1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)

Volume 20, Number 18

The House resumed at 6:37 p.m.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 44, Securities Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, in the main House. I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995
(second reading continued)

A. Warnke: I must admit you caught me at one of those funny times when in fact it did roll past 6 o'clock. I have to apologize to the Minister of Finance as well, because I understand that she hasn't eaten yet as a result of my not concluding debate so quickly. It's okay for me to talk; I could lose some weight, but I wouldn't want to see the Minister of Finance wither away. So I will try to be very short with my comments so that the minister can try to get something to eat.

In response to Bill 44, there are three issues I want to touch on, but prior to that I'd like to make some other comments. The Vancouver Stock Exchange has suffered in its reputation in the last 20 years generally, but more specifically while some of us.... I confess that I'm interested in investment, and I must admit as well that those who take an interest in investment, especially.... Someone brought up in the lower mainland obviously looks towards the VSE as someplace to invest, but I guess I'm just too conservative in terms of my investment. I have always admired the Toronto Stock Exchange. I won't comment on the American stock exchanges, but I've always admired the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Ontario Securities Commission. I know quite a bit about those two forums, and I have always been impressed with the TSE and Ontario's Securities Commission as being models for the securities business, and I had hoped that perhaps the VSE would develop as a western version of the TSE.

In recent years the VSE has suffered in terms of reputation, and it's not only just because it's a small market. There are plenty of penny stocks out there that sometimes attract not the best kind of investor or the best kind of promoter. The Vancouver Stock Exchange had fortunately overcome that, but that reputation as a small-stock speculator's paradise.... We know some of the promotion manoeuvres that have taken place, especially in recent years. I suppose it really built to a point of acme in the Friedland case. Fortunately, enough incidents have forced us to come to terms with really trying to come to grips with the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I would say this: I believe that now is the time to take whatever action is necessary to make the Vancouver Stock Exchange one of the leading areas for investment throughout the world. We have tremendous potential here, provided that we take some thorough and absolutely fundamental actions that will transform the Vancouver Stock Exchange from how it was known in the past to what I would call the western version of the TSE. Maybe some people would find that offensive, but I rather like what I've seen over the years in the TSE. There have been problems in the TSE as well, but overall their performance has been quite good. If we can make the Vancouver Stock Exchange very exciting, to the point that investors have confidence in what they're investing in, and if you combine the future potential of the VSE with the future potential of the economy of this province, I really see a lot of potential. Hopefully, that's where we're going.

I would say this, as well, and it's not because I suspect that there's going to be lots of money that will eventually flow to the B.C. Liberal Party or anything like that.... Heaven forbid! But I think we have an opportunity to really transform the Vancouver Stock Exchange into one of the first-class stock exchanges in the world. As a matter of fact, that's what I'm looking forward to in the legislation.

I've identified three areas that I just want to touch on very briefly. There have been some suggestions where, in the legislation that's before us -- Bills 44 and 45 -- perhaps we might address.... Perhaps the Minister of Finance could take whatever response she wants, both in terms of wrapping up second reading of this debate but also at committee stage, and address some of these issues.

One is, of course, with regard to due diligence. It's felt that brokers must take a more proactive role in vetting investment activities, so I would like to suggest that this should be examined.

The second issue deals with, and I think it really gets at the heart of, the perception that there has been tremendous market manipulation. Whether there really has been or not, there is a perception, and I think it's extremely important to deal with the area of fraudulent claims in some sort of absolute manner. This may mean that the courts have to really muscle in on fraud and ill-gotten gains, and this is one of the issues that the minister has identified. I think it's extremely important for the courts and for the laws to take strong, absolute action, both in making the person who is the instigator of such fraud pay and ensuring that fraud is unlikely. In turn, that will stimulate confidence in the public.

A third area which may be an issue that the minister could touch on in her final remarks is the concern expressed by the legal community, dealing with lawyers and conflict of interest and where we go with that. I know that the legal community has been in touch with the Minister of Finance, and I'm wondering whether the Minister of Finance would like to address that issue.

So those are three issues, plus some comments I wanted to extend on the nature and development of the VSE, to in turn, hopefully, provide some sort of incentive for going in the right direction, so that the VSE can become one of the most confident investment places for all British Columbians and, of course, for the international financial community.

[6:45]

J. Tyabji: I am going to be very brief. The reason I decided to get up in this debate was that I wanted to put on record what the Vancouver Stock Exchange means to me, what these bills mean to me and how interesting it is that in the fourth legislative session of the House we finally have some legislation in front of us about the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

As an outsider who feels a lot of pride in British Columbia, I like to celebrate what British Columbia stands for. The Vancouver Stock Exchange has always been something that's very difficult to explain to people who live in Ontario or in London, England, and members of my family who ask me: "Why does the Vancouver Stock Exchange have such a bad 

[ Page 14952 ]

reputation?" I guess the bottom line is: why hasn't the government ever done anything of substance to take issue with the Vancouver Stock Exchange? In effect, the Vancouver Stock Exchange has become a laughingstock in many circles, whether rightly or wrongly. Of course, all the people on that exchange tend to get tarred with the same brush, which is unfair.

Before this government came into office, one of the major planks in their platform was cleaning up the exchange. For those of us.... Maybe, being from Kelowna, one has a different perspective on this, because in Kelowna the rumour mill runs rampant about what's going on behind the scenes, about what the truth is behind one issue or another, and the Vancouver Stock Exchange rumours in the Okanagan Valley run rampant from time to time. They certainly did under the former administration, most particularly in the last years of the former administration. The one plank that this government had in the last election that I think received widespread support from members of the business community and from people outside the business community was that they were going to take some serious aim at the Vancouver Stock Exchange and put the levers of control of that exchange into the hands of the general public.

As to the particulars of the two bills that have come before us, I would defer to the expertise of the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance; he has much more familiarity with the machinery of it. But I would like to put on record how disappointed I am, first of all, that it's taken almost four years for legislation to come before the House, which is unfortunate. Second, now that the legislation has come into place, how ironic it is that this government is bringing it in at the twelfth hour, when we have an opposition which is now financed by the very people this government had committed to regulate against and to protect the public against...the kinds of scams and fraudulent marketing schemes that come out of that group. Now we have them financing the Liberal opposition -- a Liberal opposition that actually believes it had 2,800 people paying $175 a ticket at a dinner. I suppose that's first-blush naivety about the way some things have been working in downtown Vancouver for the past few years.

But that this government is refusing to take serious aim at the very people who will cause it the most grief if it is no longer in government.... How ironic it will be if they end up in opposition and the opposition ends up in government with this legislation in place, which is not giving the teeth we need to the people of the province. The people they're putting in to monitor the system are people who are already on the inside in one form or another. They may not be in the stock exchange, but they're part of what we would call the establishment. They don't represent people who might be somewhere in the interior or in the rural areas, or who take their investments and faithfully put them into a self-directed RRSP or some kind of investment fund, only to find out that it isn't a secure investment and that they have no recourse.

I'd like to put on the record that I would have hoped for something stronger. Prior to the Matkin report, many of us were hoping that this government would have brought in something more revolutionary. They had a mandate to do that, so it's not as if this would have been some sort of backdoor exercise. A true reform of the stock exchange in British Columbia is long overdue, and I hope this government might even reconsider and take stronger measures while they still have the opportunity to do it.

Hon. E. Cull: Because many of the comments in the second reading debate of this bill are similar to comments made on the other bill dealing with the Vancouver Stock Exchange -- I think that's quite understandable, since we're dealing here with matters of principle -- there's not an awful lot more to say at this point in wrapping up the debate on this bill.

There are a number of very specific points that individual members raised about sections of the act or particular policy decisions. Again, I think those are probably best dealt with when we come to those sections in committee stage, and I expect that we'll have a full debate at that point. With that, I now move second reading of the bill.

Second reading of Bill 44 approved on the following division:

Bill 44, Securities Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 23.

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)

[7:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The bill before you proposes to make a number of miscellaneous amendments to the School Act, the Independent School Act and the Teaching Profession Act. These amendments are being proposed to ensure that the schools of British Columbia continue to have qualified professionals providing instruction to our young people; that the funding system used to allocate the taxpayers' dollars to public education is clear, understandable and predictable, so that school district officials and the general public understand how provincial funding is allocated to schools; and that the quality of education in our schools continues to be of a high standard, through ongoing provincial accreditation.

[ Page 14953 ]

The proposed amendments to both the Independent School Act and the Teaching Profession Act are made at the request of the College of Teachers. Like the college, the government is concerned that all people who teach in the British Columbia school system be qualified professionals of high moral character. These amendments will permit the College of Teachers to request documentation from school boards and independent school authorities relating to the discipline, suspension, dismissal or resignation of a teacher who is a member of the college, to assist the college in its investigation and, where necessary, subsequent disciplinary action.

In addition, these amendments will empower the College of Teachers to terminate the membership and cancel the teaching certificate of individuals who automatically became members of the college when the Teaching Profession Act was proclaimed into force in 1988 but who have not paid their annual membership fees. The amendments provide for adequate notice to be given, to enable these individuals to become members in good standing before the general termination of the automatic memberships. Any person whose membership is terminated under this new provision will be able to reapply for membership and certification. However, as for all applicants, the person's professional qualifications and suitability of character will be screened before the individual is readmitted to the teaching profession in British Columbia. This will help to ensure that individuals who have been out of the profession for a number of years and lack the necessary qualifications, or who are otherwise unsuitable to teach our young people, are screened out, thereby assuring parents, educators and the general public that our schools are staffed with highly qualified professionals of good character.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

In addition to some housekeeping amendments relating to trustee vacancies and the accreditation of school regulation, this bill proposes to repeal and replace the sections of the School Act relating to the provincial funding of public schools in the province. After a series of consultations with our education partners, it became increasingly evident that the funding formula by which school districts are allocated moneys to operate and maintain schools was in need of revision. The funding system needed to be more understandable, more predictable and more accountable.

To this end, and after further consultation, I announced a new funding system earlier this year to commence in the 1995-96 school year. The amendments before you set out in legislation the basic structure of this new funding system. The amendments provide for a two-step process in the allocation of provincial education funding to our school boards. A preliminary allocation will be established and announced in February for the following school year, and a final allocation will be established and announced in the following January for the remainder of that school year.

The provincial allocation of funds will be divided into four components: general operating, targeted, capital and developmental. The Minister of Education will be able to direct how the components -- other than the general operating component -- are to be budgeted, spent and accounted for by boards. This will ensure that the dollars allocated by the province for the education of young people are, to the greatest possible degree, directed to the classroom, where they will be expended on programs designated for students with special needs, on aboriginal students and on other specified educational programs.

The minister will continue to be able to cap the amount of taxpayers' dollars that are spent on school and district administration. While confirming that the expenditure of public education dollars is a process comanaged between the provincial government and local school boards, these amendments also establish a funding system that allows board members and the public to understand how those education dollars are allocated and spent. It is important that the limited resources available to us for the education of our young people are allocated and expended efficiently. School boards and the provincial government must continue to be accountable for the expenditure of education funding, and students must continue to be the focus of our limited education dollars.

The amendments set out in this Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, will help ensure the continued integrity and professionalism of teachers in British Columbia, the ongoing maintenance of high standards in our schools, and the provision of a clear, understandable, accountable funding system that focuses on the student in the classroom.

I point out that during the detailed clause-by-clause debate, I will be introducing an amendment to clarify that I do not intend to target further funds; and there is a second amendment on a matter that was rather minor, but important, and was overlooked in the drafting of the original bill. Those two amendments will be tabled during the detailed debate.

Having said this, I recommend this bill to the House and look forward to listening to the second reading debate. I move second reading of Bill 23.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak in second reading to Bill 23, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. I'll speak briefly to this particular bill and mention a few sections that I believe are the most important ones in it. There will be closer scrutiny of it, clause by clause, at committee stage. I was very pleased to hear the minister say there will be a couple of amendments coming forward to deal with clarification around targeted funding provisions in this bill, which, to say the least, are very troublesome.

Section 1, which deals with discipline proceedings of teachers under the Independent School Act, with section 4 as the parallel in the public schools, is something that everyone supports. This is a needed addition to the amendments: the equality of process, in that both the public and independent schools are treated the same -- for that reason. The Teaching Profession Act changes are broadly supported as well. The amendment to the School Act to address the accreditation of schools, setting out the mandate of procedures and duties of boards, superintendents, teachers, principals, vice-principals and others, to facilitate the accreditation process.... I believe there needs to be meaningful accreditation that must also look at empirical student performance data and make sure that the process is not manipulated to become a whitewash. There is a danger of that happening, and I would almost suggest that there may be a need for an independent, arm's-length group to do the accreditation and to make sure that that kind of thing doesn't happen.

The bill also deals with amendments to the School Act to address trustee vacancies and distance education schools. I'll quote from section 12, which amends the School Act by 

[ Page 14954 ]

adding the following subsection: "When directed to do so by the minister, a board shall establish a trust fund (a) for a purpose specified by the minister, and (b) in accordance with the terms of the trust determined by the minister." These trust funds are completely controlled by the minister because of the two sections I just spoke of. Section 9 also allows the government to withhold or reduce grants to school districts on a sanction if, in the view of the minister, boards are not responsible.

Those are a couple of areas, but the most significant is section 6, which takes spending autonomy away from school boards. I would hope that this is the area where the minister is introducing his amendments, because section 6 mandates provision of the new funding formula; this relates to the way school districts are allocated provincial funding. The section, as it's written, would allow the minister to direct school boards as to how they spend their funding allotments. This includes targeted grants, capital, general operating and developmental areas of the school budgets, which takes away the local autonomy of school boards to direct the funding to the specific needs of their districts and neighbourhood schools.

The official opposition believes that boards and individual schools should be accountable for their performance in financial management and student achievement, but that boards must have the flexibility to make decisions that will allow that to happen. We believe this section also sets the stage for directed or targeted funding with strings, and provides for much greater centralization in the minister's office.

With those few remarks, I look forward to committee stage of this particular bill and to dealing with the amendments the minister is going to be bringing forward.

L. Fox: I am pleased to speak on the philosophies and principles of Bill 23. Let me say at the outset that there are probably some initiatives and clauses within this piece of legislation that I don't really have any problems with, but there are a couple of areas that I have a lot of concern about. One is the further erosion of the autonomy of the school boards. I recognize that a few moments ago the minister suggested that he was going to bring in some amendments that would reduce the effects of this legislation in terms of targeted funding, but I think that if we reflect back to not too long ago, to just prior to 1987, and look at the autonomy the school boards had at that point versus today -- and, in fact, since this legislation has come forward -- one would have to question whether or not in the view of this minister it was even going to be necessary to continue to have school boards, because this legislation points out very clearly that it is the intent of the administration to get more and more involved in the setting of the criteria for our schools than it has been previously.

There are a couple of issues contained within this legislation. The accreditation process, for one, is now more clearly vested in the hands of the cabinet. Clearly that power already existed, but now it's far more definitive in terms of who has the ultimate authority. One has to question whether or not this is a provision that allows the cabinet to deal with alternative schools or charter schools, or perhaps even the independent school system as we see it today, with a more definitive hand. We will look forward to the debate on that particular clause when we get to it.

When we talk about issues around targeted funding.... Not having seen the minister's amendment, it will be interesting to see how far he goes beyond what we used to have in terms of special programs. For years there has always been special funding for special initiatives, and those were always targeted. In terms of other day-to-day school activities, it was within the jurisdiction of the school board to make some decisions in terms of managing its funding and setting its overall educational goals. This legislation would suggest a reduction of that autonomy, and I look forward to the minister explaining the rationale behind that.

[7:15]

As I said at the outset, prior to 1987 a school district had the opportunity to levy taxes in its district for the purposes of generating funds for locally developed and locally initiated programs. Obviously, all of that had to be approved by the ministry, but there was some autonomy and some decisions that could be made in terms of educational value within a district. Since then, we have successively -- not just with this government but with previous governments -- eroded the autonomy of school districts. I would suggest that at some point in time this government -- or whichever government -- had better sit down and say: "Is there a need for this administrative body? If so, what are those jurisdictional powers going to be?" Right now we have a huge problem out there, and the trustees that I speak to around the province really aren't sure what their mandate is in terms of being a public school trustee. More and more they see themselves becoming a buffer between the public and the government rather than a body which develops and sets priorities within its district in terms of educational standards.

I am somewhat concerned about this legislation. I believe that more and more we are working towards the removal of school districts. If that is the case, the minister should stand up and say that we're no longer in need of school boards; that we are going to have more school-based management; that we are going to send out more of the instructions from Victoria; that we're going to have more control. This bill certainly points to that. The government is going to take more control over education within the province and how it spends its money.

With that, at this stage I would suggest that I am going to vote against this bill, because I believe that it is not forthright and that the minister has not laid out the overall scope of how he sees school districts functioning. Until such time as he does, I am not prepared to support this type of legislation.

G. Wilson: With respect to Bill 23, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, I'd like to go on record as saying that the Alliance members will be voting in opposition to this bill. We'll do it for a number of reasons.

The primary reason is that it runs counter to what we believe should be the direction of government with respect to provincial funding. We have been on the record for a number of years now -- and prior to the establishment of the Alliance Party, it was very clear, in terms of the mandate that I took to the people in 1991 that commanded roughly 33 percent of the vote that came forward, that the people of British Columbia wanted to see a greater degree of community control, through elected school boards, over the application of moneys for program development within the community.... This runs counter to that.

What Bill 23 actually does is provide -- and I think the member for Prince George-Omineca has hit the nail on the head.... What it tends to do is centralize a greater degree of 

[ Page 14955 ]

power in the hands of the minister. It is not clear when we look at this bill, when we read the content of the amendments with respect to the educational statutes and the School Act.... Quite clearly, we look at this bill and we come out, I think, somewhat confused as to what this government's position is with respect to school boards and, I would argue, with respect to long-term funding of the public school system. We have to recognize that; it shouldn't come as any surprise.

I think one of the nice things about these kinds of debates in principle is that the public, finally, if they ever get an opportunity to hear or read what is said in these halls, can find out where the distinctions and differences are between the political parties that they'll have a choice to vote for in the next election. So clearly, what we're starting to recognize is that now the Liberal opposition, which has taken a position toward favouring charter schools -- away from public education toward privatization of education, which is part of their privatization plan, as they've done with so many other things.... It is a marked change from where they were in 1991, and I think it's important for people to understand that, because it's only honest to say that this is where they are now as opposed to where they were then. One can understand why this bill would be acceptable to those who would favour the dismantling of public education and the establishment of charter schools and the movement toward more privatization or two-tier education.

I understand the member for Prince George-Omineca, who talked -- and, I think, talked very well -- about the need to redefine the role of school boards. We would certainly second that. We have to determine what the role of the school board is going to be with respect to the allocation of funds, and how school boards are going to have an opportunity to make decisions on allocating those funds, whether or not they are in the four primary areas this bill would set down: general operating components, targeted components, capital components or developmental components. We have to know the extent to which those boards will be able to direct those moneys within their community and the extent to which they will be directed by the minister as to how they're going to put those funds in place.

From our point of view, let me say that it's unfortunate, because the government, I think, is sending out a very confusing message. On the one hand, they talk about an adherence to public education -- that they want to try and protect public education. The record of this government has shown, however, that they're headed in quite a different direction, with a very centralized, very bureaucratic system of delivery; with things like provincewide bargaining, which they brought in; with whipping the educators into shape, so-called, by putting on the books back-to-work legislation, which effectively is a huge hammer over members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation -- which, I think, politically maybe is expedient, but in terms of a commitment to one's right to be a member of a union or right to strike is questionable, given this government's record.... Also, look at the manner in which the employers' associations are coming together to put in place a provincewide direction for education, and the extent to which these amendments are going to further that effort by giving this sort of two-level funding, with respect to the dates provided in the breaking up of the establishment of funds through the provincial block.

So what we're now saying is that there's going to be, essentially, the February 1 date, where the minister shall establish the total preliminary amount of provincial funding; and then he suggests that as of January 31 of each fiscal year, the minister will establish the total fiscal amount. Where the Alliance differs with that, and the reason we can't support it, is that we believe that what the government ought to be moving toward is a four-year-based financing plan. Philosophically we don't like the notion of not knowing from year to year to year what you're going to have. We don't believe that school boards can make the kinds of decisions they have to make if they don't have at their disposal the opportunity to do long-range planning. They can't do it if they don't know from year to year to year how much money they're going to have. And they're not going to be able to do it even if they receive on February 1 a total preliminary amount with two allocations, because clearly what's going to happen is that there's going to be a dollar value on February 1 and a very strong lobby of government and all kinds of reasons why, by the January 31 allocation, those amounts are going to have to go up.

The preferred position that we believe should be put in place is a proposition that provides four-year-based financing to school boards: "This is how you're going to have your dollars put in place. You've got four years to plan them. We can, in the third year or the fourth year, negotiate your next four years, so that you are always going to have a secure base that would allow you the opportunity to do the kinds of curriculum development, program development and special needs development that your community requires and that would provide autonomy to the school boards to make that happen."

We recognize that we could reduce the total number of school boards. That's outside the scope of this bill, certainly, but I think that we do recognize that you can consolidate a number of boards. We would like to look at that through a commission process. That's something that we've put on the table and put out as our policy, as I think all political parties ought to do. But we also recognize that if we're going to have any kind of opportunity for those school boards to have the autonomy they require at the community level, they have to have in place some kind of financial stability -- fiscal stability -- and I don't think this addresses that question. I don't think it addresses that question, because philosophically this government is obviously not directed to do so or doesn't feel that's the way to go.

We also believe that.... In fact, we had hoped -- seriously hoped, because we had heard rumours along the grapevine -- that Bill 23, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, was going to get rid of the formula funding system, which we've been advocating. I've been advocating that personally since it came in, but certainly the Alliance has been advocating it since we've been an established political party. Once again, it was the mandate taken to and articulated to the public in 1991 and which received their support. It was, in fact, the policy that many people in this Legislative Assembly were elected on. We are going to stay true to the mandate and to the position that we took to the public, because we think it's the correct one.

I hope the minister takes my comments in the spirit that they're offered; they are constructive commentary. What this does not provide is an opportunity to get away from formula-based funding for full-time-equivalent notions, which essentially ties in administrative components for financing or funding and therefore dilutes, to a large degree, the amount of 

[ Page 14956 ]

money that actually goes into educational delivery. So we have to recognize that there is a need for us to amend, to change, that kind of system, and that is one of the things that is not included in this bill.

