(Hansard)
MONDAY, JULY 29, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 2, Number 7, Part 1
[ Page 1025 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are two groups of people in the gallery. Present is a delegation from the Vishva Hindu Parishad, led by Mr. Tara Chand, the president. May the House please welcome them. Also, I have a personal friend in the members' gallery, Kashmir Singh Dhaliwal. Accompanying him are his guests from England: Herminder Athwal, Baljit Athwal, Jayven Athwal and Sundeep Athwal. Would the House please welcome them.
Hon. A. Petter: I have the pleasure to welcome two visitors to the gallery today. The Hon. Michael John, MP, and his wife are visiting from Melbourne, Australia. Mr. John is a member of the State of Victoria Parliament in Melbourne, and I ask members of the House to make him and his wife very welcome.
Also visiting in the gallery today is Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth, who is visiting Victoria with his wife and three children. Sir Michael is Clerk of the Parliaments of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. I'm informed he is a good friend of the Clerk of the House here in Victoria. This is his first visit to Victoria, and I ask the House again to join me in making them welcome.
F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I would like to welcome Mr. Kishore Ji Vyas, who is visiting here from India and who is a top teacher in the Hindu religion. With him are Mr. Vijay and Mr. Gangadhar. Also with them are Mr. Tara Chand, who is the president of Vishva Hindu Parishad, and the vice-president, Mr. Dhillon. With them also is Mr. Michael Mann, who was certainly very active in Burnaby-Edmonds and was successful in electing a New Democrat there. He's a member of the HEU and works at Burnaby Hospital. With him is Ms. Kim Yakamovich. Would the House please make them all welcome.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, with us today in the gallery are two people who are certainly no strangers to the community of Lake Cowichan: Mr. Garth Sims and his wife, Marilyn Sims. Would the House please make them welcome.
DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CARE OR
KNOWN TO SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, last week the ombudsman called for the immediate appointment of a children's commissioner to review the deaths of all children either known to or in the care of the Ministry of Social Services. On Friday the chair of the Child and Family Review Board wrote to the Minister of Social Services, outlining five specific steps that could be undertaken on an interim basis to be sure that all deaths of all children either known to the ministry or in the care of the ministry were reviewed by an independent agency.
My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Why does the minister refuse to establish an independent review board to review ministry practices in the deaths of children under the ministry's care or known to the ministry?
Hon. D. Streifel: As I said last week, I intend to directly submit deaths in extraordinary circumstances to this review board on an interim basis until the transition commissioner and the deputy ombudsman complete their work. In addition to that, hon. members, I have taken the further step to suggest that all of these files be open for review by this board. If this board determines that there were extraordinary causes that they feel should be referred for further review, I will take that advice.
G. Campbell: I believe that to most people in this province, every death of every child is an extraordinary event. My question to the minister is this: if five homicides, three suicides, and accidental deaths by drug overdose and by gunshot wounds are not extraordinary, what is extraordinary to this minister?
Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, I agree that the deaths of children are extraordinary in this province, and, hon. member, we haven't yet found a cure for AIDS; we haven't stopped the violence in the streets; we haven't ended car accidents. Every file will be made available to this board for review. If this board determines that there are untoward circumstances, I will follow that advice.
G. Campbell: Just so that I'm clear, then, I would like a commitment from the Minister of Social Services today that each of the 49 deaths which he has reported to us so far and every other death of every other child in the ministry's care or known to the ministry will be referred to the Child and Family Review Board for their full and independent investigation into ministry practices with regard to that.
Hon. D. Streifel: Well, hon. member, I will try this one again for you. When there is a death with extraordinary circumstances that has come to my attention, through the processes of the coroner or through reviews by the police or the coroner, this will be referred to the board. In addition to that, hon. member, every file will be made available to this board. They will have access to the files, and if, in their opinion, there are extraordinary circumstances, I will follow that advice. I have directed my officials to work with the board to finalize the terms of reference and the criteria for these referrals.
[2:15]
M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House knows that the true measure of an advanced society is the manner in which it treats its most vulnerable members: the sick, the elderly and the young. In light of the revelations last week regarding the failure of the Ministry of Social Services in the deaths of 19 children, British Columbians responded to a story surrounding the Royal Crescent Lodge with a heightened sense of awareness and concern. My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Can the minister assure us that people in the care of his ministry are not being placed or referred to facilities such as Royal Crescent Lodge?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The situation of the apartment complex is under review. The Premier and I have asked for an investigation. The medical health officer, who reports to the chief health officer and the chief environmental health officer, is out there examining the apartment complex at this very moment.
M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, the conditions at Royal Crescent Lodge are described as frightening, disgusting and indicating
[ Page 1026 ]
a standard of care inadequate for those at risk in our society. Again, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services. What role does his ministry play in ensuring that facilities recommended by the ministry meet the most basic sanitary, safety and health, and housing standards?
Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, it's very interesting, hon. Speaker, that the opposition finally considers housing an important issue in this province. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition, when he was mayor of Vancouver, didn't consider it important at all when he supported the eviction of seniors in Kerrisdale so they could bulldoze apartment buildings. He didn't give a hoot about seniors' care there. Also, during the Expo 86 situation, where there was
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. I must hear both questions and answers.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly during Expo 86, when this same kind of housing was under review in the downtown east side, the then councillor did everything to block the then mayor of Vancouver protecting that housing -- to the extent that people died. Isn't it funny how things have changed since then?
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In a matter of a couple of weeks, we're going to have yet another round of destaffing of B.C.'s light stations, and in addition, we're going to have another group of government docks that will deserviced in the coastal communities of British Columbia. This is a critical issue for the well-being of our coastal communities. We are under a 200-day review with respect to the federal Fisheries jurisdiction. Will the minister commit today to directly intercede with the federal ministry and make sure that lighthouse destaffing and the destabilization of the government docks are functional parts of that 200-day review so that we can look at the holistic needs of each coastal community rather than simply look at the fisheries issue by itself?
Hon. D. Miller: I certainly appreciate the member's question. It is an important issue.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'm increasingly challenged, because there appears to be one group in this House more interested in making noise than in listening to answers. It certainly extends the time that I need to respond to the question.
I want to get back to the member's question, which is a very important question for people in coastal communities and mariners on this coast. I have had one meeting with federal people with respect to lighthouses, and this morning I reviewed a letter. They have unalterably decided, as the member is aware, to destaff eight lighthouses. There are 27 remaining. I've been assured in a letter from Mr. Bryan of the Coast Guard that they want the province's input into looking at a range of uses, including maintaining staff in those lighthouses. We are prepared as a province to participate in that process, and there is a stakeholders committee, as well, that is part of that ongoing process
With respect to the issue of small craft harbours and docks, again that's an issue that my ministry is trying to deal with with respect to the federal bailout or the federal withdrawal of services. We are endeavouring to work with small communities to assist them, to ensure that at the end of the day when the feds walk away, they will be able to maintain those facilities, which are vital to their economic well-being.
The Speaker: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.
G. Wilson: To the same minister, with respect to the decommissioning of government docks, as this minister will know -- he represents a coastal community, as I do -- those government docks are critical to the well-being of those coastal communities. Will the minister undertake to make sure that prior to any government dock being shifted into the service of local communities or into private ownership, the federal government will be responsible for bringing these docks up to standard so that those costs are not borne by the province of British Columbia?
Hon. D. Miller: There is a fund that the federal government has announced with respect to this, but I'm by no means assured at this point that those facilities will be upgraded to the standard that the member would agree is necessary. There are two categories, really, with respect to the small craft harbours.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: As much as we will prevail, on behalf of people who live in coastal communities, on the federal government to live up to their responsibilities, at the end of the day the very difficult issue faced by this government is whether or not we can commit our own resources. I have taken the position with respect to negotiations that we will not simply fill the vacuum created by the federal government walking away from their responsibilities to the coastal communities, but we will very aggressively defend the interests of those coastal communities.
A. Sanders: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The minister said last week that only extraordinary cases of children's deaths, either in care or known to the ministry, would be referred for independent review. The homicide death of Bryan Lacroix is one such case. Does the minister consider that this homicide death qualifies as extraordinary?
Hon. D. Streifel: To the hon. member opposite, you know very well I can't discuss the details of a specific case in this
A. Sanders: I would be very interested to know what it takes to get the minister to define the death of a child as extraordinary. What is it going to take to get to the word and the definition of extraordinary?
[ Page 1027 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: I have outlined for the opposition what we're doing with the cases before us now, what we're doing in cases where there are extraordinary circumstances and what we're doing in cases of the files that will be made available to this review board. The one thing I will not do, hon. members -- nor do I expect you to do -- is break the law in the performance of duty.
S. Hawkins: Last week the Minister of Social Services praised a new protocol agreement with the chief coroner, which he said provided for an independent review into the death of children known to the minister. In the case of the death of Baby Bryan Lacroix, the coroner made several recommendations to the Social Services ministry. Yet when the minister was asked about these recommendations, he said he knew nothing about them. My question to the Minister of Social Services is: how can anyone have any confidence in this new arrangement with the coroner's office when the minister himself isn't aware of the recommendations made to him?
Hon. D. Streifel: I would suppose that the answer to the member opposite is much the same. I will not discuss these cases on a point-by-point basis in this House. Hon. members, I've described, discussed and outlined for you what will happen with these cases. I will describe and discuss further with members opposite what will happen in these cases as they go forward. But, hon. members, I will not break the law for you.
S. Hawkins: Baby Bryan Lacroix was seized at birth by the Social Services ministry because he was born addicted to cocaine. Social Services granted custody to his father a month later. The coroner found that there was no evidence of ministry involvement until 13 months later, when the baby was admitted to Children's Hospital in a coma. The coroner's jury ruled this death a homicide. Why doesn't the Minister of Social Services consider the circumstances of this baby's death extraordinary enough to order an independent review of the ministry's involvement in that case?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm a little disturbed by the line of questioning here. We're dealing with instances that are before the courts. We're dealing with instances, in some cases, that we're waiting for
Interjections.
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. members, you're either interested in the answers or you're not. If we're dealing with circumstances that are before the courts, I will not interfere. I will not get involved. If we're dealing with circumstances that are in process, then I will not break the law just for the sake of the opposition.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the House we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate, first, Bill 8, the Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act.
The House in committee on Bill 8; G. Brewin in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
G. Abbott: My first question to the minister with respect to this is from section 58.2(3)(d), which reads: "
[2:30]
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that this parallels the Municipal Act. I haven't got to the heart of why it's described in such a fashion, but it is exactly parallel to the Municipal Act. Perhaps in a minute I can get something.
G. Abbott: Fair enough. I understand the point that's being made. The question then -- and perhaps his staff can assist -- is: as a general rule, whether it's the Municipal Act or anything else, why would the exemption be for four units or less or, as in section 58.2(3)(d)(ii), for uses other than residential?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm going to go out on a limb, and perhaps one of my staff will haul me down if I give the wrong explanation. But my sense is that essentially we're dealing with dwellings that perhaps the homeowner themselves might alter -- for example, converting a single-family residence to one containing some suites. In which case, from just looking at the section, it appears that those would be exempt from development cost charges.
G. Abbott: Again, just for my clarification, if, for example, I was to develop a four-unit condominium complex in greater Vancouver, would I then be exempt from DCCs?
Hon. D. Miller: The answer is yes.
G. Abbott: Continuing on, subsection (3)(e) says: "
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Looking at the section in its entirety, you can see a pretty consistent theme running through. The exemptions are that it doesn't place an additional burden on sewage facilities, etc. I think it's fundamentally defining, if you like, the demarcation line between those developments that do not impact and therefore would not be susceptible to the development cost charge as opposed to a large subdivision of 100 homes, which presumably would.
G. Abbott: Were all the changes here with respect to development cost charges requested by the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district?
[ Page 1028 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I think it's fair to say that the section, which really deals with the ability of municipalities to choose one or two options with respect to development cost charges
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
G. Abbott: Could the minister perhaps expand on the explanatory note here? I appreciate that section 4 would expand the membership of the Municipal Finance Authority by three. Could he please advise as to the reason or purpose for the expansion?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, it goes to the purpose of sections 1 and 2. The arrangement with the GVRD is that rather than making the request of the Ministry of Finance, they will use the MFA as their borrowing vehicle. Therefore, since they are using that vehicle, the increase represents increased representation on the MFA.
G. Abbott: I presume that in this case it was the Municipal Finance Authority which requested the expansion of its own numbers.
Hon. D. Miller: I am advised that both the MFA and the GVRD agree with the legislative change.
Section 4 approved.
The Chair: I'm going to take section 5 through separately.
On section 5, section 31.
G. Abbott: Could the minister please briefly advise us of the circumstances which led to the particular MEVA request contained in section 31?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm learning the arcaneness of the Municipal Act as I take on the challenge of this new ministry.
It is very clear that MEVAs simply are enabling legislation where, for some technical reason, the municipality has failed to completely or fully comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act -- not in fundamental terms but in technical terms. For example, in this case, structures have been put in place: water systems, licences for a pub, I think, going back to 1973. The whole idea of MEVAs is that you make those legitimate through an amendment. To do otherwise would perhaps hold those in question with respect to anybody who may want to launch a suit and say that you didn't really follow the letter of the act. That's why not only this but the other MEVAs here really, in some sense, forgive a technical oversight that was incurred at the time.
G. Abbott: I do understand the purpose of MEVAs. I had the pleasure of being the chair of a regional district that actually asked for a couple a while back, and I understand that.
Hon. D. Miller: Do you want the details?
G. Abbott: Just briefly, if you wouldn't mind.
Hon. D. Miller: It's a request from the town of Comox. In reviewing their files last fall, they discovered that the leases and subleases that had been in place since 1973 in relation to the Comox Municipal Marina were entered into without fully complying with all the procedural requirements of the Municipal Act. Therefore we are, if you like, forgiving that.
Section 5, sections 31 and 32 approved.
On section 5, section 33.
G. Abbott: For the record, was this provision, "City of Vancouver real property tax rate by-law validation," a result of a request from the city of Vancouver?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it was. The detail is this with respect to that oversight. As you know, they use an averaging approach to their property taxation. They are required to consider the bylaw before January 1 of the year in which the bylaw is to take effect. They failed to do that; it was January 23. So we are really correcting that minor technical oversight.
Section 5, sections 33 and 34 approved.
On section 5, section 35.
G. Abbott: The first question here is: are the provisions that are contained in section 5, section 35, the product of a request to the minister from the council of the city of Vancouver?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
G. Abbott: Could the minister then advise us who furnished the request contained in section 35?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't think I can really give a single answer to that question. Government makes decisions; thus government prerogative is perhaps the most appropriate response.
G. Abbott: Given that it wasn't a product of a request from the council of the city of Vancouver, its origin is obviously of some interest to me. Were government backbenchers, for example, instrumental in bringing forward section 35?
Hon. D. Miller: We fully engage our caucus in discussion of these issues before the government prerogative is exercised.
G. Abbott: Again, just in the interest of shedding light on this interesting provision, was there a request, for example, from the Coalition of Progressive Electors in Vancouver requesting the changes contained in section 35?
[ Page 1029 ]
Hon. D. Miller: There may have been; I'm not aware of it. But I take the member's point. This is legislation brought forward by government. There has not been consultation with the city of Vancouver. There are those who will criticize that; there are those who will say that it's fine.
I was on a radio program this morning; I understand the host, Mr. Garr, has endorsed what we're doing. The member has heard the Province editorial -- I'm not citing those necessarily for any other reason than to show that there is a difference of opinion. There are those who probably don't like it, but the fact is we're doing it. And I think the explanation I provided in second reading to try to bring some clarity to this issue that's been around for so long
G. Abbott: I think members on this side of the House with one exception -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- suggested at second reading that we felt it was inappropriate, and that certainly is the case.
On a slightly different avenue here, the Municipal Act provides for other communities in this province, apart from Vancouver, which is governed by the Vancouver Charter
Hon. D. Miller: It's a good question, a very valid question. It really goes to the history of the ward issue and the fact that there has been, over time -- over the last 15 years, by my brief reading of accounts -- a history of government involvement. In other words, government has played a role at various stages, going back to the time when, I think, the Municipal Act required a two-thirds vote -- or it required a vote, and if the vote was successful, the government was obliged to act. That really is the reverse of the current situation, where the referenda were held, but the Crown, the provincial government, said: "Well, notwithstanding that, we're not going to act." You could almost turn this thing on its ear with respect to the situation there. And then there were some further changes to the Municipal Act. I think one required 60 percent; then there was another change in the Municipal Act. Essentially, as the member has said, it gives the responsibility to the local council. They can, simply by bylaw, adopt neighbourhood constituencies.
Given the history I've just talked about, and given that the Vancouver council has publicly announced that they intend to hold a referendum, I thought and the government thought it was appropriate under those circumstances to send a very simple and clear signal that in that event, 50 percent plus one is an appropriate threshold.
G. Abbott: Obviously, our concern over here is that the government may have, with the best of intentions, taken themselves in a direction which causes us a lot of concern. We're taking the provincial government into an area which traditionally is exclusively the purview of local government; that is, policy and local bylaws. Again, I guess the heart of the question is: are we saying, as I understood the minister to be saying, that Vancouver is different because of its history? Or is this the first step in the government's direction of amending the Municipal Act so that it is brought into consistency with what's contained in this section?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, Vancouver is unique because it's Vancouver, I suppose. There has not been this kind of history in any other municipality. We're not trying to pick on Vancouver.
In addition to that, we are engaged with the UBCM in trying to develop a protocol with respect to the relationship between the provincial government and municipal governments. I do hold to the view that municipal governments are the creation, if you like, of provincial governments. There are really only two governments -- and there may be some interesting debate around the aboriginal question -- but their powers are powers conferred by an act of this Legislature. Of course, in Canada we've had a huge debate going back a few years now about the powers of the Canadian government relative to a charter that used to exist in Westminster, but I'm not of the school of thought that we should extend that down in terms of creating a new order of government at the municipal level. That's not a position that is taken out of disrespect for those bodies; rather it is my view of how this country is constructed.
[2:45]
There are sections in the Municipal Act that do allow intervention by senior government. It's not something you do willy-nilly, but in the circumstances of this case, we have taken action. As I say, there may be critics of that and there may be supporters. I guess we can let them scrap it out. The main thing is that the voters in Vancouver can go to the polls in November with the kind of certainty about what's required to obtain a threshold in this particular referendum.
G. Abbott: I do want to address the November elections question here shortly, too, but the minister raised the point about the draft protocol with UBCM. As I recall, that particular protocol suggests something along the lines that the provincial government will not introduce changes which affect the interests of local government without consultation. Does the minister not see section 35 as an example of just the kind of thing which the protocol was intended to overcome?
Hon. D. Miller: I would say that the critics of what we're doing might want to use that argument -- there's no question of that. On the other hand, I would point out that the legislation is not significantly intrusive. If you like, it more clearly sends a signal. There's nothing in the legislation, for example, that says
G. Abbott: I don't want to keep pounding away on this, but as I mentioned in the House the other day, my view is that the government is fundamentally going in the wrong direction here with this particular piece. For example, I just read today that some commentators are saying that 50 percent plus one is okay or 55 percent plus one or that it should be 60 percent plus one. Our whole point here, which we've been making throughout this debate, is that while it may be of
[ Page 1030 ]
interest to us, we should not be debating in this Legislature whether it should be 50, 55 or 60 percent. It seems to me that by introducing it, even in this relatively unobtrusive way, fundamentally the principle behind local autonomy is being offended. I don't know if I'm making it clear to the minister, but that's my concern.
Hon. D. Miller: I enjoyed second reading debate. I thought it was very spirited. Clearly, people expressed their views on the issue of principle but not on the quantum required as a threshold. Members opposite may not want to; I don't know. I think it's reasonable for anybody in public life to offer comment from time to time on what they think is reasonable. I don't know -- maybe it will spark a good debate in Vancouver. I would remind the member that right now the city of Vancouver is quite capable, under the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act, of bringing in neighbourhood constituencies. We wouldn't stop that. It's really their choice; they're holding a referendum. We've simply said that we think 50 percent plus one is a reasonable threshold.
The Chair: Members, can I caution you? We are essentially into second reading debate. We've already had that debate. It was quite extensive at the time. I would encourage members to move on to some other points.
G. Abbott: I agree. I think it's just that both of us enjoyed the debate so much, it's difficult not to relive some of the high moments of it here.
Just for certainty, would the minister confirm that there is nothing in provincial statutes which section 5, section 35, of Bill 8 will amend?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I can confirm that.
G. Abbott: I think I know the answer to this from the minister's previous comments. Can we assume, then, that section 5, section 35, is not in any way to be interpreted as a precedent for other perhaps more substantial incursions into the area of local public policy?
Hon. D. Miller: I think that question is open to interpretation. I'm not quite certain. If the question is, for example, if another municipality determined that they wanted to have a referendum on neighbourhood constituencies, whether this would be a threshold that might apply there, I would say yes. I think that if you're going to do it once, you're clearly saying: "This is our view."
I'm not certain that was the only question the member was asking.
The Chair: It's also future policy. We're dealing with the bill at this time.
G. Abbott: The point I was getting to was whether the government would be prepared to go further on it if, for whatever reason, they were dissatisfied with the issue. Or is this the extent of the advice which you're going to furnish to the city of Vancouver?
Hon. D. Miller: I hesitate to get into the area that that question would lead us into, which is a fairly broad, hypothetical debate. I just think it would be more prudent, in terms of debating this bill, to stick to what's before us. I think we would offend the rules if we were to go too far down the road.
G. Abbott: Does the ministry have a policy with respect to notification of municipalities or regional districts of bills which have a direct effect on them?
Hon. D. Miller: Generally, I think we like to consult. I did say right at the very outset that in this particular case, we did not do that. I notified Mayor Owen some hours before -- not the details of the bill; I didn't want to offend the House -- that we were proceeding along the lines of the bill. Normally, in the vast majority of issues there's consultation. There is an issue, just by way of illustration -- I won't mention the municipality or the district or anything else -- where there's been a suggestion by some that the Municipal Affairs ministry should enforce certain things. I've only read a briefing on it; I haven't had a discussion with my staff. Ordinarily we'd consult.
