1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1993

Morning Sitting

Volume 11, Number 16

[ Page 7875 ]

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

Deputy Clerk: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is my privilege to advise members that in the gallery today is Elizabeth Kernaghan, who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of New South Wales and the member for Camden in that assembly. It's always a privilege to have people come and visit us in this beautiful locale of Victoria. Would all members please give Ms. Kernaghan and her two guests from Monterey, California, a warm welcome.

Hon. B. Barlee tabled the annual report and financial statement of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the period from April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992.

Hon. L. Boone tabled the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act,

part 2, for the year ended March 31, 1992; the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Municipal) Act for the year ended December 31, 1991; the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act for the year ended March 31, 1992; the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Teachers) Act for the year ended December 31, 1991; the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act for the year ended August 31, 1991; and the B.C. Buildings Corporation annual report for the year 1992-93.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'll take this opportunity to advise all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be meeting immediately to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

With that said, I call members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

L. Reid: I rise today to make a private member's statement on the issues surrounding violence against women. There are countless situations where a woman has obtained a restraining order in this province and her husband has violated the order and come to her home and assaulted her. When the woman reported this to the police, they told her they could not arrest her husband because he had child visitation rights and that gave him the legal right to be on the premises.

People have been exploiting each other for as long as human records have been kept. It has been estimated that during 1990 in Canada, an average of two women were killed by their partners every week. In addition, it is estimated that each year one in eight women living in a relationship with a man is assaulted. Research indicates -- and frankly, this is the alarming statistic -- that as many as 35 violent episodes occur before a woman seeks police intervention. These numbers are taken from the Attorney General's report on violence against women.

Violence in domestic situations has been reported to be issues about blame and fault, but mostly it is about someone achieving power over someone else. Spousal abuse is generally defined as the physical or psychological abuse directed by a man against his female partner in an attempt to control her behaviour or to intimidate her. Physical assault -- and we've seen many episodes of that in our newspapers recently -- involves the use of weapons, such as guns, knives, axes and crossbows. Those are situations that certainly we as an opposition find intolerable.

Psychological violence includes making threats against the victim, making degrading comments and putting her and her loved ones in compromising situations. It also includes controlling resources: depriving the woman of money or not even allowing the ordinary acquisition of a driver's licence.

Abuse is used to control a partner's actions. Yet it may be difficult for the woman to leave the relationship. Certainly there a number of situations where cultural or religious values, socioeconomic conditions, fear or even a denial of violence in the relationship have intervened. Past studies have indicated that women are in abusive situations as a result of their spouse or partner being involved in some kind of drunken or stress-related behaviour. Certainly we no longer accept the notion that those are reasons for any kind of abuse. In the 1990s the situation is a lot more complex.

Problems relate to personal characteristics, circumstances of the individuals involved and factors operating in the families. Each time the public has become aware of a different form of family violence, resources have been mustered to provide as much protection as possible for the victims. A recent study conducted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women showed that violence against women was their number one issue, and certainly all British Columbians recognize that that issue is on the rise. Yet the funding is barely there.

What must change, however, are attitudes towards family violence, because if the attitudes do not change, there will never be enough money to combat some of these problems.

We must have all levels of government committed to ensuring that the resources are in place and to taking some proactive, preventive stance. Frankly, the time has come to stop the excuses. We need to address the problem of violence in relationships -- not only against women, but among all individuals. The time has come to get tough not only with abusers but also with the system. The system is the issue that I will be addressing in more detail today.

It is currently estimated that wife assault involves one in ten women in Canada. Assault is a crime; it is not

[ Page 7876 ]

just family dynamics gone wrong. That has been the discussion that we've been engaged in for the last 20 years: that somehow the dynamic of the family was at fault; that somehow it was possible to justify any type of abuse. Over time the frequency and severity of battering increases. The woman and her children show psychological disturbances and at the end can be involved in murder or suicide situations. It is likely that between 50,000 and 70,000 school-age children in B.C. have witnessed violence directed against their mothers.

Children who live in a family where the man abuses the woman have an 80 percent chance of witnessing the abuse. The behavioural effect of the abuse is estimated to be the same as if the child had been physically battered.

In 1992, the report on shelter for abused women and children in British Columbia, prepared by the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses, indicated that in 1990 and 1991 the number of women using transition houses and emergency shelters in British Columbia during the year totalled just over 5,500. The more alarming statistic is that the number of children in these houses of shelter was almost 5,300. We had children at risk, as well as their parents, and again the psychological damage is significant. What must also be considered is the total number of women and children turned away because the facilities were full. In fact, 4,500 women and children were turned away during the same year.

[10:15]

I want to touch on education and attitudes as being the order of the day. I'm optimistic. In fact, in today's Vancouver Sun, a gender equality club in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, attracts young males. They talk about pay equity and violence against women as not being women's issues. They talk about them as human rights issues that we need to advance and understand. The fact that these high school students are discussing those issues and coming together, both men and women, in grades 9, 10 and 11 to look at them is something that we need to applaud as a society.

If this is about changing attitudes -- and I believe it is -- and about education, we need to ensure that our children are brought up in homes that understand and demonstrate gender equality on a daily basis. There is tremendous research that talks about people living their experiences from their childhood in their own relationships. Some of those experiences have obviously not been the best for children, and we need to be very proactive in terms of how we handle these cases, because at the end of the day, the point I made earlier will be the one that rings true.

If we don't take a proactive stance and look at prevention, there will never be enough money to handle all of the cases of abuse that are going to come forward.

J. Pullinger: The member opposite argues a good case and certainly lays it out very clearly in terms of what comprises violence against women and what some of the issues are. It's a commentary on far how we have come that there seems to be a growing understanding that violence against women is not an aberration, it's not unusual and it's not random, nor is it separate from who we are and what we are as a society. There seems to be an understanding that violence against women is the most extreme, reprehensible and damaging manifestation of sexism in our society.

Violence against women is qualitatively different from other forms of violence in our society, although all violence is to be deplored. But the motivation for violence against women is different. The people, the interaction and the way it happens are significantly different in violence against women.

As the member points out, other violence is more often than not perpetrated by strangers in public places for a wide variety of reasons,

whereas violence against women is more often than not in the home by someone the woman knows and cares about, and it is most often about power and control. It is often characterized as a women's issue, but I would argue that it is not. Every woman has a 1-in-4 chance of being abused. We have two women a week die; we have Marc Lepine; we have so many incidents of violence -- and it's growing in our society. I think all of us have good cause to be concerned.

While violence on the immediate and personal level is between women and men, sadly, on a societal level the issue is about those who recognize the problems at their deepest and most profound extreme and are willing to work towards change, and those who are not. And I would argue there are men and women on both sides of the line.

At its root, as the member says, violence against women is systemic. It's the result of a collectively held set of values that say women are less, that women must do certain things and not do other things and that women are, by definition and by gender, excluded from positions of power primarily -- although there are growing numbers of us in this Legislature, I am pleased to say. The majority of women tend to stay in undervalued or unvalued jobs and tend not to be among those in our society who make decisions.

It is important that we recognize what that violence is, where it comes from and the extremes of it; that violence in fact begins at one end of the continuum with a sexist joke that denigrates and stereotypes women, and goes to the other end with a Marc Lepine.

I am happy to say that this government takes that issue seriously. We have argued the case for a long time, and we have moved forward more in the last 18 months than we have seen in the last 18 years. This government hasn't given medals; this government has put $10 million into specific programs to stop the violence -- not to diminish it, but to stop it. And this government wants to see the violence stopped.

We are including women in decision-making positions in this province in a way they have never been included before; we are supporting women in a way they have never been supported before; and we are taking deliberate, specific action to end the violence. There is a great deal of literature on it. We've done a great deal.

I want to end with one final comment to those who are starting to call this government politically correct and starting to argue that because we are including women, appointing women and doing all of those things to change social attitudes -- from changing the

[ Page 7877 ]

language of the statutes in this House to taking direct, concrete action against the other extreme, violence against women -- somehow we are politically correct. That is wrong. Those people who are arguing that are part of the status quo; they are part of the problem. I would like to suggest that those people who are kicking at this government for being politically correct had better, if they are women, consider their own safety and their lives; and if they are men, consider the consequences of sexism in our society on their sisters, wives and daughters, because that's what it's about.

L. Reid: The hon. member who just spoke knows that I support the initiative of stopping the violence. There are issues that we must address, and as the member stated, this is not about being politically correct; this is about being decent human beings, at the end of the day.

The Liberal Party is firm on our position of zero tolerance towards violence, whether it be towards a woman or towards a child. We contend that a policy of mandatory prosecution must be adopted. Enforcement officers across this province need to have the legal authority to arrest and press charges against offenders in cases of domestic violence or in cases in which domestic violence is likely to occur. Preventive policing is the policy that must be implemented if we are to move forward in this regard.

A woman at her most vulnerable should not be put into the position of deciding whether or not she wishes to press charges. Being proactive against the abuser, as well as the obligation of the peace officer to inform the victim of her rights and support systems within the community, is essential. I acknowledge that there might be disagreement with a mandatory arrest policy if a peace officer makes an arrest in a potentially violent situation in which there is no evidence of physical violence.

Our current federal laws and provincial arrest policies stipulate that arrest can only be made once an incident has occurred or there is evidence of physical violence. These policies are referred to as preferred, pro-arrest, or presumptive. They authorize an element of officer discretion in defining and deciding how to handle situations. This exposes preferred policies to the criticism that responding officers can be influenced by personal or historical aversion to arrest and that only the most severe or blatant cases will result in arrest.

Comment has been made that arrest without evidence is against the Charter of Rights, as an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Six thousand incidents of spousal abuse occurred in 1992 in this province. That alone is clear indication that our current system is not working well. The policy of arrest after assault is blatant neglect in protecting the victim.

I will speak of history in this case. Mandatory arrest has been enacted since the early 1980s in some states in the United States. Under these laws, police who have probable cause to believe that a felony or misdemeanour domestic assault has occurred must arrest the primary physical aggressor. Police departments in cities such as Concord, New Hampshire, Duluth, Minnesota, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, implemented mandatory arrest policies without waiting for their states to enact a mandatory arrest law. Mandatory policies have an absolute quality.

The policy requires the arrest of offenders under applicable situations. A system of mandatory arrest provides a solution to many of the problems found under systems in which arrest is discretionary.

I spoke earlier in my statement about the system. We must correct the system. We must begin to look at a woman who has been violated as a survivor, not always as the victim.

Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired.