For the same reasons the member for Prince George-Omineca has said that he has concerns -- and we would agree with that -- with respect to confusion on where the school board is.... Because we simply do not believe -- as do members of the official opposition, who seem to be in support of this bill -- that we should be getting away from public education and toward charter schools, toward a private system of education or a two-tier system of education. We don't think that's the right way to go, because we are committed to four-year-based financing -- the position we took to the people in 1991 that received widespread support then and I believe would now -- and because we think that we need to get rid of formula funding and therefore could not possibly fit with "Division 1 -- Provincial Funding," as spelled out in this act. Even in principle, we cannot support what the government is attempting to do.

There is one other section that I think does warrant some discussion, however, and that's the proposition with respect to the amendments affecting the registration of teachers and the proposition the minister alluded to before with respect to the amendments in the act. To that extent, I don't think that, in terms of the Teaching Profession Act.... We have, perhaps, a little less concern with that particular section of the bill, because there is provision for public notice. I think that's important. There are, I think, effective and sufficient time lines granted with respect to those amendments, and I don't think there's a particular problem with that. Also, we think that with respect to the operation, if you want, or the overall kind of -- I don't want to use the word "policing," although I've just done so -- enforcement notion of members, in terms of suspension of members and the termination-of-members amendment.... Those minor amendments to this act are, we believe, just that, and therefore we don't have as big a concern with that section of this bill.

Having said that, with those objections in mind the Alliance simply cannot support this bill in principle, because it does not speak to the direction that we believe the government ought to be going in: four-year-based, long-term, proper financing for school districts, with a greater degree of local autonomy and control in the hands of the community that elect their school boards, so there is an opportunity for people to direct the education that young people will be getting. For those reasons we will be voting against Bill 23.

[7:30]

J. Dalton: I have a few comments I want to make about this bill. Firstly, with regard to the targeted funding, I heard the minister say that after long consultation with his education partners, he's brought this in. Well, I can tell you that the trustees I talked to aren't part of his partnership. They're very concerned about this targeted funding.

I might point out to the minister that it might be nice if he had brought in now these amendments that he's alluded to. Why should we have to wait till committee stage before we get a chance to look at them? That's part of the consultation process this government constantly goes through. We limp from crisis to crisis with this government, and there's another example.

So certainly the opposition has major concerns about the implications of targeted funding and the lack of consultation. That has clearly not taken place -- at least, the lack has occurred. That's a message we get all over the province on every bill that's brought before this House. The Election Act -- and heaven forbid that we're going to have to deal with it in this session -- is another example. The Criminal Records Review Act is another example, and the Class Proceedings Act. It goes on and on and on. I do not understand why a government that claims to be in control -- and we know it isn't -- puts these things on the order paper. Nobody's ever seen them before, and then this minister gets up and tells us he's consulted with people. That's a joke; there's no consultation.

I must make some comments as well, in passing. The member for Powell River-Sunshine, Coast who spoke before me, is constantly, of course, taking shots at his former party. The member, like many other people, doesn't get it about Liberal education policy. It's not a question of charter schools, elitism, two tiers, and all this other nonsense.

Choice: has anyone heard of the term "choice"? Has anyone heard of talking to parents and taxpayers in their communities? Maybe in Powell River-Sunshine Coast they don't talk to their constituents. Perhaps the same is true in Okanagan East. But the parents I talk to -- in particular the taxpayers I talk to, many of whom are parents, but they're not all with school-age children in the system -- want more say and local control and choice in the public system. Sure, there is an independent system out there. What's wrong with that? That's another choice. If people wish access to that, well, so be it. But we should not get sidetracked by thinking that the Liberals are elitist or undermining the public system, because that is certainly not the case.

I must say I'm very disappointed that this minister hasn't bit into the issue of amalgamation of school districts. There's every opportunity to do that. We don't see that in this bill, and we know why. It's because this government hasn't got the jam to face the voter before the next election, dealing with the important issue of local administration and cutting down the cost of administration. There are 75 school districts in this province. Some of those school districts are smaller than Vancouver schools. This minister won't bite into that issue. He should have done so with this bill before us, or with some other bill. It hasn't happened.

The other issue I wish to comment on for a moment is the accreditation feature in section 189 of the School Act that is amended. I must say I'm happy to see this so-called housekeeping provision that the minister referred to in his second reading comments. But this isn't just housekeeping; there's more to it than that. I see -- and this is where I'm at least marginally in favour of it -- that teachers and administrative officers of the school designated for accreditation must assist in securing that accreditation. That's long overdue. Too often, I think, people who are directly involved in the system either absolve themselves of that responsibility, or they only go through the motions of doing so.

We're going to have to see what regulations come out of this amendment. I think back to the elementary school that my children used to attend in North Vancouver. In the last school year, we went through an accreditation process, but it was a bit of a farce, in a way. They sent home a three-page questionnaire -- you know, one of those choices from one to five, 

[ Page 14957 ]

ranging from you like it a lot to you hate it a lot to anywhere in between. The questions, quite frankly, were for the most part rather innocuous and tame, and sort of warm, touchy-feely things. But the last question I still remember. The last question -- and I won't identify the school, though I guess it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one it is -- was: "X school is a good school" -- choices one to five.

You know where that question came from? It came from this Education ministry. They advised the school that that would be a good question to put in their questionnaire. I sent back a note to the principal: "Why not say, X school is a bad school, and have choices one to five? Because you'd get the same stupid result." And of course it was overwhelming; it was 96 percent or something who said that X was a good school. Well, whoopee! My children are no longer in that school, so maybe it isn't a good school. Who knows?

I point that out because I think this minister may have dropped the ball on that one. If someone in his ministry suggested to that school that that was a good question to put on the accreditation questionnaire, somebody is really asleep at the switch -- and there are lot of them over there that are asleep, as we well know.

I have major reservations about this bill, hon. Speaker. There are so many things missing from it, and so many opportunities that could have been brought in. The government, as usual, dropped the ball on this one.

J. Tyabji: Once again, I'm not clear whether the Liberals are voting in favour of or against this bill.

I just want to take a minute to respond to the former speaker, who was talking about people being asleep at the switch and mentioned the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast as a former member of his party. I want to point out that he wasn't just a former member of his party. He was actually the leader of the party, who set up the education policy prior to the 1991 election in conjunction with a number of members, when that used to be a grass-roots organization, and in the 1991 general election -- and I know this because I was at the teachers' meetings and at the debates representing the party's policy -- we campaigned on a reform of the formula funding system. Charter schools and the kind of elitist, right-wing rhetoric that's coming out of the Liberal party was not on the table at that time.

For that party to glibly throw out their mandate and move in a totally different direction is absolutely shocking at a time when people are looking for accountability. The people of this province will judge them in the next election, and I believe they'll judge them in the manner they deserve.

But speaking with respect to education, one of the issues that brought me into the provincial arena was education. What we lose sight of quite often in this debate, whether we talk about elitist charter schools and call it "choice," or whether we talk about restricting small-l liberal education and call it "opportunity for certain segments of the population...." What we miss in the debate is what the education system is for.

The education system is not for civil servants in the Ministry of Education. It's not for the administrators and the school trustees who are with the school boards or the individual schools. It's not for the teachers, who form one of the most powerful unions in the province. The education system in British Columbia is for the students; that's the only thing we have that system for. Why did we set up a public education program in this province? Why did we decide to build an institution? We built it because there was a need for good, accessible education. There are very few people in this province who won't recognize that we need significant change in our education system.

I know this minister recognizes the role of the electronic media in the future of our educational institutions. I don't think it's possible for an institution or a bureaucracy as cumbersome as the current education system to respond adequately to the changes in technology. Certainly that's not the case right now. Different school boards are grappling with the issues at their own speed. In some cases the bureaucracy is working with them, in some cases it is advancing policy on its own, and in some cases it is finding new policy on a daily basis or reacting to initiatives in different parts of the province.

This bill takes us in the totally opposite direction to where we should be going with respect to funding. The reason it does that is that if there's one problem the people who are meant to serve the students in this system will find -- whether it's teachers who are not part of the union executive but who are grass-roots teachers, administrators who are trying to work with the books, people who are observing, parents, or those who turn out to public meetings on education.... They will tell you that without a secure funding base we cannot get on with the business at hand, which is educating the students. We are constantly having disruptions, whether it's the parents' advisory committees organizing, lobbying and marching because there's inadequate funding; whether it's a high-growth region needing more capital investment; or whether it's one of the school districts lobbying because they happen to be at the bottom of the list -- that list of all the school districts, showing the inequities in the formula funding system that have existed in the days of the Social Credit Party.

Whatever it is, the bottom line is security of funding, and the one thing that people ask, so that they can get on with the business of educating students, is: "Give us an even playing field." They're not saying: "Put more money in the system." They're not saying: "Redirect it so that we get more than our share." Over and over again, whether it's parents, teachers or administrators, they say: "Give us an even playing field. Let's not have a list of school districts saying: 'We're at the top; we're at the bottom; we're tenth from the bottom; we've moved to twentieth from the bottom'." They don't want that, because that means we've moved into the squeaky-wheel politics of education. For too long in British Columbia, education has been used as a political football to serve the expedient political interest of what used to be a bipolar system, and what is moving back to a bipolar system. What do we see happening again? We have the benevolent-dictatorship model of the NDP and we have the gibbled, disorganized, changing-with-the-strongest-wind policy of the Liberal Party. And the Reform Party? Well, I'm not sure.

R. Neufeld: Remember when you were a party member of the NDP?

J. Tyabji: The member is reminding me of 1991, when I ran on the election platform of leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, and he is reminding me that at all times I have put issues before the expediency of politics. The Liberal Party and the NDP are seeking to put the polarity of politics 

[ Page 14958 ]

back into education, and once again we lose sight of the bottom line, and that is the students. So the students will lose out in this system.

Why will they lose out? Let's talk about the bill specifically. We know that under section 124 of the School Act -- the provincial funding -- we now have two different subsections for the allocation of funds: we have the preliminary amount and we have the final amount, and this is new. And we have slightly different dates: we have January 31 for the final amount and we have February 1, which is in the preceding subsection, for the preliminary amount. But where are the key phrases that open this up to bipolar politics and once again see education as a political football to be bandied about by the parties?

The different wording is in sub-subsection (2)(a)(i), where it says that the minister shall "establish the total preliminary amount of Provincial funding for the next fiscal year by multiplying together (i) an average per student amount, as determined by the minister...." And then we see a change in the wording when we look at the final amount. In subsection (3): "...the minister shall (a) establish the total final amount of Provincial funding for that fiscal year having regard to the following as determined by the minister: (i) the number of full time students or the equivalent of full time students...." What does "having regard to" mean? Having regard to a general number? It's not an average per-student amount, is it? It's not specifically assigned to a per capita number. There's a difference in wording between the preliminary amount and the final amount. Why would the minister do that? If the difference is: here's a preliminary amount and here's a final amount, and we're just trying to deal with budget constraints, they would use the same words.

G. Wilson: That's why he's going to count twice.

J. Tyabji: He is going to count twice. Not only is he going to count twice for the expansion of students, but perhaps he'll count twice if the parents' advisory committees get active. Perhaps he'll count twice if they have creationism in their science classes. Perhaps he'll count twice if they happen to have a French immersion program that the province doesn't support. Who knows what the basis of his counting will be? All we know is that the final amount will be an arbitrary figure; the final amount will be at the discretion of the minister. That opens us up for another can of worms being opened and another set of partisan footballs being bandied about.

I'm looking forward to seeing the amendments the minister said he would put into "the more detailed part of the debate" -- I think that was the way he put it. I'm assuming that means they haven't been written, because heaven knows we wouldn't want them to actually have been written and just have been withheld because they might be contentious. That might be a cynical approach to things, and we know this minister wouldn't do something like that.

[7:45]

It's interesting that throughout this bill, we now have the minister tying the hands of the board for the budgeting, spending and accounting for the targeted capital and developmental components of each of the allocations. But where do we see the most punitive form of funding? Where do we see the most insidious form of funding, and the worst possible model if we ever move into a situation where someone would like to use this act for political means? Let's say for a second that we give this minister full marks -- and I'm not saying I do, but let's say we do, because I know the Deputy Speaker will indulge me a little if I do -- and that he believes that a benevolent dictatorship underneath his ministry would be the best thing for this province, and that he sits there and says: "I know what's best, so give me all the power. I'll tell the school boards what to do, and we'll have a great time."

Well, the minister might say that, but I'll remind him that he's in the fourth year of a five-year mandate, and sitting across the House from him are those people who are actually continuing to defend a charter school system, the dismantling of public education and the Americanization of our school system; they are continuing to defend elitist politics and calling it choice. And we know where that leads: that leads to two-tiere medicare -- which we have coming; it leads to the privatization of B.C. Hydro; it leads to the dismantling of public education; it leads to a pluralization of school boards; and it leads to the kind of open-ended right-wing rhetoric that we see coming out of people like Newt Gingrich. I'm waiting for that up-down speech, with Newt Gingrich being imposed over the Leader of the Opposition.

Where we see a wide-open door for that kind of group to get in and have that strongest-wind-blowing response to policy initiatives or legislative agendas is under section 9 of this bill, which amends section 133 of the School Act. What it says is that the minister can actually punish the school boards if: "the board has not budgeted, spent or accounted for a targeted, capital or developmental component of an allocation under section 125(1)" -- that happens to be the section the minister has full control to dictate under -- "or (2) in accordance with the directions provided to it in respect of that component by the minister...." At that point, the Minister of Education can start to take away some of their funds and say: "Well, I was going to give you money for that, but you haven't followed my directions, and perhaps I've reconsidered. Perhaps you won't be getting what you were thinking you were going to get, because I don't like what you're doing. I don't like that creationism in your science class, for example."

If that happens, who loses out? Let's back up a bit. What's the education system for? Is it so that the minister can go to war with a school board? Is it so that the minister can come down hard on administrators? Who doesn't get the new textbooks, the new maps, the operational funds, a better school bus or handicapped access? Who is it? Is it the school board? Does the school board care? Are they going to mind if they don't have updated maps? Are they going to mind if they don't have the proper educational resources? We know that many school boards in the province don't mind, because there's another issue we're going to canvass in the Education estimates about some of the spending that's been going on in the allocation of educational resources.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Well, we have ways to go after the minister on those things.

But the educational resources funding that's been coming out of this minister has not been going in that area, and we know that if the minister's going to now withhold funding, the only people who will be losing out will be the students. Rather than being a provision for some sort of reprimand, joint meeting or discussion of the minister's direction, if the 

[ Page 14959 ]

minister's will is not upheld, then the board will be punished by having some of their funds taken away. We also know that "the Minister of Education may order that any debt service expenses incurred by a board as a result of the withholding of a grant under subsection (1) of this section shall be paid for from one or more of the board's allocations." So we know that if the minister does withhold that money and it has already been budgeted and the school board ends up having a hard time meeting that, or has a debt expense, they have to take it from a different pocket. Well, remember that the only reason the school board gets that money is so they can provide education for the students. If the minister punishes them, the people who lose out are the students. This goes back to the whole debate about education. It's long overdue that we actually had a good thorough debate on the situation of education in this province and where people stand not just on the funding structure but on teachers; on centralized bargaining; on whether or not we'll have school boards; on how many school boards we'll have and, if we're going to get rid of them, what will we put in their place; and on whether there should be centralized or decentralized decision-making.

We don't support this bill at all -- just in case I hadn't been clear on that point. All levity aside, it's important to be able to introduce it in the House. This province has suffered because education has been used as a political football. I can't put all of that at the feet of this minister, because the former administration were masters of that. They were masters at creating crises in education. In fact, we saw to some extent the generation of a big debate around essential services and how there was this big public call for essential services. Well, I talked to my constituents about that at some length, and in fact there again we had the squeaky wheel driving the political agenda. That's what we open ourselves up to here. Even if this minister doesn't want to believe that he, in his beneficence, is going to cause problems for the students in the school system with the amendments in this act, he should remember the years and years of strife we've had in the educational system and the fact that this bill is going in the wrong direction. I would promise that, if we open up this Legislature and use it for the intentions for which it was developed -- and that is for parliamentary debate on issues -- if we bring forward a motion to develop a better system of education in this province, the Progressive Democratic Alliance will provide a lot of constructive input. We would welcome such a motion, because the people of this province want to know. They want to know what people stand for. They want to know which direction we're going in, and they want to know that there's a long-term strategy for the province that will provide a secure base of funding with an even playing field -- and that the bottom line is good, accessible, equal opportunity education for every student in this province regardless of their income bracket.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, the minister closes debate on the principle of Bill 23.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We've heard some interesting comments tonight from members opposite. I can only think that paranoia is rampant in the House. I'm looking forward to the clause-by-clause debate in committee so that we can address some of the concerns. No doubt we will find that we are not able to address all of the concerns. I find that some of the potential for misunderstanding is quite incredible and some of the concerns that people have raised.... I think that when we get into the section-by-section debate they will find that their manifest distrust is misplaced. There are rather straightforward reasons for all of the steps, and they will find that, with the exception of objections to targeting -- that specific element of targeting -- B.C. school district trustees, in fact, support the new funding mechanism, because they know it to be fairer, clearer and more understandable. Having a preliminary allocation and a final allocation -- the preliminary based strictly on ministry estimates, the final based on actual counts and hence head counts and FTEs -- is something that the school district trustees seek. It makes their life simpler.

It might be quite wonderful to have multi-year funding, and we can debate that further during the detailed portion of the committee debate. It would be wonderful to know just exactly how a district will know three or four years in advance what their enrolment will be, what their mix of special needs students will be and what the impact of capital projects that might or might not occur during that four-year period would be. It would be wonderful. I suppose if we all had perfect crystal balls and also knew what the revenues of government would be, such that we know what amounts Treasury Board has to deal with four years in advance.... All we would need is a perfect, large crystal ball that can look one, two, three and then four years in advance, and voila -- it's all solved. Everybody can have the certainty and assurance, as the member opposite thinks, that they want.

I think that, too -- and again we can expand on it in the clause-by-clause.... If we look at the four years of this government and the education budgets, the amounts allocated from year to year have been.... If you allow for the enrolment variations from year to year and look at what the lift per student is, the changes have been modest -- a percent one way or the other from an average of around 2 percent. That's pretty predictable. If any organization could look ahead and make projections of revenues within that kind of accuracy, typically they would be applauded. They would be overjoyed. So I will contend that many of the things that members opposite have expressed concern about will wash away in the light of sweetness and truth.

Having said that, I move second reading of Bill 23.

[8:00]

Second reading of Bill 23 approved on the following division:

Bill 23, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 43.

SCHOOL SITES ACQUISITION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As many members of this House know, the costs associated with the building of new schools in the province is very substantial. The burden on the taxpayer is growing, while the demand for new school construction, particularly in the lower mainland, mid-Island and central Okanagan, is also growing. A significant portion of the cost of new school construction is related to the price of land. In areas experiencing residential growth and development, land prices for schools are becoming increasingly unaffordable. The costs of land acquisition are increasing faster than budget allocations can provide.

While the government has been proceeding with, or is investigating, a range of measures to increase the usage of school buildings, such as joint use agreements, planning legislation and year-round schooling, the debt management plan means the province has very real constraints on its capacity to finance new school construction. This may mean that school boards cannot be funded to buy sufficient new school sites in high-growth regions. The question then is: how do we provide adequate school facilities in areas experiencing continued enrolment growth?

The answer, I believe, lies not only in measures to increase the usage of our existing school buildings and controlling capital costs, but also in placing a portion of the cost of school site acquisition on those who benefit from it the most. In rapidly growing areas, it is the development approved by local government that is creating the demand for new schools. Owners of land being subdivided, local governments and new homeowners have a common interest in creating communities that can meet the needs of its residents. It is not sufficient to expect the province and school districts to guess where developers may build, and where municipalities will approve developments, in order to acquire school sites before land values soar. There needs to be improved integrated planning between local governments and school boards, and greater responsibility placed on developers to share in the costs of new school sites -- sites which ultimately benefit the land developers and new residents -- by designating lands for schools in the community.

The bill before you will enable, by joint agreement of the local government and school board, the acquisition of lands for school sites at the time of a subdivision of land, and thereby reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer of acquiring land for future school sites in that community. Both the Municipal Act and the School Act already require local governments and school boards to consult each other in the development of the official community plan and the school district capital plan with respect to the need for future schools. This proposed legislation builds on this joint planning arrangement by enabling local government, school boards and owners of land being subdivided to designate future school sites as part of the planning of new residential subdivisions.

Currently under the Municipal Act local governments may require owners of land being subdivided to provide up to 5 percent of the land or cash in lieu for park purposes. This bill will allow land or cash in lieu of up to 5 percent to also be provided for the acquisition of school sites. In order for this requirement to apply to an owner of land being subdivided, the proposed legislation requires the local government and school board to have a joint planning agreement setting out whether school site acquisition will apply to the area, the amount of land to be set aside for school site purposes, which may include a combination of park and school site land, and the terms and conditions of the acquisition.

These amendments will provide needed savings to the taxpayer of the province in the acquisition of school sites, and will enable better planning for new schools by local governments and school boards when land is being developed for residential expansion. This will also result in school boards being able to acquire school sites in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost and in appropriate locations. In turn, the owners of land being developed and new homeowners will benefit from having parkland and schools included as part of the services available in the area.

I move second reading of Bill 43.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure to rise this evening and speak to Bill 43, the School Sites Acquisition Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. The irony of the government bringing in this legislation, particularly after the recent capital funding announcement, is that the government wants to get a better deal on land to buy schools but isn't building schools across the province. The government will grant funding for new schools only after it is embarrassed into doing so. It was only after the parents, teachers and administrators in Surrey and Richmond embarrassed the government about the neglect of these school districts that have suffered under this administration and the former government that they received funding for the new schools just announced.

This government is telling school boards and local governments to plan for the future, but boards and local governments know that under this administration they will have to wait years and years for funding approval to build these new schools. This proposed legislation requires the local government and the school boards to have a joint planning agreement setting out whether school site acquisition will apply to that area. While this is admirable on paper, the school boards know that planning for schools under this administration can be a futile exercise. School boards are not able to plan years in advance for new schools, because they know only from year to year what their capital funding will be.

So the government isn't providing existing schools with funding to maintain schools at acceptable levels. There are schools in this province that require site development, schools at high-risk earthquake locations that require upgrading, and 

[ Page 14961 ]

the government must address their priorities in education spending. While I have some concerns for and sensitivity to the local landowners, there is historical precedent for schools and hospitals to be set aside for new development, and I note that this particular bill is supported by the trustees around the province and especially those in the fast-growing areas of the lower mainland. So where I believe that site acquisition with joint agreement in place is a step to requiring dedication of land in new residential developments for future schools, we can support this legislation.