G. Abbott: Again, just for certainty, this bill says that if, in 1996
Hon. D. Miller: Really, the simplest explanation is that the wording is very straightforward. It applies to the referendum that
G. Abbott: The city of Vancouver has been undertaking for some months a process to inform its citizens on the subject of neighbourhood constituencies -- i.e., wards. Does the minister have any concerns with respect to that process, apart from the threshold which was set by the council of the city of Vancouver?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
G. Abbott: My final question with respect to this section -- I suspect some of my colleagues may have questions as well
Hon. D. Miller: That went right over me. I didn't quite understand the question.
G. Abbott: I'm sure it was because it was badly posed, and I'll try again. If, for example, the people of the city of Vancouver felt that the council had, in structuring their referendum bylaw by placing the threshold at 60 percent, in some way fundamentally offended the concept of democracy held by the citizens of Vancouver, the citizens would have an opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of that by either defeating or re-endorsing or in whatever way changing the composition of council in those November elections. That, in my view, makes the council accountable, an accountability which you as minister do not face. That's the question I was getting to.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure what the response should be. Again, I'm somewhat confused about the question. Look,
[ Page 1031 ]
let's get practical here. We know we have a difference. The opposition does not like the fact that we've taken even this very mildly inoffensive intrusion into Vancouver politics, and I don't know what more to say about that.
C. Hansen: I just want to start not by revisiting second reading debate but by reiterating the concerns that we have. It's not that we want to take sides on whether the ward system is good or bad for the city of Vancouver. It's also not that we're taking sides in terms of what an appropriate threshold level is. We feel very strongly that these are decisions that should not be made in this chamber. These are decisions that should be made by the citizens of Vancouver, and specifically under the leadership of the city council, not the leadership of the provincial government.
Having said that, I just want to comment on one thing that the minister said a few moments ago. He said that the cities are in fact creations of this Legislature, and I agree with that. But I also think that the legislation and the practices of the provincial government have established the independence of municipalities. I think what we find so offensive about this particular section is that it violates both the spirit and the practice of independence that has been built up. The question I would like to put specifically to the minister is: on what basis did he choose this particular threshold of 50 percent plus one as appropriate?
Hon. D. Miller: I thought it was fair.
C. Hansen: I have a great deal of concern in terms of how you may have arrived at that particular number. When you were talking about it earlier, it almost seemed flippant when you said: "Well, it seemed like a good number" -- as if this 50 percent plus one came out of the air. In fact, there is nothing magical about 50 percent plus one when it comes to changing the fundamental structure of governance. It's one thing if we look at elections, for example: yes, 50 percent plus one is seen as a very democratic threshold on certain issues. But when it comes to changing the fundamental structure of governance, there's nothing magical about 50 percent plus one. In fact, most of the research that we've done shows that 50 percent plus one is in fact the exception, not the rule, when it comes to changes in fundamental governance. Take the NDP constitution, for example. If you want to move an amendment to the NDP constitution, my understanding is that it requires a two-thirds vote. Certainly if you look at any other constitutions -- if you look at the B.C. Liberal Party constitution -- you'll see a similar provision.
My question is to the minister: was there any research done within his ministry in terms of constitutional precedent? Perhaps the Minister of Finance may have been consulted in terms of what precedents there are for appropriate thresholds when it comes to changing the governance of a society or an organization or a governing body.
[3:00]
Hon. D. Miller: Really, it's a dictionary definition of majority. But I'm somewhat perplexed, because the members on the opposite side assured me vehemently in their second reading speeches, and again today, that they did not wish to get into the discussion about whether 50 or 60 percent was appropriate: "We're standing on a matter of principle that we ought not to take a position on this question." Now, we could go down that road if the member wants to. I don't know what members of the Liberal caucus might do, or at least those from Vancouver, if they're called upon to answer the question: do you agree with 50 percent or 60 percent? I don't know what position they might take; they may decline to take a position. The government thought 50 percent plus one was quite appropriate.
C. Hansen: To address the point that the minister just made, if I am asked for my opinion as to what an appropriate threshold level is -- or if I'm asked my opinion as to whether the ward system is good or bad for the city of Vancouver -- I will give that opinion as an individual, and I will give it in the city of Vancouver. What we object to is the imposition of that threshold level by this government and by this legislative chamber.
Looking up the definition of "majority" in the dictionary hardly seems like solid research being done by your office or your ministry. I find it disturbing that a fundamental change not only in the substance of this motion but in the spirit of intervention in issues that should be properly undertaken by local government
Hon. D. Miller: I must advise the member that if he chose to use this occasion now
C. Hansen: My final point is not a question but a comment. I think this is my final point; I've said that before, and others have come up subsequently. I think the fact that the minister just stood up and invited me to express my view on what that percentage should be indicates that he's missed the whole point that we're trying to make. I don't think he has; I think his comment was a bit facetious. But if he meant it seriously, then he missed the point that we've making. The point is that it is not for any of us in our elected capacities in this chamber to dictate what that appropriate threshold should be.
The other thing is that if the sum total of your ministry's research -- in fact, I don't think it is your ministry's research; I think it's your political office's research -- is to refer to a dictionary to back up this particular change, I think that's very disturbing.
G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I only have a very few questions on this section. My understanding of the thrust of the opposition to this that's coming from the official opposition, the Liberal Party, is that it isn't a question of the percentage -- whether it should be 50 percent or not. It's a question of the senior government not dictating to municipal governments what it is they should be doing. I find that to be somewhat ironic, given their question in question period today, which basically had to do with a flophouse in Maple Ridge which violates every bylaw of that local municipality. Yet what they were advocating was that this government should come down and dictate enforcement of local bylaws to the municipalities. That's somewhat incongruous.
[ Page 1032 ]
An Hon. Member: You've got to listen carefully.
G. Wilson: I'm told I have to listen carefully.
The question I have for the minister is: given that what was basically being advocated today was that the senior government should go in and dictate to municipalities on the question of the enforcement of bylaws, but not on the question of 50 percent, is there anything in this section that, first of all, binds the city of Vancouver to a referendum or, secondly, to the outcome of such a referendum? Or is this simply a guideline with respect to the eventuality of a vote?
Hon. D. Miller: I do believe I responded to those questions. It does not bind them.
I just want to respond to the comment of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena with respect to making decisions. It has been my experience in government that sometimes you have to make decisions. You shouldn't be afraid of it. You should try to do it as simply as possible, and you should be prepared to debate people who oppose it in a fair and open way. Actually, that's the good part about politics -- making decisions -- even though sometimes you find there are those who disagree. I think the public respects that at the end of the day.
I want to say that I think we've had a very good discussion with respect to the bill at committee stage.
V. Anderson: I'd just like to ask the minister if it's going to be the practice of the ministry to be writing "if" motions, trying to
Hon. D. Miller: Contrary to some assertions at the time of second reading, I can assure the member that I didn't write this. I have no qualifications to write legislation. We have people who are engaged who have the qualifications, and far be it from me to be a critic of them.
V. Anderson: Regardless of who writes the material, it's the minister that has brought it forward, and it's the minister who has implied a number of times that it was basically his idea. He's taking full responsibility for it. He sloughs off the way it's written, or the implications of it, as
Hon. D. Miller: The answer, Madam Chair, is that the Vancouver council has announced that they intend to hold a referendum. The legislation, therefore, is written in this fashion: the issue of choice rests with Vancouver council. They could decide not to have a referendum. That's why the thing is written the way it is.
V. Anderson: So is the minister indicating that they will be watching the announcements of every municipality across the province and that we will expect in the future that whenever a municipality brings up an issue that may go against the principles of this particular government, they're giving notice that they will bring in "if" motions as soon as they announce it? In other words, don't make an announcement ahead of time and let your people think about it, because the government will act. I'm just trying to understand what the minister was saying there. Is it that if the referendum had not been announced at this particular time, even though it's been on the go for a number of years, this would not have come in?
Hon. D. Miller: I seek your guidance, Madam Chair. We're really wandering here with respect to the section.
V. Anderson: I just have to make the last comment. I think the minister needs some guidance, and perhaps you could give it better than he does.
Section 5, section 35 approved.
The Chair: I think I'd better just check one further thing. Shall section 5 collectively pass?
Section 5 approved on division.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
[3:15]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 40 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Priddy | Petter | |
| Miller | G. Clark | Dosanjh | |
| MacPhail | Sihota | Randall | |
| Sawicki | Lali | Doyle | |
| Gillespie | Robertson | Farnworth | |
| Smallwood | Conroy | McGregor | |
| Janssen | G. Wilson | Weisgerber | |
| Neufeld | |||
|
NAYS -- 29 | |||
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Hurd | Sanders | Plant | |
| Stephens | de Jong | Coell | |
| Anderson | Nebbeling | Whittred | |
| van Dongen | Penner | J. Wilson | |
| Reitsma | Hansen | C. Clark | |
| Hawkins | Symons | Abbott | |
| Jarvis | Weisbeck | Chong | |
| Coleman | Nettleton | Masi | |
| Krueger | Barisoff | ||
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 8, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1996, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 17.
[ Page 1033 ]
The House in committee on Bill 17; G. Brewin in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
G. Plant: We're looking at section 2 of the bill. That seems to make some changes to the governance structure of the Forest Renewal board. I guess my first question is: why is it considered advisable to do that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This essentially sets a clear limit of three elected officials to be appointed to the board. It also provides some flexibility in that the elected officials could be any elected members of the assembly, rather than simply the executive council members.
G. Plant: So in working out the operation of this section, the government would now be in a position to appoint as directors to the board of Forest Renewal persons who are Members of the Legislative Assembly, but not members of the executive council.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Does the government have a present intention to reconstitute the board of Forest Renewal B.C.?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The OICs for the board expire in December, but there is no present intention, I believe, to change anything quickly.
G. Plant: Is there something in the way the board has been operating up to this point that has given rise to the felt need on the part of government to change the governance structure in this way?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This provides greater flexibility for cabinet to allow other elected Members of the Legislative Assembly to be part of these boards, so they can participate fully in the decisions that all of us make.
G. Plant: This question may have a simple answer. In working out this section, it may transpire that the government would make three appointments to the board, none of whom would be members of the executive council. It creates a risk, perhaps, that the board will be less directly accountable to this House in that there won't be a minister of the Crown on the board. I guess I invite the Attorney General's comment on whether that apprehension is so or not.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the board reports to the minister, who then presents the report to the House. The accountability is the same.
G. Plant: I'm sorry for ignorance, but is that the Minister of Employment and Investment or the Minister of Forests?
The Chair: Attorney General?
G. Plant: A revelation has come from a place unknown, which has caused my question to be answered, so I don't need to trouble the Attorney General for that information. The setback is that it doesn't happen with any regularity; it's just serendipitous.
An Hon. Member: Pretty much unexpected, I guess.
G. Plant: Well, let's just say that in this particular case it came from an unexpected source. I have no other questions.
J. Weisgerber: Over the years, I don't ever recall an agency of government that had three Members of the Legislative Assembly as members, whether they be members of the executive council or backbench members of government. Could the minister tell us whether there's any precedent that he's aware of for three Members of the Legislative Assembly to sit on a Crown corporation board?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of any where there might be three members. I'm aware that there are Members of the Legislative Assembly who sit on various boards from time to time. I think it's important that we're dealing here with one of the fundamental resources in British Columbia, and it's important that we, as the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia, have ongoing participation in the endeavours of the board and that the board then reports to the minister, who then reports to the House. You have the accountability intact while you have the participation of other Members of the Legislative Assembly who aren't necessarily members of cabinet.
J. Weisgerber: Well, it's an interesting approach. It seems to me that government either forms an agency on a Crown corporation model to provide arm's-length advice and administration or decides that an entity will operate as an agency of government. It seems to me that there's a blurring of the lines when you have three members of government sitting on a board. If government wants to make sure that there is a close working relationship, they normally just assign it to a minister. On the other hand, if they want arm's-length advice and administration, they set up a Crown corporation and usually put in one member of government to act as a conduit between that board and the government or agency.
I find it interesting. Perhaps the minister could tell us how they see Forest Renewal being so fundamentally different from an agency like B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail or one of the many other agencies of government.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is a history to this, and this has come out of intensive and extensive discussions as part of the forest sector strategy advisory group. Obviously this is an undertaking that has been gone into with some thought, and we are just now simply enabling non-executive Members of the Legislative Assembly to be able to participate in this.
J. Weisgerber: If I understand it correctly, the minister is saying that the agencies of the various groups represented on Forest Renewal B.C. are saying: "Send us more MLAs -- send us more government representation for us to make our board work more effectively." Somehow I doubt that, Madam Chair, but I find it interesting anyway.
[3:30]
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
[ Page 1034 ]
G. Abbott: My first question is very straightforward. Did the inspiration for the amendment to section 31 of the Columbia Basin Trust Act originate with the Columbia Basin Trust?
Hon. C. Evans: The inspiration was arrived at jointly over the course of long discussions between the people of the region, the province and latterly the trust.
G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that explanation. I think the final question that I have with respect to this section
Hon. C. Evans: The question applies, essentially, to questions of policy beyond the terms of the proposed amendment. The amendment applies to properties of the trust and the Columbia Power Corporation. I think we should address questions of policy at a more appropriate moment -- say, at the time of the estimates of the ministers responsible for other Crown corporations. These amendments apply strictly to properties of the trust.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
G. Plant: I wonder if we could impose on whichever minister is going to assist us in this regard to explain why we need section 4. I certainly wouldn't stand on principle if it were thought helpful to include section 5 in the answer to that question.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's question and the inclusion of both sections. It's really a technical amendment. It's required because the federal government has changed the percentage that an eligible investor can write off as a tax credit. They've changed their rules from 20 percent down to 15 percent, and both of these amendments are a consequence of the federal change. We're essentially following suit and reducing from 20 percent to 15 percent the write-off that any individual can obtain through investing in the Working Opportunity Fund.
G. Plant: So in effect, the federal government having made these changes, the provincial government now seeks to make them in order to have the legislation at both levels match?
Hon. D. Miller: That's correct. We have worked very closely with the federal government with respect to the establishment of the fund. I was advised in a briefing I had last week that in fact many of the things we've done in our fund -- the way we've structured it -- have been used as a bit of a model. Yes, it's a partnership between the two levels of government, and we're following suit as a result of their change.
G. Plant: Section 4 in particular deals with a reduction in the amount that an employee venture capital corporation must pay into something called an investment protection account from 40 percent to 30 percent. I assume that this is related to the reduction that affects the tax credit, but I don't understand the relationship. I don't understand why this change is also being made and what relationship this change has with the tax change.
Hon. D. Miller: The answer to the last question is that the 40 percent to 30 percent is really a consequence of the 20 percent to 15 percent, so it parallels that change.
The investment protection account, is really a safeguard for government. The notion here is that we are allowing people to pool money, to invest that under certain criteria that we define, for certain purposes -- obviously to spur development or increase expansion of business. The fund is required as a safeguard so the government can be assured that in fact the fund is doing what we intended it to do. Moneys can only be released from the fund as long as we're assured -- I'm not sure how that happens technically -- that the fund is being used for the purpose that it was intended.
G. Plant: Picking up on that last answer, from one perspective -- and it may be an ignorant perspective -- the reduction of that fund from 40 percent to 30 percent could be said to put investment moneys more at risk, because less has to be held in this protection account after this amendment than before. If that's so, then I look forward to the minister's assurance about why that's not a problem. Alternatively, I suppose I may just have it wrong -- that in fact there is no greater exposure here.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that the fund is equal to the combined incentive, and that's why the consequent reduction from 40 percent to 30 percent.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
S. Hawkins: With regard to section 9, there's very real concern with the term "prescribed health profession." As you know, in B.C. there are already many colleges for different so-called health professionals. Although they are designated colleges, this doesn't automatically mean they'll be appropriate for these health professionals to have so-called admitting privileges to acute care facilities.
As you know, in every jurisdiction in the world, acute care has the biggest cost impact on the health care system and on the budgets for delivery of care. Our concern is that if the system is thrown open to every practitioner of every obscure discipline, then all cost utility goes out the window. This sort of flies in the face of the work that acute care institutions are doing these days, trying to keep costs down and making sure that acute care is there just for patients who are significantly ill and are being admitted to hospitals.
Has the government thought about the implications to the cost of health care of widening the definition and allowing anyone from a prescribed college to apply for hospital privileges?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the government has. Obviously the government has brought this amendment forth. The government has thought about these issues. I think it's important to be inclusive in terms of health delivery and cost-effectiveness. All the various health professions, appropriately utilized, would go toward providing us with the best delivery of health services.
[ Page 1035 ]
S. Hawkins: Could the minister please tell us which professions the government envisions being included in this definition to date?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Midwifery, for instance.
S. Hawkins: Why wouldn't the definition then say "medical practitioner, dentist and midwife" and just keep it at that? Again, the cost of acute care
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Government, of course, would add those professions by regulations. Obviously cabinet will consider those issues as they arise. But I think it's too limiting and too restrictive for our management of health care to have to make amendments based on the entry of any profession into the system.
S. Hawkins: Under the Hospital Act regulations, it appears that there already are regulations in place that provide for the credentialling of health professions to be given privileges to a hospital. I'm wondering why these regulations weren't good enough and why we had to amend the Hospital Act to include a wider definition.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was seen to be needed.
S. Hawkins: I'm wondering if the minister can say what other professions, besides midwifery, are going to be added to this definition.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Could the hon. member repeat the question?
S. Hawkins: Besides the dentists already being included, besides the medical practitioners, we now find the government is planning to add midwifery. What other professions are envisioned being added to this definition?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's all a matter of future policy. Midwifery is one that is currently being considered.
S. Hawkins: It just seems a bit frightening that if you have a college, almost anybody -- maybe an entrail-reader or a voodoo doctor -- could be added in this definition, as well. I'm trying to get a sense of where this government is taking the term "prescribed health profession." What colleges do we have criteria for that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to consider before adding "prescribed health profession" to this definition? If it's just midwifery, why don't they just add "midwife" to the end of the definition where it is right now, instead of opening the doors to anything?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Cabinet would, of course, have the option to determine criteria pursuant to regulations and either enshrine them in regulations or determine from time to time, in terms of the needs of health care, what professions ought to be admitted. Obviously, that's done pursuant to extensive consultation. I don't think that's done simply at the whim of cabinet. Cabinet doesn't wake up one day and say: "Let's do midwifery."
S. Hawkins: I'm also looking at the issue of the extra work involved in the bureaucracy of putting together all the new practitioner bylaws and the credentialling processes that are going to be involved in a situation that nowadays is very complex. It seems like it would be a nightmare, a waste of time. Why don't we just say it's going to be medical practitioners, dentists and midwives if that's what the background for this provision is. It just seems a little bit strange that we're going to widen the definition here and invite all kinds of people to apply for privileges -- physiotherapists, OTs, naturopaths. All these people have prescribed colleges. This invites anyone to apply for privileges to a hospital, to an acute care facility. Again, it flies in the face of what these institutions are doing these days -- and that's cost containment. What we're looking at here, through this bill, is adding another level of bureaucracy, for bylaws and everything that goes with that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The member's fears are understandable, but it's important for us to recognize that the addition of prescribed health professions from time to time doesn't necessarily add to the cost; it may also reduce the cost.
S. Hawkins: I just want to end with the fact that in the Hospital Act regulations, there is a provision that is very clear, that provides for credentialling of health care professionals who want privileges to a hospital. Again, we don't understand, and we certainly have a concern regarding this clause.
G. Plant: The minister earlier gave an answer to a question, which I want to follow up. I think the issue that was addressed in the answer was that of need. I have the sense that the primary purpose for the enactment of the third subsection in the definition has to do with midwives. Would I be correct in assuming that government considers that there is a need at this point to expand the definition of practitioner, for these purposes, to include midwives?
[3:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Does the government presently consider there is a need to include any other health care professionals within the scope of this definition?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: None at this time.
G. Plant: I want to make a point which has already been made by one of my colleagues, but slightly differently. Up until this point, someone reading this section of the Hospital Act would see that the decision of who is a practitioner, broadly speaking, within the meaning of the Hospital Act, is one that the Legislature would make. Presumably, historically, there are good reasons why it's a decision that the Legislature would make. In effect, this section now makes the decision about who health professionals are, for the purposes of the Hospital Act, one of cabinet rather than of the Legislature. From the point of view of the people who administer these statutes, I'm sure it is a convenience. It means that any attempt to expand the scope of health professionals for the purposes of the Hospital Act is an attempt that now only needs to be focused on that small -- dare I say elite? -- group of people called cabinet, rather than to be an exercise that involves the whole of the House.
I'm sure the current minister is right when he says that cabinet would never act on a whim. The problem is that it has happened before. I don't think that we, on both sides of the House, are often aware enough of the kind of erosion in the basic approach to legislation that this section contributes to.
[ Page 1036 ]
So this is not a statement about midwives, naturopaths, occupational therapists or any other health care profession; it's a statement of concern about the approach that's being taken to the law of who should be a practitioner within the meaning of the Hospital Act. I did not want the moment to pass without having placed my concern to that effect on record.
G. Farrell-Collins: Following up on some of the other items that were raised, the decision for the government to legalize midwifery and make it part of common practice recognized by the government has been a debate that has raged for some time, back and forth. There was a trial period. There was a fairly involved process in finally arriving at the stage we are at now. In many cases I think that's healthy. We're talking about providing people with health care and having health care providers that the public looks at and says to the government: "Okay, I can rely on this type of service and practice. I know it has some credibility. It's something I can rely upon within these parameters and be comfortable with."
I think that type of debate is something that is important. I also think it's worrisome to hear the answer from the minister that it's okay to make this type of a change in this legislation, to allow the government to do it by regulation at, essentially, the stroke of a pen. I understand the minister's comments that as far as he's concerned, that's not the way it would happen. It wouldn't be done just all of a sudden and on a whim. It would be something that was debated and thought about, and research would be done, and trials would be entered into. But, hon. Chair, I have concern when I see this type of section. We see it a lot, you know -- the ministry or the executive council may make regulations that do X. It's happening more and more. In fact, it's happening almost daily, as we've gone though legislation over the last number of years, that these powers are conferred upon the government.
