can be done and a product delivered within the discretionary amounts that I can set.

R. Neufeld: I'm going to take you into Peace River North for a while, and I'm not going to waste your gas running around. I'll start in Fort Nelson specifically. As I understand from the rehabilitation program, there is one new project of $4 million: the Fort Nelson Airport Road paved slide area for realignment.

The minister may not be aware, but I'd like to explain a bit about the people in the construction industry in Fort Nelson, who have depended upon government contracts in the past. They work in the oilfield in the wintertime -- in Fort Nelson it is specific to the winter. There are operational programs that go on with the oil patch, but basically any construction or drilling goes on in the wintertime. And it's the same with forestry. It happens only in the three months of winter. In the summertime they depend on a little extra work from the government on a day-rate basis.

There's one hill in Fort Nelson that the last administration said for a couple of years that they were going to look at, and it didn't happen. Or the ministry had started studies into the type of soil. That's the Clarke Lake Road and the hill that crosses the railroad bridge and starts out into Clarke Lake. I wonder if the minister could explain if there is any way that we could start that project this year, because there has been a tremendous slowdown in the oil industry and the logging industry in the north, and maybe that will help a little bit.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the road that you mentioned -- was it Clarke Lake hill? -- I understand that there are some fairly severe soil conditions along that alignment. It will not be a simple matter or an inexpensive matter to solve it. There are no funds intended for construction on it this year, and I don't think there are any for design. It is something that would be looked at within the regional priorities when funds are available.

With respect to your question having to do with day labour, there were some ten or 11 projects announced in your constituency -- extremely generous of me, I might say. I believe about half of those could have some day-labour input. I'm well familiar with the problem. I have met with delegations representing day-labour interests. I understand the economic stress that they're under. I have had to advise them -- and I started that last January, I guess -- that we were going to have a shortage of work for them this year, but we would try to make sure that what work we did have was spread around evenly.

By putting more money into rehab and less into capital projects, we also thought that we might be able to afford the greatest amount of employment for day labour.

R. Neufeld: Carrying on with that particular road -- what they call Clarke Lake hill -- parts of it are privately owned by Petro-Canada. It goes onto part of a road that's owned by Mobil Oil, then another part of the road that's owned by the government and ends up in the Desan oilfield -- a piece of road that's owned by the department of mines and energy. This is a road that is used extensively. There's a high traffic volume, especially in the wintertime, in regards to the oil patch and to moving rigs and all the things that go along with that. A tremendous amount of dangerous goods goes down that hill and along that road.

If you haven't driven that road, maybe you should take some time when you're up there, if you get a chance. It is deplorable in places. Each company says, "I'm not going to fix my piece of road, because you're not fixing yours," and the government kind of feels the same way. The department of mines doesn't ever seem to have anything in their budget to fix that piece of road. I shouldn't say ever; they have done some work to it and some upgrading. Is there a possibility that your ministry could take that whole piece of road over and maintain it?

I don't think it has to be brought to a highway standard, but a better standard than it is right now and under the control of one ministry would make it much simpler.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: This road would be an example of what might be able to be handled under a resource road policy. There is no intention to move that legislation forward this session, but that is one way of addressing the problem. The Ministry of Energy offered that we should take that over this year -- take it in -- but it would have cost something in the order of $500,000 for the additional maintenance costs. I'm wondering aloud: I wonder if the ministry couldn't serve a sort of catalytic function by getting the different owners together and suggesting to them that a joint maintenance program, conceivably with some input from the province, could in fact be put together.

R. Neufeld: That might well satisfy the problems. The $500,000, I guess, from the Ministry of Mines, of course, is just a transfer of funds from that ministry to yours. It would still be looked after under one umbrella, which is the Ministry of Highways -- that's what I was hoping for; that we could get to that place. I'll leave that, though, and be in touch with you again on it.