[8:15]

L. Fox: Let me say at the outset that this particular piece of legislation, even though we only have a small caucus, will probably prompt a split in terms of how we vote on it. That having been said, I want to first congratulate the minister on bringing this forward. I do have some concerns, and I'll express those. But during the course of the last three educational estimates that have taken place, I've repeatedly asked for this kind of legislation to be considered by government, recognizing that indeed we have a problem in terms of planning for sites for schools as well as a problem of funding those sites. And when we try to find money to buy property that is in a well-developed urban area, it becomes extremely onerous in terms of dollars and extremely difficult in terms of planning to identify a school site. So there is some hope in this legislation that we will help to overcome some of those concerns.

But let me bring out a few concerns that I have with how this legislation is written and, perhaps to a degree, with the lack of planning and foresight by this administration. I was somewhat surprised during the debates on the growth strategies, an initiative by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, that in fact there had been no consideration of the educational issues that could flow parallel with that planning process. I was somewhat surprised that by the Minister of Municipal Affairs' own admission and the Minister of Education's own admission, there had been no communication between the two ministries on that particular initiative. That was somewhat surprising to me, because it was a major concern. Perhaps this bill in some way, shape and form is trying to deal with that lack of consultation, because it obviously points out the need for communication between municipalities and school districts around educational leads, specifically in terms of acquisition of school sites.

What I see this legislation doing is perhaps very similar to what we see in terms of development cost charge. I know that if you are a developer, you don't like to see a substantial development cost charge, because we all know that's going to increase the price of the property and therefore perhaps limit who may or may not be able to purchase that particular piece of property, or indeed build on it. So development cost charges are indeed a real concern. But what they do, really, is provide some relief to the municipality for off-site services. If we have a large subdivision that is being developed in a specific area, and it requires infrastructure increase -- whether it's streets that have to be developed to a higher level, a water line that has to be expanded in order to serve those residents, or indeed sewer lines or the sewage plant that has to be expanded -- the development cost charge process allows municipalities to help meet the requirements of that development on other services or existing services within that community. That's the principle for which they're put there. While there may be lots of arguments from time to time over the size and extent of that particular development cost charge, there is a recognition of the principle that there has to be a way of that particular development paying for some of its own impact on the existing municipality. That's what I see this bill doing: really providing that.

But here is one of the kickers that we have to be very concerned about. First of all, in all areas of the province, we do not have equally growing school districts; we have a lot of school districts that have declining enrolment, which have less pressure in terms of land acquisition. The question comes to mind: what do we do with these funds if, over a period of time, through subdivision development, there are funds collected but there's no need to spend them on the purpose for which they were originally intended? Here is a little bit of a concern.

If we look back at the municipal legislation, what we found when it was first brought forward.... It was brought forward to acquire and develop parks. What happened when municipalities had all the park space they wanted? What happened when they no longer needed to develop more parks? We've seen request after request from those municipalities to now vary the intent of that legislation, with the approval of the minister, and to start building recreational facilities. It was no longer being used for the purpose for which it was being collected. Therein lies the fear. We have trust funds set up in school districts in rural British Columbia, where they may be substantial in terms of the number of years down the road, and we don't have a need to acquire land for school sites, for many reasons. One reason is that there's Crown land available; in many municipalities -- rural municipalities particularly -- there's a substantial amount of Crown land available within those municipalities or right next to those municipalities.

What happens? We see then, perhaps, a school district that may have difficulty building the auditorium they want -- perhaps the theatre they want attached to the school -- apply to the minister and say: "Look, we've got this pool of money in trust for land acquisition, but we don't need any land. We can't find that purpose even on the periphery of our vision in terms of the next ten years. So can we build this new auditorium, hon. minister? Can we build this new whatever-it-is?"

That is a concern; that will be a concern. I hope the minister has thought about how he might address those kinds of initiatives that inevitably will come forward. I have seen them come forward through the municipal.... With those kinds of concerns laid out -- with the concerns and recognition that we're going to inflate housing costs within those subdivided areas.... Remember that this legislation is only triggered by three lots or more. There will be those who argue that that in itself is unfair treatment -- that if you subdivide one lot into three, what's the difference in terms of impact from if you subdivide it into four? Those kinds of logistics questions that I've seen during my tenure as mayor and enforcing this....

I want to say one thing. There will be arguments out there about the cash in lieu of land, but this system would not work if we did not have that provision available. All that would happen is we would have little pockets of land all over the community that would be of no value either for any particular development or, certainly, for the school district itself. In fact, it would become a liability in terms of the municipality.

[ Page 14962 ]

I want to suggest that, with those few concerns, I support the intent of the legislation, and I congratulate the minister for bringing it forward.

C. Serwa: Now for a different perspective. I really didn't see much difference between the socialists and the near-socialists over here, but when the Reform Party is joining this particular group, I think we have a serious problem in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, when we discuss the philosophy and principles of this particular bill, it's going to be very interesting, because it appears that the principle is that if it's for the common good, theft from the very few is all right. That's what the Liberal opposition has said; that's what the government has said. And, bear with me, this -- no matter what you call it.... This government is strapped for cash. Their earlier years of spending unwisely and foolishly have put them in the position where, although they say they've frozen taxation, fees, permits and licences have gone up by 800 percent. Hydro fees have gone up by 22 percent, and every British Columbian who is on B.C. Hydro pays for the cost of government and the dividends that Hydro must pay to the government. This is just another way for a cash-strapped government to get extra money out of the very few and be somewhat self-righteous about it. It's a land grab, pure and simple. It's expropriation without compensation. And I don't care whether you call it voluntary gifting or any softer word; it's an outright theft of property -- albeit from a government that doesn't believe that private individuals should own property. That's something we'll address a bit later.

What is in the principle? That somehow we reduce the cost to the taxpayer, to the broad property owner in a school district, by imposing the total cost of land acquisition on those who buy a few lots. That's the principle which the minister has come forward with. It's rather an interesting principle. Perhaps politically there are some rewards. There's certainly no basis for justice and fairness in this particular principle. All it is is a big gang ganging up on very few lot purchasers. I want to make it abundantly clear that the landowner is not going to be hurt by this, the developer is not going to be hurt by this, but the individual who has to buy a lot is going to be hurt -- and hurt very greatly, financially.

We hear all sorts of glorious talk from the government about affordable housing. They're making it unaffordable. The cost of developed land is significantly higher than raw property. School acquisition sites can be bought as raw property, not subdivided and not developed. We're not talking about the type of subdivision development on the scale of the one in Port Coquitlam, where a great deal of Crown land was sold and there was a very large-scale development. Fundamentally, if you look at my constituency or any other constituency throughout the province, you're looking at developments of perhaps two acres or five acres or ten acres. That's the size of development you're looking at. This is purely and simply a land and cash grab.

The previous speaker talked about the original 5 percent that was set up. The original 5 percent taken on property was originally set up, rightfully so, to provide a local community park in that subdivision. But what happened was that these relatively small parks or playgrounds were not large enough for full development, and they became very expensive to maintain. So that principle was modified from actually having a reserve of land in this subdivision to having to provide either land or cash in lieu of land. That money was supposed to go originally, again, for larger parks and for the acquisition and maintenance of those larger parks. But it hasn't. Under the latitude of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, a number of different capital projects can be undertaken with that. So every subdivision -- that is, every land block that is subdivided -- presently has to commit 5 percent of land or cash in lieu of land for that purpose, purportedly for parks, but really to mitigate the capital cost that maybe all taxpayers should bear.

[8:30]

In this particular bill here we see the same thing. It stretches the imagination to believe that any subdivision and any local government would not take advantage of this opportunity once it's availed by the provincial government. So every subdivision will have to provide either 5 percent or the cash in lieu of that -- in the end, increasing the cost of that fully serviced lot to the prospective purchaser.

That prospective purchaser is not necessarily a migrant into the community or a new immigrant into Canada who's come and built in that particular community. Communities grow. We have families; we have two, three or four children. Communities grow within themselves. What we're doing here with this piece of legislation is saying: "Well, that's sort of tough, but somebody has to bite the bullet. And we choose you, because there are more voters not doing this, and only a few.... We believe it's fair, because it's in the public interest or in the public good."

I don't fall for that, and I don't think anyone in the province should fall for that. If you apply that principle and start to think about that principle, then why not 5 percent for hospital site acquisitions? Well, we don't really need it. But we don't need this 5 percent from land for school site acquisitions, either. In a way, it's another way to fund hospitals. Why shouldn't we charge, then, the greatest consumer of health services more money for using hospitals? Every time a senior buys a new home or a home or a condominium, let's charge them 5 percent extra because, after all, they consume most of the medical care services. That's the type of principle you're venturing out on. It's a pretty shaky start.

Let's face it. If we're getting the new owner of a lot to pay for the school site, why shouldn't they, under the same logic and rationale, pay for the whole school? It's again theft from a very few people. The government feels that since a majority are not in that field they'll be successful in that. But it has nothing to do with fairness and integrity or with balance in the system. It's putting a very, very heavy burden.... There is a cost to school acquisitions -- to acquiring land for school sites. There's no question about that. But it's not fair. And it doesn't reduce the cost, by imposing that big load on a few people who buy a lot.

There are other matters in this, too. In my community.... I just want to show you what's happening to some of the costs that are loaded onto land and to the idea that, well, we'll get those nasty developers. The minister, when he was introducing this particular bill, spoke a little about that from the aspect that the developers cause growth. That was an interesting perspective, because that's not what happens.

Developers satisfy the needs of growth. There's a great deal of difference there. It's not as if a developer can go in and create a development, and all of sudden people come from all over. The people are moving into an area, whether it's a 

[ Page 14963 ]

Surrey or a central Okanagan or Kelowna. They're moving in, and we have to satisfy.... What are we going to do with them -- hang them up on the wall when they come in? We have to provide sites and facilities for these people. Generally, all those costs are borne broad-based among all the taxpayers. That's a basic principle.

In Kelowna, for example, in the last seven years the development costs have risen from $2,000 or $3,000 for a condominium unit to almost $11,000, and there are similar costs for residential housing. Those are upfront costs that the developer has to pay. All of those get passed on to the consumer of that lot, and this is where we're interested in making home-ownership affordable and available, whether they're young people, people who have moved into the community or seniors. It is important to dream about acquiring your own home and having that type of an opportunity, but we're loading it unfairly and unjustifiably on the backs of very few individuals to carry that type of load.

The minister talks about the high cost of land. The land costs are relatively low compared to the capital construction costs. The minister has done nothing at all to reduce the capital construction costs. Design builders, for example, can build buildings far less expensively than those that are built at the present time. There are schools in British Columbia that are built like the Taj Mahal. They are uniquely architecturally designed. Some are very complicated in the design structure, and very expensive to build. The minister seems to have no difficulty paying the capital costs for that type of design and construction, but he is perceived to have some difficulty acquiring the sites.

The reality is that if the school district is mindful of the long term, they can acquire a number of sites at relatively low prices by buying in advance of their needs. And if they've made the wrong decisions on where the population growth will occur, then they have land that they can sell or trade at current market prices to buy new sites. They're not confronted with high taxes. They're not impacted by interest rates or mortgages. Fundamentally, the taxpayer pays for it. It's paid for, and then it can sit. The property values grow, so they're in the game at all times. So when you look at the development costs for lots.... As for roads, sewers, water lines and additional parkland, you're starting to load up with more costs: you're looking at 10 percent of the land plus the development costs. You're looking at a lot of money that you're passing on to the end consumer.

I can't emphasize enough that the end result is the consumer. Whether they're workers or a young couple just starting out, it is the consumer that will be paying for that, and that is the injustice of this. The minister, and perhaps the government, would like to imply that it's really those nasty developers that are causing the growth. But as Will Rogers said a long time ago: "Buy land, young man; the good Lord stopped making it a long time ago." And we're still increasing in population, so there is part and parcel of the problem.

Nevertheless, even though I have some sympathy with the cost of acquiring school sites, the reality is that with increasing property values and taxation levels, there is that ability to pay, as long as we spread it among all the property owners. The principle is very flawed, too, because perhaps we should exclude seniors, for example, or those who no longer have children in the school system. There's a very interesting principle that the minister has brought forward. I can understand school trustees saying that this is a very nice thing, but I don't see it that way, and I don't see that the legislation should satisfy any specific special interest group. I think it has to satisfy all British Columbians.

If legislation is to be successful and deemed good, then it has to satisfy public interest throughout the province. I don't think this bill is going to do it. I think it's very wrong. I think the philosophy is wrong. I think that the principles are lacking; there is no real principle to it. As I said, the cost of land in relation to the capital cost of building on that land is relatively modest, whether it's 10 percent or 15 percent of the ultimate cost. If he's interested in saving money on capital costs, there are many other ways that the minister can do so. He has that luxury and that latitude. There can be standard plans. Schools, perhaps, can be looked at and designed as schools; they don't have to look like a shopping centre or some monument to a particular architect. They should be functional, efficient, cost-effective, environmentally sensitive and realistic as far as the heating and cooling costs are concerned -- and that's about it. They don't have to be a monument. We're building very expensive monuments at the present time.

If this bill goes through, it will go down as the highway robbery bill of the government. The regrettable part is that of all nations in the world, Canada is one of the few where the right to acquire and own private property is not enshrined. It's part of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and it was included in the Canadian Bill of Rights enacted under Diefenbaker. But under Trudeau, as part of a bargaining chip with the Liberal government, the NDP came on side and said: "We will support the Charter, but we insist on the removal of any reference to the right of people to own real property." And so, from a government that does not believe that the ordinary person should, in fact, own property, it's a bill that conforms to their value system or beliefs.

I don't think British Columbians can or will accept the results of this particular bill, and if the bill does go through, the government will -- and should -- pay the supreme penalty for this. I stand here, very proud, and say that I will oppose this bill with all of my ability.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate this evening on Bill 43 in terms of site acquisition for schools. As the Deputy Speaker knows, and as members of this chamber know, Richmond has had its difficulties around acquiring sites. In terms of the bill, what I want to come to in general is that I'm hoping the minister will accept my comments with a good heart, because I hope there can be some amendment to this bill so that what we perceive as a couple of problems can perhaps be ironed out before we reach committee stage.

Certainly, having cash in hand by having cash dedications deposited into a district trust account makes perfect sense. Our dilemma -- and certainly this is speaking on behalf of the Richmond School District -- is that the current situation presently provides for the expenditure from that account to be subject to the approval of the minister. What we're trusting is that the school district can hold those dollars in a capital reserve account and have the ability to move more quickly when they see an appropriate site come up for sale in a particular municipality.

The timing around site purchase is problematic; it certainly seems to be in a particularly fast-growing district such as Richmond. Properties come up, and they're not on the 

[ Page 14964 ]

market for long. The land values are horrific. We would like the opportunity to close those deals much more quickly, and we would trust that if the dollars are going to be allocated to the district, then districts can have some ability to access those dollars much more quickly.

I'll make another general comment. I will simply say that there does not seem to be a dispute resolution mechanism if agreement cannot be reached between the city and the school district. This agreement is needed to determine if it should be land or cash, or a combination of the two. That issue will decide whether or not this bill is indeed useful for school districts, who need to make sense of site acquisition and the obstacles, hoops and goalposts they must get through in order to acquire property. The dispute resolution mechanism, I believe, needs to be there. I trust that the minister will take my comments and perhaps come back to the table during committee stage with some ideas on how we may render this a more useful document.

Another particular problem for Richmond is that land values change dramatically over time, and we may have a situation where a developer may provide cash in lieu of land, at the insistence of the city. If a district is not able to access that land or those funds immediately to acquire land, the value of the lands in the area could easily rise. That is a significant issue for Richmond, and will be an issue for all lower mainland municipalities, because the ability to acquire land is often pressing in terms of new development and in terms of new immigration in new residential areas coming to be. Certainly I hope that the minister is able to look at both of those as possible areas that he may be able to flesh out in committee stage debate.

We're also hoping that the required agreements between the city and the school board will be mandated and not optional. And again, they should provide for a dispute resolution mechanism and the establishment of a capital reserve account.

I would ask the minister, perhaps in his closing remarks, to touch on those issues and give some guidance as to whether or not they may be appropriately reflected in committee stage debate, or again, appropriately reflected in possible amendments to the bill. I think the bill makes sense. It certainly makes sense for Richmond, and I have not heard significant opposition from other parts of the province. I think what the government is attempting to do with this bill is very sound. I think it makes good sense to put some responsibility back in the hands of the school district.

In particular, I'd like to commend our secretary-treasurer for Richmond, Mr. Ken Morris, because he's been a truly fine person to work with in terms of giving me the broader perspective on how all this needs to come together. His concerns are certainly shared by this member. I believe that the minister will be able to provide some guidance around this question.

[8:45]

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the chance to say a few words on Bill 43, and I appreciate the chance to speak after the member for Richmond East. She's a member who works hard to represent her constituents. I only hope that her attempts to represent her constituents on an important issue like this might be enough to help her win the renomination for her party. I don't know if it's going to be enough, but I wish her all the best.

I also appreciate the chance to enter this debate, given the contribution from my colleague and seatmate the member for Okanagan West, because if there's anything that's true, it's the saying I've heard from a famous person, who is often heard to say that when everyone thinks alike, no one thinks at all. I think it's a saying that could easily apply to the member for Okanagan West, who can always be counted on for a very independent point of view. And if we all thought alike in this Legislature, I fear that none of us would really be thinking. We need alternative points of view.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: And it's not mandated: we don't have to think alike.

When it comes to Bill 43, I think the minister's motivations are probably very sincere. They're probably noble, in fact, because he's talking about how to build the proper infrastructure for a growing province -- a province that isn't growing at the same rate in all regions. Too often we have from government a blanket approach to public policy, which doesn't take into account regional variations or the regional nature of the economy of our province and the fact that some areas are growing faster than others. I know that in the West Vancouver portion of the constituency I try to represent, the population is fairly stable. But in other areas, like Squamish or Whistler, the population is growing very rapidly, and so there are different needs.

When we look at what the minister is trying to do here, he's trying to mandate 5 percent of either land or value of land in any new development or subdivision that goes in. He's trying to mandate that and attempt to have the developers, essentially, pay the cost for the infrastructure that will be required in any new subdivision. There are probably other models that could be used to achieve this.

My understanding, from talking to colleagues in the House, is that this is an additional 5 percent. This is over and above the 5 percent that is currently in place, which is a requirement for developers to provide land for park purposes or cash in lieu, as the member for Okanagan West has indicated in debate this evening. And so we have 5 percent of land or value of land for park purposes, and now we have an additional 5 percent for school purposes or a school site.

We know that land assembly for school construction is a significant cost. The member for Okanagan West points out that it's not the only cost; in fact, construction and maintenance and ongoing costs associated with school sites are very significant. But land assembly is a very key component of the cost of school construction. In many communities there isn't a huge surplus of land to assemble for that purpose. So I think the minister is probably, in all likelihood, approaching this with the very best of intentions. How do we achieve this, especially in high-growth areas? How do we do it?

If we think back to last year, we had an incident -- and the minister would be well aware of it because it occurred shortly after he took on the portfolio of Education -- in Nanaimo where there was controversy about one particular school. Hon. Speaker, I know you'll be familiar with this one as well. The Nanaimo School Board, School District 68, which was very anxious to find a site for a new elementary school, ended up purchasing a site from a body known, infamously, as the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. This was an 

[ Page 14965 ]

unfortunate situation. I wonder if in one respect, Bill 43, which the minister's bringing forward, is perhaps an attempt to remedy this unfortunate situation so that we'll never have a situation like the minister confronted when he first took on his portfolio. The city of Nanaimo -- a very fine city in our province that, unfortunately, has been besmirched -- has been besmirched forever because of a terrible, corrupt scandal associated with the governing party of the province, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. That fine city, unfortunately, was involved in a situation where the school trustees ended up purchasing a parcel of land because it was available -- and because the school trustees deemed it to be suitable for a new school. But lo and behold, the property was owned by the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society.

That infamous society, accused of bilking charities of thousands upon thousands of dollars over many, many years, was liquidating its assets last fall. Just by coincidence, at a time when an investigation was ongoing into the affairs of this nefarious society, one of the kingpins of that society, Mr. Dave Stupich, a former member of this House, was liquidating all of the assets of that society -- for what purposes we don't know. Where the money was going, we have no idea. The investigations that are ongoing have not yet told us, but we hope to get to the bottom of this before the next election.

But at that very time, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society was unloading a piece of property onto the school trustees of School District 68 for more than half a million dollars -- some $568,000, I'm told. I wonder if the intention of Bill 43 would be to prevent such a terrible business transaction from ever occurring, because this bill deals with the valuation of school sites. It deals with school site acquisition policy, which I know this minister is probably more familiar with than he would otherwise be, because when he became minister he had to deal with the situation immediately. In fact, he appointed an audit to look into that situation because of charges of corruption. The minister may have concluded that all was okay in Nanaimo, but I'll tell you, it smelled pretty bad.

When you take a look at the valuation of the asset, there's a controversy here in this bill, and I'm wondering if the minister's going to be able to address this at second reading stage. If not, certainly in committee we will go into it. If we take a look at the valuation principle, using the Nanaimo precedent, for instance, there would be some controversy as to who would decide the value. In Nanaimo last fall, when we wanted to find out if the school district, and therefore the province, was receiving proper value for the money for the property that it was purchasing from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society for that elementary school, we found out subsequently that the appraisal itself was conducted by another arm of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Now clearly there appeared to be, on the face of it at the very least, a conflict of interest there.

When we take a look at section 2 of the legislation, which deals with valuation, it says: "If an owner is required to pay money" -- in other words, cash in lieu instead of donating the property -- "...the value of the land is..." -- and then it goes on to say that it will "be determined in the manner prescribed in the regulations that the minister may make for that purpose." It would seem to me that this would be an unfortunate opportunity -- not for this minister surely, but perhaps for a future minister -- to become unnecessarily involved in the valuation of that property, by allowing that minister to make regulations or change regulations as he or she may see fit, which may affect the valuation of a piece of property. Heaven forbid that any future government would be involved, or have one of its arms or agencies or fund raising arms involved, in selling property to a school district. That's the nub of the conflict that we witnessed last fall in Nanaimo, which caused such a terrible stench in this province, and unfortunately, besmirched the names of the good people of that city. We don't want to ever see that again.

My hope is that this bill would prevent such a thing from ever happening again. But when we look at section 2, there's a real question in my mind as to whether or not this is going to be prevented. It simply says that the minister shall determine the value in the manner prescribed in regulations which we cannot see with this bill. Until the regulations are passed, we have no idea. And we all know that regulations can be changed or amended by cabinet by order-in-council at any time. That's a concern that I want to raise at this stage in this bill.

