1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th 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 9, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6673 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supreme Court Act (Bill 23). Hon. S.D. Smith

Court Rules Act (Bill 24). Hon. S.D. Smith

Small Claims Act (Bill 25). Hon. S.D. Smith

Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 26). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6673

Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill PR401). Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 6674

Oral Questions

Drift-net fishing. Mr. Harcourt –– 6674

Polar 8. Mr. Sihota –– 6675

Ferry design and construction. Mr. Clark –– 6675

Recommendations of Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.

Mr. Kempf –– 6676

Forest Resource Development Agreement. Mr. Miller –– 6676

Tabling Documents –– 6676

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 6676

Mr. Williams

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. (Hon.

Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6678

Hon. Mr. Vant

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Miller

Mr. Long

Mr. G. Janssen

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. DUECK :

In the precincts today we have four distinguished gentlemen: Mr. Fran

Brunelle, member of the board of governors of the Canadian Memorial

Chiropractic College; Dr. Chris Martin, president of the British

Columbia Chiropractic Association; Dr. Don Nixdorf, executive director

of the British Columbia Chiropractic Association; and Dr. I.D. Coulter,

member of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. Would the House

please make them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT : I'd like to

ask the members of the Legislature to give a very warm welcome to Mr.

John Windebank, who is visiting us from Pictou, Nova Scotia. He is

known in British Columbia for his previous involvement in the Youth

Parliament, through the Mission United Church Trail Ranger Group in his

youth, where he became not only Leader of the Opposition but Premier in

the Youth Parliament. Accompanying Mr. Windebank is Mr. John Clark,

also a member of the Mission United Church ranger group, who is a

resident of Sidney and a retired teacher from Claremont Senior

Secondary School here in Victoria.

As well, we have a

gentleman who is known to a number of you: Mr. Bill Hartley, with his

son Eric. The former Minister of Public Works in the New Democratic

government, as you are aware, put a lot of his heart and soul and the

taxpayers' money into helping restore this fine legislative building.

He was also the minister who did the design work and hired Arthur

Erickson to design the Robson Square complex — who completed the job on

target, on budget.

Would you please give these gentlemen a warm welcome.

HON. MR. REE :

Today in the galleries we have 45 bright, wide-eyed, wide-awake

students from Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver — who

have been up since before 5 o'clock this morning. They are here under

the guidance of their teachers, Jim Adams and Stu McDonald. Also

accompanying them are two former teachers, Mr. Ed Peterson and Mr. Ross

Stanway, from the same alma mater that the second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and I went to a long time ago. I

would ask this House to give them a warm welcome to Victoria and to the

chamber.

HON. S.D. SMITH : In the House today is Her

Worship Susan Brice from Oak Bay, who is a member of the Justice Reform

Committee of British Columbia which produced the "Access to Justice"

report. I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming her to this

chamber.

Also in the House today — or about to be in the precincts — are a number of

individuals who have served as the advisory committee to the Attorney-General

on implementation of the Justice Reform Committee report.

These

individuals have been an integral part of that process, and they will

become an integral part of the evaluation process that is being

developed to ensure that we achieve, through reform, the goals that we

have established for ourselves. These individuals have worked very long

and very hard — usually at night. They have done so on a volunteer

basis, and I must say they may take credit for what works with our

reforms, and I will assume responsibility for what needs reworking.

Mr. Speaker, would the House please join me in welcoming to the

chamber today — or to the precincts later: Madam Justice Prowse;

the Hon. Judge Low; His Honour Judge Shupe; Don Jordan, who is an

administrative law person from Vancouver; Brian Saunderson from

Campbell River; Douglas Macadams from Abbotsford; Blair Suffredine from

Nelson; James Vilvang, who is the president of the Canadian Bar

Association, B.C. branch; Peter Leask, who is bencher of the British

Columbia Law Society; Bryan Williams, a former president of the

Canadian Bar Association; Michael Hutchison, who practises in the city

of Victoria; and Alison MacLennan, who is a practitioner in Vancouver.

Would the House please join me in welcoming and thanking them.

MR. PELTON :

Would hon. members please welcome to the House this afternoon Grant and

June MacDonald and their son Murray, who are visiting us from West

Vancouver.

Introduction of Bills

SUPREME COURT ACT

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Supreme Court Act.

COURT RULES ACT

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Court Rules Act.

SMALL CLAIMS ACT

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Small Claims Act.

JUSTICE REFORM STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. S. D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

With leave — and the cooperation of my friend the House

Leader — I'm pleased to present members with a package of

legislative mea-

[ Page 6674 ]

sures

to reform our justice system. Reports to legislatures frequently

collect some dust on their way to implementation. The "Access to

Justice" report has instead collected much deserved acclaim. The

report's 182 recommendations were received by me November 30. Less than

six months later we are presenting legislation to begin implementation

of that report.

[2:15]

On behalf of all members of this House — and, indeed, all British Columbians —

I say thank you to members of the Justice Reform Committee for their

work. These bills are the product of an extensive, broadly based,

deeply rooted consultation process that began December 1, 1988, and

finished last Friday. Implementation of the "Access to Justice" report

would not be proceeding without the widely based consensus that has

been achieved through that consultative process.

Bill 23

will merge the Supreme and County Courts of our province into one

unified superior court. In 1969 this House debated a bill to do just

that. Attorneys-General before and since have visited the issue and

have moved away. The "Access" report itself recommended further study.

Today a decision has been made to merge now, and this House will have a

chance to give authority for that step by July 1990 or sooner.

Merger

will reduce the number of trial courts from three to two and thereby

fulfill one of the major recommendations of the Law Reform Commission

of Canada report released today. Merger will mean better administration

and, more importantly, better service for all British Columbians.

Through Bill 23 we will fully clothe the Supreme Court as a place for

all British Columbians, not just for those resident in the lower

mainland of this province.

Bill 24 will consolidate the

court rule-making power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under one

piece of legislation. Today that power is found in nine separate acts.

Provisions in this bill will facilitate the new economical litigation

program which covers a range of claims between $5,000 and $20,000. Bill

24 has provisions to help citizens and small business people pursue

remedies without needing complicated legal procedures.

Bill

25 will create a new small claims act. Small claims court is intended

to be the people's court. Bill 25 will improve access by raising limits

to $5,000 and by providing simpler rules and procedures.

Bill

26 amends various acts, including the Family Relations Act, the Family

Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter

and the victim services legislation.

Earlier I invited the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) to be briefed in my

office on these matters. I want to say now that through the process of

consultation it is my view the people have spoken on these matters. It

is now for us to heed that call and give these bills our serious

consideration and early passage.

Bills 23, 24, 25 and 26

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.

SEMINARY OF CHRIST THE KING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr. Jacobsen presented a bill intituled Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989.

Bill

PR401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Oral Questions

DRIFT-NET FISHING

MR. HARCOURT :

A question to the Premier. Two weeks ago the Premier declared drift-net

fishing an attack on our natural environment that B.C. won't tolerate.

Can the Premier explain how it happened that while he was talking,

Canada, far from seeking a ban on the drift-net fishery, was about to

sign an agreement with the United States and Japan to extend the

fishery?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I can't speak for the

federal government. Obviously we consider this whole issue despicable

and atrocious. We're very much opposed to the whole idea of drift-net

fishing, and we intend to continue pursuing it. We will raise it at

every opportunity and will again make representation to the federal

government to see what we can do at this date to have them take a more

aggressive stance with respect to the whole issue of drift-net fishing.

We're also pursuing it in my office through the Ministry of Agriculture

to see what we can do in B.C. as an initiative to focus on the issue

more effectively, and we have some good ideas in that regard.

MR. HARCOURT :

The federal government's own Fisheries staff have said this extension

could have a serious impact on B.C.'s salmon stocks, yet from the

government's reaction to this federal sellout of B.C.'s fisheries it's

clear you only learned about it in the Sunday Province .

Does the fact that the Mulroney government went ahead and negotiated an

extension rather than a ban on drift-net fishing mean that you and your

government played no role at all in the decisions about B.C.'s

fisheries?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : For clarification, unlike the members opposite we don't get our research from the Vancouver Province . I will defer the question to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

To the hon. opposition House Leader: we have had constant discussions

with federal Fisheries and Oceans and have expressed our concern very

drastically about the effect of the driftnet fishery on the Pacific

salmon industry. We have

[ Page

6675 ]

constantly raised the issue with the minister's

assistant, Mr. Pierre Asselin, and have very much expressed our view

that we are opposed to the drift-net fishery and, in fact, that it

should be closed down.

MR. HARCOURT : From the

Premier's strong statements two weeks ago to this pathetic show today,

it's clear that the Premier either has no influence on Ottawa or is

taking lessons from John Crosbie on how to sell out the B.C. fishery.

The

question is: given the GATT decision, the FTA sellout and now this

action, can the Premier say why British Columbians should have any

confidence in his government's ability to stand up for the B.C. fishery?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Well, it's fairly simple. Yes, the people of British Columbia can have

real confidence in a free enterprise government, and that's why, for

the last 37 years, they've chosen Social Credit over the socialist NDP.

When they did decide on the socialist NDP, it was relatively

short-lived. I hope that answers your question.

I must say,

too, that we're attempting to work continually with the federal

government on this issue. I appreciate that not all things are

happening just as we'd like to see them, and we're certainly going to

continue to pursue this. But I must say that it's going to take more

than headlining in the House to get this matter addressed, and we're

getting good cooperation from industry and the union.

POLAR 8

MR. SIHOTA : I asked the

Premier yesterday about the Polar 8 situation. He dispatched Mr. Rhodes

to Ottawa to attend to this matter when the story first came out that

the Polar 8 deal was going to be cancelled. Could the Premier confirm

that the government was advised at that time — in other words, Mr.

Rhodes was advised at that time, and hence the government — that

there were no guarantees that the project would proceed this year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I can well appreciate why so many in the NDP live in a world of

negativism, and I suppose if we allow that negativism to spread, we

would end up with a province down in the dumps. Now the representative

for a constituency very much affected by the construction of the Polar

8 — instead of giving his people some hope and confidence —

talks about the project being cancelled. It has not been cancelled, it

is not cancelled and it won't be cancelled.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, this is the same Premier who talks about confidence in our

economy who has allowed the grape industry and the fish-processing

industry in this province to die, and who now has the shipbuilding

industry on the ropes.

My question again to the Premier is: was Mr. Rhodes advised by the federal

government when he went to Ottawa that indeed the project was not on go — in

other words, that it was not going to proceed this year? Was he advised at that

time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

In the introductory remarks, again we heard the NDP socialistic

negativism that somehow the fish industry had died as well. The fish

industry has not died. It is much a part of my constituency, and in my

constituency the fish industry is still thriving. If we have our way, I

can assure you we will be positive and fight to the very end, and that

industry will survive in my constituency.

I will speak to Mr. Rhodes to see if, in fact, he was told something that the member mentioned.