D. Jarvis: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce two guests from North Vancouver: Ms. Nancy Henderson and Mr. Guy Heywood, who also happens to be the president of the North Vancouver-Seymour riding association. Would the House please make them welcome.

THE CHALLENGE OF A CHANGING ECONOMY

M. Farnworth: Today I want to talk about the challenge of a changing economy. Many areas of the society we live in are in changing times. The hon. members for Richmond East and Cowichan-Ladysmith talked about changing attitudes toward women. I'd like to talk for a few moments about changing attitudes toward training and the economy, and toward a host of things. What works today might not work ten or 15 years from now, and what worked ten or 15 years ago doesn't necessarily work today. Society is in a constant state of flux; it seems to be gathering at an ever-increasing pace.

Nowhere is this more important than with the skills we give young people today to carry them forward to tackle the problems of tomorrow. The old attitude that you didn't need an education doesn't wash anymore. People realize that there aren't the jobs in the forest industry that there used to be, in part due to technological change and in part due to the radically different way in which we view our natural resources. We see a much more balanced approach today.

We don't see them as strictly to be plundered, but more to be managed and sustained over the long term so that our children can enjoy in their lives what we have enjoyed in ours. It has involved making some painful choices, choices that involve bringing different groups together to decide avenues not only on how we manage change but also on how we plan for it and predict it. We need to ensure not only that we benefit today but that we benefit tomorrow.

Our society is changing, not just our attitudes. We have more and more people coming to British Columbia not only from across Canada but from different nations around the world. They bring their own values, ideas and initiatives with them and different ways of looking at problems and solutions and, in fact, often different

[ Page 7878 ]

ways of arriving at those solutions. It's changing our province quite a lot more than many of us realize.

The fastest-growing occupations are in information; we live in an information age. That's going to continue. More and more people today have personal computers and are becoming computer-literate. They're being exposed to a wider range of ideas. That's a really good thing, because one thing people have to realize is that their occupation today may not be the same as the one they will have ten years from now. In fact, it may be in a totally unrelated field. One of the most exciting things that we can do in our education system, in our workplace and in our private lives is to expose people to as many different avenues and ideas and as many different ways of looking at things as we can.

I know from experience that one of the best initiatives any province has undertaken has been the Knowledge Network. Apart from the regular networks that show the same banal, mundane programming, it gives a wide range of programming on a host of topics that not only inform but can spark imagination and interest. They show people different avenues, options, opportunities and fields that they may never have considered, and it brings them into their home.

Industry is taking a dramatically different approach. They're seeing the value of training employees; they're seeing the value of different approaches. Part of that involves working with government and government working with industry and labour. One of the most important things we as a government can do is facilitate business, labour and the education community coming together to discuss the skills and training that will be needed five, ten, 15 years down the road.

[10:30]

That's why I think it's important that the Premier's Summit on Education and Training has been taking place at BCIT over the past few days. It's one of the things that this government can be proud of. We're bringing together 120 people in business, labour and education from different parts of the province. They are sitting down and discussing where we are today and what we need in order to compete five and ten years down the road -- where our society is going. That is perhaps one of the most important things a government can do.

If we don't get business and labour talking to each other, if we don't get the academic community involved, then we're going to stagnate, and we are denying potential opportunities for people. It doesn't always revolve around money; it revolves just as much around attitudes. If we are open to change and open to dialogue and to encouraging people, we're well on the way to creating the type of future that can provide future generations in this province with the same standard of living that we have enjoyed.

Point of Privilege

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. It has come to my attention that the Minister of Labour has issued a press release regarding legislation not yet tabled in the House, regarding expanded coverage for workers' compensation. Further, the minister has commented to the media, and further to that, reports are on the radio as we speak. Given that this has just come to my attention, I reserve the right to raise the matter at a later date.

Deputy Speaker: It shall be so noted, hon. member.

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock responds to the statement by the member for Port Coquitlam.

W. Hurd: The changing economy and the importance of industrial competitiveness is an issue that I've raised in this House on many occasions, and I welcome the opportunity to address it today.

We need in this province a three-pronged approach to addressing the issue of a changing economy. We have to look at our educational system and compare it to what is happening in other jurisdictions in the world. We have to look carefully at the kinds of government policies that come forward with respect to this global economy. We also have to look at retraining, apprenticeship programs and secondary training once people have entered the workforce. This issue is of vital importance to the standard of living of every British Columbian. We live in a world not of our own making.

It's a world of increasing global economic rationalization and global economic competition. It's a race that every country in the industrialized world is involved in, and a race that we have to prepare ourselves for in B.C.

I recently had the opportunity to attend an educational workshop at the University of Washington at which I was asked to present the views on education in British Columbia. Also on the roster at that conference were speakers from Japan and various school districts in the United States. I was struck by the amount of determination for educational and training reform in those countries. I was struck by the dedication and the interest, and by the acceptance of the fact that there was an inextricable link between the quality of education and training and industrial competitiveness.

Unfortunately, in this province we have operated for too long on the basis of two or even three solitudes. We have seen an education system that is divorced from industrial competitiveness issues. We have seen industry itself operating in splendid isolation. To some extent we have seen government drafting policies without a firm knowledge of which direction the world is heading in.

A recent study in the forest industry, which is something I have some involvement in and knowledge of, focused on the literacy abilities of people who work in the primary sawmill industry, and it noted that upwards of half of the workforce had difficulty understanding and interpreting written instructions. It creates a grave problem when the economy turns and those workers then have to be retrained, as they are in other countries. It creates a great deal of difficulty.

This, I think, speaks volumes about how industries and government have to help in retraining workers who are the victim of changing industrial processes and face a lifetime thereafter of underemployment.

Clearly we need an industrial strategy in our province. We need governments, unions and our educational institutions, as the member has stated, working together on ways to foster industrial competitiveness in

[ Page 7879 ]

B.C. Other countries are aware of the stakes in this race. They understand the importance of tailoring educational programs to the economy at large and ensuring that once workers have entered the workforce, the opportunity exists for them to be retrained

In Japan, the average industrial worker is retrained three times in a lifetime. In our province, if a worker is the victim of a changing industrial process, the programs are not available to induce that person to embark upon a career change to get back into the race with a high-paying, productive job. Governments put forth glowing statistics on job creation in B.C. Yet when we analyze where the jobs are being created, they're jobs that do not allow most people to buy a home and participate in what we all take for granted in this assembly.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his remarks. He raised a number of interesting points about what is being done overseas. He's quite correct that in Japan and Germany workers are retrained two or three times. That process didn't evolve overnight. It evolved because nations and governments recognized the importance of training and skill development. For too long in this country we have relied on our skilled trades people coming from overseas and have not encouraged enough of our own homegrown talent. That has to change. It changes because governments sit down with business and labour and academics, as I stated. But it also has to be an ongoing process.

Last year we had the Premier's Summit on Trade and Economic Opportunity, and this year we're looking at skills and training. They're flowing out of each other. We're establishing a pattern and process so that it's not something that happens once every three or five years but something that all three parties expect. We're not only establishing the format; we're establishing relationships. People begin to feel comfortable doing this and understand that there's a direction we need to go in. Out of this come ideas, solutions and hopefully a commitment.

The process will not happen overnight, because quite often there are years of mistrust that have to be overcome. Summits such as we've had in the past few days can break down that mistrust, and attempt to get people to think long-term as opposed to short-term. That's been one of our failings as a province. Too often we've taken a short-term approach. As a result, we've ended up with problems like the hon. member raised, whereby half the people in a particular industry have trouble reading or understanding basic documents. What do you do with those people when the economy takes a downturn?

That's got to be one of the fundamental issues we have to address, and it can't be done in isolation. That is why I think the Premier's summit is such a significant initiative for British Columbia.

GOVERNANCE BY REGULATION

H. De Jong: The title, "Governance by Regulation," of course, begs the question of whether democracy is actually vanishing in British Columbia. There are some frightening signs that show that the government is not democratic in its sympathies. We have seen recognition of freedom of expression expunged from our laws, ironically in the name of civil rights. Over time we have seen the rights of individual workers to complain about abusive practices by trade unions watered down in the name of solidarity.

And, of course, we have seen the free speech of employers during union organizing drives further restricted under the Labour Relations Code. We have seen the stalling on recall and initiative legislation, and I fully expect that the final government product will be watered down beyond recognition. We have seen the labour relations powers of colleges and universities reduced as the unions tighten their grip still further. We have seen a philosophy of health management which would dictate to local hospitals the services they ought to provide, and in the process overrule the powers of a locally elected board.

We have seen government go cap in hand to apologize to unions who held the futures of grade 12 students as economic hostages while cabinet feared to assert the public interest. Indeed, we have seen a virtual de facto delegation of lawmaking in labour relations to a small group of union bosses whose names were not on the ballot paper in the last election. We have seen the actual loss of free, secret voting on unionization -- the kind of arbitrary action for which King Charles I lost his head.

We have seen continued opposition to the inclusion of property rights in the Canadian constitution. We have seen the Minister of Finance tell us that the government will not represent anyone who is financially successful in our province. If you earn over $100,000 or if you are non-union, you are a non-person in the eyes of government. Hate is alive and completely legal in British Columbia, but only against the class enemies of the NDP.

Perhaps what concerns me most of all is the gradual chipping away at our parliamentary institutions and our ability to object to the stripping away of democratic rights from British Columbians. Clearly we are losing rights. British Columbians are losing rights; local governments are losing autonomy. The logical question, then, is: to whom are we losing those rights? We are losing them to union bosses, obviously, and to would-be social engineers, such as Crown corporations czar Bob Williams, who drive government economic policy from outside the Legislature and are accountable to cabinet alone. Indeed, one really wonders who is accountable to whom.

It has been said that rights are not given, but taken. It is pretty clear who is taking them today in British Columbia. On paper, yes, the Premier is in control. Therefore the real question is: who controls the Premier, since he obviously does not control himself? In theory, he is accountable to the Legislature, but in practice that would require acts of courage on the part of the government back benches, which we have yet to witness. It is quite clear that cabinet itself does not want statutory scrutiny of the allocation or delegation of its powers. The principle we see is nothing less than an unlimited right to delegate legislative powers to

[ Page 7880 ]

unelected appointees, who are not even from within the ranks of the province's professional public service -- at least in many instances. Land use decisions of tremendous importance, such as Clayoquot and Tatshenshini, are being made on an ad hoc basis as political decisions of cabinet. Unfortunately, again and again we see an alarming desire to remove real power over spending from the Legislature and give it to less accountable agencies.