It's not that I don't see some good in this bill. I think the motivations are probably honourable. I think this minister's attempt to come up with a formula for school site acquisition that will help provide the needed infrastructure for school development -- especially in high-growth regions -- is desirable. We have to come up with a way to do it.

Whether 5 percent is the right number, I don't know. The member for Okanagan West raises a valid concern: where do we stop? We have 5 percent for parkland and now 5 percent for school sites. Could we go further? Could there be another 5 percent for hospitals? Could there be another 5 percent for other worthy, honourable, needed infrastructure within any growing community or subdivision that's built? Or would it be cash in lieu? Is it fair to front-load these kinds of costs on developers?

If we look at different parts of the industrial world or the developed world, certainly developers do pay a cost. Is it just that we're living here in the frontier in British Columbia and we're not used to these kinds of regulations? Should we try to get used to the kind of socialism that has gripped most of the rest of the western world, where developers pay the price if they want to go in?

Maybe that's so, but where does that fit in with the government's goal of providing affordable housing? Where does that fit in with the government's affordable housing strategy? The major concern in the high-growth regions of the province is providing affordable housing to those people who are on fixed incomes -- those people who have grown up in a community, lived in a neighbourhood their whole lives and now find out that the valuation of their property is such that they can't pass that property down to their family members. Or in their retirement years, when they themselves are on fixed incomes, they can't even afford to pay the taxes in many cases.

Where does this kind of a philosophy fit with that? I don't know if 5 percent is right or if this is the right kind of formula. I think the motivation in honourable, but the issue that goes back to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal last fall -- where a school site was acquired from that society, and the appraisal was provided by that society, and there was at least an apparent conflict of interest -- has not been addressed. That's my major disappointment with this bill, and I look forward to hearing the minister's response.

[ Page 14966 ]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will call on the Minister of Education, whose comments will close debate on second reading.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm pleased to hear that a substantial portion of the opposition will be in favour of this bill. It is a bill that does address an area of need: the escalating cost of land prices. We have, of course.... In her comments, my critic in the opposition commented that it would be nice now, if we have this in place.... In fact, I think she mentioned that perhaps it was futile, in that funds are not being expended. But I think she recognizes that the $1.7 billion this government has allocated to school construction over the last four years is a high-water mark -- the most money that this province has spent on schools in that period of time in history.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I'm sorry -- it doesn't. We have some mumblings from a member opposite, and he is in error in that particular mumbling.

We have a sustained school-construction program that is unequalled across the province. We have not only kept up with a tremendous enrolment growth of 12,000 to 14,000 but, in fact, have made some modest gains with respect to the number of portables.

I'm very pleased to hear that the opposition will be supporting Bill 43. I also take heart that at least one member of Reform -- and, I think, perhaps several others -- will also see fit to support this bill, because it is a bill that meets legitimate needs of school districts and communities.

There were many concerns raised, and I think they should be better dealt with at the committee stage. But I will touch on just a couple of them. Concerns were raised about: what if funds are accumulating? As this is enabling legislation, if enrolment growth is not occurring, I would suspect that the local government would not concur with a school board that might attempt to bring this into play. One would have to assume that the school board and the local government would, in effect, enter into some kind of open conspiracy to establish a milk cow for other reasons, and I don't believe that would be the case. I have confidence in local government. When you take the combination of local government plus elected school boards, I think they will do what is right for their district. If there are quite clear projections of continued enrolment growth, and hence quite clear projections of future site needs, I think they would go ahead and establish this, but not unless that were to be the case.

[9:00]

With respect to comments made by the member of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth party that this is tantamount to a kind of legalized theft, I would have to take exception to that. After all, I don't think that we regard school taxes generally, whether they be property taxes or that portion of tax placed on general income -- if, in fact, that tax is being levied on an individual who does not have children, for example.... We recognize that there is a larger common good of raising educated children. Hence to take money from a property owner or a business owner who happens not to have children and to use that money for a good that is related to the common good of the community is surely not theft. It cannot even be considered as anything remotely approaching theft. Otherwise, the member opposite is contending that all sorts of such taxes are theft -- including, of course, that the 5 percent that is taken for parks and environment is theft, because there may well be some landowners who do not wish to make any utilization whatsoever of parks or who do not support parks. Yet the 5 percent rule applies to them, so the member opposite is also claiming that that is theft. I think those are rather strong words and, I suspect, words not supported by many. This may be one instance in which there is only one person thinking different thoughts, and if that be the case, thank heavens that is the case.

In terms of the lot owner being hurt, how can a lot owner be hurt if the community is receiving a service that the community needs and if, in all likelihood, the children of that lot owner will, in a few years, be attending school, and if not his children, grandchildren in another community where the same kind of provision is in place. Rather than those owners feeling that they have been hurt, more likely they will feel that they have made a worthwhile contribution to the ongoing education of children and grandchildren and they will in fact celebrate that, as opposed to complaining about it.

References were also made by that member to large lots of two, three, five or ten hectares, as I understood the member to say. But the bill does not apply to subdivisions of lots larger than two hectares, so that particular issue is addressed.

He also asks: why not apply it to the cost of the school itself? One can take a good idea too far, and then it becomes not a good idea. The problem at hand is the site acquisition -- the timely acquisition of sites in suitable locations at the lowest possible cost. With respect to the cost of the capital construction, we're doing a number of things.

First, we are back to about where the unit costs were four years ago. I point out that in the last three years of the previous administration, unit costs for elementary schools accelerated from $920 per square metre all the way up to $1,150 by the time that administration left office. Here we are four years later, during a time of great economic growth, where pressures normally are quite high and construction costs are increasing, and the unit costs for the coming year are $1,150 per square metre -- the identical number to four years ago -- as opposed to the previous administration allowing substantial increases. On the secondary side, they took it from $960 in 1987 up to $1,300 in 1991-92, a rather rapid escalation of the unit costs of secondary schools. Here we are now, four years later: it was $1,300 when the administration that that member belonged to left office; it is now $1,240 -- a reduction, in fact, of $60, as opposed to the rather profligate ways of the previous administration.

In addition, I'm not satisfied with that as progress. I'm also looking at year-round schooling to try to contain school costs. I'm looking at joint-use agreements with municipalities and regional districts. I'm looking at joint use through community schools, where more organizations in a community take advantage of a facility that is provided.

I'm not satisfied even with holding the line on unit costs. I've had, for the last year, a committee of facilities people, consulting engineers, consulting architects, quantity estimators and surveyors working diligently to deliver to me -- and I expect to have it on my desk very shortly -- a report where we could see some further reductions of unit costs. We're also 

[ Page 14967 ]

looking at private-public partnerships and perhaps leasing a privately developed and constructed site or building. So there are all kinds of things that I am doing to contain the cost of construction.

But what has been out of control, particularly in the rapidly growing districts, where land prices are now up to as much as $1 million an acre.... That is the specific problem I am trying to get hold of with this bill. I believe that this bill does it in a very fair manner.

I would also point out that it is up to 5 percent, and it may well be that if boards and local government get together and think this through, they could end up with joint school-park sites that might not require more than 7 or 8 percent. We might be talking about even half of the 5 percent as a reasonable target that some local governments and school boards could arrive at. In that instance, the community, the school and the school children will end up with the absolute best of all possible worlds. They will have a site; it will be acquired in a timely fashion at a good price in a proper location, and be delivered to the community in conjunction with a park that not only the community as a whole but also the children attending that school could make maximum use of.

All told, I believe this is a very good piece of legislation, carefully thought out, and although I doubt it will be unanimous, I hope it comes very close to all members opposite being able to unanimously support this bill. With that, I would move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 43, School Sites Acquisition Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 21.

TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased to present to the House the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995. This act is a further step in the government's strategy to reduce the consumption of tobacco among young people of the province.

This act makes two major changes. First, it establishes an administrative structure by which a vendor's licence to sell tobacco products may be suspended for repeated violations of the Tobacco Sales Act; and second, it makes minor amendments to simplify prosecution and enforcement of the act.

Hon. Speaker, the use of tobacco is a serious health concern for British Columbia -- perhaps the most serious. Its use is estimated to cost British Columbia's health system approximately $1 billion per year; this represents close to one-sixth of the total Ministry of Health budget. Each year over 5,200 people in the province die from smoking-related illnesses, and that amounts to approximately 20 percent of all deaths in the province. It's an open question whether, were tobacco to be discovered now rather than being a substance in long use, any government would ever legalize its use.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Tobacco addiction often develops at an early age, and one of the most effective means of combatting this major health issue is to focus on and prevent smoking by youth. Consequently, early in our mandate this government strengthened the tobacco reduction strategy and made it a top priority to develop initiatives to prevent tobacco use by children and youth. Last July our government introduced legislation that prohibited the sale of tobacco to persons under 19 years of age; prohibited the sale of kiddy packs, or packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes; prohibited the sale of cigarettes from an opened package; and required vendors to post health warning signs on their premises. Following an educational campaign, health officials began to enforce these prohibitions by issuing tickets and fines.

This bill introduces an even stronger enforcement measure by permitting the suspension of a vendor's right to sell tobacco if the vendor repeatedly is convicted of offences under the Tobacco Sales Act. The lengths of suspension are as follows: for two convictions in a period of five years, the retailer will be suspended for three months; for a third conviction in five years, the retailer will be suspended for six months; and for a fourth conviction in five years, retailers will have their licence suspended for one year. These penalties will provide a deterrent to retailers who persist in selling tobacco to young people. Selling tobacco is a privilege granted under the laws of the province, and abuse of that privilege should be punished. Since the penalties are severe, the bill establishes an administrative structure to oversee the suspensions and, most importantly, to ensure that due process is observed. Retailers will have an opportunity to make submissions at an administrative review prior to any suspension. In addition, retailers will have a right of appeal from a decision to suspend. Although the decision to suspend will be made by a Health official, the actual suspension will be made by the Ministry of Finance. This is appropriate, since it is through the Ministry of Finance that licences are initially granted.

At this point, I want to acknowledge the considerable assistance of my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance in bringing this legislation forward today. Cooperation between our two ministries has enabled our government to structure this legislation in a cost-effective manner, without having to duplicate a licensing system or other existing administrative service.

The second major part of this legislation is to make six amendments that will simplify prosecution and enforcement of the Tobacco Sales Act. First, Health officials are provided with powers to enter and inspect retail premises at any reasonable time to ensure that the laws are being complied with. I would ask all members to note that in exercising these powers, an officer may only enter a place where tobacco products are sold, and may only enter those areas to which the public has access.

Second, Health officials are granted the power to seize items which might constitute evidence of an offence for the purposes of court proceedings. Again, these seizure powers are carefully and narrowly circumscribed so that they conform to the purposes of the act. The item must be in plain view and must be in a place to which the public has access. Procedures are also outlined for the return of any items seized, so there's no unreasonable detention of those items.

Third, a new non-obstruction provision makes it an offence to obstruct a Health official or to knowingly provide a false statement or document.

[ Page 14968 ]

[9:15]

Fourth, the provision making it an offence to sell tobacco to young people is clarified, so the onus falls squarely on the retailer to establish the age of the purchaser before making a sale. I should note that this act also creates a due diligence defence to this charge. If the retailer requires the purchaser to produce valid photo identification, determines its authenticity and acts on the basis of that identification, then no offence is committed.

Fifth, corporations are made more clearly liable for the actions and omissions of employees and agents acting on behalf of the corporation. Sixth, the definition of tobacco is broadened and clarified so that it includes raw leaf tobacco and chewing tobacco.

These amendments will permit health officials to effectively administer and enforce the Tobacco Sales Act, thereby reducing tobacco consumption among young people. Smoking continues to be our most devastating health issue. The high levels of smoking among young people, particularly among young women, is cause for grave concern. About 20 percent of teenage women use tobacco regularly, compared to about 12 percent of teenage men. By preventing young people from starting to smoke, we can reduce the number of adults with smoking-related health problems. As part of our tobacco reduction strategy, we continue to develop smoking prevention programs for young women, and we are pilot-testing a stop smoking program for teenagers.

Our young people continue to be our province's most important resource. The amendments put forward today will help us protect their health, and they will result in considerable long-term savings to the provincial health care system. I'm pleased to be able to submit these provisions for the consideration of the House.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to enter into second reading debate on Bill 21, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995, simply because I'm pleased to work with this government on tobacco reduction. However, what troubles me about this piece of legislation is that instead of moving directly to a position of leadership, this government is once again muddying the waters. This government will put more dollars into bureaucracy and enforcement because they are unwilling to view tobacco as a controlled substance. If this government were truly committed to the health and welfare of British Columbians, you would only see this product for sale in liquor stores or liquor outlets. That's the bottom line; that's where we differ in terms of looking at this government, as New Democrats, and looking at Liberals. All of this is about finding ways to ensure that the product could still fall into the hands of young people. If this government were truly committed, they would take some decisive action. I don't see that. I see this as an improvement over the previous bill, but it doesn't do what needs to be done. That's the bottom line.

I'm not interested in seeing tobacco for sale in drugstores, corner stores or grocery stores. If we're saying that this is the only product that, if used exactly as directed, will kill you, then we're making it freely available, and then we're going to tie on some regulations in some areas where people are going to have to be somewhat more responsible, all of that misses the mark. It gives up on the opportunity which is before this government today to do something incredibly fine for young people in this province. You take your average 11-year-old who's moving to become a tobacco-smoker: they're going to have that habit for 60 or 70 years, and all those attendant problems, whether it's emphysema, bronchitis, all the way down the line to cancers of various sorts. All of that is preventable, and the issue today is access. If this government were truly committed, they would make a decision about who has the ability to access tobacco.

As the Health critic for the Liberal Party, I have made the case very strongly. This should be viewed as a controlled substance. I look at Bill 21 and I know that it doesn't do what it needs to do. It doesn't give a strong enough message to young people that this is a toxic substance. It simply says, "We're going to put in place some fines, we're going to spend some more money on enforcement" -- again taking dollars away from health care -- when they could move to the issue, move to the dream of ensuring that fewer young people have access to tobacco. It's well within this government's ability to act, and it astounds me that they are again giving away that opportunity. In fact, they are dithering. They are suggesting that this is an improvement over the previous bill, and I would agree. I was part of that tobacco committee. We looked at what the possibilities were. We looked at the parameters, and we said: "Make a definitive statement. Do something with this opportunity you've been granted."

I too would commend the Minister of Finance. I think she put us on the road. I want to see this current Minister of Health move us down that road. We are stalled, and we're now going to create more regulations around enforcement. It's not getting us to where we need to be. I want very much for this minister to show some leadership. I want it, hopefully, today.

I will make the same points that I made in this committee. When we talked about tobacco reduction, I said that we were creating an onerous task. We weren't moving to the issue. We were creating more layers of bureaucracy: bureaucratizing the problem, not answering the problem. I believe that this government is losing sight of the goal. As the goal was then, the goal today is to reduce the number of young people having access to tobacco and reduce the number of young people who will become smokers.

I had a phone call today from a Margaret Weins from 100 Mile House. She's asked repeatedly for this government to take a stand on smoke-free environments. She's done all the things she needs to do as a reasonable, seasoned resident of that community. She has worked hard on petitions, on correspondence, on ministry direction, on ministry involvement. She's done all the things she needed to do. She looked to this government for some leadership on the question, and again they're dithering. If they truly believe in reducing the access of young people to tobacco, they're going to take some decisive action.

Bill 21 is not decisive. It's another layer of bureaucracy. We'll spend more dollars on enforcement, we'll spend more dollars on regulation, but we're not going to answer the problem, which is ensuring that tobacco cannot reach the hands of young people. Again I will make the case that if this government can perceive that product as a controlled substance, you will only see it for sale in this province in a liquor store or in a liquor outlet. At that point we have come to the conclusion that we need to treat alcohol that way; I will strongly make the case that we need to treat tobacco in exactly the same way. We do not see that reflected in this piece of legislation, and that concerns me greatly.

[ Page 14969 ]

We're at the stage where talk is cheap. This will allow more people to be hired, more people to be involved in delivering on the regulations within this act -- and the regulations I'm sure we are to see -- but it's not moving where I believe we need to go. I mean, the research is abundantly clear. We have all kinds of material before us today. We're serious about the law. Selling cigarettes to minors is illegal. Diane Brisebois, the president of the Retail Council of Canada.... I mean, people who are currently involved in selling this product know that they are not managing the sale of this product well.

We have a number of different reports from Airspace Non-Smoker's Rights Society. They did the compliance checks, and they did them in the Premier's own riding. They found a tremendous number of instances where the law was broken. They do not believe.... I will give you a quote from the Journal of the American Medical Association study: "Active enforcement of cigarette control laws in the prevention of cigarette sales to minors demonstrated...."

When we were in committee, we heard many times of the pilot study going on in Woodridge, Illinois. "A police warning letter threatening criminal arrest had no effect on preventing cigarette sales to minors." Woodridge passed a licensing law which restricted both possession and sales to those under 18. Retailers paid $50 for the licence. Compliance checks of all retailers three months later found one out of three retailers selling to 13-year-olds. Again the retailers received a warning letter and were put through the hoops -- as this legislation would indicate -- at three months, six months, etc.

This is approximately where we are in British Columbia. We know this doesn't work. Yet we're somehow going to replicate something, when we have an opportunity to do something incredibly fine.

I can assure this minister that we will debate this bill extensively in committee. I believe that this government has given up on the dream. I believe they have it well within their sights to make some significant inroads about access to tobacco. I hope that this minister takes to his feet at the close of this debate and suggests that this is not the solution.

This is hardly an answer. It keeps us on the same road but does not send the most decisive message that this government has every opportunity today to send, which is that tobacco is a controlled substance that will only be sold in liquor stores, will only be accessed by people of 19 years or older, and that they will do away with continuing to dither on this issue and having a retailer decide if someone's 18, 19 or 17. All of that is separate and distinct from the issue, which for me is whether this government is prepared to take a stand. I await the minister's comments.

L. Fox: I rise to speak on the philosophies and principles of Bill 21. First, let me say I certainly support what the minister says with respect to the impact of smoking and how, in fact, it is a major cost item in terms of the high costs of health care in today's society. I too was a member of the select standing committee that dealt with the issues around smoking and specifically around the issue of setting an age limit of age 19 or 18. There was some debate around that issue.

Let me say this: much of the debate that I can recall in that committee was around whether it would be necessary to incur a lot of costs in terms of enforcement of those recommendations. We received substantial assurance from the ministry that indeed it would not be a huge cost and that in fact we would have a reactive type of enforcement. I don't believe there was ever a policy suggestion there, but we would look at items like a sting, for instance, to create enforcement and identify problems.

I think that the reason I'm having difficulty with this legislation is that I don't really believe you can legislate change. Prohibition back in the thirties suggests to me that if you attempt through legislation to prevent society from doing something, all you create is a new entrepreneurial type of business in a bootlegging kind of atmosphere. So I question whether these steps are going to do anything more than.... They may, in fact, do what the Liberal opposition wants to do: enforce the sale of tobacco only out of government-licensed premises. Because the fines and so on are so onerous, and the process is going to be so proactive, if I as a small business person were going to take a risk, and those sales were not substantial to my business, I want to tell you that the first thing I would do is pull those cigarettes off my shelf. I wouldn't want to face the possibility of some employee making a mistake and costing me, as an owner of a very small business, thousands of dollars. So indeed this act may do what the Liberal member wants: enforce tobacco sales through government liquor stores or some other government identity. Small business is not going to take the risk unless there are substantial profits to be made.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

When we deal with this, let's look at the stats, even over the course of the last few years. It's been over a year since the act was put in place that limited accessibility of cigarettes to children under 19, yet we see no reduction in children smoking. In fact, one of the largest problems we have with our youth today is young females smoking, and that's a growing factor. Even as we speak, more and more young females are taking up smoking. Why are they doing it? Well, there might be those that suggest that because it's illegal to acquire them, it's a bit more of a challenge to do so, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

[9:30]

To a large degree, I think it's a statement. Initially, it's a statement of defiance against society. That's what starts it. Today it's almost hip to stand just outside the school grounds, light up a cigarette and say four-letter words. That seems to be how we make our statement. In the sixties we made it in a number of ways; today we make it by standing on the corner, smoking a cigarette and seeing how many four-letter words we can put into one sentence. That is the problem, and we're not going to legislate that away.

There has to be some initiative and recognition by society that we've got a problem in those areas. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't legislate, but I want to be realistic about what the opportunities of success are going to be through this legislation. One thing the legislation is, is a statement: we believe that we should not be encouraging smoking in today's society, because of the health risks. We're unified in that; I don't think there is a member in this Legislature that wouldn't agree with that.

I supported and was very vocal in the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services, which was dealing with these issues. I distinctly remember considerable discus-

[ Page 14970 ]

sion that came forward. Members were concerned about enforcement, about increasing public employees in order to enforce this and about what would flow out of that. We were assured in committee stage that that was not going to happen. Now we see a further step, probably because over the course of last year there was no reduction in the number of students who smoke. In fact, I would suggest that anything I've read supports the fact that each year we see an increase instead of a decrease. If there's no reduction next year, what will we see then?

I really believe that no matter how much we want to have our young people not smoke, and no matter how strict the legislation is to try to prevent them from smoking, it's going to be a social initiative, a family initiative and an educational information around the health issues of smoking that is going to prevent students from starting and lighting up. So I will vote against this, not because I don't recognize that smoking is harmful to our youth, but because we are going to increase bureaucracy and costs to the taxpayers, and we're not going to have the effect of stopping students from smoking through the actions contained within this legislation.

G. Wilson: It's interesting that there are a few occasions when I think all of us can agree on a fundamental issue but perhaps disagree on our approaches to the solutions to those issues. I think this Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995, is one of them. I should put on the record that I, fortunately, have never smoked; I'm pure of lung, which is to my benefit.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: As the member for North Vancouver-Seymour says: "So I have one vice." He should be so lucky as to only have one.

Nevertheless, I think the root of the problem here is that cigarette smoking is legal in Canada. It's a legal activity in Canada, and yet there's no question it is a health hazard; that's at the root of it. You know, we dabble and we fool around with this federally, often just before or just after an election, when we start to talk about restrictions to advertising, restrictions to marketing and having to put great big black warning signs and a skull and crossbones on a pack of cigarettes. But the fact is it's legal. It's a legal activity for people over a certain age in every province across the country.

The second undeniable fact is that immigrant people coming into Canada, especially from some areas, have a higher average of smoking per capita than do Canadians who have gone through an educational process here. That's an undeniable statistical fact, and that changes to a large extent the social dynamic that goes on within our communities, especially in our metropolitan urban centres.