MR. SIHOTA :

This Premier, in his thirst for headlines, chose to send Mr. Rhodes to

Ottawa and said that he was going to be acting with dispatch to attend

to this matter. Now it turns out that the Premier never even talked to

Mr. Rhodes. Is the Premier saying that once Mr. Rhodes returned, he

never even talked to him to determine the status of the Polar 8

project? Is that what the Premier is saying now?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rhodes is an excellent deputy in this government. He

serves the province and the people extremely well, and we have good and

ongoing communications. He will probably continue to be deputy for many

years, and he will always communicate with whoever he serves and serves

well. We don't really have too many negative discussions. All our

discussions tend to be fairly positive. I can understand why the

opposition has such difficulties in question period, because most of it

is based on rumour. If that's a rumour you've heard, perhaps you may

wish to tell me where you've heard the rumour that Mr. Rhodes was told

the project might not be proceeding.

From all the

information I have, we had and continue to have the assurance from the

people in Ottawa that in fact the Polar 8 will proceed. I understand

perhaps that there is some further work to be done with respect to

design, and I understand too that there is some difficulty with respect

to change of ownership. But all of that will hopefully be resolved very

quickly, and this government and this Premier will fight in a very

positive way and very hard to make sure that the people in that

constituency of Esquimalt, who are very dependent on those jobs, will,

in a very positive way, achieve that employment and those

opportunities. We will not be negative. The project will be theirs.

[2:30]

FERRY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In a letter

to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in February, the

minister stated that 100 percent of B.C. Ferry Corporation's

construction has been done in British Columbia to date. Will the

minister assure the House that

[ Page 6676 ]

the construction and design work for all the new ferries will be done in British Columbia by B.C. firms?

HON. MR. VANT :

I'm very pleased that the second member for Vancouver East has such an

interest in marine transportation and ferries. As in the past,

particularly regarding the construction of the ferries, we will

continue that policy to have them built here in British Columbia.

MR. CLARK :

A supplementary to the minister. Can the minister tell the House why

the government, for the first time in B.C. history, has awarded the

design contract for a 100-metre ferry to a Finnish company named

Wartsila?

HON. MR. VANT : Design work is a very small

component of the overall project, Mr. Speaker. It so happens that the

corporation was looking at various schematics — not actual working

drawings. The Ferry Corporation board decided on that particular firm

because of their initial conceptual design. They want the best possible

design for our ferries in this province. That's why I said earlier that

the construction would occur in British Columbia and would be done by

British Columbians in our own shipyards.

MR. CLARK :

A supplementary to the minister. The minister is saying that no

companies in British Columbia are capable of doing the same quality

design that Wartsila is. That is simply unacceptable, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANT :

It so happens that this particular firm that is doing the designing has

very significant connections with firms that are based in and do

business right here in British Columbia. In the marine industry, there

are many interconnections all over the world.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF SELECT STANDING

COMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND LANDS

MR. KEMPF :

I have a question to the Premier. Having spoken so highly yesterday in

question period about the "truck loggers, small loggers and contract

loggers," has the Premier decided — through his ever so democratic system —

to draft legislation accommodating the recommendations made by the last

Select Standing Committee on Forest and Lands, giving those people, of

whom you spoke so eloquently yesterday, that which they have sought for

so many years?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I would very

much like to answer the question, because we have certainly been

addressing these issues very aggressively over the last while, but I

can't talk about future legislation.

FOREST RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

MR. MILLER :

I have a question to the Minister of Forests. Last week the minister

reiterated that B.C.'s position is that we require a $700 million FRDA

program, fifty-fifty cost shared with the federal government. This

weekend the federal Minister of Forests indicated that he felt B.C.

should shoulder a higher percentage of the cost. Has the federal

government formally advised the provincial government that it will not

fund any new agreement on a fifty-fifty basis?

HON. MR. PARKER :

My discussions with the Hon. Frank Oberle have indicated that the

replacement agreement for FRDA I will be coming from the western

development initiative, and there was no indication whatsoever whether

there would be any reduction of their participation, which in FRDA I

was fifty-fifty. Furthermore, I emphasized to the minister the

importance and magnitude of the agreement, because the second agreement

will be very much in a stand-tending and intensive silviculture program.

Hon.

Mr. Vant tabled the annual report for the British Columbia Railway

group of companies for the period ending December 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

On vote 44; minister's office, $311,570 (continued).

MR. WILLIAMS : It wasn't entirely clear to me whether the minister's transit staff were going to be here or not. They are? Fine.

Insofar

as the conflict-of-interest guidelines are concerned, I might just note

for the record what parts of them state. It states that these refer to

outside consultants as well as employees, so they're the same

regulations. The general statement says:

"(

a) No conflict should exist or appear to exist between the private

interests of employees and their official duties. Upon appointment to

their position, employees are expected to arrange their private affairs

in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest from arising.

"(

b) Employees should exercise care in the management of their private

affairs so as not to benefit or appear to benefit from the use of

information acquired during the course of their official duties not

generally available to the public.

"(

c) Employees should not place themselves in a position where they could

derive any direct or indirect benefit or interest from any contracts

over which they can influence decisions.

"(

d) All employees are expected to disclose to their supervisors all

business, commercial or financial interest where such interest might

conceivably be

[ Page 6677 ]

construed as being an actual or potential conflict with their

official duties."

I think those are the core areas, and the discipline is simply that it may be subject to disciplinary action.

While

those regulations are fairly general, they still invite careful

examination relative to what occurred during that period of the studies

of the Clarkson corridor with respect to the private acquisitions that

took place in that same time period.

While

the conflict-of-interest guidelines are pretty general — and less

than adequate for a privatized system, which is indeed what we have in

British Columbia —

they still bring to bear some worthwhile things. If the minister

ponders over this, she might well reconsider those guidelines insofar

as consultants are concerned, so that they might indeed be more

specific for the next round of right-of-way negotiations. Maybe she has

comments at this point.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : During

lunch hour, I did have an opportunity very briefly to secure some

information with regard to the concern that had been expressed by the

member this morning.

I did learn that the properties

purchased by the individual and company involved in New Westminster

were purchased well after the alignments for phase one and phase two

were made public information. If there was a suggestion that because of

some prior knowledge with regard to the alignments for SkyTrain there

was a purchase of property made in order to realize personal benefit,

that should not any longer be considered. There was no withdrawal of

the fact that the properties were purchased and that Mr. Macdonald did

have an interest in the properties. A good many of the properties were

on the market for some time, apparently; and some even to the extent

that on Columbia Street they had been boarded up.

Rather

than go into any more detail with regard to those acquisitions.... I

don't honestly have enough information here to make a full statement,

but it is my intention to do that. I have requested a full report on

Mr. Macdonald's holdings, and will be making a statement as soon as I

possibly can. All of the information will be laid on the table. We will

also be reviewing our conflict-of-interest regulations.

You

may or may not know that Mr. Stuart Hodgson, our chief executive

officer, has been ill. He has been on holidays recuperating for the

past month. He will be returning probably in two weeks. I think that it

would be most appropriate after he is well rested to have a good job

for him to do: to go over these things to ensure that we are adequately

covered. If there are some inadequacies, we should address them. You

now have a copy of what is made available to contractors and to

employees. If you have some suggestions for tightening up or

improvements, we would be pleased to hear from you.

MR. WILLIAMS : I think the bulk of my comments are already in Hansard , so they might be perused by Mr. Hodgson and the staff.

Specifically,

impacted areas where they carry out studies and right-of-way

acquisition should be out of bounds — pure and simple —

in terms of their private business interests. That's the trade-off they

have to make. That's my view of what the policy should be. In fact, I

think it's so clear that you almost wouldn't have to spell it out; and

I would hope the minister would agree. Just nod your head; that's fair

enough.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister indicates she certainly will consider that.

Item

(

d) in the conflict guidelines states that employees or consultants are

expected to disclose to their supervisor their business, commercial or

financial interests where such an interest might conceivably be

construed in actual or potential conflict with their official duties.

Was B.C. Transit advised, in the case of these three people who were

with Interwest, of their private activities at the time?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We do have that information now, but I'm not sure when the information

was acquired. I would have to determine whether it was on Mr.

Macdonald's taking on full-time employment with B.C. Transit or whether

we had that prior to his becoming a full-time employee.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I would suspect it was prior to the exercise on March 1, when he became

a full-time civil servant. But that remains to be seen.

the case of Mr. Pavlakovic, who is the signing officer for most of

these various instruments and corporations, did you receive such

background information from him?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Not likely.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Similarly with Danny R. Grant, again involved in these various

corporations that were active in New Westminster. It seems to me that

even with these guidelines they were under obligation to report those

business interests. Clearly the activities were taking place.

[2:45]

I know the minister has said that people knew generally where the

right-of-way was going, so it didn't, in a sense, represent privileged

information. I don't find that very acceptable as a response. Everybody

knew you were going to have to cross the river around the Pattullo

Bridge, and they knew that SkyTrain was coming down around the diagonal

part of Columbia Street from 20th. You could pretty well guess where

the right-of-way was; in fact, everybody knew where the right-of-way

was. But that alone isn't the question. It's these other questions of

impacting an already constricted, difficult, tight market at a time

when the people who were being thrown out of their buildings were

having to scramble and look for stuff themselves. So while it's true

that some of these places weren't rented or active on Columbia Street,

[ Page 6678 ]

the time was coming when they would be. It was just around the corner.

understand what the minister is saying, but it does seem to me that

this is something both Mr. Hodgson and staff could look at, in

conjunction with the appraisal institute and the various professional

bodies, in terms of what is normal, expected professional practice to

see whether in fact guidelines were violated, as it appears that these

were violated.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I don't have any problem with that suggestion.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I think that's a positive response from the minister. I guess I would

be satisfied, since the staff are here, that indeed the areas we've

canvassed are confirmed: that Interwest Property and their staff were

the primary players in terms of the acquisition in that area and were

also the people who carried out the Clarkson corridor study.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I can undertake that we will follow in Hansard

the questions that have been put to us by the members opposite. All of

the questions will be followed up by the appropriate staff member or

Crown corporation.

Vote 44 approved.

Vote 45: ministry operations, $61,833,550 — approved.

Vote 46: municipal revenue-sharing, $288,300,000 — approved.

Vote 47: transit services, $182,240,633 — approved on division.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 72: minister's office, $304,242.

HON. MR. VANT : I stand before you today to outline my budget for the 1989-1990 fiscal year for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

The

budget, I'm very happy to report to this House, is in excess of $1

billion. Included is the highways capital construction fund, which is

increased 145 percent to almost $412 million. By my ministry's best

calculation, this figure corresponds to some 7,000 person-years. As

well, a further $154 million has been allocated to highway

rehabilitation so that we can properly maintain our infrastructure. In

total, we estimate that our highway capital plan will generate about

9,700 person-years of work this year alone. The commercial flow and the

employment created by this labour-intensive expenditure will

substantially enhance our economic and social well-being province wide

for many years to come.

Since being appointed last July 6,

I have adopted a policy of systematically visiting and revisiting as

many areas of our large province as possible. Only one who has done

this can truly appreciate the great diversity that is ours: diversity

in our physical makeup, climatic differences and economic structure.

is obvious that our policies in regard to air, rail, road and marine

services and the dollar outlay involved can only be addressed by

listening to input firsthand, listening to the users and to the

business community, and listening to the advice of our very competent

and knowledgeable staff. Their pride and dedication to excellence are

second to none, and I am exceedingly fortunate to be able to rely on

their depth of experience and expertise.

