1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 16, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10961 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Ensure the Agricultural Use of Farmland (Bill M229).

Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 10961

An Act to Establish the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area

(Bill M230). Mr. Harcourt –– 10961

Oral Questions

Administration of justice. Mr. Sihota –– 10961

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Harcourt –– 10961

Medical Services Plan premiums. Mr. Mercier –– 10961

Awarding of forest licence. Mr. Miller –– 10962

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10962

B.C. Ferries construction contracts. Mr. Lovick –– 10962

Boundary Bay golf courses. Mr. Davidson –– 10963

Foreign doctors' hunger strike. Mr. Clark –– 10963

Transportation Capital Funding Act (Bill 17). Second reading.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 10964

Mr. Lovick –– 10964

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 10965

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 66: minister's office –– 10965

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Williams

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Miller

Mr. Bruce

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Davidson

Point of Privilege

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Hon. Mr. Richmond 10988

Natural Gas Price Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 63). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 10991

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Williams

Third reading

Mineral Tax Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 33). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 10995

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Mine Development Assessment Act (Bill 59). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 10996

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill PR401).

Second reading. (Mr. Mercier)

Mr. Mercier –– 11003

Mr. Clark –– 11003

Mr. Mercier –– 11004

Municipal Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 50). Second reading.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11004

Mr. Blencoe –– 11004

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11004

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 66: minister's office –– 11004

Mr. Lovick

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Zirnhelt

Ms. Cull

Mr. Jones

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Rabbitt

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure today for me to introduce the sister

of one of our pages, Rebecca Kamerbeek, who is a grade 10 student from

Pacific Christian. She is visiting us, and I'd ask the House to give

her a warm welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Mr. Speaker,

visiting the House today is a recently retired MPP from the riding of

Welland-Thorold in Ontario. I'd ask the House to welcome Melvin Swart

and his wife Thelma.

MS. MARZARI : I ask the House to welcome Elizabeth Lamb, who is visiting from South Vancouver.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ENSURE THE

AGRICULTURAL USE OF FARMLAND

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled

An Act to Ensure the Agricultural Use of Farmland.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, this bill does four things. It stops political

interference by cabinet in the appeal of Agricultural Land Commission

decisions to include or exclude land in the ALR. Secondly, it provides

for independent consideration of appeals of commission decisions by the

Supreme Court of British Columbia. It is the intent of this bill that

any aggrieved person may have their day in court and be heard. Thirdly,

it expands the mandate of the commission to be a steward of

agricultural, greenbelt and parkland. Fourthly, it repeals the cabinet

order, which allows golf courses as permitted uses on agricultural land.

Bill

M229 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.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARY

BAY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled

An Act to Establish the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area.

MR. HARCOURT : Without prejudice to any present or future claims of aboriginal

title, this bill creates the Boundary Bay wildlife management area to protect

the habitat of more than 1.5 million birds of 310 species that use the delta

as part of the Pacific flyway migratory route that goes from Alaska and Siberia

through to Central and South America. The bill outlines boundaries for the management

area and allows for land acquisitions necessary to ensure adequate feeding-

and resting-grounds for those migratory waterfowl.

Bill

M230 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Attorney-General. Given the concerns now expressed

about tampering with the administration of justice in this province,

will the minister agree to hold an inquiry into the matter of the

administration of justice during the tenure of his predecessor?

HON. MR. FRASER :

I believe that everyone in the House knows that certain matters are

under investigation, and therefore it is not proper for me to comment.

TAPED CONVERSATIONS

OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question for the government House Leader. It is now very clear

that the NDP caucus had absolutely no involvement in the interception

of the material that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota)

put before the House last week. Will this government now apologize to

the official opposition for the offensive and groundless accusations of

criminal activity that were made in this House last Thursday?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I think it's anything but clear, and I think the opposition should let

justice take its course and quit trying to interfere with it.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we were talking about: is justice

being done? It may have been a bit too much to expect this government

to acknowledge when it's wrong and make the appropriate amends. If the

government House Leader is not willing to apologize, will he give

British Columbians the chance to judge the administration of justice by

this government and the integrity of this government in a general

election?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, the Leader

of the Opposition doesn't even know who calls elections in this

province. How could we possibly expect him to know how justice will be

carried out by the Deputy Attorney-General? He couldn't possibly know

that.

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN PREMIUMS

MR. MERCIER :

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Ads have

appeared recently, charging that the province has redirected $145 mil-

[ Page 10962 ]

lion in MSP premiums outside the health care system. Are these ads correct?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that some of the ads that have arisen

through the efforts of the BCMA have misled the public in terms of the

contributions of MSP towards the health care system. The revenues for

MSP are $641 million, as opposed to a budget of some $5 billion, so I

find it very difficult to understand how we can redirect funds to

another ministry or another allocation.

AWARDING OF FOREST LICENCE

MR. MILLER :

To the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the

ombudsman's report and the awarding of the Takla-Sustut timber, the

timber policy branch noted that the proposed cost of upgrading the B.C.

Rail line was low at $25 million and more likely to exceed $40 million.

Has a subsidy been requested by the recipients of the timber licence

for the government to assist in the cost of that upgrading?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MILLER : Is the minister satisfied that the work is proceeding and will be completed as per the terms of the agreement?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I believe the agreement has not been finalized as yet.

MR. MILLER :

On Thursday the minister took as notice questions I posed with respect

to the report. I note that the minister reviewed this entire matter in

April and decided not to change the wording of the report. Could the

minister advise if the ombudsman's report on political interference

will prompt a new, independent review, or has the minister already made

up his mind?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I took that question as notice last week and I will be bringing an answer back to this Legislature.

TAPED CONVERSATIONS

OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. GABELMANN : On Thursday the Premier accused the House....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. If you're speaking about the issue which the Chair

undertook to review on Thursday during question period, the Chair has

reviewed the matter and will deal with the matter appropriately when

all of the appropriate players are here. If that's possible, there is a

retraction that the Chair will ask for. I would like to leave the

matter as it was left in my hands at that time.

If you have another question, I'll accept it.

MR. GABELMANN :

As I understand it, the Speaker said on Thursday that he would review

the entire contents of question period to see whether there were any

matters that should be dealt with. My difficulty is in knowing which

matters you will deal with and which ones you won't; I would expect

that you would deal with the matter of the blackmail charge.

MR. SPEAKER : I will deal with the matters at the appropriate time, when the appropriate members are in attendance in the chamber.

MR. GABELMANN : I would like to ask a question which I believe you may not be considering.

MR. SPEAKER : Fine. Then proceed.

MR. GABELMANN :

On Thursday the Premier accused members on this side of the House of

taping telephone conversations. We did not. He is not here to

apologize, and I ask the House Leader to apologize to us on this side

of the House for that false accusation by the Premier.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition — if that is a leader — the

matter is still under investigation. I think if you let justice take

its course, then we will all know whether the charge was false or not.

MR. GABELMANN :

May I ask the government House Leader who is conducting the

investigation into whether or not those tapes were taped by members of

this side of the House?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The Deputy Attorney General has said that he is bringing in the RCMP

and the deputy minister from Alberta to investigate the entire matter,

and I am sure that in the course of their investigation the truth will

come out.

MR. GABELMANN : Given that, how was it that the Premier seemed to know the answer to that investigation on Thursday last?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It is certainly not in my realm of expertise to know what the Premier

knows, as it is not in yours to know what your leader does or does not

know.

B.C. FERRIES CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways and concerns the super-ferry propulsion system that has

been purchased. I would like to ask the minister if she can advise this

House who authorized the removal of the Wartsila engines from the

preliminary design for the new super-ferries, and whether she was

indeed consulted before that decision was made.

[ Page

10963 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Within the last few days, I did provide

members on the opposition side of the House with a report, as they

requested, regarding the awarding of the contract and the

specifications. I'm not qualified to make changes in a tender call, and

one would assume that the people involved with B.C. Ferries would have

done so. But if you have any further questions, and if you would like

to give them to me, I would be pleased to get the precise answer for

you from B.C. Ferries.

MR. LOVICK : I do have further questions, and I certainly shall be pursuing those.

Again

to the same minister. The B.C. Shipbuilding Action Group recommends

that all ferry construction should be offered for fair competitive bid.

Can the minister confirm that the two small, 85-car ferries which were

recently put out to bid were indeed tendered?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, I can.

MR. LOVICK :

Can the minister confirm that the approximately $1.5 million propulsion

system for those smaller ferries was also put out to tender?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm not absolutely sure how that was handled, but there was a contest

among the people who were qualified to fulfil the requirements. As I

said earlier, you have a great deal of that information now. If you

would like something more that we haven't provided you with, hon.

member, we would be pleased to provide it.

MR. LOVICK :

Given that there was apparently some consultative or bidding process

undertaken, can the minister explain to us why the propulsion system

for the super-ferries — some $20 million worth, as opposed to $1.5

million worth — was not put out to tender?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It was a decision of the board of B.C. Ferries, based on a great deal

of experience. If you really are sincere in wanting to know the answer

to that, I would be pleased to arrange a meeting with the senior

management officials at B.C. Ferries for you and anyone else in the

House who would like to sit down and have a full explanation of how

they arrived at the process used. I believe you will find it was a fair

process.

BOUNDARY BAY GOLF COURSES

MR. DAVIDSON :

My question is to the Environment minister. There are presently two

golf-course applications pending in Delta, in an environmentally

sensitive area of Boundary Bay. I'd like to ask the minister if he can

give some assurance that before any such approvals are given, a full

environmental study of the wildlife will be conducted by his ministry.

Can he give that assurance to the public?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I can advise the member that the Canadian Wildlife Service and my

ministry are doing a study of Boundary Bay. We expect that study to be

completed on September 1. I phoned the mayor of Delta on Thursday or

Friday of last week and asked him if his council would delay any

decision it is making on the golf courses until that study is complete

and his council has a chance to look at it and my ministry has a chance

to review that study. As I said earlier, I expect the study will be

complete in the first week of September.

FOREIGN DOCTORS' HUNGER STRIKE

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Health. At this moment six

foreign-trained doctors are on a hunger strike in a church in my

constituency. I met with them last night. I realize that the resolution

of their problem is not an easy one, but will the minister agree to

meet with the doctors in an effort to end their fast?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Vancouver East is not aware that I

have met with the doctors and spoken to several of them by name about

the problem of their acceptance in the internship program in British

Columbia. If the member is suggesting that I should start hiring

doctors individually for all our hospitals, I would find that

offensive. We have in place in British Columbia a system where the

intern program directors of each teaching hospital hire interns. I have

told the foreign trained doctors that we are putting a program in

place, and we expect, with the medical college, to have that program

operating as soon as possible. Beyond that, I can't offer any

assistance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CLARK : Supplementary to

the minister. The minister knows that if this has driven people to this

kind of extreme action, clearly there's a problem. Given that there

were at least 31 internship vacancies in Canada last year, would the

minister agree that it would be reasonable to have these vacancies

filled by foreign-trained doctors?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the member is not aware of the facts. Last

year we had trouble matching intern positions with interns; we had too

many interns for the positions available. The member is suggesting that

we give priority to foreign-trained students, over and above our

Canadian trained students; that we issue instructions to the individual

hospitals that they must be hired in advance of our students that come

out of UBC. I don't find that acceptable, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated

that we are putting a program in place, but it requires the cooperation

of the medical community to make it happen.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 17.