Then we also have to recognize that the only reason that we can, in our own sort of sanctimonious way, stand up and say, as I do, "I, pure of lungs, have never smoked, and therefore aren't I great?" is the fact that the majority of voters probably don't smoke, either. So it's a pretty safe debate to get into for a politician, generally speaking. I see the Minister of Health nodding and smiling, saying that's true, and in fact it probably is true.

It's kind of interesting. I hope that the House will bear with me for a moment, because it used to be.... It just shows you how peer pressure has kind of changed, and how in our modern society things have taken a swing in a different direction. The Minister of Health might appreciate this. It reminds me of story that was once told by Allan Fotheringham, of all people, if you can think of it. Fotheringham mentioned how times have changed, how it used to be when he was a youth. He would walk into a drugstore and quite proudly and loudly demand a packet of cigarettes, and then in a very soft and whispered voice would say "and also a pack of condoms"; whereas today, in our new, enlightened world, we go in there and quite proudly and loudly demand a packet of condoms, and then whisper "and a pack of cigarettes, please." I've always remembered Fotheringham telling me that story, because I think that's about where we've come to in this new, enlightened age, where all of a sudden one is acceptable and the other isn't. I don't know.

But the fact is that what this bill attempts to do is.... I couldn't agree more with the member for Prince George-Omineca, when he says you can't legislate a restrictive measure on people effectively. You can attempt to do it. And I applaud the minister for what he is attempting to do, because I, for one, would like to see cigarette smoking gone. I think that it is an enormous cost to our society in terms of health care dollars, and I know that the addiction of young people to cigarette smoking is something that we're going to have to try and take issue with. But I think that when you start to legislate that kind of activity, it rarely, if ever, is a successful venture. By simply putting in these kinds of enforcements, you're likely to -- and I think the member for Prince George-Omineca is right again -- take those retailers who take a marginal percentage of their profit off cigarette sales.... They will just simply say: "Forget it, I'm not going to sell them at all." Whereas others -- and I'm thinking of tobacconists, for one, where it's a rather important part of their day-to-day dealings -- are going to have to be extremely careful and effectively become corner cops. They're having to say: "Well, I don't know. We're going to have to enforce that as well."

Drugstores, for example.... In small communities -- something that's missed here -- the person behind the till on a weekend is often a kid from the high school who knows another kid from the school who's coming in to buy cigarettes, and it's that person who's going to have to make the determination. Or are we going to say that like in a wine and beer store or a corner store that is licensed for spirits, you have to be over 19 to be able to sell the packet of cigarettes? If that's the case, then we're putting in place a new restriction with respect to employment standards. That's something that I think we need to flush out in this act.

Similarly, it's important as we get into this debate to recognize two other concerns that I think we need to have. It's interesting -- this debate tonight, and in fact the whole day, has been most informative with respect to flushing out party policy on certain issues, because we learn today that the Liberal Party wants to eliminate tobacco sales from any retail store except a licensed government liquor store. That's an interesting policy position. I think that every drugstore that sells tobacco and every tobacconist -- there is a whole series of retailers who currently sell tobacco -- is going to be interested to know that that is in fact their policy. I think that's important to know.

It may be one way to go about trying to prevent this -- by simply saying: "Okay, the only people who can sell tobacco are the government." How ironic that becomes! It's ironic enough that we take such an enormous taxation off alcohol 

[ Page 14971 ]

when we look at the problems that alcohol plays in terms of drunk driving, ICBC rates going up and all kinds of hospital rates that go up because of abuse of alcohol; yet the only agent of alcohol sales is indeed the government. So I don't think, personally.... We wouldn't support the Liberal policy position on this that the government should become the sole agent for the distribution of tobacco, which again is another system.

I come back to what I said at the beginning: the problem is that smoking tobacco is legal, and this is something the federal government and the Minister of Health are going to have to start to take issue with.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Richmond East says: "Not only government liquor stores, but all licensed stores that can retail alcohol."

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'm reluctant to delve into these kinds of personal side debates, but I think that what I heard the member for Richmond East saying is that she wants to have all cigarettes sold in liquor stores. I'm pretty certain that's what I heard her say, and if that means that tobacco is in liquor stores, then that means they are government-licensed agencies. I note that time marches on, so I don't want to get too much into that side of the debate.

I want to bring this next issue to the minister, and I want the minister to deal with aboriginal sales of tobacco in his closing remarks. This may work in urban centres, and it may work in downtown Vancouver on Main Street or whatever, but I'll tell you that there are licensed agents on first nations lands, where first nations have opportunities to sell tobacco in rural British Columbia, and they do so in enormous quantities.

R. Neufeld: They do it right here in Victoria. It's not just rural.

G. Wilson: That's quite true. That's right -- it's not all rural, but that is certainly where you will see the majority of outlets, anyway, though perhaps not in gross volume sales.

I want to know if Bill 21 is going to apply to first nations. Let's face it: we are not simply trying to get tobacco out of the hands of the non-aboriginal community, and I'm presuming we're not just trying to get it out of the hands of young people. I think we're trying to launch a major educational campaign to stop people of all ages from getting addicted to what is a very demeaning kind of activity -- that's my own personal bias -- and one that is most hazardous to one's health.

The last comment I will make on this, and then I'll yield to other speakers so that others can get in before the close of debate.... I'm assuming that at some point we are going to adjourn tonight. That is maybe a presumption on my part, but.... I think that the key here is that we have to recognize that nothing in this particular bill puts the onus on the buyer, and I think that's a problem. The onus is on the seller, and the responsibility must rest with the buyer, not with the seller. That is where I have my biggest problem with what is being attempted here. Even though I support the notion that we should try to get tobacco out of the hands of young people, I would argue that tobacco is damaging to your health regardless of age. While I think the minister is well intentioned in this bill, I simply don't think it will be effective, and I think that it may prove to be a costly venture.

[9:45]

D. Mitchell: I wish to add just a few words to the second reading stage of Bill 21, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995. Like the previous speaker, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and like the member for Prince George-Omineca, I have some concerns about this bill. I have some concerns about its enforceability, and I have some concerns as well about whether it is going to achieve the noble objective established by the Minister of Health. I think his objective is honourable; his objective is the right one. The objective is to somehow deal with this terribly addictive drug that is currently legal, that many of us wish wasn't legal -- a drug that is focused on young people in particular.

I, too, am concerned about whether this bill is really going to reduce the consumption of tobacco in British Columbia, particularly by young people. One of the things the bill doesn't do -- and I'd like to ask the minister if he could address this issue as well -- is take a step back from the transaction process that may take place at the point of sale and take a look at what motivates people to purchase, consume and become addicted to tobacco. I think the member for Prince George-Omineca analyzed this quite well when it comes to young people, in particular, and what motivates them. But to take one step back further, what about the advertising? What about the advertisers who try to glamorize tobacco consumption and smoking as something that is in, something that is sexy, something that is with it, something that young people should be doing?

A previous government a generation ago -- and the minister may remember 1971, in the dying days of the first Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett -- tried to legislate against the advertising of the sale of tobacco and liquor products in British Columbia in magazines, periodicals, television and radio -- against the "pushers," as the former Premier used to call them. W.A.C. Bennett used to call these people the pushers of these drugs. Back in the early 1970s he was laughed at as being a hick, out of touch with the modern age. He was laughed at, and the truth is that he was ahead of his time. In fact, it presaged the defeat of his government, because the tobacco lobby and the liquor lobby contributed to the defeat of his government by funding his opponents at that time.

Isn't it interesting that here we are in 1995, a quarter of a century later, and we're talking about how to somehow restrict the sale of tobacco products. But we're not dealing with the fundamental issue that even if we can license, register and impose heavy fines on those who sell the product, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast accurately said, we're not dealing with the purchasers themselves and what motivates those purchasers and the advertisers -- or what W.A.C. Bennett called the pushers of the products. I wonder if the minister might indicate whether or not he's done any work on this aspect, in particular; whether or not he has any legal opinions about whether the government of British Columbia has any power to limit the advertising or the pushing of these products, which are currently legal.

I'll pursue this further in committee stage. I don't want to pursue it any further tonight. But I think it's ironic: here we 

[ Page 14972 ]

are in 1995 trying to deal with issues that previous generations have struggled with, and I wonder if Bill 21 is going to do the job. I share the concerns of my fellow opposition members on that matter.

F. Randall: I just want to make a couple of comments on Bill 21. I think, first of all, that I should point out that I also served on the original committee. I'm sort of surprised at the comments and the suggestions being made here, because they certainly weren't made at the committee level. I know there were at least a few of us on that committee who felt there should be a licence issued, and we didn't win the day on that committee.

I think that what you have to look at here.... I'm inclined to agree with comments that this may not work, but I think you have to go a step at a time. The committee's unanimous recommendation that was approved by this House hasn't worked -- that's pretty well a proven fact -- so there are changes being made. There may be some flaws in this, but I think you take it a step at a time and try to make the changes as you find that there are problem areas, rather than try to develop a thing to ban it completely and make it illegal for stores to even have it. I think you go a step at a time.

There have been places where the reduction has worked well -- where there has been a cancellation of the licence to sell. Those people appeared before the committee. I think it was from Woodridge, Illinois, that we had the police officer who was responsible appear before the committee and indicate drastic drops in smoking in that particular community with the threat of a licence being lifted.

I think the other thing, just to mention.... All the figures point to a reduction in people starting to smoke as they get older. I just wanted to point out that a lot of people who smoke.... If you're looking at the use of marijuana, 92 percent of smokers also smoke marijuana.

Interjections.

F. Randall: I'm sorry -- 92 percent of marijuana smokers also smoke cigarettes.

Interjections.

F. Randall: So what's the point? Once people reach a certain age, their chance of smoking is reduced. At 20 years of age, only 10 percent start; certainly when they're 13 or 14, 25 percent start. It starts to decrease as they get older. The main thing is to get them out of school, and then the chance of them starting is substantially reduced.

I've come across some legislation that was in effect in British Columbia in 1897, nearly 100 years ago. I don't know what happened to it, but the legislation in effect at that time provided for cancellation of licences to sell. There was also a penalty, and it was certainly illegal to give or sell cigars, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, snuff or any other form of preparation of tobacco -- opium for smoking, etc. They were all spelled out in the act 100 years ago.

I don't know what happened to that, but what was interesting -- and I think it was raised over here -- was that there were penalties and fines to anybody under the age of 18. In 1902 the age was increased from 15 to 18. There was also a fine of $20 for anybody under-age caught smoking. That was a lot of money 100 years ago. So there have been attempts -- and I don't know what happened to this legislation, or when it went -- to have penalties on the user.

I certainly support the bill, because I think it's another step. The last bill was obviously not working at all. I had occasion to go out on a sting operation with another person. We had a boy and girl, 14 years of age. They only looked about 12 or 13, and they had no trouble buying tobacco. I've certainly got a lot of concern about the age requirements, and I strongly support licences being lifted. I wouldn't even have a problem with a penalty on anybody under-age caught with tobacco.

An Hon. Member: It didn't work in 1902, though.

F. Randall: I don't know what happened to that 1902 legislation. It would be interesting to do a study and find out why it was left, because there is certainly....

Interjections.

F. Randall: I think the whole matter of what happened previously.... I want to repeat that people who were on the committee are now making statements that were not made at the committee level. I think a number of us would have liked to have seen that legislation go further, but it was a consensus of the committee. I'm certainly pleased to see the minister taking some additional steps to make sure that this at least works. I hope that if it doesn't work, additional legislation will be introduced.

I'm of the opinion that there has been a reduction. The number of stores that are now asking for age and identification is certainly an improvement. I'm not saying that the legislation that was introduced previously was totally ineffective; it definitely had an effect, but it did not go far enough. Many stores are now asking for identification and won't sell without it. So it was a step, and this is just another step along the way to endeavour to try and keep tobacco away.

I just want to go on to health very quickly. I spent a lot of years as a trustee for a pension plan. We had a disability pension, and we had our own doctor who would examine people who had claims. I can tell you that most people in their early fifties had health problems if they had been smoking. A lot of people were on disability pensions and could no longer work because of health problems related to tobacco and alcohol. There was a combination, certainly, of both, but a lot of heavy smokers were unable to work in their early fifties.

So I certainly support the legislation. It will certainly cut down on health costs if we can cut down on tobacco.

T. Perry: I'm not normally a fan of night sittings, but this is one I could go all night on.

Interjections.

T. Perry: I hasten to assure members that I don't propose to use my full half-hour; I think a briefer comment will do.

I'm going to be voting for the bill. I think it's a positive step forward. It's not the solution to the problem. I actually came in to listen to other speakers. I heard the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the member for West 

[ Page 14973 ]

Vancouver-Garibaldi speaking. Given the topic, I decided it was worth coming and hearing them. If I discerned correctly, they were saying that they're calling for a more vigorous action yet against tobacco. I'm very pleased to hear that.

There are some lessons from this bill and the entire process of the reform of the law in British Columbia, one of which I learned from watching the member who just spoke, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I may be wrong. I probably do him an injustice, but I had never associated him particularly strongly with the campaign against smoking and for health until I saw him in action at an event sponsored by Airspace last February, which I believe the member for Vancouver-Langara also attended, as well as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. The member who just spoke to us a moment ago saw the evidence presented by members of the public who had gone with young kids to stores -- both independent retailers and members of chain stores -- and showed that it was possible to purchase cigarettes when one was obviously a minor well under the legal age. And he was impressed by it. I remember he raised it very promptly, coming back to Victoria.

I'm someone who's spent a lot of my life fighting the effects of tobacco addiction, trying to name the true criminals -- as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi referred to them, quoting the former Premier, the late W.A.C. Bennett, the pushers. I've used the words as baldly as I possibly could in here. The mass murderers of the tobacco companies deliberately addict kids and deliberately inculcate the deaths of 35,000 Canadians every year -- 3,500 British Columbians are sentenced to premature death, thanks to the deliberate pushing of the mass murderers in the tobacco companies. One of the great sins in our society is that we don't call them what they really are.

[10:00]

We get worried about violence on a native blockade up at Merritt. We get worried about what we see on BCTV almost every night -- rightly so. Violence, wherever it is.... We get frightened by the death of a child -- rightly so -- in a bicycle accident over the weekend. Yet we can suppress the mass murder that goes on in the name of the tobacco companies and suppress what ought to be our proper revulsion at those merchants who profit by selling those wares, whether it be a pharmacist betraying the professional oath that a pharmacist undertakes to promote health, who deliberately and knowingly purveys a lethal, addictive substance in a pharmacy -- something that is now banned in Ontario, thanks to action by the council of pharmacists in that province and the government; whether it be a small merchant or grocer who, understandably, wants the high profits of the tobacco sales to counter costs of operating a small store; whether it be the chain stores -- Safeway, London Drugs or Pharmasave Drugs, where there's even less excuse for it, albeit Pharmasave Drugs is owned by a tobacco company, which is the reason I personally avoid at all costs....

Interjections.

T. Perry: Sorry, not Pharmasave; Shoppers Drug Mart. Forgive me -- apologies to Pharmasave Drugs. Shoppers Drug Mart is owned by Imasco-Imperial Tobacco Ltd. I personally will avoid, at all costs, shopping at those stores, given that they are owned by the merchants of death -- the mass murderers.

They are now competing with the international arms trade as mass murderers on a global scale. We don't talk about that often; I think it's time we did that much more. This bill is no panacea for that. We need to constantly search our consciences and minds, and I think another lesson we can learn from our experience in this Legislature is that some constructive action did come out of the work of a legislative committee. We did forge a non-partisan consensus two years ago through the work of members opposite, including the Liberal Health critic, and of members on this side such as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who just spoke. There is the leadership of the former Minister of Health, who was herself touched by the mass murder of the tobacco industry and therefore had a particular personal interest, as well as a conscientious interest as Health minister, and the leadership of the current minister, who has also seen firsthand the effects of tobacco on people.

I've seen plenty of it; I've seen enough to make we want to puke, frankly. I've seen people who have been sentenced to death deliberately. It makes me disgusted and want to retch when I walk my own kids to school and see young people smoking and thinking they're non-conformist, when in fact they're being deliberately sucked in by tobacco companies.

We've got a lot more work to do; this is a step. I just want to.... I see a member rising.

Deputy Speaker: I see the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. On what point, member?

K. Jones: I rise on the point of being very upset with some of the language being used by the hon. member.

Deputy Speaker: I listened, member, and I didn't hear any offence to parliamentary privilege. But I certainly appreciate the point made, and I'm sure the member will take that into account as well.

The member for Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: I know this is quite unusual in one way, but I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I especially want to extend thanks to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. Late at night, it's very nice to have visitors visiting us. I note two people who are visiting us from Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Mr. and Mrs. Murray Greenblum. I would sure appreciate it if the House would make them most welcome.

Deputy Speaker: It's nice to see Guinness Book of World Records candidates welcomed.

T. Perry: In deference to our American visitors, I'll try to wrap up smartly, so they can get out of here.

And in deference to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, if anything I said offended him, I apologize. But he reassures me, because I meant to be provocative. If some of what I said disturbed him, it encourages me, because it's a very, very disturbing subject.

Just before finishing, hon. Speaker, I'd like to put on the record and share with all hon. members -- since this is indeed 

[ Page 14974 ]

a non-partisan issue -- a letter I received today from David Sweanor, general counsel for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association. I had the privilege -- along with the member for Comox Valley, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health -- to meet Mr. Sweanor at the Child Health 2000 conference last week in Vancouver. A major part of the conference was aimed at control of tobacco and the worldwide epidemic. It was shocking to see that there were three officials from the World Health Organization at the conference, one of them a prominent Canadian, who are the only three World Health Organization people working in Geneva on smoking. Against the entire array of the tobacco industry, there are three people at WHO.

Mr. Sweanor writes -- and I think this is of interest to all members:

"It was great to meet you at the Child Health 2000 conference. I really enjoyed talking with you and with" -- I can't name her, but it was the member for Comox Valley -- "about the potential for using the regulatory authority granted under British Columbia's Tobacco Sales Act.

"As indicated, I would be very willing to come meet the Minister of Health and other key players to discuss some of the things that could be done using this regulatory authority."

I note that "key players" could refer to anyone in this assembly. Anyone who wishes to consider themselves a key player, pay attention.

"I have also talked to Gar Mahood about this, and he attaches similar significance to anything we can do to help.

"As we discussed, there are many possibilities for action. The experiences of other provinces and other countries give some indication of what might be acceptable in British Columbia. Based on our knowledge of what is conceivable, we could defer to you and your colleagues as to what is politically possible. We might also be able to help ensure that public health measures are accepted across political lines.

"In any event, I think we can accomplish some things that will be great for the children of British Columbia, have broad public support and maybe even set some precedents for other nations.

"I look forward to hearing from you and discussing this further."

The importance of this letter is that at the Child Health 2000 assembly, it became clear that the world looks to Canada for leadership on smoking. There are only perhaps three or four other countries, exclusively in Scandinavia, which have a better record on combatting smoking, and yet our record is far from perfect. It's a non-partisan issue; it's one where we can make things politically possible if we agree, for once, in this chamber. Although I will support the bill with pleasure as a further step, I know it's not enough, and I look forward to working with all other members on both sides of the House to stamp out smoking in this province once and for all.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Health, whose remarks will close debate.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank all who participated in debate for their thoughtful comments on this very serious and important issue, and for the diversity of viewpoints that they brought to it.

I think, in a way, it sort of reflects the work of the all-party committee which debated at length the best next steps to take. They heard a similar diversity of viewpoints as to what direction we should go -- everything from prohibition or great restriction on the number of retail outlets that can sell the product, to more educational initiatives.

As I listened to the debate, two things occurred to me. First, I think we ought to recognize that legislation and regulation can have an impact. I hear people say don't legislate, you can't legislate this, you can't do anything by legislation that will actually impact on tobacco use. I must say I would ask people to take a look at this country's and this province's actual record. Take a look at the actual record: tobacco use is about one-half of what it was a generation ago in this country. That reduction has been accomplished largely by legislative measures. It has been accomplished by the ban on advertising of tobacco in the media, which this country has led. The member for Peace River North shakes his head. At Child Health 2000, one of the heirs to the Reynolds Tobacco Co. praised this country for its leadership in the world in banning tobacco advertising as a tobacco reduction measure. This country had the courage to take the lead on it through legislation, and it has had an impact.

Second, the ongoing efforts of this government and others to reduce access to this product is by making sure it is priced at a level that is prohibitive to some. With the regrettable exception of the federal Liberal government most recently, that has been a strategy adhered to by all parties for years and years at the federal level. So I would submit that there are steps to take next. We heard the recommendations of the all-party committee and are acting on taking the next steps which they recommended.

There are other options available: plain packaging, which the federal government is investigating; increased restrictions on advertising, the sort of pseudo-ads that revolve around sporting events; and, of course, we might even look at some of the measures that the member opposite has recommended. But I must say that the diversity of views in this Legislature was brought together in that all-party committee, and a consensus was achieved. We are implementing them.

Two at-large objections to this bill were put forward by the members opposite: first, that we are increasing bureaucracy and this will create a host of new bureaucrats. It's simply not so. I will be glad to explore that at committee stage. One thing I would point out is that, for once, federal and provincial levels of government are working together on this thing. We are jointly enforcing federal legislation that also restricts access to tobacco products, and they are funding the provincial government to carry out enforcement of their act. So that, I think, addresses the whole issue of dollars. I don't think there's a large dollar cost here.

Second, the act explicitly rejects the notion of establishing an entirely separate licensing system within the Ministry of Health. We are working in coordination with the existing licence system and existing enforcement recommendations to streamline this process.

Finally, I surely share the view of, I think, most members who spoke, in that this is not the end of the tobacco issue. There's much to be done, particularly in analyzing why people take up the addiction of smoking, particularly young people. I would suggest that that is as contentious an issue as the various measures that have been proposed tonight for 

[ Page 14975 ]

reducing tobacco consumption. I have yet to meet anybody who has the ultimate answer to what leads people to take up smoking. It is something that all engaged in this struggle must continually work on.

With those comments, I move second reading of Bill 21.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 21, Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. G. Clark: In breaking with tradition, I would like to announce that the House will be sitting on Wednesday this week. With that, I move this House to now adjourn.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:13 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:42 p.m.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 55: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).

D. Jarvis: I have a few questions until our critic arrives.

Your ministry probably spent less in my riding than in any other riding in the province.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: You wiped some of them out, did you? I had some questions on the Second Narrows Bridge with regard to the earthquake; that's about it.

I want to ask the minister a question with regard to the Hastings connector. I'm getting a few complaints. That connector was ostensibly to solve the problem of backed-up traffic getting over to the North Shore, getting off the freeway, but it seems to be getting worse and worse every day now, no matter what. From about 2 o'clock on, you're jammed in a line before you get to the connector from the 1st Avenue and Boundary Road access areas.