It is up to my

ministry to ensure that transportation networks are developed in an

integrated manner, to provide the most efficient, cost-effective method

of moving people and products — a "Freedom to Move," as highway

construction signs around the province outline. We are working hard to

give you the freedom to move.

British Columbia shall have a

cohesive transportation plan to guide us in the right direction through

to the twenty-first century. In speaking of direction, I want to spend

a few minutes on our new sign policy for services, facilities and

attractions. Since this program has received a good deal of press

lately, I want to explain the reasons for its implementation.

the request of local governments, tourists and business operators, in a

cooperative effort with the Ministry of Tourism and Provincial

Secretary, my ministry has developed a standardized program, where all

facilities, regardless of size, type and location, are treated the

same. Up to this time, this has not been the case. We have set an

ambitious

schedule to implement this $4 million program, and we hope to

have new signs in place by this July 1, the beginning of the prime

tourist season.

The test of any good policy, though, is how

well it has been accepted by those directly affected by it. In recent

public meetings throughout the province, including business owners who

depend on our great tourist influx each year, we were repeatedly told

that the new policy is exactly what was needed.

Turning to

other forms of travel, Mr. Chairman, as you know, under the umbrella of

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are two Crown corporations:

B.C. Rail and British Columbia Ferry Corporation.

At B.C.

Rail, 1988 was the seventh consecutive year for which they reported

improvements in operations. The year ended with an all-time record net

income of $58.3 million — and no new borrowings. During the year,

an existing long-term debt was reduced by almost $2 million to $111.5

million. B.C. Rail was also partially responsible for a steel-tie

manufacturing plant opening in Squamish, adding new jobs to the

Squamish area. During 1988, B.C. Rail took delivery of 160 bulkhead

flatcars. These are used primarily for transporting lumber. This new

equipment allows for heavier loads per car, resulting in greater

efficiency. A new tunnel on Seton Lake has been completed, improving

both the safety of operations and train performance. Additional rock

stabilization, ballast and replacement programs were also undertaken.

[ Page 6679 ]

B.C.

Rail's plans for the current fiscal year include major rail and tie

replacement and upgrading programs worth approximately $48 million,

with a $4.5 million expenditure in the first year of a five-year

development program of the North Vancouver yard. Almost $18 million is

budgeted for the purchase of additional rolling-stock and new

locomotives.

B.C. Ferries, as of February 28, 1989,

reported almost $13 million in surplus on gross revenues of over $173

million. For the 11-month period, the provincial subsidy totalled $46.8

million, with expenditures of $207 million including depreciation.

Compared

to 1987-88, revenues rose by more than $15 million while cost increases

were held to just over $3 million. This $6.5 million improvement over

last year's surplus at the end of February is from a

higher-than-anticipated increase in traffic on the Tsawwassen-Swartz

Bay and Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo routes, a small tariff increase on April

1, 1988, and, lastly, through continuing operating efficiencies.

System

wide, in the 1988-89 fiscal year B.C. Ferries carried more than 17.5

million people and nearly seven million vehicles, volume increases of 5

percent and 6 percent, respectively, compared to the previous fiscal

year.

Our commitment to the marine industry means more

ferries for the Ferry Corporation and more work for B.C. shipyards.

Increasing traffic on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay route has necessitated

the decision to build two new superferries, each with a carrying

capacity of 470 vehicles. In addition, two small vessels will be built

to accommodate growing demands in the southern Gulf Islands and the

Sunshine Coast. The first of these four vessels is scheduled to enter

service in 1992. We are also going to upgrade ferry terminals on the

lower mainland as well as at Swartz Bay and Nanaimo on Vancouver Island

to meet this traffic growth.

On another front, my ministry

intends to continue and expand our commitment to the air transport

assistance program. This beneficial government initiative has already

contributed over $30 million to air facility improvements since its

inception by the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) back in

1978. It is an integral part of this province's regional economic

development. Last year alone there were over 5,000 medical air

evacuations from community airports throughout British Columbia.

all members of this House are aware, road and bridge maintenance

throughout the province was privatized during this past year. I am

pleased to say that this major transition was completed smoothly and on

schedule in just seven short months between September 1988 and March

31, 1989. Ministry energies can now be directed to managing the work

and monitoring the performance of the private contractors.

this time I would like to take a few minutes to delve further into the

topic of privatization. This initiative announced in 1987 has generated

a great deal of controversy, but, as we predicted, it is gaining

ever-increasing acceptance and appreciation.

Before

proceeding to privatize road and bridge maintenance, my ministry made a

thorough review of the service provided by government. We found that

about 35 percent of maintenance work was already being done by the

private companies. In addition, road building has been contracted out

successfully to the private sector for many years, where it has been

proven that individual companies can do the work as well as government.

Obviously if private companies can build and pave roads in an

efficient, competitive manner, certainly they can maintain them.

want this House to know that we didn't rush into this process of

privatization. However, several criteria had to met before

privatization progressed. Public safety had to be protected. All

employees had to be offered work with the new employer. Overall, the

private sector had to be able to provide the service more efficiently.

Employees

were encouraged to set up their own companies and were given an

exclusive opportunity to bid on the 28 contract areas. My ministry at

this time is very pleased to be able to report that our successful

privatization policies resulted in ten new employee-owned businesses

around this province. When the members opposite look for substance in

that regard, they certainly have it.

[3:00]

Where an agreement with an employee group could not be negotiated,

private contractors were then given an opportunity to submit a

proposal. Expressions of interest were invited and interested groups

received a package outlining the scope, method of contracting and

contract administration. Detailed operational information was prepared

for each contract area, covering an inventory of roads, the bridge

register with the latest inspection information, equipment available to

be leased, buildings and terms for leases, materials to be purchased,

conditions applicable to the proposal submission and, most importantly,

the standards that the ministry would require in day-to-day operations.

That was the most important: the standards that we as government would

require in the day-to-day road and bridge maintenance operations.

bidders' meeting was arranged in each contract area to show typical

facilities, materials and equipment. These meetings were chaired by a

project director from the privatization group, accompanied by a senior

ministry representative, a business consultant and a legal adviser.

These four people formed the project team that managed each contract to

its conclusion.

The firms were invited to make submissions

based on proposal requirements as a prequalification for submitting

detailed bids. This step was taken to ensure that only those companies

that met all government requirements would be considered.

Prequalification was based on proof of financial, operational and

management capability. We also required letters of insurance and

bonding, evidence of previous applicable experience and the assurance

that all government employees would be offered employment at their same

rate of pay, in the same position and with union status.

[ Page 6680 ]

Companies

that pre-qualified were invited to submit a detailed proposal. These

were numerically rated according to ten evaluation criteria developed

jointly by the project directors, the ministry and the legal advisers.

They included bid value, management team, operating plan, understanding

of the concept of road and bridge maintenance, quality control, safety

and regional development.

Once the choice was made, the

successful company reached an agreement in principle with the ministry.

In finalizing the contract, the companies purchased government assets

at a price already confirmed by independent, accredited appraisers. My

ministry, though, leased all specialized equipment to ensure that it

would remain in our hands if the contract were to be cancelled at any

time. Lease rates for that heavy equipment were established by using

accepted industry standards.

I am also delighted to say

today that close to 90 percent of all employees chose to accept work

with private contractors, even though they had the option of remaining

with the government. My ministry's goal in implementing the

privatization program is better service to the taxpayer and user as

well as fairness to the employees and the employers.

regard to the employees' status in our privatization plan, I would like

to quote directly from a weekly newspaper: the Invermere Valley Echo .

The March 8 edition carries the following quotes from Bill Richardson,

the staff representative for the East Kootenay region of the British

Columbia Government Employees' Union. I see the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Miller) nodding his head; I think he knows this gentleman.

This

union official is speaking about negotiations for a contract signed

March 3, 1989, between former employees of my ministry and the

contractor in the East Kootenay contract area, Trendline Industries

Ltd. The union leader, Mr. Richardson, is quoted directly as saying

that he was very pleased with the manner in which Trendline negotiated

the contract. Mr. Richardson goes on to say: "This employer has been a

very good one to talk to. They weren't mischievous in negotiating, and

were straightforward. The contract is almost identical to the former

government contract...but wages are higher than previously paid by

government."

Congratulations are in order to Trendline

Industries and to members of the union negotiating committee. I feel

certain that in offering these congratulations I will be joined

wholeheartedly by all members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANT : I hear a few mutterings from that side.

MR. LOVICK : What about the West Kootenay?

HON. MR. VANT : We'll discuss that later.

Victoria

Highway Maintenance Corp., right here on the Island, just settled with

their employees at wages higher than those in government. As a matter

of fact, new collective agreements in eight contract areas have been

settled, with a further two yet to be ratified. While a number of

settlements have been reached, it is also interesting to note that

members of three employee groups, of their own free will and accord,

elected to decertify. Clearly operators who are now owners have no one

to bargain with but themselves.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure now to table — because I don't want the members opposite to have to wait —

the final costs in each contract area, over the three-year contract

period. At this time, I would draw all members' attention to.... I will

table this document at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Is the minister asking leave to table a document?

HON. MR. VANT : Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANT : Well, you want good, solid information.

MR. LOVICK : Why don't you table the contracts while you're at it?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The minister will continue, please.

HON. MR. VANT :

At this time I would draw all members' attention to Appendix H in the

supplements to the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Couvelier'

s) budget

speech, specifically table H1 on page 73 of this document. It can be

clearly seen that the total savings — and I will also refer to that document —

and benefits to government are almost $106 million for the next three

years. This total is made up of $21.5 million in direct savings, close

to $24 million in indirect benefits, and more than $60 million in

proceeds to the privatization benefits fund from assets, sales and

leases. These figures support our decision that privatization of road

and bridge maintenance benefits all the people of British Columbia.

know that these figures were of great interest to the hon. members of

the opposition last year; they were, of course, to my ministry as well.

To ensure that the ministry's historic baseline costs were accurate for

comparison purposes, my ministry called in an independent international

accounting firm to verify our estimates. A conservative estimate of

inflation over the next three years was added to the baseline figures

since, to be fair and to be reasonable, the comparison had to

anticipate what our costs would be if maintenance had continued to be

performed by the ministry. I was very pleased to, just a few moments

ago, table the audit report of Coopers and Lybrand, which verifies our

historic costs. As indicated in table HI of this year's budget

supplements, you can see,

[ Page 6681 ]

Mr.

Chairman, that over the three-year term of the agreements the

government figures would have been substantially more than the total

price to be paid to the contractors.

No one — and I repeat no one —

can see the future, and thus it is very easy to call any projections

into question if one chooses to do so. Nevertheless, to add weight to

my ministry's savings estimates, I refer to the auditor-general's audit

report on contract area 1, being southern Vancouver Island. The

auditor-general, not someone within my ministry, found that the

contract would generate the projected saving. He said: "The

representations made by the government about this privatization were

fair and sufficient for the Legislative Assembly and the public to

judge the value for money achieved from it." He goes on to say: "The

final estimates, which were compiled with the assistance of an

international firm of chartered accountants, indicated that the

preliminary estimates had been conservative. They showed net cost

savings greater than the original estimate."