The minister made an interesting comment at the beginning. In response to a question by the member for Okanagan West, he said that it was inconvenient for government to have to come in and actually pass legislation to amend the act to add another practitioner to the list. It would be hard and inconvenient for government to deal with the health care system. I would say that that's exactly what it was intended to do. It was intended to be inconvenient. You know, it's inconvenient to call this House. I mean, I just walked to the bank to do a bit of banking, and I can tell you it was inconvenient that the House was sitting, because I would have rather have done that. There are lots of people, if you look out of the front doors, walking around, enjoying their summer, having a good time and spending time with their families. It's not very convenient to be here, but there is a reason why we come into this House and require legislation to be passed.
I may tend to overlook it in some of the other sections that deal with whatever. I mean, we deal with the Vancouver Charter or the reams of legislation we have in front of us, but when we come to an issue like health care and who is going to be prescribed as a health care provider, someone the public can rely upon for the security of their person, their health and the health of their families -- their loved ones, their relatives -- a little more thought and public debate should go into it, rather than have the government just conveniently amend regulations by OIC.
I caution the minister with this type of change at the best of times. But when it deals with health, I think we're indeed going above and beyond what we should be doing in the form of legislation. I think the government, if it needs to make that change, should bring it to the House where it should be debated and discussed. There should be debate, not just here but by the public, and then that decision should be made.
To do it in a cavalier manner and to rely upon the goodwill of the minister or his successors or governments ten years from now is something I don't have a lot of comfort in. Given the tenor of the debate, I think the same amount of public debate that has gone into achieving the changes to practitioners that directed this section of the bill should take place when we get to a whole range of other types of practitioners who want to be in here.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the concerns that hon. members have expressed. I think the assurance is to be found, at least in this instance, in the extensive debate that has gone on with respect to midwifery. I am certain that if there were to be new professions designated under regulations and added to this definition, a similar sort of debate will have to occur, so far as I'm concerned. And, obviously, every year you have the chance of grilling ministers in estimates and proposing changes.
I just want to say to the hon. member that I don't believe it's inconvenient for the government to have to come here. I think it's important for us to devise mechanisms to best manage the health care delivery in the province, which is a very important task, and no one takes it lightly.
J. Weisbeck: My concern is for subsection (a), where you're repealing the definition of "dentist." Dentistry under the act has done a very good job of self-regulating. I think that removing the definition of dentist and replacing it with "a practitioner" means that there's some government intervention here that will probably tie the hands of the profession in improving its self-regulation. My biggest concern in the losing of this control is: who makes the decision as to what is in the best interests of the patient? There is the possibility that a practitioner is not as qualified to supply the service.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't understand the question, but I will take a stab at it. This simply means that "practitioner" also means a dentist registered under the act. I don't think it takes away from the importance of being registered under the Dentists Act.
J. Weisbeck: But there are practitioners that are able to do some aspects of dentistry. I'm just concerned about who makes the decision to allow those particular people
Hon. U. Dosanjh: For a denturist to go to the hospital and provide a service, I'm assuming from a simple reading of this piece of legislation that he or she would have to be a person registered as a member of a prescribed health profession, for this definition. If that is the case, if at the end of the day a denturist is so prescribed
J. Weisbeck: One final question here. In the case of denturists, they still haven't established their scope of practice, so it does pose some problems.
A. Sanders: Is the minister aware of the appeal process for those who apply for privileges to the hospital and are not allowed those by the hospital itself?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm aware, in general terms, of the process. To reflect these changes, the name of that appeal board is also going to change.
[ Page 1037 ]
A. Sanders: My concern here is that by changing to include a broad-scope word such as "practitioner," which can mean any kind of person who has a college to regulate their activities, we will now be including a large number of individuals who could apply for privileges to work in a hospital. Is that the case, in the way that I read this amendment?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I read it, there would be medical practitioners, dentists and other persons registered as members of prescribed health professions that would be designated by cabinet as practitioners. So far, there are no prescribed practitioners, I believe. Midwifery would be the first. There is no danger of a deluge of applications for privileges.
A. Sanders: My understanding would be that if the Premier decided an iridologist, for example, was the best way to get his care, that individual could then, because he or she was a member of cabinet, decide that iridology was the most important service to include in a hospital setting, and could thereby initiate that group, through their college -- because they would have a college -- to become part of the mainstream activity and first in line to garner the beds, the positions and the funds of a hospital for the purpose of that particular branch of medicine. Is that an incorrect interpretation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is, because the Premier would have to come to cabinet, and cabinet would have to decide at the end of the day, as a collective. The example that the hon. member presents is rather extreme. But, yes, I think you are incorrect in that assumption. That's what I said. I don't think cabinet wakes up one day and says: "Let's add this." It doesn't happen.
[4:00]
A. Sanders: How many times would cabinet disagree with the Premier's decision-making? Perhaps the minister could give me some historical perspective here, so that I can be refreshed and reinformed and reassured that if a fringe group came in and it was part of the group that was in power, that group would not become a member of the mainstream of the hospital care.
Okay, I'll put it another way. In the present Hospital Act, if you are in the group that is now allowed into the hospital to provide health care
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am not aware of the costs. The hon. member has mentioned it. The member being honourable, I accept what she says. But I think it's important for us to recognize that as we begin to look at health in somewhat of a holistic fashion, we have to begin to open up a little bit. I understand the fears and the apprehensions of the hon. member. Some of us in the law profession react the same way vis-�-vis the notaries much of the time. But I think that at some point we have to begin to open up and allow those professions to participate in health care. That might, in the end, lead to better management of our health care and at more affordable prices. At this point, there is no other group anticipated to be brought into this other than midwifery.
S. Hawkins: It may not surprise the minister to know that I contacted some of the hospital boards -- people that sit on them. There was very little consultation with them as to who was going to be brought under the definition of this new practitioner. They have concerns, because many of the boards, in order to contain health care costs, have set up what they call manpower plans. These manpower plans are looking to the future and at how many people they can add, because each person they add that takes out privileges in the hospital adds to the cost of running the hospital. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us how many hospital boards they contacted, how much consultation was done with the hospitals, and if they envisioned the costs that would impact on these manpower plans. The hospital boards are concerned about
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is obviously an enabling piece of legislation. This doesn't force the hospital boards to accept those individuals. However, the hospital boards
S. Hawkins: There's always a concern about regulations. When I went to law school, they were referred to as the hidden law, which no one really knows about until we get provisions like this to be amended. Then we find all these regulations.
I'd like to register the concern that
That is the main concern -- not that patients won't get the kind of care they need or the kind of health professionals they need to provide that care, but rather that the term is too broad. If the government is envisioning that midwifery needs to be added to this list, then why not just leave it at medical practitioner, dentist, and midwife?
[ Page 1038 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the hon. member's apprehension. I can assure her that there would be extensive consultation with respect to regulations that put all of this machinery in place, and that's where all of these discussions would take place. The hospital boards would let us know what their concerns are, and we would make sure that those concerns were reflected in the way the regulations are drafted.
S. Hawkins: As I mentioned earlier, to date, the boards that I contacted haven't had the consultation on amending the act. So our concern is, as well, of consultation on regulations in the future. I'd just like to register that concern.
V. Anderson: I don't have the expertise of some of the other people here, but as one who doesn't have it, I have asked for clarification with respect to the practitioner we're discussing in section 9. Then you move down, and it implies in section 13 that the government is opening it up to be able to prescribe who is a health professional, which then backs up to give the person who can be registered
They have asked that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, rather than the Legislature, in essence move toward the establishment of new colleges. It's just opening the door and taking the power out of the Legislature and putting it into the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It really worries me what's happening in these two sections.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The question has been raised before, and I understand the hon. member's concern. I said that at this point midwifery is the only profession that's anticipated to be designated under the regulations as prescribed -- none other.
V. Anderson: I heard the minister say that, but the minister also said that we must open the door to other people to be acknowledged and recognized. I know there are other groups that have been applying to be recognized but that are not currently recognized. What about acupuncture? What about herbalists? What about eastern medicine? There's a whole group there, and I assume that this is the direction in which the minister has implied that we'll be moving.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have said before that there are no plans at this time to add any other than midwifery.
G. Plant: I think I want to pick up on the last answer of the minister and ask, as he moves forward, that he consider the irony that lies within his comment earlier that we should take a holistic approach to medicine and open up the profession. The irony is this: he encourages us to open up the profession, but he wishes that to take place in a private place, that is, the cabinet room, rather than here where in fact debate is truly open. And if, as and when he is called upon or cabinet generally are called upon to consider the situation of health care professionals in a profession other than midwifery, I ask that they consider whether or not that debate about the admission of those professions into acute care facilities really should take place here in public, rather than in the privacy of the cabinet room.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
S. Hawkins: I'm sure the minister knows that so far in B.C. there haven't even been standardized medical staff bylaws worked out for provincial implementation, so if separate bylaws are envisioned for every single other group, we'll end up with a field day for lawyers and administrative law types who like to do drafting. I'm wondering if the ministry has considered the time commitment -- it'll be immense -- and the expense to the health care system. Has this been taken into consideration?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand, hon. Chair, that the B.C. Health Association and the Ministry of Health develop generic bylaws and send them out to the hospitals. I'm sure the same would be done in any professions that might be prescribed, now or at any future date. At this point, midwifery is the only one anticipated, and that practice would be followed, I am sure.
S. Hawkins: Our concern is for the bureaucracy that this is going to develop over drafting all these different bylaws for the different groups. Again, I keep hearing that the ministry has just envisioned midwifery as the one that they want to add on. It seems very strange that they don't just say it right in the beginning of the act instead of making such a broad general term. Again, there are not standardized medical bylaws, and I'm wondering if the minister call tell us what generic staff bylaws he's referring to.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the hon. member, due to her profession and occupational experience, knows more than I do in this area. But what you have today are the medical staff bylaws, which include dentists and doctors. You might, one day in the very near future, have practitioner staff bylaws which might include everyone, rather than having several sets of bylaws. While I understand the hon. member's concern, I don't believe we need to be that fearful.
[4:15]
S. Hawkins: I guess I am fearful, because when a patient is admitted to acute care, that patient is admitted for specialized care. Each profession has its own standard of care, and to have generalized standards for every profession just seems a little bit below standard. Again, our concern is for these medical staff bylaws that are now going to be generalized. It just doesn't seem to live up to patients' care in the hospitals. That's our concern. It's just going to be another bureaucracy.
Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
S. Hawkins: This section is frightening, because, as I mentioned before, there is no provision to ensure that a profession has any credible basis for existence, other than the fact that the cabinet can appoint any profession as a prescribed health profession. Where are the criteria by which a profession can be designated? Has the minister got the criteria?
[ Page 1039 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am sure the hon. member knows better than I that they first have to be recognized under the Health Professions Act before the cabinet can consider including them as practitioners. There is a process, and I am sure the regulations would be in place for a rigorous process, as they are for doctors and dentists that provide very important services to the people of British Columbia.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
S. Hawkins: There is a concern about having more than one hospital appeal board. Not only would there be partisanship and potential political interference but, if more than one board exists, I think you would run the risk of having unequal judgments coming forward -- perhaps one board would grant privileges and another wouldn't, in cases where the facts were identical. I am wondering why there is a need for more than one board.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is just one board, except the name of the board has been changed to hospital appeal board.
Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved.
On section 18.
G. Plant: I wonder if the Attorney General could inform the committee of what the government intends to achieve by what would become section 40.1 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Perhaps, before answering the question, I could move the amendment to section 18 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 18, by deleting the proposed section 40.1(1) and substituting the following:
- (1) A licensee must not dilute or adulterate liquor purchased from the Liquor Distribution Branch or keep for sale, sell or in consideration of the purchase or transfer of property or for other consideration give to another person liquor that has been diluted or adulterated after its purchase from the Liquor Distribution Branch.]
On the amendment.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This amendment simply changes the wording of the section and makes it narrower in scope than the amendment previously suggested. Section 18 adds a new section 40.1 to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act which will make it unlawful for licensees to dilute or adulterate liquor. This amendment will make it clear that the section deals with liquor which licensees purchase from the liquor distribution branch for sale on licensed premises and does not unintentionally regulate the manufacturing process of liquor manufacturers.
G. Plant: I rise, while I think about what was just said, to be sure that I understand the intention. Both the section and the amendment that is proposed to it
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This amendment to the proposed amendment simply makes sure that the manufacturers are able to dilute the liquor that they manufacture to standardize it before it comes to the LDB. What we want to catch, and what these amendments generally are directed at, is illicit liquor or diluted, adulterated liquor: you purchase the liquor, standardized, at the LDB, and then you dilute it and sell it in a licensed establishment. That's what these amendments are intended to catch. They are not intended to catch the mixing of the drinks in restaurants or other licensed establishments.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 17, which we've just passed, refers to the definition of an establishment. My understanding tends to broaden it to include a place where alcohol is manufactured or stored. Then, reading that with section 18, which actually adds subsection 40.1(3), where it says, "A licensee must not refill a bottle or container or add to the contents of a bottle or container purchased from the Liquor Distribution Branch," it would seem to me -- and perhaps there are some definitions here that I'm not aware of -- that unintentionally we may be capturing those microbreweries that have attached to them a lounge or a restaurant and that may sell bottles of the beer they produce there. That beer is put into bottles, many of which are recycled or reused, I would expect. They're not always brand-new bottles. Would we inadvertently be catching those people, reading these two sections together?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: From my reading of the section, I believe that the member's concern is not warranted. I don't believe that kind of situation can arise. Once the bottles are recycled, they are reused in an appropriate fashion. I don't think there's any room for confusion.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the minister saying that it's not new, but I think section 17 is new. When you put the two together, you then have a new application for section 18, section 40.1(3).
Perhaps I don't know enough about the manufacturing process and the way these small microbreweries operate, but my concern here is that those companies would purchase the bottles from
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, we're not inadvertently or otherwise catching those that the hon. member mentions. I don't think we're dealing with empty bottles. We're dealing with bottles that are purchased from the liquor distribution branch, and then someone intentionally dilutes that liquor to resell it in a diluted fashion. That doesn't include mixing drinks in terms of selling drinks.
G. Plant: I rise on the same point. I don't think there's any difficulty in understanding or relating the concept of the amendments as expressed by the minister to the language used in respect of those parts of the amendment that deal with diluting or adulterating, because then what the minister says about mixing or adding water makes sense. My colleague is asking about the problem -- and I have the same problem
[ Page 1040 ]
-- that arises from the word "refill," which appears in section 18, section 40.1(3). I don't need to repeat the example that my colleague has given, but perhaps I could just make it clearer.
Here we're not talking about Chivas Regal bottles, which have a distinctive shape, or hard liquor and spirit bottles, which are usually recognizable with or without the labels to people who know the products. I think my question -- and I'm sure it was the question of my colleague -- concerns the generic shapes of beer bottles and wine bottles. The concern here is that by speaking about refilling, we're talking about filling a bottle that has nothing in it. We're not talking about the problem the minister has been speaking about, which is adulterating or diluting bottles that already have something in them.
With that elaboration, I seek the same assurance that my colleague sought in the last question he asked.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. members have that assurance. Section 18, section 40.1(3), is a previous section that has simply been reproduced here; it's not amended. I know the wording that the hon. member refers to in section 17, and by putting the two together, there might be problems. There haven't been in the past. I can assure you that the intent is not to prevent microbreweries from reusing recycled bottles. I don't think it would, ever. That would be a perversion in terms of the interpretation of this section.
Amendment approved.
Section 17 as amended approved.
Sections 18 and 19 approved.
On section 20.
G. Plant: I rise on section 20, section 72(b). That's why I was a little slow.
I'm going to have to impose on the minister for a bit of assistance here. Who will be conducting the inspections that are referred to in section 20?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Either peace officers or liquor inspectors.
G. Plant: Does that include the analysis? Testing and analysis are required. After the inspection has taken place, I suppose there has to be some testing and analysis to verify whether the liquor has indeed been diluted or adulterated or is being remarketed illicitly in some way. What does the branch anticipate in respect to the testing and analysis?
[4:30]
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The analysts would be designated by the general manager or by the minister. This amendment broadens the power of the general manager to designate the analyst rather than always having the minister do it. I understand, just for the hon. member's information, that we don't intend to set up a lab of our own at this point. We intend to use either Customs and Excise Canada's lab or the liquor board's lab in the interior so we can save some costs.
G. Plant: When is it expected that the procedures being discussed here will begin getting underway? Is this something the branch can start doing right away? Or is there an implementation period that's going to exist with respect to these new procedures?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There would be an implementation period. There's a strategy being developed, and it would take three to six months to put in place.
Sections 20 and 21 approved.
On section 22.
B. Penner: I have a question for the minister with respect to section 22. In reviewing the act and a number of the sections which follow, it's apparent that the purpose here is to eventually wind down the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. Why is it, then, that section 22 creates a different structure for the corporation? Specifically, it establishes that there will be three directors appointed to the corporation. If the intent here in the act is simply to abolish the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, why does it need to change the structure prior to doing that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is simply being done so that
B. Penner: I note that previously there was some discretion or flexibility as to the number of directors that could be appointed. There could be anywhere between 15 and 30 directors. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us how many directors there are presently for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: None.
B. Penner: I understand that some steps have already been taken in terms of winding down the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. I wonder if the minister could elaborate to the House about the current status of the Trade Development Corporation and where we are in terms of winding down that corporation.
Hon. D. Miller: As the member may be aware, we had committed to wind down the Trade Development Corporation. We've advised them, obviously. The director positions have expired. We're in the process of bringing it in-house as a special operating agency -- which is a bit of a hybrid. That work is continuing.
B. Penner: I'm looking for a bit more specific answer as to its current status. How many people are left employed through the Trade Development Corporation as of today?
Hon. D. Miller: About 87 of the formerly 200-odd employees are now technically employees of the ministry, have been brought over.
Sections 22 and 23 approved.
On section 24.
B. Penner: I see that section 24 provides that the Trade Development Corporation Act will be repealed. However, I
[ Page 1041 ]
believe that section 30 of Bill 17 leaves that to the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I'm just wondering when the minister intends to have the Trade Development Corporation Act repealed.
Hon. D. Miller: It's really transitional. There's a transition period between winding up the corporation and bringing it in-house. There are obligations that the corporation has. It gives the discretion to government as to when it ultimately proclaims that section.
B. Penner: I just wonder if the minister could provide us with an estimate. Would it be six months, nine months from now that we could expect to see the final conclusion of the Trade Development Corporation?
Hon. D. Miller: I've always made it a practice never to tie my own hands with respect to those kinds of questions and answers. I'm not going to put a time limit on it. Obviously we've made a commitment to do it. This is part of that transition, and we want to do it as quickly as we can.
Sections 24 and 25 approved.
On section 26.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a series of questions to ask the minister, from section 26 through to and including section 28. Really, they're a little more philosophical than actually technical. Given this type of miscellaneous statutes amendment act, I hope the minister and the Chair will give me a bit of leeway to do so.
On reading these sections, it becomes very clear that these amendments give amazing, sweeping powers to the cabinet to override the Utilities Commission and the Utilities Commission Act -- and not just to override them, but to do it retroactively with regard to the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. It's worded very technically, very legally, but the gist of it is that the government can do anything it wants, can give whatever direction it chooses to the Utilities Commission with regard to rates, fees, structures or any type of arrangement as far as customers go on the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Perhaps the minister can tell us why we need such wide, sweeping powers to be held within the cabinet with regard to this one pipeline as opposed to every other pipeline in the province.
Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I made a little note on my pad here
Really, the directions in the amendments are for consumer protection. As we moved, as we have done, to buy our way out of obligations with respect to continued support of the pipeline and the companies, one of the issues we had to deal with was consumer protection. Consumers on Vancouver Island were protected through special rates, and we don't want to end that abruptly. We have a transition period, a period over time, and we need the power to instruct the Utilities Commission so we can maintain the protection for consumers here on Vancouver Island.
G. Farrell-Collins: The answer is an interesting one. One can only infer from it that there needs to be rate protection for consumers on Vancouver Island because of the government buying its way out of this deal. If that's the case, one can only assume that one of two scenarios is going to prevail. Either the company is going to operate at a loss because the rates charged to users are going to be kept below what the market would demand -- even though it is a monopoly, but below what the commission would normally demand as return on investment to the corporation -- or the government is going to be subsidizing those rates through an agreement with the Vancouver Island pipeline people, the corporation. There's only one of two options there, and perhaps the minister can explain which it is. Or is it a combination of both?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I think my first answer really answered it. The decision was made by a previous government to proceed with this pipeline, and in that legislation there was explicit consumer protection. The problem with that is that it exposed the general taxpayer to an enormous annual bill. It was not a good deal; it was a terrible deal.
In looking to get out of that, to extricate the government and the taxpayers from that terrible deal, we've made a consequent deal, which essentially is buying our way out of it. But we are also aware of the fact that initially many consumers on Vancouver Island signed up for natural gas based on a piece of legislation that said the rate will be such and such. Surely the member would agree that in looking at trying to improve the situation generally for all taxpayers and to reduce the tax burden of $30 - 40 million a year, there is somewhat of an obligation to have a transition period for those consumers. It's very complicated, but essentially there is a fairly good transition process so they're not immediately exposed to rates that might rise dramatically. I would hope that the members opposite would agree that that is a prudent course to take as we try to extract ourselves
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not trying to fix blame; I'm trying to determine what this legislation means and what impact it's going to have on the taxpayers and the ratepayers of the province and the region.
The minister didn't quite answer the question, and he probably thinks he answered it. I don't think it's deliberate; I just don't think he got what it was I was looking for. It seems to me that as a result of this deal putting in phased-in protection for the ratepayers, the customers who bought into this program, one of two things is going to happen. Before this legislation, before the deal, before the government decided to buy itself out, the subsidy that was required from the public taxes to subsidize the consumption of natural gas was in the order of $30 million or so per year. It probably would have continued for some time. The minister said that the government bought itself out of that deal with the corporation in an attempt -- perhaps they'd see some upfront costs that were higher -- to reduce their long-term subsidization costs of the pipeline.