[ Page 10964 ]

TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FUNDING ACT

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

For several years now it has been recognized that the funding

arrangements for our highway capital construction have fallen far short

of the requirements, due to the extended time-frames for planning,

engineering, design and construction. From the date of identification

the time-frames to the end of construction can be anywhere from several

months to ten years. The existing funding formulas require an annual

appropriation, which gives no guarantee that the project, once

commenced, would be funded adequately to completion. Funding lapses

annually and the voted appropriation in the following year may or may

not be sufficient to continue with all projects identified or in fact

commenced.

To provide continuity to the capital program

within the ministry, the government has introduced the Transportation

Capital Funding Act. This act will provide funding through a special

account in the consolidated revenue fund. The funding source will not

lapse at the end of each fiscal year. The fund will provide capital

expenditures for highway capital construction, the air transport

assistance program, B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit, and will

provide support to other levels of government with respect to the road

system.

The operating grants to B.C. Ferry Corporation,

B.C. Rail and B.C. Transit will continue to be funded in the operations

vote, not through the fund. As well, the major functions of highway

maintenance and highway rehabilitation will continue to be funded

through the operations vote, not through the fund.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LOVICK :

The ostensible purposes for this bill are, of course, understandable. I

certainly have some sympathy for the ministry, insofar as there are

obvious initiations on the way we allocate money in this chamber.

However, I'm sure the minister can forgive those of us on this side of

the House who have to have some apprehensions about this particular

measure, given a couple of things that have recently come to light.

I'm

referring, as a starting point, to the auditor-general's report. As you

recall, Madam Minister, the auditor-general points out that apparently

the Ministry of Highways lacks the ability and the expertise to do any

kind of accurate assessment of the costs of major construction — that

it simply doesn't have that capacity; or at least that capacity on the

part of the ministry is certainly called into question in the

auditor-general's report.

Secondly, in the wake of the Coquihalla, I think all of us are a bit concerned

about transferring money. You'll recall, Madam Minister, I am sure, that

the story of the Coquihalla was not so much that there was a cost overrun; it

was the fact that we didn't know that the total sum had changed. We weren't

aware of what it was actually costing us until much after the fact.

Commissioner

MacKay, I'm sure the minister will recall, stressed emphatically that

what happened was that the Legislature had indeed been misled, that we

didn't know what we were voting on, and that the total amount of money

that was finally involved in the project bore little resemblance to

what the Legislature had approved. You can therefore understand, I am

sure, Madam Minister, that those of us on this side of the House who

have some familiarity with those incidents — the two I have named — are

perhaps inclined to call this a Freedom to Move money account.

We're

a little concerned, then, about the whole area of accountability —

indeed, a little concerned that the public will be informed via its

representatives in this chamber as to just how much money is in fact

being shifted from one account to another, because, of course, that's

one part of discretion this particular bill gives to the minister.

The

ministry, of course, offers three principal motives for the bill, each

of which, of course, is understandable and ostensibly makes some sense.

The first — I guess we can loosely call it a macroeconomic reason — is

that the long-term commitment of funds will more or less ensure that we

can adjust our construction budget and activities to deal with local

circumstances and know when we need to put extra resources into perhaps

otherwise depressed communities. It's a perfectly legitimate reason.

The

other area, I take it from my reading of the bill, is that this

particular measure will give us some flexibility; i.e., managers can

shift priorities from one district, one project, to another to take

advantage of local circumstances — perhaps changes in pricing.

Thirdly,

of course, the planning function is the justification. Again, we don't

have too much quarrel with the argument, because, of course, we would

like to see whatever we can to ensure that a longer-term planning model

is established for highways.

The problem, however, is that

we're worried that this particular measure might enable some funding to

be used for highway construction purposes that doesn't really get

subjected to the same scrutiny of the Legislature as is normally the

case. I see the minister shaking her head, and I'm pleased to note that

that's the case. Certainly my calls to the ministry — some efforts to

get information on the bill — didn't satisfy me that that isn't the

case, so perhaps when we get to committee stage, at least, we can

determine that.

I'm also a little concerned that there

seems to be rather too much discretion, too much latitude, allowed the

ministry with this particular bit of legislation. If I can quote to the

minister from the 1990 budget, where the fund is described, you will

recall — the Freedom to Move special account fund — it says the fund

will "allow the government to reallocate funds from one transportation

mode to another as priorities and opportunities change." The obvious

question, of course, is whether priorities and opportunities are indeed

going to change very much if capital construction is being done on the

basis of

[ Page

10965 ]

measurable, specific, defensible criteria as opposed to political ones.

[2:30]

have difficulty then with this particular measure, because it looks as

if what we're giving the ministry is something like a blank cheque to

spend hundreds of millions of dollars without detailed legislative

scrutiny. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced that I am wrong.

This

bill seems to authorize diversion of funds -precisely the kind of thing

that happened in the Coquihalla. Our concern then is that dollars could

be approved for one purpose by the Legislature and then reallocated to

another purpose, and we wouldn't even know about that until some two

years later when public accounts become available.

The

MacKay commission on the Coquihalla and the auditor-general both called

for greater accountability regarding major projects — over $50 million

in the case of highways. This particular measure does not deal with the

recommendation that MacKay made. Accordingly, my colleagues and I are

going to present an amendment to the measure when we get to committee

stage, just suggesting that we need the kinds of guarantees that MacKay

enunciated in his report.

With those few comments, Mr.

Speaker, I will take my place and reserve other discussion from my side

until we get to committee stage.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Certainly the ministry and the government as a whole learned a great

deal from the MacKay inquiry, and many of the weaknesses that were

identified are presently being addressed by the ministry. Certainly the

identification of the weaknesses by the ministry has been acknowledged

in the auditor-general's report. So I'm very pleased that the

government has adopted this funding philosophy, which provides a

multi-year certainty to our capital program. I now move second reading

of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 17,

Transportation Capital Funding Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 66: minister's office, $374,423.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : My introductory comments will be very brief so that

we can allow as much time as required to respond to questions from members of

the House. But there are a few points we should be making. First and foremost

we should point out that the priority of the ministry is a safe and efficient

transportation system. We have consolidated all transportation agencies under

one ministry and established a provincial transportation council to ensure integration

between all sectors.

would note, Mr. Chairman, that this was done in November. Subsequent to

the consolidation, I see that the NDP transportation policy, which was

brought out several months later, has suggested that that should be

done, so one would assume that the NDP agrees with the move we took

last year.

We have developed a comprehensive long-term

transportation plan, and we are establishing a five-year revolving

capital account, termed our Freedom to Move account. This is to provide

$3.5 billion of provincial funding towards significant long-term

improvements to our provincial transportation network.

have also in the ministry initiated major projects in all

transportation modes — by land, sea and air — to meet the growing

demand of a rapidly expanding economy and our growing population base.

We have accelerated the pace of replenishing our existing

transportation infrastructure, which in many cases has been shown to be

inadequate. We have increased funding for road and bridge

rehabilitation. We have an aggressive replacement and upgrading program

for our bus and ferry fleets, as well as for our railway system and

facilities. We have involved ourselves in this ministry in the

development of airport and port systems that will support our

commercial, recreational and social needs. The ministry is also

spearheading safety and public consultation programs.

have also launched and continue to explore new transportation systems

such as the SkyTrain and the SeaBus, and the focus is on moving more

goods and more people, not on moving more vehicles. We have broadened

the scope of the ministry to look beyond what's needed today and

hopefully to plan, design and implement the transportation network of

tomorrow.

I will conclude my introductory comments with

those few notes, and I will be pleased to respond to any questions the

members of the House may have with regard to the operation of the

ministry as a whole.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I

must confess I'm a little taken aback at the brevity of the minister's

comments. Given the great fanfare that went with announcements such as

Freedom to Move and the glossy publications attendant on that, the

special pamphlet on the consultative process and a whole batch of mega

projects, it would seem to me that the ministry ought to be at least

acknowledging — if not indeed bragging — that none of these things have

happened yet. Rather there is a kind of quiet. I suspect it's because

we're in mid-July, and perhaps members on the other side are looking to

places other than this chamber to spend the rest of their summer.

HON, MRS. JOHNSTON : Some of us were working last week.

[ Page 10966 ]

MR. LOVICK :

The minister makes reference to a special meeting of the Public

Accounts Committee membership of this Legislature in St. John's,

Newfoundland. Insofar as the Speaker authorized that trip, I assumed

that it was considered to be a legitimate pursuit of the public's

business. Perhaps the minister's own experience in terms of her travel

is somewhat different; therefore she has a jaded notion of what members

of the Public Accounts Committee did.

I am a little

concerned, as I say, that the minister hasn't given us a more detailed

opening statement about ministry plans. I'm especially concerned about

the fact that the minister hasn't devoted any time or attention to

talking about longer-term plans, primarily with a view to the large

problem of dealing with environmental constraints. I don't need to

remind the minister, her deputy or other staff who are here in the

House of the difficulty we have with highways construction and any kind

of transportation activities or initiatives.

As we know,

the ground rules have changed. We know that if we announced the

building of a major highway project 20 years ago, the likelihood was

that 90 percent of the people would shout with joy and say: "Thank you,

thank you." Today that is simply not the case. Rather, people are

apprehensive. They are concerned primarily because of the environmental

questions, but they're also concerned about quality of life arguments.

They also wonder whether indeed the complete consultative process that

governments like to talk about is being followed or whether that's

essentially rhetorical and the reality is that decisions have been made

prior to the consultative process unfolding.

So I'm a bit

surprised that the minister didn't want to talk in those terms about

what we envision for a longer term transportation planning activity in

this province. Instead, it seems that what we have, sadly is a

cobbled-together document based on a number of regional transportation

task force inputs called "Freedom to Move," which isn't really a plan;

rather it's a cobbled-together wish list. It's a so-called plan that

tends to ignore much that was offered by way of submissions from the

various transportation task force subcommittees. It's a plan that

doesn't seem to have the financial wherewithal to unfold and indeed is

old hat. We've heard about most of the projects before; in fact, there

wasn't anything new.

You can understand then why we on this

side of the House are a little skeptical and concerned when we don't

hear the minister go on at great length about how she and her staff are

looking to the future with a view to producing a transportation policy

that will take us well and truly into the twenty-first century, as her

rhetoric goes.

I note that the minister tries to make something of the fact that my colleagues

and I in the New Democratic Party — I might point out, by the way, volunteer

members of the party as opposed to paid staff — produced a document that talks

about the need for integration of all the transportation functions under one

ministry. Yes indeed, we agree with that.

on this side of the House are perfectly willing to give credit where

credit is due, and we do so with complete confidence because, given the

track record of this government, we seldom have to give credit. So when

we do see grounds to give credit, we're quite prepared to do so.

am also concerned about the fact that the statement made by the

minister about the major projects, accelerated construction and so

forth are apparently made as if oblivious to everything the

auditor-general has had to say. The auditor-general, we recall,

seriously called into question whether the ministry had the wherewithal

to be talking about calculations of — I shouldn't say honest —

reasonable and accurate projections for major highway projects; whether

it had lost that ability, given that we've now had a reorganization,

restructuring, privatization and downsizing, and we're now on our

fourth Highways minister in about three and a half years.