[3:15]

During the next round of tendering, in three years' time, I expect

savings to be substantially higher, as the natural benefits of

competitive pricing begin to take their full effect. Because of

competition and to protect the integrity of the tendering process, I

will not be making available a detailed breakdown of our historic costs

by contract area, nor am I releasing the contracts for any of the 28

contract areas. Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, I'm sure it is

not in the public's interest to have this information become available

to all those potential competitors that we will be entertaining in

negotiations less than three years from now. The public is more than

welcome to examine the performance standards, and these are available

in all our district Highways offices. But I will not compromise our

future negotiating position by releasing information that could cost

the taxpayer more for highway maintenance.

Significant as

these cost reductions are, they of course do not tell the whole story.

The safety of the traveling public concerns us too. That's why, for the

first time, detailed maintenance standards have been developed and put

in writing.

In addition, 141 experienced ministry managers

monitor the contracts through our newly developed quality assurance

program: a program of planned and systematic monitoring by the ministry

to ensure that contractors have met specific standards and that the

public is being well served. Every possible precaution has been taken

to ensure that the same high level of maintenance is provided today as

in the past. That's responsible government in action.

One might ask: how has privatization fared since the contractors took over last fall?

MR. LOVICK : Good question!

HON. MR. VANT : I thought you would see that as a good question.

Given

one of the harshest winters in recent memory and the usual start-up

time in any new business, all contractors were severely tested in their

first few months of operation. There were some problems, of course, but

none that the government would not have experienced itself during such

a winter. Remember, nearly 90 percent of government employees are now

with the private contractors. These are the same dedicated people,

doing the same work, with the same quality equipment as when government

performed the service. Moreover, let me repeat that there are 141

experienced ministry managers who ensure that the contractors conform

to our very precise quality assurance program.

Have people noticed a difference? A recent provincewide poll found that only 42.6 percent of the respondents....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, Sorry, minister, your time under standing orders has expired.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Chairman, I'm enjoying so much the wonderful dissertation and

lesson that this wonderful minister is giving us with respect to the

great cooperation between government and private enterprise that I'd

like to have him carry on.

HON. MR. VANT : Thanks to my hon. colleague the Minister....

MR. LOVICK :

On a point of order, I would certainly also have leapt up to suggest

that the minister should be able to continue, because I am also

enjoying this leap of faith.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Most enjoyable. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. VANT : I am indeed delighted that more than one hon. member wants to hear more.

recent provincewide poll found that only 42.6 percent of the

respondents were aware that roads in their areas were now being

maintained by private contractors. Now take note of this: a further

74.7 percent described road and bridge maintenance to be as good as if

not better than before.

MR. LOVICK : Is that the one, by any chance, that was done by the RTABC?

HON. MR. VANT : No.

I have stated, and as we all know, weather this year has been in some

cases the worst on record. The severity of this winter came as a

surprise to all drivers. Many of us had not anticipated the first

snowfall and were caught unprepared. Yes, indeed, there was snow in

White Rock and — horror upon horrors! — there was even snow in

Victoria. Because of this, my ministry will be developing a safety

education program this fall, which will highlight preparing for winter

driving.

MR. LOVICK : How to deal with unplowed roads.

HON. MR. VANT : No.

[ Page 6682 ]

well, later this year my ministry will implement a toll-free telephone

number to provide a provincewide road information system. Travelers

will be able to call from anywhere in B.C. to find out about our

ever-changing road conditions.

With privatization in place,

my ministry has moved from being the operator to the more appropriate

government role of planner and manager. We have moved from being

responsible for doing the road and bridge maintenance to being

responsible for managing the road and bridge maintenance. We need to

anticipate and manage our changing transportation needs. Let's make no

mistake, they are changing. A balanced and comprehensive program will

allow us to anticipate those needs: replacing, rebuilding, expanding

and improving facilities as it becomes necessary, and it is because of

this that the transportation plan is so critically important.

have invited transportation committees in each of the eight economic

development regions to gather information for submission to my ministry

this summer. Out of this work will emerge an integrated provincial

transportation plan which, on adoption by cabinet, will become the

blueprint for action.

Regional committees are made up of

representatives familiar with the needs and characteristics of their

regions. Technical assistance to the committees is being made available

from my ministry along with help from other transportation agencies.

Public input is vital. Indeed all the stakeholders in our various modes

of transportation have to have input into this very important process,

and that is vital to the success of this plan. Submissions have been

invited throughout the province. This is not a one-time action; each

year the regional transportation committees will review and update

their plans in order to meet the changing transportation needs of

British Columbians.

While this transportation planning

process is underway, we have an accelerated program to be implemented

this fiscal year. The magnitude of this year's capital development

program represents a bold undertaking, and reflects the priority this

government places on good transportation services. We are not only

substantially increasing the magnitude of our financial commitment but

we are also going to be delivering these improvements more quickly.

For

the first time government has embarked on a $100 million advance

tendering process to undertake projects which local committees have

already indicated are priorities in their regions. This process ensures

that a major portion of this year's capital and rehabilitation program

will start earlier than in previous years. This process will allow

transportation committees in each economic region to focus on their

needs for the long term.

A number of major projects will

get underway in 1989. Two of these are designed to address problems of

congestion on the Trans-Canada Highway in the lower mainland. The

Cassiar corridor and Burnaby freeway will together facilitate the flow

of highway traffic into Vancouver and to the North Shore.

MR. JONES : About time.

HON. MR. VANT : I'm already gaining some converts here.

Work

this year on the Burnaby freeway will involve planning and preliminary

engineering studies. Construction on the Cassiar connector in Vancouver

is scheduled to begin this winter.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT : Oh, just hang in there; I'm winding up.

Described

in terms of the Cassiar connector: it's the most congested intersection

west of Toronto, and the Cassiar connector will provide unimpeded

vehicle flow to the north shore and to the federal port of Vancouver

when completed in 1991.

Public meetings within the

community of east Vancouver have been held regularly since the

announcement was made to ensure that all residents are fully informed

of developments in their neighbourhood. We are also sensitive to the

needs and concerns of those people who must relocate as a result of

this project. Every reasonable effort is being made to achieve fair

settlements so that those residents can secure alternative

accommodation.

A major project to be completed this summer

is the Richmond east-west connector. It will provide an alternative

route for Alex Fraser Bridge traffic into Richmond and Vancouver. This

will both enhance highway safety and ease commuter frustration.

The

Okanagan connector, I'm very pleased to report, is proceeding extremely

well, and will be completed one full year earlier than originally

scheduled. I am pleased to say we have increased the number of four-

and five-lane lengths to almost 76 kilometres, leaving just over 24

kilometres of two-lane and eight kilometres of three-lane sections.

This vital link will be open in the fall of 1990. When it's completed,

the driving time from the lower mainland to the Okanagan will be

reduced by as much as 25 percent.

HON. MR. VEITCH : And vice versa.

HON. MR. VANT : And vice versa. And the connector will be toll-free.

a complement to the Okanagan connector, work is continuing on our

four-laning of Highway 97 from Penticton to Vernon on a progressive

basis.

MR. LOVICK : Tell us about the Slocan Bluffs.

HON. MR. VANT : I'll get to the Slocan Bluffs later.

You

want more, I understand. Well, the Vancouver-to-Whistler sea-to-sky

project on Highway 99 is now in the preliminary design stage. This

long-term project is one of the most challenging engineering

undertakings and does not lend itself to an easy solution. It is made

doubly difficult because traffic volumes must be maintained during

construction.

[3:30]

[ Page 6683 ]

ministry has addressed the immediate danger points on this highway and

has recently completed two projects replacing aging bridges with new,

safer ones. The contract to correct the Brohm Ridge situation just

north of Squamish has been awarded, and work is now underway.

Design

and land acquisition are continuing for the Vancouver Island Highway

project. Construction cannot begin until design is further advanced,

which is why the amount budgeted in 1989 is relatively modest in

comparison with the total cost of the project. My ministry, I assure

you, projects much larger expenditures next year in anticipation of the

start of major construction. The first contracts for this eight-year

project should be let later this year so that construction can begin on

the major segments of that project. During peak construction more than

1,800 workers will be employed each year to completion, but this does

not include the hundreds of associated jobs created by this project.

realize that some communities on Vancouver Island are concerned about

the eight-year project life. I am carefully considering modifications

to the schedule, but with a project of this magnitude it takes time to

build each section. Island community councils have been involved with

the project from day one, because we're an open and consultative

government. Also, they and we understand the environmentally and

socially sensitive manner in which the design must be considered.

Before determining final designs, ministry staff are scheduling public

meetings in each area to seek feedback from residents. It is our

requirement that the road be built with as much public input as

possible.

People want progress, but they do not want it at

any price. I too want progress, but I also want to avoid the pitfalls

identified by Commissioner MacKay in his report on the Coquihalla. In

all projects over $50 million new accounting procedures have been

established in my ministry, in accordance with the recommendations

outlined in the MacKay commission report. These projects are defined on

page 214 of the provincial estimates for this fiscal year Also, they

will be described separately in all annual reports, commencing with the

1987-1988 report due to be tabled within the next few weeks.

Mr.

Chairman, it is not enough that I assure the House of our commitment to

accuracy and good management. Let me add that the auditor-general

recently endorsed these changes and is satisfied that the ministry has

followed through on Mr. MacKay's recommendations. Once again I quote

from the auditor-general's report: "We found that the ministry has

taken action on all of the major recommendations made in the

commissioner's report." He mentioned specifically the ministry's

reorganization, improved planning and cost-estimating procedures,

expanded scope and detail in submissions to Treasury Board and cabinet

and overall improved public accountability.

The

auditor-general goes on to say: "...it has implemented status and

cost-reporting procedures for its major projects. We reviewed these

procedures as they relate to the Okanagan connector project and

concluded that they could be relied upon to provide proper accounting

for costs on the project."

MR. CHAIRMAN : Sorry. The minister is out of time under standing orders.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways is just about to

finish his exciting dissertation. I would like to hear the end of it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT :

I hear the hon. House Leader of the opposition hoping that I'll soon be

through, but I thought he'd be delighted to hear me quoting the

auditor-general.

We have responded to concerns about

accounting procedures, just as we are responding to the needs of

British Columbians for improved transportation infrastructure and

facilities.

This brings me to the end of my speech on the

status of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Mr. Chairman, I

want to conclude by observing that ours is a province that depends on

transportation. British Columbia's economy demands a well-planned and

well-developed transportation system if it is to grow and prosper. The

contribution my ministry has made, and continues to make, to a healthy

economy in British Columbia cannot be overstated. Whether it is moving

resources on their way to being processed, delivering manufactured

goods to market, carrying tourists and travelers between the many

attractions our province has to offer, or providing the means for

people to travel to and from their places of work, it's this ability to

move, this freedom to move, that allows us to enjoy continued

prosperity.

MR. LOVICK : I would be obtuse indeed if

I didn't acknowledge the fact that the minister's opening comments were

moving, based of course on the repeated enunciations about the freedom

to move. However, let that pass.