[4:45]
[ Page 1042 ]
We're now heading into, from my understanding, a lump sum payment that's gone to the pipeline, to the corporation. They are taking that cash in now. I would assume that there's been a rate structure and a phase-in time agreed upon by the government and the corporation to ratchet up the rates to the customers over a period of time, whereby at the end of that period, the ratepayers are paying the full freight for that natural gas in its entirety. Is that correct, and if so, what's the time frame?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, there's about a six-year transition to expose the consumers to the marketplace, as seen by the B.C. Utilities Commission.
By the way, I don't know if the member has spoken on it previously -- I didn't follow it previously with the former minister -- but the deal saved the province and the taxpayers $110 million, which I think is fairly significant. Ultimately, the consumers will be exposed, as I say, to the marketplace as determined by the Utilities Commission.
G. Farrell-Collins: The interesting thing about all this is that these sweeping powers are granted to the cabinet, but there is no sunset provision. It would seem to me that if there were to be a six-year phase-in, if that's what the agreement is, there would be a sunset provision in this legislation to say that at the end of six or seven years or whatever the transition period is, these sweeping powers would be repealed. A minister and a cabinet having these powers could use them for all sorts of things. That's wrong, and it's wrong for all the reasons that we drafted a Utilities Commission to take those decisions to set rates outside the cabinet and put them on an independent body. For the same reason, we don't allow the government of British Columbia to set the rates for B.C. Hydro on its own. B.C. Hydro, the Crown corporation, goes to the public Utilities Commission and makes their case. There's intervener status and the ability for appeals. In fact, the legislation of the Utilities Commission itself extends to some 159 sections and deals with a whole range of powers, a whole range of provisions.
I would argue quite strongly that if this type of legislation is required in order to achieve the end the minister talks about, which is to clean up one of those notorious messes that were left by the previous administration -- although it's difficult to tell which previous administration we talk about from time to time, in this case it's obviously the previous previous administration -- and if there's a solid agreement signed and the number is six or seven years or whatever it may be, it would seem to me that at the end of that period, there would be a sunset clause, and this legislation would just die on the books. After that we would refer automatically to the Utilities Commission, where the rates and those structures would be set. The difficulty I have with it as it stands right now is that we leave those powers in the hands of the government -- any government, for that matter: this government, the next government, whatever. Those powers contained in the amendments we're bringing forward today are very, very tempting for a government to use at election time, when they want to freeze rates, when they want to ratchet rates down, when they want to use this legislation for a political purpose. I think this type of a provision is something that should die on the books after a period of time.
Hon. D. Miller: The member has seen too many horror movies.
G. Farrell-Collins: Every day.
Hon. D. Miller: I guess so. It's somewhat puzzling from someone who wanted so desperately to be in government, too.
This is a solution to a problem that the member seems to acknowledge exists. It saves the taxpayers of British Columbia $110 million. It provides protection for consumers who entered into the relationship based on one set of circumstances that has now changed. The sunset provision is contained in a directive to the Utilities Commission. Really, hon. member, I have no desire to complicate matters any further than they may already be. It's a very simple, straightforward question. I don't write all this stuff. I mean, I'm not a lawyer or a legislative writer. People tell me the best way to do it, and we've done it the best way it's supposed to be done.
G. Farrell-Collins: Testy today. I'm asking the question. Let's set aside the argument. Let's say this is the best bit of legislation that's ever been drafted in the world. Let's say this is the best solution to solve the problem. Let me give that to the minister for just a minute, if I may. I may take it back, but let me give it to the minister for just a minute for the sake of argument. The question then arises
Hon. D. Miller: In the special directive to the Utilities Commission.
G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe I'm just dumb; I don't know. Maybe the minister could tell me where this special directive to the Utilities Commission is that would repeal this legislation.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm struggling, hon. Chair, and I may seek your guidance as we seem to be getting into some pretty murky questioning. This stuff is pretty straightforward. It doesn't repeal the legislation. The legislation is required in order to enact what the government desires to do. Quite frankly, something I'm absolutely positive the opposition will support is to go through a transition period as we extricate ourselves from a rather bad deal, save the taxpayers money and provide a modicum of consumer protection for consumers on Vancouver Island. There's a direction to the Utilities Commission as a result of this legislation in terms of the six years I talked about. I don't know -- it's pretty straightforward, isn't it? I don't know what else I can say. I'm starting to get puzzled.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to hear the minister is puzzled, because I'm getting puzzled, too. This section
I'm going to wait until the minister is done, because I want to make sure we're not crossing paths here. So if the
[ Page 1043 ]
minister is finished consulting, I just want to get my point across here. This legislation allows the government to send a special directive to the Utilities Commission that says: "You shall do all these things which are in contravention of the Utilities Commission because we passed legislation that says we're allowed to tell you to do those things. And we're telling you to do those things because we've got this great deal that we've struck in order to get the taxpayers out of a bad deal. It's going to save us $110 million, and it's going to take us six years to do it. So here's the directive." We write up the directive, and it says: "For six years, you shall do this. At the end of six years you go back to the old stuff." But still sitting on the books is a piece of legislation that allows the government, the very next day, to come in and send another special directive to the Utilities Commission, saying: "You shall do X, Y and Z." And when that one expires, it allows the government to do another one.
My point is that the special directive itself may expire, may have a time limit on it, may have a six-year plan of implementation after which it expires, but the legislation still sits on the books and allows the government, the very next day, to send another special directive and another special directive and another special directive. It gives these sweeping powers to the government forever. Essentially, we've gutted the Utilities Commission, we've gutted the Gas Utility Act, and we've now given the government basically carte blanche to tell them to do whatever they want: to set the rates however they want, to decide who's a customer, how big the customers are and how many there are going to be.
My question to the minister is: given all the good faith in the world that the government is only going to send a special directive for six years and then ignore this section and never again use it, would it not be more prudent of the government to put a sunset clause in here which would extinguish this legislation, so that it wasn't just sort of there whenever the minister or the government felt like it? It may not even be this government; it may be another government that would have access to this whenever they want it. Wouldn't it be prudent to kill this amendment at the end of the six years and go back to the old system, which said that the government can only do certain things and can only give certain directions, and that they have to do it in such and such a way and there's intervener status -- go back to the process that's worked so well for so long? Would it not make sense to do that rather than leave this enabling legislation, these sweeping powers, on the books for this government, this minister, another government or another minister to use at any time they choose?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: I've listened to the member, and I have sort of an understanding of what he's getting at. I think it's pretty arcane. The Utilities Commission legislation is legislation of this House. If the member is worried that the government might at some time in the future use this legislative mechanism to restrict or cap or reduce or anything else with respect to rates, it's not possible. This legislation is germane to this issue. It's a very complicated and ongoing issue, and the directive to the Utilities Commission will deal with the time frame that the Consumer Protection Act has afforded.
There are those who obviously know better than I how legislation is written, and I'm assured that this is what we need to technically give effect to what we want to do, which is to provide protection for consumers on Vancouver Island. I would assume that's an objective that all members of this House support.
Given that, I really think I've made an honest attempt to outline why we're doing it and what we're doing. We may be getting repetitive.
G. Plant: Hon. Chair, I note with interest that the section that we'll debate next, section 28, amends some provisions of the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act, to give effect retroactively to a special direction, which I think is the special direction that has been talked about for a while. I may be wrong. I assume that some of the consumer protection that the minister's been referring to is found in that special direction. If that's so -- and let's just assume for a moment I'm right -- why do we need to change section 7(4)? Why do we need section 27 at all? Wasn't it the government's intention to do all the right things in this agreement? The government now wants to give retroactive effect to what I've called an agreement, but what is a special direction. Why do we need any more than that?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that would have been ultra vires. We need this legislation, this vehicle, to do what we want to do.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but maybe if the minister would pay careful attention, we could get there. All of sections 26 and 27 will essentially remain on the books afterward. I agree that section 28 of this bill -- which amends section 7 of the act, dealing specifically with the special direction that was given on this date -- will eventually run out. My point is that the stuff that exists under section 27 continues forever and provides sweeping powers to the government which aren't only used under the special direction issued December 15, 1995, but continue to exist after that expires. Those sections still exist and those sweeping powers still exist.
[5:00]
Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to dismiss any legitimate concerns that the opposition wants to raise, and if I'm showing frustration it's because I'm advised that their fears are groundless.
There was that ability in the VI Natural Gas Pipeline Act; we needed to expand that definition in these amendments in order for us to do what we want to do, which is provide protection to Vancouver Island consumers. There's really nothing nefarious here. We've got some lawyers here. I'd be happy, and I would have been happy before the bill, to have a comprehensive briefing of members opposite if they have any particular concerns.
This is about as straightforward as you can possibly get. There was a bad deal by one government; it's cost us some money to get out of it. We saved the taxpayers $110 million. Surely the members would agree that it's legitimate to try to protect -- for some period of time -- the consumer interest of customers here on the Island, who signed up, presumably, because the government of the day said: "Your rates are capped." I think any future problems with respect to the legislation staying on the books are immaterial.
I'm not suggesting we would do this, but if the Crown wanted to be capricious, I assume they have the power to get rid of the Utilities Commission. I don't know if they could or not, but I assume they could. It's a creature of legislation. I don't quite understand. If we wanted to, in some future year, act in the way that the member seems to be suggesting -- I'm
[ Page 1044 ]
not really sure what you're objecting to -- we certainly could do it, as long as we had the ability in this Legislature to pass a bill. So I don't know
G. Farrell-Collins: If that's the case, why don't we just have one piece of legislation? Why doesn't the government just go back and draft a piece of legislation that says the government can do anything it pleases. You can pass it through the House, because you've got a majority, and then you can do whatever you want by regulation forever. We never have to bring anything to the House; we never have to pass any more legislation.
The Chair: Hon. minister -- point of order?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, Madam Chair. Number one, the question is not germane to the legislation. Number two, it is quite specious. Government doesn't have to pass legislation giving itself power; we have power under our system. We're the government. We have to debate and pass legislation through this Legislature: That's the check and balance in a democracy, right? Let's get serious here.
The Chair: Hon. minister, I don't think that's a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: It was an interesting speech, but it wasn't a point of order. Maybe I'll give my speech and then he can give his speech.
Hon. Chair, the point is that with the legislation, perhaps
Hon. D. Miller: No.
G. Farrell-Collins: So the legislation will continue on the books at the end of the six years, and within that there are certain parameters given to the government as to what they can and can't do. Again, they've done that by legislation. There are certain powers that rest with the cabinet as far as B.C. Hydro goes; there are certain directives that they can and can't give to B.C. Hydro. Under the act, there is a public utilities commission which oversees that and which the public then has input in, around which there is intervener status. There is a whole process set up to make sure that the government doesn't come in with its heavy hand, and that Hydro doesn't come in with its heavy hand, and just smash the living daylights out of the people that are paying. There is a system set up to do that.
It's true -- the minister is right. He has the power, he won the election, and he can essentially do, if he chooses, just about anything he wants, either in legislation or through the other opportunities that are out there. But that's beside the point. If I give to the minister all the points he wants to make about this being a good deal for the taxpayers, for the ratepayers, great.
Let's move off that. Let's say that I agree 100 percent with this wonderful deal that the government has put together. My question to the minister -- and perhaps I'm just going to have to give it up -- is: why does it make sense, at the end of the day, to leave legislation on the books that continues to grant sweeping powers, overriding the Utilities Act and the Gas Utility Act, that the government doesn't need in order to implement a deal, because the deal is finished? Would it not make sense to revert to what existed before today, before we pass this legislation -- a system that would be set up where there are those checks and balances that the minister referred to with the Utilities Commission? It would seem to me that this legislation should expire at the end of the day and we should go back to what was there before.
The minister can disagree with me if he wants; perhaps we just have to chalk that one up to -- I don't know -- the minister not quite getting it or something. But quite clearly, there is a difference of opinion. I believe that this type of amendment, which changes this act to give those wide, sweeping powers to government, should have a sunset clause in it, so that it dies when the need for that legislation is finished, and so it doesn't sit on the books, overriding and essentially gutting the Utilities Act and the Gas Utility Act. It would make more sense to kill this legislation, these amendments, at the end of six years and go back to the very checks and balances that the minister just referred to.
Hon. D. Miller: I am certainly cognizant that the opposition is being vigilant and certainly doesn't want government to take unto itself powers that they may feel it shouldn't have, and to use them in ways that they may disapprove of. I certainly respect the member in terms of his vigorous examination of the bill.
I can only repeat that it is certainly not our intention
G. Plant: I think that we would all move more expeditiously towards the goal that the minister so obviously wants if in fact we knew, from answers to the questions we've asked, whether the legislation achieves the objective that he says it does. The problem is that when he answers the questions by speechifying about what members from Vancouver Island may or may not want, we don't really get closer to the goal. I'm not sure that the point
Interjection.
G. Plant: The point is that we want to find out if the legislation -- and here we are at committee stage
Hon. D. Miller: Madam Chair, I've done my humble best, but I must confess that this is not the first time I've been unable to satisfy the opposition and I daresay it may not be the last. I do appreciate that the opposition is trying to make some points. I'm not trying to obfuscate or anything else. I'm just trying to be straightforward about what we're trying to do here. I know they support it. Madam Chair, what more can I say, except that it would be delightful to get on with it?
[ Page 1045 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to put on the record that I expect that, at the end of six years, the people of Vancouver Island likely will be pounding either on our door as opposition or on your door as opposition, asking for these provisions to be repealed because a government in power at that time may or may not be trying to abuse them. I just think this is poor legislation. With the provision of a sunset clause, one could allay those fears, and that would be the end of it.
Let's move on and keep going with this bill.
Hon. D. Miller: In response, I suggest that the member might want to make a little note and stick it in his wallet. Hopefully, six years from now maybe we'll return.
Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.
On section 29.
G. Abbott: I presume at this point that the minister we are referring to is the Minister of Education, Skills and Training.
The first question here
Hon. M. Sihota: This means that in those districts that will be abolished by December 2, we don't want to have elections.
G. Abbott: On the existing boundaries
I'd like to go on
The Chair: Through the Chair.
G. Abbott: Pardon me, through the Chair.
Interjection.
G. Abbott: Yes, this is much more efficient than the previous minister's
Under section 29(3)(a), it reads: "In relation to the elections for a new school district referred to in subsection (2)(b), the minister may, by order, do one or more of the following: (a) specify an amalgamating school district or a local government as responsible for conducting an election
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, quite often we have the municipalities around the province actually conducting the elections. It won't be the school board, but it will be the municipality; the clerk of the municipality would be doing that. Usually they have their bylaws in place so as to give them the authority, the power, to do that. They may not be able to get that up and running in time; hence the need for me to issue that order.
[5:15]
G. Abbott: Could the minister briefly comment on the redistribution procedure that is going to apply in the newly amalgamated school districts? As a brief matter of background, I assume that in many cases -- perhaps in all cases -- the amalgamation of two school districts would result in a net reduction in the number of school trustees in comparison to the two previous school districts. How is that redistribution to be accomplished -- through the ministry, through local governance of some sort, or by some other measure?
Hon. M. Sihota: There was a forerunner report on these amalgamating districts called the PERC report. That report resolved most of those issues. Occasionally I've had to talk to trustees in districts to try to resolve them, Cowichan being an example. I talked to the local MLA in that case. But the report ironed out the allotment of trustees and how they were spread out over the area.
G. Abbott: I appreciate that the allotment would have been sorted out. What I'm getting at more is the actual allocation of boundaries with respect to the new trustees. In particular, I have a question as to whether an attempt has been made, for example, to make school district boundaries contiguous with regional district electoral area boundaries. I want to shed some further light on that process.
Hon. M. Sihota: They don't always coincide with regional district boundaries. It's not a bad idea, and as time goes on, maybe we'll try to look at some of the efficiencies that could be secured by doing that.
However, what we did here generally -- and pretty well specifically -- was keep the existing boundaries intact and amalgamated along those lines. If there were any playing with the margins, it would really be to resolve a longstanding boundary dispute based on the recommendations of the report that came in. Basically, what happened was that we took the existing boundaries, and where there was amalgamation, we just took out the division between them.
G. Abbott: For example, just for the sake of argument, if a school district prior to amalgamation had five trustees, and in the newly amalgamated school district it was going to be reduced to three, what the ministry endeavoured to do was keep the former boundaries of that whole district -- but instead of having it divided into five, it would now be divided into three. Is that what's being said here?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, if I understand you right. But if you want to pursue that further, we do have estimates coming up. I'll be happy to do that, as well, at that time.
G. Abbott: Subsection (3)(b) refers to the Municipal Act and to the Vancouver Charter. I'm not aware of any school
[ Page 1046 ]
amalgamations that are contemplated in the Vancouver area. Could the minister explain the reason for the reference to the Vancouver Charter?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's totally unnecessary; it doesn't need to be there. It's in there really just because of drafting, but there's no method behind the madness.
G. Abbott: Is the same true, then, for the Municipal Act?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, because municipalities which run these elections may need to make alterations or modifications.
G. Abbott: At the risk of answering my own question again, but just trying to think this through
Hon. M. Sihota: We have missed the bylaw elections guidelines, or the provisions that relate to that, so we may have to make an exception or modification as a result.
G. Abbott: I'm not so sure that's the case, but fair enough. Obviously we want to put that in place in case an instance arises. I don't necessarily see how it could, but that's fine.
The final point I want to address to the minister is on subsection (3)(c), which says: "
Hon. M. Sihota: Because we've missed the deadlines, we may have to provide additional responsibilities to a municipal employee to carry out the purposes of the amalgamation process -- for example, give them the authority to do the work that's necessary for the election.
K. Krueger: I'm not sure we got a completely accurate understanding of the term "amalgamating school district" or the purpose of subsection (2)(a) in the preamble to my colleague's remarks. As I understand it, "amalgamating school district" designates those school districts that will disappear under this arrangement, not the ones they will disappear into, the ones that will swallow them up. For example, in the Kamloops-North Thompson constituency, school district 26 under the current plan will disappear and be absorbed completely by school district 24, and there will be elections of trustees in Kamloops but not in North Thompson. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: There have been wards, if I can use that word, established, so there would be elections in different areas. So if the elected trustees were in Clearwater, let's say, before, that doesn't mean you won't be electing trustees out of Clearwater again. You could have those wards in place, and we dealt with those based on the recommendations of the PERC report.
K. Krueger: But there won't be elections of any trustees for school district 26, because it won't exist any longer. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
K. Krueger: The problem my constituents have with that, and obviously I share it, is the process by which this happened to them -- from their point of view, and mine. As a preamble, I'd like to say that I and my party support the concept of school district amalgamation. We intended to move in that direction as well, and I don't think any of us suffer from the NIMBY syndrome: not in my back yard. We expected that it would affect school districts that represented people whom we also represent, and probably the smaller school districts knew they would be impacted. But we're really concerned about process, about consultation and about people having a say in their future and in their school governance, and not having that say overwhelmed by larger communities -- not being swallowed up, so to speak, in a larger school district.
It's my understanding that a process of consultation was launched, that people were given to understand that they would have input -- that their input would be seriously weighed, their opinions would be taken into account -- that there would be a result arrived at through due process, and that respect would be shown for their opinions and traditions in that way. My concern with this chunk of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is that it enables something to go ahead that people in my constituency find very offensive, particularly because they entered into a consultative process but have the impression that they weren't listened to at all. They have a reason for that impression, and I'll outline it to you.
It is offensive to my constituents in Clearwater -- in former school district 26 -- to see section 29 in an act that deals with miscellaneous matters. School district 26 had a lot of accomplishments to its credit. It was a unique little school district, and it did some really good things. It had, for example, a logging program in its high school that was very successful, and people worked hard and earnestly to represent their constituents in that school district. They greeted with some dismay the news from the former Education minister that amalgamation was proceeding -- quite abruptly, from their point of view. We hadn't talked about it on this side of the House for some years, and the government seemed to be resisting it. Suddenly there was a default plan if people didn't come up with their own acceptable plan. They scrambled to make sure that their views were heard. They had stakeholder meetings and consultations. They poured a lot of time into it, and all the while they believed that their opinions would be listened to and included in the process. They had been given, they tell me, a deadline of April 15, by which time their submissions had to be in, and they were meeting those responsibilities and working to that deadline. Some submissions had come in, and I believe submissions were probably still flowing in when, on April 11, the ministry announced that it was proceeding with the plan of reducing the number of school districts to 57.
These people sent me a copy of a letter dated June 26, 1996, which they directed to the minister. In it, they point out that the decision to reduce the number of districts to 57 is close to one option that had been outlined in a report made to the minister. In that option, the proposed reduction was from 75 to 60 school districts. They also point out that in the pros-and-cons section, under the options summary, it states that this model does not achieve benefits commensurate with the disruption and is not recommended. What they ask is that if your own internal staff are not recommending this option, then why is the government proceeding with this initiative? When I asked the people of school district 26 if they had had an
[ Page 1047 ]
answer to this letter, they said no. They don't feel that they are being respected or included, or that due consideration is being given to the points they have made. They are somewhat offended by the fact that on April 25, Chilliwack and the North Island were allowed to opt out of the plan, but they were still obliged to opt into it. They're waiting for a response from the minister, and now they hear from me that section 29 is before us. They're really offended.
In April they also sent petitions, signed by many local people, to the minister; they haven't had any response. They would much rather have a kind of regional administrative model than a centralized one. They think they might have preferred being amalgamated with other school districts of similar size over being rolled into a school district that represents a much larger community -- just as the people of Vancouver Island wouldn't like it at all if they were suddenly part of the Vancouver school district.
All things considered, this whole approach reminds me of a riddle that used to go around in school: where does a 600-pound gorilla sit? The answer is: wherever he wants to. If people have no real say in major events like this in their lives, they become very offended. They can become very cynical about their government. As I mentioned before in this House, Clearwater is one of the few areas where more people voted NDP than voted for me. I think it is doubly shocking for people in Clearwater that this is the type of consideration they get from an NDP government.