Understandably, the ministry is in some difficulty.

The

aggressive upgrading of transportation infrastructure is desirable; one

doesn't deny that. The issue, however — let us not forget — is that the

system was effectively allowed to fall down over the past ten, 15 or 20

years. We have not injected the kind of capital we need to maintain the

system at the level it ought to be. The Delcan study — I'm sure, Madam

Minister, you'll recall the study — effectively told us that the

transportation infrastructure was something like a basket case and

would cost us literally billions of dollars to bring it up to the level

it ought to be at.

Finally, just by way of opening.... I'm

going to give the minister an opportunity to tell me how I err in all

of these observations, and these are just off the top. She referred to

"the transportation network of tomorrow." I guess that's what I'd like

to hear more about, because I haven't seen any evidence yet that we're

looking at anything much beyond say a five- or ten-year maximum time

horizon. If we want to talk about the transportation network of

tomorrow, surely we ought to be thinking a little bit beyond that.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

The minister is already sadly demonstrating that she has difficulty

rising much beyond the here and now. I think the obligation for any

transportation minister is to be talking about growth, about land use

and about a whole bunch of things other than a 1950s model of

transportation, which is what we got, frankly, with the freedom-to-move

initiative. So if the minister wants to say something, as opposed to

just making gestures and all that, I'll give her her first opportunity.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, I find the member for Nanaimo's comments really quite

interesting. On one hand, members of the opposition have criticized

some of my colleagues because the

preamble to the budget discussion has

been too long and repetitive and the ministers are continuing to say

things that they've already been saying out on the hustings. I could

stand here for an hour and tell you

[ Page

10967 ]

about all the really neat things we're doing in the

ministry. But in most cases, the member for Nanaimo has outlined

several of them, so he's well aware of what is being carried on the

ministry.

We have never in the history of British Columbia

entered into projects that have made provision for more in the way of

public consultation than we have at the present time on highways and

SkyTrain rapid transit expansion projects. We have had hundreds of

people across the province involved on a voluntary basis in our

transportation task force. Each of the regions had transportation task

force committees. We're following the plans that were laid down by

those volunteers, who were truly representative of the people from

right across the province.

[2:45]

do have a long-range plan. How do you plan further than five or ten

years down the road when you're looking at the transportation needs?

With few exceptions, you have to address the needs as they come up year

after year. Our transportation task forces will be meeting annually, at

the very least, to ensure that the plans they have in place are current

and that when changes are required, those changes will be incorporated.

There's

a great deal going on in the ministry. The member for Nanaimo is well

aware of it because of the documentation and reports that we've put

out. I recall a comment made by the member for Nanaimo last year in

which he referred to the Delcan report as less than significant. I find

today that he's quoting from it as if it was almost a bible of

transportation needs in the province,

I'm prepared to

respond to any specific questions that members in the House have. But

it seems to me that for me to stand up here and wax poetic about all

the things that we're doing in the ministry would serve to speak to the

people in the constituency that I serve but would serve no useful

purpose in this House. I'm pleased to answer any specific questions you

have.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, when the minister

threatens us with waxing poetic, we know that's an empty threat. That's

clearly beyond the capacity.

Just to qualify, I'm sorry

that the minister's review of what I had to say about Delcan in the

House last year was as cursory as it was. I was very clear about what

Delcan did and did well. What I said, however, was that we didn't need

to spend $315,000 with a private consulting firm putting together all

the material that Highways ministry personnel had already done. That

was the issue; that was my criticism of Delcan. So let's establish that.

When

the minister tells us that we can't really look beyond five years for

transportation planning, I'm appalled. I don't think you will find

anybody with expertise in planning who would for a moment say that a

five-year horizon is planning. That's not. That's crisis management.

When we talk about planning, we're talking about land use decisions. We're

talking about projecting what population growth is likely to be in this province,

where the pressure points are likely to be. What do we then do to accommodate

that kind of population growth? The minister said, in introducing the freedom-to-move

special account and that so-called plan, that this was the first comprehensive

plan ever for transportation in this province. My response at the time was:

if that's the case, God help us. We've got to begin looking at the future.

We've got to start determining where in fact the growth will be, so we know

whether we can accommodate that growth.

The

reason we have the crisis on the Vancouver Island highway, in places

like my constituency of Nanaimo, and on the Pat Bay Highway in the

Saanich Peninsula is precisely because we haven't done that kind of

longer-range planning. We haven't done anything with a view to

determining where populations are going to go, talking about assembling

land, protecting and guaranteeing right-of-way, and so forth. Thus we

have the crisis we do. I hope the minister is going to tell me that I

misunderstood her when she said that her ministry doesn't commit itself

to anything beyond a five-year horizon in terms of planning.

had a travesty of planning within the ministry. I see you have a few

people here from the ministry; I know most of them, and I think that,

privately if not otherwise, they'd acknowledge that. What's happened in

the last roughly eight months is that we've put together a new planning

function within the ministry. Will the minister tell us specifically

what that planning group is doing? Is it indeed looking beyond five

years? Tell us something about the planning function within the

ministry. I raise that question specifically because it seems clear to

me it was very much in question whether we had any planning capacity

about a year ago.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Chairman,

I find that question quite interesting for a number of reasons, the

first of which is that it seems to be the first question that has been

asked in all the verbiage that we've heard from that side of the House.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We aren't in college right now, hon. member. Possibly your vocabulary

includes far more in the way of words from the dictionary than mine.

want to tell the members opposite, Mr. Chairman, and anyone in the

House who cares to listen, that it's our belief on this side of the

House that the people in the province, in the regions, should be

helping us plan our transportation network, not the bureaucrats in

Victoria.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, that kind of

vacuous populism doesn't serve anybody: pretending that what this

government is doing is talking to the people. That is not an excuse for

not having a planning function. I asked the minister a specific

question: tell us about what your new planning department in the

ministry is doing. How many folks

[ Page 10968 ]

have you got? What are they doing? What mandate do they presently have?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, the process of public involvement is new. The planning

function in the ministry continues to carry out the functions they

always have: that is, to assist in the planning. But we have a new

process that involves the public at large.

MR. LOVICK :

The minister could very easily tell me something about what that branch

of the ministry does, instead of giving that kind of puffery. Instead,

she doesn't seem to want to.

What are we looking at? Do we

have in fact a beefed-up planning function? Consider, Madam Minister,

if you will: if you're going to say to us that this freedom-to-move

thing, this cobbled-together little account — put together essentially

for what appears certainly to be political purposes largely — is the

equivalent to planning, and that that's the only comprehensive plan

we've ever had for transportation in this province, you can understand,

I am sure, why we're concerned. I'm giving you an opportunity to allay

the fears of the public, who say that nobody there knows anything about

planning. Tell us about what that branch does. Tell us about its

capacities Tell us about its expertise. Do you have some economists

there? Do you have some agrologists? Do you have some people who know

something about water? Who's in there? What's going on? It's a simple

question.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Obviously I'm having a

bit of problem with this line of questioning, because we have a

planning department. You're well aware of the fact that we have a

section in the ministry. They do deal with future growth. They assess

what they see as the growth areas across the province. They do deal

with traffic counts. They do deal with environmental concerns. And we

have established, as you are undoubtedly aware — I hope you would be

aware — a new provincial transportation council that is made up of the

senior management from each of the Crowns and the deputy from the

ministry, so that we ensure we have a coordinated outlook on what is

being planned in the province with regard to our transportation

infrastructure.

If you want to be specific.... Do you want

me to get you the name of every employee in the ministry and precisely

what their duties are? I'm telling you that we make all these

assessments. Our planning division is doing precisely what you would

expect a planning division to do. Is there something more you think

should be done that isn't being done?

MR. LOVICK : All of this, I take it, Madam Minister, is within a five-year horizon. Do you want to acknowledge? Is that the case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Within an indefinite horizon.

MR. LOVICK :

That's certainly comforting. I think I will be coming back to the

planning function as we go. I might just mention, Madam Minister, that

my approach is probably going to be a little scattergun, rather than

dealing with discrete chunks. The reason is simply that, as you know,

we didn't have any kind of advance warning, so I've been scrambling to

pull together files. It may be a little more slow and a little less

efficient than would normally be the case, but so be it.

Let's go back....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

No, no. Sarcasm is a perfectly legitimate tool, especially when the

other side also interjects it — or at least attempts to. I never

introduce it; I always respond with that. The member may have noticed,

if she was paying attention.

I want to come back to the

questions I was posing earlier today, Madam Minister, regarding the

super-ferry construction and all of that business. The minister made

reference to a report that she said all MLAs had been given last week.

I didn't say so in question period, but I'm not familiar with that

report, and I don't believe the research people in our caucus are.

Could she tell me about that report she was referring to?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Just to correct that: I didn't say all; I said some members on the NDP side of the House.

can see that we're going to have a bit of a problem. It seems to me

that we should have some order in how we deal with the responsibilities

of this ministry. We have the ministry staff present at this time. The

Crown corporations should be dealt with not in a scattergun way, as the

member from Nanaimo has suggested, but in an orderly way. We will allow

as much time as necessary to deal with each of the areas, but I don't

think we should bounce around from highways to ferries to transit to

rail. Let's try to get through one

section and one part of the ministry

without sending this staff out and bringing another staff in. It seems

rather irresponsible and not a very constructive way to spend the time.

If you did not receive a letter with regard to the engine, hon. member, I would be pleased to ensure that you do get one.

MR. LOVICK : I find it difficult to be lectured to about responsibility

and using the resources of this chamber effectively. As somebody who has been

involved in estimates for the past three years, I have always begun by saying:

"These are the ground rules. On this part of the time, we'll be dealing

with the following people." I've always exchanged that courtesy with

the minister.

Today,

however, we discovered we didn't know what the rules were until about

an hour before the House was called to sit. If you want to talk about

responsibility, Madam Minister, I suggest you have a chat with your

House Leader, because we on this side

[ Page

10969 ]

will do whatever we can to cooperate and to make

sure that the operations of this House are carried out properly,

efficiently and effectively. I am not about to suddenly start to go

through the agonies of the damned, etc., trying to put stuff together

to satisfy your agenda, when clearly your colleagues have treated us in

such a shabby manner. Let's establish that.

I want to, as I

say, come back to the report that you told us earlier we had been sent

— which we weren't sent. That causes me some concern, needless to say.

Would the minister now be willing to answer the questions I posed

earlier about the tendering process? First of all, is it the case that

the propulsion system for the 85-car vessels was put out to public

tender,

whereas the $20 million propulsion system for the super-ferries

was not? Would the minister confirm that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I really can't let that comment go by about how the estimates were sort

of dropped on the members opposite. We've been here for several months

now, so it should not be a surprise that sooner or later we're going to

arrive at the Transportation and Highways estimates. This is the third

time I have been asked to be prepared. On the previous two occasions, I

was told that my critics were not available, so there were delays.