What I want to do, first

of all, is to offer a comment of appreciation to the minister for a

courtesy shown me. Last week I was unable to pursue the estimates

debate because I was not feeling well, and the minister kindly was

willing to pull those estimates. I therefore thank him for that

courtesy.

I quite enjoyed that rather long speech from the

minister, and what I referred to earlier as a kind of leap of faith.

Indeed, as I listened to him outline all the claims of achievement on

behalf of his ministry and state that privatization was an unalloyed

success, I thought perhaps he had confused his present vocation with

his past one. As we know, he used to be another kind of minister who

was more used to making leaps of faith. However, I'm willing to accept

that he has a somewhat different view of these circumstances than I.

Indeed, we shall be — how shall I put it? — converging or crossing swords on a number of those issues.

[ Page 6684 ]

What

I want to do today, though, is start not by a response to all the

points the minister made, but rather to focus on one particular area.

The area I want to focus on is that study, that apparent and alleged

commitment to transportation planning loosely called "Freedom to Move,"

a study commissioned by the ministry and undertaken by Delcan. I have a

number of questions I'd like to pose to the minister. Rather than my

getting into some process of making speeches for ten or 15 minutes,

perhaps I can just go directly to some very specific questions.

First of all, shades of John Crosbie and Ottawa: can the minister tell me if he has read all 18 volumes?

HON. MR. VANT :

I'm glad the member has referred to the Delcan study. It has been

wrongly referred to by some people as the transportation plan; really,

it's a baseline study. Yes, it has 18 volumes. If you put them in a

pile, it would be at least this high. I can assure you that in the last

few months I have made many references to it, but it would take

considerable time to read every page of all 18 volumes.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

It's

certainly very useful as a constant reference, because that baseline

study gives very accurately — for the most part accurately —

the state of our infrastructure in all modes of transportation

throughout the whole province. So as a reference document, it is

exceedingly useful. It assists not only me, but all of those people who

are concerned about transportation planning in the province. It keeps

them properly informed. It keeps them mindful that there's more to the

system than just their own particular back yard. It also gets them

thinking intermodally, because with our rugged terrain in British

Columbia, you go along a road, and eventually you're going to run into

a bridge. You'll go over a bridge, and eventually you'll end up at a

ferry terminal. So I have certainly referred to all 18 volumes, but at

this point, I haven't actually read every page.

MR. LOVICK :

I would remind the minister that there's a considerable amount of

repetition in those 18 volumes. In fact, in a rough calculation, you

could probably reduce those 18 volumes to about three or roughly

one-sixth of the total 2 feet that the minister illustrated earlier in

talking about piles of material. In fact, what we see is a pretty

elaborate cut and paste job there, in which we take what is stated in

one volume and then reprint it with slight modifications in almost all

of the others. I wonder if the minister was aware of that.

second direct question is: will the minister tell me what the total

cost of the study was? I know what the cost of the video was, because I

went and asked the ministry when it first came out. That rather

interesting video — and nobody knows the purpose of it at this time —

cost us apparently some $50,000; that was the information I received

from the ministry office. If that was the cost of the promo video, what

was the cost for the total document or the total process?

HON. MR. VANT :

I'm taking one question at a time here. As I recall, the first question

was about the actual cost of the 18-volume study. I want to assure you

that this study took several months to complete. It took a great deal

of consultation on the part of Delcan to consult with the major

railways, for example, including our own B.C. Rail. It involved every

mode of transportation, and it took several months to complete.

Also, because of the nature of the volumes —

a specialized volume dealing with the whole province in one mode of

transportation and yet custom-made volumes for each development region

involved all modes of transportation — naturally there was some

duplication. We did not assume that everyone would be interested in all

18 volumes of the study. Therefore it was broken up, but certain basic

transportation items had to be covered, being mindful that certain

people would be interested only in a particular volume.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

wanted them to think in every mode of transportation, but particularly

in their own region. I want to report to the House that the cost of the

18-volume study was $315,000.

The first member for Nanaimo

also asked me about the promotion of the study and the very necessary

"Freedom to Move" video. It was created in November of last year. It

very successfully outlined the magnitude of our transportation

challenges, and it did the very important job of promoting the new

planning process. I must say that I have consistently received nothing

but praise, not only for the actual study, but for that video which

sets the stage for the planning process. That video cost $65,000.

[3:45]

MR. LOVICK : The justification for that — on the face of it —

outrageous and exorbitant amount of $370,000 in total between those two

things seems to be that it took several months and involved some

consultation. The point I am making in this line of questioning, and

would like to make as emphatically as I can, is that I don't think we

got anything new, Mr. Minister. I think we had all the information that

the Delcan study puts forward. All we had to do was dig it out of the

ministry. Most of the work had been done, as I shall have occasion to

show.

I'm wondering if you could tell me very briefly, in

response to your answer to my question, what use the video has been put

to. Who has seen it? Who was it for? Why does it exist? To be quite

candid, after watching it, I couldn't understand why it had been made;

I truly couldn't. It was a lovely film and nice to watch, but it told

us absolutely nothing we didn't already know. I wonder then what was

the reason for the video. To whom has it been shown? Are people

requesting it? Do you simply give it to your friendly

[ Page 6685 ]

mailing list or something? Could you answer that for me?

HON. MR. VANT :

Mr. Chairman, the video has been used very frequently by MLAs and

ministers of state. Indeed, I think a copy of the video went to every

MLA in every corner of the House. I certainly have used it to great

advantage. Given my capacity as minister, I've seen it several times,

and I must say that each time I do I get something more out of it in

terms of another aspect of our transportation system and the great

importance — and the cost-saving, really — of having both short-term and long-term transportation planning.

There's

an old saying that haste makes for waste, and to just proceed on an ad

hoc basis or from crisis to crisis.... For example, many of our bridges

have been identified as being over forty years old. Indeed I can think

of one example, the Squilax Bridge, which is near Sorrento, near Chase,

a very old Howe truss wooden bridge which has to be replaced.

terms of the importance of making both short-term and long-term plans,

that eases the cost to government; it eases and smooths out the cash

flow so that we do make the right decisions and get the best value for

the taxpayers' dollars in doing the right transportation projects at

the right time. You can't underestimate the value of selling a very

proper planning process. You seem to be somewhat concerned about that

cost, but it had to be a first-class job, it had to properly outline

the challenges and concerns of every mode of transportation. That set

people in the right frame of mind and also showed that everyone in

every corner of this province has a very significant stake in our

transportation systems. Indeed, our transportation systems are the very

lifeblood of our economy, of our quality of life.

MR. LOVICK :

The minister made reference to there being an old saying. I would

remind him that there's another old saying, that there's one born every

minute. Quite frankly, when I hear the minister tell me about what a

good promotional video this is and what good service it does, I'm

reminded of that saying. That video is vacuous in the extreme. It

doesn't have any hard data; it states some self-evident truths and it's

a nice promo. Again, you didn't answer my question, Mr. Minister.

What's its purpose? What's its function? If you're telling me it's to

market the need for transportation improvements, I would question that

you need to market that concept. We all know that. We all know that we

have to improve our transportation system. We certainly don't have to

spend $65,000 to do that.

I'll let you come back to that

later. Let me pursue the matter. How much was in fact paid to Delcan?

And how much work was done by the ministry people in producing that

Delcan study?

HON. MR. VANT : As I reported earlier

to the House, the cost was $315,000 for the Delcan study, and

naturally, especially concerning community airports and our road and

bridge system, considerable consultation took place at an appropriate

level between Delcan and our own staff to get some of the necessary raw

data. Believe me, it took several months, especially when you consider

every mode of transportation in the province, to gather and consolidate

all that information and also make it very presentable so that it would

be of long-term use to any citizen who would want to go to any public

library or any district Highways office to look at the complete set, so

that it would be that ongoing, very valuable reference point.

was primarily Delcan staff who have the expertise in the transportation

field to know what to request, not only from my ministry but from the

major airlines and the railroads and, of course, with British Columbia

being on the coast, the very important aspects of marine

transportation. So it took several months to compile, and I think it

was well worth the time and cost to put that together. It will be of

great benefit as a baseline study for a long, long time.

MR. LOVICK :

I had thought my question was direct and clear, but perhaps it wasn't,

so I'll restate it. I am asking the minister if he can give me some

idea of the cost of putting that together in terms of ministry

involvement. In other words, we've got how much was paid to Delcan, but

how much ministry time was devoted to working with Delcan? It seems to

me we ought to know that if indeed we're talking about cost savings as

the minister's primary concern in all of these activities.

HON. MR. VANT :

Of course, many staff and engineers within the ministry are constantly

working on at least our road and bridge transportation. Probably there

was minimal staff time; it was more getting hold of the information

which the Delcan people would request. We don't have any way of

actually measuring the cost of the very modest, I would say, staff time

involved by ministry officials. It was probably simply to convey

information that was requested of my ministry.

Also,

you

mentioned that there was very little hard data in that video, yet at

the very beginning it gave significant data, such as the fact that

there are over 45,000 kilometres of public roads in the province. A lot

of that data was noteworthy, and it amazed some of the people who saw

that video; they didn't realize how vast and complex and extensive our

modes of transportation are in this province. In a very effective and

palatable way, in a quality way, that video did an excellent job of

conveying the basic important information so that all of the

stakeholders out there — the people of the province — could grasp

in a meaningful way just what our transportation systems are all about.

MR. LOVICK :

If you do indeed believe that the video was so worthwhile and

informative, I suggest that it would probably not cost the province

very much more to give it more widespread use. Why not send it out to

the schools or something? I suspect

[ Page 6686 ]

most people don't even know of its existence. I think the coverage has been rather narrow.

You

made reference to the fact that the input of your ministry staff

essentially was a matter of getting hold of information requested by

Delcan and then forwarding it to Delcan. Apropos of just that point, I

wonder whether you can deal with this problem then. Based on my

examination of the report, much of the information in it would seem to

simply regurgitate material from government reports of one kind or

another. The ferry report is a case in point. My question, a very

direct one, is this: how much of the material in the Delcan study is

original — i.e. produced by Delcan — as opposed to material already

produced somewhere in the ministry and then simply recast and put into

that study?

HON. MR. VANT : Before I forget, I would

like to say that the member's suggestion that we give our video,

"Freedom to Move," wider distribution is an excellent one. The initial

cost has been paid, but we can, at a very reasonable cost, duplicate

more copies and make them available in schools.

Your other

question asks about the originality of the contents of the Delcan

report. I think what is really original about the report is that for

the very first time in the history of the province we have this

consolidated, gathered-in information. Lots of information was

available here and there before the Delcan report was put together, but

it was never systematically documented in such a way that it was

readily available to a wide variety of people throughout the province

and was at everyone's fingertips. That, we saw very properly, was

essential and critical to having this transportation planning process.

We saw this baseline study as step one. You have to have a takeoff

point.

[4:00]

I agree that a lot of that information certainly was available, but

not readily available. Indeed, it would take the expertise of an

engineering firm like Delcan to know exactly what data was critical to

this baseline study. I'm sure there is all kinds of information

available which they thought was not necessary for this study.