I would like to hear the minister respond to those points. Why is it that a consultative process was launched if the decision was going to be made before the deadline for submissions? Is there any possibility, from the people's point of view, that the amalgamation in the North Thompson that was laid on them can yet be changed to a model that is more acceptable? If so, wouldn't acceptance of section 29 of this act create problems for any reconsideration?
[5:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: Whether you live in Heffley Creek, Avola, Blue River, Clearwater or Vavenby, I can see you would be worried about whether your sense of community was going to be lost in a school system that also has North Kam in it -- if North Kam is in it -- particularly given the growth in Kamloops and the spirit of independence that exists in the communities I referred to. The fact that I read all those communities off should also tell the hon. member something. You know that there is a quality of life there -- in North Thompson -- that people treasure. They don't want to see it lost, particularly programs that are relevant from an educational point of view to real life and real jobs in those communities. I want the hon. member to know that that sense of relevancy won't be lost. The boundaries are lost, and this section puts an end to the consultation process. I understand that they are upset -- perhaps, even cynical, as the hon. member said. I know those communities. I'll spend some time up there. I know why they feel the way they do, and they know that I am not going to be persuaded by arguments that deny them the sense of individuality and community that has flourished up there. There is a spirit up there, and we will keep that intact.
The rest of this is totally out of order. If you want to pursue this further, we should pursue it in estimates, not in the context of this legislation. I respect the member's desire to raise it now, because he obviously has a political message to deliver, and he has delivered it. We can discuss it further in estimates. But in the context of this bill, I also have to be able to tell you that the decision has been made. I have to make tough decisions. This is one of them. It's made, and now we'll deal with what I said earlier on: relevancy, spirit, independence. I have a lot of affection for the people in that area. It will show in the decisions we make.
G. Plant: I have a question that I suppose is a lot more mundane. I just want to make sure that I understand the operation of section 29(3) and, I suppose, its interrelationship with section 29(5) -- I guess, in particular, subsection 29(3)(b). Am I right that the intention here is in effect to give the minister the power to override existing statutory provisions in the three acts that are listed in section 29(3)(b), insofar as it may be necessary for him to do so during the 1996 general school election, to continue with the amalgamation program?
Hon. M. Sihota: That's what I've said.
Section 29 approved on division.
Section 30 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I ask that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With leave, now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996, read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee on Bill 15.
The House in committee on Bill 15; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 1.
M. Coell: First, the opposition is in support of this bill. I would like to say that the bill in its entirety has been asked for by community groups for many years, so I am pleased to see it is before us today. I won't ask why it wasn't before us over the past five years, because those five years are long gone. It's nice that it's here before us today.
I do have some comments on a number of sections. I wonder if the minister could describe to us the difference between the terms "person with disabilities" and, under the GAIN Act, "handicapped person." What is the difference? We're looking to have that answer in Hansard so people who are asking for it will have that information.
Hon. D. Streifel: Before I get into the answer to the question, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the staff
[ Page 1048 ]
who are accompanying me this afternoon. We have, of course, Garry Curtis, Susan Doyle and Lyn Tait. They'll be helping us through this bill as we go along.
To answer the question, extensive work within the community and with the individuals involved went into building this act. The determination is that "handicapped" is old language and that it's disrespectful. The community itself has asked for the broad reference to "person with disabilities." I guess it puts much less focus on the negative of the old language of "handicapped." That's what we've done here.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister, though, could give a little explanation of (b). What is the meaning of the words "extensive," on one hand, and "unusual" and "continuous," in (i) and (ii) under (b)? Those are key words: extensive, unusual and continuous.
Hon. D. Streifel: The reference to "extensive" would be more than half a day a week and supervision, hon. members. "Extraordinary" would be $75 a month for medical management of the condition.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could give us some examples. I'm thinking of a person who is blind or deaf. Does the fact that you're blind, you're deaf or you need to use a wheelchair
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, it could be that a person needs assistance in basic daily living, such as homemaker service. Indeed, it wouldn't apply to all individuals. Some of them live on their own and do for themselves, and they have that. It could be costs for transportation or extra accommodation -- that kind of circumstance. Certainly it's somebody who needs assistance in basic daily living.
[5:45]
V. Anderson: For, say, a bus pass -- does that come on automatically with the recognition, with the disability pension? There is also, I presume, a higher rate than normal benefits, with a disability pension. Is that right?
Hon. D. Streifel: Persons with disabilities receive a bus pass.
V. Anderson: What is the process? Who decides, if Jane comes in and is applying for a disability recognition? What is that process, who makes the decision about that, and on what basis?
Hon. D. Streifel: The application has, for instance, a doctor's assessment and a community assessment. A panel of specialists in health services would make the determination through this application process.
V. Anderson: You mentioned a community assessment. I am curious to know what the community assessment is and who it is by -- what community? The doctor's assessment I understand. At least, I presume there will be a prescribed medical form for that. Are you indicating that there is a panel of specialists before which every person who applies for a disability must go?
Hon. D. Streifel: The client would pick a person to help in this process. It could be an occupational therapist; it could be a social worker; it could be a teacher. It could be somebody of that nature who would be the community part of the assessment process.
The Chair: Hon. members, we're dealing with definitions here, not enormous explanations of each individual word. But we'll allow a certain latitude here.
M. Coell: Following on that question, is the term "medical practitioner" a stand-alone? Can a medical practitioner, being a doctor, be the referral? Do you need any of the other community responses that you mentioned?
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, a doctor in this case could do both parts.
V. Anderson: You mentioned a group of experts that a person would go before. I didn't quite understand that: a group, a person with special skills
Hon. D. Streifel: The panel, in this case, hon. members, would be able to reach out to help
V. Anderson: Just one more question. If the minister could speak up a little bit, it would help, particularly when we're having a little interference. Perhaps my hearing is not as good as it used to be.
If I heard the minister right, he's saying that a person who is applying for disability recognition under this act would come with their references, their doctor's recommendation and, if they had them, recommendations from other professionals within the community and other persons -- that that would be the best way to get recognition. Then who assesses those, and who makes the final decision?
Hon. D. Streifel: The final designation is made by the health services division.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
[ Page 1049 ]
M. Coell: Sections 2(a) and (b) are disability allowances and benefits. I want to know whether, in the disability allowances -- in costs -- there are any changes between this and GAIN, and any changes in the benefit package that could go along with this bill.
Hon. D. Streifel: They are the same levels as in GAIN.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could outline a few examples of the potential training programs envisioned in this section of the bill.
Hon. D. Streifel: It could be quite broadly based, as we've discussed in some of the other acts we've done. It could be life skills, it could be vocational, it could be adult basic education, or it could be any number of training programs that would be applicable or appropriate for the needs.
V. Anderson: Probably this is the easiest place to ask this. If, as a result of the training programs, a person is able to get part-time work, how does that work in relationship to their benefits and the support they get? What is the relationship between working and earning some income, and receiving their benefits?
Hon. D. Streifel: There will be a $200 earnings exemption, and 25 percent of anything over $200 would be retainable.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
M. Coell: Subsections 1(a), (b) and (c) concern me, regarding the failure to pursue income, assets or other means of support that would, in the minister's opinion, enable a person to be completely or partially independent of the disability allowance. I wonder if he could explain to me what that is. Is that an inheritance or a pension? What exactly are they envisioning in that?
Hon. D. Streifel: If the individual is entitled to Canada Pension Plan disability, for instance -- either CPP, the disability or other forms of pensions
M. Coell: Would that mean that the amount of money in this bill would be clawed back if there were other moneys from the federal government or a pension that were given to that individual?
Hon. D. Streifel: I don't think it's quite accurate to characterize this as a clawback. If the pensions and what not aren't high enough, we would top them up to the welfare levels. In many instances, there have been cases where individuals have qualified for pensions that are somewhat higher than the income assistance rates that are applicable here, so it's not necessarily a clawback. If there are other sources of income, they should be sought out. They are legitimate sources of income, and there's no point in just leaving them there.
M. Coell: Would I be correct in assuming that there are no differences between what would be expected in GAIN or in this bill?
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, it is the same as GAIN.
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious to know the philosophy of the government under this act with respect to residential property ownership. There are references in this bill, as in similar bills, to the obligation of a recipient to "dispose of assets," and it refers to property in several subsections. Is it the position of the government that someone with a long-term disability qualifying for benefits under this act should not own residential property? How does the government deal with residential property owned by a recipient?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm pleased to clarify this for the member. No, there is no attachment on your principal residence. That is exempt, as well as your car and some of your personal property; they are exempt. We don't have an interest in forcing individuals to sell off their home to qualify for this program. Principal residence and the car are exempt, hon. member.
V. Anderson: Do the same financial limits, which have recently been reduced, apply? What are the financial limits that a person might have in a bank? People with disabilities have greater uncertainties and more difficulty maintaining their income, so there needs to be a larger carryover than perhaps for the normal working person. What is the bank account that they can sustain to carry them over the emergencies within their disability?
Hon. D. Streifel: For single individuals under this category, the exempted limit on their bank account is $3,000.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
M. Coell: We have a number of questions with regard to this section and the BC Benefits (Appeals) Act. If the minister wishes to recess for dinner, I'd be willing to.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report substantial progress and seek leave to sit again.
[6:00]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the House stand recessed until 6:36 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.
[ Page 1050 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 2:35 p.m.
On vote 53: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).
Hon. L. Boone: As we agreed last time, we are now into the Ministry of Transportation and Highways administration section. As we said on Friday, if members came with questions around the Transportation Financing Authority, we will take those questions and answer them in written form.
Staff with me today are: John Walsh, deputy; Bob Buckingham, ADM, administrative services; Dan Doyle, ADM, highways administration; Bruce McKeown, ADM, planning and projects; and Mark Medgyesi, who was previously with me for a bill.
D. Jarvis: Back again, minister. I must apologize for asking those questions the other day when you didn't have the staff from the Transportation and Highways ministry here. I had assumed that the expansion of the lane widths and everything on the Second Narrows Bridge would be considered a capital project, but I guess it wasn't. It has normally been in the past.
Although you suggested that we would get our answer back in writing after your staff had read the Blues, I felt that it was necessary that we get an answer quicker this way. Having experienced waiting for various ministries -- not necessarily your own -- to respond to questions in the Blues
I mentioned last week that the previous minister had suggested that there were no immediate repairs coming forward on the Second Narrows Bridge in the near future, nor was there a need for changes to the cloverleaf and the exit pattern on the north side this coming year. As I said before, surprise, surprise! All of sudden we find out this year that we're into major, major repair problems in North Vancouver on the Second Narrows Bridge. As I said earlier, I appreciate that it wasn't your problem in particular. I felt that the old minister either misled us or the Ministry of Highways really did not give full consideration to the extent of harm that was caused to the residents of North Vancouver, be they in the Seymour-Dollarton, Deep Cove, Lynn Valley or Lonsdale areas of North Vancouver -- not counting anywhere else in West Vancouver and on the North Shore. Irreparable damage was caused through delays and time.
I felt that the repairs didn't have to be done all day and all night; they could have been done over a period of time at nighttime. The original excuse given to me was that it would cost too much money for the repairs to be done in the evening. I consider that a weak answer when you consider the ongoing repairs to the Lions Gate Bridge that were always done in the evening and the repairs to the Oak Street Bridge that were done during the evening. They failed to realize that this was not the same as the Oak Street Bridge. With the Oak Street Bridge, there were also four other accesses into the Richmond area; there is only one other access into the North Vancouver area, which ostensibly has the same population.
I felt also that they did not give consideration to the cost aspect of the fact that these traffic tie-ups wasted literally hours and hours. The minister and her staff may smile at that and think that we're whining about it on the North Shore, but wait till you experience it. They're still experiencing it. They've been going through this since June 15. Theoretically, they say they're going to be finished by August 15. Now we see that we have problems with the bridge surface. Whether that's cured or not, we do not know; that might even extend the time further. In any event, the time factor has not been taken into consideration when they're dealing with overall costs and with whether it could be done on the evening side of rush-hour traffic.
Anywhere you wanted to go in North Vancouver
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Good, I have 15 minutes left.
Because of the traffic tie-ups, parents that had to take their children to school had to leave one to two hours earlier, never knowing whether their children could get to school properly on their own. As we all know, parents are very concerned nowadays as to the safety of their children. They do not walk to school anymore; everyone drives.
If you were ever over on the North Shore -- the minister has been over there, because I've seen her eating in some of our nice restaurants -- you will know that it's an unusual area. Where the Second Narrows Bridge circumvents North Vancouver, there are Lynn Creek and the Seymour River on either side of that bridge -- therefore there are three bridges that the people from one side of the water, or the North Shore, use to get to the other side. There's only one way through, and that's through the cloverleaf pattern at the foot of this bridge. If it's all jammed up with traffic coming from other areas for an hour, or an hour and a half, how do you expect to get from one area to the other?
In other words, how do you expect to get from Seymour or Deep Cove over to Lynn Valley or Lonsdale, not only for shopping, but for work? The malls in the area virtually slow down to a dull roar. One of the malls was virtually closed down because of the traffic. If you wanted to go to an area to shop, which you normally would do -- to, say, the Lynn Valley mall if you lived in the Blueridge area -- you wouldn't go, because it would take you an hour and a half to get there and an hour and a half to get home, plus the shopping. This is something that the Minister of Highways has to consider -- the fact that there have to be, within the district of North Vancouver, either overpasses or some way of circumventing that cloverleaf. Problems will happen again in the future and this has to be really given consideration. Also, the fact that during this period of time -- which is still ongoing
Recommendations were made to the ministry -- to their foreman, who, I guess, is in charge of it. Much to my chagrin, he lives in Kamloops, and every time I phoned him he was on
[ Page 1051 ]
a cellphone working out of Kamloops. He told me that he was so surprised that the people in North Shore could not adapt within four days to the problems that were going on with the lineups of traffic to get onto the bridge. It was obvious that the person they put in charge was completely unfamiliar with the North Shore, or else he would have realized that it was physically impossible for all that traffic to converge into that area -- two lanes, from all the areas of North Vancouver. When you have ferries every hour belching out 200 to 500 cars, you have all this traffic being pushed into one little area.
And then the ministry, in its
[2:45]
Why go on, Madam Minister, and say that that access from Keith Road onto the Upper Levels Highway should have been closed permanently? It should have been put on a swing gate, or something to that effect, so that the traffic could have flowed naturally from Lynn Valley out onto the highway. It was already blocked two miles back up the hill, so there certainly wasn't going to be a great conversion of traffic flowing into each other and smashing up. It was one-on-one. Any traffic coming down from the rest of North Vancouver or Lynn Valley, wanting to get into the Seymour area, could have gone down to Main Street and either made a left onto the Dollarton to get into the Blueridge-Deep Cove area, or safe right turns all the way around, back across the road that they cut off of.
Another question. I want to know if the traffic department of the Highways ministry can answer for me why they would not consider decals for the people that lived in North Vancouver to move from one part of North Vancouver to the other part by utilizing the HOV lanes. There was no reason whatsoever. That essentially cut off all the commerce from one area of North Vancouver to the other area of North Vancouver. It could have been done very simply. We also asked why they didn't, in concert with B.C. Transit, have specified transit lanes or buses to take people from the Seymour area into the North Vancouver area, and hook them up to the Lonsdale Quay.
Mr. Chairman, I just feel that there are a lot of problems that the Highways ministry failed to consider. They will come up with answers -- possibly -- but they are not good answers; they are excuses that have caused untold heartache and costs, which were not taken into consideration. Plus the fact that thousands and thousands of cars, for over two months now, have been standing in line for one to two hours a day -- some of them four hours a day, on the return trip -- belching smog into the air, causing untold amounts of environmental damage. Plus the fact that it's affected tourism on the North Shore. We've been informed that tour buses aren't even going into those areas. And if they are, they are going through the Lions Gate area and not into the tourist areas in Seymour.
I have a few more questions to emphasize to the minister again. Why did they not consider night repair? When you add up the cost of all the other problems that have occurred
In any event, I would sum up by saying that I would hope they could give me a possible idea as to what type of access, if any, they have discussed with the district of North Vancouver as to future problems that may come as a result of either repairs to the bridge or emergency situations such as earthquakes or something along that line. There will be no access off the North Shore if there's a major problem. At least, they can't even get out of town by circumventing or going over the top or around the north end of the Second Narrows Bridge. For the moment those are the only questions I have until I hear the minister's response.
Hon. L. Boone: Is that all? [Laughter.]
D. Jarvis: I haven't heard the responses from the minister yet.
Hon. L. Boone: One of the things -- and I don't want to make little
The first thing I want to point out is that the bridge had to be fixed. A piece of concrete fell off the bridge over the winter, so we had to do it.
I want to draw to your attention -- ministry staff have told me, because, of course, I wasn't around at this time -- that apparently prior to the last election, perhaps in April sometime, a briefing was offered to the Liberal caucus and nobody showed up. The same briefing was offered to the NDP caucus, and the hon. Chair was the only person who showed up. So we don't have a very good history in either caucus of showing up for briefings, but they were offered.
On the nighttime closures that you mentioned, I want to say that the staff looked through the questions you asked. Nighttime closures would result in only five and a half hours of working time per day on the bridge. The night closure would have been from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., to minimize the impact on traffic. It would take one and a half hours each day to set up the traffic control and mobilize the work crews on the bridge deck, and then to take the traffic control down and demobilize the crews.
The work requires the placing and curing of concrete, which requires time to cure before traffic can be placed on it. This is something I know nothing about, but this is what I am told. This is obviously not in my field of expertise, but I'm learning fast. It would not be possible to remove old concrete and replace it with new concrete and allow it to cure in a nighttime-only closure. Therefore one lane of the bridge would have to have been closed during daytime. It would have taken up to three construction seasons to complete the work at this pace, with a lane of bridge closed for that time.
[ Page 1052 ]
Instead, with the present scheme of two-lane closures, we will have -- and we're not delayed -- six lanes of traffic open by August 2, just 57 days of closures, and we're 13 days ahead of the plan. It doesn't help them out with what happened in between. But quite frankly, you do the best you can in an emergency situation, and they needed to get that bridge fixed.
On the Keith Road access, I've been advised that the RCMP and ICBC agree that the closure of Keith Road is the safest thing to do, and that's why it was closed.
The decals are an interesting concept, but I can think of all the problems around issuing decals -- getting the decals out, ensuring that people actually live
Given the length of time that you
D. Jarvis: I would like to know if there was something special about the concrete that was poured on this bridge versus other bridges that would cause it to have to have
Hon. L. Boone: It's the same process. We closed two lanes on the Oak Street Bridge, and it's the same as we did on that bridge. It's the same concrete.
D. Jarvis: In regard to the Keith Road closure, my sources say that there are fewer accidents on the Keith Road access onto the Upper Levels than there were on the Main Street access onto the bridge -- not during this period of time, but prior to it.
In regard to the decals, I would suggest to the minister that that would be a very easy thing to handle. All you had to do was go into any 7-Eleven store, or any of those in those areas, and show your driver's licence and where you live, and you got a decal. That decal was only to be used while you were going from one part of North Vancouver to the other part of North Vancouver. Police were in line there for people who were cheating and all the rest of it. If they made a left-hand turn and went onto the bridge, then they gave them a ticket, just like they would to anyone else who cheated by going into the HOV lane.
With regard to the necessity for it, the lineups coming down the Upper Levels Highway
You can say that they should all have gotten into 25 cars, but that wasn't the case, because they are all on shift work. So there were all these cars going down that were slowing down traffic. If you had pushed the commuters, who were going from one side of the North Shore to the other side of the North Shore, to one side and made room for them to go down
I'll leave it at that point, because I want to save some time tonight to get into the Lions Gate Bridge, about which my associate, Mr. Dalton, will probably ask another few scattered questions of you. Thank you for your time.
R. Coleman: I have a couple of questions with regard to the TFA that I don't think you can answer, but I'll pose them and you can get the information back to me.
The main one has to do with the Vancouver Island Highway project. The Island Highway project had a budget of $1.227 billion in 1993-94 in your annual report. When we were doing the TFA questions, you advised that that budget was going to be achieved by cutbacks to the highways and that there were going to be a number of cutbacks in other portions of the highway in order to bring it in at $1.2 billion. I'd like a list of those cutbacks and their value, please. Is there anybody here who can answer that, or do I just pose the question?
Hon. L. Boone: There have been a number of different things, and I'd be happy to get those to you. I don't have them with me right now. There have been changes in the scope of the highways, and I'd be happy to get them. As I promised your critic yesterday, for any questions here on that, we'll look through the Blues tomorrow and give them to the TFA people. We'll get that information to you.
R. Coleman: Just so I am clear, and just so they have an opportunity to understand the question, the budget is $1.227 billion. I just want to know what was cut out of it and what the cost of that would be if we had to build that at the same time as the highway today. If there's another $200 million or $300 million that has been cut out, that's what I'd like to know, that's all.
[3:00]
I'd like to go into a couple of questions with regard to highways now. First of all, is the old highway safety improvement program still in place?
Hon. L. Boone: The old program has been rolled into the new program, which is Road Sense. We share costs with ICBC.
R. Coleman: Could you tell me how much is allocated this year for Road Sense on the ministry's side of the cost?
Hon. L. Boone: It's $500,000.
R. Coleman: How does that $500,000 compare to previous years?
Hon. L. Boone: The same as last year.
[ Page 1053 ]
R. Coleman: In 1993-94 the $500,000 was targeted to certain areas. What are your prioritized areas this year? Intersections, roadside hazard elimination, school route improvement, general safety works -- what will you be prioritizing for 1996-97 with that $500,000?
Hon. L. Boone: Can you go to another question? We're going to have to find the detailed list in the mass of paper around here, but we'll have that in a few minutes. Let's get on to another question, and we'll come back.
R. Coleman: I've never seen an operation like the Legislature of British Columbia that has paper like this place does. There's so little paper I don't know why we wouldn't be able to find it right away -- that's obviously being somewhat coy.
In some of the research I did on various annual reports, there was reference to having a guardrail program. Is that guardrail program still in place?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, and we're spending $1.5 million on it this year.