[3:00]

Somewhere

along the line, I'm prepared to cooperate as much as I can. On that

basis, I will take that question on notice until we have the B.C.

Ferries staff available to respond.

MR. LOVICK : As

far as I know, I've been available the whole time, save last week,

which was a scheduled trip through the Speaker's office. I don't know

what time the minister might be referring to; it's never here nor there.

did want to start with ferries. Is the minister suggesting that she's

not prepared to answer any questions about ferries for the present?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Not unless they're very general.

MR. LOVICK :

Okay. Why don't we give the minister a nice general question then?

That's fine, let's just open it up. Tell me how the decision was made

to go the route of super-ferries as opposed to looking at other

possible technologies. You've talked about a consultation process. I

don't believe there's any reference in any of the task force

subcommittee reports or anywhere else that I'm aware of. Where did the

idea of super-ferries come from? How did you come up with that

technology?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I think that

question could be more appropriately answered when the staff from B.C.

Ferries are present. They can give me all of the background for you.

MR. LOVICK :

I've got lots of questions I want answers to, but I want to start with

ferries. I'm a little concerned that the minister chooses to defer that

rather broad, general question to some distant time in the future.

Again connected with the question of planning, can the minister tell me

whether any significant amount of attention and energy within the

corporation is being given to looking at alternative technologies in

terms of the ferry operation in the province?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The answer to that question is yes, it is.

MR. LOVICK : She's taking a page out the government House Leader's book, I see: brevity and succinct answers. Right?

Can

the minister give us any update on the status of the alternative

technology for ferries — i.e., aluminium hull construction? Can she

tell us what's happening with regard to that technology?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I think that could be better addressed when we have the staff standing by here.

MR. LOVICK :

Would the minister agree that the commitment to super-ferries of the

old style will inevitably entail construction of larger ferry

terminals, as well as expansion, and necessitate additional network

infrastructure, roads and such like at those ferry terminals? Would she

agree that perhaps that is not the most advisable route to go in

terms of addressing the legitimate needs of the ferry-travelling public?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The answer to the first question is yes, and to the second one, no.

MR. LOVICK :

Can the minister inform me which specific recommendations regarding

ferries that were presented in the transportation subcommittee task

forces around the province were implemented in the Freedom to Move plan

— if any?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Chairman, I'm

going to have to review that with the B.C. Ferries staff when they're

here. I'm not familiar with every single recommendation there.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Chairman, I think it's intriguing that around questions of

scale.... I just wonder if the minister and her senior staff haven't

thought about some of these issues, specifically with B.C. Ferries and

the super-ferries as very significant development questions for the

province. These are not traditional engineering questions. I think

that's part of what my colleague has been directing his questions at. I

know the minister has other disciplines in her staff, but I wonder

whether the range of disciplines that are needed has been applied to

some of these questions.

[ Page 10970 ]

terms of my interest in economics, if we're talking about four

super-ferries at $125 million each — or something like that — we're

talking about half a billion dollars. That's a huge capital expenditure

in anybody's language, and it seems to me that requires some high-level

thinking about its implications. As a person who has historically been

involved in planning in this province and the question of managing

growth in some communities, it seems to me that at some point the

technology starts demanding questions.

As a regular user of the system — unlike some other members in the House-it

strikes me that what you've got here is this big carrier — the super-ferry.

Then you need the big storage bin prior to people getting on the ferry, and

that's the enlarged Horseshoe Bay terminal or the enlarged Swartz Bay terminal.

So the technology starts rippling through in terms of other capital expenditures

and the infrastructure. If my memory serves me right, you're talking about

close to $40 million for the storage bin at Horseshoe Bay this year. You can

nod your head if I'm right or wrong. It's something like that anyway,

isn't it? It's a big expenditure, and it starts begging the question

about (1) pedestrian movement and (2) scale.

The

more I've been around in terms of these technical questions, the more

I'm convinced that scale is the villain again and again. Scale has

become a serious problem, and you're starting to reap the whirlwind out

of the scale question. You're only beginning. The Saanich Peninsula has

said: "We don't want that answer." That seems to me to trigger a whole

bunch of other questions and thoughts about the system. My uneasiness —

and I think that of my colleagues— is because that probably hasn't been

done. The great fear is that we could have $500 million spent on the

ships, as we're hearing.

The whole question of how we bid

is a neat question. There's all the economic spin-off questions around

that, about our shipyards and our workers, because scale is a problem.

If they get that size, there's only one bidder within British Columbia;

if they are smaller scale, there might be four, five or six bidders in

British Columbia. All these ancillary, fascinating, economic

development questions come to bear.

What we'd like to know,

Madam Minister, is whether at some point you or some of the senior

people in your ministry say: "I'm hearing the bells ringing, and

there's something wrong out there. Forty million dollars for a storage

bin in Horseshoe Bay doesn't make sense. Isn't there a better way of

dealing with this?" The $40 million for the storage bin has to add up

the costs of the Upper Levels being upgraded to full freeway standards,

the Lonsdale interchange, etc., etc. They are big dollars.

Quite frankly, I don't believe that your troop of engineers have the skills

to deal with these questions, and I think those are the questions being begged

by the member for Nanaimo. You've been getting the auditor-general's

reports on inadequacies in the most fundamental, simplistic engineering-growth

questions and estimate questions and so on, and they are damned scary in terms

of the capacity of your ministry. But that's in just basic, traditional

engineering.

You

start moving to this level, where you're talking about billion-dollar

expenditures on the ferry system and then the linkages to it, and

you're starting to impact the nature of Vancouver Island in the future.

These are really big questions. We've limited ourselves to these two

basic terminals at Tsawwassen and Horseshoe Bay. It begs the question

about that limitation. You've essentially limited yourself to the

terminals on Vancouver Island. It begs the question about the

limitation of those two terminals.

Only this year did a

bell ring, and somebody over there realized that it made sense to move

trucks from Tsawwassen to Nanaimo and avoid the urban congestion. That

took a long time. It just begs the question about the capability of

your ministry for high-level, strategic economic planning for these

huge issues that have impact on this entire basin between Vancouver

Island and the lower mainland. We'd like to hear more from you about

the capacity of your ministry and this Crown corporation to deal with

these questions.

On pedestrian movement alone, isn't this

the first year you've turned back pedestrians on the ferry system? You

couldn't handle them when they came to the terminal. You look at the

pedestrian flow on some routes, and it's fascinating — 27 percent on

the Powell River run. That amazed me when I looked up the numbers. The

same percentage on the Bowen Island run is not so surprising, but that

number on the Bowen Island run automatically tells me: hey, we should

be talking about a pedestrian link for passengers from Bowen Island to

downtown Vancouver. I think that's obvious, and the member from the

area clearly thinks it's obvious too. But something's wrong if I have

to stand up here now, having just looked at the pedestrian data two

months ago, and tell you that. Something should have been in the

planning some time ago for moving just pedestrians from Bowen Island.

It's so obvious that it's wild it hasn't occurred before now.

just don't think you've got the capacity in your ministry to deal with

these really big questions and their huge economic and development

questions. I think you’ve got a hidebound board in the Ferry

Corporation that has not been creative. I have a lot of time for what

B.C. Ferries has achieved over the years, but I think the last

half-dozen years have indicated that they are simply applying more of

the same, and the scale problem is getting severe.

I'd like to hear the minister's comments.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

There is not a lot of what the member for Vancouver East said that I

could disagree with. The technology that has been utilized by B.C.

Ferries over the past number of years has been rather stagnant.

The

issue of the super-ferries is one that was under discussion and review,

and being looked at by consultants, for a number of years. Finally,

about two

[ Page

10971 ]

years ago, the decision was made. We have tender

documents out now. They are expected back at the end of this month.

Early in August, I would expect, after evaluation of the tenders, a

decision will have to be made.

You're right: we have

limited terminals at the present time. But an expansion of the terminal

facilities, both on the mainland and on the Island, has to be looked at

very seriously, and B.C. Ferries will be dealing with that.

I'm

delighted to hear your comment on the necessity for a marine-pedestrian

link between Bowen Island and Vancouver. I think it should even go a

little further than that, and we are seriously looking at that as well.

Your comment was that it has long been recognized that this was

necessary, and you were amazed that you had to bring it to our

attention today. I'm wondering why you didn't bring it to the

minister's attention last year, because it was talked about at that

time. The member from West Vancouver did, but I guess the member for

Vancouver East is so delighted to have SkyTrain in his community that

he's not really worried about marine transportation.

[3:15]

All

the points brought forward by the member for Vancouver East are

actively under discussion by the senior staff and the board of B.C.

Transit. Our Provincial Transportation Council, made up of the senior

representatives of B.C. Rail, B.C. Transit, B.C. Ferries and the

ministry is presently looking at the coordination. We do understand

full well that when a major improvement is made at any of those ferry

terminals, and when those super-ferries do come on stream, there's

going to be a very significant impact on the adjoining infrastructure,

whether it be transit or highways. These people all have to be working

together, and they are, as never before.

So I'm delighted

to stand here and tell you, hon. member, that I agree with the comments

you've made. The suggestions for addressing some of these

infrastructure concerns are well taken, because they are under

consideration at the present time by the affected Crown corporation and

by the ministry.

MR. WILLIAMS : I don't know how you

can say that, Madam Minister. You're saying: "Yes, I really agree with

most of what you say. Yes, most of this is really going on."

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : No, it isn't. Let's at least understand that there's a difference of opinion and start from there.

Why do I think there's a difference of opinion? Because the steamship's

sailing through the barn door. You've already moved down the road in terms

of $125 million boats. That's a quarter of a billion dollars for two ships.

Did the matter come up in your own thinking: "Well, there's really

only one shipyard that can build these, isn't there? Is that desirable?"

That's sort of a small ancillary economic argument in terms of competition,

which the minister usually waves the banner about at election time. I'm

reminding you about that — there are advantages in terms of competition. Remember

the old flag. But the problem is that once you move down that route, you're

basically moving down the route of four of them, and you're moving down

the route of the big storage bin again.

Madam

Minister, just think about Horseshoe Bay, if you will. That tiny

village in that small basin handling all of the movement to Bowen

Island and to the Sunshine Coast — Gibsons, Langdale, Powell River and

all that fairly fast-growth area up the coast — and to mid and northern

Vancouver Island.... Shouldn't that ring a bell? Can — or should —

Horseshoe Bay continue to carry those volumes? Should Horseshoe Bay and

North Van carry all of that volume on a freeway-style road, with a new

storage bin that will be added to again? Or does it make some sense to

start separating that movement? Should mid-Vancouver Island not go

through Horseshoe Bay within the next five to ten years? I suspect that

it should not.

If that's the case, then you should not be

building the $40 million storage bin today. That's what planning is

about, Madam Minister, not doing stupid things that you're sorry about

just a few years later —things that you've dropped a bundle of money

on, that violate a community and a small place like Horseshoe Bay

improperly, and that have implications that are unsatisfactory.