I want to say a few words about tolls and that type of thing, just so that you know that in the north.... I know that your responsibility ends at approximately Mile 83 on the Alaska Highway, but it traverses British Columbia to around Mile 600. That leaves about 520 miles of road that's federally operated and maintained -- and capital construction on it -- other than a short piece through the town of Fort Nelson. If you talk about tolls, people, especially in my constituency of Fort Nelson, are quite upset, because they feel they've been paying a

[ Page 1264 ]

toll for years in the form of gas tax to the province, in the form of permits to the province, on a highway maintained by the federal government. Hopefully, if tolls come into place, you will take that to heart when you think about tolls in the north, because they may not appreciate it up there. I'm not sure whether or not that will have any impact on you.

We'll go a little south now to Hudson's Hope. I believe it is Highway 29. Is there anything in the future, with the repaving of that piece of road from Fort St. John to Hudson's Hope, by any chance? I think the ministry looked at it fairly closely last year, but I don't know whether they made any decision on it.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There has been consideration of the relocation of the entire road, but that relocation is in turn related to the potential or possibility of developing Site C. There has been some understandable hesitance about investing in the existing road and not knowing how long that investment might be good for. I guess we will have to hold to see what developments come along with regard to Site C. Those questions would have to be put to another minister. There is, I believe, the one road-upgrading project in your booklet on Highway 29 -- Halfway Hill. That relates to some realignments in order to improve safety.

R. Neufeld: To resurface a piece of road that was built last year. In the booklet that you provided us, the rehabilitation projects, you have bridge projects: Highway 97, the Taylor Bridge, at $1.63 million. That's a project started a couple of years ago. Is $1.63 million the total for that construction project, or is that what you're spending just this year, not what has been spent before?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount of $1.63 million would be the funds anticipated to be expended this year.

R. Neufeld: So the repainting of that bridge was more than $1.63 million -- is that correct? If it was, how much was it?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We don't have the total of the contract here, but I can provide that to you.

R. Neufeld: I read with interest in the paper about the Minister of Finance talking about the fair wage policy as it would apply specifically in the north with Alberta contractors and people coming in doing work at less than fair wages. He made remarks on this specific contract on the bridge. Do I understand that the fair wage policy is applied to highways, or not?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, it does not apply to highway projects. I believe the minister was pointing out that there might be some benefits to northeast British Columbia should it apply in the future.

R. Neufeld: Another resurfacing project is Highway 97 from Charlie Lake to Mile 83. This is a continuation of a project that started last year at $1.56 million. Is that just the part that's to be expended this year or is that the total amount of dollars for the whole contract?

[5:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That amount, some $1.56 million, is for this year. All of the figures on your sheet relate to expenditures anticipated for this year.

R. Neufeld: Can I ask the minister to provide me, not immediately, with what the bridge contract amounted to in total dollars, and what the upgrade on Highway 97 was in total dollars? It's nothing that has to be done right away -- just for my information.

The other item, of course, that's of great concern in Fort St. John is the Beatton River hill. I'm sure you're aware of it, and I'm sure your ministry staff is aware of it. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to drive on that hill at any time, but I would say that the best time to drive on that piece of road would be in the wintertime, in the fall in a freezing rain storm with a few trucks and some rigs on the move and that type of thing, because you will soon see that that hill is....

The only reason it hasn't claimed a life in the last number of years is because the people there, who live there, who use it continuously, know how dangerous it is. If it was in a highway system, I think we would have had some tragic accidents. I believe the last bridge is being completed this year for that project, but there is no money towards the building of the road. There is a certain amount of slippage happening on that hill all the time. It could, conceivably, in the spring or during the summer in heavy rains, slip more than expected and we could lose it totally.

That would leave that part of British Columbia being serviced out of Alberta.

We have a problem with that part of British Columbia already being serviced too much, with every facet, out of Alberta. It would be a great benefit if we could see some strides being made towards the construction of that road. I can understand the minister -- and I've sat and listened quite attentively for hours -- about people asking for dollars for roads and some of his responses, but I would say that this specific piece of road poses a tremendous amount of danger. There are an awful lot of dangerous goods in the form of crude oil, diesel fuels and gasolines being hauled over that road on a constant basis.