Could the minister tell me if they intend to do anything further with regard to relieving the problem? I don't know if the problem is that it's backing up right at that point or if it is on the Second Narrows Bridge. There's also the rumour of the widening of the bridge. Could she give me some information on that?

Hon. J. Pement: I recognize that there are some areas of traffic congestion. It's really the lanes merging on the bridge that cause the problem. At this point, we have no funding to look at widening those areas.

D. Jarvis: So we're backed up on the bridge. It's actually not that bad. Personally, I feel that it's a misnomer to say that we have traffic jams on the North Shore. It's one of our best secrets, actually -- it's keeping all the rabble from coming over to the North Shore, because everyone thinks it's bad.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I don't care if that's in Hansard or not. I've said that on TV before.

Let's get down to your technical committee and the shortlist. About eight months ago, it was going to be in two weeks. Six months ago, it was going to be in one month. Then it was going to be in the spring. We're rapidly approaching the summer. Have you come anywhere near a shortlist?

[6:45]

Hon. J. Pement: We were looking at having a shortlist sooner. However, in meeting with councils, stakeholder groups and the technical committee, a number of studies were requested -- everything from traffic volumes and traffic patterns to environmental and geotechnical studies. Those studies have come in now. They have been finalized. What we're doing now is going back to technical committees and stakeholders to report these studies. The liaison group will eventually do our shortlist. We're looking at working through the summer to get all this information out and working towards late fall for an actual shortlist.

D. Jarvis: Pardon me for smiling, but late fall.... In other words, maybe next year we will hear about it. I understand that you're giving all this information to the technical committee, but is there anything to suggest that you are considering privatization? Have you considered it at all in regard to a crossing -- either a tunnel or a new bridge?

The Chair: Given that that is future policy, I'm sure the minister will have an appropriate response.

Hon. J. Pement: At this point, there are no decisions being made in that regard.

D. Jarvis: Thank you for deflecting the question, Madam Chair.

Has anything been done in the minister's portfolio in regard to rapid transit and transit between North Van and West Vancouver? The minister has probably heard about using the CN bridge and the tunnel. Has the government given any consideration at all to that?

Hon. J. Pement: Transit is in the Minister of Employment and Investment's portfolio.

[ Page 14976 ]

D. Jarvis: We were talking just a minute ago about the Second Narrows Bridge, and you mentioned that there weren't sufficient funds to do anything. If there were sufficient funds somewhere down the line, is the widening of the Second Narrows Bridge in the thought of the ministry -- to expand it to one more lane or two more lanes? I doubt if you could get two but....

Hon. J. Pement: It's actually the Second Narrows Iron Workers' Memorial Bridge. We do not have plans for widening that particular bridge at this time. We've been working in the overall planning function with the GVRD and Transport 2021, and the widening of those lanes was not prioritized or brought forward as part of the overall corridor issues.

D. Jarvis: The aboriginal band is now doing some construction on the north end of the bridge and putting in a development which would be kitty-corner to the Coach House development. Has the minister given any consideration to changing the basic traffic patterns in that area? Is anything planned for it, or is it just going to be left as is?

Hon. J. Pement: We have no commitment at any point for that development.

The committee recessed from 6:51 p.m. to 7:04 p.m.

D. Jarvis: Before we had to go in for the vote in the other room, the minister said that she wasn't aware of any development -- not necessarily aware of any development, but of any proposal -- to change the configuration of the north end of the bridge. It is my understanding that any development near a highway has to have the permission of the Highways ministry.

Hon. J. Pement: To clarify, if this development is on reserve land, it's under federal jurisdiction. The development situation, therefore, does not apply provincially. What happens is that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways either approves or disapproves of access, and they'll have to use the existing access to the system.

D. Jarvis: Basically the rules are different then, in that sense.

Hon. J. Pement: The provincial situation does not apply on federal reserve land.

D. Symons: If I might carry on with that question, the minister is saying that when it's aboriginal land that abuts or is within that ribbon on each side of the highway, you still control the available access to the highway. As far as the development of the land goes, as long as it doesn't get onto the highway, that's the matter of the federal government. Does the federal government or the provincial government approach each other to at least discuss what's going on there, even if it doesn't involve a highway access?

Hon. J. Pement: The band will inform Highways of their development and consult with us. We can then advise, but it's not the same situation.

D. Symons: I gather that there's not a formal set of rules which must be followed.

To digress from the North Shore and carry on with band lands, I gather that you don't have signage control over bands. We can see that when we come into Victoria from Swartz Bay. I would also gather that the ministry would feel somewhat concerned -- that's not the word I'm after; maybe you'll think of a better one -- about the signs along aboriginal lands. I think the sign policy the government brought in was primarily to stop the blight of billboards and so forth along the highways. The reason I'm leading up to this -- and I'm not quite sure if the member for Surrey-Cloverdale asked the question this way -- is that one of the government agencies put up a sign on an aboriginal reserve to advertise the Victoria Line ferry. We are concerned. The government brought in a signage policy because it feels that signage along the side of a road is undesirable, but one of the government agencies is putting up advertising signs on aboriginal land. Mind you, this is so they can get around the rules.

I wonder if you might speak to the Minister of Employment and Investment. You might suggest to the minister that you have a policy here and that it's undercutting that policy if they use the out of having their sign put up on aboriginal land. I won't carry on with that; it's just something the minister should be aware of. Maybe you should draw it to his attention that it's not the ministry's intention to be promoting the use of highway blight and that it shouldn't be a government member's intention either.

Let's move back to the Lions Gate Bridge. I know I was in the midst of the Island Highway before, but since we're on the Lions Gate, I would like to finish the topic. I notice that on May 7, 1993, the ministry first announced the Lions Gate Bridge. I beg your pardon, it was February 9, 1993, when the then Minister of Transportation and Highways wanted public input on the Lions Gate Bridge. That was the title of the news release. Indeed, at that time they mentioned the three options of either rehabilitating the present bridge, rebuilding to four lanes, or building a new five-lane bridge. Not too long after that, lots of other proposals quickly developed.

Then on May 7 we had another announcement by the minister that the study was released. This was the Brundtland study on the bridge. In one portion the report specifically pointed to the bridge deck as requiring the most attention and suggested that it might cost between $1 million and $2 million annually during that maintenance period. The minister sought a process by which public involvement would be sought on opinions for the North Shore crossing. He also said: "We need to maintain a strict timetable if we are to have a new or revitalized transportation link in place within the next five years." I guess my concern is that those five years are rapidly evaporating.

"The ministry will be involving local governments this summer" -- remember, that's 1993 he's talking about -- "and the public this fall in order to review the viable options." Well, from that point on, the timeframe for this particular construction started falling apart because it kept dragging on and on.

The next announcement came on July 23: "Charbonneau Announces Lions Gate Crossing Public Involvement Program." This was where he announced the procedures by which the community and so forth would get involved with it: "Once the preliminary information-gathering has been coupled, wider public involvement will be sought this fall," said the minister. "The ministry anticipates a decision on the cros-

[ Page 14977 ]

sing in early 1994." I might just point out to the minister that we are now rapidly approaching mid-1995, so we seem to be more than a year behind already in meeting a five-year target for planning, design and construction.

We've had the announcements and we've had a good number of studies. That is what I'm leading up to now. Indeed, we seem to be having subsurface study information gathered and we've already had an environmental study. It seems that as soon as one is through, another one begins, rather than having these things run simultaneously so that we can have them all done and get on with the project. It would almost seem to a cynical observer that these studies are being done in a way that will delay the progress of this bridge so that maybe it could be postponed until after an election, because a decision on the bridge might not be too favourable to either one side of the crossing or the other.

Can we have some firm time lines on when the decision is going to be made? I know I'm waiting, as is the hon. member from North Vancouver-Seymour. We're waiting for a technical review -- I believe that one's come out -- and I was waiting for the environmental review that I think was due last fall. I kept phoning the ministry and saying, "When is it due?" They keep giving me two weeks later. Two weeks have passed about five times already, and I still haven't seen that particular study, which one of your media people promised they would pass along to me. Can the minister give us some idea of when these studies will be completed so that a decision can be made on that bridge?

Hon. J. Pement: I had just mentioned to the member that the studies were completed. We are now going to be taking those studies back to the very people who asked for the studies: technical groups, community groups and councils. One could be cynical, but really it was a much broader consultation period because there were questions and concerns raised by the various groups on traffic patterns, economic concerns within communities, communities seeing more traffic patterns and geotechnical concerns. There are many studies being done. These are requested by people who are affected by these transportation systems. So one could be cynical, but I really feel that this is part of the consultation process. Therefore we will, over the summer, do our consultation and look to short-list in the fall. From there, recommendations will go to the Transportation Financing Authority and to cabinet from there.

[7:15]

D. Symons: I wonder if we might go to the geotechnical survey that was done. It was instituted approximately a year ago. I'm just reading again from the news release. It said that the survey would determine whether the foundations of the Lions Gate Bridge could handle increased weight if the existing bridge were rehabilitated. I'd like to know whether it was a yes or a no on that. The survey will also gather information required for preliminary foundation designs for construction of a new bridge. What were the results of that portion of this geotechnical study? And three, the survey will also investigate ground condition to see whether a tunnel is viable in this location. Was it found viable? What I'm leading up to in those three points the study addressed is what the results were. Then, because of the results of the geotechnical study -- I think we've got about a dozen different proposals out there -- were any of those proposals ruled out?

Hon. J. Pement: The studies will certainly indicate that some particular options may be more favourable, but no particular option has been ruled out at this point.

D. Symons: Based on the studies that have taken place so far and the results that have come in, none of the close to a dozen options is definitely no-go because of engineering problems that might relate to it, as far as the geotechnical or the environmental part goes. Maybe we can bring in the environmental study, too. Is any proposal, either environmental, geotechnical or whatever -- I'll make it rather broad -- no-go? Have those particular proponents been advised that their particular one is not on because there is some concern about it?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, in the sense of the various options, the studies show that where problems may lie -- environmentally, for example -- some may be more problematic than others. In the geotech side, it can show the cost range that you're looking at.

D. Symons: The study by B.C. Transit of North Shore transit options done in August 1994 basically suggested that bus transit would be the most effective for the North Shore. That gets to my colleague's question earlier about a rapid transit route or commuter rail maybe going over the.... Well, it's not the Second Narrows Bridge; it's not the Iron Workers Bridge; it's the rail bridge at that Second Narrows crossing. Anyway, in this case, the report says: "Providing transit with priority over other road users is key to ensuring transit remains an attractive alternative to travel by car." I'm wondering if this is maybe softening up the North Shore people who care to live on that side to the idea that they're not going to get extra lanes. Indeed, we're going to use a little of the stick approach here by limiting the capacity of the bridge by having HOV lanes or bus lanes and easy access for buses. They'll be encouraged to leave their big automobiles at home and take transit across the bridge.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, this was a Transit study done in conjunction with.... Actually, concerns raised by stakeholder groups made us look at marine options such as the SeaBus concept, and also at the light rail concept. If you read through the report, you'll see that on the whole, the report identified the bus system as being probably more viable for transit.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might just remind me -- because I should know the answer to this one and I don't remember it offhand -- of the multitude of proposals. How many make provision for some future date for transit beyond buses, some sort of rapid transit provision, whether it be a tunnel or a bridge. There are a few, I suspect, that have the capacity of adding that at some later date if it becomes necessary for the North Shore.

Hon. J. Pement: We cannot recall the precise number, but there were a number that had rapid transit or transit options. We certainly can get that information to you.

D. Symons: I'm finished with the Lions Gate Bridge. I wonder if we can go back to the Island Highway and pick up where we left off. I think we were just travelling north from Nanaimo and getting up to Craig's Crossing. I guess the interesting point about Craig's Crossing is that it seems that 

[ Page 14978 ]

you've added an interchange where there was going to be an intersection. My concerns and questions about Nanaimo, the prior questions on this particular section of the highway, were dealing with the problem in Nanaimo where there seems to be a deficit of interchanges. I'm wondering what the reasoning might have been for upgrading this particular thing into an interchange rather than an intersection. It's a much more expensive option at that point. There must be a reason for it, and maybe that's the reason it didn't apply in some of those other intersections in Nanaimo.

Hon. J. Pement: The reason this interchange was used is that it is a highway link rather than a municipal street. It is also a gateway to the inland Island Highway. There is a rail aspect to that particular facility as well.

D. Symons: Pushing north, the member for Alberni recently said that everything from Victoria to Courtenay is on schedule and should be complete by 1996. He is quoted in the local paper as having said this on March 29, 1995. I understood by the re-scoping that the minister did just prior to that date that the Mud Bay to Courtenay stretch was to be done by 1997. It won't be completed now until 1998. I'm just wondering if the member for Alberni was slightly out in his comments regarding the Island Highway.

Hon. J. Pement: I remind you that the inland Island Highway up to Mud Bay is on schedule and will be done by 1996. Again, as the member is aware, there were some scope changes made. This is the reason for the change.

D. Symons: There is a bridge being built at Cook Creek. It's the Cook Creek Upstream Bridge. I won't read out the project number, but it went to bids on April 11, 1995. This, I think, was originally going to be a four-lane bridge, but I think it's in one of the areas where the highway scope has been changed. If we take that bridge -- or others like it -- which has been downsized to a two-lane rather than a four-lane highway in the northern portions.... Will the bridges still be built to four lanes so that when other lanes are added they be able to accommodate increased traffic?

Hon. J. Pement: This will be a four-lane bridge.

D. Symons: I'm not quite sure of the location of that particular bridge. My question also related to other bridges in the portions where it has been downsized. Originally it was to be a four-lane highway, and one of your re-scopings involved four lanes going down to two. If there are any crossings there, will those crossings be built to four lanes or will they now be built to the downsize of two lanes?

Hon. J. Pement: First of all, the full design has not been completed yet with regard to the northern section, and the bridges will meet the facility that will be part of the scope. If there's future expansions, one can look at parallel structures and that type of aspect.

D. Symons: I think you've answered. I was trying to determine whether the bridges would be scoped down or be built in order to accommodate the possible widening of the highways at a later date. So you plan more on downsizing the bridges as well. They are a fairly expensive portion of the highway, so I can see the reason for that, although it would be cheaper in the long run if you could end up putting the four-lane single bridge in now rather than two, two-lanes at some later date.

If we move on to the Campbell River area, I believe there was some concern in Campbell River over what I'll refer to as option E at the southern connector and whether it should be there or Hilchey Road; they were the two competitors. I think option E turned out to be considerably more expensive -- twice the price of the Hilchey Road one. I gather the ministry is still with option E and hasn't changed. There seemed to be some hesitation for a while there. If that's the case, maybe the minister can tell me if Dogwood Street will be extended to meet with the connector. It would be of use to the community.

[7:30]

Hon. J. Pement: I'll remind the member that the route was chosen after much consultation with the communities involved and discussion with them that the road may initially be somewhat higher in cost than some other routes. It's again a case of the other routes initially having to have some upgrades to them. That's not part of the cost factors, and we won't be extending Dogwood.

D. Symons: Last year at this time, the northbound lanes of the Pat Bay Highway were renewed by a hot-in-place technique. I'm wondering if this was part of the Island Highway project and is billed as part of this project. The Pat Bay is separate, I know, but it was also part of the whole thing -- or did it have more to do with the Commonwealth Games as a bike route? My indication, driving over that route each time when coming into Victoria, was that that portion of the highway was not all that bad. The surface was quite satisfactory, I thought. I can think of many other roads I have driven over in the last few years that were in much more desperate need of rehab than that particular portion of the road. For that reason, can you tell me to what account that was charged? Was it a charge against Highways, or was it a cost of running the Commonwealth Games?

Hon. J. Pement: That particular section was rehabilitation, so it was rehabilitation dollars that were put on that section. It was cracking, and with the volumes of traffic, it was decided to put a new surface on.

D. Symons: Is the Lands End Road overpass part of the Island Highway project, or was that partially funded by B.C. Ferries? That particular overpass at the very end serves primarily B.C. Ferries more than anything else, so if they were the main beneficiaries of that work, I'm wondering whether they also shared the costs of that particular project.

Hon. J. Pement: There was cost-sharing with B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: That's a fair way to go about it.

I asked earlier about the total labour cost to date on the Island Highway, and I believe you gave me that figure. This one you might not have at hand. What is the total paid for overtime on the Island Highway project up to now? I'm sure that would be available through Highway Constructors Ltd. What amount of time and a half and double time was paid there. I will have to take that at some future date, I'm sure.

Hon. J. Pement: We'll certainly get back to the member. I assume you're talking of all labour being done.

[ Page 14979 ]

D. Symons: Yes, all labour totally.

Just a few more questions, and we're almost finished the Island. There was an internal audit done on bidding for the blasting supplies, in March of this year, and I believe that audit came down and said everything was just fine. But I'm wondering why these bids weren't opened in public. For most of the bids on bridges and other highway projects, there's a date set and everybody knows what each other person.... As a matter of fact, the results are often published so that people can see exactly who bid and how much they bid. And you can see quite a variance sometimes in the bids. Why was this not the case so that the person who maybe complained about unfair favouritism shown in that particular bidding process would have been able to know what his competitor bid?

Hon. J. Pement: This was a set purchase with the Purchasing Commission.

D. Symons: I don't know if that answers my question, because regardless of how it's done, obviously there were bids put in. Two different people were competing for this, I gather. I'm curious as to why the results of the bidding process weren't made public.

Hon. J. Pement: This purchasing process has a policy which it goes by. It's not a tender as in other situations. It's still information, with regard to competitive bidding.

D. Symons: Well, I think it would be better to remove the potential, which has occurred in this case, for suspicion of unfair practices. If it was done by competitive bidding and the bids were opened, we certainly wouldn't have these suspicions on the parts of various players. Anything that creates suspicion in that way works against the best interests of the ministry and the government in the long term. People who become suspicious of it sometimes decide not to play the game anymore. If we don't have as many people as possible putting in serious bids, we may not get the best value for our dollar.

Hon. J. Pement: This is an overall purchasing policy through Government Services. That would be the ministry with which to discuss the issue.

D. Symons: When the government announced the Island Highway -- and I'm reading from Hansard what the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said: "The main purposes of the Island Highway project agreement are to build the project on time, on budget with no strikes or lockouts." That's from Hansard on March 29, 1994. We read on. On April 6, 1994, the Premier says: "B.C. 21 funds...have boosted the regional economies of British Columbia with the $1.2 billion Vancouver Island Highway, which will be built on time, on budget, and without strikes or lockouts." I could read one further one, but I won't. Again, the current Minister of Employment and Investment mentions on time and on budget.

I guess what I'm leading up to here is that there were a good number of references to on time and on budget. The minister's most recent concerns about the cost of the highway and keeping it within budget have changed with regard to time, as she admitted in her comments on Wednesday, March 22. Anyway, her response was that it's not on time but it is on budget.

I even have some problems with this business of on budget. Indeed, if because of whatever reason -- whether it be real estate prices or whatever -- you have to change the scope of something, the original project was not on budget. So as soon as you end up changing it and downsizing it, as has been done -- four lanes became two -- you're admitting that it was going to be over budget and you had to suppress the size of the project in order to put it on budget. To say that it's on budget is really extremely stretching a point in order to be able to claim that something that was going to be much more expensive than initially planned is on budget. I make those comments and argue that I don't think it's either on time or on budget within a year of the time that the government was boasting it was going to do that.

One of the reasons the member I spoke of -- who gave me some of those quotes a moment ago -- gave for bringing in the Highway Constructors Ltd. and the agreement that they made on the highway was the fact that the Coquihalla prices had gone way out of budget all over the place. The implication was that there wouldn't be any down time on the Island Highway and that there had been on the Coquihalla.

I've asked this question twice before. I don't believe I've got an answer yet, but I'll press on and ask once more. I would like to know how many days of labour on the Coquihalla Highway project.... How many days was that project down because of labour strife on that particular project? Tied in with that, how much was the cost of that highway affected by labour disputes on that project?

The Chair: There is only a slight difficulty with your question, and that that is unless you can tell me how.... It doesn't relate to this year's estimates, and that's all that's on the table.

D. Symons: Oh, 90 percent of them, I think. It relates to the Island Highway.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'm just asking the question, and at some point when you're on your feet, you can reply.

Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the Island Highway, it's on time within budget. We have a high percentage of local hire and small businesses are benefiting from materials, goods and services from the work being done. I think the Island Highway is not only going to meet the traffic needs of the Island but it is also providing skills training, jobs and business opportunities.

D. Symons: I'm not disputing that at all, but I wonder if the minister would commit today to have somebody in her ministry look back and come up with the information on the Coquihalla and tell me the number of days. It should be possible to find that out somewhere in the records. I would appreciate, for the sake of interest, if this information could be passed on to me.

I guess this one, published in the Vancouver Sun on April 7, involves a letter by the minister regarding the Island Highway. The heading the newspaper put on this is: "Island Highway Costs Are Not Driving Overruns." I thought this title wasn't contained verbatim in the contents of your letter because I would disagree that the title actually matches the 

[ Page 14980 ]

facts. Indeed, the cost overruns required you to downsize it in order to stay within budget. They haven't overrun because you've adjusted the budget to make sure it doesn't, so we're playing games with words here.

The minister wrote in her letter that contract costs for the Island Highway project have been on or beneath contract levels for similar highway construction activities elsewhere in the province. I would ask the minister if she could supply me -- again, at her convenience -- some of the comparable ones where you compared a section of the Island Highway and the costs of doing that to the other comparable ones you referred to in the letter. I would appreciate very much having examples to reinforce that point.

Hon. J. Pement: We can provide the member with some information.

D. Symons: We've completed the Island Highway; let's move back to other portions of the province. We'll go back to my colleague's shore -- Westview interchange. I note that the work on Westview is going to begin in late summer. Looking at construction around British Columbia, it would seem to me that the ideal time to start a construction process is early spring, not late summer when you're going to have rain and all the rest quickly bogging the whole worksite down. I wonder why so many of these contracts seem to start late rather than early in the season, which would seem a more logical time.

Hon. J. Pement: Some of the initial physical work will be started in late summer. However, since it's a design-build, the design aspect has to be done. The main brunt of the construction will be happening during the next construction period.

[7:45]

D. Symons: On the design-build, I was under the impression that the design had been pretty well completed. Since I hear that's not the case, I'll move on. We'll leave Westview and move on to Delta.

The main concern in Delta is the fact that the government is now contemplating developing Duke Point by turning that into a truck terminal for the Ferry Corporation. They'll be trucking out of Tsawwassen rather than out of Horseshoe Bay, which is going to increase the ferry traffic at Tsawwassen above what it is currently. We're going to have the whole of the Roberts Bank facility expanded into a container facility which will, again, put more pressure on that particular portion of the lower mainland.