You

must admit, though, that the 18 volumes are quite a quantity of

material. They were given the mandate to have a custom-made volume

applicable to each mode of transportation, and also one that was custom

designed for each development region of our province. This government

doesn't believe that any part of the province should be ignored or left

out. In just having a smaller one-volume study there could be a danger

that one region would be overemphasized at the expense of another.

That's why the baseline study was so extensive.

We realize

too that each region of the province is somewhat unique. We wanted to

make the pertinent, important information meaningful to each and every

part of the province readily available. The process of putting together

that baseline study was very important.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we move on, perhaps the minister would read the part about tedious and repetitious answers.

MR. LOVICK :

Nobody is arguing for a moment, Mr. Minister, the importance or the

validity of the exercise to consolidate all that material in one place.

You seem to choose to ignore the question I am posing. Why did we have

to get someone else to do that work for us at great expense?

Almost

all of the material that appears in the Delcan study already appeared

in ministry publications and records. The job we are looking at was

essentially to compile material. Is it not the case, Mr. Minister, that

we had to go that route simply because the policy and the planning

departments in your ministry have been decapitated and decimated to the

point that you no longer have the competent staff to do that kind of

thing and therefore you had to go to Delcan? Is that not the case?

HON. MR. VANT :

Delcan is an engineering firm that has expertise in every mode of

transportation. We don't have that much in-house expertise on every

mode of transportation. Our staff would take a lot of time. It took

several months for Delcan to put this together. It would certainly have

taken our own staff as long — or perhaps longer — to do that, given the

detail involving every mode of transportation in that study. It's not

that we wouldn't have the numbers of people to do it, but Delcan had

in-house experts on every mode of transportation.

MR. LOVICK :

I am shocked to hear that the Minister of Transportation and Highways,

who presides over one of the largest ministries in this province, and

has a rather long — and some would say glorious — track record of

expertise and ability in transportation matters, tell me that they

didn't have the in-house expertise and therefore had to go to an

engineering consulting firm to talk about a transportation plan for

B.C. I'm horrified by that, Mr. Minister. I can't believe that I have

indeed heard that from you.

Is it not the case that the

planning department in Highways has effectively been decimated? Is it

not the case that when this study was underway the policy advisers for

air, marine, rail, roads, ferry and transit were all vacant? In fact,

some half — we guesstimate 16 — of the 24 positions in policy and

public affairs were vacant while the study was in progress. Is that not

the case?

Mr. Minister, may I also — giving you an

opportunity to answer that — ask you to please clarify and correct what

I am sure was a mistake on your part when you said you don't have that

expertise in-house? Surely that is not what you intended to say.

HON. MR. VANT :

Within the ministry we have the air transport assistance program, which

develops community airports in every corner of the province. It's not a

big part of the ministry, but it is a very important part. Indeed....

[ Page 6687 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert will have ample opportunity to discuss this and canvass thoroughly later.

MR. MILLER : I'd just like to save time.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I appreciate that, but there has been no indication of the committee

wanting to save time up to this point. I would like us to proceed in an

orderly fashion.

HON. MR. VANT : Within a certain

scope there is certain expertise within the ministry, but given the

depth of the baseline study, the time necessary to consult, for

example, with the major airlines and involving the major airports and

so on, we thought it best to engage Delcan to commission this

all-important study. Sure, there was a lot of information available and

tidbits here and there. You could get a partial picture of, say, air

transportation within the province, within my ministry or in other

areas. You could consult, for example, with other important bodies,

such as the B.C. Aviation Council, but it was necessary to gather, in a

systematic and informed way, the important information on each mode of

transportation. We wanted to have that systematically and properly

documented, and we thought the best way to do that was to engage Delcan.

MR. LOVICK :

More than tidbits, Mr. Minister. I'll give you a small example. In

volume 8 of the transportation study, economic development region 5,

the Cariboo — your own area, Mr. Minister — we have one, two, three,

four, five, six pages under the heading "Economic Analysis" that all

come directly from the information provided by the former Ministry of

Economic Development and what are now euphemistically referred to as

successor ministries. The point I'm getting at is: what did we pay for?

Why did we go through this extravagant and elaborate exercise? Is it

only because despite all our claims to the contrary for the past

Lord-knows-how-many years, we really haven't had a planning function

within the ministry? Is that what you're telling me, Mr. Minister? We

don't have a planning function, and therefore we had to go outside? Are

you suggesting to me that intermodal transport suddenly is a concept

that is beyond the pale, beyond the imagination, the expertise and the

ability of your own staff? I don't think you're saying that. It seems

to me that we did have a planning department that ought to have been

able to carry out the responsibilities that had to be assigned to Delcan.

Let

me turn to another area, Mr. Minister. I don’t want to belabour that

point unnecessarily. I have a number of other questions I would like to

raise, however, about the Delcan study.

A direct question:

has the minister decided to adopt the Delcan recommendation for the

organization for strategic planning? You know the flow chart, Mr.

Minister. It's the one with the strategic transportation planning

committee standing off to the right. If yes, I would ask you how often

that committee has met and with what results, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. VANT :

The first member for Nanaimo asked me about the strategic planning

committee. It has already met to set the stage regarding the overall

process but, of course, it will await the information that will come in

from the regional committees as they complete their work.

this time we don't necessarily intend to engage Delcan in that ongoing

planning process. There's a separation between the baseline study and

this ongoing planning process, which isn't a one-time process but will

be done yearly, because the transportation plan has to be constantly

updated.

Planning is being expanded and indeed

decentralized to the regions for the very first time, so that's another

reason. For example, you referred to volume 8, which happens to do with

the Cariboo development region. It was necessary to cover many bases so

that anybody at a transportation planning committee meeting or

consulting or integrating on a provincewide basis would have all that

important information readily available.

The strategic

planning committee's primary work this year will be when the data comes

in from all the regions of the province, so that the provincewide plan

can emerge from that process.

MR. LOVICK : Again, Mr.

Minister, I want to emphasize that I am not questioning the validity of

having a

section in every volume of the report that deals with an

economic analysis of the region; that's not my question. My question

has been, I repeat: why did we have to get somebody else and pay them

handsomely — exorbitantly, it seems to me — to produce information we

already had? It's there. All these folks have done, it seems, is some

cutting and pasting from material that your people had already done —

in other words, that we the people had already paid for. Why are we

spending all this extra? That's the question, and with all due respect,

Mr. Minister, I don't think you've made any effort to answer it. I

would suggest that Hansard will show very clearly that you seem to be

sidestepping that issue.

Let me turn to another question,

another very straightforward one. Perhaps we'll have better luck here.

Has the minister implemented the recommendation to establish the

secretariat with expertise in transportation modes and to provide the

essential background and analysis? You recall that group you were

talking about, the secretariat. Has it been decided that it will indeed

be established? If so, where does it show in the budget? Is there money

for it?

HON. MR. VANT : Certainly, appropriately from

time to time, staff will be assigned to that secretariat. I find it

very ironic that on the one hand the hon. member opposite doesn't agree

with hiring outside engineering firms from time to time to do a very

important task, thinking we should do everything in-house. Certainly if

we have the people necessary, we use what facilities we have.

[ Page 6688 ]

must say we have ongoing programs within my ministry where our staff

are constantly engaged in their regular routine: day-to-day,

week-to-week, month-to-month and year-to-year operations. We don't have

staff just sitting around who are available to take on a long-term

project such as the baseline study. I think in your way you are

agreeing somewhat with the necessity of a very important planning

process.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before we proceed, it's not the role of the committee to canvass

the thoughts or aspirations of the members opposite. It's really to

deal with the administrative responsibility of your ministry and not

necessarily what others might have done in another place.

MR. LOVICK : Can the minister give me some information regarding the

makeup of the secretariat? Does it consist of people who are simply seconded

to that role, who are otherwise full-time ministry employees? How many people

are involved, or do we again do it on the basis of some contractual arrangement

with people outside the Highways ministry?

HON. MR. VANT :

It involves people from the major railways and the major airlines, some

of which of course are in the private sector. They are involved on a

basis that they're major stake-holders in transportation. Also, within

the government family you might see someone from B.C. Transit, someone

from B.C. Rail and someone from the B.C. Ferry Corporation involved in

this strategic planning.

MR. LOVICK : I'd like to

shift to another area. I guess that's as far as one goes with that. I'm

not sure there's any other information forthcoming.

One of

the things that isn't clear to me as I read the Delcan study, and as I

hear the minister explain the initiatives of the transportation task

force committees and all of that, is how the decision-making process in

Victoria will differ from what we have now. The regions, as always, are

giving input and making recommendations. The difference now is that the

regions seem to be represented by a hand-picked committee — chosen by

the minister, so they're not going to cause him any anguish; at least,

one could be forgiven for suggesting that that seems to be the case —

rather than a group that represents the voters or the people at large.

Similarly, the decisions don't seem to have changed insofar as they

will still ultimately be made by the minister after discussion with his

officials and the deputies and the chief executive officers of rail and

ferries and everything else. The obvious question is: have we done

anything different from the old process? Is it the same stuff? Could

the minister please enlighten us on how the decision-making process has

qualitatively changed from what it's been in the past?

HON. MR. VANT :

I want to emphasize that this is a matter where, I guess for the first

time, we are very concerned about listening to what regional priorities

are. At one time all decisions were made at ministry headquarters in

Victoria. I want to say too that on every one of these regional

transportation committees usually, the regional director of Highways is

present to give technical expertise. In line with the regional

development program of this government, my ministry is reorganizing and

decentralizing to a certain extent, so there is more autonomy under the

direction of the regional director of Highways in each region of the

province.

So hand in hand with this planning process, my

ministry staff is involved in the final implementation in each region

in a significant way. I think that's very appropriate; it goes hand in

hand.

You mentioned that these committees were handpicked.

The ministers of state carefully selected people or requested local

leaders to suggest names for appointments to these transportation

committees. Also, a very open, warm invitation was given to all MLAs to

partake in these transportation committees.

I can't speak

for individual ministers of state, but these public hearings....

Anybody who can read a newspaper could certainly attend those meetings.

I know that in some development regions of the province, MLAs from both

sides of this House have attended the meetings.

MR. LOVICK : Most of us thought that was what the Legislature's job was, actually — to do these things.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : Yes, that's in the democratic system, as my colleague from Omineca says.

I'm

not sure how to respond to your answer, Mr. Minister. On the one hand,

you're trying to tell me that this is the same old stuff we've always

been doing, yet you're still apparently trying to tell us that it's

somehow a good idea to spend a whole bunch more money doing things that

for some reason haven't been done before. In other words, we have a

little internal contradiction in the testimony.

Let me see

if I can put the question in a very direct way. The product of the

Delcan study is to propose a process that Ministers of Transportation

and Highways have always claimed was coordinated through them. For

example, in 1986-87, the annual report says that the minister's mission

is "to provide and maintain safe and efficient movement of people and

resources on the provincial transportation system."

If the

result of Delcan is a process to propose to do what the ministry has

said in its report, year after year, is already being done, there is

either nothing new here, or the ministry is allowing somebody else to

do its job. Which of those is the case, Mr. Minister? Please explain to

us, in short, why we needed the Delcan study?