It happens steadily. There's heavy equipment being hauled on it, and if you meet wide loads on it, you have to stop so the wide loads can go around the corner. There are tremendously sharp corners, and it's a very dangerous piece of road.

I know it was started a number of years ago, and I would certainly encourage you to look very favourably at completing that piece of road, even to get it to a gravel stage, rather than making people use the old highway. The old highway has been left to deteriorate on purpose simply because it was in the plan to build a new road, and there's not much sense in maintaining it to a high degree if at some time you're going to abandon it.

I would like to know your response to that, how you feel about it, and to invite you when you're up there to get hold of my office, and I would, in all seriousness, be pleased to show you what I mean about the

transporta-

[ Page 1265 ]

tion industry that uses that hill on a constant basis. I have been involved in the transportation industry for quite a number of years, so I am quite well versed in what happens over there and the problems that would be faced in Fort St. John if all supplies and services were to start coming out of Alberta until we could get a road built and end the problems of trying to get it back into Fort St. John. There are some tremendous problems there with dangerous goods, with losing a lot of economic activity to Alberta, and danger to life and limb.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I had a delegation in my office from the area several weeks ago. They brought along a set of photographs that they took. Although I have not driven the road myself, I am fully appreciative of the situation as you describe it. It looks like a slide waiting to happen, and indeed it would sever the road. On the other hand, it would not make too much sense to spend millions of dollars to stabilize the slide in view of the near delivery of the project.

I said earlier that in the '93-94 fiscal year we would be in construction, but I'm advised that we could not complete it until the fall of '94. So technically it would be in the '94-95 fiscal year before we were able to deliver the final product.

As you've identified, virtually everybody has been seeking more funds. I'm pleased to note that in your constituency, even though we have not addressed all of the problems you've identified, we are putting in something in the order of $7 million, which is, approximately speaking, 4 percent of the rehabilitation projects, when typically we're running closer to 1.5 percent. We agree with you. We are investing the funds up there. Unfortunately, we don't have enough to address them all. I am aware of them, and at some time I would like to take you up on your offer to drive the road. Perhaps you could keep it open for later, and you might even be able to have a small charge for a thrill ride.

R. Neufeld: It would be a thrill ride, I can assure you.

There is some $7 million worth of rehabilitation going on in the Peace River North electoral district, and as I said, a couple of those larger projects are continuations of projects that happened before. So I do, on behalf of the people of North Peace, thank you for it. I know the difficulty you're having. If there's any way you can see your way clear to do some work on the Beatton River hill, I would appreciate it -- the people of North Peace would be very appreciative -- because the grades are in excess of 10 percent in places on that hill.

J. Tyabji: There are a few things I'd like to ask you for specifically for the Okanagan, which is the region that I'm from. The first is what you'd call a housekeeping item. I know you've been contacted by one of my constituents who has some concerns with regard to the Coquihalla Highway and the need for fog lights. I'm wondering if you are aware of the concern. What is the contingency plan for the area?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In order to keep the costs of the Coquihalla connector within the acceptable bounds -- I think that was $225 million -- a variety of things had to give. One of them was the availability of power along the entire road. There is power that comes into a number of points. There's another aspect of fog lights: if you have fog lights in some areas but not others, you are tending to encourage people to perhaps drive a little faster than they should in the lit areas, and when they hit fog at the extremities of the lit areas, you're inviting a problem.

We haven't looked at putting in lights continuously through the areas that are subject to fog, hence I can't advise you as to what the costs might be. It would be fairly costly, and that would be a consideration. I'm well familiar with the problem, and I recall several letters outlining that concern to me over the winter.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to ask the minister if he has driven the connector in the fog, and if he understands just how dense it is. I do tend to disagree. I don't think putting fog lights there would have people drive any faster. I know that when I've driven in the fog, you have to go very slowly. It's almost impossible to see any