R. Coleman: Where is the guardrail program prioritized this year? What types of projects?
Hon. L. Boone: They are throughout the province. The largest expenditures are in the northern half of the province for a change. Isn't that nice?
R. Coleman: That's obviously not the northeast portion of the province, because there are no valleys there; it's all flat prairie up there.
Some research was done a couple of years ago on the effectiveness of concrete roadside barriers. The project was to be completed in 1994-95. It was supposed to set out some priorities. First of all, is the report in circulation? Is it available?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they did a review of the structures and placements, and they are available for you, if you wish.
R. Coleman: I'd like them very much if I could, please.
The next system that I found rather interesting in my research was increasing traffic system visibility as a follow-up to what was referred to as a colour-blind study. It was field-tested in '94-95. All I could find since then is a reference that it was being implemented. Is it being implemented? Has it been implemented? At what cost, and has it reduced as intended
Hon. L. Boone: We did a test section on the Lougheed Highway. We haven't got all the results back yet, so there are no conclusions yet.
R. Coleman: Are there any funds in this year's estimates geared towards this program? If so, how much?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
R. Coleman: These are quick and easy, aren't they? Basic road sense.
There was an intersection improvement program. How many of these projects are scheduled this year, where, and how much do they cost?
Hon. L. Boone: You asked that before, and we're still trying to find that information.
R. Coleman: Oh, it's the same thing?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Coleman: I was also interested in the testing of truck parameters, particularly relative to runaway lanes. What phase is this program at, and are any new runaway lane implementations to take place this year? In addition to that, at what cost? What improvements have we got that we can deal with in runaway lanes, as new designs were being considered back in, I think, 1993 or 1995? I can't remember which year it was that I read that.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm learning some new and exciting things here. Apparently we were trying what they call arrester beds, where they run off into loose gravel, and it would stop them. We did two of them, anyway, and we're not doing any more right now. There are no new projects at this time.
R. Coleman: Just so I'm clear on what an arrester bed is before I go on, is one of those on the hill coming down the Okanagan connector into Merritt? It would be on the east side of the highway.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Coleman: When you get into truck parameters
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it was a yellow sign. It has been implemented. I don't know at what cost; that was a few years ago. We may be able to get that information for you.
R. Coleman: In references over the years in a variety of annual reports and information I can find about the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, there are a number of programs that are referred to as ministry consultation programs. I take it they are in consultation with different users of our highways in the province -- i.e., the trucking industry or what have you. I wonder if there are any ministry consultation programs anticipated in this budget, in 1996-97.
Hon. L. Boone: It's part of the project budget. It takes place whenever we have a major rehabilitation, or if we have a capital project and we have to go out and consult with neighbourhoods or communities. It's included in the project budgets.
R. Coleman: Back in '93-94, there was a project embarked upon that basically was initiatives
The first goal was to increase awareness of aboriginal issues throughout the ministry and foster change in attitudes, in a more consultative environment. How did you achieve that goal?
[ Page 1054 ]
Hon. L. Boone: By having training sessions with our staff and by having joint sessions with aboriginal groups. Apparently it's going much, much better right now. Our staff are much more sensitive to aboriginal issues and how one should deal with aboriginals on a variety of fronts.
R. Coleman: The next portion of this plan was to develop a crisis response plan: to outline a systematic and consistent response to first nations political actions, such as road blockades and tolls. Is that plan in place?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Coleman: Is that plan available for public scrutiny?
Hon. L. Boone: The broad stuff would probably be available, not the detailed stats, because that would be a part of our negotiating process with any group if we happened to be dealing with a roadblock. So I think that we would want to keep that confidential and close to us, because it's never a great idea to have the opposition know exactly what it is that you are going to be doing. So the broad strategies, yes, but not the detailed plans as to what we would do.
R. Coleman: Of course, reference to the opposition here is not the opposition side of the House.
Interjection.
R. Coleman: That was very well done. If I could, I'd like to have a copy of the broad perspective, then, please.
The next portion that I was wondering about, then -- and these specific questions will lead me to the next portion of some of the issues that you have anticipated in the aboriginal issues
The Chair: Members, we'll adjourn for the vote in the House.
The committee recessed from 3:13 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
R. Coleman: If I could go back to where we left off when the bells rang, I was dealing with the aboriginal issue, and studies and recommendations. Basically, we had discussed that some information would be provided to me as far as the crisis management was concerned relative to blockades. From what I've read in different reports and what have you, the ministry was going to be reviewing the forms of land tenure for expropriation on aboriginal lands. In reports I've read, you refer to it as Indian lands, but basically, the alternatives to existing expropriation powers on reserve land
Hon. L. Boone: We have entered into discussions with first nations, and we have not come to any conclusion on any of those negotiations.
R. Coleman: Could you tell me when those negotiations started?
Hon. L. Boone: They've been off and on since 1992.
Hon. member, I can give you the priorities for Road Sense: intersections, accident locations, traffic signals and signing.
R. Coleman: Since they're under negotiation, maybe I could just deal with a specific road for a minute. Is the road that's presently under discussion that everybody knows about in the province -- that being the road to Apex -- considered to be a highway?
Hon. L. Boone: I've been advised that that is before the courts right now, so I can't comment on it. But we do have an injunction that allows us to keep that road open.
R. Coleman: I didn't want to get into the litigation involved. I just want to know the definition of a highway. Maybe you could
Hon. L. Boone: One that has been transferred to us by order-in-council 1036 or by an act of Privy Council.
R. Coleman: I know this doesn't have anything to do with litigation. Was the road that I mentioned earlier transferred by order-in-council or by some other means?
Hon. L. Boone: That's in the nature of the litigation.
R. Coleman: Maybe you could answer another question with regard to the same lands. It is my understanding from sources in Penticton -- maybe the ministry could clarify this, because I don't know if it's a local rumour or whether it's the truth -- that there's another route that was originally gazetted as a highway location in negotiation with this particular band many, many years ago, and that is still on the books as an access through this particular piece of property.
Hon. L. Boone: There is not another route through the Indian reserve to access Apex Mountain.
R. Coleman: Maybe you just misunderstood my question. I know there's no other access through the reserve. My question relates to the fact that I'm told there's some old documentation, from before this particular access was built through this reserve. There was another portion of the land that was designated, and negotiations were completed. Then this road went through the village, to create some access. But there was another route that we, the province of British Columbia, had, as far as having an agreement with the band is concerned -- I don't know if it's the right term -- gazetted or expropriated or whatever. But there's another access through that property that was actually on the books back in the 1920s, I believe.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know anything about that. But if you've got somebody there that thinks they know of a route that we don't know of, please get them to inform us, because we don't know of any other route out there.
R. Coleman: I'm going back to the aboriginal issues, then, because obviously we can't deal with this particular road. That's a local rumour or story. I'll try and get the information and pass it on to you. Usually, this old fellow is pretty accurate in his stories on that particular area of the Okanagan.
Basically, at this point in time, since 1992
[ Page 1055 ]
concerned, and whether the community is involved, as well as the aboriginal people, in these negotiations relative to expropriation?
[3:30]
Hon. L. Boone: The deputy and the assistant deputy minister, Dan Doyle, were sitting on that. They consulted with TNAC, the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, which has stakeholders sitting on it. The province uses TNAC to get input on all negotiations throughout the province.
R. Coleman: When you get into negotiations at a local level, do you then bring in the local band and the local municipality that may be adjacent to the property to finalize the negotiations, or do TNAC and the ministry make the decisions?
Hon. L. Boone: We're really looking at two different areas here. If you're looking straight at dealing with obtaining a piece of land for Highways through a band's reserve, then that would be dealt with on a Highways-to-band basis, similar to what we would do with any other landowner. When you get into areas where there are a lot more issues -- for example, dealing with the Penticton issue -- then we do deal extensively with the community, with the municipality, etc. It depends on what level of negotiations you're looking at.
R. Coleman: Obviously, a highway continues on through. That's why I wanted to know, if it goes through a municipality, then through a band and then through a rural area, and access is denied by one of the users of that particular property. Let's say a municipality refused you access because they wanted a higher tax, so they said, "We're going to cut it off; we're going to stop you from going on this highway any longer," or a band stopped you from going on a highway any longer. Is there anything in your plan that says: "Well, if you're going to stop us, we're going to stop you" -- that type of thing? How do you deal with that situation?
Hon. L. Boone: As has been indicated, in Penticton or some of the other areas where they have blockades, we cut back in other areas; we stop negotiations in other processes. We don't deal with them on other processes as long as there is a roadblock up.
R. Coleman: Could you tell me who has maintenance and enforcement jurisdiction over highways that go through aboriginal lands?
Hon. L. Boone: The ministry does.
R. Coleman: So the ministry would be doing highways maintenance on those lands -- upgrades to potholes, or whatever the case may be -- as well as allowing the local law enforcement, whether it be RCMP or city, to
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Coleman: Let's move on from that. I'll wait for the balance of the information.
You have some landscape standards and priorities, and you have a wildfire program.
Hon. L. Boone: We have $135,000 for landscaping. I'm not quite sure what you mean by wildfires.
Interjection.
Hon. L. Boone: Wildflower? That's included within the $135,000.
R. Coleman: In a number of other things I read, there was a reference made to a safety rest area program to upgrade the safety of pullouts and rest areas. I'm wondering what's allocated in '96-97 for that.
Hon. L. Boone: It's $405,000.
R. Coleman: This may sound like a bit of a bizarre question, except that it was brought to my attention and I went looking for it. I'm just wondering what the results are and what was implemented. You evidently conducted some salt studies, something to do with prewetting techniques. I'm wondering how the studies worked out, what you implemented, what you're implementing this year, and if you would explain to me what it is. Because I'm getting this one secondhand.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm going to have to clear my hearing out here. I thought you said "prewedding." I've heard of prenuptial, but prewedding salting
Prewetting is prewetting the sand with a salt brine so that it actually sticks, adheres to the surface. It's something that around here you probably don't need, but I sure need it up where I am, I'll tell you. That's required during the winter season.
R. Coleman: You deal with archaeological issues from time to time, and I know you have a program for where
Hon. L. Boone: Whenever we're doing a highway, we do archaeological studies to find out if there's anything there. If we do find anything, then we refer that to the archaeology section here in Victoria. Whatever work is necessary is performed as a result.
R. Coleman: You conducted research and property policy development through a partnership with UBC. It was a professional partnership program; it was a two-year project. I'm wondering if the results are in, if the report is done, and how it impacts on the '96-97 budget.
Hon. L. Boone: We're not familiar with that specific project, but we'll get back to you. We'll look into it and get back to you with that information.
R. Coleman: Just for your information, it's referred to on page 33 of your 1993-94 annual report. It's through the University of British Columbia professional partnership program, which "initiated 2 two-year research projects, one concerning highway sound attenuation using earthen berms and the other, stormwater runoff. Staff also began to develop noise, dust-abatement and contaminated-sites policies during the year." That's what I'm referring to. Does that clarify it?
Hon. L. Boone: Thank you. We'll get that information for you.
[ Page 1056 ]
R. Coleman: Is there anything coming out of that report that impacts on the '96-97 budget?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
R. Coleman: I only have two more questions, really -- actually, there are a couple more. Under the environmental protection works within the ministry, you were doing environmental monitoring of the Savona Bridge construction a couple of years ago to ensure that fish resources were not affected. I wonder what the results of that monitoring in '93-94 were and what you know about it today.
Hon. L. Boone: My hon. assistant deputy here is getting a little ancient in time, and his memory is not as good as it used to be. No, that's not true, but you're asking us to go back a little way. We'll get that information and get back to you. It's a bit long to be asking us all to remember those things. I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning.
R. Coleman: You also thought we were going to a wedding a little earlier, too, so
Hon. L. Boone: That's right.
R. Coleman: The same reference is also made to the Castlegar-Robson bridge construction. I'd just like to know the same studies and information, please.
There was an environmental and social overview study done on the Lions Gate crossing. I don't want to get into the cost, because I know an hon. member is just chomping at the bit, but I would like to know if a copy of that environmental and social review has been completed and whether it is available to me.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is.
R. Coleman: Are there any municipal restructures in the estimates? Where and for how much?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes. I guess we do it the year after, so it's about $3 million in rehab and some $400,000 in capital.
[3:45]
R. Coleman: My next question deals with municipalities assisting in secondary highway programs. What capital funds and maintenance funds are set aside for that in the '96-97 budget? I don't think they are referenced to municipal restructures. I think secondary highways and capital and maintenance funds are separate. I wonder if you could explain to me how municipalities assist in capital and maintenance funds and what have you, and why.
Hon. L. Boone: I want to correct something I said. The $3 million wasn't in rehab; it was in maintenance. I made an error. It's $3 million, and then about $400,000 in capital.
On the maintenance side, they apply through the district office and obtain the
R. Coleman: Could I get a breakdown of that $1 million? You don't have to give it to me now; if you could just provide it to me, I'd appreciate it.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Coleman: The other question I had
Hon. L. Boone: The municipality can ask to have it declassified. If it is an arterial highway, it can be taken over. This is what happened in Langley.
R. Coleman: So in order for them to have it declassified in another area of a municipality similar to Langley, would there have to be an alternative route, like a bypass or something, before that declassification could be considered?
Hon. L. Boone: It's something that we would look for, but it's not something that would have to happen.
R. Coleman: I was just thinking of the number of people travelling down the Fraser Highway at the east end of my riding -- a toll would be kind of nice to pay for downtown revitalization.
Just two more quick questions and then I'm going to pass you on to one of my other colleagues who obviously has other questions. The other night when we were doing the estimates regarding the Island Highway -- I didn't know if I misheard this or not -- I just wonder if the statement was made that priority to work on the Island Highway was to be given to workers from Vancouver Island?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Coleman: Thank you. If there was a project for instance in Prince George or Chilliwack or Penticton, is it then also the policy to give priority to workers from those areas?
Hon. L. Boone: No. This was special to the Island Highway project and there were special conditions around that. As we went through this last time, I think we agreed to disagree on this one, because it was a specific project. It was put in place because of the economic difficulties that the Island was having with regard to the restructuring taking place in the forest sector. And to deal with that, the Island Highway project had special parameters put in it with regard to the employment aspect.
R. Coleman: But there was no weighting in tax dollars from the Island versus elsewhere in the province to pay for it?
Hon. L. Boone: What do you mean by "weighting in tax dollars"? The tenders are tendered on a regular basis. The companies that win that tender actually hire their employees through HCL, Highway Constructors Ltd. They are hired by the government through HCL and then the companies apply to them for various employees. They do the various screening and what have you. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "weightedness" there.
R. Coleman: My "weighting" question had nothing to do with that
[ Page 1057 ]
I just want to clarify that all the taxpayers of British Columbia paid equally on a per capita basis out of your general revenue for the Island Highway.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Coleman: Thank you. Just one last question, and this is to the overall ministry. Often in business we set out a business plan and priorities for a one-, two-, three-, four- and five-year plan for our business. I'm wondering if you have a business plan that covers a five-year period. Is it complete and is it available?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we have a five-year strategic plan, and we'd be happy to give you a copy of that.
K. Krueger: In my constituency, Highway 5 departs Kamloops and runs up through the North Thompson Valley. On its way it goes by Wells Gray Park, an incredibly beautiful place that I hope you've had the opportunity to visit -- or will one day. There is potential for a development along the scale of a Banff or a Jasper there, and as tour buses discover it, traffic is increasing steadily. There is a problem on the highway in that there are very few passing lanes between Heffley and Clearwater, and traffic backs up tremendously behind recreational vehicles and commercial traffic. I'd like to know what plans the ministry has this year -- and hopefully it has some -- for adding passing lanes along that stretch of highway, or perhaps four-laning it? A beautiful job was done out to Heffley from Kamloops.
Hon. L. Boone: As you know, we are neighbours: your constituency neighbours mine. I've travelled that road many times and I, too, wish there had been passing lanes. However, we are aware of the problem. There is planning to design passing lanes there, but that is one of the projects that has been frozen. It is part of the freeze, and once that freeze is over, we'll hopefully be able to proceed with that.
K. Krueger: Could I be given a dollar value as to the planning process that was in place for passing lanes -- how many different sites and which ones they are?
Hon. L. Boone: The passing lane currently being considered by the ministry is at the Fishtrap rest area. The amount estimated for that is $1 million.
K. Krueger: Is that the only passing lane that was in the planning stage for that highway?
Hon. L. Boone: We're looking at four others, but this is the only one that got to that stage.
K. Krueger: Early in 1996, the Ministry of Highways announced realignment of Highway 24 at Little Fort, just before it connects to Highway 5. I believe that's one of the projects that has been listed in the capital freeze. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Krueger: Since that project was announced and the local people took it as a promise, is it likely that the project will be approved once the review process is complete?
Hon. L. Boone: All projects will be reviewed and hopefully will go ahead, but I can't prejudge the review.
K. Krueger: If there was any evidence that the preponderance of opinion in the North Thompson Valley was that the passing lanes were a more urgent project than the Highway 24 realignment, and it was deemed that there was money available for one project but not both, is there a possibility that a decision of that nature could be made?
Hon. L. Boone: If the member would like to let me know of the priorities that he believes his constituents have for the area, I would happily take that into consideration when the review is finished and we're making decisions as to what we should be proceeding with.
K. Krueger: Can you tell me what the anticipated start date was for construction of the Highway 24 realignment prior to the freeze, and how long the project would be expected to take?
Hon. L. Boone: That would have been the Transportation Financing Authority, but we anticipated that it probably would have been a couple of years before it was due to be started.
K. Krueger: One of the issues that is repeatedly brought to my attention along the North Thompson Valley is that many small business men and women up and down the valley owned equipment for what they called day labour. They say they used to receive contracts every summer prior to 1991 where they would take part in construction along secondary roads, adding to the quality of the roads, lengthening them and so on. They say that they haven't received any work in four or five years now. I wonder if there are any plans to resume using their services.
[4:00]
Hon. L. Boone: There has been no policy change to stop day labour. It depends on the work that's being done. In some areas, if it's capital, it's usually not done on day labour. There is some major rehabilitation work that's being done in your riding and my riding, and that wouldn't be done with day labour either, because of the magnitude of the project. If there was work to be done in your area, there would be nothing to say that we wouldn't be doing it by day labour if, in fact, there was work that could be done that way.
K. Krueger: I take it there are no concrete plans to deliberately include day labour over the next several construction seasons. This is a pressing concern to these people, because they don't know of any. Obviously, they would really like to be included in the process again. I'm wondering if the ministry has any active plans to resume using those services.
Hon. L. Boone: We don't look around and decide that we're going to spend money just to give people employment. If there's work to be done there, and if there's work that's budgeted for within that district, they could go to day labour. Whether or not that would happen would depend on the budget of the district.
K. Krueger: Just so I can make myself clear, I wasn't advocating any make-work projects, but I'm told and I've seen for myself that the quality of the road surface on a lot of these secondary roads in the North Thompson Valley is really substandard, washboardy and narrow. I'm told that under the former Social Credit administration, there was not only a better level of upgrading these surfaces, but there was an
[ Page 1058 ]
expansion of secondary roads on an annual basis using day labour. From the ministry's point of view, is it actually true that the amount of day labour has been dramatically scaled back over the last five years? If so, are there any plans to remedy that and again support this sector of the North Thompson Valley's economy?
Hon. L. Boone: I share your concerns about the quality of what is taking place on our highways, but the reality is that we've got a lot of major highways and bridges that are requiring some pretty significant dollars being spent, and some major upgrading as well. The Second Narrows -- or the Iron Workers' Memorial Bridge -- and the Lions Gate Bridge are obviously going to have to be done, as you've heard from your colleagues around here, and there are some significant problems in the lower mainland. Unfortunately, we only have so many dollars to go around, and those dollars are being eaten up in other areas. I would love to see some of our highways really improved to add to the quality, but you can't spend what you don't have, and we don't have it right now.
B. Barisoff: Maybe I can explain a little about what's taking place in day labour. I think a lot of the day-labour projects have actually gone to highways maintenance contractors. They've been included in portions of their bid.
The local contractors used to get a lot of the prior work. The work that was done by the Ministry of Highways was kind of farmed out among everybody. Now highways maintenance contractors make sure that they have enough equipment and enough of their own trucks and everything else, particularly in the summertime, because they've got all the trucks plowing snow to absorb all the work that takes place. It has had a really negative effect on a lot of the local contractors, not only in the Thompson or Kamloops area but throughout the entire province.
The hon. member is quite right. There used to be a quite substantial amount of work, and now there's very minimal, if any, and I think that's what's taken place. I think the question to the ministry would be whether they can actually try to bring some of that back so that some day labour can take place among local contractors.
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: Apparently, when the maintenance contracts were originally put out, the contractors were told -- and it was part of their contract -- that they had to subcontract out day labour just as they did when they were being done through the ministry. That is something still being done today. I'm not going to pretend that I have fond thoughts about the privatization of that service, but it's there. It wasn't done by us, but we have to live with it. From what I understand, the maintenance contractors must in fact subcontract the work out to day labour.
B. Barisoff: That's quite right; they were supposed to give out, I think, 15 percent of the contract to day labour. What actually takes place is not in the same vein as what was taking place before, where they would get a whole bunch of individual contractors to go and do
That doesn't take place anymore. They probably do ultimately give out that 15 percent, but if it so happens that they've got a big contract, they can turn around and say they've got to do some paving and they can do the 15 percent. It doesn't really work the way it's laid out to. I would love the opportunity to meet with the deputy minister to go over this, because it's an area of concern throughout the entire province and it's had a real negative effect throughout. I know they're supposed to give out 15 percent, and they do it, but they do it in such a way that it really doesn't help the small individual local contractor.
K. Krueger: There is a bridge south of Vavenby, over the North Thompson River, to a little community called Birch Island, home of our former Attorney General Bud Smith and other famous persons. A couple of summers ago a sign went up on that bridge that it was closed to commercial traffic, and the reason was that decking work was underway or was about to be underway. The local people who use that bridge for commercial traffic of course assumed that in due course the decking would be completed and they'd be able to use it again. Extensive repairs went ahead on the deck but when they were completed the load-limit signs weren't changed, and those local people found out to their dismay that the bridge was no longer going to be rated for commercial vehicles to use.