Perhaps none of these issues makes a real case by itself, but taken together they betray an arrogance and a lack of respect for the process of democracy, which all too soon flows over into lack of respect for the substance of democracy as well. We have seen a double standard in dealing with conflicts of interest and a strange absence of leadership from the Premier, which allows these tendencies to grow and grow. Meanwhile the real power is shifting to appointees. We all know Bob Williams, but not so familiar are Tom Gunton, Wilson Parasiuk, George Ford, Doug MacArthur, Ray Payne and many more -- a long line of refugees from failed NDP regimes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon.

[10:45]

Why could they not at least employ the local failures? Would that be too much to ask? On Vancouver Island alone, we have pensioned off Barrett, Skelly and Stupich to Ottawa. It is simply unbelievable how many imports this government has appointed. I am wondering whether these people actually knew where Hope was, because it would appear to me that by hiring these people from afar, the government placed its position totally beyond hope.

In conclusion, I suppose we had better be on the lookout for a caravan of newly appointed failures from Alberta as well.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member who will respond, I would point out to the members that it has been the policy and practice to avoid partisan statements by private members. On occasion the Chair has recognized the need for some latitude with regard to this practice, but it should be noted that while I didn't interrupt the hon. member's statement, it clearly exceeded the reasonable bounds with respect to partisan politics. The Chair simply wants to point out to hon. members that if we get into that type of debate, we will have to revisit the guidelines for this period.

B. Jones: It is a pleasure to respond to the member for Abbotsford and his topic of government by regulation. I must confess I am somewhat at a loss, given the remarks of the member, exactly how to respond. On the one hand, given that the member has outlined some of his concerns, perhaps I should commend him and admire his political courage. He has suggested that he has put his party and his political past and the history of this Legislature behind him and has discovered a new way of doing business in British Columbia and of how this parliament should operate. On the other hand, I am tempted to suggest that the comments he made were somewhat hypocritical.

I am reminded of the old adage that where you stand is determined by where you sit. I would remind that member that the kind of decision-making that has taken place in this province for most of the last 41 years -- in particular, government by regulation -- has been adopted by that member's political party, which is sitting on the opposite side in much diminished numbers. I might suggest, to mix my metaphors, that that group of dinosaurs has not changed its spots. In fact, the kind of abuse of office that this member saw firsthand in the last five years would not change were that member again sitting on this side of the House.

Instead of responding to the low level of debate that the member stooped to, I would like to deal with the question that he raised, which I think is an important one -- I thank the member for raising the topic of government by regulation, even if he didn't stick to it -- and have a look at how we draft legislation, what a regulation is, why we have regulations and the recent history of regulation in this parliament.

The Canadian Law Dictionary suggests that it is a normal practice for most modern statutes to confer law-making powers on the Governor- or Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the further carrying out of the purposes of the statute in question, and that such practices enable the government, federal or provincial, to act expeditiously to provide additional regulations without the necessity of enacting new statutes. Most of the member's criticisms were based on his view, which is not shared by this side of the House.... Most of those issues have been debated in the open -- in this chamber. Most of those issues were dealt with upfront.

What was implied in the member's statement is that the government carries on business behind closed doors, and of course it does. Regulations are necessary from time to time. Let me give you an example of the kind of thing that regulations are necessary for. Suppose you pass a bill that names within the legislation, rather than in the regulation, the bodies that are covered. If those bodies become defunct or their names change, then that bill has to be brought before the Legislature to be changed, and I don't think that's an appropriate use of this chamber.

But the member is correct that there are dangers in operating by regulation. It is possible for a government to avoid scrutiny. It is possible for undue influence to be brought by pressure groups. If memory serves me correctly, when we had an Environment minister whose name was John Reynolds, the Premier got a phone call from a member of the forest industry. From that one phone call we had a change in the effluent regulations for pulp mills in this province.

I might say in passing that the standards that the former Premier wanted have now been replaced by a new Environment minister's standards, which are the highest in the country. I also remember a regulation by a predecessor of the member as Minister of Agriculture, and that was John Savage. I was the first one to raise in this chamber the infamous order-in-council 1141. That was the outrageous....

An Hon. Member: Time!

[ Page 7881 ]

Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.

H. De Jong: I'm really happy that the member agreed with me in some respects. He did take a few shots at me personally but not really at the content of my delivered statement. I'm disappointed that he didn't comment on the issues that I brought forward. Because of the reaction to my statement, I feel that he had little to comment on, as there was so much truth in it.

The member mentioned that issues have been debated. Yes, bills are debated, but the bills that are debated in this House often don't tell the true and the real story. Perhaps overall they do tell the true story, but not the real story. With some of the legislation that has been passed in this House over the last couple of years, I'm sure even cabinet ministers are astounded at some of the regulations that have come out of one ministry but will very definitely affect another ministry.

I can only refer to the items I'm totally familiar with, and that is those regarding the farming community. If those issues were brought up in the House, as to what those bills and regulations prepared by the bureaucrats in Victoria -- who emigrated from Manitoba and elsewhere -- mean for the people in British Columbia.... That member from across the floor, the member for Burnaby North, had better and get out into the rural areas and talk to the people and find out what is being proposed in the regulations. I'm sure that if the member did that, he would say: "Harry, you're exactly right!"

TOWARD SAFER AND HEALTHIER WORK ENVIRONMENTS

N. Lortie: I'll try to be less partisan than my fellow members across the floor.

Hon. Speaker, this week, June 21 to June 27, has been proclaimed Occupational Health and Safety Week in British Columbia -- a week to reflect on workers killed or seriously injured on the job in this and every year. In both human and economic terms, the cost is staggering. Last year alone, 161 workers were killed on the job, 3,600 workers were permanently disabled, 7,700 workers took time off because of injuries and 3.1 million work days were lost because of workplace injuries. It's unacceptable that 161 British Columbia workers were killed on the job during 1992.

It's a tragic loss not only to the families, friends, co-workers and employers of that person but also to society as a whole. We all mourn them, because we know that workplace accidents can be prevented. Yet every year more lives are lost, and more workers are injured on the job.

This government, and I'm sure every member of this House, believes that this situation is simply unacceptable. It's not good enough to say that fewer people died on the job this year than last year. It's the responsibility of every one of us to prevent accidents. Each working person, each employer and the Workers' Compensation Board in British Columbia plays a role in building a safer and healthier workplace. If we all pull together and work a little harder, we can create a safer and healthier work environment, through greater awareness and education.

In the logging industry 20 workers lost their lives in 1991, and another 388 were permanently disabled. I am distressed by these statistics. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should lose their life or be seriously injured. We can do better, and this government is trying to do better.

I am pleased with our government's achievements in improving working conditions for men and women in British Columbia. For the first time in history, farm-workers are covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. Some day all workers in British Columbia will be covered by that board. Health and safety regulations were especially formulated to meet the meet the needs of B.C. agriculture and its workers. There has been no greater injustice in British Columbia than the absence of health and safety regulations for the 30,000 men and women who work on B.C. farms and ranches.

While workers' compensation has existed in this province for 75 years, farmworkers, unbelievably, have been excluded. There have been too many deaths on the farm; too many farm families have suffered. Many times in this House members have called for farmworkers to be afforded the same protection as all other workers. Farmworkers have been injured, maimed and killed when they work on machinery that doesn't have proper guards, when they don't wear the proper protective clothing or when they don't know the proper safety procedures.

According to the Canada Safety Council, the accident rate on Canadian farms is estimated to be 20 percent higher than the national average for all industries. Farming claims five lives per year in British Columbia.

We are pioneering a new process for implementing health and safety regulations on the farm. The Workers' Compensation Board along with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Farmworkers' Union are establishing a Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Agency. While the Workers' Compensation Board will retain its legal right to ensure new regulations are enforced, the agency will assist in an advisory role in establishing inspection programs specifically modelled for the agricultural sector.

Importantly, the agency will be responsible for developing a comprehensive range of educational programs designed to assist farmers and farmworkers to become more familiar with the regulations and to use them to their advantage. All materials that they will use will be available to those workers in Punjabi, Chinese, French and Japanese.

We are addressing the issue of violence in the workplace. A full review of the Workers' Compensation Board regulations affecting health care workers, service industry workers and others affected by violence in the workplace is currently underway.

[11:00]

We have other achievements. In the industrial, forestry and construction sectors we have made good progress in reviewing and updating safety regulations during the past year. The Workers' Compensation Board is doing more than ever to crack down an unsafe worksites and unhealthy environments. They're doing more safety inspections than ever before and issuing more compliance orders; penalties against employers

[ Page 7882 ]

who fail to meet those compliance obligations are being increased.

But the best way to save lives and prevent injury in the workplace is to give workers the skills, knowledge and direction to prevent accidents from happening. Prevention starts with education and getting the message out to employers and workers. Our task for the future will be to reduce the number of accidents on the job and cut down on the number of occupational diseases in the workplace.

In the months ahead I look forward to additional changes in both regulations and procedures at the Workers' Compensation Board to better protect and serve the interests of the women and men in British Columbia workplaces.

A. Warnke: It's a pleasure to respond to the member for Delta North. I noted that his primary focus was on farmworkers and agricultural industry workers. Although that was the primary focus, in the context of the length of time we are allotted, I appreciate the remarks that he extended. I would agree that having farmworkers covered by the Workers' Compensation Board is long overdue, for the accident rate among farmworkers is more than 20 percent higher than the overall average. I would say that also applies to heavy industry, where accidents and deaths from the work environment are also higher than the average.

But it is also important to point out that we assume that as there is technological development and our economy develops, somehow we're developing a cleaner, safer and healthier environment. This may not be the case. Even in my former profession of teaching university and college, it is surprising to note the number of very dangerous substances and dangerous chemicals that one can be exposed to even in that environment, which we would normally categorize as healthy, safe and all the rest of it. Until we are educated, perhaps we don't realize it.

Fortunately, when I taught university and college I had been educated about the amount and range of dangerous substances even in that kind of work environment. Indeed, while we embrace computers, microwave ovens, xeroxing machines and so forth, there is also a load of materials, electro-magnetic forces and so on that could contribute to an unhealthy and more unsafe environment. It's far more complex than we think. When we move towards a healthier and safer environment, we have to keep in context the complexity that we have in our work environment.

It embraces not just what has occurred in agriculture and heavy industry; as the economy develops, all of us are more exposed than we have been in the past. There is the appearance of a safer environment, but that appearance may be misleading.

I would agree with the member for Delta North that what is needed is to transmit knowledge, to educate and train people more. As people are being hired, we need to make sure to advise them what the work environment is comprised of. Indeed, many employers and governments have responded in that direction. Hopefully, the number of deaths and injuries will decline, but it may not be simply as a result of knowledge and the attempt to prevent them. We also have to keep in mind just how complex our work environments are.