HON. MR. VANT :

To respond as briefly as I can, I think you have to look at the past

where a lot of people concerned about transportation felt that the only

[ Page 6689 ]

way

they could have input was to have direct contact with the minister, or

at the very least, come down here to Victoria to ministry headquarters.

I think we are having very appropriate opportunities for local and

regional input. Certainly in terms of the final implementation, the

final budgeting and the final decision about projects throughout the

province, the ultimate decision still rests with me as the minister.

There

is at least that vehicle out there that assists in setting both

short-term and long-term priorities. Indeed, in a sense I am still

recovering from the last UBCM convention that was held at Whistler,

where every mayor, every regional district chairman and many other

people wanted to see me about their own particular — often very

parochial — transportation interests.

Now I've found that

with local people who see me on a one-to-one basis, thanks to the

Delcan study they have that necessary overview, and they're approaching

the planning process in a more disciplined and informed way. They have

that wider vision, which is so necessary to having the best

transportation systems possible in this province.

MR. LOVICK : I just wanted to make a couple of other brief observations about the Delcan study, and then we'll turn to some other matters.

Let

me put my remarks in this context. When I read this material — and I

don't want to berate the consulting engineers — good chunks of this

stuff were so patently self-evident, were so vacuous, contained

information that you could get by spending five minutes on any street

corner or by simply walking in the region for ten minutes, that I

wondered what we were paying for. Let me give you a couple of examples,

Mr. Minister, to make the point.

If you look, for instance,

at the volume study done for the Kootenays.... I'm sorry, I've

forgotten the region number; I just took an excerpt with me. I was in

the Kootenays the other day on the weekend; I must have some

familiarity with some things there. We discover all kinds of wonderful

statements in this document. I'd just like to share with the minister a

couple of them.

In 4.3, statement on the Kootenays, under

the heading "Traffic Flow Conditions," we get this absolutely profound

and insightful observation: "The most prevalent highway problem" — in

this region — "is the alignment deficiencies resulting from the

mountainous terrain and construction limitations." What that means is

that this is a mountainous region. Well, holy cow, that's really

exciting! You mean, the Slocan Valley actually has mountains on either

side? My God, isn't that profound! Then we go on; it gets better. We go

to 4.5 and we learn about trunk routes, and we get this gem of

information: "The significance of these strategic corridors" — where

trunk routes go — "is that they provide continuous routing for

long-distance trips through the province." If you unpack the verbiage,

what that means is that roads go somewhere. What are we paying for here?

Then

we get another observation: "In areas such as the north, where there is

less population, the trunk routes" — are you ready for this, Mr.

Minister? — "are spread further apart." Wow! I felt like my life had

changed when I read that. What are we paying for? What is this stuff?

Let's go a little further, to 4.7, and we get a description of our old

friend Highway 3, this telling description. Two sentences will make the

point: "Highway 3 has many sharp curves and long grades which restrict

travel speed." Hah! "These curves and grades are the result" — in case

you missed it — "of rugged, mountainous terrain" — and here's the

insightful part that we paid for — "and it would be very difficult and

expensive to make major improvements to them."

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

We've

had a Highways ministry for a long time in this province that probably

knows that region backwards, forwards, sideways and up and down. Why

ever are we spending money to produce that kind of vacuous twaddle, at

considerable expense, for reasons that are not at all clear to any

right-thinking and reasonable person?

The case against the

Delcan study is not that it didn't do something valid insofar as it

pulled together material or gave us a baseline — I'm granting you that,

Mr. Minister. What I'm saying, though, is that we seem to have spent a

considerable amount of money on a job that was already done or should

have been done by the ministry staff itself. I would invite the

minister to (

a) prove me wrong or (

b) give me a retort to that claim.

[4:30]

MR. KEMPF :

I thought I'd just give my learned friend from Nanaimo a bit of a break

and give the minister some time to contemplate the answers that he

should be giving the member to the questions being asked. Mr. Chairman,

it's quite evident from this first hour and a half of this minister's

estimates that we're going to be here for a great deal of time, so I

think it only right that I give the member for Nanaimo a bit of a break.

Certainly

there are many things about which I wish to speak in this minister's

estimates, but first I want to put on the record that it's most

unfortunate that many of these things are going to have to be discussed

here and are going to have to take up the time of this entire

Legislature, due to the fact that, unlike previous years that I've

spent in this place, communication between members of this Legislature

and the Minister of Highways is completely lacking. I don't know how

you get an appointment to discuss matters of importance in one's

constituency with this minister; I have seriously tried for a number of

months and failed. Perhaps it's me, perhaps not.

Mr.

Chairman, we've heard a lot of things, particularly in that lengthy

prelude by the Minister of Transportation and Highways to this fiscal

year's estimates, and many flowery phrases such as "people want

progress," "good management" and "public input is vital."

I'm going to talk for a long time about public input. I heard the minister refer to the transportation

[ Page 6690 ]

planning

committees and how individuals were appointed or happened to get on

those particular committees. We'll talk a long time about that. We'll

also talk a long time about what's in this $1,198,100,000 budget

that pertains to the north, and how much is going to be spent once

again in the southern 10 percent of British Columbia on such things as

the Squamish Highway, the Okanagan connector, the Cassiar connector and

the Island Highway.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we in the north

are fed up with getting the short end of the stick with respect to

highways dollars. We're fed up with traveling over highways that are

worn out and that should have been resurfaced a number of years ago.

We're fed up with having promises broken once again, such as the

completion of another Cassiar Highway, which has been promised for many

years and not delivered. It's interesting for a government that

suggests it's interested in all people to once again spend the big

bucks for highways where the populations are.

The minister

mentioned pitfalls. Those are the things we find on Highway 16 West,

between Prince George and Prince Rupert, that cars drop into — and we

talk about hundreds of millions of highways dollars being spent in the

southern part of the province.

We heard the phrase

"responsible government in action." I've got to ask the minister, as

one of my first questions, who chose the members of the transportation

committees in the so-called states of British Columbia, whether he

agrees with the way they were chosen and whether he also agrees that

the MLA for an area should be left off such committees. If he believes

the MLA should be left off, the question is: why were MLAs left off

when they tried desperately to be appointed to those committees, only

to be told, in effect, in my case, that with 14 years' experience as a

duly elected representative of this House, I shouldn't be on the

committee? It's an interesting question, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to

know now from the minister how those political appointments were made.

HON. MR. VANT :

First of all, I'm very pleased the member for Omineca is so keenly

interested in my ministry. I want to assure him that I certainly have a

great interest in the interior and the north of the province. I can

assure him that there will probably be more work this year in his

constituency than there was last year.

Regarding the

appointment to the regional transportation committees, that was done by

the ministers of state. MLAs wanting to get involved in the process or

not was somewhat optional on their part, but I want to assure the

member for Omineca that nothing should ever stand in the way of direct

communication between an MLA and the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. We're not circumventing any of the traditional avenues of

very proper communication, because after all, MLAs are elected to

represent their constituents, and that can be a part of the planning

process, but certainly when it comes to the implementation and the

actual contracts getting underway, the MLAs play a key role.

want to assure this House and the member that I have responded to any

letters that he has sent to me. Also, I was in his constituency and I

awaited a group that was supposed to meet with me. I was there, I was

very accessible, and regarding the issue that was of concern to that

member, the only people who approached me were the media, and I

responded to them about the issue.

As I travel throughout

this great province of ours as the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, whenever possible I certainly try to make myself accessible,

and especially if an MLA is trying to arrange a meeting. I think that

too is very important in hearing firsthand what some very urgent

concerns may be, and they may or may not have anything to do with

short-term and long-term planning.

MR. KEMPF : I'm

very happy to hear that the minister is in favour of the democratic

process. I only wonder how he could communicate that to the Minister of

State for Nechako and Northeast (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber), because although

the minister seems to believe that MLAs should serve on such

committees, it doesn't seem to be the philosophy of his colleague down

the way. Try as I might, Mr. Chairman, I was overlooked time and time

again as a possible member of the transportation committee in the state

of Nechako.

MR. MILLER : Is that in B.C.?

MR. KEMPF :

I don't know. It seems rather strange, all right, whether it's part of

B.C. or not. I wonder whether the government feels it is.

The

minister talks glowingly about letters he's written to me and

communications we've had, and will talk about a great deal about the

Omineca Princess and the meeting that he was supposed to have kept with

a very concerned group of my constituents in that area. But I have a

question of the minister now with respect to correspondence we've had

on different issues. I have a whole sheaf of them here, and we'll go

through them one by one as the days and weeks progress. How do you get

an appointment with the Minister of Transportation and Highways? In

every letter that I've written in the past eight or ten months I have

requested that the minister meet with me on very urgent situations in

my constituency.

MR. WILLIAMS : It might be your party affiliation.

MR. KEMPF : I have no party affiliation, Mr. Member, so I don't know how that could be it.

every reply, no response to the request for an appointment; no olive

branch held out by the minister in order to find out what troubled the

people of Omineca. I guess he got all his information from the minister

of state and his politically appointed hacks who run around my

constituency doing things supposedly behind my back.

I guess the next question I want answered....

[ Page 6691 ]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF :

We'll find out whose supporters they are soon enough, Mr. Member, and

so will you in your constituency. I'd check the polls if I were you.

The

question is, how do you get an appointment with the Minister of

Transportation and Highways for the province of British Columbia?

[4:45]

HON. MR. VANT :

It would be very simple to phone my office and arrange an appointment.

In terms of the reference to correspondence by the hon. member for

Omineca, I felt very sincerely that I had addressed his particular

concern in my letter. He's mentioned the Omineca Princess , and he is

very concerned about provision of essential services, especially if

there is an emergency.

I realize that particular ferry is

indeed very essential, because it is a very long distance around. If

somebody was severely injured or suddenly became very ill, it would be

very necessary to have that ferry operate. I want to assure the member

for Omineca that the Omineca Princess and its captain and crew can

respond under normal conditions to a genuine call for that important

transportation link in the event of an emergency.

understand the ferry operates except between about 5:00 a.m. and their

normal start-up time. I can assure you that the captain and crew are to

be on call. They live in the area, and traditionally the employees of my

ministry have always responded very quickly whenever there is an urgent

call.

MR. KEMPF : We'll talk more about the situation of the Omineca Princess as we get on with these estimates.

There

are a couple of questions I want answered now with respect to the

budget of over $1 billion. How much of that budget is being allocated in

this fiscal year to the

section of Yellowhead 16 between Prince George

and Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. VANT : With all due

respect to the member for Omineca: in general terms, I want to assure

him that there will be work done on Highway 16. To give a more precise

answer, I'll have to take that on notice so that he will have the

detailed answer he is seeking.

MR. KEMPF : As the

minister said earlier: "No one can see into the future." I think it is

incumbent upon the minister to . . . . In these estimates I would hope

that he could come up with the dollar figure, although the dollar

figure is not really that important.

Can he assure the

people of the north, who rely on Yellowhead 16 West, that the atrocious

situation...? I saw the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) enter the chamber. Ah, there he is.