Then,

if you're thinking in a creative planning sense, the next question you

ask yourself, Madam Minister, is: would it make sense to diversify

terminals on Vancouver Island? In view of the fact that the people in

Saanich don't want more ferry movement, might it not make sense to

provide other terminals on the Island — or termini, to satisfy some of

my colleagues? Wouldn't it make more sense to do that?

Then

shouldn't we be looking at other locations, like Crofton or that part

of the Island, for example? In terms of access points, you have the

fastest-growth part of the capital region in the western communities,

towards Sooke, Colwood, Langford, Metchosin, Mill Bay, and so on. They

could well be served by an upper Island terminal, taking away some of

that movement from Swartz Bay. Then you might have a creative

development instrument for a part of Vancouver Island that might in

fact be interested in it as such. Then you start turning a problem into

an advantage, a liability into an asset. That's what a creative

approach is all about.

There are other locations on

Vancouver Island as well that might be looked at in terms of

development strategies, Then, with different terminals, you might not

have to think in terms of what is really a full freeway solution on the

Island. I don't know, but there are questions that deserve to be

investigated and analyzed with the best brains around. I'm talking

about economists and planners and so on. I don't know how many

transportation economists you've got on your staff. Tell me. Raise your

fingers. One hand. How many transportation economists have you got

in...?

[ Page 10972 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN : They're all good guys.

MR. WILLIAMS : I believe that. But how many?

We've

got transportation economists in this province that consult with the

World Bank, with CIDA, around the world, and make their home on

Vancouver Island and in Vancouver. I bet you've never hired one of

them. Yet they'll be advising every state in Africa and around the

Middle East and so on. I don't think you guys have ever hired them; I

don't know that you ever have.

I'm saying there's a need. I

don't think anybody has really addressed the question about these big

boats you're thinking of ordering in the next month or two. Once you

put in the order for two $125 million ferries, then you're committing

yourself to an infrastructure and system that is a major development

question for Vancouver Island, the lower mainland and the province, in

terms of economic strategies.

I see your new executive from

the Ferry Corporation is here to provide sound and worthy advice.

That's good news. I'm sure it's good news for the Ferry Corporation,

because the corporation is at a stage where it requires the attention

of people who are prepared to go back to square one and challenge the

old, traditional assumptions that made the system work. We're at a

watershed point where those old assumptions have to be challenged. We

have to avoid locking ourselves into a megaproject solution, a

megabucks solution, when there might well be less costly answers that

would be more beneficial for everyone concerned.

MR. LOVICK : Do you want to just agree with that?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Yes, come on. You're not going to get up and just agree, are you, Madam

Minister? That's not good enough. It's an old political ploy, saying:

"Gee, I really like what you said. You're a great guy. Thanks a lot.

Beat it, and then we'll pass...."

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : No, I didn't say that.

MR. WILLIAMS : Okay. I agree that's exaggerating. But it's a neat way of getting rid of the point.

would hope that the minister would at least tell us that there's

something there, something to really think about carefully before we

embark on those expenditures; and yes, maybe we should bring in some

outside help to look at this question in a fundamental way, because it

has long-term development implications for both the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island. It may be something that shouldn't be rushed into.

MR. KEMPF : While we're on the question of the B.C. Ferry Corporation,

I just want to ask a few questions of the minister with respect to the service

to Prince Rupert from the northern tip of Vancouver Island.

short time ago I had an opportunity, as I do each year, to take the

ferry from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. As in years gone by, I was very

disappointed with the facilities we have for not only our own people

who use that facility regularly, to travel between Vancouver Island and

the north, but also for the tourists aboard, who had to put up with

what I believe to be less than mediocre facilities on those boats and

on those runs.

Frankly, I think the Queen of the North and certainly the Queen of Prince Rupert

— we were talking about the spending of money-have outlived their

usefulness on that run. We have to enhance those facilities to bring

them into the twentieth century before we run out of years in that

century.

First I'm going to tell some little stories about my trip on the Queen of the North ,

and my question at the end is going to be: what planning are we doing

to buy vessels that are proper and to be expected by not only British

Columbians but those who come from other parts of North America and the

world to enjoy the trip from Vancouver Island to Prince Rupert?

don't know if it's a regular situation, but on the trip that my wife

and I took, the first leg of the journey, Port Hardy to Bella Bella, I

have never in my life.... I have never ridden on a tramp steamer, but

I'm sure there are better situations on tramp steamers. Never have I

experienced the situation of freight, belongings, groceries and what

have you virtually clogging the purser's area, the hallways and the

area in which a video was shown in the evening. If you could make your

way to that area over all of these boxes, belongings and what have you,

you were lucky. It was a situation that just wasn't acceptable.

Fortunately,

members of the Legislature are afforded a pass on the ferries. I tried

to put myself in the shoes of a tourist who would have had to have paid

$350 for the same trip. Mr. Chairman, it wasn't worth it getting it

free, let alone paying $350.

[3:30]

think that doesn't speak well for beautiful British Columbia. Those

ships and the facilities on the ships are archaic. Something has to be

done to enhance the facilities, firstly, on the boats we have. I

realize it's very costly to replace those vehicles. First, some changes

would enhance the facilities for the people riding on them, for the

people eating a meal on them and for those wanting to partake of a

drink at the bar on one of those ferries. If any member of this

Legislature or of the minister's staff has recently ridden on one of

those trips, they will agree that they are simply not good enough for

our own citizens; and surely they are not good enough for those

visiting our province and using the facilities. They are absolutely

awful, Madam Minister.

If we intend to continue that

service, we have to do something about it. We cannot expect visitors to

this province — or even our own citizens — to sit down at tables where

three or four other sittings have taken place and used the same

tablecloths, for example. That was the case on the pride of our fleet —

the flagship of our fleet — the Queen of the North .

[ Page

10973 ]

Again, I say that if I had been a tourist on that trip, not only

would I never return to do it again, but I certainly wouldn't tell my

friends back home about it. Or perhaps I would, but the story I would

tell certainly wouldn't bring them to British Columbia to partake of

that trip. Something has to be done.

We talked a few

moments ago about planning. I want to know what plans are in the works

to replace those archaic vehicles in the long term. I want to know in

the short term what plans are afoot to change the facilities to make

them simply habitable, let alone bring them up to the standard that

someone paying $350 for that trip would expect. What is being done,

Madam Minister?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS : You are going to reduce the price, aren't you? That's your answer.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I can't really reduce the price for the MLAs, because they have a pass.

have to tell the member that I'm rather concerned about the comments he

made, because according to the information given to me by B.C. Ferries,

we have never heard one complaint about the condition of the vessel in

the last four years. The demand for space on the vessel is growing each

year. People seem to love the trip.

Within the last six

weeks, I had the opportunity to visit the vessel. There was a

retirement event for some of the B.C. Ferries staff. I had a complete

tour of the Queen of the North , and if there's anything the NDP did right, in my opinion, it was purchasing the vessel once known as the Queen of Surrey and now known as the Queen of the North .

think that the employees on the vessel do a super job of making the

guests feel welcome and very important. I'm distressed that a member of

the House would have had an unfortunate vacation on the vessel.

MR. WILLIAMS : Just because you don't fly in a jet, it doesn't mean it's a vacation.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Well, when I have an opportunity to take a vacation, I intend to take it on the Queen of the North .

We don't really have any plans to replace the Queen of the North ,

because in the opinion of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, it's a

first-class vessel. It is well received; it is well manned; there is a

great deal of pride by the employees working on the ship. If anything,

it would be great if we could somehow expand it, because the demand for

accommodation is great. I know the rooms are very small, but how much

time do you really spend in the small rooms? We don't really have

anything on the drawing-board to improve the Queen of the North .

MR. KEMPF :

I certainly hope the minister — or anyone in this House — didn't get

the idea that I was criticizing the employees on those particular

vessels

Far from it. I think they do the best they can with

what they've got. I'm simply saying that the facilities are archaic.

The bar area is simply unacceptable for any kind of passage. It's

stuffy; it's too small; it's got a whole host of problems.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF :

Well, if they move me back over there, so be it, Mr. Member; I don't

mind. I find it just as interesting and just as fulfilling to sit

anywhere in this House on behalf of my constituents.

The Queen of the North

is a lovely ship. It has outgrown its size and outgrown its facilities

for that particular run. I understand that it's very costly to replace

it with a vessel that would bring it up to today's standards. A number

of things could be done if the B.C. Ferry Corporation were to speak to

their employees on that vessel and ask them what they thought could be

done to enhance the facilities and make it the enjoyable trip it should

be, I don't think anyone enjoyed walking around the ship — and really,

that's all you can do. I wasn't talking about staterooms. Staterooms on

any cruise ship are certainly not large and not very accommodating. I

think you take that for granted. But not to be able to even walk around

the hallways without climbing over boxes of groceries.... The member

for Prince Rupert has found the same thing in using that facility.

Maybe

there haven't been many complaints. That's the way northerners are:

they pay their dues and they don't say a whole lot. I think it's up to

us, as the members representing that area and using the facility.... It

certainly wasn't to go on a holiday, Madam Member; it was to return to

my constituency. I do it once a year just so that I know the facilities

and what the service is like on that particular run.

have to really bring those facilities and that service.... The staff is

doing the best they can with what they've got. They've got a vessel

that not a cent has been paid on to upgrade in 15 years that I know of.

They paint the hull every year. They do some painting inside. They keep

the lifeboats in good shape. But they haven't done a thing to bring

that vessel into the twentieth century. They haven't done a thing to

enhance the trip for not only northern British Columbians but for a

number of tourists.

I was surprised at the number of

tourists who were on the boat that early in the season. We have an

awful lot of people coming to this province who could enjoy, and who

could bring more people to enjoy, that particular run. I don't think

we'll do it with the facilities that are on that vessel today. I think

short-term planning has to be to upgrade that vessel, to make it a

people vessel. It isn't now. It's an overgrown freight vessel. Make it

a people vessel.

You have to spend a considerable number of

hours on the trip from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert on that boat. You

get on it at four o'clock in the afternoon and you're on it until the

next morning. Eighteen hours. In this case it was longer; it was an

hour and a half late. That isn't the problem. Showing a video is a good

idea, but when there's no place to sit and watch

[ Page 10974 ]

that

video, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest it's a lost cause. There wasn't.

My wife and I took a look at where we were supposed to sit and watch

this video and gave up.

There wasn't any room. It just

wasn't acceptable, and I think it must be. If we are to advertise a

first-class passage from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, then it has to be

a first-class passage. It isn't, as it is now, and I'm just making a

plea to the minister to, short-term, give a whole lot of consideration

to upgrading the facilities on that vessel.

Surely there

must be somewhere below decks that we can carry the freight that the

people from Bella Bella are going to take off with them when they leave

the boat at 12 o'clock at night. Surely we don't have to pile it in

aisleways in the purser's area, as was seen there. It wasn't just a box

or two; it was a whole lot of freight. Surely there are ways to

overcome that situation and make it a desirable passage for people from

the north and for people visiting our province.

Long-term,

I think we have to bring that run into the twenty-first century and

talk about a brand new super cruise ship for that particular run. It is

very popular and it is going to become more so.