It may well be that we cannot totally get away from it, but I would certainly suggest that we have to promote knowledge of what is in our environment. We have to advocate safety and health. We have to get a notion of what our work environment is all about and examine the implications of new innovations. While we may embrace new innovations, we have to be constantly aware of their health and safety implications as we move into the twenty-first century. This is most important.

Those are aspects, I suppose, of a healthier and safer environment that I'm sure the member for Delta North probably wanted to touch on, but I also recognize the shortness of his time. Lastly, it is a continuation of what the member for Yale-Lillooet was pointing out just a few weeks ago: justice in the workplace. All of this is combined.

N. Lortie: I thank the member across the floor for helping this House focus in on this important week in British Columbia, Occupational Health and Safety Week. I and other members I have talked to have found, in dealing with our constituency offices, that the Workers' Compensation Board problems of our constituents are the most difficult to solve and deal with.

The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services has announced the opening of a series of offices in British Columbia for injured workers. We must promote safety in the workplace, but it will never be down to zero. We must also have a system that properly services the people who are injured in their occupation. The minister officially opened a regional office for workers' advisers in Saanich, and he has announced that offices will soon be opened to service clients in Kamloops and Nanaimo by the end of the year, and other communities in British Columbia later on.

This expansion is part of a larger government commitment to improve compensation delivery in our province, and to serve workers who suffer workplace injuries. This expansion will provide injured workers with increased access and better understanding of the workers' compensation decision system in British Columbia.

The review board recently cleared up 1,000 of the 6,000-case backlog. The review board cleared up these cases between May 10 and June 4 of this year in a drive that intensified and focused the resources of that board. The review board has initiated a new format that separates the notice of appeal into two parts. The parties file one appeal to indicate they are ready to appeal the Workers' Compensation Board decision, and a second to indicate that they are ready for a hearing. The time lost to parties not being prepared will be substantially reduced.

We have new goals to eliminate the backlog of cases. These goals are to provide a hearing date within 30 days of the parties being ready to proceed, and to provide a finding of an appeal within 60 days after the last submission is received. The Minister of Labour has also announced his intention to add 12 members to the review board to further reduce the backlog and expedite new hearings.

[ Page 7883 ]

The workers' advisers are independent of the Workers' Compensation Board. They provide free advice and information to workers on WCB matters, and advisers will conduct training seminars to help workers and advisers understand their rights and responsibilities under the Workers Compensation Act.

Introduction of Bills

WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. M. Sihota: The legislation I am introducing to the House today is a bill that will extend workers' compensation coverage to virtually every worker in the province, and will eliminate discrimination in the payment of survivor benefits. There are also some housekeeping amendments.

At the moment, approximately 85 percent of the province's workforce is covered by WCB legislation. Those who are not covered include workers in the financial sector such as banks, insurance companies, medical-dental offices and law offices, where the workforce is largely female. The universal coverage in this bill means that these workers will no longer have to use their savings to cover work-related injuries.

The other significant highlight of this legislation is the elimination of gender discrimination in survivor benefits. Surviving spouses of deceased workers who remarry will no longer suffer financial penalties. Because the vast majority of surviving spouses in the province are female, this bill will eliminate a source of gender bias in the legislation. The new legislation regarding surviving spouses will be retroactive to 1985, when the equality provisions of the federal Charter of Rights came into effect.

WCB reform is a priority for this government. Other important initiatives that have been brought to the attention of this House include new regulations for farmworkers, regulations regarding violence in the workplace, new workers' advisory services around the province and new procedures to reduce appeal backlogs. With its expansion to universal coverage and elimination of discrimination, this bill marks the most significant step in the government's commitment to WCB reform.

Hon. Speaker, the bill was delayed in its arrival this morning. I wish to advise the House that staff, in anticipation of the bill being tabled at the normal time of 10 o'clock, of course, issued a press release. I take some comfort in the fact that this is not the first time this has happened in this Legislature. As you are well aware, it goes back to 1973; and in the Canadian Parliament, from what I can determine, as far back as 1909. The release of the press....

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe the member is delving into an area that I have in fact reserved for a point of privilege. Certainly the debate can take place at that time. I imagine the minister would like to get on with moving the bill.

Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. I would ask the hon. minister to now put the question.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just wanted to clarify the issue for all the members. I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply.

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

[11:15]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

(continued)

On vote 35: minister's office, $335,102 (continued).

Hon. G. Clark: I would just advise the House, as per discussions with members of the opposition, that for the hour and 15 minutes or so that we have this morning we will be discussing Transit estimates, although obviously all members are free to discuss anything within my jurisdiction. But I have Transit staff here today, so we're hoping we can deal with any Transit concerns people have and move on to other matters another day. Since Transit is a major responsibility of mine, I will make a few introductory remarks for members of the House and for posterity.

The government of British Columbia will contribute $232.74 million in 1993-94 for transit services in British Columbia, representing the provincial share of a total of $521.18 million for the B.C. Transit operating budget. As we know, that distinction is somewhat artificial because most of the non-provincial or local share comes from provincial taxes; in fact, almost all of it comes from provincial taxes.

This expenditure of almost half a billion dollars in British Columbia for public transit demonstrates the government's continued commitment to provide the best and most innovative transit system possible within the constraints of limited financial resources. We've undertaken a number of new initiatives during the past year and will undertake several further improvements in the coming years. The level of provincial funding provided this year to this rather unique provincial Crown corporation, B.C. Transit, will allow us to make very interesting improvements in a number of areas around the province.

I say B.C. Transit is unique not because of the chairperson, Eric Denhoff, but because it's the only such Crown corporation in Canada and the only provincial,

[ Page 7884 ]

or state-run, public transit system in Canada. This has provided some advantages and some disadvantages. On the plus side, more than 50 smaller communities around the province, outside of Vancouver and Victoria, can count on a provincial Crown corporation to help them plan transit services in their cities and towns, help them market their services and even help them with their purchasing power by using the provincial Crown to buy or lease buses. Of course, it means that British Columbia citizens have come to expect a relatively -- in fact, very -- high standard of service and standard of uniformity around the province which exists in no other jurisdiction in North America.

In the lower mainland, however, this provincial Crown corporation is the cause of some concern; it is a legitimate concern about the local jurisdiction governing transit. In most jurisdictions around North America, a city or a region like the Greater Vancouver Regional District would control its own transit system. So while the transit commission controls the routes and service plan, etc., it's still in fact a provincial Crown corporation. That causes some tension and concern.

We are prepared, of course, to discuss moving toward more local autonomy, but frankly, I think it'll have to wait until after the municipal elections in November. Mayor Campbell, unfortunately, said that he didn't see any progress this year, so we'll have to wait until he's gone.

At any rate, the government of British Columbia will continue to provide the highest contribution of any provincial government in Canada toward public transit. For example, in Vancouver and the lower mainland we will provide 46 percent of the costs of public transit this year, although, as I mentioned, virtually all of the funding comes from provincial sources. That is much higher than in places like Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal.

In fact, in Montreal the provincial government recently withdrew a $150 million subsidy to the Montreal metro transit system, and in Ontario there have been recent dramatic restraint measures. I'd be interested in the comments of members of the opposition on this, because I know that the Social Credit Party has been calling for dramatic cuts. Other provinces have pursued dramatic cuts to transit funding -- and we have not. We've restrained the rate of growth of transit funding, but we've not engaged in massive cuts, as we've seen in other provinces, such as Quebec, and with the recent measures in Ontario.

Frankly, we haven't done that as a conscious policy. It's because we have a vision for public transit that seeks to protect our enormously successful system and all the gains public transit has made against automobile pollution in the last decade. B.C. Transit is one of the most successfully integrated transit systems in the world -- with SeaBus, bus and SkyTrain systems complemented by a handyDART system for disabled passengers. We have a much higher share of the travelling public using transit in Vancouver than in most North American cities.

In spite of difficult financial times, we have protected Vancouver and Victoria against big cuts. As a result of people like the current Premier, who was mayor of Vancouver, and others.... In fact, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena deserves some credit for this as well. He was part of a reform-minded civic government that stopped freewayization -- is that a word? -- the proliferation of freeways that we see in other North American cities.

R. Neufeld: We've heard just about everything....

Hon. G. Clark: And we have one of the most innovative public transit providers anywhere.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Do they have a transit system in Dawson Creek? I'm not sure. Is it Dawson Creek? Fort St. James -- sorry.

R. Neufeld: Fort St. John.

Hon. G. Clark: In Fort St. John they have one. I know it would be interesting to have a discussion of the smaller systems around the province.

B.C. Transit has pioneered some innovations, such as the Ballard fuel cell, which is basically a cooperative effort between the Ministry of Advanced Education, private business, the federal government and B.C. Transit. Many members know that the first hydrogen fuel cell bus is now in operation -- not in commercial operation, but it works well. I took my young children down to Science World a couple of weeks ago, and it was out front on display for all. I think there is great promise in that Ballard fuel cell bus both in a business sense and environmentally, in dealing with pollution problems.

We have the second-largest fleet of electric trolleys anywhere in North America. It is so successful that Adam Clayton Powell Jr. and other New York City councillors were here recently to view our trolley system, with an eye to re-establishing a trolley system in New York. It's so successful, in fact, that B.C. Transit is providing assistance to a Vancouver firm bidding on contracts to re-establish trolley systems in Seattle and California.

Ours is the first jurisdiction anywhere in North America with a complete transit system that is fully accessible to those individuals who are physically challenged. That system is in Penticton. As a member of this government, I was very proud -- and the member for Okanagan-Penticton is quite correctly proud as well -- to have an entire system accessible to physically challenged people. That's the first place in North America. That community's bus system has low-floor buses allowing disabled seniors and other passengers complete ease of access.

Early on in our administration, we had the first low-floor buses in Victoria, of which there are 20, outside in front of the parliament buildings here to demonstrate, again, that pioneering of technology by B.C. Transit.

The funds that the government of B.C. will provide B.C. Transit this year will allow the corporation to continue the current level of service in Vancouver, with the exception of a very small reduction in routes where the average rides were $20 to $30 apiece, and to start on a dramatic and very positive 25 percent increase in transit services in the Victoria region. Services will

[ Page 7885 ]

increase by more than 10,000 hours in Victoria this year as the first stage of a five-year program to dramatically improve transit service in the capital region. I might pay a compliment to the local transit commission for making this possible. It's an excellent example of the provincial government and the local transit commission working closely for the good of public transit.