I would hope — because I just travelled 35 miles of Yellowhead 16 in his

constituency.... It is absolutely unacceptable for a main thoroughfare —

a main trans-provincial highway in British Columbia

To the

member for Prince George South: that hill leading west out of Prince

George is nothing compared to the shape of other sections of that road.

It's worn out. I think it's incumbent on that minister to tell this

House and the people of that area what is going to be done about it.

Are

they just going to continue to spend, spend and spend where they expect

to get the votes, with no dollars going to the areas in which the

wealth of this province comes from? Are they going to continue to mine

not only the ground, but the forests as well, and not return any of

that wealth from whence it came?

Mr. Chairman, I have lots

of questions. I want to get back to the transportation planning

committees. I have the same question to ask the minister as did the

member for Nanaimo. He didn't respond to the member for Nanaimo, so

perhaps he will respond to me. What's different about the present

situation except that it bypasses the MLAs for the area? What's

different about the decision-making process with respect to projects in

any "state" in this province?

HON. MR. VANT : I want

to emphasize to the member for Omineca that I realize fully the

importance of the Yellowhead, Highway 16, and indeed I'm delighted that

I have a considerable increase in the rehabilitation budget this year.

I am very aware and very concerned that we not only have to build new

roads to resources, but we have to keep in good repair our existing

routes.

Also, I'm hoping that through the RTAC, the Roads

and Transportation Association of Canada, Highway 16 will be part of a

designation of a national road network. This is, of course, with a view

to having more cost-sharing by the federal government in that regard,

especially in view of the fact that Highway 16 not only goes through

the great constituency of Omineca, which gives it great importance, but

it also goes to a very excellent seaport at Prince Rupert and also at

Ridley Island. The importance of that highway cannot be overemphasized,

and I sincerely believe in it.

The other part of your

question was: what is the difference between the way things were before

and the way they are now. I think the major difference is that there's

considerable involvement in each region of the province to give all

kinds of input to me, as the minister responsible for delivering the

end product in terms of either delivering the road and bridge system

or, when it gets to intermodal things, looking at the railroad, air

transport systems or marine transport systems, all of which, one way or

the other, certainly touches your great constituency. Unlike before, it

involves....

This does not have to exclude the MLAs. Some

MLAs of their own free will and accord wish to retain just having

direct communication with me as the minister, and that is in addition

to and a separate process from the other transportation planning

process. I can see it being a both-and situation. There are things that

are still the way they always were, but there is that additional

important consultative open process which involves a vast number of

people.

[ Page 6692 ]

think if the member for Omineca has further concerns about the way the

minister of state has handled the appointments or the selection of the

regional transportation committees, the hon. member should bring that

up during the appropriate estimates.

I want to again emphasize without being repetitious that the MLAs still have that important direct link with the minister.

MR. KEMPF :

Certainly I have a great number of concerns where the minister of state

is concerned, not the least of which is the three-quarters-of-a-million

dollar budget allocated to a politically oriented office. But I'm

delighted to be able to tell the people of Omineca that they're going

to have to wait for transfer payments from the federal government

before Highway 16 will be upgraded. I'm sure, given the events of the

last couple of weeks with respect to other transfer payments, it's

going to be a long time in coming.

While the minister is

looking for the figures with respect to this year's budget on how much

is going to be spent on Yellowhead 16 West, I would ask that he also

tell this House exactly how much money is going to be spent on the

third phase of the Coquihalla, the Okanagan connector, and on the

Squamish Highway, and on the Cassiar connector, and on the Island

Highway, so that we can compare — we people from the north that the

minister professes to be one of — the percentage that we'll be getting

of this year's Transportation and Highways budget.

MR. SERWA : What percentage do you pay?

MR. KEMPF :

What percentage do we pay? That I would like to know, Mr. Member,

because we in the north have been stripped of our natural resources,

the payment for which has been squandered in the south for years —

squandered, with no return to the people of the north, whether it comes

to transportation or anything else. We're sick and tired of it.

There

are all sorts of things I want to talk about in this minister's

estimates, but I want to give the member for Prince Rupert a chance to

vent some of his frustrations with this minister, so I'll pause for the

moment.

MR. MILLER : First of all, some marine issues.

One

of the concepts advanced recently in discussions on the need for the

Vancouver Island gas pipeline is the need to obviate the transportation

of oil, primarily, to Vancouver Island. It's been cited quite strongly

by members on that side as one of the substantiating reasons: to reduce

the risk of accidents at sea and their consequences. I would like to

ask the minister whether he subscribes to that proposition.

HON. MR. VANT :

The Vancouver Island pipeline per se I don't think should be

specifically a part of my estimates, but I'm not afraid to say that I

wholeheartedly support the initiative because of all the environmental

pluses in having natural gas come to the Island. It saves on a lot of

dangerous marine transportation of heavy bunker oil, and naturally we want to reduce the risk of having that come anywhere near our shores.

[5:00]

MR. MILLER :

We have a situation in my constituency concerning the transportation of

dangerous cargo to the Queen Charlotte Islands. I don't know if you're

familiar with the background on this issue, but I'll briefly sketch it

for you.

Some years back, in 1974-75, a private carrier,

Northland Navigation, used to provide transportation services to

coastal British Columbia, including the Queen Charlotte Islands. They

carried general cargo, freight, passengers and all kinds of things.

Anybody who grew up on the coast probably at one time or another wound

up on one of those boats. They used to be Union Steamships on Vancouver

Island; I remember taking that as a boy.

The federal

government had been subsidizing this system and abruptly withdrew the

subsidy in 1974 or '75; I can't remember the exact year. As a result of

the furor at that time, an agreement was negotiated with the province

and the federal government wherein the province agreed to provide

freight and passenger service on coastal British Columbia in exchange

for a yearly subsidy that was indexed in some manner; there's a

formula, at any event. That subsidy is now, I believe, in excess of $16

million.

What eventually resulted was that the ferry

service over time was upgraded to provide service to some coastal

communities. I'm talking particularly about the Charlottes. But as a

cost-saving measure, in 1985 the Ferry Corporation eliminated a subsidy

they had been providing to a private tug and barge operation to

transport dangerous cargo to the Queen Charlotte Islands. At the time

the subsidy was cancelled, the B.C. Ferry Corporation made a commitment

to transport dangerous cargo on their own ferries. That was the case.

There were meetings on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I think the press

clippings at the time indicate that the people on the islands felt that

the B.C. Ferry Corporation was considering their position; that they

were satisfied with the proposition that dangerous cargo would be

carried on board the B.C. Ferries vessel. In fact, the Prince Rupert

Daily News clipping of November 16, 1987, in rehashing this story, said:

"The

Queen Charlotte Islands residents, initially angered by the change,

were appeased by promises that all their concerns would be answered.

Among the 40 people who turned up at a January 29 meeting in a Port

Clements restaurant was chamber of commerce president Ron Merk. He said

afterwards that the Ferry Corporation had bent over backwards to cater

to the islands. 'It has been a breath of fresh air,' he said."

The

story goes on to say that less than three years after that meeting the

air is growing a little stale. So here we have the B.C. Ferry

Corporation firstly entering into an agreement with the federal

government to provide service; secondly, subsidizing a tug and barge

operation; and thirdly, removing that subsidy but making a commitment

to carry dangerous cargo

[ Page 6693 ]

the B.C. Ferries vessel. Then we get to 1987, when the then Minister of

Transportation abruptly removed the use of the B.C. Ferries vessel to

transport dangerous cargo.

It was done under the guise that

new Coast Guard regulations prohibited the use of that vessel, which in

my view was not completely accurate. It may have made it more

difficult, but at no time did it prohibit. It would have required a

different arrangement in terms of transporting some cargo. It was

nonetheless feasible. I point out and reiterate that B.C. Ferries had

always accepted that responsibility. They had accepted it by

subsidizing the tug and barge operation; they'd accepted it by

transporting dangerous cargo on B.C. Ferries. The fundamental change in

policy took place in 1987 when B.C. Ferries said they would no longer

carry because of the Coast Guard regulations, and all of a sudden the

islands were left on their own.

I did a survey last year on

the Charlottes after fairly extensive consultation with a number of

people both in the business community and in the services end of

things. I want to just briefly outline a couple of the concerns that

exist and which the survey turned up. The inability to transport

various kinds of dangerous cargo — and it's surprising what is

considered dangerous cargo — has made life not only very difficult but

very costly. I suggest this has created some underground conditions

that have made things quite dangerous in terms of trying to get various

goods to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

It was surprising for

me to learn from the head janitor in the Queen Charlotte School

District that toilet bowl cleaner is considered a dangerous cargo. It's

no small matter for that janitor to try and have sufficient supplies of

that commodity available to use in the schools. It may bring a smile to

the minister's mouth; I'll smile, Mr. Minister, if you give me the

correct answer to all these questions I'm raising.

Chlorine

to purify drinking water is a dangerous cargo, which meant immediately

that for all of the water systems, whether regional, municipal or in

the native villages, the cost of chlorine increased enormously.

Propane,

which is the basic home-heating fuel on the Queen Charlotte Islands,

instead of being transported on the B.C. Ferries vessel in what I

thought was a relatively safe manner from Prince Rupert, now has to be

barged from Vancouver. It seems to me that if you accepted the

proposition that one of the reasons — maybe not the fundamental reason,

but one of the reasons — for providing gas to Vancouver Island via

pipeline was to eliminate the transportation of bunker oil across the

Strait of Georgia in recognition of the dangers that could pose to the

environment, an analogy could be drawn with the transportation of

propane from Vancouver via barge and the much safer proposition of

transporting it on the B.C. Ferries vessel from Prince Rupert.

Those

are just a couple of examples. The Queen Charlotte Islands is coming

into its own in terms of tourism. There are businesses there. For

example, Mavis's Sporting Goods in Sandspit sells equipment for

tourists; ammunition is just one example. She can't get it. People buy

those supplies off-island and transport it themselves. They bring it in

their luggage. I've heard of some cases where material is flown over on

the Goose that serves the Queen Charlotte Islands.

All of

these areas are too numerous to mention. I have a letter from the only

veterinarian on the islands, and there is a bit of an agricultural

community. A lot of the supplies that the veterinarian needs to carry

out his business and serve the people on the Charlottes are extremely

hard to get. The cost has become prohibitive.

I think I'll

leave it at that for now. I'm going to continue on this issue until

hopefully we get some kind of indication.... Fundamentally I'm asking

the Ferry Corporation to live up to the obligation they have and which

they have exercised. In no way do I see any justification for

relinquishing the obligation to provide that service to the residents

of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

HON. MR. VANT : I can

understand the member for Prince Rupert being very concerned about

transportation to the Queen Charlotte Islands. In terms of general

cargo in the overall operation of B.C. Ferry Corporation, yes, we

subsidize our runs to the islands. As an inheritance, you might say, of

the Northland Navigation federal subsidy, currently we do get in the

neighbourhood of $16 million or $17 million to subsidize the runs up

the north coast.

Before I leave the particular topic you

raised of subsidies, I'm very envious of Marine Atlantic on the east

coast. In the last figures that I saw, their operating grant was in the

neighbourhood of $140 million. In addition, they get all kinds of

capital funding for building new vessels. We as a government will

continue t