MR. MILLER :

While we're on the topic, I thought the member for Omineca might

actually get up and talk about the terrible roads in his constituency.

I hope that he's going to take the opportunity to do that. We were

starting to be concerned that the maverick from the north was the

silent maverick from the north, but he seems to be starting to recover

his form and attack the Queen. Or the Queen , should I say.

think some of his points, although he may have overstated them.... And

I don't think he should be attacking the service, because any British

Columbian or any non-British Columbian who's had an opportunity to take

that can't help but be impressed by the magnificent scenery of coastal

British Columbia. I never really had time to watch videos, Mr.

Chairman; I'm always looking out the window or reading a book, which is

the other restful thing you can do on a boat or a train.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER : And I don't spend a lot of time at the bar, either.

some more opportune point I'll talk about the plight of the people in

the small communities along British Columbia's coast, because they're

not looking at sailing in the lap of luxury and having aisleways where

they don't trip over something. They're looking for some pretty basic

transportation to relieve their position and, particularly, the high

costs they face. I'll address that to the minister subsequently in

these estimates.

[3:45]

Clearly the Queen of Prince Rupert is reaching the point where replacement

has to be actively considered. That vessel was first put into service in 1965,

or somewhere around there. I always remember it as being fairly famous because

on its maiden voyage it ended up on the rocks. Nonetheless, it's a familiar

vessel to those of us on the north coast, and I've taken it dozens and dozens

of times.

Given

the fact that it has been used on that service to the Queen Charlotte

Islands.... Just to illustrate — you talk about waiting — I've gotten

on the boat in Prince Rupert to go over to the Charlottes at midday and

some time at six the next morning you might leave port, or you could

head out to some of the islands and just wait, because the Hecate

Strait is a very tough body of water. Anybody familiar with the

operation of the ferry knows all about the difficulties of serving the

Queen Charlottes in the wintertime or during the really tough weather.

I think that boat's taken a pretty big pounding over the years.

That's

not to suggest it's unsafe, but to suggest that given its size and the

service it's seen, there should be some active consideration for a

replacement vessel — ideally, a bigger vessel as well, in terms of

trading off between the Queen of Prince Rupert and the Queen of the North .

I think the time is overdue to look at it. I've talked to people in the

marine industry and people who were previously connected with the board

of directors, and there seems to be some agreement on that. I'd like to

hear the minister respond in terms of what her ministry is looking at,

and possibly some time-frame and what ideas they have in terms of a

replacement vessel or new vessel.

I'll leave it at that for

now. I really do want to get into, as I said, the other and very

serious issues of the people in the small, remote villages along the

coast of this province. There used to be a heck of a lot more of them.

There are not as many as there used to be, but they need service too.

In most cases their service is non-existent, hit and miss, high cost.

Let's deal with the Queen of Prince Rupert first, and we'll get into that later.

MR. BRUCE :

Just before the minister responds, I'd like to offer a couple of words

on that ferry service up there. I actually had a holiday. I wasn't

going to and from. I must have been on a completely different ferry

than my colleague in regard to the one from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert.

had a delightful time. I thought it was a first-class service. I can

appreciate that there might be some concern over the in and outs that

the ship takes with regard to getting people's goods and wares on and

off the ship. This was two years ago, so maybe things have happened

since then. I can recall a number of conversations I had on the ship —

I took it up, and I also came back on it — with visitors and travellers

from around the world who were absolutely stunned by the beauty and the

geography through the area. They thought it was fantastic and were

extremely impressed with the ship itself.

In regard to the

ship from Rupert over to the Charlottes, I had one of those wonderful

experiences where you are able to grapple with the bowl in the men's

room as you climb that incredibly high wave, and then fall from the

heavens and smash down

[ Page

10975 ]

again. It was one of those trips that I'm sure our

colleague from the north has made on several excursions over there to

the Charlottes where you wished you were not on the ship. On the way

back it was perfectly calm. Perhaps in time — and maybe the time is

now, and I'm sure the minister might be able to comment on that — you

might want to review that ship in regard to its days in service. Really

the whole excursion was just absolutely second to none.

might add that there was a little bit of a problem with the ferries

coming to and fro. We entered the harbour in Rupert, coming back from

the Charlottes in some fog, and the two ships — at least at that point;

but that was a year and a half to two years ago — had to adjust. One

poor chap from Quebec got on the boat thinking he was heading across to

the Charlottes, but he had got on the boat that was going back down to

Port Hardy. So we had to go back into port again and allow him and ten

other people to back their cars and their little trailers up the jetty

to get off there to the great cheers of the many hundreds of us on the

boat. There could perhaps be some improvement there.

appreciate that my colleague the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is

making a point and looking to improve service to the north. Certainly

my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) feels likewise

in regard to the shipping back and forth from the Queen Charlottes.

It's

also important that we make sure that our visitors from far and wide

don't get the impression that this whole particular transportation

process from Hardy is in sad disrepair or neglect or that it's in a

state that is not conducive to good holiday travel Indeed, it is

conducive to excellent holiday travel.

There may be some

points raised by both these members that could make things better for

those who travel to and from on a regular basis. I'm sure the minister

would take those into consideration. For our friends far and wide, let

it be clear that it is one of the best trips you could take here on the

west coast. I think the Ferry Corporation should be applauded for that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Well, I can respond very briefly to the members for Omineca and Prince

Rupert that if you want to look a number of years down the road, the

B.C. Ferries Corporation can see an eventual sale of the Prince Rupert . It would be replaced by the Queen of the North — I still refer to it as the Queen of Surrey . A new vessel will be going into the run that is presently handled by the Queen of the North .

But that isn't going to happen in the next couple of years. It is on

the drawing boards over a number of years — within ten probably.

MR. WILLIAMS : I would just like to get back to those big $125 million

boats, Madam Minister. Maybe you could give me the background in terms of the

decision-making process, in terms of going to tender for those, because it does

seem to me that it preordains a lot of other decisions and a lot of other solutions.

I've gone through the whole exercise in terms of the implications for infrastructure,

the likelihood that that means another two and the prospect that it will be

a no-bid situation. If it's going to be in B.C., it's going to be a

no-bid situation because we only have one shipyard that can build them that

size. The alternative is them not being built in B.C.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : You mean as in 1974.

MR. WILLIAMS : If you're promoting that, Mr. Member from Shuswap, stand up in the debate.

Clearly

those questions, and questions of scale, are ones that we should be

concerned about. It moves us on that route in terms of heavy-duty,

capital-intensive solutions, in the road system, terminals and ships.

We have to ask ourselves: "Is that the right approach?" Do we want

capital-intensive solutions to these questions, or do we want to

rethink a little bit? Do we want to think about other technologies? Do

we want to think more seriously about pedestrian movement? This year

we've seen higher pedestrian movement than we've ever seen before.

People are as usual voting with their feet, and that's intriguing.

Beyond

that there's the question of other terminals. That's intriguing, and I

don't think that alternative should be dismissed. It seems to me there

is a lot of homework that has to be done before you make the decision

to spend the $250 million on those two big ships.

If you

can provide the evidence that the alternatives have really been looked

at, I'll be satisfied. But it looks to me as though we have a done deal

here, and a done deal means more of the same: big bucks, probably

having to rethink it not too long down the road and finding we've spent

a lot of money that has not been spent well.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

To the member from Vancouver East, as I understand it, the

determination to call tenders on the super-ferries was as a result of

looking for the largest-capacity vehicle that could accommodate the

time-frame — the two-hour cycle turnaround that was required — and with

the ability to navigate in the waters that we were attempting to have

the vessel placed in. You asked the question: "Is that the right

approach?" That's a very valid question. I don't like to keep agreeing

with you, but that is a valid question which will be asked very

seriously when the tenders come in. I can tell you that several B.C.

shipyards have picked up the tender documents. You seem to be so

certain in your own mind. Maybe you know something that we don't know —

that only one shipyard can handle it — but we will certainly be taking

a very serious look when we have received the prices at the end of this

month.

You once again ask about other technologies. I

suggested earlier that we are looking at a number of technologies, not

the least of which is the "passenger only" that you mentioned earlier.

I would hope that in the not too distant future we will be making an

announcement in that regard. But we're going to be looking at the

corporate plans of B.C. Ferries and how

[ Page 10976 ]

best to share them with the communities being served.

Under

the new direction of Mr. Rhodes, I think you'll find that in B.C.

Ferries there will be far more in the way of community involvement and

public participation and consultation than we have seen over the past

number of years, because we understand full well, as you do, that B.C.

Ferries has had a reputation of operating very much in isolation from

those they are serving. That is no longer acceptable, and changes will

certainly be made to ensure that the public we're there to serve will

be more fully involved.

We are looking at a number of the

issues you have brought to our attention, and over the next few months

I expect you'll be very pleased with some of the announcements that

will be coming out.

What did you mutter there?

MR. WILLIAMS : I said a lot of us are easy to please, so hopefully that will be so. So you see, it was positive.

I'm

a little encouraged by what the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, but

the framework you put it in — the two-hour turnaround, the place and so

on — is still within a fairly tight framework. That's the question

we're really addressing. So if the $250 million potential expenditure

is causing you to pause and say, "Hey, this is a lot of money, and we

really have to think it through pretty carefully," then I’m encouraged,

because that's overdue. You can nitpick and say that it should have

happened earlier, but I think that's good news in terms of prudent

financial management for the province.

You've already

remarked on the $40 million in Horseshoe Bay, though. That's a given —

is it? — because I really think that one deserves to be questioned as

well. Horseshoe Bay as a long-term deliverer of vehicles to Vancouver

Island doesn't strike me as the right long-term answer. Considering the

linkages to Langdale and Bowen Island, that strikes me as max in the

long-term at Horseshoe Bay. You might comment on that as well if you

can. If there's going to be some news about passenger vessels, then

that's encouraging too.

[4:00]

But

in economic terms, when you start playing with economic models and

analyses here, it strikes me — as a person who used to be interested in

some of this stuff — that you're talking about fairly sophisticated,

complex things, and the linkage of the peak system pedestrian things

with the vehicular movement is an intriguing one. I hope that's being

addressed in a good technical sense.

It really begs the question of some kind of model of the basin in terms of

movement and looking at the alternative patterns of movement and what can be

achieved by them. Then, of course, an economist would argue pricing systems

as well. It may be sacrilege, but all of these things — once you start looking

at them in this kind of method — deserve some thought about peak pricing as

well. I know that's extremely difficult in our traditional system, but peak

pricing questions are begged in terms of traditional economic analyses here.

So I would hope that at least some analysis went into that aspect of the question

as well. Then one could feel reasonably secure that technically we're doing

something close to state of the art analysis prior to spending the money.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It's a point that is certainly worth exploring.

You

mentioned Horseshoe Bay and the expenditure that's going to be carried

on there. The numbers given to us would suggest that it is one of the

busiest ferry terminals not just here but in the world. Even with the

diversion of some of the traffic — and it is our hope to have another

vessel for the Tsawwassen to Departure Bay route so we will be able to

remove even more of the commercial traffic from Horseshoe Bay — we

still require the upgrading because of the other areas being serviced

from that particular terminal. Hopefully some of the new technology

that we're looking at will also somehow possibly fit into the same

terminal.