Starting September 1 of this year, we will provide an additional 4,450 hours of transit service in the Cowichan Valley -- part of an increase of almost 8 percent in services to small communities around the province. I know the member for....

R. Neufeld: Peace River North.

Hon. G. Clark: I get Peace River North and South mixed up, hon. Chair.

I know the member for Peace River North and other members of the House will like to hear that in a very tough financial environment, B.C. Transit has decided to squeeze out as much as it can -- an 8 percent increase -- to improve services in those smaller communities. So we've protected the Vancouver system from cuts, we've dramatically expanded the Victoria system, and we have a fairly significant expansion in public transit in the small communities. I mentioned Cowichan Valley, but there are others.

Altogether, we will add more than 100,000 hours of service for 1993-94: the 14,500 hours I just referred to and about 86,000 hours of service that were begun late last year and are annualized in this budget.

We will be making these improvements and others, while at the same time holding down provincial expenditures to about what was projected in the 1992-93 estimates: $232.74 million. We've seen the requirement for only a modest increase in local shares: a 0.3 percent increase overall from the original 1992-93 estimates. We've done this in great measure by appointing a fiscally prudent board at B.C. Transit, which has cut unnecessary expenditures and pared the fat -- rather dramatic cuts in overhead at B.C. Transit from what we inherited.

I invite the members opposite to question Mayor Campbell, who was on the previous board of B.C. Transit, as to why they would allow the corporation to get that fat, but that's for another day. Nevertheless, the new administration and new board have cut quite dramatically the administrative side of B.C. Transit. We were also fortunate to negotiate what I think is a very fair and innovative agreement with members of the Independent Canadian Transit Union and the Office and Technical Employees' Union which essentially calls for a 2 percent increase in each year.

Falling interest rates, of course, have helped as well. I commend the board of directors of B.C. Transit for being an active and activist board. They have done just a superb job. I'm very proud of the work they've done. As you know, they recently appointed a very able chief executive officer from the private sector. The board has also launched an outreach program where board committees met with the board of trade, a coalition of small businesses, unions and community groups. There is a further series of meetings planned with environmental groups, seniors and the disabled community.

I hope to appoint someone from the disabled community to the board of directors of B.C. Transit shortly, because that is a good signal and it would also be a positive development. I have asked for nominations from community groups in that regard.

The corporation launched a very significant safety initiative. We have had some problems, and the corporation met those head-on this year with Mr. Paul Williamson, who was appointed to inquire into improved safety. There is a whole range of safety initiatives underway. Of course, B.C. Transit was recently awarded two safety awards. Victoria's transit system was named the safest of any in North America, and the B.C. Transit handyDART system was named the most improved safety winner in Canada.

The board's finance and audit committee is chaired by the treasurer of B.C. Gas, Valerie Lambert, and has overseen a reduction of expenditures -- some $6 million in savings alone this year. However, although we've achieved greater administrative efficiency, it's important that we have a clear vision for public transit for the next decade. That's probably more important, so while we want to get the operating side down and get efficiencies, we also need to say to the public that there's a vision for public transit over the next decade.

That's why I've asked the Richmond rapid transit advisory committee to finish its work and report out. Despite misgivings that members had about the makeup of that committee, which included some predecessors of members over there, Mr. Nick Loenen, Social Credit MLA, did very good work on behalf of the community, I might say here for the record. Even though they were appointed by the previous government, I asked them to continue and report out, and they've done that. I asked a group of citizens from the northeast sector to give us their advice on transit improvements in that area, and they have reported out.

Those two groups have provided an excellent basis for us to examine the alternatives that are available to the government.

As you know, there are a variety of alternatives. Some are very expensive, like the SkyTrain to Richmond and the SkyTrain to Coquitlam; some are less so. Some are very intrusive and disruptive; some are less so, like commuter rail. Each of these has benefits; they certainly have costs or problems. They have different capital and operating costs, carrying capacities and revenue potentials. I have asked B.C. Transit staff to evaluate these various alternatives using objective criteria in order that I might be able to compare the alternatives and advise my colleagues as to the most promising solutions.

We know that much more must be done for the northeast corner of the lower mainland, and also for Richmond; however, we also know that unfortunately, the government's resources are limited. Therefore we've begun to explore whether there is potential to work with the private sector in building these solutions: working with CP Rail or Burlington Northern on commuter rail, for example, or with the development industry, builders and operators of other large rapid transit systems, to help defray some of the operating costs. We have had interesting proposals from some

[ Page 7886 ]

major developers for them to borrow the money, do the financing and in fact run parts of the system. We're actively exploring that. I might say to all members that the government intends that by the fall it may be possible to provide a direction on a transit vision for British Columbia, taking into account the work being done by the GVRD, the work by the Ministry of Highways under their 2021 project and the work I mentioned earlier.

[11:30]

Public transit is critical to our future if we are to have clean air and if we are to allow those on limited or fixed incomes to get to work, health care appointments and school. While this year's spending provides for a very modest overall increase in B.C. Transit's budget, it reflects the fact that this government perceives transit to be an extremely important public service and, perhaps as important, as a part of the infrastructure that keeps Vancouver competitive and allows for wealth creation as well. I look forward to debate on the estimates.

A. Cowie: I listened with great interest to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for B.C. Transit. The Liberal opposition would like to explore a number of transportation questions, particularly policy-oriented questions, regarding the 1993-94 estimates. But first I'd like to say that our leader and the critic for Finance, the member for Delta South, is very interested in this subject and will undoubtedly want to ask some of his own questions. So if the minister could respect that....

That member will want to delve into funding and tax legislation, particularly the social service tax and whether it's targeting the right people and doing the job it aims to do. I personally would like to know whether it's really the right tax or whether we should have gone to some enviro-type tax that's fair to everyone and where we can really let taxation legislation work for everybody. I'll be asking some of the first questions today, and my colleague from Richmond Centre, with whom I share the Transportation function in our caucus, will also have some questions.

As the minister said, B.C. Transit will spend over $500 million this coming year on improvements in operations. Generally, I think British Columbians support that expenditure. I'd like to be really upfront as far as answering the minister's question on whether we should have transit cuts. Certainly we should have improvements in efficiencies, but I do not think we should have transit cuts. If anything, that's the area where, by spending money now, in the long run we can get some cost efficiencies.

From the environmental point of view, I think it's the way we have to go, especially in the lower mainland and the greater Victoria area. I believe I speak for our entire caucus that this is one area where we feel it's important to spend money -- but frugally; let's spend it carefully. I'm really surprised at the Social Credit caucus if they have in fact said that they want to see cuts in this area. That's one area of difference we might have with Social Credit.

I'd also like to say that from my own experience, especially with SkyTrain.... I've heard many visitors to the Vancouver area say how efficient and clean and wonderful SkyTrain is. Friends of mine have actually moved to New Westminster because they wanted to be on the waterfront and they could use SkyTrain to get into Vancouver. SkyTrain was in fact implemented by the last government, and I have to give them credit for it. It was a brave thing to do. It's efficient and it works well. I hope that this government, if it is exploring systems, will continue along the lines of a system that's at least as good as SkyTrain.

A number of issues face the residents of the province, particularly, as I say, in the lower mainland. I'll start by getting into one question that I know my hon. friend from Richmond will want to elaborate on. A year and a half ago, I think, we had the report of the Richmond rapid transit authority advisory committee. I know how important it is for Vancouver and Richmond to decide exactly where that route is going to go. Essentially, we've got an Arbutus option and a Cambie option. I don't see how we can move along with planning in Vancouver without knowing where that route is going to go.

It's vital that we know, especially with Vancouver going through a planning stage right now and going out to the public. I think this province owes the citizens of Vancouver a decision on where it's going to go. If the province feels they can't tackle the whole thing, maybe they can at least get on with the line. I've heard that in many cities they actually put buses on the line. Maybe the eventual system is not going to be in place for ten years, because it does take five or ten years to implement a system, but we could at least know where it's going to go and the citizens could do some planning.

As I say, I know that my colleague from Richmond Centre is going to ask more questions along those lines.

As for the Coquitlam area, a large number of people are now settling in the Westview Plateau and in those sorts of areas. Congestion is just bewildering when coming in by car, so some method of transit has to be decided on. Perhaps the minister could just elaborate as to when we can expect some answers regarding those routes which have been studied and for which reports have been submitted.

Hon. G. Clark: Good questions. Of course, my critic across the way and I share the same educational background in planning. So if over the course of this debate we start to use some of that jargon, you'll have to call us to order, hon. Chair.

Actually, the member is incorrect in saying that Richmond reported in a year and a half ago; in fact, they reported in about six or eight months ago, in terms of their final report.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: In '92. So about six or eight months ago.

The northeast sector community advisory committee reported in in just the last month or two. We are now having an objective analysis done as to the highest need -- what is the number one priority for transit? -- between Richmond and the northeast corner, frankly. I

[ Page 7887 ]

want to be clear about this. There is no question that we require transit in both those communities. We want to keep working on both of them, but obviously in a limited fiscal environment we have to move one ahead a little faster than the other, in terms of our ability to pay. We will be getting an objective view of that over the next month or two, and then I'll be in a position in the fall to make some specific announcements along the lines the member suggested.

I agree that it is a bit disconcerting for the member's constituents in Quilchena. They'll be quite concerned about the Arbutus line. I know that there is lots of apprehension about that, even though there was a train, of course, that went down there regularly. I think it maybe still goes down there.

An Hon. Member: Twice a day.

Hon. G. Clark: It still goes down there. A huge locomotive goes down there, and it makes a bit of noise. That hasn't bothered people in that community. At least, people moved in expecting it to be a live railway. But I know that there is lots of apprehension. Similarly, there is lots of concern around the Cambie corridor, and members in this House who represent those constituencies are quite concerned about anything that would be disruptive.

I might say to that member and the member from Richmond that there are some interim options that we are also exploring, and that is to look at ways in which we can use the bus system to alleviate some of those concerns. Because these are major capital items, whether it's the northeast corridor or the Richmond corridor, we don't want to say that we're going to be spending $1 billion on both of those corridors without obviously giving a lot of thought to the priorities and other alternatives. We are doing that.

The target is to present cabinet with a transit plan which has some of these well thought out, before the fall and before subsequent announcements, so we can get on with the job. We really have done a lot of work; it's not wasted work. We want to make sure that we get on with the job as soon as possible.

A. Cowie: I thank the minister for his kind comments regarding the profession we have shared over the years.

I would like to explore the relationship between land use and transit. I personally feel that that's very important and that it has been overlooked for years. It's the key to getting livable communities and clean air and really making sure that we have population located in the most efficient areas and where people want to live. Vancouver, in particular, has been a leader in planning with transit in mind. Vancouver has been brave. It did a very good job in planning the False Creek area, where I think reasonable densities have been achieved within a very livable environment, and it's a delight.

I even lived down there for awhile, and I'm looking forward to the development on the North Shore, which is very close to transit facilities. Other communities in North America, such as Seattle, have the same problem. That community hasn't grown anywhere near as much as Vancouver, and it has spilled out into the surrounding areas. It hasn't been able to get its transit in line, although Seattle has other excellent programs, and I wouldn't want to criticize it as a community.

However, transit is facing a dilemma. The real dilemma at the present time is that we don't have decisions on the northeast corridor and we don't have decisions in Richmond. I know that we are studying it through the GVRD, but we don't have those decisions. So you are getting communities sprawling up the valley and in Surrey. I know it's very difficult to get a subdivision through in Surrey.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: No, not personal experience. The problem is that people are still building ticky-tacky boxes, one after another. We're not really building communities. I know we talk about it a lot, but when I drive through Surrey, through Langley and up the valley, all I see is ticky-tacky boxes. There's the occasional good project where you get a mix, and Matsqui is a good example of that. The mayor of Matsqui is really promoting the idea of community. But you can't have these large subdivisions being built without transit in mind. Many of them don't even have bus access into the major systems.

Can the minister tell us whether his ministry...? I sometimes wonder why transit even comes under his ministry. There must be some reason why transit comes under Finance. I suspect that maybe the minister wants to keep control of it or something; he's a little worried about Highways and Municipal Affairs getting control of it. They might get too excited and it might run away on them. I wonder what his ministry is actually doing on the initiatives of making sure that we have proper land use planning mixed with proper transit planning.

Hon. G. Clark: I think the member and I agree on this topic quite a bit. It seems to me that the success in Vancouver is partly because of land use planning; there is more densification and more ridership. There is an interesting

article -- I'm not sure if the member opposite has read it -- by John Sewell, former mayor of Toronto. He pointed out that most municipal transit systems that were urban-based actually made money. They were self-sufficient until about the late 1960s, and then they all started losing money. Of course, you can see the massive subsidy we provide -- and every jurisdiction provides. Former Mayor Sewell suggested that the determining factor was suburban growth and providing transit service out to the suburbs. We find the same thing is true in B.C. Transit, and it concerns me greatly, particularly as a Vancouver member.

Our transit commission sets service levels, so I haven't necessarily been successful in convincing them.

[11:45]

I'm digressing a bit from the main point, but I will say that there are routes, particularly on the east side of Vancouver, that actually make money. The routes that go out to some of the suburbs lose a lot of money, so you can see right there that the pattern of land use has a big impact not only on the quality of transit but also on the

[ Page 7888 ]

financial viability of transit. As there is urban sprawl outside Vancouver and you get less densification and more houses spread out, over long periods of time, servicing that with transit becomes extremely challenging. First of all, you can't compete with the automobile. Secondly, the financial consequences are significant, and that's what we're struggling with.

The planning document around 2021 isn't finished yet, but I'm very pleased to see that in all of the work there's a real understanding that land use planning is critical to the success of transit and that transit infrastructure is critical to the success of land use planning. I am a bit concerned, I don't mind saying, that some municipal governments are not going to have the political will to try to make some of those changes, which can be very challenging in terms of public opinion, but clearly there is a relationship.

In answer to the member's specific question, we've recently been in discussion with Municipal Affairs staff to begin discussions with municipal governments to either voluntarily or by legislation require transit planning to be an integral part of official community planning. We've explored that with them, and they're very cooperative, so Transit and Municipal Affairs are working jointly on this question. We've received positive feedback from the Municipal Affairs ministry on it. That's first.

Secondly, over the next few months Transit staff will be meeting with every municipal government in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and with the Greater Vancouver Regional District itself, as part of the exercise to voluntarily, I hope, incorporate transit planning into land use decision-making in municipal government. I think the member agrees with me that this is absolutely essential.

The challenge, of course, will be the political pressure on municipal governments as they try to balance people's concerns about growth and densities against the livable region plan and ways in which Transit can accommodate the livable region -- less congestion, less pollution -- in a fiscally affordable way.

In the last few months we've had a series of initiatives, internally with Municipal Affairs in terms of their work and externally in terms of us working with other municipal governments, not to require transit planning to be taken into consideration but to work with them cooperatively to ensure that transit needs and concerns are at least considered in the official community plans of various regions.

A. Cowie: I thank the minister for his comments, which lead me into the next question. I agree with him. I can't see how you can possibly do transit in the greater Vancouver or greater Victoria area without the full cooperation of the local municipalities. We recognize that you can't provide sewer and water and other facilities...and surely transit is even more vital. It has to be planned. We have a number of communities, of course, that don't want to change. They like it the way it is.

I frankly don't know how you get them to change along those lines without going to some kind of metropolitan or regional government. Whether we want to say it or not, I think that's the direction we're going in. At the same time, we have to give local communities some kind of autonomy on what their future is going to be like so that they can protect their vital local facilities and continue to be livable. There are some fine communities surrounding Vancouver, and I personally don't think they should be threatened.

Back in the early sixties I visited Sweden. I don't know if the minister has ever been just outside Stockholm, but what you see there is a public transit system where there's higher density along nodes, with everything from apartments to townhouses to single-family. It's planned very well, and while I don't particularly agree with the socialist aspects of it, physically it's very appealing. I think it could be used somewhat as a model, although it doesn't quite fit into our society.

That leads me into my question on SkyTrain. I know there have been some attempts to get private industry involved with SkyTrain. The Whalley station is an example of that; I know it wasn't totally successful. One of the points I've been making for years is: why don't we pre-zone? There would be no objection to this at all. I can't see how anyone could possibly object to it. You pre-zone according to the transit plan. When you put a transit line through and you know where the stop is, you pre-zone that land in such a way that the developers have to pay a more reasonable cost to build in that area.

Right now we don't take advantage of the up-costs that go on; we leave it to land speculation. While I don't mind speculation to some extent, I don't see why we have to leave it entirely to that, when huge amounts of money could be funnelled back into transit. While that might appear to be too socialistic, it seems good common business sense to me. I think that's what we should have been doing.

Developers are complaining that they're going to leave the province -- Bosa Bros., for instance. I think they're one of the better developers, although I've had some rough comments from the president at times. They have done some very nice developments, and they are threatening to leave the province because there's not enough certainty and too many taxes -- all that side of the business.

I'd like to know what the minister thinks about making sure that we keep private business. After all, government can't build everything. In fact, government can't do the building. They should provide the incentives and the guidance. What does the minister think about making sure we work with business?

Hon. G. Clark: That's an interesting topic. There has been some progress. Singapore developers are building 2,000 units adjacent to the King George station. Intrawest has got some development. We have received some money from developers for the privilege of having the station on the site, which obviously greatly appreciates its value.

I think the member agrees. But even though we can agree philosophically on this, we have to be very careful about moving in this direction. There are a couple of options. You could do a benefiting area tax; lots of jurisdictions do that. I think it's fair to say that I've been reluctant to, for some of the reasons you

[ Page 7889 ]

mentioned in terms of the tax load question, but it certainly should be looked at.

Another would be to expand the development cost charges to include transit. That's clearly not the case. I must say that I'm rather keen on that, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs, municipal councils and developers say: "Wait a minute.

We're overusing that, and now development cost charges are getting quite high." Even though I'm quite keen, and I might be inclined to rush into it, it's legitimate to pause and say: these are new initiatives that make sense in terms of user-pay and there's some logic to them, but we don't want to kill the development industry by imposing the overwhelming costs associated with them. We have to be careful, although I still am sympathetic because there's a logic to it.

Finally, another option, which Transit has done a bit in the past, is outright purchase of land. It is the most passive option in a way. Transit, by virtue of its knowledge, makes strategic purchases in the areas where there are likely to be transit stations, and then the increased value of the land accrues to the Crown corporation itself. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The value of the property is rising for one reason -- because of the massive investment of public dollars in infrastructure in that community. For Transit to get some of that upside makes sense to me. Again, we have to be very careful how we do that.

The Bill Bennett government initiated the first very modest attempt to get some revenue from development around a station; that was at the Main and Terminal station. Frankly, I'm not sure if we're getting any revenue yet. At the time, I remember that the negotiations involved a bonus. Transit would receive increased revenue if the developer was successful in getting increased density adjacent to the SkyTrain site. It was very modest and the first time ever done in British Columbia. The Bill Bennett government did it around the time of Expo. It didn't prevent speculation.

When the station was announced, I think Mr. Docksteader made $1 million or so in 24 hours. We understand that. So it didn't prevent the land speculation, but it did say: "Look, this investment of public dollars in this massive, billion-dollar SkyTrain system is going to have an impact on that site." It's not unreasonable for the government investing that kind of money to get a modest share, if nothing else, of the increased value associated with the densification around the site.

In Japan, for example -- not a socialist country -- they almost fully pay for their massive investment in infrastructure for their bullet trains, the Shinkansen and those lines. Much of the capital costs is paid for by a benefiting area tax -- or taxing around the station -- because the land value has gone up as a result of that. It's an area that I know the member and I find professionally interesting and attractive. We haven't done anything precipitous in this regard. We've explored some of the options, and there are a variety of incremental moves.

I think that further moves could be made in this regard, and we're certainly prepared to entertain them -- again, while being cognizant of the development community, the municipal governments, etc.

With respect to the private sector, we are working with private developers at some of the Surrey stations and around the site, and it has been quite successful, although there has been some tough bargaining. There are also some other areas for private involvement which we are exploring, although I don't want to mislead anybody and say there's anything imminent. It may be that if we were to do a commuter rail route, a railway might like to build and operate it. I'd certainly be prepared to entertain that.

If we were to build a SkyTrain route to Richmond, there may be private operators prepared to finance and operate that -- or to finance and lease back to provide some debt financing. There may be pension funds interested in financing transit options -- either building to suit or building and operating.

Again, there is a lot of private initiative taking place around the world, and a lot of new initiatives -- as governments deal with some of their debt problems -- for private companies to come in and do some kind of arrangement, whether it's financing or operating with an operating agreement with the province. I want to assure members that we are not taking an ideological position on this. We're actively exploring all of these options. If it makes sense -- and I frankly think that some of them may -- we're quite prepared to do that.

It's quite interesting to see the kinds of private proposals we are receiving. I'm not really at liberty to discuss them in the House today. But we are receiving private proposals which, I think, are an attempt by the private sector to say: "Look, we know you're going to do this. Let us do it." They obviously want to make a profit on it. We have to balance that against the option of doing it in-house. We're engaged in those discussions and debate now.

In the fall, when we make some announcements about which transit options we intend to proceed with, I suspect there will be heightened activity on the private front to see whether they can make the case to the government that they are in a position to assist government in moving forward with some of the transit options that I hope to announce in the fall.

A. Cowie: I appreciate the minister's clarification. I think that long-term people in the building business are there to stay, and they recognize that government should give the certainty. Then they can play any game that's put forward. If it's not going to work out for them, they're not going to do it. I'm saying that if government will plan ahead and stabilize the situation, then the businesses will come along. In the past, especially in some of the suburban areas, huge profits have been made in speculation. But the legitimate builder and developer really buys to build; that's his business. He's in the building business, not in the speculation business.

As far as the unions go, it's great to see the unions getting involved with the development business. I think the Vancouver Land Corp. is an excellent example of how union funds have gone in there and worked with the banks and with private developers. We have to work together. These are huge projects. If it gets too political -- I think the unions might be a little scared of

[ Page 7890 ]

Bamberton right now -- maybe the unions will get scared off. Maybe the answer is for politics to stay out of it.

[12:00]

In terms of public transit, what has been going on in Vancouver in particular.... I know the minister and I might appear to be getting too chummy here. So I have a question that I feel I have to ask for clarification. The minister mentioned that we've had endless wrangling among the province, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the transit commission. I think it's been over the last year and a half, and I don't think that can be blamed on any one person.

The current Premier, when he was mayor of Vancouver, did say that B.C. Transit would be turned over to the regional transit authority. That was one of his platforms; he vowed that was going to happen. But it hasn't happened, and I'm really quite surprised it hasn't, because it was one of his strong points. As for public transit being accountable to local taxpayers, I would think this is one of the strong points of the NDP. The NDP often argues that you have to leave it to local people to make those kinds of decisions.

Public participation is one of the strong points of the NDP; in fact, in Vancouver it sometimes gets absolutely ludicrous. They want public participation even before there are any options considered, and that's going a little too far, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm really surprised that transit hasn't been turned over to the local transit authority in Vancouver. I wonder if the minister would like to say a few words on that; I know he mentioned it briefly. Is there a timetable when we can really get transit back to local decision-making?

Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct: that was the platform of the mayor of Vancouver who is now the Premier. When we get a more cooperative mayor in Vancouver, I'm sure we'll be able to complete the devolution. I look forward to working with Mayor Davies after November to try to do that.

But seriously, right after the election I met with the transit commission and others, and I've been pursuing this option. The only dilemma, of course, is that if one wants regional control, one has to take responsibility for the expenses associated with that. Many people will say yes; but when you put it to them, it becomes a bit more challenging.

There's a bit of a complication; let me try to explain it for the members. We have a Crown corporation, B.C. Transit, and we have a regional transit commission that does the service plans. It's hard to devolve that power to the regional transit commission. We've been discussing with them and with the GVRD, but it's harder because we're providing all the funding. In Montreal they had a regional transit service, a complete operating regional transit unit, with a huge amount of funding from the province. Then the province of Quebec pulled out of that funding arrangement.

That left the region with complete control to manage it, and they're managing quite well. Here, we can't turn it over to anybody, because we're actually the operator as well. So we have a bit of a challenging hybrid in British Columbia.

We have been exploring several options and talking intensely about one with the GVRD, the transit commission and others. There's some debate as to who we should be talking to, which is not particularly helpful. As I said earlier, Mayor Campbell has already said that this should probably wait until after the fall election. But we are continuing to talk. One option would be to abolish the transit commission, fold that into the board of B.C. Transit and have a subcommittee of the B.C. Transit board do the service plans. Immediately, by doing that, you'd at least have one entity.

Then it would be much easier to transfer that entity over to regional control. That's one that we've actually floated, if you will, with the transit commission. They're kind of intrigued by it. But there wasn't support for it, so we have to keep talking.

I want members to know that with an operating utility in a region like Vancouver, I think it really does make more sense, in principle, to have local control of that operating utility. But we don't have an operating utility. We have a Crown corporation that has all these little regions and small communities around the province. We have a Victoria region and a Vancouver region with a hybrid model. So we're taking some time to get there. We're working very hard on some options. We have been exploring with the GVRD. We've talked about 2021, the planning document. We've talked to the transit commission.

We haven't made a lot of progress; I'm not going to try to mislead anybody. But we have floated what I think are some innovative ideas, and perhaps after the election.... I'm not saying this to criticize the mayor of Vancouver; I'm just saying that maybe when there's some new faces at the table we'll try again to drive some kind of option which gives more control to the region, if not completely devolve it to the region. I am not opposed to it, but it means an incremental cost associated from here on in that has to be picked up by local taxpayers, and that's causing some problems.

A. Cowie: I'd like to thank the minister. I think what I heard is that there is an objective to move toward regional control, and that could happen very shortly. I can't help but say that I can't see how the present mayor can be blamed. Personally, I've had nothing but cooperation from him over the last 20 years. He shows great leadership and he is well liked. So I don't understand how the minister could have any other opinion than that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! We are on estimates.

A. Cowie: I am just responding to what the minister said. If I could be allowed just one small comment, I think it's going to be Mayor Owen.

Interjection.

[ Page 7891 ]

A. Cowie: Are you? I can imagine! Well, I think it's going to be Mayor Owen.

Getting back to transit and getting back to the work of the day, on a more serious note, I have another question I would like to ask the minister. I wonder whether the minister could enlighten me as to the role of the Crown corporations secretariat concerning transit. I have been concerned with this for quite a while. Bob Williams was appointed to head this group. The minister told the House and the public that his job in the secretariat was going to deal with Crown corporations and their performance. The job was going to deal with their efficiencies and budgets.

I don't want to comment too much on this, but perhaps getting someone like Bob Williams in there for a short while -- I want to stress short -- probably was a good idea. He's got the energy, knows a lot about it and would get some things done. He is known in the business for kicking butt, if you want to put it that way.

The real question is: what is he doing now? What really bothers me is that he has been out there directing and making deals with developers, such as the King George transit station. He has been out there doing deals on commuter rail. The minister did mention commuter rail, and I can't help but think that this is some kind of private thing that Bob Williams or the minister -- or whoever -- has got going. Bob Williams doesn't seem to be doing the job he was hired for. By and large, according to what I can find out, he is out there doing deals.

Can the minister tell me why the appointed B.C. Transit board that...? He's got a hand-picked board that appears to be very business-oriented. He's got Frank Dixon, with 25 years' experience with the CPR. I really have to say that you couldn't get a better person. So at this point, why can't he tell Bob Williams to stay home and do his business and let these people get their work done?

Hon. G. Clark: Of course, Mayor Campbell did show great leadership when he nominated Bill Vander Zalm to run for mayor of Vancouver. But I guess members want to forget that.

I take the question very seriously. The Crown corporations secretariat -- which reports to me -- has saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. I think the member is correct that early on it was important to have the secretariat move in there. The member is correct in saying that we have a board which is functioning very well. We have a new CEO who has a lot of experience, and clearly it is going to be B.C. Transit's job to pursue commuter rail, if that's an option chosen by government. There's no mistake about that.

But the member is mistaken in assuming that it's a black-and-white situation. There is some expertise, which was commissioned jointly by B.C. Transit and by the Crown Corporations secretariat to pursue this project early on. You're correct, we have an excellent CEO there who has a lot of experience with this. Believe me, that individual will probably be the key person dealing with commuter rail, if that's an option. But he's only been there a few weeks, and it was important that we have a team in place. The team was paid for largely by B.C.

Transit, and it has some expertise working with the secretariat to pursue that option diligently, to provide the numbers, and to work with 2021 -- the project review, the GVRD and other municipal governments and the northeast sector advisory committee.

So it's not the Crown corporations secretariat against B.C. Transit, or vice versa. In fact, working with B.C. Transit early on -- at my instructions -- we put together a project team and a secretariat to pursue commuter rail. Lots of work was being done. Transit now is in very good shape, and I'm very impressed with the board, the chair of the board and the new CEO. Gradually that work will then move into B.C. Transit, and there's no intention of duplicating effort. It's just a question of functioning and trying to get things moving as quickly as possible.

The people working on the commuter rail project, who are jointly paid by the secretariat and B.C. Transit, are people who have commuter rail expertise noteworthy throughout North America. In fact, the main individual doing a lot of work recently is Carl Englund, an older gentleman from New Hampshire who is acknowledged as the foremost expert on commuter rail in North America. That ability to attract, on contract, people like that to put together a team makes this project look much more attractive because of the practical experience.

The member may have referred to this, I'm not sure. Last Saturday, hosted by CPR, I took the train out to Mission and back. With me were some of the MLAs along the route: an NPA councillor from Vancouver, MLA Lynn Stephens and other municipal politicians. The CPR was very complimentary about the work being done and about Carl Englund's experience in actually implementing commuter rail, largely on the east coast. So it was interesting to see the wealth of experience that people brought to bear on this subject.

It's really proving to be fascinating, interesting and instructive -- I think even CPR would acknowledge that -- in terms of trying to deal with the technical questions about whether this makes sense or not.

B.C. Transit, the Crown corporation secretariat project team, CPR and Burlington Northern, the municipal governments, etc. -- there has been remarkable cooperation. on this project. It may have something to with the fact that CPR is looking for other financial market opportunities. I have no personal experience with this, but I know they have a legendary reputation for being very tough to deal with. I certainly haven't experienced that at all. They've been nothing but cooperative. Again, we've brought in our railway people who have expertise in this area, so that may have helped as well. So there's been lots of progress.

No decision has been made. I just want to advise the members on commuter rail: we're just doing the work to see whether this is financially viable, and whether it makes sense for the government to pursue it. It is a very low-cost alternative, but it's not high-volume. It's the opposite of SkyTrain. SkyTrain is fairly low-volume but high-frequency. So you get these incredible turnovers because in rush hour you get two-minute intervals between SkyTrain units and they clean out the station very quickly. Commuter rail is very low-frequency and

[ Page 7892 ]

huge-volume: you can carry 600 or 1,000 people on one train, but the train may only come every hour or even less frequently over the course of the day. That could cause some problems.

[12:15]

For example, if commuter rail was coming in down the Burlington Northern, down the Grandview cut -- a choice I'm quite attracted to -- one option would be to put a station at Commercial and Broadway. I think it is the most heavily used intersection for transit in British Columbia. You've got SkyTrain there. You've got bus changes there. So as a layperson, I think there's a real synergy here. Unfortunately, the technicians say that is not necessarily the case. I shouldn't preclude it, but it causes some real operational problems.