There are operators of woodlots along the other side of the river and various commercial enterprises who now are obliged to travel quite a distance to Vavenby along a back road that was never intended for large trucks. I've travelled that road since this issue was raised to me to look for myself, and the curves on it are so tight that they'll often have to back up and go forward five or six times just to get around one curve, and you can see where their dual wheels track over the bank. There's been at least one motor vehicle accident, they tell me, as a result of this. It's just a really dangerous-looking situation. Wouldn't it be normal, if a major change like that is going to happen, to give some sort of public input first and allow people to express the types of concerns that I've just been expressing for them?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, you're right. There should have been a process. I don't know if there was or not -- I wasn't around at that time. The reality is that this bridge does need to be replaced, and we're hopeful that in future years, when we've got the dollars there, we will be able to do that. But you're right, there should have been a process there.
K. Krueger: It's obvious to me that you have experts with you who know about this project, and for the sake of the constituents who are asking me these questions I'd like to ask whether, while the decking had been removed from the bridge, it wouldn't have been possible
Hon. L. Boone: The experts believe that it would be very difficult to make that bridge stronger. Obviously we don't want to take any chances in having somebody go across a bridge that might not be safe.
K. Krueger: I can certainly buy into that. But I'm glad to hear the process normally would invite public input before a major change like that takes place. I hope we can have a commitment that that process will be encouraged with the private contractors from here on.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
[ Page 1059 ]
K. Krueger: Returning for a moment to the issue of day labour, I wonder if we could also have a commitment from the minister that there will be an investigation as to whether the private contractors are sharing the work with day labour in the way that was intended when their contracts were signed?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we'll follow that up. That was the suggestion: to work with the critic on that.
K. Krueger: There's an intersection in Clearwater known as the Hub intersection, which is extremely wide. As I mentioned earlier, the tourist traffic up and down the valley has become so tremendous that this particular intersection has become dangerous. There's a convenience store on one side and a service station and high school on the other side, and a lot of young people sprint in between traffic. I've gone and observed this myself. The ICBC Road Sense people came out and had a look at it. There was, as I understood it, a commitment to proceed with alterations to that intersection to make it less dangerous, which were deemed not to be very expensive at all for the benefit that would be achieved. I was told very recently that this project also has been frozen. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: It's the Clearwater, $85,000, and I don't believe it's frozen, hon. member.
K. Krueger: More good news. I'm pleased to hear that.
There are plans for an elevated interchange at the junction of the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 97 at Monte Creek, and those plans have been complete for more than five years, I believe. I am fairly certain the ministry has completed all of the necessary land acquisition. I'd like to know what the ministry's construction timetable is, when we can expect construction to begin, and how long it will be before the new interchange is open for traffic.
[4:15]
Hon. L. Boone: That would have been a Transportation Financing Authority project, a capital project. As agreed with the critic on Friday, and as those individuals aren't here, we'll take that information, pass it on to them and get that information back to you.
K. Krueger: One last question. The ICBC premium freeze has been the topic of hot discussion in my constituency. One of the things that happens with ICBC premiums that may not be commonly understood in the lower mainland is that people throughout Vancouver Island and the interior pay premiums that are larger than their loss experience. People in Vancouver pay premiums that are lower than their loss experience. This has gone on for a long time, and over recent years ICBC moved to begin to correct it by gradually decreasing premiums in areas where clearly more was being charged than was being paid out. I'm sure this isn't news to the minister, who has been involved in the process all along. I think the differential is about 30 percent now, on average, between the interior, the Island and Vancouver -- that is, that Vancouver drivers pay about 30 percent more. If Vancouver drivers were paying the actual rates for the number and cost of claims that occur in Vancouver, there would be a whole lot larger differential than 30 percent.
If that was the case, there would be some financial pressure on people to perhaps not insure a third vehicle, or even a second vehicle. There would be less pressure on the roadways, less pressure on the ministry to build the kind of projects we were talking about earlier that impede the ministry's ability to work on the kind of project we were talking about in my constituency, there would be less environmental pollution from vehicles, and there would be a general righting of a lot of different situations, it seems to me, on the simple principle of user-pay.
A couple of years ago I did a check of ICBC premiums raised in the entire Kamloops region, compared to what was spent. A single broker, albeit the largest ICBC broker in Kamloops and region, had raised enough in premiums to pay all the claims for that region. Everything else that was raised by all the other brokers went to pay claims somewhere else. Since this is a situation that we see all around the province, I think it's safe to say that that money went to pay claims in Vancouver.
As your ministry grapples with the questions of which capital project should go ahead, and how to fund the many that I'm sure the ministry wants to go ahead with, I wonder if there isn't some ongoing discussion -- and if it wouldn't be a solid solution -- to unfreeze the premium freeze and, indeed, move more rapidly in those areas where people are being subsidized by people from other regions with a lower loss experience. What efforts has the minister made in this regard?
Hon. L. Boone: Have you taken this through your caucus? I don't think there is any move by the Premier to unfreeze that freeze.
And you're right. There has been a move in recent years by ICBC to adjust those premiums to try and recognize the discrepancies that are paid in those areas that have the high accidents. But at this time you won't be seeing the Premier moving to thaw those freezes.
Through the Transportation Financing Authority we are trying to encourage people to move in alternative forms of transportation -- through the HOV lanes, through the opening of bicycle lanes that Minister Petter and I were at today, and through some of those areas to try and make it so that people do have other alternatives, so that they can, in fact, move in other areas.
It's also clear to say that the TFA does not see huge increases in new highway structures throughout the lower mainland. We're trying to encourage those people to travel by other means of transportation.
You should talk to Minister Petter if you want to talk about ICBC changes or, in fact, rates. And talk to the Premier, but at this point in time I don't think you'll find him thawing those.
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to report to this minister that news of her pending visit to the Sunshine Coast has been received with tremendous -- in fact, overwhelming -- joy. So much so that they were going to put a huge banner across the highway welcoming the minister, only to find that you're not allowed to do that anymore. Not only can they not do it to welcome this minister, but they can't do it to have the Sea Cavalcade or Seafare International or any of the other festivals for which they put banners across the highway. They're quite disillusioned by that. I wonder if the minister might tell us what the reason for this is, and whether or not there may be some reconsideration here.
Hon. L. Boone: Far be it from me to ever stop a banner going up on my behalf, and therefore, hon. member, we will review that policy.
[ Page 1060 ]
G. Wilson: I'm just delighted about that, because I know that there was some concern that these banners wouldn't be allowed to be put up.
The second question I have, and it's one that is somewhat more serious, has to do with the pit closures as a result of the new contract that has been let for maintenance. Now the difficulty with this -- and I don't know if this is a general policy provincewide or if it's happening only in a few communities -- is that if existing highway pits are closed, then when those contracts come up for renewal it puts the existing contractor in a very strong position, if not in almost a monopoly position, without competition having an opportunity for fair bid. I wonder if the minister has considered this policy, and whether or not she is prepared to intervene and make sure that these pits are kept open.
Hon. L. Boone: I understand you discussed this with Mr. Doyle last weekend. He hasn't been able to discuss it with me, but perhaps this is something that we can discuss when we do come up. I did make that commitment to you in all seriousness. We can discuss it at that time.
G. Wilson: So I take it that no action will be taken on those closures until such time as that policy can be reviewed, because there is real concern, especially in the Pender Harbour area, that that pit not be closed through August.
Hon. L. Boone: We'll see what we can do about that, and see if it is possible to do so.
G. Wilson: Okay, we'll stay tuned on that issue. I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us what dollars are actually being set aside for the paving work between the Saltery Bay ferry terminal and the entry into Powell River proper which has been scheduled for the last number of years and unfortunately, due to either budget constraints or other projects, has not been undertaken. That's a fairly significant section of road that's in extremely poor condition, and moneys have been set aside for the last two years only to be not applied but diverted into other projects, and we're hoping that is not going to be the case this year.
Hon. L. Boone: It's $1.5 million this year, and it will be thoroughly paved by next year.
G. Wilson: Does the $1.5 million commence paving, or is that just to do the preparation work? Are we likely to see any pavement at all this year?
Hon. L. Boone: This is planning, just cap paving, and a complete repaving next year.
G. Wilson: We've kind of heard that before. I'm hoping that this project is seen, then, as a lump sum; that if we're going to go this year, we're not going to rethink our position next year as we've done in the past, notwithstanding what may happen with the Squamish Highway, which I think had a lot of dollars diverted into it because of the slides.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. member, you'll be pleased to hear you have a strong advocate in the ADM here who has advocated your case very strongly and ensured that we know that it's a priority, and that's why it's over two years.
G. Wilson: That's really good news, because that's something that needs to be done.
This is just the last question, then, in the series. There is a project north of Powell River, on the way to Lund, which has to do with the removal of a corner at which there has been a number of fatalities. It really is quite a dangerous corner. I've had an opportunity to negotiate with landowners for a direct land swap so there's no purchase necessary, and most of the material that will be removed, in fact, can be applied to the new highway construction. We find now that the sticking point is B.C. Hydro, which has a right-of-way in there and also, I understand, a transformer. My understanding is that staff have been unable to move B.C. Hydro on this issue. I wonder if the minister has an update on that; whether or not there are dollars being put aside to make that move and whether or not we need to, in tandem, go to B.C. Hydro and persuade them of the follies that they are now engaged in.
Hon. L. Boone: You're well aware of the situation; you've identified it correctly. The local staff, as you know, have reached a problem -- an end there. We intend to take it up the levels of authority to try and deal with B.C. Hydro, and we will continue to do so until we get resolution to the problem. Once we do that, it's a matter of funding.
G. Wilson: The last question has to do with a study which I understand will be funded for the Pender Harbour area with respect to a movement towards district municipality status. There are a lot of roads that are deemed major and minor roads in that area. Has the ministry done any work with respect to determining the major and minor highways in that area? If not, are there any dollars put aside to participate in such a study so that we would know what the highway upgrading and maintenance costs would be if such a district municipality were to be put in place?
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: Once the municipalities decide, it's coordinated through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and then we would decide which of the roads hold what status and which ones would be funded. Then they could apply through grants, through this ministry, for funding for those roads.
J. Dalton: It may be of no surprise to the minister that I have a series of questions on the Lions Gate crossing, but before I get into those, I think there are a couple of points from the Second Narrows issue that I would like to have clarified. I'm sure all of the users of the Second Narrows Bridge are happy to have it confirmed today, by the minister's response to a previous question from my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour, that the bridge is expected to be finished for re-opening on Friday, August 2. If that is indeed the case -- and perhaps we could have the minister clarify that -- what is the early completion bonus per diem rate? In other words, what expenses are we looking at for an early completion?
Hon. L. Boone: We're hoping to have it open on August 2. There's a possibility it might be a little earlier -- I'm not sure. But August 2 would be nice. It's $25,000 per day for each day that it would be early. I think it was said it would be 15 days early. You ought to know that if they were late, they would pay a fee of $50,000 a day. So on behalf of the people who are living over there, I think this is money well spent if, in fact, they can achieve the goal of getting this bridge opened earlier.
J. Dalton: I'm sure we all applaud that without question. I've had occasion twice to drive over the finished portion of
[ Page 1061 ]
the Second Narrows. I've avoided that bridge as much as I could in the last month or so, and happily, the two times that I did go over, it was actually without any difficulty in my direction, although certainly in the other direction there have been some horrendous traffic tie-ups. But it was certainly my impression, and that of many other people who have told me likewise, that the finished surface may be a bit rough. Is there any quality assurance in the contract that we should have a second look at, as to whether this surface actually complies with the contractual commitments that were entered into?
[4:30]
Hon. L. Boone: Strange as it may seem, the ministry has deliberately contracted to have it rough to provide better traction. I guess there were some considerable problems with the Arthur Laing Bridge being too smooth and accidents happening as a result. There will not be asphalt on top of it; this is going to be a safer surfacing for individuals driving over that bridge.
J. Dalton: Funnily enough, the first time I drove over it -- in fact, it was the Sunday of the last holiday weekend -- that was my impression; I thought that perhaps this was deliberate, because it certainly would be a better surface from a traction point of view. It's interesting how these stories take on a life of their own. There were stories going around the North Shore recently that the surface may not be up to standard, but those are just stories to fill some print, I guess.
Let me move on to the Lions Gate crossing issue itself. I would like to start by asking the minister a two-aspect question. First, what is the annual maintenance cost of the bridge itself? Second, is there a separate cost assigned to maintain the causeway? I have reason to believe that the causeway itself may be a particular project that the ministry has in mind.
Hon. L. Boone: The annual maintenance cost for that particular bridge is rolled into the maintenance cost for the entire area, and that includes the causeway.
J. Dalton: Can the minister advise us as to what the annual maintenance cost is, using a ballpark figure? Also, has that cost gone up significantly in the last few years, or has it been fairly constant?
Hon. L. Boone: Pardon me?
J. Dalton: Has the cost gone up compared to previous years, or is it constant from one year to the next?
Hon. L. Boone: As you know, the maintenance costs have just been tendered out. It's policy that we don't reveal the new maintenance cost until all the contracts have been signed. We don't want to give some other contractor in another area some hints. So once all those have been signed and everything, we'd be happy to give you the maintenance costs for that particular area.
J. Dalton: I appreciate that response. I certainly look forward to receiving that, because as users, regular or otherwise, of the crossing, we're obviously concerned not only about the long-range impact and planning, but also, in the short term, as to whether the maintenance is becoming something that we all have to recognize could become more and more of a burden on the taxpayer.
In the earlier line of questioning about the Second Narrows Bridge, as the minister correctly pointed out, the rehabilitation project was precipitated by a piece of pavement literally falling away. As somebody who has been using the Lions Gate Bridge for as long as I can remember, I'm afraid that its condition is certainly not improving. That doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. But I think we all have to recognize that we have to address not only the crossing issue itself and whether it will be something new or rehabilitation of a significant nature, but also the annual cost of maintenance of the bridge and the future prospect of that escalating. One day we may be facing another Second Narrows Bridge that nobody wants to wish upon the travelling people of the lower mainland
Now, let me move on to the Lions Gate itself. In the Transportation Financing Authority list of projects, the planning of the bridge is described as being legally committed, and that is under the project description of bridge renewal. Can the minister bring us up to date as to what the status of that planning is? I recall, for example, that a previous question asked this afternoon was about the environmental study. I presume that that would be part of the planning. Maybe I could also lead the minister into another aspect of my question. I was given information that last December, I believe, the community focus group filed a report with the previous minister which made a recommendation. Is that part of this ongoing planning process that the bridge crossing invites?
Hon. L. Boone: All the work on the technical evaluations, the environmental evaluations and the letter that you mentioned with the recommendation have all come to the minister. The evaluations that we talked about have all been completed. It's now a matter of trying to sit down to make some sense of all these things and to come up with a decision. We're well aware that the Lions Gate must be replaced. How it will be replaced or rebuilt or whatever is the other question. As you know, this bridge is not without controversy no matter what form you take or what it is you want to do. So we're reviewing all of those things, and we'll be making a decision just as soon as we can on this.
J. Dalton: The next thing that I will ask comes out of a letter that the minister's predecessor wrote to a constituent on April 19, so I'll just take parts of the letter, read those into the record, and then we can have some response. The minister comments on keeping the bridge in a safe condition. Well, we would all agree, certainly as users of the bridge, that this is becoming more and more of an issue. The previous minister indicated that during this year -- and this is what comes out of this letter -- the ministry plans to replace several of the bridge stringers and any defective sidewalk panels. Well, certainly I am aware of some of the sidewalks having been replaced. It also says that the first stage of a seismic retrofit of the bridge will take place. Can the minister advise us as to whether that first stage of the seismic retrofit is going ahead, and if so, what would the costs be? Or has that become frozen along with the other aspects of this project?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we will be proceeding with the work to replace several stringers and the sidewalk, but we will not be doing the seismic retrofit this year.
J. Dalton: Thank you. The minister added to the end of her response "this year." Well, of course we're all hoping that perhaps next year will bring on some happier initiatives. Perhaps it also begs the question of whether the ministry has in mind, in the long term, that the bridge will not have to be
[ Page 1062 ]
retrofitted because they may not have any interest in maintaining the current structure. But that's something we're going to all have to discuss -- both the local community and the ministry itself.
Now, in this same letter that the minister's predecessor wrote on April 19, he goes on to comment about the long-term plans for the Lions Gate and indicates that a short list of options will be forthcoming in the near future. Well, I don't think I need a response to this, because I presume that the short list of options is probably predicated by the review process itself taking its time to go through. Then the previous minister goes on to talk about the technical, environmental and community input that we're all very familiar with. I just want the minister to be aware that her predecessor has at least gone on record that perhaps some of this planning, even though this was before the freeze was put on capital projects, is obviously a high priority. I believe this minister has certainly reaffirmed that today.
The other thing I would like to ask the minister about deals with one of the possible options that may become part of the short list we're all searching for so that we can move this project further. I believe it was about two years ago that the Squamish nation put a proposal together that they would like it to be entertained that a new parallel structure to the current Lions Gate Bridge be considered on the shortlist of options. If that is the case, has there been any discussion in the last year or so with the Squamish nation about this proposal, about rights-of-way and about aspects of that nature?
Hon. L. Boone: Minister Pement met with all bands in the spring to discuss all options for the bridge -- not just the parallel one, but all options.
J. Dalton: I take it that we could probably consider that this is still a possible option and still part of the community input, and that the project will eventually get down to the short list.
The last thing I would like to ask the minister is with regard to the future prospects for the crossing issue. When I say the crossing issue, I'm not specifically referring to the current structure. As somebody who has grown up with the bridge, I guess I have some sort of personal preference if we can afford it.
But in the context of improving lower mainland transportation, a third crossing has to be a very serious consideration in the long run. Has the ministry given any consideration to or had any approaches on dealing with private financing? That may be a way to alleviate the difficulties that I can understand the government is in with regard to having to freeze many of these major capital projects, such as the Lions Gate Bridge. If private financing has not been considered, would the ministry perhaps be willing to entertain suggestions along those lines?
Hon. L. Boone: We have had several meetings with proponents who are suggesting ways. If you have some wonderful suggestions, we would be more than happy to entertain any suggestions you've got that will help us out in how we can deal with our highways situation -- not just our highways but our whole transportation system network.
D. Symons: I have just a comment here. I don't know if the minister might have considered the Guinness organization, since they put up the first bridge. Maybe they can do as good a job with the second one as they did on the first.
A couple of questions came to mind as you responded to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. One of the questions he was asking was about maintenance costs for the bridge. I would assume that the maintenance costs you have aren't part of the maintenance program you're paying Capilano Highway Services for -- the company that is doing the roads, the Upper Levels Highway and all the rest. The bridge is certainly a unique situation, with the condition that it's in. There must be some moneys that the ministry is putting aside for what you would call rehab, maintenance or whatever, and that you've got locked in for looking after the expense of keeping that bridge open and safe for the public.
[4:45]
Hon. L. Boone: We haven't in the past. It has always been included, but we do plan to take over the maintenance this fall. It will cost us about $400,000.
D. Symons: I notice that in the project lists that the government has put out, with those that are legally committed and those that are under review, the Lions Gate Bridge is down there. I notice that not only is it down there, but you've got "planning" in brackets. But on the other side of it, it says "planning and construction." So this is still strictly the planning stage that is there, and the construction is now under the freeze?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, all the preparatory planning stages.
D. Symons: The last question dealing with the bridge really deals with what started about a year ago, and that was comments from the minister that very shortly -- and "shortly" sounded like within a month or two -- we would be having a shortlist, which was referred to earlier by the hon. minister as well. But I was dismayed to find that the shortlist they were talking about for a month or two
Hon. L. Boone: It referred not just to the bridge but also the routes and the structure. Once we review the various options we have, we'll be getting a shortlist out to you. At this time I can't give you a time frame I would be happy with, because I'd probably not meet it if I gave it to you at this time.
D. Symons: I certainly appreciate the minister's honesty in that, but, as I say, it was a year ago that we first heard that that was going to come out. It was going to be the fall, and then it was put into November. I talked to a person from the TFA that was at a roadbuilders' meeting. I said: "When is it coming out?" He said: "Well, it will be November." Then we heard January -- that's January of last year. We're getting close to rounding the calendar on that. Surely you can give us something more than you don't know when and you wouldn't care to commit to it. We're a year overdue, and if you were that close at that time to being able to put a handle on when it's going to happen, either you're sitting on this whole issue and just not doing anything with it -- which seems, I think, to be the case -- or you've run into some great difficulties that were unforeseen beforehand. Can you tell us, then; are you just procrastinating and sitting on it, or have you had some unforeseen difficulties come up that we should now know about?
[ Page 1063 ]
Hon. L. Boone: The unforeseen difficulty is that we have a capital review, and we can't do anything until such time as that capital review is completed. I can't second-guess when we will be getting decisions from the Minister of Finance with regard to the Lions Gate Bridge.
P. Reitsma: Hon. Chair, I only have one question.
The Chair: Excuse me, member. Sorry to interrupt you, but you do have a permanent seat on the committee, and the Clerk tells me that you should be at it. Otherwise, we'll have to sign a form. The easiest way would be just to move to that seat. I'm sorry for uprooting the member for Langley.
P. Reitsma: Thank you to my colleague from Langley. All this for one question! Although she'll have about five hours' worth of questions.
On a lighter note, by the way, we talked about investment in technology. Because of the great investment in bathtub technology, this weekend we had the fastest bathtub race from Nanaimo to Vancouver. That's a little aside, of course.
I've talked to a number of the mayors on Vancouver Island. This is a local issue, with certainly an Island overtone. The Island Highway on the east side, the potential of declassification to municipal status
Hon. L. Boone: With traffic patterns changing on the highways there, we would be looking at meeting with the municipalities and discussing that probably before the end of the calendar year.
P. Reitsma: The supplementary is: I'm not anticipating the outcome, but if the municipalities were to say no, is the provincial government going to make an arbitrary decision, a unilateral decision?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't really tell you in advance what we're going to do with regard to this. Hopefully, we will come to a decision with the municipalities that everybody will be happy with. We do have the right to make those arbitrary decisions, yes.