So the expenditure that is being looked at for

Horseshoe Bay is not with a view to it being necessitated due to the

probable building of the super-ferries. The expenditure and

improvements are essential regardless of what we do in that area,

because of the number of routes that we see going out from there. I

mentioned earlier we're looking at other possible terminals, both on

the mainland and on the Island.

MR. KEMPF : I hope I

am not cutting in on that discussion on ferries, because I wanted to

change the direction for a moment and talk about highways. I hope the

member for Prince Rupert didn't think that because I wanted to talk

about the Queen of the North

I was going to forget about highways in the north. Highways in the

north and highways and transportation routes for northerners are

probably the most important subjects that I could speak about as a

northern representative.

I want to talk for a bit about

Yellowhead 16 — the northern transprovincial — and particularly the

area from Prince George to Prince Rupert. I also want to talk about my

newfound area: that vast part of British Columbia called Atlin and

Highway 37.

MR. MILLER : Oh, you may not win there anyway.

MR. KEMPF : I may not win what — the election? That's no problem. I may not win on the highways issue.

First

I want to talk for a bit about Highway 16 — the Yellowhead route. A

whole lot of the Highway 16 route from Prince George to Prince Rupert

is totally worn out. It's long past due that we give very serious

consideration to spending some very big bucks on Yellowhead 16 West.

Yellowhead

16 West is 20 years behind in engineering. I think a case in point is

one which I brought up with the minister not too long ago. Yes, Madam

Minister, I am a bit remiss in not bringing the problems of the Queen of the North to you before

[ Page

10977 ]

raising them in the Chamber, but I think you'll

agree that that's not the case with respect to highways — which I very

much brought to your attention.

I think a case in point is

Hagman Hill. Tenders have been called, and for that I'm very grateful

and very happy, because Hagman Hill was just an accident waiting to

happen. But it's not just Hagman Hill on Yellowhead 16; it's the whole

of that some 450 miles — I'm of the old school; I use miles — of

Yellowhead West, Prince George to Prince Rupert. It's 20 years behind

the times. There are very few passing lanes, it's very narrow and the

wide shouldering was done on very short sections of the highway which

are few and far between. It's 20 years behind the times, especially for

the heavy truck and RV traffic that we now see on it. The amount of

traffic that we see on Yellowhead 16 West is just horrendous. We've got

to spend some big bucks.

It's not good enough that only $18

million of a $1 billion-plus budget is earmarked in this fiscal year

for that well-known state of Nechako — that clearly 20 percent of the

land area of British Columbia. I know what the minister is going to

say. She's going to stand up and say: "Well, you know we had a

transportation committee, and that transportation committee has

submitted their priorities, and those priorities are being adhered to

with $18 million in this fiscal year." It's not good enough by a long

shot.

We're talking about an area from whence a lot of

natural resource revenue comes in this province — that revenue that

builds all those wonderful highways on the lower mainland and provides

that wonderful ferry service from the mainland to Vancouver Island.

It's simply not good enough that from an over $1 billion budget we see

only $18 million returning to that area. We need some big bucks spent

on the Yellowhead 16, not only to bring it up to today's standards but

to reduce those areas that are absolutely dangerous because of the

maintenance situation. I travel a lot of that route practically weekly

in a motor home, my mobile office. I know where every pothole, every

hump, every problem in the road is. You find it soon in a vehicle like

that Yellowhead 16 West is 20 years behind the times. We have to find

the money in this Transportation and Highways budget, however it's

done, to ensure that that's a first-class transportation artery.

I want to talk about one other isolated situation on the Yellowhead 16, and

then I want to get on with talking about Highway 37. We have a situation in

a small community in my constituency called Telkwa which we've been wrestling

with for a number of years now, and which I believe can be rectified without

spending a great deal of money. But it is not being so rectified because of

the bureaucratic process, because someone in the Ministry of Transportation

and Highways has got it in their head that they've got to four-lane the

Yellowhead 16 through the community of Telkwa. Mr. Chairman, if you four-laned

the Yellowhead 16 through the community of Telkwa, there would be no more community.

It's a little heritage community nestled along the Bulkley River, a beautiful

river. But if you four-laned the Yellowhead 16, as is being suggested by the

bureaucrats, there wouldn't be anything left of Telkwa; it would virtually

wipe out the main street, which is heritage Telkwa.

I want to point out to the minister: we're not asking for the

four-laning of the Yellowhead 16 through Telkwa. We're not asking at

this time for a billion-dollar bypass of Telkwa, because that would be

20 or 30 years before its time. We're not asking for those things.

We're asking only for the hill immediately east of the community on the

Yellowhead 16 to be changed as a safety measure, because there is a

primary school in the vicinity of that hill. It has to be changed. It

should be being changed at this very moment, so we don't have to go

through another winter with that very dangerous situation in place.

Contrary

to what the district manager for Transportation and Highways in

Smithers thinks and wants, all we need through Telkwa is for that

highway to be repaved and for about three turning-lanes to be

installed. That's not expensive. It's not a billion dollars; it's

probably not even $10 million, Madam Minister. It's very inexpensive.

We could rectify the problem and, incidentally, make the local people

very happy, because they don't want it four-laned either. Pave it with

wide, bicycle-type shoulders, put in two or three turning-lanes, and it

will rectify the situation for Telkwa for the next 20 to 30 years. You

could forget about Telkwa. Just leave it as a nice, beautiful little

heritage village beside the Bulkley River for the next 20 or 30 years.

That's all that's required. With that, I'll get off the Yellowhead 16.

[4:15]

want to talk a moment about Highway 37, which stretches for many miles

from the Meziadin junction to the Yukon border — a highway forgotten,

in the eyes of those who live along it; a highway used to an extent

that you would not believe, Mr. Chairman, by tourists and locals alike;

a highway that we as legislators in this chamber should not be proud of

at all, not only from the standpoint of the people living along that

highway not having the freedom to move — not at great speeds, anyway,

I'll tell you — but with the dust and the mud when it rains, and the

rocks sticking out from its surface, literally tearing their tires to

shreds. It's not a highway that we, as legislators in British Columbia,

should be proud of.

I understand the cost of bringing that

highway up to blacktop standards, particularly when there aren't great

numbers of voters living along its length. I understand that problem.

But, Mr. Chairman, because of its usage alone, we have got to have a

short-term plan for Highway 37 and a long-term plan. When I say a

long-term plan, I don't mean in this case the twenty-first century,

because those people have been promised yearly from 1980 on that the

program would begin. The minister's predecessor, the now deceased

member for Cariboo, to my knowledge had set in place a plan back in the

early eighties that would have seen Highway 37 paved by 1986. It's now

1990, and still hundreds of miles of Highway 37 not only have not been

paved but haven't even been brought up to twentieth-century gravel

condition.

[ Page 10978 ]

This

situation can't go on. We in this chamber have to realize where the

revenue dollars for these things come from. It's all very nice for

governments — whatever government — to spend money on highways where

the votes are, but I think we've also got to realize that we have to

start spending money on transportation and highways in the areas that

the money comes from.

I see the red light is on, so I'll leave it at that for now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

While the member for Omineca has been in to see me about what I guess

we can refer to as a wish list for highways improvements in his

constituency, there's no question that the ministry and the

transportation task force did identify the upgrading of Highway 16 as a

priority. It's an important corridor. The ministry has made the

determination that improvements will be made, but they are going to be

made over a number of years, not over a couple of years. They will

probably be done more slowly than the member would like. The corridor

has been identified and improvements will be made, but they will take

several years.

On the improvements to Telkwa, there has

been no final decision to four-lane through the middle of town, as I'm

told. I am advised that ministry staff are working with the community

to determine the scope of the improvements. By working with the

community, I mean with the council; the locally elected people are

having input there. If that's not an accurate statement, I would be

pleased to hear about it. But on the basis of ministry staff working

with locally elected people, we have no plans for improvements to the

hill out of Telkwa, because we have to determine the type and scope of

the road improvements going through the town.

MR. KEMPF :

I wasn't going to say any more, but frankly, Madam Minister, therein

lies the problem: transportation task forces. That was the problem with

the so-called states and the transportation committees. They were very

general, because you had people sitting at the table from Atlin through

to Fort St. James. They were very general in their wish list, but they

didn't zero in on real problems.

I am absolutely appalled to hear that there was no mention of the dangerous

problem with the hill in Telkwa. I know that enough money has been spent on

studies, and yet another one is going on now in Telkwa to rectify the problem.

I think we've earmarked another $30,000 or $40,000 for yet another study.

It's not a study we need; we need bulldozers to start to rectify the problem.

But therein lies the problem. You can say what you like about transportation

task forces or transportation committees. It would seem that now that I sit

here rather than there, I am welcomed into the area of sitting on some of these

committees. Perhaps through that, things might change, and the true story on

the problems may just get to Victoria. Certainly if I have anything to say about

it, that will be the case.

But

we do have problems in Telkwa with respect to what your staff wishes

and what the locals wish. I ask you here to look very seriously at

that. I see your deputy minister shaking his head. He's a very able

fellow, and I know he will do that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, I just have to clarify one point to the member for

Omineca. Where the member sat in the House really mattered little to

those of us who were involved with the ministry-of-state project or the

transportation task forces. Everyone was invited to participate. So

your movement to this side of the House doesn't really matter. You were

welcome to sit on the task force prior to that, and I think you made

the decision not to participate.

MR. LOVICK : Mr.

Chairman, I am delighted to be back after a long absence. I'm looking

forward to chatting to the minister and her staff again. I appreciated

the reference the minister made some time ago to the fact that the B.C.

Ferry Corporation had a reputation for operating in isolation, and I

also appreciated her assurances that that will change.

would just point out that my own experiences in dealing with the

corporation lead me to the conclusion that all the people there have

certainly made every effort to be cooperative and to answer questions.

I'm

delighted to see Mr. Rhodes in the position he's in and also delighted

to see Rod Morrison here again. I know they both have a good track

record for answering questions. So I am pleased to see them here, and I

hope they can edify me somewhat on some of these questions.

Madam

Minister, if I may, I want to pick up very briefly on the super-ferries

decision. I think we've established now that when we make a decision to

use that particular technology — what I've referred to as an old

technology — the predicament is that it takes us so many steps further

along a given path of development. I'm wondering if I misunderstood

something. The minister seemed to be suggesting that the fact that the

two super-ferries had gone to tender didn't necessarily mean we were

committed to that technology. I am struggling with that, because it

seems to me that if we go to tender and say that's the approach and the

technology we want to purchase, then we are in effect committed.

I am wondering if the minister could first of all clarify for me what the nature of our commitment is. Can we change that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, I guess I could answer the first member for Nanaimo in

this way: nothing is ever carved in stone, hopefully. If the tenders

don't come in on budget, we will have to look very seriously at how

we're going to proceed from that time. But we're about a month away

from being able to say whether or not the plans we presently have in

place are going to be followed through. So while all of these people

are out there preparing their tenders, I think it would be rather

irresponsible for

[ Page

10979 ]

us to say that we're just doing this, and it's a

bit of a game we're playing. It's not; that is the plan. But having

said that, a number of issues could require us to rethink what we

presently have planned.