If you dumped off 1,000 people at Broadway and Commercial, all coming out of commuter rail, and they went to get on SkyTrain, it would take an hour and a half for SkyTrain to clean that out, because SkyTrain is running at almost full capacity. So in some respects, they are mutually exclusive systems; they are not complementary. SkyTrain is quite different. It is a very efficient operation that works very well for what it does. That makes it more likely that what you do with commuter rail is service, directly, destinations only -- say, downtown to Port Coquitlam.

You would have integration with SkyTrain, but you would want to make sure that, of the people who got off commuter rail, there was a high degree of ability to walk to destinations from the end point. I have digressed a little bit, but I'm finding it quite fascinating.

The Crown corporations secretariat is involved in a cooperative way with B.C. Transit on this. There are no turf battles, and there is no question that eventually -- and probably fairly soon -- most of the work will be B.C. Transit work under the direction of the board and Mr. Dixon. I am very pleased with the work the secretariat has done to date in getting us to the point where we are very close to making a decision in the next few months on whether or not it makes sense to proceed with this project.

A. Cowie: I thank the minister for explaining. He did a very good job of explaining the difference between light rail and a commuter system. Personally, I hope the minister looks at that very carefully because, even if he has Carl Englund, I think he'll find that Vancouver just simply doesn't have the population to support a commuter rail system. It's more suitable for London, England, or New York, or some place where they have higher densities and a bigger population.

Give Vander Zalm credit for this one thing, no matter what you feel. He occasionally picked a winner, and he did pick the SkyTrain system that we now have in Vancouver. I have to give him credit for that, and what we really should do is look at that very carefully and see how far we can go with it rather than try to go to a commuter system.

I have a great fear about this particular commuter system. Every time I think of it, I think of the PNE and of plans that Bob Williams or the minister might have for it. I know it might be ridiculous, but I can't help but think about it. And what kind of government do we have in Port Moody? That happens to be an NDP area. What kind of government do we have in Port Coquitlam? At least for a while, they happen to be NDP governments.

F. Garden: What about the rest of the province?

A. Cowie: We are talking about the lower mainland, and B.C. Transit. It's a different problem in the rest of the province, and I'm sure we're going to get to that later on.

Perhaps what I should do -- and I did say that the hon. member for Richmond Centre and I were going to share this -- is ask one more question and then turn it over for a while to my colleague. My question is a very broad one. Perhaps the minister would answer it for me -- and we tend to agree on most things. I would like to see some indication, on the subject we talked about earlier when we started off this conversation.... Transit planning and land use planning have to be worked out together. We just have to get that together. At the present time Municipal Affairs seems to be expanding its role.

They at least seem to be quite broad-minded about housing, and getting municipalities involved in that. We talked about transit being a part of OCPs, official community plans. I feel very strongly on all those points. I want to have some idea of when, instead of having three ministries or ministers -- the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Highways, who seems to be losing a lot of his jobs and looking for work; and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who seems to be getting more brave about new ideas.... He doesn't seem to have any real methods right now of implementing some of these housing ideas.

But until we get all this together and until we are really working together, can we look for a period when the Minister of Finance will pass at least Transit over to one of those ministries, so that we can have closer coordination with them?

Hon. G. Clark: When the Liberal Party has one critic for Transit, then maybe we should consider that. I will just say that in the end those decisions are obviously mine. I think that the experience before we took office is instructive: they were housed in one ministry, but there was absolutely no coordination taking place. You might assume that that is the case, but it isn't always.

Secondly -- and I have to be careful with this -- coming from the lower mainland, I think, gives me a unique perspective on transit needs in the lower mainland. There are lots of things that B.C. Transit does, and I am very proud of the small-communities projects. But this is a big, expensive problem in the lower mainland that we have to come to grips with. I personally feel that there is a kind of logic to certainly having a Vancouver member and, secondly, the Minister of Finance try to deal with some of these questions.

My planning background maybe helps or maybe hurts anything I might bring to bear on that subject. In any event, even if you did have one minister responsible, you would probably still have the Municipal Affairs ministry and other ministries to deal with cooperatively on the subject. I am not sure that you can put them all in

[ Page 7893 ]

one ministry, or that it would be desirable to have Municipal Affairs and Highways and Transit all together. I am not sure that that would be the best solution.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. We had felt -- and that is how I got involved in this -- that the government had finally seen the light and put Ferries back in the Transportation ministry. We were very thankful for that. We are now waiting to see if maybe Transit would also fit in with Rail and Ferries and Highways. That is how I am involved here. Just to fill you in on this, we also have our critic for Finance involved here, since the Finance minister has that portfolio right now for B.C. Transit. He will be doing the financial aspect of it on some other day.

What I would like to get into, to begin with, is the Transit board itself. Your administration has increased the number of members from 12 to 19. I understand the idea of being more inclusive or getting a larger group. Within caucus and other places my experience has been -- as I'm sure your government's has -- that when you get to a certain size it becomes more unwieldy than effective. I think that 19 goes beyond the number that produces the greatest effectiveness. Number ten or 11 is pushing the upper limit if you want a board that is going to be effective and valuable to the management of B.C. Transit. You might comment on that.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, there is a vacancy which I haven't filled; I'm considering downsizing it a little bit. The member is correct. The main rationale for it was that in the past it was not just a political board, but it was only elected officials. There's some attraction to it because of its nature. We wanted to expand it, so that's why it's expanded. Secondly, in most transit systems there's a growing tradition of activist boards. This is not different in terms of expansion and activism. Finally, what the board has done is not dysfunctional at all.

In fact, because it has a larger membership it has the ability to have subcommittees of the board. We have subcommittees dealing with finance and audits, and the environment. The size is sufficient to allow for more activism at the board level on some of those important issues and some consultation with various community groups, environmental groups and municipal governments.

Frankly, it's actually worked quite well in terms of size. I acknowledge that numbers could go down one or two, but it's not dysfunctional. It has allowed for a more developed committee system and a more activist board. The chair of the commitee here is one of the members of the board. It's worked very well and it's not out of line with other transit jurisdictions, where the boards are trying to become more inclusive and activist.

D. Symons: The other committee has adjourned; I assume we will be doing the same. I will just finish with the board, and then allow you to move adjournment.

You mentioned the business of the board being elected officials. I think there was some merit in the fact. I believe the GVRD has actually recommended that that be the way of electing people to the board: through the municipal officials. I notice that on the board now you have quite a -- I guess it's the kindest word to describe it -- smorgasbord of people on the board, from part-time elementary music teachers to a wide variety of occupations not too related to the task at hand of running a large multimillion-dollar transit system throughout British Columbia, and even in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

So I'm just wondering again. The type of people that seem to be appointed to this board don't always, in my mind, seem to be the type that I think should be there for the function they have to perform.

Hon. G. Clark: I grant you that this is not a rubber-stamp, all-male, older board of directors like we used to expect from the Social Credit Party. This is not the old boys' club. We now have 50 percent of the board of directors women, more representation from the regions, and people from the business and labour communities. This is a very representative board. Yes, we have someone who is a part-time teacher. That person was also the chair of the Richmond School Board, an agency that employs thousands of people. I think to have that diversity on the board is very helpful.

To have that regional, ethnic and gender diversity and an all-inclusive board is very positive and doing a good job for B.C. Transit.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: I want to wish every member a restful weekend, for long work on Monday. With that, I move this House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

[ Page 7894 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The Committee met at 10:17 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 43: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).

K. Jones: With regard to B.C. Systems Corporation, is there any connection being provided by B.C. Systems Corporation to B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Hon. L. Boone: Any assistance, did you say? I'm not sure what you were asking.

K. Jones: The term was "connection." Is there any service connection or relationship between B.C. Systems and B.C. Lottery?

Hon. L. Boone: Not that I know of.

K. Jones: Does B.C. Lottery use any of the facilities of B.C. Systems Corporation?

Hon. L. Boone: They may use some of the network facilities, I don't know. We'd have to get back to you on that.

K. Jones: Does the B.C. Systems Corporation have any fibre optics networks?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is my understanding that they do. The member is aware that staff from B.C. Systems aren't here, so if you have really technical questions, it might be an idea to wait until later. Technical questions can be answered at any time by the Systems people, and we'd be happy to provide that. In trying to speed things along, I would encourage the member to talk to me about policy issues with regard to Systems, which is really what.... I am involved with Systems, but I'm certainly not involved in their day-to-day operations or technical aspects.

K. Jones: I realize that technical questions are difficult for a person who is not familiar with the technical aspects of an operation, but they are quite relevant to an operation that is so much involved in technology. Its policy direction has to come with a full knowledge of that technological involvement. Otherwise, you can't really make sound policy direction without knowing what you're doing. That's why the technical questions are being asked, hon. Chair. It's important to understand that aspect of it, to be able to do the job effectively.

Could the minister tell us what the policy of the B.C. Systems Corporation is with regard to fibre optics and fibre optics networks?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll defer this until staff from B.C. Systems arrive. As I advised the member, the staff has not arrived here. We were expecting to start at 11 a.m. If you would like to ask more general questions or move into an area other than B.C. Systems -- if you want specific answers on those areas -- I would encourage you to do that.

K. Jones: Perhaps we could go into another aspect of B.C. Systems, the ProvNet network. Has the minister got a measure of the efficiency of the ProvNet network? Has it been proven over the past few years to be a cost-effective operation? And by what means is she able to measure that?

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, the staff from Systems is not here. I can tell you that yes, it has proven to be cost-effective. Your next question would be: how do I know that? I'm going to have to wait until staff get here. I suggest that you move on to something other than Systems if you want to ask technical questions.

K. Jones: Let's stand down from B.C. Systems. We're not getting anywhere without the proper staff here.

Let's bring up the Buy Smart program. It seems that may be within the realm of the minister's knowledge. Could the minister indicate which ministries are participating within the steering committee for the program?

Hon. L. Boone: The ministries are: Finance; Transportation and Highways; Education; Environment, Lands and Parks; Government Services; and Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.

K. Jones: Could the minister, then, tell us what the policy direction of that organization is?

Hon. L. Boone: Do you mean the policy direction of the Purchasing Commission? That's the only organization I am responsible for here.

K. Jones: No, on the contrary, what's the policy direction of the Buy Smart program?

Hon. L. Boone: The policy direction of Buy Smart and of all purchasing is to try and obtain an efficient way of operating in that area. Specif