L. Stephens: I have some questions dealing with my constituency of Langley, as well. I know the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove raised the question about the 200th Street interchange, and I want to talk a little bit about that, as well. I think the minister knows that over the last four years or so, 200th Street north to the freeway has been widened into four lanes, and it narrows down into two lanes as you get to the overpass and the on-ramps and off-ramps. There is a proposal that the ministry is looking at at the moment to deal with 88th Avenue, north and south. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on what stage that particular proposal is at.
Hon. L. Boone: It's strictly in the planning and discussion stages.
L. Stephens: Could the minister be a bit more specific? Is there a time line for this particular initiative to take place? They've been discussing some of the designs for quite some time. My understanding is that the Transportation Financing Authority executive approval that the ministry will proceed with the preferred design option and pursue the required funds to initiate the functional design
Hon. L. Boone: No.
L. Stephens: Could the minister indicate when a decision might be forthcoming?
Hon. L. Boone: It's caught in the capital freeze, and I can't comment; I can't tell you right now.
L. Stephens: Have there been any preliminary costs ascertained around this particular project?
Hon. L. Boone: Nothing appreciable.
L. Stephens: My understanding is that the discussions that have been going on between the ministry and the township have been fairly extensive and that there's provincial land and municipal land that is part of the discussions, and perhaps private sector participation as well. Could the minister confirm if that, in fact, is the case?
Hon. L. Boone: Right now it's pretty preliminary. It's part of the capital freeze; it's part of the capital review. At this point in time, I can't confirm that there are any dollars or a time frame for the dollars to be spent in. It's a major project. You're looking at probably $45 million to $50 million, so it's not something that one can do without considerable concern.
L. Stephens: This particular project didn't show up on the ministry's capital freeze list. They are, as the minister said, in the preliminary stages of agreeing on a functional design. My question is: what is the time line on this particular project? Yes, it is a major initiative; yes, it is an initiative that's needed to alleviate the traffic congestion at 200th Street. It has been ongoing for quite some time. I ask the minister again: where in the transportation corridor plans does this particular initiative fall as far as time lines are concerned?
Hon. L. Boone: There's a small amount set aside. As I told the member earlier, our indication is that it would probably be more than five years away.
L. Stephens: I'd like the minister to comment about roundabouts and what her position, or the ministry's position, is on the use of roundabouts.
Hon. L. Boone: I like roundabouts, but I guess the ministry doesn't so much. I understand why. As you remember, they used to have one down here in Victoria, and they took it out. I never could understand why, but I guess it has to do with people not having experience, not knowing how to deal with them. You know, you have people from the States coming up and driving here, and they get caught in a roundabout and can't get off. Did you hear about the train that never got off? No. You probably don't listen to country music.
That's the position on roundabouts. We're willing to look at them, but I've never
[ Page 1064 ]
[5:00]
L. Stephens: I would agree that people living in this country don't know how to deal with roundabouts, although some discussions have come up in Langley township municipality for roundabouts. In preliminary discussions with the ministry, that's one of the designs that is apparently being looked at for this particular intersection at 88th and 200th streets.
What I'm trying to find out here is what's going on. You know, if they're talking about roundabouts
The people in Langley want to have some better access on and off 200th Street to the freeway as quickly as possible. Really all I'm asking is how quickly that can be done, and what can be done to facilitate that. When they're talking about the roundabout option here, it's my understanding that the township
Hon. L. Boone: We've not taken any position to say we would use roundabouts nor have we said we wouldn't. What I have said is that I like them. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they should proceed, just because I like them. What we will do is review the options that come forward from various communities, from people out there, as to what the alternatives are. I was not aware that they made a commitment to a roundabout in that area, but we'll look into that and see if, in fact, that commitment has been made. I wasn't aware that they made a commitment to a roundabout in the area that you're talking about. As for the time frame, I can't give you the time frame. As I said, all capital projects right now are frozen, they are all being reviewed with regard to necessity, and decisions will be coming later.
L. Stephens: I would be pleased to provide a copy of this for the minister, and she should be able to use that as a basis to find that information.
The other area that I wanted to talk about, and I asked about last year, was the Cottonwood corridor from Maple Ridge to Langley, the provincial highway. What is the status on that particular initiative? I'm sure it's probably caught in the freeze as well, but what was done from last year to this year to move that project along?
Hon. L. Boone: It's a very long-term project. We've purchased the right-of-way to protect it for future use but, again, it's beyond five years.
L. Stephens: I wonder if the minister would comment on Transport 2021, and what was recommended in that report, particularly around growth management and transportation investment in regions. I'm thinking again specifically of the Langley area where we are, as the minister knows, a very fast-growing region. What kinds of transportation initiatives are looked at for our region?
Hon. L. Boone: The plan that you're talking about had input into the south coast transportation plan, which is a transportation plan that just came to the Transportation Financing Authority board. That plan will be reviewed and will be going to cabinet at some point in time for a decision as to when it will be released to the public. Encompassed in that plan are all the transportation issues that you talk about.
L. Stephens: Will the proposals then be released to the public for review?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes. Once it has gone through the various stages that I talked about, it will be released to the public.
L. Stephens: One of the initiatives talked about in that particular report was transportation demand management. HOV lanes are, I would presume, part of that kind of management -- those that have been instituted on 401 and on 99. Would the minister comment on whether or not the present arrangement of HOV lanes is satisfactory, or whether we need to look at reducing the number of individuals that are travelling in vehicles on those high-occupancy-vehicle lanes?
Hon. L. Boone: We've got one HOV lane coming out on the Barnet Highway, and it's happening on Highway 1. I have been reviewing that whole situation with regard to individuals' concerns about the use of those HOV lanes. We'll be making a decision on that shortly.
L. Stephens: The new transportation facilities and services
Hon. L. Boone: I wouldn't be having anything within my budget on that. That would be in B.C. Transit's budget. The planning, as I said, would be within the south coast transportation systems plan that will be released in due time.
L. Stephens: Another arterial road, 16th Avenue, was due to have some upgrading as a south-east-west connector up the valley and into Highway 99. This particular road is being used much more frequently than in the past for people moving back and forth to Vancouver from up to Chilliwack. There's a lot of traffic on that road now, particularly on 16th Avenue and 32nd, which hooks over to Highway 99. Is there anything in this year's budget that you'd be looking at to upgrade either 16th Avenue or 32nd?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
L. Stephens: I want to talk a bit about road-rail separations. In Langley city we've got about five railway crossings that come right through the city. There was a study done in 1995 which showed that public safety at these road-rail crossings was a major concern. Some planning proposals were put forward to try to deal with this -- either with overpasses or underpasses -- but it seems to have fallen by the wayside.
[ Page 1065 ]
Roberts Bank is going to be expanding, as you know, in the next few years to encompass a grain facility, and there's another one I can't recall right at the moment. I would suggest that the rail traffic is going to increase quite substantially.
I wonder if the minister could provide me with any information on whether or not the ministry is looking at this and whether there are some options being considered.
Hon. L. Boone: It is in the long-term capital plan; there's nothing in the five-year capital plan.
L. Stephens: I would presume that this would have to be a federal cost-shared initiative as well. Is that the case?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, there is a formula for that, but -- surprise, surprise -- B.C. has not gotten anything from the federal government for many years now, so
Interjection.
Hon. L. Boone: There was one five or six years ago in the Fraser Valley, so
L. Stephens: I think that last year your predecessor had said the province got $7 million for the SHIP program. I imagine that if there are some proposals put forward, there may be some forthcoming for this initiative.
I have one further line of questioning, and that has to do with impoundment of cars and the fact that many cars are abandoned in impound yards. I wonder if the minister would care to comment. I'm sure a number of people have written to her on this issue. They've written to me and, I'm sure, to other members as well. Would the minister comment on the proposed vehicle-impound program?
Hon. L. Boone: I'd be happy to. I'm really pleased. I think most of the police officers -- I keep wanting to say RCMP because that's my police, but there are obviously others that have different police around -- throughout British Columbia are very happy to see the ability for vehicle impoundment coming in. They feel very strongly that their hands have been tied. They have people who are consistently driving without licences, or who, when they've had their licences removed, continue to drive and virtually thumb their noses at the law. Now they will in fact have those vehicles taken away from them.
As somebody that's very concerned about the number of people who are out there driving not only without licences but who shouldn't be driving and continue to drive while under the influence, I think this will go a long way to strengthening our laws with regard to drunk driving. I'm very glad that we are proceeding with this, and I'm glad we've strengthened that law -- which we did in the amendment just passed -- and I'm sure that it will be well received by all the police officers out there.
L. Stephens: This is a good initiative. Yes, we do need to have these cars off the road. What I was speaking of is abandoned cars in the impound. What happens is that these cars, for whatever reason, are abandoned on the street or the police pick them up and take them to the impound yard and they are abandoned in the impound yard, and the costs of removing those vehicles
[5:15]
Hon. L. Boone: The vehicles that have been impounded for various reasons
L. Stephens: Could the minister clarify what cases those would be? What are the parameters around why the ministry would pay those costs?
Hon. L. Boone: If the vehicle has been found on the provincial highway, and it's an old beater and the costs just don't cover the charges, we do pick up those costs.
L. Stephens: My colleague here has a question to ask around that, as well, when I'm finished. I have one more to go.
This is a concern to all the towers and impound yards across the province. It is a cost to them. What they would like is to have some kind of agreement with the ministry around particular circumstances where they would be reimbursed by the ministry, or somewhere, or some kind of a program that is arranged
Hon. L. Boone: I'm surprised that the member says
From the ministry's perspective, we are concerned about those that are abandoned on the provincial highways, but I think it would be very costly to take responsibility for the entire province. We don't have the dollars right now to do those kinds of things.
L. Stephens: I think it's probably a sign of the times, too. There are more cars being abandoned -- beaters, as you say,
[ Page 1066 ]
that low-income families and people with not much money drive: $300, $400 or $500 cars. If they should break down, they just leave them where they are. That's happening more and more all the time, and they're being abandoned on the streets and on the roads. The police call, and the tow truck comes along, picks it up, takes it to the impound yard and expects to get paid for it; and in fact they're not. I would suggest that what is likely to happen is that these tow-truck companies will refuse to pick up cars and impound vehicles without some kind of upfront payment. That, I think, is what is happening: there are more and more individuals driving these kinds of cars, and they're just walking away from them when they break down.
B. Barisoff: I think it's in Bill 10, which is just being passed, with the Motor Vehicle Act being transferred to ICBC. I think there's a section in there that says that the superintendent will not be responsible for any towing or storage costs that are involved. Could you maybe clarify that?
Hon. L. Boone: That has to do with a vehicle that is impounded and they find that the driver may be impaired or without licence and shouldn't be driving. They impound the vehicle, and they find that that vehicle does not belong to that particular person. Okay? It may be that you've lent your vehicle to a friend, your friend gets picked up and your vehicle is impounded. What we are saying is that the province will not be responsible for getting that vehicle out of impoundment. You as an owner have a responsibility to recover the dollars for that impoundment from your friend if, in fact, you are able to convince the ministry that you should get your vehicle back. That's the specific case with regard to vehicles that are impounded where it is not the owner of the vehicle that is doing the driving infraction.
B. Barisoff: That leads us back into the same kind of question, and the hon. member is not the only one that's got that complaint. I got one from the tow operators in the Okanagan, particularly where there's a lot of transient help. They'll buy any beater that can get back and forth down the road -- that kind of thing. The same thing applies where -- and it leads back to that section
Hon. L. Boone: As I said to you earlier, the ministry does alleviate the problem for those who are on the highways, but we are not going to assume responsibility for those that are outside provincial highways. I mean, there are some that may be on municipal roads, on city roads, whatever, but it's not
B. Barisoff: Now, he led me to believe that there was actually a program that was going to come out from the motor vehicle branch or the Ministry of Transportation that would indicate whether tow-truck drivers would actually sign up to pick these vehicles up. Then they would be ultimately responsible for the collection -- of collecting it back from the people that own the vehicle. What it gets back to is the major problem, which is the fact that these vehicles won't be worth anything. But he indicated to me that there was actually a program that was coming out through the Ministry of Transportation or the motor vehicle branch to pick these vehicles up.
Hon. L. Boone: Somebody may have been talking to them, but there's no program that I know of.
B. Barisoff: During the break period, I'll give him a call. He was quite certain that there was a program that was being instituted that was going to force him -- maybe it's through ICBC, I'm not sure -- into a situation where he would actually just say that it's not worth him going out to pick up these vehicles. Correspondingly, I guess it would affect his ability to pick up vehicles from ICBC also. There is a serious problem and I know it's in these two areas. It's probably more widespread than the hon. minister might know.
B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I didn't bring my sign with me today to indicate who I am, but I have a makeshift sign for your benefit.
I have a question for the hon. minister. There is an important transportation issue in Chilliwack, and I'd just like to explore a little bit with you if it has reached any of the planning stages that are necessary before a program or a construction project, such as the one I'm about to talk about, goes forward.
Chilliwack, as you know, is a community in the Fraser Valley that has grown considerably over the last few years. In fact, it has had among the highest growth rates of any community in British Columbia or the country. A considerable amount of growth has occurred on the south side of the Fraser Valley, and now the community is effectively divided in half in terms of population by the Trans-Canada Highway. When you travel through the Fraser Valley up country to your riding, hon. minister, you'll note that on both sides of the freeway are parts of Chilliwack.
In the 1950s, I believe it was, the first cloverleaf interchange construction project went ahead in Chilliwack along the freeway. That interchange is now very much overused, if I could put it that way. Many times during the day traffic is backed up on either side of that interchange. I'm talking about the traffic that goes across the highway from one side of the community to the other. The difficulty is that the roads leading to either side of that interchange are four lanes and the top of the interchange, the overpass part, is only two lanes, one lane in either direction. Obviously this presents a bottleneck.
The community has supported for some time -- I believe the mayor and council are presently working on it -- a proposal to build another overpass across the freeway at a different location, a location that is not too far removed from the current Yale Road-Vedder Road overpass. The proposal is known as the Evans Road flyover proposal. As the name would suggest, it involves simply a crossing of the highway, not another interchange. Presumably the proposal is like that, so it would cost less than it would otherwise cost to build a full interchange. My question, then, to the minister is: just where are we at in terms of that proposal? Are there any plans in this year's estimates to go ahead at least with the planning process? When can we expect some relief in Chilliwack to solve our local transportation problem?
Hon. L. Boone: It's very much in the preliminary stages. The Transportation Financing Authority has had people meet-
[ Page 1067 ]
ing with some staff from Chilliwack to discuss the flyover, but it's very preliminary now. No costs have been put down and no commitments have been made.
B. Penner: If it were determined at this early stage that it was a worthwhile project, I just wonder if the minister could explain to me, for the benefit of my constituents, what the next steps would be. What are the steps that a process follows for this type of project?
Hon. L. Boone: If the ministry determined that this was something that should be proceeded with, there would be discussions going on with the TFA. The TFA would have to take it to the board to get approval, and then we would be discussing the cost-sharing -- trying to find out how to finance it, basically. TFA would be looking at the best way to finance it, whether it would be through cost-sharing with the municipalities or whatever.
B. Penner: This is my final question on this topic. Just to indicate to the minister, I will be taking an active interest in this project, and I would appreciate any information that I could be provided with from your office or your staff just to keep me informed as to how this matter progresses -- hopefully, it does progress.
R. Neufeld: I have just a few brief questions before the break. I assume that every constituency receives a letter from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways talking about rehabilitation projects for their area. I received one again this year, on July 17, in reference to programs that are happening in my constituency. Up until last year I didn't have any difficulty getting the amounts that were going to be spent on the different projects that were listed. For some reason it seems to be highly secretive, and you're unable to get it. I don't know if it's just for my constituency or for every constituency within the province, but I'd like to know from the minister why we're doing this.
[5:30]
Hon. L. Boone: Surely you're not suggesting that we would treat you differently.
R. Neufeld: Not a bit.
Hon. L. Boone: Absolutely not. We'll get those figures to you as soon as we can.
R. Neufeld: Can I suggest that we start that process? I don't know what happened, but I get a sheet -- and I'm quite well aware of all the projects; it's almost the same every year -- and there's never a dollar figure beside it. If it is that easy to get, could I as an MLA receive a copy of the same information about every highway district and the dollars that are going to be spent in the constituencies?
Hon. L. Boone: As the member can well appreciate, we are trying to conserve costs, but we have offered in the past to have one full set supplied to each caucus. You're a caucus of two, so I'm sure your other member would share yours with you very well.
R. Neufeld: One will do.
Hon. L. Boone: As you are well aware, providing that for everybody would be very costly, and it would probably just provide us with more paper that we don't really need. We'd be happy to do that in terms of one per caucus.
R. Neufeld: Thank you. I'll wait for my copy.
There has been a bit of discussion about amalgamating highway districts. I wonder if the minister could just bring me up to date on that, particularly in relation to my own constituency.
Hon. L. Boone: We're still reviewing that. No decisions have been finalized.
R. Neufeld: Are we now actively searching for a highways manager for the district of Peace River North?
Hon. L. Boone: We're not looking for managers until we settle on the restructuring, because it could affect people across the whole province, and obviously if somebody is displaced, we may want to keep a place open for them.
R. Neufeld: Is there some possibility that we could look outside of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for a district manager? I think we've gone through three district managers in my constituency since I've been there. A number of people have been there for a period of time filling in for someone else, and it certainly doesn't lend anything to the continuity of what's taking place. This doesn't in any way demean what has been done by the people who have been there. In a lot of cases, they've done an admirable job trying to get used to the maze of roads and what not that we have in the constituency of Peace River North.
I just wonder if there is some way that we could start looking within the community for someone who doesn't move from Prince George or from the Okanagan or from wherever to Fort St. John for a two- or three-year stint and then move back to some other place. I wonder if we could look for someone that wants to live in Fort St. John or Fort Nelson, for that matter, someone that has lived in the community for a while and who understands the system. I'm sure there are lots of people out there that would fill the bill quite well. I'm only assuming there are, but I would think there would be, if one were to advertise in the newspaper for that kind of a position.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. member, if you'd quit being so tough on your staff up there, maybe they'd stay around a little longer.
From my perspective, I think we need to do the due diligence with regard to our internal staff first, to make sure that people who are already employees within the ministry, if they are displaced, do have an opportunity to move there. Maybe your reputation will precede you, and they will choose not to go up there -- but I'm sure they won't. I know the Peace is a beautiful area, and people that do move there
I have no objections to us looking externally to other areas, but I think we have an obligation to keep jobs open for our people and not displace long-term employees.
R. Neufeld: Can you explain to me what you mean by "displaced"?
[ Page 1068 ]
Hon. L. Boone: If people lose their positions due to restructuring, then they are displaced -- redundant, not required in their jobs anymore, and we need to place them elsewhere.
R. Neufeld: Following that a little further, are there people that you are presently anticipating displacing within the system that could come to a district of that size and nature and look after it?
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we're currently reviewing all the restructuring, and I can't anticipate at this time who would be displaced or who may be available to go there. I'm just saying that if it should happen that the restructuring does leave a vacancy or leave a person displaced from their job, then I want to make sure that job is available to them.
R. Neufeld: I don't have a lot of problem with that, I guess, as long as we're looking at people that have the particular qualities or job skills to look after a district of that size and magnitude.
The other thing is that I would like to inform the minister that I don't think waiting for a long time really does us a lot of good in the north. We already have some difficult problems, which you're well aware of, with our highway system up there. People that come and fill in for a while, although they mean well and everything, don't make the same decisions with the same fervour that a person would if they were actually in the job as district manager for that area. You know, you just kind of roll along and wait until someone comes. You might go four or six months, or something, and I don't think that's fair. Can the minister give me a time frame for when she believes that something concrete will take place?
Hon. L. Boone: We're two or three months away from making decisions on that, but I can assure you that staff there are qualified and will be making the necessary decisions that are required for that district.
R. Neufeld: Just this past year, we had a series of meetings both in Dawson Creek and Fort Nelson with senior staff from the motor vehicle branch regarding issues surrounding transportation in the northeast. With the amalgamation of the motor vehicle branch and ICBC in the offing, and the many recommendations that were made at that meeting, I wonder how we go about trying to implement some of the recommendations that came out of those meetings.
Hon. L. Boone: That particular group of staff is not being transferred at this time.
R. Neufeld: Okay. Then I assume we can continue working with those people to implement some of the recommendations that came through. I see the minister nod, so I'll carry on from that.
I don't know where you are with B.C. Rail. Are you going to do B.C. Rail later on?
Hon. L. Boone: Not in this meeting.
R. Neufeld: Okay, I will leave that one.
I would be remiss if I did not ask about the movement of 16-wides in the North and South Peace. I know the minister is well aware of the pilot project we had in the Dawson Creek area. Since we've had an election and we can now get on with life, I'm wondering if the minister is going to look favourably at reinstating the project and getting on with trying to move equipment that we're used to moving in the north. Will we be more coordinated with our neighbours to the east and make the life of the trucking industry much easier and make it easier for those people who wish to buy modular homes of the 16-wide variety?
Hon. L. Boone: The issue that you talk about is one that I looked at with interest and tried to come to some meeting in my mind as to how one dealt with some of the conflicts between the southern half of the province and the northern half and the various changes around. I recognize that the Peace is a unique area -- unique in terms of its economy, its topography and everything.
Therefore, hon. member, I've asked my parliamentary secretary, Rick Kasper, MLA for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, to work with the industry and with you to review this whole issue and to bring back some recommendations that hopefully will address your concerns. I don't know if he can do that or not, but I've asked him to do that. He is going to take it upon himself to come to your riding, to talk to your industry up there, to talk to your people, to talk with the trucking association and the mobile-manufacturing industry and everybody around to try and see if he can come up with some recommendations that might help us.
R. Neufeld: I thank you very much for those encouraging words, and I certainly look forward to working with your parliamentary secretary.
I have numerous other questions, but I think the time is here, if it's appropriate, to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.