MR, LOVICK : I appreciate the

candour of the minister's answer. Sadly, it confirms my worst

suspicion. But I think that we have in fact made the deal, given that

the tenders come in roughly within the budget we're talking about. My

concern is that the decision is perhaps precipitate, and that it does

indeed commit us to a path of development that causes me some concern.

However, that's that. As the minister says, nothing is forever written

in stone, and perhaps other circumstances will interfere to make us

rethink that.

If we're committed to the contracting of two

super-ferries, can the minister inform me if any consideration was

given to modifying the tendering process to give some advantage or

assurance to the B.C. shipbuilding industry — in other words, any kind

of preferential status or anything? If that was rejected, could the

minister tell me why?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : In the

tender document there were a couple of very strong statements made with

regard to B.C. content and B.C. value-added. We did not quantify it,

but it was made very clear where our preference would lie.

MR. LOVICK :

Is it safe to assume, then, Madam Minister, if we stress the fact that

we would prefer B.C. content — we're aware of leakage from this

economy, and therefore we talk about value-added in B.C. — that there

is in fact a price differential; that even though it isn't necessarily

quantified, we're acknowledging the principle, at least, of doing so?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We already have a 25 percent advantage because of the duty; we have an

advantage along that line. But I'm beginning to be a wee bit

uncomfortable with this discussion when we're in the midst of the

tendering process. Suffice it to say that we would prefer to see the

work done in British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK : Okay, I

can certainly appreciate the sensitivity. Obviously we don't want

somebody from offshore saying that the deal was queered and that they

didn't have a chance, so that's a fair answer from the minister.

[4:30]

wonder if I might return to the questions I was posing earlier about

the propulsion systems and the apparent discrepancy between the

tendering processes used. For the propulsion system for the two smaller

ferries, we apparently went to tender. It seems on the face of the

evidence that we didn't for the $20 million contract. I'm wondering if

you could clarify that for me.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It's rather difficult for a novice in the field

to try to fully understand the process. When we conclude, if the member for

Nanaimo has more specific information he would like to get, we would be pleased

to have him sit down with the senior staff at B.C. Ferries, as I stated earlier.

There

was a proposal call from the consultant who was designing the vessels.

It was not the normal process, but it was determined that it was a fair

process. Several local people were involved, and I believe you have a

letter from one of them, who subsequently took legal action because

they were distressed that they had not been awarded the contract. It

was interesting to note that the company they represented was not a

British Columbia company, either. The senior staff at B.C. Ferries are

quite satisfied and have given me the assurance that the process was

proper, in order that the consultant who was most knowledgeable about

the vessel because of working on the design dealt with the proposal

call.

MR. LOVICK : Madam Minister, I have a rather

detailed background paper on this that I could read into the record.

However, I don't think the interests of the House would be well served.

But I will take your invitation to forward it to your senior staff. We

ought to get some answers to the questions.

Let me state

briefly what the Canadian company is suggesting. It is that there was

no tender process, and moreover, that the rules were apparently changed

in midstream. Clearly, if there is any substance whatsoever to that

allegation, I know the minister and her staff will agree that we ought

to do something about it. It obviously should not happen. I will simply

make a point of forwarding the information to you and your staff, with

the request for some specific answers.

I also want to.... I

apologize for this, but as you know, there was an hour-long hiatus

between our conversations. So bear with me if you will. The minister

made references to new technology and new approaches and said that she

and her people were indeed looking at that. I wonder if I might push

that for a moment and probe a little, asking whether any thought is

being given by the corporation and the ministry to going the route —

pardon the pun — of new ferry terminals on either the mainland or the

Island. Are we actively looking at new ferry routes and new terminal

construction?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : As I mentioned

earlier, we are looking at the possibility of new terminals and new

routes. We are very restricted on the Vancouver side. We are looking at

expanding the terminal at Tsawwassen. There's little question that

we're going to have to somehow find at least one more location on

Vancouver Island. I would expect that in the not too distant future a

very serious move will be made. B.C. Ferries is looking at it now.

MR. LOVICK :

The matter of new technology. I'm sure the minister and some of her

staff have met with at least one of the groups that are arguing the

case for aluminium-hull construction. As you are probably aware, Madam

Minister, this is a technology that seems to be capturing the

imagination of people all

[ Page 10980 ]

over

the world. In fact, I understand a number of vessels are now actively

operating. The only thing that isn't operating at the moment is a

vessel roughly analogous to the Cowichan class. Up to that size we

already have the technology in place, so it's quite well proven.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Given

the tremendous potential benefits in that technology, namely that it is

aluminium and we could use B.C. resources and give a boost to our own

mining industry producing the ore, and given all the wonderful

possibilities for spin-off — it's an exciting and marvellous way to use

a Crown corporation, to actually use B.C. Ferries as part of a larger

economic development strategy for the province — I wonder if any

specific consideration has been given to that technology. Has a group

within the corporation been given the mandate to go and do some studies

and analysis of the technology and see if we might do something with it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Yes, we do have a group in B.C. Ferries looking specifically at that

technology, and we would like to think that B.C. Ferries' future would

certainly not be a single-technology future. We would be looking at all

technologies available.

MR. LOVICK : Changing the

subject away from technology and futurism, I know that the minister

must have been concerned about the report on safety on the B.C. Ferry

fleet that was issued a month ago. If my memory serves, the report was

commissioned by the B.C. Ferry Corporation to answer the critics of the

corporation in terms of alleged malpractice in maintaining and ensuring

safety on the fleet. The report, as we now know, was rather damning in

what it had to say about the fleet, and I'm wondering if the minister

could give us an update on what has happened subsequent to the release

of that report. I believe a committee was struck. Could she tell us

what has been done in response to that safety report?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

There's no question that safety is a high priority. Very recently I had

an opportunity to meet with the head of the union and discuss some of

his concerns as the representative of the employees. If you will

recall, a committee was set up from the corporation and the union. They

commissioned the study, and management at this time is looking at all

of the recommendations with a view to — once they have evaluated all

the recommendations — sitting again as a committee and determining the

next move. But if there are obvious safety concerns, they will have to

be addressed.

MR. LOVICK : May we take it, then, that some kind of formal report from

that committee is indeed forthcoming and that there will likely be recommendations

that may be acted on and become policy for the corporation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, that's correct.

MR. LOVICK :

I want to turn now to a very specific question regarding the operating

subsidy for B.C. Ferries. As we all know, it's been the practice for a

number of years now for the government to make an operating subsidy

available to the corporation. Last fiscal year the amount approved

under vote 73 was some $55 million, of which some $51 million was for

operations. This year, under the Freedom to Move special account

appended to the budget, it says: "No funding is provided in 1991, since

an additional contribution was made to the corporation in 198990." I'm

wondering how that came to be. There is apparently no special warrant

in 1989-90 for this purpose. How was the money paid and how much was

paid?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The ministry was concerned

that B.C. Ferries, because of their expansion program, might have a

problem with their cash flow. The funding was therefore paid prior to

the conclusion of our last fiscal year. We are looking at $51 million.

Treasury Board applied a discount factor to the prepayment, so the

Ferry Corporation was paid $48.45 million on a grant of $51 million.

B.C. Ferries will be getting the interest on that money, so they still

received what was the equivalent of $51 million, and it was to assist

them with their cash flow.

MR. LOVICK : This question

may more properly be directed to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier), but I'm struggling with the mechanism of payment. How did

that come to be, given that...? I understand operating subsidies, I

know where they fit into a budget, and I even understand the Freedom to

Move special account. But we haven't passed that yet; it's still a new

policy. It looks to me as if we're dealing with the kind of thing that

would normally happen under a provision such as the Freedom to Move

special account. So my question is: how did we do it in the past

without the apparent authorization?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Well, there was no warrant required. The money was advanced through a real allocation. It went through Treasury Board.

MR. LOVICK :

It went through Treasury Board, to be sure, but then by what avenue

were members of this Legislature informed? When did they vote on that

appropriation? As we all know, it's absolutely crucial that at some

point this chamber approve those expenditures.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It was a global vote, part of our budget last year. The funds were

available when we came to the end of our fiscal year, and in order to

accommodate the projected cash-flow needs of B.C. Ferries, application

was made to Treasury Board to allow the movement in advance to B.C.

Ferries.

[ Page

10981 ]

MR. LOVICK : I'm sorry if I'm obtuse, Mr. Chairman, but was

the existing Highways budget underspent by $51 million, and therefore

we had this money to give?

[4:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, that's correct.

MR. LOVICK :

If that's the case, could you explain to us why the existing Highways

budget was underspent by a rather large figure like $51 million?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm told it was because of the lag in proceeding with some of our

projects. There were delays in moving along on some of our highways

projects, so the projected required cash flow was not needed prior to

year-end.

MR. LOVICK : This may sound like a rather

irreverent question, but I think it's a fair one. If this is what we

did last year to accommodate that particular set of circumstances, why

ever do we need legislation called the Freedom to Move special account?

In other words, if we can do that — and we did last year — why are we

introducing a new bill before the Legislature? I hope the question is

in order, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I have no wish to be mischievous or

anything; it seems to me a fair question.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm not sure whether we should be going into that bill, but the funds

would have lapsed at the end of the year. Under the Freedom to Move

special account we're dealing with, the funds would not lapse at the

end of the fiscal year; they would be allowed to be carried over.

MR. LOVICK :

To be sure, Madam Minister, but what you have just described is that

we've found the mechanism to ensure that we use the money so that the

funds didn't lapse. In other words, we did precisely what the Freedom

to Move account and the new legislation are designed to do. Isn't that

the case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Well, only in that one

case, because logically speaking, you wouldn't always have the demand

for the funding prior to its being originally paid out. B.C. Ferries

happened to be able to utilize the money at that time; otherwise it

would have had to come out of this year's estimates It was available;

they required the money, so we went ahead. Otherwise the money would

have fallen aside, and we would have started from square one. Under our

new Freedom to Move financial bill, the money doesn't fall aside; it

carries on. We will still require Treasury Board approval to move it

around, but it doesn't automatically fall back to zero.

MR. LOVICK : Forgive me, Mr. Chairman. I'm smiling because it sounds

to me that it didn't fall back to zero last year, because we did indeed

find a way to put that money to good use rather than let it disappear. My question

is, then, with all due deference: why do we need this new legislation if in

the past we've been able to put that money to good use quite legally and

legitimately? However, that's a rhetorical question, so I won't belabour

the point.

Just

another quick question on ferries — a very specific one from my

colleague from Vancouver East. It may have wider implications and

ramifications. It has to do with scheduling. What apparently happens on

the Denman-Hornby run is that there is no system whereby the

individuals who have to catch another ferry to Hornby get preferred

departure from the ferry. I gather it is causing consternation on the

part of the residents of Denman, because all the people who get off the

ferry who are trying to make the Hornby connection go racing across

Denman Island, causing considerable concern. The obvious solution, it

would seem, is simply to change the boarding and departing system on

the ferry so that those who have to make a connection can get preferred

unloading. I wonder if the minister could give us assurances that