We haven't done anything with the highways in that area to make up for the fact that we've got Massey Tunnel, which has reached its capacity and then some. Highway 17 is pretty well clogged at certain times of the day. Where Highway 10 feeds into it, we have a real problem at that intersection. When they come on line, which is going to be within a few years, these things are going to create that much more of a problem there. What plans is the ministry currently making? I'm sure you must have a planning department and a design department working on this now so that when the funding becomes available you won't have to say: "Well, now we have to plan and design." They'll be ready to go the moment the funding comes forward. You're going to have to do something before very long in that particular area.

Hon. J. Pement: There are ongoing meetings with communities that are concerned about increased traffic. Strategies will be developed through those consultation processes. Initially it's not expected that high volumes will be part of the mix. It will be incremental, and work can be done incrementally.

D. Symons: I'm sure that the minister has passed that way many times and would know that high volumes are there already. It's not a case of high volumes developing; they are there and anything that adds to it is going to turn the situation into gridlock. Can the minister give me any indication as to whether the ministry has any plans in place for twinning or adding tubes, etc., for another crossing of the south Fraser River near the present Massey Tunnel?

Hon. J. Pement: We are working with GVRD and the communities with regard to corridor planning.

D. Symons: I'll interpret that as an evasion in order to avoid giving me a direct answer about whether there is a strategy for that particular crossing at the current time.

I've been criticizing the ministry quite a bit for jobs that have not been completed. I thought I would throw in a kudo. It has to do with the old Highway 99 and 24th Avenue. The feedback I received when I was exploring to see whether there was a question here for you is that it was finished on time and was done with a great deal of consultation with the neighbours around there. Everybody was very happy. Congratulations to the ministry on that. Mark one up for your side.

Since I seem to be on that side of the river, I wonder if we can move into Delta for a moment. The mayor of Delta commented that he was having difficulty with the future of the south perimeter road: "I've been part of this discussion at its highest level, with the Premier and the minister and the finance authority. I'm confident that we'll be seeing this project go ahead." He said this on February 5, 1995. I'm wondering when the announcement will be for that project?

Hon. J. Pement: We're a little confused as to which mayor you talked to. Delta's mayor is female.

D. Symons: The mayor of Surrey.

Hon. J. Pement: On this particular system, no decisions have been made at this point.

D. Symons: While we're in Surrey, in the Vancouver Sun on January 25 of this year there was one of these articles where they have a tally of car crashes, and they did this one for Surrey. I noticed that approximately half of the 14 sites they called hot spots have the word "highway" attached to them: King George Highway at 88th Avenue was number one on the list, with 45 accidents per year; Fraser Highway at 152nd, 37; and King George Highway at 10th, 36. Those were the top three. Then there was a non-highway and No. 5, and King George Highway at 108th. ICBC is paying for upgrading of certain intersections where they find that maybe making a left-hand turn lane or a curb right-hand turn lane could reduce the incidence of accidents. I'm wondering if the ministry has examined those intersections on the highway ones. If there is the possibility of those intersections being improved to cut down the accident rates there, who's going to pick up the bill? The Highways ministry or ICBC?

[ Page 14981 ]

Hon. J. Pement: ICBC and Highways work closely with regard to some of these intersections, and they look at the data ICBC has obtained, as well as the ministry's, and identify certain intersections that may need some upgrading. It is done on a cost-sharing basis.

D. Symons: As I said last year, I have no problems with ICBC trying to cut down on what they spend on fender-benders. But if it's something that's a Highways responsibility in the sense of making it the safest intersection, I have a problem with paying more in insurance premiums for doing that than would be necessary if the Highways ministry was upgrading it. That's why I pointed out the Surrey ones that were labelled highways.

I wonder if we might move now across the river into that great municipality of Richmond, the fastest-growing city in the province, I'm sure, and one that deserves special attention from everybody, especially the Ministry of Highways. There aren't that many highways in Richmond, but there are some concerns. I know there's a riverside industrial park just in from the tunnel, and apparently the Highways ministry is restricting further development along there basically because they have some problems with the roads being able to handle the increased traffic. But it is also restricting development in Richmond and the economic base of our community. I'm sure there must be other places in the province, too, where if you end up allowing development, it's going to put more pressure on the highways. But shouldn't we build the highways to meet the needs?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, if it's a situation where the development is going to have undue impact on the system, Highways definitely is going to have a say about it. In this case, it's the access on to the system, and there is a concern.

D. Symons: I'll just ask a further question and maybe go on to the next. You can answer them both together, and we can move along faster that way.

I'm just curious whether there is any hope of some accommodation for further development in there, or is this land basically going to sit in limbo because of it? We have a similar sort of problem in Richmond happening around St. Edwards and Bridgeport because of the possible future development of Bridgeport as a one-way street, and the current Airport way as another way for serving the new crossing that will eventually come onto Sea Island for servicing the airport. In the meantime, until the ministry comes up with what it's going to do, a hotel development that was planned to take place in that general area is basically in limbo. I'm wondering if the minister can give us some idea of how we can end up giving resolution to these people who have projects they would like to move on with while they wait until the ministry seems to be deciding what its options are.

The Chair: We will take a recess to get ourselves in the House for the division that has just been called, and then we will come back -- promptly.

The committee recessed from 7:57 p.m. to 8:08 p.m.

Hon. J. Pement: I believe we were on the issue of development and on a particular facility. The first question was to do with a tunnel area. From my understanding, the ministry had met with those developers and had come to them with some criteria that they have to meet if they are to look at that situation. Particularly in the Bridgehead area, with the traffic flows and volumes there, it is difficult to go for a development.

D. Symons: I believe it is a former mayor of Richmond who owns some property in that area, as well.

I wonder if we can move on to the Middle Arm bridge, which I believe the ministry has some of its staff looking at various proposals and options for. Somewhere in this mass of papers I've got one of the documents that have come out of that. There seems to be a low-level crossing and a high-level crossing there. I believe the ministry goes for the lower level, because there's cost savings involved in having a lower bridge. Also, some aesthetics on each side and the effect on the local communities on each side have less impact than having a higher level would.

I gather that somehow the Coast Guard has gotten involved in this and has expressed some concerns about access to the Middle Arm. The story I got was that basically their nose was out of joint because they weren't involved in the process as it went along. I'm wondering if that has now been cleared up and whether they are working together as a team and have managed to resolve whether we can have the low-level or the higher-level bridge going across at Bridgeport.

Hon. J. Pement: Definitely we have consulted with the agency. Their responsibility is the navigable waters, and they are now consulting with all the boat owners, etc., in that vicinity. So they are doing their diligence at this point.

D. Symons: There are a number of marinas on both sides of the current bridge, and having kept a boat on both sides of that bridge, I'm aware of the situation. Mine could go under the current one, let alone a new replacement.

I gather there are still some problems. You've come up with a couple of options for the bridges, and I'm not too sure how much the airport authority, the Highways ministry and the city of Richmond are working in concert with each other. I'm under the impression that the airport authority is going to come out with its suggestion as to the crossing in the very near future, sooner than when the government says something is going to happen. I gather that they're going to put out something next week. It seems that it's not the same as the one that Reid-Crowther -- I believe that is the consulting firm the ministry is using right now.... They've got the stuff that they worked along with the ministry in putting together. Is the airport authority doing something separate as a proposal, as well?

Hon. J. Pement: As far as we're concerned, it has been a team effort with regard to looking at the options, and there has been work done together.

D. Symons: I gather from your answer that my impression that the airport authority was working on a crossing may be incorrect. We'll know within a week or so, because I was told that whatever it is is coming out. Maybe it's simply the airport side of the configuration of feeding onto the structure as it's built. Let's hope it's that.

In the Reid-Crowther study, option A was going to be about three metres more than the existing Middle Arm bridge, 

[ Page 14982 ]

or 6.6 metres above high water; and option B was going to be 8.5 metres higher than the current one, or 12 metres above high water. So there's quite a difference in the two as far as the approaches on each side go. I guess I'm coming to the last step here, where it says: "The ministry shall conduct a series of meetings to solicit input directly from affected stakeholders." We referred to that before; as far as the Coast Guard is concerned, they are talking to the boat owners, particularly on its south side, although Middle Arm heads sort of south at that particular point. "In order to develop an upgrading plan that best recognizes the needs for all involved, the ministry will solicit comment and concerns from all area residences." I would think, with the two options there, that once the boat-owner thing is solved, it would be very easy to come up with one of those options and carry forth with at least the first portion of upgrading the crossing -- putting in the new bridge and then using the old one for a period of time. Can you come up with a date -- this year, next year -- when we can have a firm commitment to putting in a bridge? The building of the new terminal, facilities and runways at the airport is rapidly reaching the finishing stages. Next year I think we'll have everything up and running. We've got ourselves a world-class airport facility; we don't have a world-class access to that facility. It would be great to have it and a tie-in to Highway 99 into Richmond -- into downtown Vancouver -- all put together at one time with the opening of the expansion of the airport and the new Morey Channel crossing.

[8:15]

Hon. J. Pement: Certainly we recognize the concerns that have been expressed by the airport on the opening of their facility. However, we haven't got a date at this time.

D. Symons: Okay. I wonder if we can move on to the Barnet Highway for a while, because I have some concerns on that as well. It was designed by the previous administration as part of their Freedom to Move; I believe it was called the Barnet-Hastings people mover. I believe we're about two or three years behind schedule for completion of that project, and it's also been downsized to simply having one more HOV lane added, whereas it was originally going to be one more traffic lane and HOV lanes. Is the HOV part of that project going to be completed this year? And will they be true HOV lanes, or is it going to be like you've done on Highway 99, where HOV means a van with six or more people in it?

Hon. J. Pement: On the Barnet-Hastings people mover, the HOV lanes -- high-occupancy-vehicle lanes -- will carry transit as well as a number of people in cars. This is not the same as the bus lanes. The other situation you were expressing was bus lanes on which we allowed van-pooling, and it's a quite different sort of lane compared to an HOV lane. We have most of the tenders out on this system, and we are looking at September 1996 for completion.

D. Symons: I have two questions. First, when the minister says that these are going to be true HOV lanes, I wonder if she might give me an idea of how high this high occupancy will be? Is it going to be two, three or four people?

Second, tied in with the mention of Highway 99 and the other bus lanes that were opened to vans, has the ministry monitored any of those routes to find out how many vans have gone in there? Particularly now, with the Oak Street Bridge being partially closed -- or two lanes of it closed and half-occupancy for the next three months -- is the minister considering opening them up to vehicles that have three or more occupants to see if we might get people moving into a high-occupancy-vehicle mode? When the lever is there because of the Oak Street Bridge cutting down the number of vehicles going over it, it's a good opportunity for encouraging people to consider this, and then when the bridge is finished, they will find out that maybe it's not so bad -- car-pooling and getting together with others. It might be a lever to get people to go green, and it is an excellent opportunity to do it at this time.

Would you consider moving from vans on the Highway 99 route? My observation has been that there are next to no vans using that van-pool lane and that putting vehicles in there with three or more occupants would not clog it up or impede the buses whatsoever. At the same time, could you tell me what you mean by high occupancy and what the number will be for the Barnet-Hastings when it's completed?

Hon. J. Pement: On the HOV lanes at this point, the decision on exactly the number in vehicles has not been made. It's part of our overall transportation strategy, and that decision will be made fairly quickly. With regard to the bus lanes, the ministry in the area is monitoring those lanes. We must not forget that they are bus lanes with a transit aspect to them and that they are not HOV lanes They are a different type of system, so at this point we have allowed the van-pooling and have monitoring ongoing to date.

D. Symons: I guess I don't differentiate the way you do: a lane is a lane. There are simply three lanes on Highway 99, and one of them has been designated a bus lane, but it could just as easily be designated a high-occupancy-vehicle lane. It depends on what sign you want to hang on there so it's not a bus lane. It's a lane that you currently have put a sign on that says it's for buses only, and now we're allowing vans in there. You could quite easily put a sign there that says it is for high-occupancy vehicles and buses only, and vans if you wanted. It's quite easy to do that by just simply changing the signs and having people do it. I think it would be an encouragement for people to go green, but I'll leave that because I've mentioned it.

I want to skip back, since we're back in Richmond on high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and bus lanes, to Highway 99 at the Alex Fraser-Queensborough end. There's a great deal of earth or sand being moved there. An interchange is desperately needed at that end, which I'm sure you're aware of, where Highway 99 and the road continuing on to the Queensborough Bridge meet. Is that earth-moving part of the process of putting in an interchange there, and if that's the case, what's the time frame for it?

Hon. J. Pement: We were just having a discussion on soil composition. Basically, this particular area is more silt, soil from the river. That is the reason for the time lines with regard to compacting the soil in that particular area -- so it can carry a facility on it. There's been land acquisition as well.

D. Symons: I still didn't get the answer, though, to the question. I gathered that that was the case and that this was going on, but if that's doing it and you're compacting the soil, then there must be plans that you're compacting it for some 

[ Page 14983 ]

structure you're going to build. I'm trying to find out what the structure is and the time frame for the actual building of it, rather than the compacting or moving of soil.

Hon. J. Pement: There have been full public consultation processes with regard to the planned structure in the area to deal with the interchange.

D. Symons: Maybe so. I wasn't part of that so I didn't cue in. Maybe the minister, then, could tell me what took place at these consultations. You're moving the soil about; you're planning on a structure there, obviously; and you're compacting it so it will hold something. Could you tell me what the something will be where it's going to be and when it's going to be there?

Hon. J. Pement: This was announced some time ago in the last TFA business plan -- the Westminster interchange.

D. Symons: I thank the minster for telling me that. I missed the announcement, so could you tell me just roughly: is it going to be an interchange at that particular location? If it was announced, is there a time frame for the announcement, or is that set yet? That's all I was asking these three times. I've heard all sorts of answers, but not an answer to that question yet.

Hon. J. Pement: The construction will start this year.

D. Symons: We'll move on to the northeast sector. I have a letter here that's been addressed to the minister and umpteen other people. It's been broadcast around quite a bit by the writer. I think he raises some valid questions and concerns about the crossing and changes at the Pitt River Bridge -- I think you're getting a counterflow lane in there -- and he is wondering how cyclists fit into the whole situation.

I know that a few years back the ministry put out a document on cycling policy with roads and upgrading of roads that said cyclists would always be included in the planning. If this gentleman is correct in describing what route he would have to use going over the bridge -- I believe he's going west in his descriptions here -- to get onto the Mary Hill bypass, it puts him in absolute danger of the traffic. He's going to cross a good number of lanes of traffic without much in the way of assistance. He's made suggestions here that seem to make perfectly good sense.

Interjection.

D. Symons: You know us Liberals: spend, spend, spend.

T. Perry: While the minister is researching her answer, I wonder if I heard the member for Richmond Centre correctly -- that the Liberal motto is "spend, spend, spend."

D. Symons: In a joking way, I did indeed say that to the member; I am sure everyone in the room recognized that. It is certainly not our motto. Obviously I thought it would be interpreted by everybody here in the vein that it was given. I hope the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain also recognizes that. If not, I will retract those words. If you can accept them in the vein given, I'll accept your jest in raising such a question.

D. Jarvis: I heard the same statement. I assumed that it was a sarcastic statement about how the government presently spends money.

The Chair: Methinks they do protest too much.

Hon. J. Pement: In regard to the member's question, the structure will definitely not be expanded at this time. There is a walkway that cyclists can push their bikes on, but that makes it difficult for them to do the commuting that they wish to do. We have decided not to add to that facility because of the cost.

[8:30]

D. Symons: Could I assume from the minister's response that many of the things that were in the cycling policy that came out of the ministry a couple of years ago would be put on hold, simply because almost all of them would involve adding a little more pavement, etc., to any project that's being done? I assume that the Island Highway, if you followed through with the policy set forth in that document, would also increase in price. It might be a document of the intent of the government, but not necessarily a policy that would be followed to the letter if it's going to add costs that we currently can't afford.

Hon. J. Pement: On the whole, the ministry has done very well. With regard to accommodating cyclists at new facilities and upgrades, we do what we can. On some of the facilities we are working on, it is very costly to add an extra lane. At this point, we have chosen not to do so. It does not mean that in the future funding won't be available to expand some of these systems. If you look at the Island Highway, for example, there are, on the whole, excellent opportunities for cycling. We also have cycling trails -- the Galloping Goose trail, for example. Whenever we upgrade or re-pave, we work at putting the pavement onto the shoulder. Compared to the past and the recent past, I think we're doing quite well.

D. Symons: I would question whether the Galloping Goose trail, which I think will mix cyclists, roller-bladers, pedestrians and so forth, will be very nice for recreational cyclists. I don't know if a commuter-type cyclist would be too happy with that route, but otherwise you are meeting the needs where possible, I suppose.

I wonder if we can move into Burnaby. There seem to be a number of concerns there. Perhaps one of the main ones is that the Gaglardi connector should be complete by the time the Broadway-Hastings connector is open so that the two can work in unison. I gather that was the intent to begin with. Now that the Gaglardi connector is going to be built at some later date, has there been -- since that decision was made last summer -- some re-evaluation as to whether it might be best to have both of those work in concert and be opened at the same time?

Hon. J. Pement: Definitely that's the original intent: to have these projects opened basically at the same time, and that's what will happen.

D. Symons: If we can move onto the next one here, it's the Marine Way and Nelson Avenue. Apparently there were some concerns that they want a full signal at that intersection, 

[ Page 14984 ]

and it seems that was not to be the case. It seems to be a busy intersection where a signal might be of benefit for safety purposes.

Hon. J. Pement: This particular area does not meet our warrants.

D. Symons: Can you give me the current status of the Johnson-Mariner overpass? It's gone for design-build. I believe that the contract has been let. If that's the case, has the announcement been made? If it has, it would have been fairly recently, I assume.

The whole project was announced a year ago, and it seems to drag on and on. Many of the projects that the government is doing seem to involve an announcement when it's way back in the conceptual stages, then some sort of announcement when you begin the planning stages, another announcement when you put it out to tender, another announcement when the tenders are chosen and another announcement when the actual construction begins.

You seem to have a policy now that you can get four announcements out of any one project before the project is underway, and it seems to be the case on this one as well. We keep hearing announcements, with signs to go with them, and all too often these announcements don't really end up showing very much on the ground for the first two or three of them. I'm wondering exactly where that one is at.

As for Westview, you were indicating that the groundbreaking is likely to begin this fall. When will the actual groundbreaking begin on the Johnson-Mariner?

Hon. J. Pement: The announcement on the award of the contract went out; perhaps the member missed it. That's the very reason for putting out the information: so that the public is aware from start to finish of what's happening.

D. Symons: There was another part to the question about when we could expect the groundbreaking to happen, the actual construction to begin. You mentioned again that Westview will begin this fall. When will the actual construction begin? They're going to be working on design and so forth, as you mentioned for Westview. How about the actual construction on the Johnson-Mariner?

Hon. J. Pement: We'll be starting this fall.

D. Symons: I'm reading from an article in the paper that says: "Province Ponders Bridge Twinning." It's to do with the Port Mann Bridge. It says that the Port Mann Bridge project is getting serious consideration by the province, and during the process, it talks about the Ministry of Employment and Investment..... I know this is the wrong ministry for that, but it indicates in here that they were even considering looking at the possibility of private sector involvement in it.

I note that back on April 6, 1994, one of the members from the northeast sector is quoted in the Maple Ridge News as saying, "bridge plan silly." I'm just wondering if this silly plan is now being considered. I don't consider it silly. I was asking questions -- that's why this quote was in the paper about it being silly -- last year about the possibility of private sector involvement in putting a new crossing in somewhere around the area of the current Port Mann Bridge. I wonder if you might give me an idea as to whether that's still in the consideration stages.

Hon. J. Pement: The ministry has looked at the Port Mann twinning. The private venturing one is a different bridge location and was a different issue.

D. Symons: I think there was a presentation made by a company for putting something a little further east of the Port Mann, going across there. But I was wondering whether the twinning of the Port Mann was also under consideration as a possibility for private sector investment, which again will be under the Ministry of Employment and Investment. So the ministry is looking at least at some twinning of the Port Mann, or would they consider something further east of that -- say, roughly at Albion -- as an alternative? Is it one or the other, or at some time in the future may it indeed be both?

Hon. J. Pement: No decisions have been made at this point at all. It's a case of looking at possibilities and options. As to private venturing, that's an issue the Premier has raised and is prepared to look at, as well as through the TFA.

D. Symons: I'd almost like to read this whole article, because it's a delightful one that appeared in the Abbotsford Times on April 29. It says: "1995 marks the sixtieth anniversary of the start of construction of Highway 11, linking Mission and Abbotsford. While only six miles long and yet unfinished, its construction is enshrined in frustrations, engineering problems, maintenance, humour, accidents and politics." And it goes on to a much longer one. Toward the end it says: "Not much has been done since then." He's talking about back during Dave Barrett's years in power. "Years ago, land was bought for two more lanes plus an access road, but nothing has been done with it. Who will finish the job? The Liberals started it, the Social Credit finally had it built and the NDP has dragged its feet. Will it fall to the Liberals to finish it on the sixtieth anniversary? It might be fitting; certainly it is necessary."

I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us -- Mr. Lancaster, who has written this article in the paper, was doing it a bit tongue-in-cheek -- if there is some enlightening news on what is planned for Highway 11.

Hon. J. Pement: There are no immediate plans for the upgrade of this system. Work was done from 1985 to 1990 -- some four-laning, etc. -- but basically we're maintaining the system.

D. Symons: We're at Hope, and I'm hoping the minister might be able to fill me in a little bit on the Fraser Bridge there. I gather that the rehabilitation of that bridge is also running behind schedule and that some projects were rearranged. I think some of the shore work was done out of the order originally planned. I'm wondering how that work is progressing. How far behind the original time line is the project and when is it likely to be finished? Will it be finished in 1995?

Hon. J. Pement: Work has been done on the approaches, the foundations and such. It's now into the area of actually widening the deck. That work should be complete by early 1996.

[ Page 14985 ]

D. Symons: If we can go on to the Coquihalla Highway, I wonder if the minister might give me an outline of any works, projects or resurfacing. I think sometimes there have been areas of the highway that sank a little bit in the past due to the quickness with which the original highway was built. What projects are in line for the Coquihalla this year?

[8:45]

Hon. J. Pement: Basically there are minor works to be done this year on that system in the areas of patching the pavement, seaming cracks, etc.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might be able to tell me.... I gather that on the Coquihalla Highway you anticipate pulling in revenues -- and I assume these are gross revenues -- of $39 million in this fiscal year. I wonder if you might give me an idea of what the cost of operating that toll system would be, so we can get an idea of the net earnings of that.

Hon. J. Pement: For the toll facility, about $1.5 million.

D. Symons: I'm wondering how many full-time-equivalents are involved in operating the toll system.

Hon. J. Pement: Twenty-four.

D. Symons: Is any of the income from the Coquihalla dedicated to maintenance of the Coquihalla, or does it all go into general revenue and then come back into the ministry through that route?

Hon. J. Pement: It goes into general revenue.

D. Symons: One last question. During April, actually during the spring break, we had a snowstorm on the Coquihalla. Quite a number of accidents occurred at that time. I had a friend drive through there in the winter. He commented that he thought it would be possible, if there were some markers at the sides of the road that stood out and marked a dangerous section so strangers on the road knew that the coming turn was one they would have to be careful of when there was snow on the road, that something of that sort would end up warning drivers. He saw cars in the ditch and what not, and he was wondering if there couldn't be something besides the odd sign that says "dangerous portion ahead," which generally means quite a few kilometres ahead. He was thinking of something more imminent than that -- this particular area, the next couple of hundred yards ahead from the point it would take you to get there at the speed you were going. That might alleviate some of the problems of people hitting a slippery section and ending up in the ditch or a snowbank.

An Hon. Member: Something like "look out."

D. Symons: Yes, that's it exactly.

Hon. J. Pement: I really have to remind the member that when it comes to winter driving conditions, one drives to the condition of the highway, no matter where you are in British Columbia. On the Coquihalla system, there are huge signs that caution drivers on hazardous conditions. There are even flashing lights. I think that on the whole, when one goes over a system such as that, one should ensure that one has proper tires on the car, that the car is up to snuff to get through that situation and that one is prepared to drive.

In that particular instance, Highways was very clear that there was an alternative route -- a dry route -- through the canyon that people could take. They were on the radio as quickly as they could with regard to giving people that type of information.

D. Jarvis: Could you tell me -- I know you wouldn't have the information right now, but have your staff get back to me; I have a reason for it -- how many hectares are in the Coquihalla and its connector? How many hectares of land were used in the Coquihalla and the connector and the side roads as well, not just the travelling area, for highway purposes?

Hon. J. Pement: We certainly will provide you with that information.

D. Symons: South of Penticton, getting closer to the Oliver side, I believe, on Vaseux Lake, there's a corner rounding the lake that has been dubbed by the local people as "Suicide Corner." I think there is some feeling that the sharpness of the turn could be somewhat alleviated by some work in that area, and it would possibly save the injuries and deaths that occur there. I believe the ministry indicated at the beginning of this year that they were going to look at it. Has it been looked at, and will there be some improvements on that particular section of the highway?

Hon. J. Pement: I'm aware of the area he is referring to, and I also remind him that the terrain in that area is very restrictive. We have a lake on one side and sheer cliffs on the other, therefore it's a huge undertaking to go into that area and do any widening of it.

D. Symons: I would gather from the minister's answer that the study that the ministry said it was going to do -- or at least a member of the ministry said in January it was going to do -- decided that very little could be done.

If we could move on to Kelowna and the crossing of the lake there, there was some talk of adding another lane onto the floating bridge. I'm wondering what stage that particular project is at. Is that still talk, to add another lane, or is it fairly settled that that's going to be the approach they take for the time being? Or is it being held off for a while because it's a possibility that they'll add another twinning of that particular structure across the lake?

Hon. J. Pement: The technical studies were done of the system, and it was deemed that it could be widened. There is still work to be done with regard to working with the community that's involved.

D. Symons: I would gather from the answer that maybe it's not settled as to whether adding another lane will be the solution, possibly at a later date. Rather than adding another lane, there will be some plans for possibly twinning the structure or doing something of that sort.

I notice, as I drive through Kelowna and come onto the bridge, that there are some signs that say you are to merge 

[ Page 14986 ]

into one lane or two lanes, and so forth, depending on what time of the day it is. I've noticed that those signs are fairly close to the point at which you have to do that manoeuvre, particularly when you're making some turns as you're weaving onto the bridge along the lake shore on the Kelowna side. I'm wondering if there's any idea of spacing those signs further back so the driver who is unfamiliar with the area and hasn't crossed there before will realize that as soon as they've made that last snake turn around there, they are into a single lane, and if they were in the second lane, they were going to have to get in there and space themselves out according to other traffic around them. The first time I noticed it, it was a bit of a shock when I suddenly realized: "Hey, this happens almost instantly." At the point I read the sign and it registered, suddenly I was making that turn. And as you're making the turn, you realize that your lane has disappeared on you.

Hon. J. Pement: This issue has been brought to my attention before, and actually we had a look at it. The problem is that if you move the signs back, you then are into the intersection. There can be confusion with that type of merge with an intersection right there.

D. Symons: The minister's memory serves her well; I asked the question last year. When I think about the lay of the land there, if you move it right far back, yes, you are into a fairly major intersection.

I'm wondering if we could move up to Vernon. They also have some dangerous curves, around the Coldstream area on Highway 6, and would like some indication that there's going to be something done on these. I believe the design has been done in the past; the ministry has looked at it and has purchased some property along there for doing some changes. What's the best prognosis we can have on taking some action on Highway 6 in the Coldstream area?

Hon. J. Pement: At this point we have some conceptual designs in the works.

D. Symons: The member for Cariboo isn't here. I wonder if we might look up in the Cariboo and particularly at Quesnel. I believe there's a bypass route being proposed for Quesnel, and there seems to be some concern on the part of city, which often is the case where bypass routes are concerned. I believe a truck bypass was designed originally, and people seemed to agree to that. It seems that a full vehicular bypass route might be planned now rather than simply a truck bypass. Suddenly the business people in downtown Quesnel are concerned that their business is going to disappear. Has the ministry discussed this with the people there? Could you give us some indication of what the final result of that bypass route will be?

Hon. J. Pement: If one is in Quesnel, one should call it a connector because it's a connecting route. Basically there have been many public consultations with regard to the route that's been chosen.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Somebody distracted me, but I will read Hansard and find your answer there rather than taking the time now.

I wonder if we can go back to our outhouse at Grand Forks for a moment, because I've heard some interesting stories about it. I thought we had finished with it -- $218,000 for this three-holer. But I gather that after it was built, some ingenious people found that the pins for the hinges that closed it up and locked it at nighttime were on the outside. So to break in, all they had to do was pull the pins up, and the doors could swing out from the opposite end. They went in there and did a fair amount of vandalizing in the building.

I gather another problem with the building is the fact that the walls have been done with gyproc. In many of these outhouses, the technique people use is to go in there and hose the floor down -- it's the quickest way of servicing it. But that's not going to be possible in this particular building, because gyproc absorbs water and deteriorates then. So I'm wondering if you might answer that part, and then I have one more question on that particular outhouse.

Hon. J. Pement: This is a rest stop. There are restroom facilities for people to use. There is a turnout area and a picnic area by a very nice lake. It allows the traveller to stop and rest and use those facilities. It is a facility that has access for disabled people as well.

This particular facility has compost toilets in it because of the septic concern by the lake. Definitely I think it will be well used by many travellers over time. We're not aware of the vandalism that you have expressed; we will check that out. The materials used in this facility are good materials; it's well built and it should last well.

D. Symons: I hope the minister will look into the points I raised.

I have one last point. I believe that the $218,000 portion of this rest stop did not include the paving of the parking lot and the access to the parking lot. If we indeed add those costs in, it would add up. So the $218,000 figure we were asking about a few months back would be more if you included the actual access to the site that had to be improved from what was there previously. I wonder if you might be able to give a figure for the cost of the road work to service that area.

[9:00]

Hon. J. Pement: The total is $322,000, which includes paving and the facility. That figure was mentioned already. I have to remind the member that it isn't an outhouse; it isn't a pit toilet. This is a rest stop for the traveller, for tourists, for disabled people who want to use facilities on this route.

D. Symons: I gather that there's one thing lacking. Some of the larger trucks can't really get in and out of there because there isn't a turnaround area for trucks. Because of the way it goes, they basically have to back out, which they can't do onto the highway. It's unfortunate. I think that might be the terrain of the property, and there might not have been an accommodation for a turnaround. I see the minister nodding, so I will assume that that's the answer.

The minister was up in the Grand Forks area fairly recently and took a field trip around there to look at the roads. I'm wondering if the minister might just give us a flavour for what you noticed and for which projects you might have taken into consideration as deserving of fairly close attention in the near future.

[ Page 14987 ]

Hon. J. Pement: I have taken tours of different systems in the British Columbia highways system. I was particularly interested in Highway 3 because of the volume of traffic and growth in that particular area. We are also looking at passing lanes, and potential projects were pointed out to me by residents and councils.

D. Symons: I commend the minister, because I also drove Highway 3 last summer and noticed places where passing lanes should be considered -- or, in the odd place where there may not be enough space for a passing lane, at least pullouts for the slower-moving vehicles. So I'm pleased that the minister also noticed that and that it will be looked into.

Moving on to Warfield, there have been continuing concerns by surrounding communities about a bypass route. I gather that that gets tied up in the responsibility, if you put another route in, as to who is going to maintain the current road. Has there been any resolution of that problem? What will be done?

Hon. J. Pement: There are some ongoing discussions with regard to the upgrading of that area.

R. Neufeld: I just have one question, really, following discussions you just had with the Liberal member about the rest stop. I have one of those same rest stops -- I don't know if it's exactly the same -- in my constituency. It's within a park at the hot springs, and it's quite a way off the highway. I gather that this one is right on the highway. There was lots of discussion about the cost. I know some of the reasons for this type of facility being put in, and I appreciate it, and I agree.

In an area like that, which is a sensitive area right along the highway, what rationale would you use to put in a facility like that when there could be a pump-and-haul system to haul the sewage away -- just hold it in a holding tank? Do you do that over a period of time? Is that how you determine you're going to use these composting bathrooms? How is that thought out in the costing of it?

Hon. J. Pement: Certainly there are the holding-tank facilities. But for this one, we're looking at the maintenance over the years -- the haul for the truck to come out and do that pump. They felt that in the long run this would be cheaper to maintain once the initial facility was put up.

R. Neufeld: The one that's in my constituency at the Liard Hot Springs is about a mile off the highway through a swamp that cannot be reached by any truck. You can only walk in and out of there. I can understand the use of that type of technology. But you know, along with that, it's very expensive to maintain that type of facility. I find it rather amazing that we wouldn't look seriously at pump-and-haul. I know that in my constituency, lots of homeowners and businesses use a pump-and-haul system because they can't get the perk test for a field. So pump-and-haul is pretty common, and I just think that really, when you look at it long-term, maintaining a composting situation such as this one is relatively expensive, too. That was more of a statement.

The member talked about trucks having to back out onto the highway. Are there signs that tell the truckers that there are no turnarounds in there? Maybe trucks shouldn't be allowed at all. Maybe there should be a sign on the highway that says no trucks allowed.

Hon. J. Pement: Definitely there will be signs put up. This facility is fairly new.

T. Perry: I will be very brief. I've just been fascinated by the debate on this magnificent facility near Grand Forks. I was wondering whether the ministry had considered the possibility that the tourists and others using that highway might have been asked to use their natural storage containers and receptacles for containing the waste while they were passing that facility. Was that considered during the planning phase of this project?

Hon. J. Pement: We certainly considered all options and felt that this was probably the best.

D. Symons: I'm glad to see that the ministry does address these pressing problems, and I would be most grateful for it being there in case I felt the necessity in that general neighbourhood.

My last question deals with something that I think is possibly unusual. It concerns the ministry and involves the road to Marysville near Kimberley. Apparently the business people in the downtown area want some assurances that the highway will not be four-laned. I think people usually want four-lane highways around their area, but in this case they want to maintain the ambience of their downtown core and are concerned that they might lose some of that because a main highway basically changes the appearance of a downtown part. Are they able to get that assurance from the ministry?

Hon. J. Pement: This is an area where we put in a nice curb-and-gutter facility and really improved the particular community you're talking about. We have met with the businesses. I met with the merchants of the area and heard their concerns. At this point, there are no plans to put a larger facility in.

D. Jarvis: Has the ministry given further consideration to widening Highway 37 down to Telegraph Creek and extending it down past Galore and back down south out through the park and out onto Highway 37 again? I know there have been discussions in the past on whether this is coming up in the long run.

Hon. J. Pement: I was wondering if the member has been down the road to Telegraph Creek.

D. Jarvis: Yes, I've been down it.

Hon. J. Pement: It's a very interesting road. We've improved on the Tuya hill, if you've been there recently, but we certainly aren't looking at the road system that he has described.

D. Jarvis: Has there been any further discussion with the United States and yourselves as far as extending a road in from.... It's slipped my mind. The one that goes from Ketchikan up toward the Atlin area and the one down further south that would run up the Iskut. I can't think of the town.

Hon. J. Pement: No, there have not been any discussions with regard to those systems.

[ Page 14988 ]

K. Jones: Has the minister considered the capitalization of fiscal assets of the Ministry of Highways?

Hon. J. Pement: It is a matter of accounting policy through the comptroller general's office.

K. Jones: Could the minister clarify that further? What does she mean by saying it is a matter of accounting policy? Does that mean that you're using a modified accrual accounting process for capitalized projects such as bridges, highways, roadways as well as your office furniture, equipment and vehicles?

Hon. J. Pement: What I meant was that the comptroller general sets those accounting procedures through the Ministry of Finance.

K. Jones: Does your ministry practise the capitalization of fiscal assets as recommended by the auditor general and by practice in the province of Alberta and by the government of Canada?

Hon. J. Pement: No.

K. Jones: Has the ministry considered changing their method of financing or accounting for capital assets?

Hon. J. Pement: This is a matter for the comptroller general and for the Minister of Finance.

K. Jones: I understand that there's been distributed to everyone in the House a discussion paper on capitalization of physical assets, and it is recommended by the office of the comptroller general and by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. This method was discussed a considerable time ago -- in fact, last year -- in the public accounts committee, and it was a recommendation of that committee. I was wondering what work has been done within the Ministry of Highways to start implementing this type of accounting, as was recommended last year.

Hon. J. Pement: I believe the member is referring to a discussion document only. This issue was done through the comptroller general.

[9:15]

K. Jones: I'll leave that one as it stands. I think the minister and the ministry will have to seriously look at the recommendations that came out of the public accounts committee last year. It appears to be the generally accepted method of handling the finances of the ministries that have large capital assets, such as your ministry. I hope we would see a rapid movement towards implementing a proven type of system that shows the actual running cost of the true value of the province's assets as detailed. Instead of having them all capitalized one year and then being free from then on, they would actually be accrued over the years of their useful life. We would then know the value of the assets on hand, and we would have an idea of how worn-out or used-up those assets are. We'd know when an appropriate time to replace them would be.

Could the minister tell us how speed zones are determined?

Hon. J. Pement: Speed zones are determined through design and engineering standards, by working with RCMP and other police departments and with communities in consultation with their concerns as well.

K. Jones: So once a road is designed, would the determination of the speed that could be travelled safely on that section be fixed? I guess we have the historical example of how one of the former ministers used to travel at the fastest speed he possibly could to determine whether the road curves would handle the high speed of Flying Phil. That was his method of determining that the road was built to a certain speed-zone level. Is that how we still do it?

Hon. J. Pement: I'll tell you, I stick to the speed limit. Yes, I do. The design, the engineering standards, the community concerns.... It has also been pointed out by one of the engineers that when accesses are added to a design or a facility, then zones may also change under those types of circumstances. Those days the member has outlined are certainly gone.

K. Jones: There are many out there who seem to feel that the speed limits that are assigned are not the real speed limits. If you've followed the same principle as the minister was just saying, what I have found is that if a person travels the speed limit, everybody is passing you at ten, 15 or sometimes maybe even 30 kilometres over the speed limit. There seems to be an attitude that you can go at as fast a speed as the vehicle feels safe on that road. Is there some problem with the determination of those speed limits? They are below the actual required speed limits for that piece of road, therefore people don't really believe in them.

Hon. J. Pement: The designs of the highway and the speed limits are done with great consideration and due care for what can safely be accommodated by that facility. I would suggest that there's nothing wrong with the road. It may be an attitudinal problem with regard to particular drivers who want to speed and put themselves in that situation to that extreme.

K. Jones: Is it possible that the designed speed limits might be a little low and therefore have lost credibility?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, the speeds are developed as to criteria of standards that look at the safest possible situation for drivers to be in. We do have facilities that have a higher speed -- the Coquihalla being one. But again, looking at that particular type of facility and the design, I think that on the whole our designs match quite well the speeds we have posted.

K. Jones: I've noticed that in some areas the speed limits have actually been increased over what they were originally posted at, so there must have been some change in the structure of the highway that allowed them to change from 80 kilometres to 90 kilometres an hour. Or was it just determined that they could move them up to increase the traffic flow through that section of highway and that the original 80 kilometres an hour was not a true evaluation of what the capability of that road was? There must have been some justification for them to move it up to 90 kilometres an hour. I'll give you an example of one that we quite regularly notice 

[ Page 14989 ]

has now gone up to 90 -- Highway 17 coming from 99 to the Tswawwassen ferry. It used to be 80 kilometres; now it's up to 90 kilometres. It's a high-volume road, and it's now carrying more volume. I don't think it's had any more accidents.

Hon. J. Pement: In that particular facility, there were some at-grade intersections, and median barriers were put up. Under those circumstances, the speed zone was changed.

K. Jones: I'll take it further. The warning lights coming up to an intersection, I understand, are established only where there's a certain speed coming up to that intersection. Could the minister tell us what determines whether warning lights should be there?

Hon. J. Pement: The speed limit determines where those advance-warning signs go in, and they are usually there from 60 kilometres up.

K. Jones: I've spoken with ministry staff, but I've had no success with an explanation as to why the warning lights on Fraser Highway were removed as you approach the major intersection at Highway 15, or the Pacific Highway. It's 176th Street, if you want the street. At that approach, the speed was lowered from 70 kilometres to 60 kilometres just shortly before you come up to the intersection. It was 80 kilometres further up the hill approaching from the east. There seems to be some question about why those warnings would be removed from a point where's there such a serious potential for accidents. We have an extreme fog condition at that intersection, because it's in the low lands of the rivers coming up through that valley. It's really an unsafe situation now, because there's no warning that you're coming up to a major intersection when you're going through pea-soup fog in that location. I asked for an explanation, and nobody could explain why it was, other than some bureaucrat in traffic determined that they wanted to save a couple of lights.

Hon. J. Pement: The particular lights in question were wrongly taken down. They have been told to put these lights back into place. They are supposed to be in place, and if they're not at this point, we'll check it through to make sure.

K. Jones: I appreciate that, because it seemed just out of line. Could I also ask the minister what is being done with regard to providing flashing warning lights and a sign board for northbound vehicles approaching the railway and major highway crossings on Highway 17, the Pacific Highway, coming up to the overpass just south of Highway 10? Right now we have a lot of accidents because people, especially the larger trucks, don't have enough warning that they're coming into this intersection. They have barrelled right through the intersection, wiping out cars. They have serious skid marks as they come off. They're coming over the overpass and doing a right-hand curve into it, so they're partially blinded by the overpass. They have a railway crossing at grade, and then they have the Highway 10 intersection. It's a real bad situation, and there is nothing other than a little 50 kph sign on the south end of the overpass that says there's going to be a 50 kilometre change someplace ahead.

Hon. J. Pement: When we have our staff meet with you on the other signage issues, I'll have them address that issue as well.

K. Jones: Just a couple of quick ones. On that same intersection of Highway 10 and Highway 15 there is no adequate turning capability for the transport trucks that come into that intersection to turn eastbound. They're coming northbound and turning eastbound onto Highway 10. These large tractor-trailers are going into the oncoming traffic lanes, which are westbound on Highway 10, and forcing the traffic out of place. There have been vehicles run over as the transport trucks try to make that turn. There needs to be some improvement in a turning lane there.

[9:30]

In addition to that situation, along Highway 10 and along Highway 15 we have several fairly major traffic intersections -- either because they're major roads crossing the whole of Surrey or they are accesses to a subdivision -- which have no protected turning lanes on them. The result is that transport trucks are barrelling down on a person in a car as they try to find a place to safely make a left-hand turn to go up one of these streets or to enter Highway 10 off one of these streets. There's no holding lane for them to be safe.

I've had a lot of concern expressed by people who are scared to death of being in that situation. On top of that, there have been serious accidents. Is there a possibility that we could widen these intersections with just a little extra work in those areas and put a holding lane in both directions, at very minimal cost? I don't think it needs a whole major engineering design and culverts and all that to do a lot of this.

Hon. J. Pement: On those particular issues, it was my understanding that at those intersections there are issues with regard to the surrounding property acquisition in order to even make that type of lane. It's one that I'll certainly take a look at, with regard to the overall system.

K. Jones: I believe it's time for adjourning, but I'd like to ask a couple more questions. I'd like to ask the minister what is happening with regard to the longtime request of the children and parents of Grandview school to have a full four-way stoplight at 20th Avenue and 176th or Pacific Highway 15. There is currently a student-activated or pedestrian-activated light there only, and truck traffic goes through there in exceedingly high volumes. We're talking about probably a good part of the 300,000 trucks a year northbound and 300,000 trucks southbound going through that particular intersection. It poses a great concern to the parents, to the staff of the school and to the children. The children came over here to your predecessor's office and brought a whole series of posters and plastered the wall outside the minister's office to try to get that message through, but still we have had no change in that situation, which is over two years old.

Hon. J. Pement: Does this particular intersection have a signal at this point, or are you saying that it has no signal at all?

K. Jones: This particular intersection of 20th Avenue and Highway 15 has a pedestrian-activated signal only. The parents have to cross this intersection with their own cars, and they're very concerned about their ability to cross safely. No 

[ Page 14990 ]

lights at all are provided for the crossing on 20th Avenue. The only set of lights is at the pedestrian crossing; the lights are on Highway 15.

Hon. J. Pement: Would the member allow me to review this particular intersection, so I can get a clear understanding of it? Thank you.

K. Jones: I'd be only too happy to brief the minister and staff on all the details of that intersection and several of the others that we have in Surrey. There are some very serious ones that need to be addressed now to prevent some major ICBC charges and costs, and loss of life and serious injuries to people. We have greater and greater going every month in Surrey, and our population is increasing by 2,000 students in one year. We have a real serious problem in that area. That just gives you an idea of the population growth at that school.

The Chair: If you have one more question, why don't you put it? Or have you completed your list?

K. Jones: It was just another intersection, which we'll discuss later. I'll bring it up later. Seeing the hour, I move that we rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:36 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada