[ Page 7775 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my privilege to introduce Michael Cooke, who is visiting today from Vancouver. Mr. Cooke is editor-in-chief of the Vancouver Province. He has also worked at the Montreal Gazette and the Edmonton Journal, though his roots stretch back to England and to Fleet Street -- which is readily apparent to all those who read the Province. More recently, he's been assisting Mr. Conrad Black in planning Canada's new national newspaper, which launches this fall. We wish Mr. Black all success in this endeavour, and I ask all members to welcome Michael Cooke to the chamber today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today visiting from Switzerland is Mr. Walter Suter, the new consul general from Switzerland to Vancouver. He's on his first trip to North America and to Victoria, so would the House please make him most welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Today we have in the members' gallery a special visitor from Punjab, India. Mr. Inderjit Singh Zira is the Minister of Health, Justice and Family Welfare for the State of Punjab. He is visiting British Columbia and staying with Naunihal Singh Sandhu, who is present in the members' gallery as well. Please join me in welcoming the minister to this House and to our province.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of the official opposition, we too would like to add our greetings to Mr. Inderjit Singh Zira and Mr. Sandhu, who are visiting in the House. We look forward to visiting with them after this sitting. Would the House please help us make them welcome.

L. Reid: In the gallery today are five individuals who are concerned by the lack of speech therapy for adult stroke survivors. The move to regionalize health care simply hasn't put those services in communities. May is Speech and Hearing Month, and I'm delighted to introduce five individuals in the gallery today who have come to advocate on behalf of this issue. They are Phyllis Delaney, who is the president of the Stroke Recovery Association of B.C.; Meralin Young, the coordinator of speech pathology at Gorge Road Hospital, Royal Jubilee Hospital and Victoria General Hospital; Allan Robertson, a stroke survivor who is on the executive of the Stroke Recovery Association of B.C.; Gayl Hutchison, another stroke survivor and a member of the Langley Stroke Recovery Centre; and Barbara Mollon, president of the Richmond Stroke Recovery Centre. I ask this House to please make them very welcome.

J. Weisbeck: It's my pleasure today to introduce 17 post-secondary students -- very timely, I might add, as it's just before the estimates for Advanced Education come up. They are Sophia Wong, Ken Wong, Rita Amisano, Jamie Gilles, George Pringle, Valerie McLean, Holly Yau, Matthew Kroekar, Joanne Gardiner, Ryan Marshall, Mark Redgwell, Kaveh Namdaran, Dennis Visser, Jennifer Shanse, Aaron Gardiner, Jan Dhaliwal and Chris Heras. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure today to introduce my deputy minister's mother, who is visiting from Toronto, Ontario. She is here for Mother's Day, and to see her grandson Sacha Manson Willms in Oak Bay Secondary School's production of The Pajama Game. Would everyone help me make Jean Manson very welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are Larry and Giselle Sloat. They are both former residents of Terrace where, they tell me, they were good friends of the family of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, and they can recall her when she was a very young girl. They are now residents of Victoria; they are both longtime NDP members. Larry was the president of the Kitimat-Terrace and District Labour Council and was a board member of IWA Local 1-71. Giselle is very active in the Canadian Figure Skating Association and volunteered most notably, I think, with the Indigenous Games and the Commonwealth Games. It's my view that Larry and Giselle Sloat are the epitome of British Columbians: they are active and involved in their communities. I ask the House to make them very welcome.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two constituents of mine; but even more importantly, they're two very good friends of mine. Evelyn and Harry Mathias are visiting us here today. They're visiting Victoria in honour of a school reunion and their class reunion. Harry took Evelyn out to Cranbrook for a year to see how she'd like it; that was over 50 years ago. So as you can see, it was a lot longer than one year. Neither of them are strangers to the political world, because a couple of years ago Harry was actually EA to Leo Nimsick, whom I'm sure everybody in this House remembers. So I would ask the House to please make both Evelyn and Harry Mathias welcome.

M. de Jong: Also in the gallery today is a longtime friend. Charan Sidhu is here, and I hope that all members will make him welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I wasn't actually quite finished with my introductions. Accompanying the minister from India are some friends and relatives living in the lower mainland. [Punjabi spoken.] Their names are Dalip Sandhu, Bakhshish Singh Zira, Surjit Singh Gill, Gurmit Singh Sandhu, Kartar Singh Dhillon, Charan Singh Sidhu and Manjit Singh Dhillon. Would the House please make all of these visitors welcome.

E. Conroy: I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House today two people who had a major influence on my life as a young person as I grew up in Castlegar. It's a real pleasure for me to have them here today. They are Lou and Rita Cummings. At the same time -- I guess it's a double whammy for me -- I have the mayor of the city of Trail, Mr. Dieter Bogs, also in the galleries. Would the House please make these people welcome.

M. Sihota: I too would like, first of all, to welcome Minister Inderjit Singh Zira to the House. Another guest that the Minister of Transportation and Highways asked me to introduce is Renu Bakshi, who is here joining us and watching the proceedings for the first time. Would members give her a warm welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Somewhere in the galleries, although I don't see him, is B.C.'s most famous tow-truck driver, Al Beix, the mayor of Kaslo. Would the House please make him welcome.

[ Page 7776 ]

Ministerial Statement

REMOVAL OF
ADULT BASIC EDUCATION FEES

People who lack a high school education are at a tremendous disadvantage in today's economy. For these people, doorways that are open to others remain shut -- doorways to employment, to advancement, to higher education, to the future. Today's announcement is about opening those doorways, saying to those who have the courage and determination to return to school that we're prepared to help, because it does take courage, it does take determination, for someone who has left the education system to make the decision to go back and see it through. For those who are prepared to take those steps, we want to make sure that this doorway at least stays unlocked and is ready to swing open for them.

[2:15]

Why are we doing this? Because everybody knows that better education leads to better jobs. This initiative is about linking learning to earning, by removing barriers to success. It reflects the commitment of this government to build a province where people have the tools to lead successful lives and contribute to their families and communities. By helping students to help themselves, we help society as a whole. By removing barriers to adult basic education, by making ABE a right, not a privilege, we are also making an important statement about the value of basic education.

In today's society, education is the great equalizer. It is what makes equality of opportunity a reality, not a dream. Education also supports our economy. In the words of Dr. Fraser Mustard, quoted in a recent article in the Financial Post: "The quality of the population drives an economy." That's why we in B.C. are determined to become known as the education province. That's why we have set a different course from other provinces that are increasing tuition and limiting access to education.

Our efforts are starting to be noticed. In last month's Maclean's magazine, the following was stated with respect to British Columbia: "Cheaper. Closer to home. More accessible. More accommodating. [These] are among the reasons why. . . [B.C.] is gaining attention from the rest of the country. . . . 'B.C. is light-years ahead in terms of. . .the college and university systems.' " Today we are moving yet another light-year in that direction.

J. Weisbeck: I'm pleased that government has finally removed an inequity that has existed in the system. The removal of barriers to adult basic education -- an inequity that existed whereby not all British Columbians had equal access to basic life skills, whereby some had to pay -- allows those students who are considered mature the option to attend in a college environment rather than in a high school.

This could prove to be a motivation to those students to move on to post-secondary education. It certainly will increase their self-esteem and self-worth. I hope that it would also increase participation. My only concern is that government will properly compensate the institutions rather than what has been so common in the past: downloading government's financial responsibilities onto the institutions.

This side of the House fully supports this initiative. It is imperative that all British Columbians receive these skills and education in preparation for the new economy, one based on knowledge and information.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998
(GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS)

L. Reid: A community of grandparents in British Columbia is truly committed to maintaining ties with their grandchildren, for the simple reason that they believe in family. They desire contact with their children's offspring. It is a very good decision on their part and one that I'm pleased to stand in support of today.

These amendments to British Columbia's Family Relations Act would see grandparents included in the deliberations which determine the best interests of the child and, further, may include access by the extended family of the child -- including grandparents. Quebec has had such legislation for a decade and Alberta since May 29 of this year. Preserving the grandparent-to-grandchild relationship is worthy of the support of this Legislature. Denying children access to their grandparents during a time of family disruption may indeed remove the only stability and constancy available to that child.

Hon. Speaker, I'd be pleased to dedicate my remarks today to Nancy Wooldridge, the founder and president of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MINISTRY HANDLING OF
"BABY M" CASE

[ Page 7777 ]

Hon. L. Boone: Had the member read the paper, which he usually does to get his questions, he would have been aware that I'm unable to comment on this as it is before the courts.

The Speaker: On a supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this matter is not before the courts. It is a matter of the ministry's policy. This report states quite clearly. . . . I want to quote it: ". . .the police's ability to conduct an appropriate investigation was severely prejudiced by a contaminated crime scene and ongoing discussions between the social workers and [the foster parent]." The ministry didn't just fail to do its job. The ministry prohibited the police from doing their job of protecting children. My question again to the minister is: why on earth don't social workers understand, when they are faced with an abused child, that their first duty is to call the police?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, in case the member didn't hear me the first time, there is a civil case that is before the courts, and I am unable to comment on this court case at this time.

The Speaker: On a second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The thing that's shocking about this is that this report, if it had been read three years ago, would have shocked all of us. This kind of stonewalling would not have accomplished anything, and people would have been outraged by it. We now know this -- and this has nothing to do with the case. . . . We know that on April 27, in the afternoon, the hospital staff knew. We know that the social worker knew then. The ministry in Vancouver knew; the area manager knew; the media knew. Can the Minister for Children and Families tell me: at what time did the former Minister for Children and Families know the situation with Baby M?

Hon. L. Boone: This is before the courts. It's a civil case before the courts, and I am unable to comment at this time. I don't know how many more times I can tell you this.

C. Clark: When the hospital called the social worker, the social worker did not call the police. He or she called Vancouver; Vancouver didn't tell the worker to call the police. Then the worker called the area manager; the area manager did not tell the worker to call the police. Then the worker went to the hospital and did not call the police but instead went to the home of the prime suspect, where they advised the prime suspect that her story was inconsistent with the doctor's diagnosis. Can the minister tell me why, when confronted with a serious case of child abuse, her ministry staff feel it is appropriate to go and discuss the case with the prime suspect before they even choose to call the police?

Hon. L. Boone: Changing the questioner does not change my answer. This is before the courts. It is a civil case, and I am unable to comment on any of the particulars around this case.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: My question is about what happened after the child had been admitted to hospital and how ministry staff responded to the criminal investigation or to starting the criminal investigation in the first place. What this worker did was phone her colleagues. . . . He or she phoned the hospital. He or she phoned the prime suspect to discuss the case, and then they finally, at 10:30, decided to inform the family of what was happening. It wasn't until 11:35 that someone thought to call police, and that wasn't until after the media had expressed an interest in the case. Can the minister tell me why it is that her ministry didn't feel it was appropriate to inform the police of this case until after the media had expressed an interest in what was going on?

Hon. L. Boone: This is your question period. If you choose to keep asking questions where I have to respond that it is before the courts. . . . My legal information is that this is before the courts, and I am unable to comment on the details of this particular case.

G. Plant: Page after page of this report is a damning indictment of a government and a ministry which failed -- not just once, but repeatedly -- to protect this baby and her family. My question is to the Minister for Children and Families: how many more of these damning indictments will we have to read before someone in this government admits accountability and responsibility for its failure to protect children at risk?

Hon. L. Boone: Finally you've asked something that I can respond to. We have in fact responded considerably to this report and to the report that was done by the ministry prior to the children's commissioner's report. We have acted on the issue of the task force on foster parenting. We have implemented a good portion of the recommendations, and the majority of those recommendations will be in place by the end of this year and early next year. We have actually moved on 31 out of the 32. We are moving to make the system better and to make our foster care system better. We are responding to the concerns that had been addressed by the children's commissioner before this report came down. So we are making considerable changes. . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .and I think the children's commissioner recognizes those changes that we've made.

The Speaker: On a supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Report after report condemns a government that talks but does not act. Even though the matter is before the courts, the public of British Columbia is entitled to the facts. The question for the minister is: why does it take ten

[ Page 7778 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

COST OF ARTERIAL ROAD
DEVOLUTION TO MUNICIPALITIES

Hon. H. Lali: This is coming from an opposition that campaigned in 1996 on the issue of making massive cuts in our budget program, and they were going to off-load in the neighbourhood of $600 million onto municipalities. Here they are, standing up in the Legislature now, crying the blues and saying that we shouldn't be taking these kinds of initiatives.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: That's not true, and you know it.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we do have time for more questions if everyone comes to order. I don't recognize anyone until the House has come to order -- whichever side.

I recognize Richmond East for a supplementary.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will give this minister a quote. John Shields of the BCGEU has stated that the downloading of highways maintenance functions to municipalities will increase local tax burdens. When this minister gets to his feet, I want him to talk to the constituents of Logan Lake and tell the rest of this House when he will sit down and broker a fair deal with municipalities in this province and not download continued costs onto the families of British Columbia.

Hon. H. Lali: We've been consulting with the municipalities for at least the last year and a half, and. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the question was heard in some silence; I expect the answer to be as well.

[2:30]

I want to talk about the opposition. Out of one side of their mouths, they talk about making cuts to the budget; out of the other side of their mouths, they want to increase spending.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. minister. . . .

Hon. L. Lali: You can't have it both ways.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Lali: I think the hon. member across the way should know that, the next time they're out visiting in one part of the province promising one thing and then going to another part of the province and promising exactly the opposite.

R. Neufeld: This government is trying to get away with off-loading arterial highways without even mentioning the off-loading of the financial liability for unresolved aboriginal land claims.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

R. Neufeld: This means that local governments will be stuck with the costs of compensation for roads that are subject to land claims. Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs assure municipalities today that the cost of land claims compensation for roadways being downloaded to municipalities will not be borne by local taxpayers?

Hon. J. Kwan: The hon. member across the floor is really concerned about the issue of arterial road devolution. As the Minister of Transportation and Highways has explained, the process around the arterial road devolution has been in discussion with local governments for a number of months now. People have been engaging in discussion on this issue. There has been a process with respect to criteria around that. Any of the roads being devolved to local government will meet the criteria of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The local governments have all the opportunities to engage with the Minister of Transportation and Highways on that.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Well, it's obvious that the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't have a clue about the looming liability that municipalities are going to face -- or could care less. Her response talks about the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who gave just three weeks maximum to municipalities to talk about the costs of this. She doesn't care one whit about the cost municipalities and the local taxpayers are going to face.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question.

R. Neufeld: If she doesn't care, could the minister at least tell this House whether they have done an analysis of what it's

[ Page 7779 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: All of the costs with regard to arterial devolution are bring worked on and calculated through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The criteria very clearly outline what those implications may be for local governments. Through the UBCM, as well, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways have been working with local government on that issue.

L. Reid: The costs are a little more than worked on. In fact, they've been sent out to municipalities: Cowichan, $63,000 annually; Vanderhoof, $62,000; district of Logan Lake, $40,000. Those costs are known. This program has been incompetently handled by this ministry. The off-again, on-again download. . . . Will this minister get to his feet and succinctly say to British Columbians that indeed he's mishandled the job and that the job has not been done well? Municipalities are not going to take this from this minister and this government.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

L. Reid: Hon. minister?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The minister is ready to reply to the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, interventions are sometimes helpful and sometimes not. I would like to recognize the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. H. Lali: The members of the opposition know that roads are being devolved all of the time. For the first time in history, our government has set criteria, based upon which roads will be devolved to municipalities. In terms of the member for Peace River North asking the question about not giving enough time, the devolution of these roads has been delayed three times since the first announcement took place in 1996.

I would like to have the member opposite know that while he's complaining about issues in here. . . . I was up in his constituency doing his constituency work for him. I went up there, I talked to people up there, and I had his constituents talking to me about northern roads. I went up there and I delivered. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. minister. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Petitions

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1998

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1998

Capital Financing Authority Repeal and Debt Restructuring Act

BC-Alcan Northern Development Fund Act

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Rate Freeze and Profit Sharing Act, 1998

Tuition Fee Freeze Act

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1998

Mining Rights Amendment Act, 1998

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Legal Profession Act

Occupiers Liability Amendment Act, 1998

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

WASTE MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)

On the amendment to section 4 (continued).

[ Page 7780 ]

I would just point out to the members on the opposite side that legislative counsel reviewed the amendments that we discussed yesterday and suggested some slight wording changes in order to clarify them. The intent of the amendment and its effect remain the same.

[SECTION 4, by deleting the proposed section 19(4) and substituting the following:

(4) Before exercising the authority under this section, a regional district must

(a) undertake consultations with affected stakeholders, and

(b) indicate its intention to do so in its plan.]

[2:45]

On section 4 as amended.

M. Coell: I wish to spend a few moments looking at what I would call the regulation or control of companies involved in recycling -- or, indeed, waste haulers. The bill sets out that regional districts have control over many functions that are now the private industry's interest. I'm looking at requiring haulers of municipal solid waste to collect and remit fees from the generators of that waste.

I wonder whether the minister could clarify for me that this bill now directs individual haulers to collect fees set by regional districts. Or will they still have the ability to set the fees themselves as they do in many parts of the province at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: A private hauler is still able to charge whatever fee they wish for their private business purpose. What this makes reference to is what a regional district may charge a hauler.

M. Coell: I think I need some clarification on that. A private business hauling for another private operator can set their own rates, but if a hauler is working for a regional district, the regional district can set that rate. What I'm interested in is: can the hauler set different rates than that -- over and above or below the rate the regional district has set?

Hon. C. McGregor: That matter would be covered by a contractual agreement between the hauler and the regional district.

M. Coell: One area that I don't believe we've touched on is the area of dispute resolution, where there would be a disagreement on rates as to what a hauler or the regional district would agree on. I'm just wondering whether there is a dispute resolution clause -- I can't find one in the bill -- or whether there's one inherent in other acts that this would relate to.

Hon. C. McGregor: The matter of a dispute over fees would be something that is subject to review by this minister. Obviously the criteria that we would put in place in reviewing such fees would be to reflect the costs of the regional district to operate. This minister gave assurances in yesterday's debate about our interest in making sure that the relationship is such that there's not an opportunity for a regional district to overcharge for some service that they don't need to.

M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification.

The bylaw also allows regional districts significant access, I think, to a business's records and to its weigh scale measurements, its daily records -- a lot more than government would normally have to a business unless they thought something was wrong and had a court order to go in and review records. I'm just wondering whether the minister sees this as overkill in the ability to scrutinize a private company's records without cause.

Possibly, after you answer. . . . What I'm looking for is what would cause a regional district to be able to go in and basically seize records, review records and make its own assumptions as to what a company is doing in the way of volume of business. That, to me, is a very new right that the regional district would have. I'd like to just pursue that for a moment.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

M. Coell: I understand that. In section 4, section 19.1(2)(d)(iv), it says: ". . . permit an employee or agent of the regional district to inspect and make copies of these records during the waste hauler's normal business hours." In my way of thinking, that is giving the right to a government employee to enter the premises of a hauler or recycler and review their records without cause. I have a great deal of concern about this, in that you're assuming someone has done something wrong, but you don't have legal authority to enter those premises to review the records. I just wonder how this section got in. Has the minister had legal advice on this section?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. As we've made clear in previous discussions on this matter, obviously the regional district will have to fully consult with those businesses that will be affected by the coming into effect of this bylaw. The assumption is, and the requirement will be, that they discuss this matter and how to best manage the issue so that it doesn't become a matter of -- as you point out -- someone feeling that they're being picked on by a regional district and that their premises are being entered unnecessarily, when all it would have required was a phone call to get that information, and so on.

The second point I'd like to make is that this provision is modelled exactly after the same provision that already exists in the GVS&DD Act. So we have this provision already. To my knowledge, it's not being abused. I appreciate what the member says about the potential for what he might describe as abuse of that, and obviously we would avoid that through the consultative process.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to see that there haven't been problems as yet. It does create, I think, a potential problem -- and probably not good legislation -- when the ability of a government, without cause, to enter the premises of any business or any individual and research their records. . . . I suggest we may not be having a problem with it because the legal advice to regional districts is: don't do it, because you don't have the legal authority to do that. That may be the reason we're not having a problem with it. I flag that for the minister and also for consideration by regional districts.

[ Page 7781 ]

I wonder whether the minister could comment on whether it's intended that regional districts would do that but it's just not spelled out, or whether it's not intended, and it's just intended that more fees will be placed for more recycling projects.

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally, fees are set to reflect the cost of the infrastructure and the processes that are in place to deal with the waste. So that's the basis on which regional districts set their fees. But clearly, if a hauler were to recycle more of their product, then their fee would be lower because they would have less material to try to take into a landfill or a transfer station and so on.

M. Coell: I think I understand what the minister is saying. I think I would go even further -- that the fees would be reduced as someone does a better job of recycling. You wouldn't be paying the same fee for an amount; you could actually pay less fee if you started to do less. That's what I think this section misses, but I suspect that in the regulation it could address that for municipalities.

I just have one more question on section 4 as amended, with regard to section 19.1(2)(c): ". . . varying fees by class of persons, operations, activities, industries, trades, businesses, works, sites or municipal solid wastes." I would hope that in some regulation the ministry would not distort the marketplace by saying: "We'll charge more fees for this, because we want to accomplish it." I think the free market is going to be a very helpful tool in recycling, and I see this as a potential for government distorting the market from time to time. I just wonder whether the minister can assure me that that isn't the intent of section 19.1(2)(c) -- that it's more of a regulation than an intent to regulate the market.

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, we need this provision overall to enable a local government to vary or change a fee. Without that enabling provision they wouldn't be able to. But let me assure the member that the purpose is basically to make sure that the cost of recycling the material is reflected in the fees, based on the class of wastes. The example I was given by staff here is the difference in cost between dealing with a product like gypsum, say -- what it costs to be able to manage, store, etc., and deal with that waste stream -- as opposed to something like tin or aluminum which might have a much lower cost.

So the idea is to be able to vary the fee, as you say, to reflect market as well. That's clearly part of the framework through which there are fee adjustments. Again, I'd remind the member that there is an opportunity to review, in the minister's office, fees that regional districts would set.

[3:00]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to section 6 in the hands of the Clerk.

[SECTION 6, in the proposed section 24.2(1) by striking out "with the regional district," and substituting "with the regional district and affected stakeholders.]

On section 6 as amended.

M. Coell: We defined the stakeholders in section 19. I wonder if the minister could assure me that the definition of "stakeholders" will be the same in this section as it was in the previous amendment.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

M. Coell: I'd like to touch on the fines and the numbers of $1 million and $200,000. I'd be interested in knowing where these numbers came from. Was there a study of other provinces or states as to what fines should be set at? I'm looking at subsections 24.1(2)(a) and (2)(b).

Hon. C. McGregor: The fines are consistent with the fines that would have been levied under the act when the ministry itself levied these fees and are similar to the powers already given to the GVRD under an authority to manage air emissions. I would just point out to the member that the range in fines is significant because of the significant damage that could be caused to the environment should a discharge end up in an aquifer, say, or a water body. Or some other important environmental matter might be threatened through the inadvertent or deliberate release of waste into the environment.

M. Coell: The minister stated that the intent of the bill is to create a level playing field. I want to draw your attention to subsection 24.1(2)(e). That paragraph says: ". . . establish different prohibitions, regulations, rates. . . ." I wonder whether there aren't significant conditions elsewhere in the act for regional districts to control this and whether this is a bit discriminatory. It just seems to me that there are other areas that this could be covered in. I'm not sure why it's in the act. I wonder if the minister could outline the reasoning for the addition of (e) in section 24.1.

Hon. C. McGregor: If it were the Ministry of Environment's authority, it would be true that there might be other provisions that we could point to that give us the authority to act in certain ways. But when we are actually delegating the authority to a regional district, we must give them those powers very explicitly, and that's why they're spelled out in this section.

M. Coell: I would just add that it gives some pretty unlimited powers to the GVRD, in particular, to regulate and, I suspect, potentially to discriminate against competing private interests. So it's one that I would flag. I think there are some potential problems with it.

The other area I wish to get the minister's view on is subsection (3)(b), the paragraph starting "appoint officers. . . ." I see a whole new group of employees exercising

[ Page 7782 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: On the first point the member made -- his concern around section 24.1(2)(e) and the prohibitions, rates of fees and so on -- I point out that section 24.1(5) makes it clear that the minister may review and revoke powers. That gives a check and balance. In the member's case, if he believes that authority is being used to penalize unfairly any particular class or group, then obviously there's an opportunity for the minister to review and revoke that power if that is the case. Those are the kinds of checks and balances we have throughout this bill in order to address the concerns that have been raised, particularly by those in the private hauling and waste management sector.

On the matter of employees, obviously it is regional government employees that would be enforcing this. Frankly, we don't envision the loss of provincial government employees as a result. We think this is an opportunity for us to work with the regional government on implementing better solid and liquid waste management planning processes and pollution prevention initiatives.

M. Coell: Subsection 24.1(6) -- just a brief comment. It seems that you're giving the greater Vancouver regional district almost invincible powers; that protection against fault is extreme. I can't remember seeing this in the previous act. I draw to the minister's attention that I think that's really limiting their liability by too great an extent.

With regard to the amendment after that, I thank the minister; that amendment makes the act a lot more comfortable for the industry and for individuals as well. That's it for section 6.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

M. Coell: I know we've had this discussion regarding the retroactive date of May 24, 1996, and there may be some liability reasons for that. But I must admit that when I see that in legislation -- retroactive dates for businesses -- I have some concern about the powers now bestowed on regional districts for going and looking at records, for entering premises of individuals and businesses, and I would hope that that won't be just an open door to do that. I think that would be a way to turn off an entire recycling industry rather than to make a fresh start from today forward.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hawkins: I am very proud this afternoon to introduce Mr. MacArthur and students from the Kelowna Christian School in my constituency of Okanagan West. You can see all their lovely, happy faces up there watching us as we do the government's business here -- the people's business. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would also like to welcome the individuals who are here. We're debating a very important bill related to solid waste management. I'm sure the visitors will find it most enlightening.

For the member opposite's interest in terms of his question, the answer is that we obviously don't intend that to have that function.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. C. McGregor: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 17, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. A. Petter: I call Committee of Supply on vote 11 -- the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, minister's office.

The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Doyle in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

Hon. A. Petter: I thought I'd just start with a few preparatory remarks concerning the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. It is a new ministry and it reflects a new and exciting mandate for this province in terms of putting a focus on advanced education, on training and on the linkage to technology and the new economy. I am just delighted, I might say, to have been given the opportunity to play a role in leading this ministry in terms of providing some direction for the future for education and for the economy in British Columbia.

[3:15]

[ Page 7783 ]

Post-secondary education programs and skill development programs, plus the Information, Science and Technology Agency, intergovernmental relations secretariat and Crown corporations secretariat, all fall under the mandate of this new ministry. Therefore they provide us with resources to meet some of the very exciting challenges faced by this province.

I want to say how impressed I have been already by the professional abilities and talent of those who have come to this new ministry from the previous Ministry of Education and from the previous Ministry of Employment and Investment, in terms of the information and technology side. I am most impressed not only by their dedication but by their vision, and I am very much looking forward to working with them in the future.

Joining me today in the House, I introduce Gerry Armstrong, who is the new deputy minister of this ministry and who will be providing direction to the ministry from his position as deputy.

This week the Victoria Times Colonist said: "If there is one area in which British Columbia's. . .government deserves some praise" -- and I'm sure there's more than one; that's my comment, not theirs -- "it is its enlightened approach to post-secondary fees. . .freezing tuition for three years. . . [and] about to introduce an innovative program in which students can earn tuition credits through community service." Earlier today in this House I read the quote from Maclean's magazine that referred to how B.C. is now light-years ahead in terms of our college and university systems. This is high praise, and it is to the credit of my predecessor and of this government that we have established ourselves in this province as having a solid reputation for supporting and understanding the value of advanced education.

It is, I think, quite dramatic how different the approach we have taken as a government is from that of, say, the province of Ontario, which is looking at higher tuition fees and reduced access as a strategy -- presumably with fiscal concerns in mind. But I would argue that short-term concerns that don't translate into long-term gains. An investment in education is an investment in the economy. It is an investment in the future. It's about giving people the tools to get jobs in the new economy and to benefit that economy while benefiting from the education system.

So I'm very proud of the fact that in the last five years, we have increased funding to post-secondary education by some 20 percent in this province -- by some $230 million. In fact, we're the only province that has consistently increased its investment in education. We've done that, as members know, in the face of huge cuts from the federal government. We receive some $100 million less for post-secondary education from the federal government today than we received just three years ago.

We have seen a commitment against a tide that, in some parts of the country, has been running in the other direction. Thankfully, in this province we have not succumbed to that tide. That's why in this year's budget we've seen a $39 million increase in the post-secondary global budget from last year. We've seen an increase of over $26 million in post-secondary initiatives. We've seen an increase of $17.5 million specifically targeted to the creation of some 2,900 new student spaces in post-secondary institutions, which brings the total of new spaces in the last three years to almost 13,000.

This year we also targeted 500 of those spaces to high-tech training, recognizing not only the relationship within the ministry between technology and education but also the relationship within the economy. The fact is that we have an economy right now in which the technology sector is growing by over 20 percent and in which there is a shortage of supply. We want to take advantage of that shortage of supply. We want to solve two problems by not only meeting that shortage of supply but also doing so with B.C. graduates and B.C. students, who will have a future with worthwhile jobs and will stay here with their families as part of the tapestry of this province.

Student financial aid has also increased by over $13 million in this year's budget, reflecting the fact that as we expand spaces and as we keep the doors open to education, we need to make corresponding increases in student financial aid. This year we will provide grants and loans to more than 5,000 new students and increase support for more than 50,000 students who are already receiving financial assistance.

We've also made some strategic investments in terms of the infrastructure of higher education. Let me briefly review some of those, because they're quite exciting. Over six years $123 million is being invested in a new provincial learning network to link up colleges and schools throughout this province not only with each other but with the world, and to create a mini-information network that will be connected to the larger information highway and will enable programs and teaching to take place between and amongst communities. A student in Nakusp will have access to course materials that previously might have been available only in Vancouver. A student in Vancouver will be able, through one of the community colleges, presumably, to take courses that might be offered out of Kuala Lumpur or some other international capital. It's really very exciting.

In addition, we have reached agreement with software development companies to provide to colleges and schools in this province some of the leading software, which will enable those students to gain access to the best information and the learning tools they need to participate in the information highway, in the library of the Internet, and to acquire the skills necessary if they wish to move into some of these high-tech positions.

We've also targeted some $2 million to assist colleges in getting new computer hardware. There's no point in having all the connections if you don't have the terminals and the software to make use of that information highway. We have made an investment there, as well, beyond that which was made to institutions in the general budget.

We have indeed put the public's money where the priority ought to be and where the public supports it: in education, in students, in services and in the necessary technology that students require in order to gain skills to compete in the modern economy, in order to gain access to the broadest information and in order to have the best opportunities for education.

We also have a major component of the ministry devoted to training and skills development. This too has been a major success story, perhaps not one that's as well recognized nationally as what we have done in education per se. For example, our skills development initiatives have resulted in a 33 percent decline in youth caseload, and the income assistance caseload has been reduced by some 20 percent through the B.C. Benefits program and its relationship with the initiatives of this ministry. In the coming year, we will serve some 80,000 clients and meet these clients' service goal with a budget reduced by 12 percent.

[ Page 7784 ]

Youth Options B.C. is one of our most comprehensive initiatives and targeted very much at providing opportunities for youth, in terms of providing youth with opportunities in the labour market. Combined with a tuition freeze, access to education and training, and programs that provide youth work experience and employment, we are making a major commitment to youth -- not to say that there aren't serious difficulties. There are. The rates of youth unemployment across the country and here in B.C., given some of the difficulties experienced in our current economy, are not acceptable. But this government has responded strongly through Youth Options B.C. and other initiatives to address those concerns.

On the information, science and technology side, I've already referred to the information agency that has been brought into this ministry. But we have a number of major initiatives. The British Columbia electronic highway accord, the part of that accord that is now translated into the linking of educational institutions through PLNet, and the work that has been going on in government to deal with the year 2000 problem are all initiatives that have been undertaken by the Information, Science and Technology Agency, which that now forms part of this new ministry.

I might say we are also very committed to pursuing a new vision for British Columbia based on adding a new perspective on growing our high-tech economy here. The budget was reflective, in many ways, of the concerns of the high-tech sector. Our announcements in education have targeted the need to train more people into high-tech, but there is more that we can do.

One of the things we need to do is to work with the private sector to come up with a provincial framework, a strategy on the information technology opportunities that exist in this province. I have committed to do that. And the sector has committed to work with us and with education institutions to do what other jurisdictions have done with some success -- Oregon in particular -- and that is to form a real partnership, a cooperative environment in which we target the opportunities that exist to grow the knowledge-based economy. To outsiders, over 20 percent growth in that economy may look pretty good. But insiders who see the potential and know what is happening say we can get 30, 40 or even 50 percent growth in this economy if we make the necessary investments. That's what we're going to do.

The IBM agreement is evidence of this government's commitment to bring a major information technology player into the province to grow the indigenous software industry here and to compete internationally. The announcement we made just two days ago to invest some $100 million over six years in infrastructure for research, partnering with federal programs and with the private sector, will ensure not only that educational institutions have more money for research but that that research will be applied to create jobs in the economy through the partnerships that result.

We've seen many new opportunities arising in this province in areas like biotech and information technology in recent years. But those opportunities are only the beginning of what we can see in the years ahead. Our knowledge-based economy -- the information technology, or the technology side of our knowledge-based economy -- is already about 4 percent of our total economy. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it's more than a third of the forest economy in terms of direct contribution. It's producing many jobs, it's labour-intensive, and it has huge potential -- potential that certainly I, this ministry and this government intend not to ignore.

So that's a sort of very general overview of some of the initiatives and issues. There are other areas. The office for disability issues also falls under this ministry. In addition, I have responsibility for Intergovernmental Relations and for the Provincial Capital Commission, showing that the interests of this ministry and this minister go from the most local to the most national. I think all of that presents a tremendous challenge, but it's a challenge that I and this government are very much up for and are interested in pursuing. And it's one that I look forward to debating through the course of these estimates with members opposite.

J. Weisbeck: First of all, my congratulations to the minister on his new task, and my thanks as well for the opportunity to canvass this new ministry. I'm sure there are going to be growing pains. As the minister once commented, he was in a very steep learning curve, and I certainly can attest to that.

Initially, I was quite surprised at the structure of this new ministry. It seems to be a collection of quite a number of things. But I was surprised, too, because there was a commitment of the government in the past to create this seamless education system to allow a smooth transition from K to post-secondary. So the separation of post-secondary out of the Education ministry is a bit contradictory to that initial commitment.

[3:30]

There's been a large increase in staffing with the creation of this new ministry and obviously, as a result, an increase in overhead and the cost of doing business. This is somewhat contrary to this government's initiative of creating a smaller government. But I hope, during these estimates, that we can be assured that this focus of funds will be directed to benefit our students and our economy and not just to create a larger bureaucracy.

I'd like to thank the deputy minister, Gerry Armstrong, for our initial meeting at the new offices. It was good to see the results of years of restoration to St. Ann's Academy. I think they've done a beautiful job. It will be a great place to work in, I'm sure. This initial meeting gave my colleague from Delta North and me some insight into the physical layout of this ministry. It was important for me, because being a former dentist, I'm very concerned with time and motion and the way plants work and how efficiently they can work. So I see there's some work to be done there. I'd also like to thank the ministry for the briefing by both post-secondary and science and technology staff.

[ Page 7785 ]

As we move into the next millennium, we find the need for training and retraining is becoming more and more apparent, both for our domestic well-being and for our international competitiveness. It's estimated that 56 percent of new jobs becoming available between 1995 and the year 2000 will require post-secondary education and/or training as a qualification for employment. This is obviously going to place a huge demand on the system as more and more people must access the system. I think that access will have to be much more flexible as the demands for non-traditional types of education will increase.

The social implications of not creating these opportunities are very obvious. We can see many examples of the relationship between the level of education and the earnings of an individual. Individuals and society at large can point to the impact of low incomes and unemployment on one's lack of self-worth, on family violence and breakdown, and on alcohol and drug abuse.

We're in very, very challenging times for post-secondary education as increased demands are placed on the system. These demands must be addressed if we are to approach the vision all of us have for advancement. As resources have become stretched, institutions have had to look for efficiencies in the system, and there have been costs and shortcomings. The quality of education has declined because of increases to class size; the professional brain drain, as people are attracted to the U.S.; library retrenchment; service cutbacks; equipment obsolescence; and space inadequacies.

Budget cuts have had a huge impact on libraries, for one example. They are falling farther and farther behind not only in their book acquisitions but also in their staffing. Periodicals and journals are being discontinued due to the high inflation rate and static budgets. In a recent survey done by the Council of Post-Secondary Library Directors, a number of inequities are apparent. The colleges have inferior libraries -- particularly in the more rural areas -- and there has been a loss of staff due to budgetary cuts. When one looks at the importance of libraries in the quality of education, this is a very, very serious issue.

Technology is having similar problems, as replacement timetables are not keeping appliances current. For example, at Okanagan University College, the replacement cycle for appliances is ten years, where it really should be half of that. Some of their labs are working on old technology -- 486s, which are certainly not current technology. The institutions feel that equipment replacement should be part of the operating budget, to keep the technology current. The physical facilities have deteriorated, as institutions have placed their priorities on academic needs. We all know that the cost of delaying maintenance programs will rear its ugly head someday, costing us a great deal more if steps towards prevention are not taken now.

The former minister mandated a task force to look into the critical issues of financing in British Columbia's college and institute system. A review was done in relation to funding, increasing institutional costs, revenue generation, productivity and student access. The task force found that the college and institute system has exhausted its capacity to deliver further economies. They simply couldn't pare down their budgets any further without imploding. We've already seen the impact that the previous two budgets have had on the colleges, universities and institutes. This year's budget may improve the situation, but the past budget inadequacies have not been met, and these budgets have had a huge impact on the quality of our system.

The task force findings were interesting relative to the education policy, particularly when this minister has accused the opposition of having no direction in post-secondary education. I'd like to remind the minister that his own ministry's study states that there is no public policy framework on the essential education services that are to be maintained at times when institutions are having to do less or cut services.

On another policy issue, I'd like to clarify our position once again so that the minister and the Premier will get it straight and stop misleading the public. We supported the tuition freeze. We felt that with the high youth unemployment rate and the fact that this government had screwed up the economy so badly, students and their parents needed all the help they can get in financing their education.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The minister also criticized me for supporting the colleges, universities and institutes in the education equation. I'm always amazed by this government's inability to work with all the players. They've shown the same direction in philosophy when working with the business community -- this socialist ideology that puts one part against another: business versus labour, students versus institutions. I don't understand why this divide-and-conquer theory is so prevalent in this government's philosophy. Is it just so desperate for votes that when it sees an opportunity to pick up a segment of the population. . . ? How can this government separate the needs of students from the needs of the facilities?

When we speak of the education system, it requires every segment of that system to be cohesive and to work together. A student cannot receive a quality education without all parts of the institution and the government working together as a team. How can you separate the affordability of students from the affordability of colleges and universities? A balance must be maintained. What you take away from one must be given to the other. Ed Lavalle, from the College-Institute Educators Association, stated this very clearly. He noted that government had not replaced the money lost to the institutions by the freeze. Just as huge demands are being placed on post-secondary education, every aspect of our economy relies on science and technology. We rely on high-tech industry not only for the creation of new business opportunities but also to replace the old technologies found in our resource sector -- from the bio-tech industry, which can enable us to grow trees faster, to high-tech saw blades, which create less waste.

B.C. has a tremendous opportunity, with its position on the Pacific Rim and next to an economic giant, to become a leader in this new economy. Will we take this opportunity and move with it? Or will we get stuck in an old, outdated ideology and let the rest of the world pass us by? Can we learn a lesson from the state of Washington, whose high-tech industry has grown to $41 billion annually, compared to B.C., which has a $5 billion high-tech industry? Will we be flexible enough to follow Oregon, whose high-tech industry is growing at the rate of 59 percent, compared to our 20 percent? Can we seriously look at our strengths and weaknesses, and make the appropriate changes to take ownership of this new economic direction?

[ Page 7786 ]

The Technology Industries Association's 1997 report card states:

"[Their] view of the role of government, at any level, is that it should create the climate and framework within which our industry can flourish with due regard to wider social issues. This means displaying interest and leadership, communicating with the public, encouraging inward investment, and ensuring that publicly funded institutions, particularly in the field of education and training, are responding to industry needs. It means working with other governments to encourage the free flow of trade and ideas. Of equal importance, it should avoid doing things that inhibit the industry, classic examples in B.C. being the inappropriate aspects of the labour standards act and maintaining a high-tax regime."

The TIA further believes that government should avoid short-term interventionist activities, including artificial job programs or special taxpayer-supported initiatives that tend to distort the marketplace. In short, government should stand back and let the industry create wealth that will fund both general economic well-being and job creation in this province.

There are huge opportunities available to all British Columbians. We have the people and the resources to make us number one again. All we ask of this government is that it get out of the face of business and allow economic freedom to flourish, allow them to hire our graduates, allow them to develop their products and allow them to expand their businesses.

Hon. A. Petter: I know we're going to get into questions. I very much appreciate the member's congratulatory remarks. So let me reciprocate by congratulating him on having shifted into his critic responsibilities along with me as minister. I very much appreciate the constructive relationship that we've had to date, and I look forward to building upon it.

Just on a few points that were raised. . . . We'll probably get into more detail, but perhaps I can just give a few general comments. The member raised the question of the seamless nature of the government's commitments to education and asked whether the separation of the ministries was going to compromise that. I certainly want to reassure him that that is not the intention. In fact, I think the announcement today on adult basic education is a good example that it isn't the intention. By removing the tuition barrier to adult basic education in the college system -- and I think the member himself said this in his comments earlier in the day -- we level the playing field and enable the adult basic education system, K-to-12 and colleges to work in a more coordinated and effective way to meet student needs. The PLNet announcement and the software agreement I referred to were agreements that combined college and K-to-12 elements. It's certainly my intention to continue to maintain good, strong relations with my counterpart. The ministry executive offices are located side by side in St. Ann's, as the member knows. We want to maintain the strength that came about through the conjunction of K-to-12 and post-secondary within the ministry but use the opportunity we now have to focus energies in both areas without sacrificing that.

[3:45]

This little aside: I appreciate the member's comments about St. Ann's Academy, because -- wearing my Provincial Capital Commission hat and my B.C. Buildings Corporation hat as well -- that was a project that I have been personally involved in seeing through. It has been a major restoration of a very significant historical structure, but it's one that has been brought back to life for a very useful purpose. I appreciate the member's remarks in that regard.

On policy -- we will no doubt have time to discuss this in more detail -- let me just say with respect to the critical issues task force that we have already implemented all of the recommendations in phase 1 and are certainly going to be looking at moving on additional recommendations as resources allow. This ministry and its predecessor have worked hard to develop a framework policy around colleges to get them to better combine their efforts in a common vision for education. We hope to do the same with universities.

On the tuition freeze, I'm always perplexed by the member's clarification. I won't engage in any rhetoric here. The member assures us that he's supportive of the tuition freeze, but as I recall during the debate on the legislation, it seemed to me that the one letter he chose to read was from a student who was inalterably opposed to the tuition freeze. Go figure, hon. Chair. I'll leave it for others to figure today, and I'll do my own figuring another time. I would say, though, that it really is the pot calling the kettle black to suggest that this government is trying to play off the needs of students against the needs of institutions. It's quite the opposite. We've made the point that a tuition freeze and a quality education can co-exist. The opposition has constantly suggested that one comes at the expense of the other and that the needs of students, if they are met in a tuition freeze, could compromise the needs of institutions. So I think the finger was pointing in the wrong direction on that particular allegation.

As for Mr. Ed Lavalle's comments, I believe the comments the member is referring to were made at the time of the announcement of the tuition freeze but before the announcement of the funding lift. So Mr. Lavalle was noting that the tuition freeze and its implications had not, to that point, been met with a corresponding increase in resources for colleges. That was true. But about a week later, the announcement was made on colleges and universities funding, and I think Mr. Lavalle's remarks at that time were extremely laudatory and positive.

In terms of the general comment about the government's attitude towards colleges and institutions and universities, again I guess the member was pointing somewhere else in this

[ Page 7787 ]

On the question of research and development, I appreciate the acknowledgment that we are committing $100 million over six years to develop the necessary infrastructure to ensure that we take advantage of the talent we have in B.C. to do world-class research, to draw new investment into the province to do research and to create jobs. I don't see this as following a federal announcement, though I suppose it does in time. What it does is ensure that we will lead the country by capturing the maximum number of federal dollars from the Canada Foundation for Innovation and by making sure that those dollars, matched by provincial dollars, are targeted at research that will produce benefits in B.C. That's one of the primary criteria of the provincial program. Again, I appreciate the member's acknowledgment.

In terms of information technology and the opportunities that exist generally in the technology sector, I agree that they have huge opportunities. But I just caution the member to be a little careful in terms of saying that the government should get out of the face of people here. There's no doubt that this is a dynamic sector, a competitive sector, and government shouldn't be in there picking winners or losers. On the other hand, government has a critical role to play, which the vast majority of people in this sector constantly refer to, in providing educational resources and support, in providing support for research, in providing the infrastructure that's necessary for this opportunity -- whether it's developing human capital through investments in education or developing the research infrastructure, the physical capital, so that research will take place. All of those things require a supportive and committed government. So it's a question of partnership here, too, and it's a partnership that I'm certainly committed to continuing.

J. Weisbeck: I had a unique experience today. I introduced a number of students prior to question period. Just prior to coming in here, we sat down with them, and I thought: here's an opportunity for them to sit down and write down. . . . Given the opportunity to ask a minister a question, what questions would they ask? I have a number of questions from students at UVIC, UBC, SFU and, I think, Camosun. I will just proceed with those. I have three questions here, and they're from Ryan Marshall, Kaveh Namdaran and Dennis Visser.

Here's the first: what do you propose to do about fourth-year students having to come back for a fifth year to complete their major, due to unavailable classes? Are you recommending that we go to private forms of funding for that, or will government funding be increased?

Hon. A. Petter: Just before I answer the question, let me introduce two other members of the dynamic team in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, who are going to help direct this ministry in the future. Robin Ciceri, seated to my right, is assistant deputy minister in charge of post-secondary education. Seated behind me is someone who comes to us on waivers when we need him, Jim Crone, who is assistant deputy minister of the management services division with the Ministry of Education. Because we are trying to combine resources, he also serves in that role with respect to management services in this ministry. I welcome them here and very much appreciate their support.

I think the answer to the question is that obviously we have a challenge to make sure not only that students have a doorway into post-secondary education but that doorways within those institutions remain open for classes. In the member's introductory comments, he talked about the fact that in the two previous budget years, we did challenge institutions to expand spaces without increasing resources -- through greater efficiencies. We did that because we believed they had the capacity. Other provinces were reducing funding and expecting colleges and universities to reduce spaces by a lesser amount than the funding cuts would suggest. What we said to institutions was that we had a proposal. That proposal was that we'll maintain funding; we won't decrease it like other provinces have. We won't pass through the cuts from the federal government, but we expect you to maintain services. Colleges and universities did a great job doing that, but it wasn't easy. To some extent that meant that classrooms got larger; to some extent it meant that certain classes became fuller. Therefore in some cases it became more difficult to get access to certain courses. What the colleges and universities said to us this year was: "We've done that. We've reached the limits of our capacity there, and now we need more resources." What this government said in the budget was: "We agree. Congratulations, you've done a great job. You now need to have the additional resources if we're going to increase spaces." So we provided them with substantial new resources -- resources which don't only go to fund the new spaces but, because incremental cost of a new space is less than the full cost of funding, will allow them to deal with some of these other stresses and strains they've felt.

Where does that leave us? The short answer to the student's question is no. We must provide adequate funding so that universities and colleges can provide courses to those who need them. That's exactly what we've done in this year's budget.

I appreciate that there have been some stresses, although I'd much rather have the stresses that we've had here -- of colleges and universities trying to make sure students have all the course offerings they want -- as opposed to the stresses in Alberta or Ontario. There, college students or those who wish to become college students haven't had a chance to get any courses, because they haven't been able to get in the door. But in this year's budget, we've recognized that there is need for more resources. We've provided those resources. It'll never be easy; it'll never be as much as they want. But institutions, colleges and universities will be in a better position this year to deal with some of these stresses, while ensuring that the basic access for new students is provided, so that we see 2,900 new students in the coming year as well.

J. Weisbeck: I was very concerned when I canvassed them at UVic about the loss of courses, particularly in the political science field. They lost quite a number of the high-level courses. The students are very, very concerned. There's not much economy in the fact that you have to go back for an extra year because you couldn't get your courses.

[ Page 7788 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, first of all, I've already indicated that my view is that we must make sure that institutions, universities and colleges have resources so that students aren't faced with the choice of doing an extra year. I would simply note that we have made a substantial increase in our commitment to student financial assistance. We have one of the most generous, if not the most generous, packages in the country. It depends on how you compare us with Ontario, because we have a significant grant component of our program. We've increased that commitment this year by over $14 million. Clearly, through the tuition freeze and through that support, we are providing support to students that goes beyond that of virtually any other province in the country.

J. Weisbeck: I didn't see anything in the budget that makes up for those inflationary costs that occurred in the two previous years where there was basically a flat budget. If you could answer that, please.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, we didn't go back and try to make up for the past two years. The agreement in the previous years -- and this was done cooperatively by my predecessor with the colleges and universities -- was: we won't cut budgets as others are, if you can increase efficiency and effectiveness by expanding spaces. What we did in this year's budget, though, was fully fund the new positions and add some additional component because of the absence of access to tuition resources. That not only enables colleges and universities to use those resources for the new students, but because the incremental cost of a new student is less than the full funding, they can then use those resources to deal with other problems.

The clearest evidence of this is that the complaint this year was that colleges and universities weren't getting enough new positions. I had university and college presidents saying to me: "Couldn't you give me some more FTEs?" Every dollar that they got in funding for a new FTE was a dollar that they could then reallocate to meeting some of their other needs.

So we didn't go back, but we did provide full funding for new students at a level that is higher than the incremental cost and therefore benefits the institutions beyond simply the added cost of those new students.

J. Weisbeck: Here is the second question these students had: "B.C. has a great loan remission program, but many students are unaware of it and how it works. What do you propose to do to increase student use of this program?"

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I propose to challenge the Liberal opposition, and this critic in particular, to go around the province and trumpet what a great loan remission program we have, so that the message will be shared in a non-partisan way by all members of this House and so that people in constituencies other than my own will hear that message from their MLA.

J. Weisbeck: Another question:

"At post-secondary schools like UBC, budget cuts have caused the number of high-quality faculty -- tenured and sessional professors -- to decrease because the pay is becoming so low that many of them can't afford to live here. As a result, TAs are forced to deal with larger groups of students, and class sizes are growing steadily. Don't you feel that some course of action should be taken to counteract this detrimental effect on the quality of education?"

[4:00]

J. Weisbeck: The same student.

Hon. A. Petter: I mean, far be it from me to argue against increased faculty salaries, but. . . . Let me just say that in my experience in talking to faculty members, it isn't so much the question of salaries. It's the question of research opportunities and the quality of the educational experience in which they participate that are most determinate of their decision to stay or to not stay. Certainly at UBC, for example, where we announced this major new research initiative, the degree of enthusiasm for that announcement from faculty members, who can see an opportunity to pursue their research and to have that research translate into opportunities, was much greater than I expect would be the case with any faculty salary increase. But I will leave the question of faculty salaries to the negotiating table. I believe that at the end of the day, though, the commitment to educate -- not through salaries so much, but through the quality of the educational environment -- is going to be more of a determining factor in attracting and retaining qualified faculty and researchers here in B.C.

J. Weisbeck: This question is from Sophia Wong:

"How do you feel about provincial post-secondary academic regulations? I feel that all post-secondary institutions should have the same academic regulations. At SFU, for example, a student may retake courses five times over her degree. I feel this is harsh, and it wouldn't be fair if this regulation did not apply to other post-secondary institutions."

J. Weisbeck: This question is from Jan Dhaliwal:

"Education is very limited and it is limited to certain people. Even though there are certain cutbacks, students are still suffering. Only a limited number of students can obtain a post-secondary education. There are not enough spaces available for postgraduate students. There are more students than spaces. What can be done for this? Education is ranked very highly in B.C. and Canada. There is a massive competition. How can there be more spaces created? Many students are being cheated of education because there is not a space for them. These students have much to offer to better our society. Why can the government not create space?"

[ Page 7789 ]

This province has seen an extraordinary increase in its participation rate, in marked contrast to other provinces that have seen a reduction in their participation rate. The affordability of education and the commitment to funding are part of the answer to that. It's one of the reasons why students in this province pay $1,000 to $1,400 less than they would for a year of university education in Alberta or Ontario. Ontario, of course, is going dramatically in the other direction.

I say to this student: right on! We have to make sure we broaden spaces. But I also invite the student to go back and read the newspapers in the fall of 1991, before we became government. I think you'll find that the issue every fall was that students couldn't get into institutions. By and large in this province, that is not the major concern now. The concern now is: are the resources there once they get into institutions? That's because we have expanded spaces. The wait-lists that used to exist. . . . One of the reasons I ran for office was that I was concerned about those wait-lists. That meant the students were discouraged, were turned away and were not given the opportunities. Those wait-lists have been reduced and have largely disappeared.

J. Weisbeck: Joanne Gardiner asked these questions: "There are two financial issues: increased students loans and student debt, decreased classes and increased waitlists -- possibly as a result of the tuition fees. What is being done to aid students financially -- more grants? Larger class sizes greatly decrease the quality of education and greatly increase the student failure rate." The question is: what is being done to aid students financially -- more grants?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I have already sort of answered this. About $14 million is being added this year to the student financial aid budget. There has been a significant uptake in fact, because students have been made aware of student financial assistance through the Guarantee for Youth last year and Youth Options B.C. this year. We have made a major increase to student financial assistance, and we have provided student financial assistance by not allowing tuition fees to increase. That has had a hugely beneficial effect in providing access to students.

I can't let the moment pass without saying that today, of course, we added to that substantially by saying that students who require adult basic education at the college level will not have to confront the barrier represented by a tuition fee in that instance either.

In all those ways, plus the opportunities that have been created for students to earn additional dollars through some of the Youth Options B.C. initiatives -- and more to come -- we are very cognizant of the need to make sure that students do have access, support and the resources they need to participate in the education system.

J. Weisbeck: This is from Rita Amisano: "With B.C.'s increasing unemployment rate, which is currently at 19.2 percent, graduates are finding it harder and harder to find employment. Don't you think that job training programs should be put in place that provide an opportunity for youths to utilize their academic skills in a professional environment?"

Hon. A. Petter: I do, and the Student Summer Works program is a response to that. I'd also say that the government has been looking at other mechanisms that might utilize the talents and skills of youth and students in terms of participating with non-profit groups and gaining some benefit from that participation. I hope we'll have more to say on that shortly. Again, I agree strongly with the sentiment that we must ensure that there are opportunities for students to get the training and a bridge from the academic to the practical. Much of that now takes place in our institutions through co-op programs, for example, which certainly have been a very, very useful mechanism and one that has been expanded by most institutions.

It also has been the case that government has supported that transition in certain sectors. For example, I had the tremendous pleasure of announcing a First Job in Science and Technology program -- $2 million -- which essentially creates a form of apprenticeship for the first six months for a student with technical skills to actually get their first job with a software company, for example, and to make it affordable for that company to hire that student in preference to someone more experienced from outside the jurisdiction. After the six months, more often than not, the student will stay with the company. That means a B.C. student, instead of someone from somewhere else, gets a long-term job.

J. Weisbeck: This might be a difficult one to answer here. Sophia Wong: "How easy is it for someone to be hired as a teacher's assistant?"

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is: I don't know the answer. But I think it's a decision left to the school districts, and I will defer to my colleague responsible for Education to answer that for the member and for the student in an appropriate forum.

J. Weisbeck: This question is from George Pringle from the University of Victoria.

"I'm a student at UVic, registered in the post-graduate diploma program in public sector management. In 1996, in response to the first tuition freeze act, the school of public administration imposed a course service fee of $50 in addition to the cost of the course material. Prior, some course materials cost $15 and some up to $50. The school claims that they are only covering increased costs, but every course package was raised a flat $50. In addition, over the past two years the course package price has gone up an average of 10 percent. Clearly this is an illegal tuition hike -- by another name -- of over 20 percent."

J. Weisbeck: This is from Matthew Kroekar from SFU: "Is it possible to maintain a high quality of post-secondary education during a tuition freeze without causing the public debt to massively increase? Are both goals possible to accomplish?"

[ Page 7790 ]

J. Weisbeck: The next question is: "You've now had the opportunity, with the tuition freeze, to relook at the sort of impact that this freeze has had. So after two years -- and obviously it is a barrier to post-secondary education -- how much of a barrier do you think it is?"

Hon. A. Petter: I assume that the question is: to what extent is tuition, not the tuition freeze, a barrier to education? I think it varies as to how much the tuition that is charged is a barrier. The problem is, of course, that it represents a very substantial barrier to those people for whom education is probably the greatest priority -- the people who have not had the opportunity or who come from families with backgrounds that have not had the opportunity to benefit from education. More often than not, it is those people who are suffering the most in our economy for whom tuition then represents the greatest barrier. The barrier represented by tuition tends to create a vicious circle for those who we most need to ensure are not caught in that vicious circle. By constraining tuition, therefore, you make sure that that group of students, whom tuition could keep in that cycle of frustration and lack of opportunity, break out of that cycle. When you break out of that cycle, that break tends to last into the future. It means not only that those students get that opportunity but that they also then have the opportunity to create better lives for themselves, for their families and for their kids -- and society benefits.

So I don't think it's a barrier for everyone. But I think it is a barrier that is substantial for those who most need our support. I think the alternative might be to try to target, somehow, relief to the poor. We do some of that within our student financial aid package. But the trouble with trying to design programs for the poor is that too often you get poor programs. That's because they don't enjoy the universality and the support. So, anticipating where the member might go with this, I believe the tuition freeze is very important in terms of dealing with the barrier that it poses to that very important segment of society. Beyond that, though, it's a psychological barrier.

The fact is this: post-secondary education today is as essential to getting an opportunity in today's economy as a high school education was when I went to high school -- those not too many years ago. If we really believe in public education and we believe that public education is fundamental and that government has a responsibility, then we should be looking at reducing tuition, either by freezing it against rising costs of living or actually bringing it down in our post-secondary sector, just in order to make it clear that we are retaining our commitment to public education and that that commitment is keeping up with the realities of the changing marketplace and the demands that are placed upon people.

[4:15]

Hon. A. Petter: The way I measure it, in my short duration as minister, is by seeing what a difference it has made to the students that I talk to when I go to universities, colleges, institutes and various campuses around this province. Students come up to me, unsolicited, and say: "This freeze has really meant that my parents are going to have the opportunity to enable me to continue education that I wouldn't otherwise have. It's made the difference in terms of my ability to be able to continue my education." So I don't know how you measure those things, but I have no difficulty measuring it against the experiences that I hear from people every day, for whom this government's commitment to keeping tuition lower than other provinces has made huge differences in their lives and in their outlooks. That's measurement enough for me.

J. Weisbeck: I realize that it would be difficult to implement, but we know that it doesn't affect all of the student population. There are certain ones that are more needy than others, and I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. Have you seen any change in the participation rate because of this tuition freeze?

Hon. A. Petter: It's hard to correlate why changes in participation rate take place -- whether it's the tuition freeze or increased funding -- but the numbers are pretty dramatic. Between 1993-94 and 1996-97, which spans the period of the tuition freeze, B.C.'s rate of participation increased by a total of 7 percent, while the rest of Canada actually decreased by 2.5 percent. Some of that is because we increased the number of spaces, but I think some of it is because we did not increase tuition in the way that other provinces did. I suspect that the continuation of the tuition freeze will continue that fairly dramatic trend.

J. Weisbeck: I would like to know where all this is going. What is the government's policy for tuition? Are we now looking toward freezing it for the next several years? Are we looking to decrease it?

An Hon. Member: They won't be there that long.

J. Weisbeck: That's right; that's true enough.

Is this the direction you're going? Do you think that this should basically be a tuition-free society?

Hon. A. Petter: This is an opportunity for the member opposite to share his philosophy and views on this. The opposition often comments that they don't have a chance to engage constructively and influence the government. I would be very, very interested if he wants to put his position on the record.

My position is quite clear. I believe, philosophically. . . . You have to measure philosophy and one's goals against the

[ Page 7791 ]

I'll tell you where we started today. We started with adults and young people who need and are prepared to put in the effort to get a high school diploma or high school credentials, and we took away the barrier for those students in the college system. That's a very important announcement, because it does signal the direction and the priority. I believe that's where we start: right at the high school level. If it's within my capacities and the resources of government -- and all the other priorities of government and the other priorities of the opposition -- to move beyond that and give students greater access than they now have to first year, for example, and get those students for whom that first step from high school to post-secondary education is psychologically and financially a major one -- maybe because they come from families that have not had that experience -- boy, I'll do what I can to bring those barriers down. You bet I will. I believe this government will, too, because it's too important. It's fundamental.

When we set up public education, not just in this country but in other countries, we did it because we believed education was a right; it was a right that enabled people to move from their position into a position of real equality of opportunity to participate. If we still believe that, against an increasingly competitive marketplace -- and the opposition always talks about how competitive it is -- then we'd better be prepared to measure up when it comes to providing students, young and old, with the opportunities they need to actually realize what equality of opportunity is and to participate.

You bet I'm prepared to move whatever I can to reduce those barriers, within the limits we have and recognizing that these things are always going to be balanced against other priorities. That's my answer, hon. member. What's yours?

J. Weisbeck: I think that if you're talking about affordability of education for students, you can't have one-size-fits-all. I alluded to that earlier. Some families can afford to pay, and in some situations, the job opportunities are there, where students can finance their own education. I've always felt that having a value on something -- a student having to pay for something -- is not a bad thing. I'm obviously very concerned about the economics of the whole process. If a student is being held back from university because they can't afford to go, then that's obviously a concern of mine as well. But I think that there are different situations. It's very difficult to say that you could freeze or have free tuition for everybody. That's not necessary. You have to have funds and loans and access to education, and make those funds available to students so that everybody has access to the system. But there are so many things regarding affordability; obviously tuition is only one of them.

Having had the opportunity to speak to the students just an hour and a half ago. . . . They're very concerned about housing, and that's the major part of their expense. What is it -- $9,000 a year it's costing a student now to go to school? You know the tuition fee is a very small part of that, compared to housing up there. What are we doing about that? I spoke to an SFU student, who said that there's inadequate housing at SFU. What is government doing about trying to supply more student housing?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I'm intrigued by the member's answer about affordability. I don't want to discount the fact that, yes, we do have limits on our ability to always act in the direction we want. But the member's argument could be applied to the K-to-12 system. There are many families in this province who, I'm sure, could afford to pay to send their kids through the K-to-12 system. But I kind of thought that we had a commitment to public, universally accessible education which transcended that and which said that that value is more important. I'm intrigued that the member doesn't see that this argument now applies in terms of the direction we should be headed in post-secondary, given the changes in the economy that he and other members of his caucus often reference and the need to get a job, which he cited in his own introductory remarks for post-secondary education. You can't have it both ways, it seems to me. If the argument is its affordability, then why don't we apply that in K-to-12? If the argument is that there is some kind of entitlement for basic education, then is his argument, too, that the post-secondary system is not basic? It's pretty hard, it seems to me, in light of his own statistics, to maintain that.

Outside of tuition, the member is obviously right, particularly for students as they graduate from high school and leave, very often, the home in which they may have been raised and have to worry about living allowances. Other costs come into play -- books and living -- and that is where we do have a very progressive student financial aid package, comprising loans and grants, which is designed to provide living allowances and support for students. We are very committed to continuing and enhancing that.

It's regrettable that the federal government in its recent budget decided not to broaden that basic program based on need, but decided instead to create some new program that really works outside of the existing system and that will create all sorts of conflicts and difficulties for it. Those new resources could have gone into some of these needs the member is referencing. Indeed, I'm hoping, through discussions with my federal counterpart, that we can still persuade the federal government to put them in that direction.

In addition, on the particular question of housing, I might say that we also have done much in this province -- this has not just been a question of this administration, but of the last number of years -- to move educational opportunities closer to people's homes so that they don't have to leave their communities in order to get education. That's one of the reasons why the college system has been the focus of much of the expansion of the system: to bring education closer to people's communities and homes and, in addition, to provide people with the support they need to have the necessary housing when they require it, when they do move or have to relocate.

J. Weisbeck: I have some more questions here. From Stephanie Bryson, the first question is: "Can student fare discounts apply to all students, regardless of age -- for example, B.C. Ferries, 15 to 20 years. . . ?"

Hon. A. Petter: Happily, I'm not responsible for B.C. Ferries, and I don't know their policy or the answer to that. It's an interesting question, and I'd be happy to follow it up. I'm curious, actually -- but not for the purpose of this debate -- to find out what the definition of student means to different agencies. I'm not familiar with the information.

[ Page 7792 ]

Hon. A. Petter: As I say, in this year's budget we have provided funding for all of the new spaces we're asking colleges and universities to create. That should help provide additional resources not only for the new students but also for existing students. To the extent that class size is a barrier to learning. . . . And it isn't always; it depends on the nature of the course. Large classes may be appropriate in some cases, and the use of technology can also help in other cases. But to the extent that it is, the funding we've provided in this year's budget should be most helpful to institutions in meeting these concerns.

[4:30]

Hon. A. Petter: No. The value that's being sought to be protected through the system of tenure is that of academic freedom and that of promoting independent and critical research. Certainly that's a value that we don't want to see undermined. In the case of the Technical University, for example, there were some strong objections, initially, from the CAUT and others. Those have been worked out by addressing the concern of academic freedom substantively, through consultations and discussions. I don't propose that we would tell existing universities how they are to deal with these issues. They are well-equipped to do that and, within their governing structures, to deal with professors who aren't measuring up. The purpose of a system of tenure is not to protect -- never has been nor should it be -- people who are not measuring up in terms of their abilities as teachers, researchers or whatever. It's there to protect academic freedom. It's up to the institutions to make sure that it is doing the one but not doing the other -- that is, protecting academic freedom and the ability to research but not protecting those who are not living up to their contractual obligations.

J. Weisbeck: The extra costs a single-parent student faces by having to take on a lower course load -- this means more time to finish a degree and therefore a larger student loan. I guess he's looking at what sort of allowances, if any, could be made for single parents.

Hon. A. Petter: This in an area I'm not familiar with in detail. In general, students with dependents do have their additional costs recognized and acknowledged within the student financial assistance programs that exist, and that's reflected in the degree of support that's provided to them.

J. Weisbeck: "The debate on campus involving the university's role in vocational training. . . ." And they say it should be addressed at colleges. "Universities are primarily research-oriented. Where are new researchers going to come from? Where do new ideas come from?" That gives a whole philosophical approach here about the role of colleges and universities.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I'm not sure exactly what the term "vocational training" means in this context. But there is this debate. I think it's as false a debate as saying that protecting tuition necessarily puts you in conflict with the needs of colleges and universities -- to say that one has to choose here. The fact is that universities have done a pretty good job of showing that they can attend to the practical application of the skills they teach their students, through things like co-op programs, for example. In certain areas, practicums and things are provided for teachers. Is that vocational? I'm not sure how vocational is being used here. But there's no reason why research cannot coexist with training that can take academic skills and make them usable by students in ways that are relevant to the workplace. It's not either-or; it should be both. I think universities and colleges are good at providing both.

J. Weisbeck: There's been quite a bit of concern about corporate sponsorship and advertising at the universities. I know that recently in the Vancouver Sun they showed Coca-Cola having this huge impact at UBC. I recently received a newsletter from BCIT, where there were also some concerns about the privatization of public post-secondary education in British Columbia. They had a number of concerns, and I'd like the minister to address those, please.

This is the BCIT Faculty and Staff Association in their association newsletter -- I just think that it raises some interesting questions: "does accepting major donations from private organizations result in expectations for contracts [or] product purchase that might not be beneficial to [this particular institution]?"

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I won't address the specific; I'll address the general. My view is that institutions looking for new resources will look to the private sector to form partnerships, to make agreements. If they're providing food services and they can get a more efficient and cost-effective form of food service by signing an agreement with one contractor or one company as opposed to another, I think the public would expect them to do that. What mustn't occur -- it shouldn't occur -- is for those relationships to compromise the objectives of the institution, certainly in terms of its educational programming but also in terms of its other objectives. Providing food that is nutritious would be an example.

So again, I think that the issue is not whether there should be corporate sponsorships or corporate relationships. I think that inevitably there will be, and they may well help institutions to meet some of their financial goals. The question is: is the institution making sure that those relationships are achieving the benefits they're designed to achieve while not compromising either the academic educational goals or other important goals of the institution? And that, of course, for educational institutions -- as for government, the private sector and everyone else -- requires judgment. But it is judgment that I am hopeful and confident that institutions are capable of exercising.

J. Weisbeck: The second question they have is: "Does the strong imperative for all levels of the organization to be entrepreneurial and profit-making take too much attention away from the provision of effective education and learning opportunities for students?"

[ Page 7793 ]

What I'd say is that there will always be pressure to get more resources. But if governments provide funding at the level this government has, it means that this pressure is less likely to be the kind of pressure that could lead to compromising the values and standards of the institution. So I expect that institutions will go out and try to get additional dollars to meet additional needs. But I am less concerned that it will compromise their objectives -- because I am confident that we are providing them with an adequate measure of funding -- than I would be if it were the case that we weren't providing that adequate measure of funding.

J. Weisbeck: The final question they have in their newsletter is: "Do partnerships that involve private organizations providing instructors and/or curriculum materials allow for effective quality control?"

Hon. A. Petter: Like everything else, it depends. It seems to me that it is a question of whether the institution, in using whatever materials, makes sure that it has chosen those materials for the right reason, that it ensures that the materials serve the objectives of the institution, that there is adequate measurement of whether or not students are benefiting from the materials, and that the materials are being applied in a way that is consistent with those objectives. It's not a question of saying: "Absolutely no; we'll never use materials that are provided in this way" -- or that we will always use them. It's a question of viewing them as a resource that should be used when it serves the interests and objectives of the institution, and not otherwise.

J. Weisbeck: I have a couple of questions about freedom of information. Typically, in tier 1 inquiries directed to government there are funds available for that. Many tier 2 or tier 3 levels -- which has, obviously, the universities and colleges included in that -- are expected to comply with these requests. But they don't have any funding in place to do this; they're sort of on their own hook for this. You could say that there's been a huge increase in the inquiries. Are there any plans for funding being allocated to colleges and universities?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is that we -- as the member is aware, I think -- don't fund institutions in terms of their particular administrative needs or try to micromanage them in that way. In fact, I suspect the member would find it problematic if we did do that and provided funding for this but not for that. It would be a bit of an intrusion into the administration. We expect institutions, within their global budgets, to meet those needs.

What we do in this particular area, through this ministry, is provide liaison and support to help institutions in terms of dealing with requests for freedom of information, and give them advice as to how they might structure themselves administratively in order to meet those demands in an efficient, effective way that meets the requirements of the legislation.

J. Weisbeck: My concern is, as the funding gets cut in the rest of the system -- for example, if the Ministry of Education has reduced funding for or increased fees for administering FOI -- whether or not these will get sort of downloaded onto the colleges, so they see their volume increase as well. How do they handle that?

Hon. A. Petter: There are a lot of dimensions to this whole issue that we might want to get back into, if the member is interested, when we're looking at ISTA or the freedom-of-information side of things. Generally, if the member's drift is that somehow changes that take place in respect of fees or in respect of FTEs within government in terms of tier 1 requests might affect in some way or other the ability we have to support colleges, the answer is that we don't anticipate that those will affect our ability to provide support.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Hogg: I'm pleased to introduce to the House and to welcome a class of students from White Rock Elementary School -- a school which is my alma mater. Bienvenue à la classe de l'école première White Rock, l'école où moi aussi j'ai fait mes études il y a longtemps. I'd like the House to please welcome the students from the French immersion program at White Rock Elementary School.

[4:45]

Hon. A. Petter: Certainly, as far as I'm concerned.

J. Weisbeck: There is some concern that it would be absorbed into the University of Victoria system. That's the reason I'm asking the question. I think it's a great institution. I think that it offers a very, very unique type of education, and obviously we talk about the need for flexibility. I think it certainly serves that purpose.

I want to talk a little about the task force report that was commissioned by the former minister. It was recent -- October, 1997. This is phase 2. There were a number of findings of this task force. I'd just like to talk about those for a bit.

My second question was the base funding level. . . . It does not provide for non-salary inflation. The 1998-99 costs of collective agreements will result in the reduction of staffing. Does this budget allow for the increase in costs of the collective agreement?

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is yes.

J. Weisbeck: Does that mean there will be a freeze on salaries?

Hon. A. Petter: The institutions will be and have been to some extent negotiating, as they always do with faculty members. There is no intention for there to be any freeze, but obviously the employers operate within limits that help to define their mandates. No, there is no freeze.

J. Weisbeck: The task force found -- in No. 3 -- that the government's grant in '96-97 is a smaller fraction of their

[ Page 7794 ]

Hon. A. Petter: The way in which it will be funded this year -- because we did fund student spaces, staff inform me -- has resulted in no reduction in the grant per FTE this year over last; it will remain constant. But because there are certain economies of scale, as I mentioned earlier, the additional dollars that are provided per FTE can help to resolve issues. To put it slightly differently, the incremental cost is not necessarily the same for these additional FTEs, so the fact that they're being funded at the same level provides an added benefit to the institution.

J. Weisbeck: Item 6 in the task force's findings states that the consequences of funding limitations vary in terms of geography and the socioeconomic status of students. The small colleges in less populated areas are affected first, and then the more costly programs for high-maintenance students next, which has the potential of widening the disparity of opportunities for British Columbians. Obviously the more wealthy areas get more dollars than the rural and urban areas. How does the ministry plan to address this?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that following upon the task force recommendations and concerns about some of the smaller institutions and their funding bases, we received a report -- I think it's referred to as the Culver report -- that looked at four particular institutions. Based on that report, the funding allocation to those institutions was increased in order to reflect some of the pressures they're under. That kind of review and attention is given to institutions that may not have received as much funding as they would want and have suffered because they are small institutions in rural or remote areas. We continue to look at and attend to this issue.

Let me just say that I'm joined in this part of the debate by Tom Austin, director of post-secondary finance and information management. I just want to acknowledge his presence here for the members.

J. Weisbeck: The seventh finding of this study was that the technological infrastructure and equipment capacity of the system is so low that it affects the level and degree of education, training and support services that each institution can offer its students. Could you just address that, please?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, we've done a number of things in response to both this report and the software summit that was held by my predecessor to talk about certain technology issues. I referenced some of them earlier, but just briefly: the provincial learning network -- $123 million will essentially link up the colleges and K-to-12 institutions throughout this province in an information network. In addition, we provided to colleges an additional $2 million beyond the grants previously provided in this year's budget for obtaining new equipment, particularly computer equipment. We signed a software agreement with major software companies that will result in savings to colleges of about $1.7 million which they can then reinvest in alternative, more advanced software or in other needs -- technology needs in particular. Also, as the member may recall, as part of our 2,900 student FTEs this year, we, in conjunction with institutions, designated 500 of those for high-tech training positions.

J. Weisbeck: We talked about this a little bit earlier, but they have a very interesting little pie chart in this report too. Once again, I'm interested in knowing where the ministry's direction is going as far as the various players' responsibilities are concerned. What sort of a percentage of tuition fees do you expect to see? What government grants. . . ? What is this pie going to look like next year?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not much with pie charts, but it seems to me that if we freeze tuition and increase provincial grants, it is a corollary that the portion of the pie for tuition will become smaller while the rest of the pie will become larger. I think that's axiomatic. In other words, freezing tuition and at the same time increasing grants to institutions will necessarily have the effect of making the tuition component of funding for institutions somewhat smaller.

J. Weisbeck: There was an interesting report that came out, written by Robert Allen, who is an economist from UBC. I'm sure you're very aware of this. I thought it was interesting, because he certainly has a good insight into what the needs are going to be for the future. But he also talks about B.C.'s position in all of this and feels that we're not producing enough university graduates for the province. If we look at our statistics, we see that B.C. has a very high percentage of educated people, but his claim is that we're having a lot of migration to our province because of the lack of this training. So we're relying on other provinces to educate our people. He claims that there's a need for 35,000 university graduates. There's also a comment from Dr. Sheehan from the Tech U, who estimates that we're probably in need of about 20,000 university graduates.

I'm wondering what number of university graduates you think would be required in this province to fulfil our needs, and if you could give me your comments on Dr. Allen's report.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me answer in this way: I think that there are over 140,000 students in the post-secondary system throughout the province right now.

The difficulty with Dr. Allen's report. . . . But first of all, what is positive about it? What is positive about Dr. Allen's report is that he clearly focuses on the importance of post-secondary education, in particular to the economy and to the future of this province. And I think that's a very constructive and helpful contribution. The difficulty with the report is that because there's this time lag of information and because he focuses on universities, it creates a picture that is somewhat less positive than in fact the reality would suggest.

The fact is that this province made a very conscious decision to grow spaces in its college system -- under this government but also under previous governments. If you look at the university situation, it somewhat distorts the larger situation about our growth in participation rates, for example, which I talked about earlier, and the direction we're going in.

I don't want to prescribe a particular number. I think we do need to broaden participation, as we have in terms of degrees, which is one form of measurement. We have had a lower percentage of official degrees than the population would suggest. In 1991-92, I think it was about 7.8 percent, and by 1995-96, it had grown to 9 percent. I am confident that with the continued funding we have given to universities and university colleges and institutes, it will continue to grow against other jurisdictions that will either shrink or stay the same. We'll see it grow.

[ Page 7795 ]

So we need to take a look at the larger picture and the larger trend, and that larger picture and larger trend here in British Columbia is one of increasing participation rates, increasing involvement in a way that really sets us apart from the rest of the country. Although I reiterate that, even in the case of the narrower measure of degrees, even based on information that is now almost four years out of date, we still are seeing a remarkable improvement against the backdrop of what's happening in other provinces.

[5:00]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I said earlier that I don't think it is question of either-or. At a very personal level, I believe that the value of education has many components to it, two obvious ones being the civic value -- the fact that education does help people to broaden their understanding of issues and to become more civically aware and participate in society -- and the fact that it does provide applied skills and knowledge that can then lead into direct participation in the labour market. I don't think it's either-or.

So I agree with the member. I think universities can, and indeed are, finding new strategies to maintain their educational curriculum in a way that achieves both objectives. I don't know if we lead the country in co-op programs, but I suspect we are pretty far out there in terms of success in co-op programs. I am certainly aware that in a number of institutions, we have co-op programs in areas other jurisdictions don't. I know from my own experience that at the University of Victoria, for example, the law faculty has a co-op program. I think it's the first law faculty in the country to have one. The public administration faculty has a co-op program, and business and other faculties have co-op programs.

That's a very good way of allowing students to take the intellectual, academic and research skills that they acquire and place them right into an environment where they are tested and honed and developed in a backdrop of practical and applied training. They then go back to the institution and it becomes an iterative process. Plus, institutions are looking at all sorts of ways of applying this.

The ministry's efforts to work with post-secondary institutions on "Charting a New Course," a document the member is probably familiar with, focus on the need to cultivate both the intellectual development of students and the ability of those students to have applied and technical skills that will assist them in making the entry to the workforce. At the end of the day, I don't even think it's a dichotomy in the workforce. When I talk to employers, they tell me: "Sure, we like people to have some technical skills, but the way the market is changing or the way demands are, we want people who are smart, who understand the community in which they operate, who can anticipate change and who can accommodate change." So they want critical, bright, intellectually aware people. They don't want people who just have technical skills whose value might be outworn in five years, unless those individuals have the ability to keep up and stay ahead.

J. Weisbeck: Clearly, in his report there's a table that shows that there is no doubt that British Columbia is ahead in the number of people with university degrees. But it also shows that we're not producing that number of degrees. Relative to the rest of the provinces, we're the lowest of all the provinces in that regard. I guess his concern is that we're depriving some of our youth, British Columbians, of jobs and the ability to go out there into the workforce. Obviously this is one of his arguments for the expansion of the university program. I wonder if you would comment on that.

Hon. A. Petter: I kind of thought I had commented on it, actually. As I say, I think Dr. Allen does focus on universities. He's a very strong advocate for universities, and I appreciate that.

I'll just reiterate two points. One is that the number of degrees provided, in universities in particular, is lower than the average that we would have by population. But it has grown by a substantial amount in recent years. Therefore the direction is one that I would think Dr. Allen would support.

The other is. . . . Let's recognize that we've made a very conscious choice as a province to grow a very extensive college-based system that is present in a huge number of communities around this province. It has brought education closer to home. When you do that, you provide education in a different setting. But I don't believe the value of that education is any less.

J. Weisbeck: I'm finding that with this report, as well, he's talking about. . . . Most of the undergraduate programs are located in the lower mainland and Victoria. Obviously we now have the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. But how do you correct this disparity of access for students? You've got the big universities on the coast. The interior has only got Prince George, but the lower, southern part of the province doesn't have access to that university per se. You have the university college, of course, but not an actual university.

Hon. A. Petter: I assume the member is aware that university colleges around the province are now granting degrees. I believe there is one in his own constituency that is doing exactly that. So that very concern -- which may have been expressed based on the fact that those degree programs weren't being provided by university colleges at the time this data was collected -- has been addressed by this government in a way that is pretty close to his home. In fact, it is pretty close to the homes of many British Columbians, who now have the opportunity to gain a degree through a university college in an institution within or close to their communities.

B. McKinnon: I would like to ask where the Technical University stands and what is happening with that.

Hon. A. Petter: The Technical University is moving forward. There is a funding allocation for the university in this year's budget. It is my hope that the university will, in part-

[ Page 7796 ]

The physical plant for the university. . . . The university board commissioned a study that looked at a number of different options. That study has been submitted to government and is being reviewed by me. In discussion with the institution -- with the board and staff -- we will be making an ultimate decision as to how the actual construction of a university facility will proceed.

B. McKinnon: Is the money that you said is allocated to the university just going towards the education of the students? Or is any of that going towards the actual beginning of the building of the university?

Hon. A. Petter: No, the money that is being allocated is operating funds that I'm referring to for preparing for delivery of programs, but also for hiring of faculty. Recruitment is already going on to bring in faculty -- in a very competitive area, I might say, because not only is there a hot demand for students with technical skills, but obviously there is an even hotter demand for people who are engaged in research and training in technical skills. The capital funding for the institution itself doesn't exist within the operating budget. It comes about through government capital envelopes and will be allocated at the time that decisions are made as to when and where construction will proceed.

B. McKinnon: It was my understanding that the government was looking at a private-public partnership with business to build this university. It that still the idea?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it is. The hope is that there will be a number of partnerships -- partnerships amongst educational institutions, as well, between the universities and some of the colleges and institutes, but also partnerships with corporations that might come in, particularly high-tech corporations. They could be providing research opportunities for graduates to work with, and some of those corporations could be providing opportunities for students and faculty, and creating jobs here in British Columbia. I know from talking to Bernie Sheehan, the president of the new university, that he is having ongoing discussions with the private sector, as well as others in the public sector, about exploring some of those opportunities.

B. McKinnon: Has a site been chosen for this university yet?

Hon. A. Petter: No. As I said, a site has not been finally chosen. There was a review of some of the site options commissioned by the board -- that is, with the ministry and me. We are reviewing a range of options. Obviously we want to make sure that the institution is located in a place where it would be accessible, where land is available and affordable, and where it will best serve the interests of the students and the community. I know there are differing views on that. I'm trying to dodge the bullets and come up with the best possible answer that will provide a real vision for this university and a place for this university to fulfil that vision. This is potentially the university of the new millennium for this province, in terms of being part of our commitment to developing a knowledge-based economy with high-tech as key component.

B. McKinnon: I can actually take from your remarks that the university isn't going to be in Surrey-Cloverdale; it's going to be in one of the NDP ridings -- Surrey-Whalley or Surrey-Green Timbers, by the sound of it.

Hon. A. Petter: I won't succumb to the cynicism of the moment, hon. Chair. What we're doing is looking at the options. Surrey-Cloverdale has been put forward, and I know it has been considered. Quite genuinely, the concerns have more to do with issues of transportation, community planning and where the university would best benefit the community. That is one dimension of it. I think the more important dimension of it is the extent to which the relationship between the university and things like transportation links benefit the university and its opportunity to deliver programs. I want to make sure that the university isn't in a place where it's going to disrupt traffic flows, so that is a consideration. But at the end of the day, my consideration as Advanced Education minister is to make sure that the university is in a place where it will work well with the community, and potentially the private sector, in delivering programs. The decision on sites will reflect that consideration.

B. McKinnon: When the university was first planned and it was decided that it was supposed to be a university for the Fraser Valley and that. . . . As it has progressed, it did not become that. Is that true?

Hon. A. Petter: Certainly the intention would be that the university provide service to the growing population in the Fraser Valley. But this is a specialized university, a technical university that does have a larger mandate than simply that geographic concern. Hopefully, it will provide, not just to the Fraser Valley but also to the whole lower mainland and the province, a particular focus on technical education that goes beyond that geographic concern.

B. McKinnon: With the tremendous growth that we have out in that area. . . . You say that the university needs to be built where there is transportation, and I understand that you're using the SkyTrain, being in the vicinity where it will probably be built.

But when the university was first planned, it was supposed to be the university for the Fraser Valley. Then things changed, and it became a more specific university. For people in the Fraser Valley to get to the city centre where the university will probably be, they will have to travel on roads that have bumper-to-bumper traffic any time of the day. They're going to have a very difficult time getting through Surrey just to get to where the university is. I would just like to make the point that in actuality, the university is, again, for the students in Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster, and that that area already has Simon Fraser, BCIT and the University of British Columbia. Once again, the people in the Fraser Valley are neglected. I'll end with that.

[5:15]

[ Page 7797 ]

But this is not an attempt to make this a non-Fraser Valley-accessible or -friendly institution; it's an attempt to try to come up with the best vision for the future. We will have to make sure that whatever that is, this institution and the others do meet the needs of the Fraser Valley.

B. Penner: I'd also like to ask a few questions concerning the proposed technical university for British Columbia. When this concept was first announced by the NDP government about four years ago, a figure of $100 million was used to describe the capital cost associated with construction of new facilities for such a university. I'm wondering if the minister is in a position to give us a more up-to-date and accurate prediction as to the eventual capital cost associated with the Technical University of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not, and it's for this reason: part of the consideration concerning site and the possibility, as the previous member raised, of partnerships with the private sector or the possibility of partnerships with the community all influence the question of cost. I am going to have to make sure, obviously, that there are sufficient resources within our capital budgets to meet the needs. So rather than come at it with a predetermined sum -- and I'm aware of that sort of target figure -- what I have asked staff to do in their deliberations and the information on the future of the university that they're gathering for my benefit, for cabinet and, even more importantly, for Treasury Board is to come up with a vision and a capital proposal for this university that meets the needs and does that in the most cost-effective way. If we can get benefit by sharing facilities or by working with the private sector that allows us to get a better facility at lower costs, then obviously I want to take advantage of that. That's a long answer to a short question. I don't have a predetermined number. There has been this previous notion that it might ultimately be in the range of $100 million. But I have not gone to Treasury Board and sought approval for that number since I've become minister, and I won't until I know exactly where this is going to occur and what it is we're asking approval for.

B. Penner: I've gone through some of the literature that I have been collecting in a file in my office about this topic. Initially, when this project was announced -- again, about four years ago -- the stated objective was to: ". . .meet the urgent demand for post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley." We had some discussion here just a few moments ago about that goal.

Further, the literature went on to talk about preparing our workforce for the demands of a high-tech, ever-changing workplace. The literature, a newsletter produced by Tech B.C., indicates that "for the past decade, census figures have identified the Fraser Valley as one of the fastest-growing regions in Canada. Yet the same area has had one of the lowest post-secondary participation rates in the country." Presumably then, that's why the government was considering a new university to be located in and to service the Fraser Valley.

However, in the Fraser Valley, there is a relatively new school building that's currently collecting weeds and cobwebs. It's sitting unused right now. I wrote to this minister about that a couple of months ago, and haven't yet heard a response. What I'm talking about is an unused but virtually new engineering facility built at Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. With the provincial debt in British Columbia growing ever larger -- it's now about $31 billion in total and is set to increase another $1.25 billion this year alone -- I think it would make sense for the government to consider ways to save money while still providing a valuable service. That's why I've urged this minister to conduct a formal study of the potential savings if the new facilities at the now closed CFB Chilliwack were utilized.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that the provincial government has been so slow to examine ways to make use of this valuable legacy. The former base. . . . I'm referring now to a story in the Chilliwack Progress dated Friday, March 27, 1998. It states:

"This facility includes a virtually new $10 million educational facility with fibre optic links, computer modem terminals in all classrooms, a 300-person theatre, a cafeteria and library. There are 40 offices for administration space. The 76,284-foot building has 27 classrooms and is wheelchair accessible. There is room for further expansion, additional office space nearby, and more than 300,000 square feet of dormitory and residence facilities. A multi-purpose recreational complex" -- known as the Cheam Centre -- "is within walking distance."

Hon. A. Petter: Just on the closure of CFB Chilliwack, which is way outside my responsibility, my recollection is that the government did work very closely with the previous MLA for Chilliwack in protesting that decision and giving it a lot of profile. I just want to set the record straight on that.

I appreciate the member's suggestions concerning the facility. My understanding is that my facilities branch and its director have looked into this and are aware of it, but I have not been aware of it. I will follow up and find out what that review has shown to date and whether this is in fact a viable option. I'll be happy to follow up on that, based on the member's recommendation.

B. Penner: Just to follow up on the minister's comments, I have heard rumours that somebody did at one time, about two years ago, drive out to Chilliwack and spend part of an afternoon taking a look at the facilities there. The point I'm making is that I would like to see a formal, detailed analysis done of the costs and/or benefits of locating the site there. I'm not saying it should go there, but I'm saying it should be examined as a possibility. To date, I don't think we've had a realistic investigation as to the potential possibilities of that site and how much it could save taxpayers while still providing students with a good service.

[ Page 7798 ]

In contrast, however, the traffic coming the other way is very light. I think we could make use of existing infrastructure by reversing those traffic flows. It would reduce driving time, for people to go from the western part of the Fraser Valley to the eastern part in the morning and then return home in the evening, rather than having it the other way around, simply because of the existing traffic flows and people leaving the upper Fraser Valley for the lower mainland to find work during the day. That's one comment about one particular argument I've heard raised against that concept.

The other point is, of course, that there is a tremendous amount of housing available at CFB Chilliwack, which was used as military dormitories. Some of them are really quite new. Some of them, in fact, were just completed around the time of the closure announcement. That infrastructure, that accommodation and those facilities are available.

In speaking to the base commander, as I do on a fairly regular basis, I'm led to believe that the federal government would be very happy to have that facility utilized -- to save them from political embarrassment. It is a political embarrassment for the federal government to have that facility sitting there empty. Probably hundreds of millions of dollars have been plowed into it over the years. I think the B.C. government has the potential to have a real windfall. If you were able to offer the federal government a face-saving way out of their dilemma at CFB Chilliwack, they would probably be quite happy to take it.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, as I say, I appreciate the member's suggestion. I'll certainly follow up and see what inquiries have been made and whether it's worthwhile to pursue this possibility. It's the first time I have been aware of it, certainly.

I would just point out again that it's not only the Technical University that we need to look to for servicing the needs of the Fraser Valley. The budget of the college in the Fraser Valley, which I think has a satellite campus in Chilliwack, has essentially doubled since 1991. It's providing service to hundreds more students; there are 200 more this year alone. We've got to look at all the opportunities. The member has raised another possible opportunity in terms of site for a facility. As I say, I'll follow up on it.

B. Penner: Just a statement, not really a question: I want to make it clear for the record that I'm not advocating spending more money or spending more money in my riding. One person who sits opposite here, the member for Yale-Lillooet, has repeatedly tried to characterize my comments with respect to CFB Chilliwack as calling for government largesse to be spent in my constituency. That's simply untrue.

What I'm saying is that it's incumbent upon this government -- particularly at a time when we're increasing the provincial debt by $1.25 billion this year to over $30 billion in total -- that we look at imaginative ways of saving money. I think this could be a way of saving up to $100 million in capital construction costs, if that's the figure being used by this government, because those facilities are already largely built and sitting empty. So I'm not calling for the government to spend more money or to spend more money in my riding on this particular project of a technical university, but rather to consider ways to save money. There's a difference between spending money and saving money.

Hon. A. Petter: I was just going to say that great Shakespearean phrase: methinks the member doth protest too much.

M. Coell: I wonder if I could turn the minister's attention to the skills development programs for a time. I believe you have the staff here who can answer some questions for me. There is a total cut in '97-98 budget of approximately $400,000, and there are a number of cuts within programs and then one increase. It's those programs that I want to look at, starting with the Youth Works program and the Welfare to Work program. There's a cut in that budget. I would like to know whether that is a cut in potential placements for people involved in the Welfare to Work programs.

Hon. A. Petter: No, this is a good-news story. This is a reflection of reduction in income assistance caseloads. As a result of the reduction in income assistance caseloads, the pressures -- the requirements -- to provide funding under this program have gone down by a commensurate amount.

M. Coell: The reduction in caseloads in the Human Resources ministry, the minister is telling me, has resulted in a drop in the number of applicants to this program.

[5:30]

M. Coell: That's of interest to me, because you're projecting the number of people who will apply. My question to the minister is: how are you projecting that -- just because the caseload in Human Resources has dropped? The reason I ask that is that I suspect there are many people who are now in Human Resources -- the people that are left on the caseload -- whose cases are probably more crucial and will require this assistance more rather than less.

Hon. A. Petter: No. Obviously it is based on an assessment about caseloads, but the assessment is based upon the demand being experienced by the program through caseloads. As I understand it, an assessment is made as to the budget required based upon the demand that has been experienced through the trend of caseload reduction over the past year, and then the expectation. It isn't simply a question of making an assumption based on caseload. It's a question of making a judgment based upon declines in caseload, the consequent, resulting demands that have flowed from that decline over the past year and therefore the expectations for the coming year.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that.

With regard to people who use the program and are successful in getting a job, what follow-up does the ministry do six months or a year after they've completed the program?

[ Page 7799 ]

M. Coell: I guess what I would like to know, and maybe the minister can reassure me. . . . The Youth Works and Welfare to Work programs are fairly costly. They are designed to create jobs for people who have had difficulty getting a job before. What I'm interested in is: are these jobs of a permanent nature? Have they learned the skills to stay in the workforce? In order to do that, I think you need to follow those people in the program -- their first job, six months later, 12 months later. I'd like to know what the program is, if there is one, to follow and evaluate these two programs.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate that. I believe -- and I have information that indicates -- that efforts have been made to significantly improve the monitoring and tracking and evaluation activities. That's what the member is talking about. Monthly and quarterly reporting systems have been established to provide current and year-to-date information in respect of budgets, clients and contract status when services are provided through contractors. I know from my own experience, having met with representatives of the Business Works program, that they, for example, have a very, very high retention rate of clients that they place in their work-based training initiatives. So I know the ministry has undertaken a number of initiatives to improve the evaluation and to test the effectiveness of programs of individual contractors of work-based training initiatives, versus one to another and versus other forms of placement. Those activities and that monitoring will continue, because I agree with the member: they're important in terms of telling us and the public whether or not there is good value for money and in terms of determining where resources should be targeted in the future.

M. Coell: I would very much appreciate seeing those reports when they're done. I wonder whether they're going to be made public in a report to the Legislature or to the public.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me answer in this way. These are the ongoing features of the program. I'll be happy to facilitate a briefing with the member and with staff concerning this. I'll ask them to share whatever information they can -- without compromising confidentiality or whatever -- with the member so he can have the benefit of more detailed knowledge on how this is done and, where evaluations are available, to be acquainted with those evaluations.

M. Coell: The total budget for the program is in the neighbourhood of $78 million. I wonder if you can tell me how much is being spent on evaluation of these programs.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't have that information with me, but I'll ask staff to make a note of it. When I have an opportunity later in this debate, I'll get the information back to the member -- or in writing.

M. Coell: I bring that forward because I think it's very important that if we're going to invest this level of funding in a program to help people and to create jobs, we want to know we've done a good job. I think the only way you're going to do that is by evaluation on a long-term basis -- not just "Did they get their first job?" but "Did the program help them get their second and third job, and how do they fit into the workforce?" I think that's very important for these two programs.

The other area that I'd like to touch on is the industry training and adjustment program. There is a reduction in that program as well, of approximately $600,000. I wonder if the minister can outline where that reduction is and why that reduction is taking place.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the major reason why the industry training and adjustment services funding is reduced in this year's budget by some $670,000 is primarily the elimination of the POWA program -- the program for older workers adjustment. That was a federal-provincial program that was terminated by the federal government. A portion of the former budget has been reallocated for a potential industry training initiative. I think that is the principal reason why there's been an adjustment downwards to this particular envelope.

M. Coell: With regard to student financial assistance programs, there is an increase of approximately $15 million. Can you tell me whether that's an increase in students taking funds, or is it increased funds to the same number of students?

Hon. A. Petter: It's principally due to the increase in students. We're expanding student spaces and have done so in recent years, and those students are now continuing through the system. So it's principally for an expansion in the number of students. Some of it is because of the increase in the value of awards given to students, but that's not because of a change in the criteria of the program. It's because the configuration of student needs is such that there is some evolutionary per-student cost increase under the current criteria. The criteria for benefits remain the same. The number of students and the application of those criteria have contributed to this cost, but by far the largest share of that is the number of students.

M. Coell: Could the minister tell me the number of students expected to participate in this program this year?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the expenditure on evaluation for the skills training programs is in the range of a quarter of a million dollars per year, in answer to the member's previous question. We are still waiting to get the total number of students who are likely to participate this year in student financial assistance. Rather than give you my best recollection, I'll await that number -- which I'm told is 57,000.

M. Coell: If I could go back to the evaluation at a quarter of a million dollars a year, is that contracted out, or is that done inside the ministry? I'd be interested in the breakdown between contracted-out evaluation and evaluation done with ministry staff.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, for the member's benefit let me just introduce Betty Notar, who is the ADM responsible for the skills and training division of the ministry.

My understanding is that the evaluation is done through contracted services.

[ Page 7800 ]

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, some of the evaluations are done in conjunction with other agencies -- the Ministry of Human Resources or the federal government's HRDC -- in which case, we would work collaboratively with them to put them out. For the most part, it would be done through a competitive, tendering process with the advice of the Purchasing Commission. Or, if it's done in conjunction with HRDC, I assume it would be done through whatever combined process works for both the federal and provincial governments.

[5:45]

Hon. A. Petter: The ministry has contracted with UBC, for example. We don't have the specifics here, but we'd be very happy to provide the member, if he's interested, with the specifics of contracts entered into with universities to undertake some evaluation.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for those comments. I would be interested in seeing the types of contracts and evaluations. I don't think it's important to see the specifics of the contracts, but I would be interested in seeing how that quarter of a million dollars is allocated in the ministry.

One final question with regard to debt service contributions. In '97-98, you were at $243 million; it's now $122 million in this quite significant drop. I'd be interested in why that drop has taken place, or has it been allocated to another part of government and taken off the books here?

Hon. A. Petter: This is a product of a larger change in accounting policy that has resulted in ending the fiscal agency loan arrangements that were previously in place. The auditor general had expressed reservations about the use of fiscal agency loans, even though those mechanisms were in place long before this government came along. In conjunction with the auditor general, the decision was taken to disband the fiscal agency loans and move to a new form of prepaid, deferred-charge arrangement. That has resulted in changes in the numbers that show up, up and down, throughout government. In this particular ministry, this change has come about through that larger change in policy, as a product of discussions with the auditor general.

M. Coell: Has that amount of money been reallocated in this ministry, or is it allocated outside the ministry? That's what I was looking at.

Hon. A. Petter: It's not allocated elsewhere, but it is offset to a considerable extent by the item listed as "amortization of prepaid capital advances" that shows up here and is part of this transition to a new, more acceptable form of accounting with respect to the concerns expressed by the auditor general.

M. Coell: The minister has actually answered my next question. I appreciate that. One area that I have some interest in is the grants in lieu of property taxes. There's no change in the budgets from last year to this year. I wonder if the minister could give me an update as to how those grants are allocated.

Hon. A. Petter: I think a little history is a dangerous thing here. I have a little bit of history with this issue, and the member opposite does as well, but I haven't been on top of it in the last little while. I understand that the absence of a change results from a consultation process that took place with municipalities about how to facilitate these grants-in-lieu. For example, going back, there was a concern, which I shared, about Saanich and the absence of grants-in-lieu. And a previous Minister of Finance -- previous to me, incidentally, in that role -- had made some moves in that direction. My recollection-- the member's may be clearer than mine -- is that that precipitated some concerns that resulted in a consultation process with the municipalities. I take it that consultation process has now produced this result.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister has a breakdown of how the grants in lieu of taxes are distributed in the province. I'd be interested in that.

Hon. A. Petter: I can either ask the member's indulgence to wait a minute or so, or we can get that information for him in writing. Just reflecting on some of the notes I have here, I did note that there is a small reduction in the grant to the municipality of Colwood for Royal Roads University. That has contributed to the very small decline year over year. I think everything else is status quo. If he wants more information, he should just wait one second. If he's prepared to take it in writing, I'd be prepared to go on to another question and then provide it to him.

The Chair: Member, noting the time.

M. Coell: Noting the time, in writing would be fine.

Hon. A. Petter: Looking at the clock, even though I'm enjoying this opportunity, I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

[ Page 7801 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

D. Symons: I'd like to continue with where we left off yesterday. I was simply looking through the Blues and found a couple of things I would like to revisit, if I could, while we're here. I had asked a question, and when I read the response in the Blues, I found that I wanted to go into that in a little more depth. We were discussing the idea of design-build toward the end of yesterday's session, and I asked why design-build had not been used on the Island Highway. Basically, the answer I got was that it wasn't suitable for the Island Highway.

I wonder if we might go a little further into that, because you did do it for an interchange and an overpass and what not in Vancouver. Certainly we have a variety of places, I would suspect, along the Island Highway -- the Thetis interchange that we put in, Millstream Road and locally to Victoria here, as well as many structures along the highway -- that I think would be admirably suited for a design-build project. Reading the ministry's own documents on these, design-build certainly seems to be very successful. The ministry documents seem to indicate that this way has saved money. It's made the project go ahead faster. There seem to be a lot of pluses to it. It seems inconceivable, from the comments you've made regarding the projects that have been done by design-build, that you would not try to incorporate more of them into the Island Highway project.

Hon. H. Lali: Before I answer the question, I want to correct a statement that I made yesterday. I actually wanted to do that a little earlier, but in any case. . . . I indicated that annual new highway capital expenditures have fluctuated significantly in the past and were as low as $60 million in the early 1990s. While it is true that these expenditures have fluctuated in the past, the lowest level reached in recent history was about $167 million in 1988-89, not $60 million, as I indicated. So $60 million is the lowest level of BCTFA capital funding, which was in 1993-94, the year in which the authority was first established. I want to correct that for the record.

On the issue of the design-build and why we didn't go with it on the Vancouver Island Highway project, there were a lot of issues before us. There were issues relating to consultation, environmental issues and alignment issues, which we had to discuss with local governments, and we wanted to be able to look at this project in its entirety over an eight-year period. For that reason, it didn't go under the suggestion that the hon. member mentioned.

D. Symons: I find that the answer still doesn't seem to suit the question, because the Westview interchange had problems with property acquisition, and so forth, around that as well. Just about everything you've said about why it couldn't be done on the Island Highway could also be said about the projects you did do. Indeed, the Island Highway contracts were let project by project.

You were saying that you had to have an eight-year horizon on that. Well, certainly you could still do that but have those portions that were done by contract let out for design-build. It seems that you've missed an opportunity that could have made the project go quicker and could have made it go less expensively than has currently been the case. Maybe the minister feels he's answered that, so I'll go on to another part. Maybe he can answer both together to move things along a little faster.

In talking about the Island Highway, the minister is quoted in the very end of Hansard yesterday as saying: "I just want to point out that we are maximizing value from surplus lands for the Vancouver Island Highway project." I'm curious. Usually when property is expropriated for a project, I gather that those properties have the option of going back to the person they were expropriated from first. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea -- when you talk about maximizing values -- exactly how much you managed to create in that way. I was asking about what sort of local cost burden was being borne by the people that profited by the highway, and that was the answer given. You said that there aren't any direct recoveries from the people, but then you did go on to mention the fact that you were maximizing value from surplus lands. How much value have you maximized from surplus lands in the Island Highway project to date?

Hon. H. Lali: I don't know if the member opposite quite understands the whole issue of design-build. The Vancouver Island Highway project is a major $1.2 billion project. We've had one professional management team in place for the whole project, and as we progress up-Island, the management team that is overseeing this project moves with the project.

On the issue of the property, property is not always expropriated. I want to point out that expropriations take place only as we need land for the right-of-way. We try to purchase surplus property as needed. In terms of putting it up for sale, we try to package it with a contiguous property as an entire package. The member asked how much there has been in terms of sales. It is projected that we will have $8 million worth of sales in this year's budget. Up until now we've been acquiring property, and we will begin selling it off.

D. Symons: So with the cost of the highway, $8 million is not very much at the current time. I would assume by your answer that you are saying there will be more as you complete the highway and are then dealing with these surplus lands. I'll be asking considerably more questions on the Island Highway project later on, but that just fitted in with some answers from yesterday, if you don't mind them coming in now.

I will be allowing other people to get into the debate. I plan on finishing off the role of the TFA, which I was investigating yesterday. I have some more to do on that now. Next I plan to do capital plans, where the Island Highway will come back to visit us, as well as a few other projects; something on partnership agreements that we're looking at or possibly working on; the HCL; other programs that the TFA is responsible for, particularly the ATAP; and then maybe the performance measures that the authority might use to judge its success in carrying out its mandate. That's what I plan to do with the TFA, but I'm going to break into that as people who have others things come in and want to ask a question on a project in their area. So you'll realize when I break away from that scheme of things that that's the reason why: they have other duties.

Again, I'm looking at your annual report of '96-97, since it's the most recent one I have. On page 1, toward the end, is "Project Monitoring and Review: . . .to ensure that BCTFA projects are delivered within approved scope, schedule and budget." I come back to the Island Highway, because it would seem that if you're using performance measures, it is certainly not coming in on the original scope of that particular program. Four lanes have become two lanes, and interchanges have

[ Page 7802 ]

[3:00]

D. Symons: A couple of instances. . . . I don't know that the question was answered to any great extent, but be that as it may, maybe I'll just repeat a little bit. Do you have any accountability? Obviously you've had some. . . . I would suspect there would be some benchmarks along the line for the Island Highway project. Indeed, I saw the original scope and benchmarks that were put out on that project. You haven't met them. You've changed the scope, sometimes possibly because of local concerns or at other times more because you were trying to stay within the budget guidelines. So to keep the budget, you had to change the scope of the program. And certainly you've changed the schedule, partly to spread the cost of it a little longer so that you keep the yearly sum down but also because you weren't able to stay on schedule. So I'm wondering if there is any accountability when you set yourself benchmarks and those benchmarks aren't met.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member must realize that community input is essential to these kinds of projects, and there is an accountability factor there as we listen to members of the community. There are milestones that are set. Funding agreements are also in place. We've been moving traffic, as we had indicated that we would, when the Island Highway project first started. The hon. member talks about some deletions that were made in terms of trying to meet the budget target. I just want to point out a list of items that were added on that the member. . . .

I see him shaking his head a little bit. I mean, he probably is aware of some of them, but I just want to put some of these on the record: the berms in the Mackenzie area; the relocation of the asphalt plant; HOV protection; cycling improvements; interchange improvements at the bridges; the Marler subdivision access; the Thetis Lake Park access; the concrete barrier at Goldstream; access at Ladysmith hospital; improvements at Beverly Street and Chemainus River bridge; improvements at Carmichael Road to Beck Creek; the Campbell River bypass; Craig's Crossing; the Beck Creek bridge; splitting contracts, B.C. 21; the Nanaimo Parkway scenic viewpoint -- Northfield rest area land donation; a portable truck-inspection facility; Campbell River four-lanes. That's $48.6 million.

D. Symons: Some of those possibly did not consider the concerns, I suppose, of local people first. It's more a catch-up after the fact, I would suspect in some cases -- as with the asphalt plant that was removed. I remember the controversy over that. I also remember that there was quite a controversy and quite a disappointment in the ministry in the carrying out of the Island Highway project when some of the scope was downsized. So when you're giving the impression that maybe four lanes becoming two was the will of the people along the route, that certainly wasn't the case for a good number of the people who are going to be affected by those changes.

You mentioned something else in your response and opened another avenue of questioning. You mentioned cycling, and I know that a few years ago the government committed itself to cycle lanes being included on any new highway projects. Have they been included on all portions of the Island Highway?

Hon. H. Lali: The member made a comment about how there have been certain controversies, how certain things were added on and that we were actually playing catch-up as a result of that. I just want to point out that had those things not been achieved, the hon. member would say that we weren't listening to the people who are living in these communities. I suppose if the opposition had their way, the Vancouver Island Highway would never have gotten built in the first place. They certainly have opposed the Island Highway every step of the way. If they had it their way, some parts would not have been opened -- the western approaches and Mud Bay to Parksville.

In terms of the specific question about cycling along this area, I just want to point out that there is cycling along the Nanaimo Parkway and along the Galloping Goose trail in Victoria, and the rest of the Island has enough room on the shoulder or has cycling lanes so people can travel safely along the highway on their bicycles.

D. Symons: I detected in there a bit of an evasion of the question, which was: "Were cycling lanes included on all of the new projects down the Island Highway?" You're saying that there's space there for them, but you didn't say "because there are pull-off areas at the side of the road on the shoulder." You really didn't quite answer that they had included cycle lanes.

I'm somewhat interested when the minister gets up and says where the Liberals stand on this, and obviously he has no concept of where the Liberals stand. He managed to try and read false facts into the record. Indeed, I was out on the front steps of the Legislature when people came down here from all over the Island, saying to this government: "Let's get on with the Island Highway project." They basically had to force the then Minister of Transportation and Highways to come out and listen to them there. He feigned an injured arm because he was having his arm twisted and all the rest. It was this government that was dragged into continuing the project and, indeed, we will find it in the auditor general's report. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Symons: They don't like to hear the truth, hon. Chair. But you'll find that the Social Credit government were the ones that did most of the planning and everything for this Island Highway and began the first section between Nanaimo and Parksville, which is opened. That was all done prior to

[ Page 7803 ]

His statement is totally incorrect, and I hope he stands corrected on it. He likes to get in these little jabs. Indeed, sometimes he might actually have truth in some of them, but not today.

If we can take a moment and look at your board of directors. I see an interesting lineup of ministers to the Crown on there. Indeed, I can see sense in the ministers of the Crown that are there, because the majority of them, all except one, who is not a minister but just a MLA -- NDP, I might add -- have some relationship to transportation issues. I think it's important that we have people that are responsible for ferries and transit, as well as responsible for highways, on the TFA board of directors. That's important.

The one thing I would really like to see -- and it hasn't happened, except for a very brief time under this government -- is that you do indeed have ferries and transit in a ministry that's called the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Transit and ferries don't fit into the word "transportation," and that escapes me. Nevertheless it seems to escape this government as well. So that would be nice.

I'm also concerned, though, that you seem to have a group of people here that are simply NDP cabinet ministers or members, and I think that's a mistake. I met last fall with a group of legislators from Washington State who are on the Washington State House transportation committee. The first thing that struck me when they introduced themselves around the table -- there are approximately 30 people on that committee, by the way -- was that they were about equally divided between the Republicans and the Democrats. I almost said New Democrats. It was a House committee representative of the elected people in the legislature of Washington State.

The second thing that surprised me was that this was not what we'll refer to as an advisory group to the Department of Transportation; this was the decision-making group. Indeed, this collective group of elected members from both parties sat down and made the decisions as to where the funding would go on the projects that were going to go ahead in Washington State. So it was done in an open, democratic fashion, rather than being decided by one side of the legislature -- and done in such a way that there were lots of chances for community input into it.

Hon. H. Lali: So much for getting us the Island Highway. We've just. . . .

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Symons: Thank you, hon. Chair. There seem to be some problems from the other side of the chamber here.

Anyway, I'm just wondering if there's any thought to possibly expanding the scope of your directors and bringing in some expertise from outside of government. You might have a different view, maybe -- I won't say an objecting view -- that people can think about, rather than having people who might be all of the same mind. Possibly you'll make a committee that includes people from opposition parties and bring a little more democratic balance to the whole process.

Carrying on, since you'll finish off the board of directors quickly here, you have that board of directors. . . . I wonder how often they meet. Do they have a regular schedule? Are minutes taken at those board meetings?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the member opposite. . . . He says that I have no concept of the Liberal view of where they stand on this particular issue of the Vancouver Island Highway. Well, I guess that in one sense he's probably correct, because they have no concept. They have no plan in place. They never had any plan in place for building the Vancouver Island Highway -- and neither did the Socreds, I might add. I think that if the Socreds were re-elected, given the example of the Coquihalla Highway, which was a $660 million cost overrun. . . . Trust the Socreds to build the Vancouver Island Highway? Not in our lifetimes.

In terms of the BCTFA, the hon. member mentions that we should have Liberals. Again, if there were Liberals on the BCTFA, the Vancouver Island Highway project would never get built. I want to point out that governments are elected to make decisions. It's only in line that we've got members on the BCTFA board who are government members, there to make decisions, to make sure that good things like the Vancouver Island Highway happen.

In terms of meetings, the BCTFA meets regularly, once a month plus as needed on a priority basis. Minutes are taken at these meetings.

D. Symons: I'm wondering, then, if those minutes would be available for perusal. Are they public property? Could I have copies of the minutes from over the last year, say, if that's possible?

As I said a few moments ago, there will be other members coming in. The member for Delta North will have other duties in a very few minutes, and he would like to ask some questions regarding a project in his area.

[3:15]

R. Masi: For the third session in a row now, I'm bringing forth the item of the Nordel completion. I expect that the minister expected this to come forward. I would just like to enter it in the record that two ministers ago, there was a promise that the Nordel would be completed. I might point out to this minister that this is not just a little trail in the woods or anything like that. Well over 20,000 vehicles a day use this portion of the highway, and it has now turned into a situation where it does not have an ending. It ends in a neighbourhood road and is mixed up with school zones, park zones and many other areas like that. This is the number one consideration for the municipality of Delta, and at this point I would like to bring it forward to the minister for a progress report.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm glad that the member opposite has raised this issue. I actually expected him to raise it, as any good MLA trying to look after their constituents should raise this particular issue. I also want to point that this is my regular route when I am heading home from the ferries. To catch the Trans-Canada Highway, I drive on River Road and catch Nordel Way to 88th and then 88th on to the 200th Street intersection at Highway 1. I'm actually quite familiar with the kinds of issues that the hon. member across the way has to face -- probably on a regular basis -- from his constituents and constituents from neighbouring areas. I want to thank him for raising that particular issue.

[ Page 7804 ]

R. Masi: I take it, then, that we are moving towards completion. Can the minister -- beyond the meeting in a month -- give me any further assurances that this is a priority project?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to make one correction. I am meeting with the mayor and not with the entire council. I just want to put that on the record.

In terms of giving the member a definite answer, I am unable to do so right now. There are issues related to this, such as alignment options and also the issue of the cost-sharing that is before the council and the ministry. When we come to some sort of a mutually acceptable solution, I can't see why we can't proceed with this particular project sometime next year.

R. Masi: I might point out to the minister that the agreements have been established between the municipality of Delta and the city of Surrey, and there is an alignment put forward. I would hope that your discussions would move quickly toward completion.

On another topic, I would like to ask about the south Fraser perimeter road. This is, I understand, a major highway project that is being looked at by the ministry, and I would like to know the progress report on that. As you know, River Road is tied up, virtually on a daily basis. The weigh scales there are clogged. It's becoming a very awkward and dangerous situation for the industrial area on the flats down there below River Road.

Hon. H. Lali: That's another one of those issues. I actually avoid the Port Mann Bridge because of the traffic congestion. I try to use the Alex Fraser as much as I possibly can when I'm trying to cross the river.

I want to point out again that it's a similar situation as it is with Delta. We are currently in negotiations with both the city of Surrey and the city of Delta, as well as Fraser Port, on cost-sharing. Obviously, if we can come to some sort of successful negotiations and are able to proceed, it will definitely take pressure off Highway 1 and the Port Mann Bridge to try to direct the traffic towards the Alex Fraser on that particular issue.

R. Masi: It's also my understanding that the ministry is looking at some future plans for widening of Highway 10 from Scott Road -- that's 120th to Cloverdale. Could we have some information on that?

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of Highway 10, it is actually one of those issues that is on the south lower mainland ten-year plan. I just want to say to the hon. member that we are looking at improvements of sections of Highway 10 for four-laning, but it's not on the list for the immediate future.

D. Symons: Just carrying forth on that, the minister made a couple of statements there on the ten-year plan for the lower mainland. I'm wondering if that plan is now a plan of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, TFA or a combination of those or, indeed, whether that is now part of the GVTA that's been set up? It's still a Highways issue, I would assume. Are such things as the Nordel extension and the south Fraser perimeter road basically concerns of the ministry still?

Hon. H. Lali: Some of the issues we've discussed in the last few minutes are the joint responsibility of both MOTH and TFA. There was the "Greater Vancouver Highway Improvement Outlook" report done -- a provincial report. If the member doesn't have a copy, we can actually give him one. We have an extra one here, so we'll pass it over so that he can have a closer look at it. This report was done in cooperation with the lower mainland communities. It identifies some regional road improvements that would actually help the provincial road system. When the GVTA is actually up and running, we can carry on some proper dialogue with them in the future. Right now this is a provincial report, and they're provincial projects.

D. Symons: That seems to put it in limbo, because the GVTA isn't going to be set up until a year from now, and that's unfortunate. I think something like the south perimeter road -- and I can't emphasize this strongly enough -- is an extremely important concept to help the business community in the lower mainland -- and, indeed, our port system, our airport, and so forth -- access the whole of North America. If Vancouver is to remain the gateway to the Pacific Northwest, as it currently is, we have to have a really good transportation system to get the goods and people from the airport and from the port to the destination markets throughout North America. That road will tie together Highway 1, Highway 99, Highway 17 out to the ferry terminal for access to Vancouver Island and will eventually, I hope, cross the Fraser River, paralleling the Port Mann Bridge and tying into Highway 7. I think the project is really needed to get all that together and to fit in with Deltaport, Fraser Wharves and all the commerce that takes place in that sector.

This would be a real boon to the economic development of this portion of the lower mainland. The longer it's left, the more those businesses might find other locations, which would then disperse our economic regions around the province and make it more difficult for them to operate out of a single area that would be good for transportation. It might make transportation in the future more difficult, because we would have more areas to service. So I would suggest that that road is important -- very important -- and should move ahead as fast as possible.

I gather, speaking over the last years. . . . This was one of the first issues I found, in meeting with people when I was first elected and became Transportation critic. This has been around for five or six years. A lot of the problem really revolves not so much around the route but in who's going to pay for what. Getting down to the problem of how it's going to be paid for seems to be the issue. Indeed, I believe that's also part of the real problem with the Nordel one. How much can the ministry get out of paying, and how much can the cities get out of paying? The two of you are arguing about who's going to put the most money in the pot to have those projects go ahead. If we can get over that hurdle, I think a lot of things that are needed can be done very quickly on our transportation issues.

One other thing on the report you have. . . . The minister may remember that I was critic for Highways from '92 through to '96, and between '96 and the present there have been two other people in this role. I passed most of the

[ Page 7805 ]

[3:30]

Hon. H. Lali: On some of the projects in the lower mainland that the members have talked about -- and at some length, I know -- my critic has come out in support of some of these issues. Obviously the ministry is in support of these issues. That's why they are on the lower mainland strategy over the ten-year period. He raised the issue of how to pay for them and doesn't want to see these kinds of issues delayed because of some squabbling over the negotiations between the municipalities and the provincial government. I take that to mean that the hon. member across the way is in support of increasing the public debt; that's the way I would read it. Obviously he knows that we have been paying for a lot of these projects through the TFA, which is supported by public debt.

On the issue of the multimodal transportation strategy, yes, we do have a strategy in place. It's called "Going Places: Transportation for British Columbians." We can send the hon. member a copy of that. And the BCTFA has a capital plan, and it will be embodied within the MLA briefing book, which he will be getting soon, I understand..

I just want to point out that I have a copy of the "Greater Vancouver Highway Improvement Outlook" that I promised, so we can give him another copy. The Liberals were sent a copy on February 16 of this year. We have no problem giving him another copy.

D. Symons: I'd just note again that the minister has been adding words in about what I or the Liberal Party are in favour of. It seems to be a little quirk, I guess, that the minister has not been able to resist the temptation of trying to write policy for the Liberals. Indeed, when we're government, we'll show you our policy, but please don't try to put words in our mouths that are just not true. I would appreciate that. I don't think that will happen, but we'll ask you, nevertheless.

Again, I wonder if we might. . . . I thought that maybe the multimodal transportation strategy would be something more than the "Going Places," but if that document is it, I just happen to have one of them sitting right here somewhere. I guess that's what you're referring to.

You say I'm going to get the capital plan soon, so I will wait patiently for that and remind you if it doesn't come soon.

If we can take a look at the next part in your annual report that I'm interested in, under the planning and evaluation portion, on page 3, there's a comment about results. Toward the bottom of the mainland highway system, it says: "The results have provided the basis for identifying and integrating future priorities for lower mainland traffic congestion over the next ten years. The results also indicate an opportunity for cost savings of $3 billion over the next 25 years, when compared to a business-as-usual approach." I wonder if you could just sort of explain a little bit what techniques you've devised other than what you might consider a business-as-usual approach. I thought business-as-usual would still be, as in the past, ways of looking for the most economic and yet proper system of building things, so what are you doing that is special that's going to save us $3 billion?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the member that "Going Places" supports the GVRD's Livable Region Strategic Plan that was in place, and basically it would build higher-density neighbourhoods so that they would be able to support HOV lanes and have LRT. The idea is to get cars off the road, and that avoids the need for building large freeways.

So it's not business as usual. It's something actually very, very progressive, and I think there's a shift all across the world as populations grow. The idea is not to spread out in an urban sprawl kind of way but rather to concentrate populations in smaller areas so you can put in LRT and high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and actually move people off the roads and onto public forms of transit. In terms of the costs, there were estimated actually. . . . The cost estimates were identified by the GVRD and the province, so they're not just provincial figures.

D. Symons: I'm reading from your report under, "Planning and Evaluations," at the bottom of page 3: "In 1996-97, the planning and evaluation division pursued these and other activities. . . ." Under that comes this comment I made about the $3 billion. But what you have described sounds very much to me like the Transport 2021 study that the ministry and the GVRD co-authored back in 1994. I was looking for. . . . This stuff was put here in your annual report as having happened in the last fiscal year for the TFA. Are you simply using the material of '94, or is there something new beyond that that has been contributed? I read this as being something other than the plan that was done three years previous to this report.

Hon. H. Lali: The $3 billion figure the member cites is identified by, obviously, Transport 2021. The follow-up to that was the lower mainland highway system report, which is actually a fairly high-level report. The member should read it. It will give all the kinds of details that he is looking for. I just want to point out that it wasn't something that was pulled out of thin air or anything like that. So I think he should read the report, and he'll get a clear idea.

D. Symons: I would gather then that the lower mainland highway system report is different than the report I was just given a few minutes ago that's called "Greater Vancouver Highway Improvement Outlook." They're different titles. Are they the same document with a slightly different nomenclature, or is it a totally new document?

Interjection.

D. Symons: I will be getting something else, I assume. I should be directing this through the Chair. I'm sorry.

[ Page 7806 ]

Hon. H. Lali: It's a four-year plan.

D. Symons: I assume that means four years from whatever point you're at, that you're using four years into the future all the time. So it's a rolling horizon of four years?

Interjection.

D. Symons: Good.

I'm wondering then whether the capital plans you have -- the current one of four years from the date -- would also be available. I assume the plan that you're working on would not be confidential and that it would indeed be what the ministry or TFA is planning. Therefore everybody should be aware of what you have planned for the next four years.

Hon. H. Lali: I think the member has been around here long enough to know that as government you make the announcements as each budget year will allow you to do so. Certainly, no government doesn't come out and say, "Well, here are the specifics for the next four or five years," for you to be able to know that. I think he should stay in tune while future policy is being developed and as we announce some of these projects.

D. Symons: It sounds like they are sort of saving them in their hip pocket until the next election gets closer; then we'll hear of all sorts of projects for the future. They don't care to tell us now, because they're waiting for that window of opportunity, as it is called, when the election takes place. Then come the photo ops. So I can understand what the minister was saying in guarded language there.

I wonder if we might take a look a little further along in the book, because we find. . . . I just want to go back a step, because you have some capital plans under your capital projects that are currently there. Could you just quickly run through the capital programs for this year -- just a very brief summary? And you need not put in the money. Now, these are the major programs I'm looking at, not everything the ministry or the TFA is going to be accomplishing.

Hon. H. Lali: I listed them off when I made my opening statement. Obviously, he can get a copy of that. There are just too many to actually sit here and itemize every one. There are dozens and dozens of them.

[3:45]

I'm wondering if we can take a look at some of the projects that I see in the 1996-97 annual report. These are projects done during that fiscal year. We're now two fiscal years from that. One mentioned is a Mission interchange. They talk in the annual report on page 9 about the negotiations for a proposed grade-separated interchange at Highway 11 and London Avenue. I wonder if the minister might be able to give me something -- because I'm not too sure; I haven't travelled that way recently -- on what the status of that is. Has it been built?

Hon. H. Lali: The member is quite familiar that we made the announcement that we would go ahead with this approximately a year ago. This is a three-way public-private partnership among the district of Mission, the developer and the provincial government. We're still working on this particular issue. The developer, actually, is still working on the shopping centre aspect of it. So we'll just have to wait and see.

D. Symons: So I guess what the minister is saying, then, is that it's at basically the same stage it was when it was announced or included in your annual report two years ago.

Moving on to another one -- one I'm familiar with -- there's the Sea Island connector. I know that the TFA and the Vancouver International Airport Authority have primarily been the main people involved, but I think the federal government is involved in it, too, and maybe in a small way the city of Richmond. What is the current status of that particular negotiation that's been ongoing?

Hon. H. Lali: The Sea Island connector, as the member has mentioned, is actually a four-way partnership among YVR, the federal government, the provincial government and the city of Richmond. The negotiations are proceeding, and we'll just have to stay tuned for the outcome.

D. Symons: For one of those good announcements, I assume, that I hope will be imminent.

There's a South Surrey interchange. I don't see the member from south Surrey here, but I'll just ask about that too. Something that BCTFA and the city of Surrey have been working on is sharing the costs of an interchange at Highway 99 and 32nd Avenue. How have those negotiations gone? Can we look forward in the near future to completion of an interchange at that particular location?

Hon. H. Lali: We announced the South Surrey interchange we announced in the fall of 1997, and substantial completion is scheduled for October 31, 1999.

D. Symons: I'll yield the floor to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who has a few questions about an ongoing problem in a cross-water construction that needs to be done at First Narrows.

D. Jarvis: Well, minister, this is a problem that you'll probably appreciate. The Lions Gate Bridge is a problem that we've had for a good deal of time. I don't know whether it's just negligence on the part of your department, that you just don't care, or that you just don't know what to do. Surely you're not playing politics with such a thing as the Lions Gate Bridge; I really would hope that you're not, because you're the third or fourth minister. We had Minister Charbonneau back in '92-93 talking about how there was going to be a decision made on the bridge. Then we had Minister Boone come out and say that there was going to be a. . . .

A Voice: No names here.

D. Jarvis: Well, these are past ministers, anyway, of your department. Charbonneau wasn't. . . .

[ Page 7807 ]

D. Jarvis: The previous minister came out and made several statements about things going on. So everyone around the North Shore is getting considerably worried as to what this government intends to do. Are they going to wait for the next election before they do something? We had the Buckland report that come out back in '96; it said that we had a real problem with the bridge as far as maintenance was concerned. At this point I have a few questions to ask you. I would like to know: are the RFPs going to be released?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out, first off, to the hon. member across the way that there is no negligence on the part of the department. I assume he's referring to the BCTFA or the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I'm actually very proud of the teams both in MOTH and in TFA, which I work with on a daily and weekly basis.

The member is also quite familiar with the fact that we're the first government in 60 years that has chosen to address the Lions Gate issue. It's not an issue that's been there in the last six or seven years; it's an issue that's been there for at least 20 years that I'm aware of. I've been following the news as much as the hon. member across the way. Unlike governments in the past, we have chosen to undertake extensive consultation with the public, with local governments and with stakeholders in the particular area. The member is aware that on Monday morning I had a meeting with the mayors from north of the inlet as well as a representative from the city of Vancouver and members of the parks board.

This is not a decision that this government or this minister takes lightly. It's a fairly complex issue; I think the member can appreciate that, having lived in the area himself. We have always indicated that there are two options available. One is a straight three-lane rehab on the existing structure, and the other option is to add a fourth lane, which would be a two-lane tunnel with the two lanes on the existing bridge. Of course, the second option would involve tolling.

So I just want to point that out to the hon. member. If you talk to the North Shore MLAs from the Liberal opposition, they're not united on what should or should not be in terms of what the Lions Gate is going to look like when the decision is made.

I also want to assure the member that I will be making a decision before the end of the month. It's not something that's going to come at election time or a week before or anything like that. I will make a decision by the end of May, so I want to assure the member of that.

D. Jarvis: I also want to assure the minister that the members that surround the North Shore are united, in the sense that they want something done. This government has been promising them year after year after year, and now we hear another promise: the end of this month. I go back to January 26, when the Premier sent me a letter and said that an announcement would be made soon. When the member for Prince George-Mount Robson was the minister, she said that it would be done by January of '98. Now we're past January of '98, and we're going on and on and on.

The question that really comes to the fore is: what are you going to do? You owe it to the citizens that use that bridge to tell them exactly what you're going to do. If you go back to the Buckland report in '96 -- that's two years ago -- they said that the deterioration, the depreciation, was accelerating at a very fast rate, that it wouldn't last past 1998 and that repairs would only buy time until the year 1998. It's right in the Buckland and Taylor report. That same report says you were having a lot of difficulties in repairs and inspecting, and you were going to have to go into extra costs and special staging and all the rest of it. So this went on and on and on, and now you've called for the proposals. We really don't know whether the proposals are what the people want. Maybe it's what the government feels it's going to do -- and will probably do it the cheapest way possible. That's what really concerns us.

You say that no one else can come down with a proper decision. Well, there have been a lot of decisions put forward to you, but the government has decided to do what they want on their own; it's not what the people want who use the bridge from either side. It looks like it's going to be sort of a -- I won't use that expression -- halfway type of bridge: a little bit to satisfy the people in Vancouver, because they don't want all that supposed new traffic flowing out into Georgia Street, and halfway what some on the North Shore and West Vancouver want.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: If the minister really wants to know what option I would prefer. . . . I've told the ministers previous to this on many occasions that the cheapest way would be to maintain the aesthetics of that bridge and build a two-level bridge, like they have in other areas. They should retain the Lions Gate Bridge like the Netupsky bridge, or something along that vein. I think at the time it first came out, it took somewhere around $129 million to build it and about another $90 million to cut and cover in Stanley Park. That still holds true. As far as I was concerned, the aesthetics of that is what a lot of people would want. We wouldn't want to have to go out and reprint millions and millions of postcards. That bridge is the centre of all the tourism that's coming over into Vancouver. It's one of the more visible pictures that we see of Vancouver.

One other thing at this point, before. . . . Seeing that they're being so secretive as to whether they plan a two-lane bridge or a new four-lane bridge or repair to the old existing bridge and putting a tunnel under it. . . . With all these sorts of grandiose ideas that are continually coming forward, I don't know what they're going to do.

I want to ask the minister one thing. At this stage here, did they do their seismic tests and have the seismic repairs to the bridge completed?

[4:00]

I want to point out to the member opposite that there were a number of options. At one time they were up to seven or eight different options available. This government has finalized it down to two. It's either a three-lane rehab on the existing structure as is or to go with a four-lane option, which

[ Page 7808 ]

I also want to point out to the member opposite that when I became minister, I was asked that question as to the time frame on this. I said I would have a decision this spring. The last time I looked at my calendar, we were smack in the middle of spring. I have given him a definite. . .that there will be a decision. I haven't made up my mind as to which one -- one or the other -- but there will be a decision by the end of the month. I assured him of that earlier, and I'm making that assurance to the hon. member across the way again.

I also want to point out that safety is the number one issue here. Whether it's three-lane or four-lane, safety is the paramount issue that we have to deal with. I also want to point out that the bridge is perfectly safe as it stands right now. In the '97-98 budget we spent $3 million on that particular bridge. There is a full-time crew there 24 hours a day looking after that particular bridge.

I questioned the hon. member as to what his choice would be, and he indicated to me that he would like to see a double deck. Well, it's in the neighbourhood of $400 million to double-deck that present structure. I would like to pose a question back to the hon. member: how does he propose to pay for it? Does he support tolls? Or does the hon. member across the way support public debt? It's either one or the other. Obviously the member across the way, and even his colleagues from across the North Shore, are divided as to how to pay for it or what should be done with the bridge, whether it should be a three-lane or four-lane rehab.

One other thing the hon. member asked was on seismic reinforcement. I think it would be foolish to do seismic reinforcement without having a decision in place. However, the seismic reinforcement will be a part of whatever option we choose to go with.

D. Jarvis: First of all, hon. Chair, if you don't mind, I just want to throw in an aside in regards to. . . . I dearly hope that we won't see a "Harry Lali Tunnel" going across, because we'd be in real trouble.

The Chair: Presumably we're not going to be using proper names in the House.

D. Jarvis: Well, Lions Gate Bridge -- that's a proper name, sir. We use proper names when we're identifying different items, you know, like a boat going by.

So I now understand that there will be a definite decision made by the end of this month, which is approximately less than two weeks from now. It's really exciting to hear about that.

It really bothers me when the Buckland report of two years ago said it was necessary to have seismic repairs done to that bridge, because the biggest problem with that bridge is the fact that there could be an earthquake. I've been on their bridge when there has been an earthquake, and I'll tell you, if that is what Buckland said. . . . He is supposed to be the epitome of bridge knowledge in this province. He's looked after that bridge for God knows how many years, probably twenty years. Every time the ministry has set out to discuss something about the bridge, they have brought forward Buckland to say: "This is what's happening; this is the safest way and how we're going to do it." Now you're saying that you and your bureaucrats feel that the seismic problem is not there until such time as you come out with a decision. How long would it take for seismic repairs and/or tests -- whatever it is -- to be done on the existing bridge?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to throw a little sidebar comment out to the member opposite. I posed an issue: if the opposition wants to see a four-lane structure, then they can make a choice. They can tell me. . . . If the opposition comes out with an official position that says, "Put a toll on it," or "Incur public debt," I assure the member opposite that I'll name it the "Dan Jarvis Bridge."

I also want to point out, in terms of the seismic issue. . . .

The Chair: Minister, please don't continue this proper-name stuff.

Hon. H. Lali: I apologize to the member; I shouldn't have done that. I got a little carried away in the heat of the debate that's been going on. The hon. member and I go back a long way -- six and half years. We got elected at the same time, in 1991, and we sort of have a habit of throwing jibes at each other now and then. It's all done in a friendly way. I didn't mean to give any kind of harm, and I don't think any was taken, but there are rules that we must follow.

Getting back to the issue as to when the seismic reinforcement will be done, I think the member knows that nothing has been done thus far. I assure the member opposite that there will be a decision in the next two weeks. I think we've got 17 days until the end of this month. There will be a decision, and the seismic reinforcement will be part of that decision. As soon as that decision is done, they can immediately begin work. In terms of doing the seismic reinforcement, that has to be done as well.

I've made my commitment to the member. It's on record; it's in Hansard. He can use it against me as he wishes in the future. I've given him the commitment: the decision will be made at the end of the month and part of that decision will include the seismic reinforcement.

The Chair: The member continues -- and please remember to direct your comments through the Chair, using the third person.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Minister, I would like to direct a question to you on the basis that. . . . If your announcement -- 12 days or 17 days from now -- requires seismic tests to be done to the existing bridge, how long will it take for them to do the seismic repairs and how much will it cost?

Hon. H. Lali: Whether it's option 1 with the three-lane or option 2 with the four-lane, one thing is for certain: the present structure will be rehabbed. I also want to point out to the member, seismic testing will be incorporated within the design work that will take place. As soon as the announcement is made and as soon as it is decided who the winning bidder is, they will incorporate the seismic reinforcement as part of their overall design to rehab the bridge; it will be a part of it. Once the design work is done, then effective immediately after that, as the construction begins, they will also start doing the seismic retrofit.

D. Jarvis: We can assume, then, that we are going to see either a rehab, a three-lane Lions Gate Bridge or a bridge which will consist of four lanes. . . .

[ Page 7809 ]

D. Jarvis: I correct myself. We're going to have a three-lane rehab bridge or a two-lane rehab bridge with a two-lane HL tunnel underneath it. Therefore the costs haven't been stated yet -- what it's going to cost the taxpayers. Are you going to be staying within the original figure that the previous minister announced: $70 million, which I now understand has been escalated to around $134 million if it's rehab on the bridge?

Hon. H. Lali: Just to give a little bit of a clarification. Option 1 is a straight three-lane rehab of the existing structure. The second option is a two-lane rehab on the existing bridge -- it would be wider lanes -- and a cycling lane. The third lane that is there right now would become a cycling lane and also a two-lane tunnel. That's the difference between the first option and the second option.

In terms of cost estimates, it is not the $134 million that the hon. member across the way has just pointed out. The cost for a straight rehab is approximately $78 million. For the two-lane tunnel and two-lane bridge, option 2, the costs are less than $400 million.

D. Jarvis: If we do take option 2, which is the tunnel aspect of it -- the two lanes plus tunnel -- have there been any studies done as to how long the environmental assessment will take?

Hon. H. Lali: On option 2, the four-lane option with a tunnel that I described, the EA process will be 14 to 22 months long. With option 1, which is the three-lane rehab, it would be considerably less.

D. Jarvis: Can the minister tell us how long the studies show that either one will take to actually conclude, not counting. . . ? For example, on option 2 you say it's anywhere from 14 to 22 months for the environmental assessment process. How long would it take to complete. . . ?

Hon. H. Lali: Overall?

D. Jarvis: No, I just want it for the bridge: what the repairs would be or the tunnel and all the rest. How long would it take to construct option 2, and how long would it take to finish option 1?

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of the completion of option 1, construction would start in 1999, and it would be completed in the year 2000. On option 2, the tunnel option, construction would actually start late in 1999 and would take longer to complete. It would be completed in the year 2002.

D. Jarvis: I would like to ask the minister a couple more questions with regard to the options. What repairs are now being done to the bridge, regardless of what's done -- whether it's option 1 or 2 -- to offset the fact that the Buckland report shows that there is great deterioration taking place? Will the bridge just be cut off at that point -- no traffic?

[4:15]

D. Jarvis: Well, I certainly hope that the three-man team that go up and down on the trolley-way underneath the bridge are earthquake experts. How are they going to tell if there is going to be an earthquake during that interim? We're situated without seismic repairs to the bridge, which the Buckland report said were required three years ago. Now we're waiting another 22 months minimum. So we're looking at about a five-year period where Buckland told you. . . . In its report, Buckland and Taylor said that seismic repairs have to be done because the bridge is not safe when it comes in to an earthquake situation. So glory be -- if we ever have a major earthquake in the next little while during a rush-hour period, you are certainly going to wipe out a lot of Liberal votes, aren't you?

Anyway, what I wanted to know also. . . . Could you tell me what the maintenance cost has been to date and what you expect it to be on the existing bridge until such time as you start major repairs to rehabilitate it using either option 1 or option 2?

Hon. H. Lali: I've already answered the hon. member's questions on the seismic reinforcement, and I've also answered questions on repairs, but I will repeat them one more time for the hon. member. I want to assure the hon. member across the way that when the decision is made and it is made public, we will ask the winning bidders to start doing the design work on seismic reinforcements right away so they can go on to do the actual repairs that are needed, regardless of what option we take. I want to put that on the record for the fourth time.

I also want to point out to the hon. member across the way that this is the first government in 60 years which has taken the initiative to do something about the situation of the Lions Gate Bridge. The Socreds completely neglected it when they were in power before 1991. I've answered those questions on the seismic issue and also on the repairs issue before, and I've answered them again.

D. Jarvis: Back in the good old days of the Socreds, I think the Buckland and Taylor report said that there wasn't anything that needed to be done until approximately 1995-96, but then we should deal with it right away. It's the latter time, when the deterioration is rapidly accelerating downwards, that the repairs and/or work have to be done. The members of the minister's staff had a meeting with us back in '96 and said those same words: the costs are accelerating, and the repairs required are accelerating. Every year it gets worse. Until such time as things go on, there is continued maintenance -- and has been. If you look back through the Buckland and Taylor report, up to $40 million has been spent on maintaining that bridge since years back. I want to know what the costs of repairs have been on that bridge up to date.

Hon. H. Lali: I've already pointed out to the hon. member across the way that we spent $3 million in last year's budget in terms of doing the repairs on that particular bridge. While construction will be going on, we're committing an additional $8 million over the next three years to be spent on that bridge.

[ Page 7810 ]

D. Jarvis: What you just said about repairs and seismic conditions in previous years, when an earthquake then was just as much of a problem as it is today -- that's a bunch of nonsense. Let's face it.

I would like to ask another question of the minister, if he wouldn't mind. Are there any studies forthcoming or that have been done with regards to an additional tunnel across the centre of the harbour area to offset future traffic problems, which will be increasing?

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member across the way knows that right now we're in the middle of the devolution of roads, which is taking place. Currently the province of British Columbia is responsible for the two crossings: the Lions Gate Bridge and the Second Narrows Bridge. We're responsible for those. If there were to be a third crossing, then the municipalities in the region would be responsible for the maintenance of that.

D. Jarvis: Madam Chair, I don't quite understand the answer. Is the minister suggesting that if there is any crossing over the Burrard Inlet in future, it should be the responsibility of the municipalities?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A third crossing would be the responsibility of the GVTA.

D. Jarvis: One other question before I turn it over to the member for Richmond Centre. You mentioned that one of the options would be to put in a cycling lane. I assume that will go into either option 1 or 2. Can you tell me what studies they've done on cycling lanes and on the requirement for a cycling lane? Can they tell us how many cyclists presently use the existing bridge and what the cost would be for instituting a cycling lane?

Hon. H. Lali: With either option, in terms of rehabbing the particular structure in place already, it would involve cantilevering out onto the sidewalks of the existing structure so that the portion travelled by cars would be in the centre and the outside cantilevered portions would be for pedestrians and cyclists.

I also want to point out a letter from the previous minister to the hon. member, which was signed on February 18, 1998. That was certainly before I became minister. I just want to quote from that letter. It says:

"Currently between 400 and 600 cyclists use the crossing on a daily basis. Most of these are commuters. An improved crossing would provide wider sidewalks with barriers to protect cyclists and pedestrians from adjacent traffic. Separate cycling and pedestrian facilities would be provided through Stanley Park. Connections to the Vancouver and North Shore street systems would also be improved. Studies indicate that improved cycling facilities will mean more cyclists will use the crossing. Upon opening, increases are estimated to be between 450 and 1,200 cyclists per day. Usage would increase to 2,900 cyclists per day within ten years. Most new cyclists will be current bridge users who currently traverse by automobile."

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Just nine months.

But, minister, I have contacted several bicycle clubs on the North Shore and in Vancouver, and they said that any such figure as 400-plus cyclists using that bridge in one day is completely erroneous. I'm asking you: where did that information. . . ? Did you have a study on it? Could you produce that study for us?

Hon. H. Lali: These figures are from actual counts and also from consultation with the municipal bicycling advisory committee.

I was wondering if we might take a quick five-minute break and then come back.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

D. Jarvis: Just a few more questions to the minister to wind up, and then I'll yield to the member for Richmond Centre. I think I said that about half an hour ago, but nevertheless. . . .

So, Mr. Minister, I guess we have come down to the decision now that we on the North Shore will see an expanded three-lane bridge to the North Shore. The government hasn't been successful in its ability to run the finances of the province properly, and we are in debt. They are afraid to go into further debt, so they are trying to say that they'll just do the cheapest thing they possibly can to keep that bridge in place until another government comes in and makes a final decision.

With regard to tolls, the minister has asked me: "What do you want? Do you want tolls, or do you want debt?" He's trying to put us into that position. So I'll turn around and ask him: was the same thing said when they did the Island Highway? And what about the question of tolls on other bridges throughout this province?

I want to ask a couple of specific questions with regards to option 1 or option 2. Regardless of how that proceeds, have they given consideration to and made any studies as to what effect that's going to have on the traffic flows on the Second Narrows Bridge?

Hon. H. Lali: As a matter of fact, we have given consideration to traffic flows on the Second Narrows Bridge. I also want to point out the comment the member made in his opening statement after the recess: that "the province doesn't know how to run its finances and that it tries to do the cheapest thing." I'm trying to paraphrase the hon. member.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: Yes he did; the hon. member did say that. And I want to point out to the member that it's a very live option. What does the Liberal Party of British Columbia favour? Does it favour tolls or does it favour debt?

Interjection.

[ Page 7811 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I heard an interjection from the former Finance critic from the opposition. We already had an election, and you guys lost. The public spoke fairly clearly on that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order.

A Voice: Order to the minister.

The Chair: Order to all members. The Chair does not need coaching.

Hon. H. Lali: To continue on, the hon. member also mentions the Vancouver Island Highway project. What options were there? Obviously we are looking at public debt over there. Is the hon. member now saying from across the floor that we should have tolls on the Island Highway? You can't have it both ways. We see those members opposite get up day in and day out and complain to the government that we're increasing the public debt. We hear them say that. They don't want to put any kind of toll on the Lions Gate; they don't want to put that anywhere. Yet here are the same people sitting across the way, the very same people who tell us day in and day out that they want this particular project in their back yard, in their own riding, to spend a hundred million there. We have the member from the Okanagan sitting there, who wants to have an $88 million or $90 million project in terms of the bridge over there.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: The member across the way. . . . They all ask for. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. We won't continue the debate until we have order.

Hon. H. Lali: To continue on again, they can't have it both ways. They can't, on the one hand, ask for cuts and then turn around and ask for an increase in spending on their pet projects -- be they million-dollar projects or a hundred-million-dollar projects -- in their own back yard.

D. Jarvis: I want to ask a couple more questions, but I want to preface it by saying that the minister mentioned the fact that they won the last election. Unfortunately for the people of British Columbia, they won the election with a minority vote. But at the same time, in that election they promised us a balanced budget. We've never had a balanced budget.

Interjections.

The Chair: Just one moment. I would like to let all members of the committee know that we are to debate the vote and the subject at hand, and that is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. To all members of the committee, we would like to keep the response and the debate according to the vote.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. . . .

Continue.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll take those words in hand.

We're talking about a new crossing across First Narrows. I don't know if you're familiar with the area, but there's a bridge going across First Narrows called the Lions Gate Bridge. We're discussing whether we're going to expand the existing Lions Gate Bridge or contract it a bit into two lanes and build a two-lane tunnel underneath it.

Of course, anytime you do something like that, you're required to spend money. Unless you have the cash in the bank -- which this government does not, because we have over $31 billion in debt. . . . Therefore we're going to have to increase the debt or we're going to have to go out to the people who live in the area, who use the highways and the bridges, and ask them to pay for it in another way, in the way of tolls.

The problem is that if they put tolls on that type of bridge -- either way, option 1 or 2 -- it would cause considerable problems, because there's another bridge down the road which doesn't have tolls. That bridge is already so. . . . I don't know what the expression is. But the north end of it has an area which has been badly designed and developed. I don't know whether it was this government that did it or the previous government. But whoever did it, it doesn't matter. There's a mess in the north end of it. So they already have congestion every morning, all the way up to what they call the Cut, to Lonsdale, which is approximately four kilometres. Every day it's getting larger and growing. So the frightening aspect of this is that if they go to option 1 or option 2, there is no question that there will be circumstances where people are going to elect not to wait in line for a specific time when the bridge may be open. They're only going to work on it on a part-time basis -- say, from midnight to six in the morning. But there'll be times when there's heavy traffic flow. I'm wondering if they have considered that and what they intend to do with regard to the north end access-egress of the Second Narrows Bridge to counteract that. I've heard reports that no matter when they start repairs, there will be up to a 40 percent exchange in traffic flows off the existing Lions Gate Bridge that will be transferred onto the Second Narrows Bridge. That will cause complete havoc -- as we experienced back in '95, I believe it was, when they did repairs to the Second Narrows Bridge.

The other aspect is that if this government decides. . . . I'd like to know if they have specific plans on that in regard to a study that I heard. . . . Are they aware of that study, in regard to an increase in traffic flows onto the Second Narrows Bridge? If the minister could tell me. . . . If we come down to a situation where tolls are involved, has a study been made as to what effect the traffic flows would be from people not wanting to use the toll system of the First Narrows onto the Second Narrows?

Hon. H. Lali: Some of these issues that he's talking about in terms of diversion if there were a toll on the First Narrows Bridge. . . . You know, they're all part of the studies that are being undertaken in terms of whatever decision we make.

I also want to point out that in terms of diversion. . . . I'll give you the example of the Coquihalla Highway. When the toll went on when the Coquihalla Highway opened, there were some people who were using the old route through the Fraser Canyon, but that was very short-lived. They actually

[ Page 7812 ]

[4:45]

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could clarify. . . . Because of the fact that we have two Houses on estimates . . . running back and forth here, I'm unable to be in the room all the time when he's discussing things with other members. I wonder if the minister could possibly tell me if that study that he did was the one in which they put the north end of the Second Narrows Bridge down on the totem pole for repairs, down to virtually the bottom, because they didn't feel it was necessary -- if I remember correctly from reading that report. And is that the report that said the primary repairs in this province in regards to your ministry are to the Mary Hill projects, out to Richmond and the Broadway exchange, and that Second Narrows would be the worst, at the very bottom?

Hon. H. Lali: The "Greater Vancouver Highway Improvement Outlook" -- the study the member referred to -- makes its first priority the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 1, centred around the Port Mann Bridge and the Cape Horn interchange. It was the number one priority that was identified, with the South Fraser perimeter road issue as part of it.

The second priority it identified was the interchange north of the Second Narrows Bridge. Right now, we are doing some improvements at the ramp at the Capilano interchange.

D. Jarvis: I'm pleased to hear that somewhere down the line there's going to be some work done on the north end of the Second Narrows Bridge. It is a serious problem that will only grow and get worse and worse. I'm pleased to hear the minister has. . . . Finally we've got a minister that's doing the job -- regardless of the fact that he's putting his government into further debt. We have a rising debt in this province. Nevertheless, some things are necessary at times.

Madam Speaker, I think I'll conclude now. I've been up here for a little over an hour now discussing this one bridge. But I want to ask one or two more questions. What does their study show, and how are they going to go about building option 1 or option 2? Will the repairs and/or construction result in a specific time period during the 24-hour day and the seven-day week? Or will they plan to close the whole thing off? What is their program on that aspect of it?

Hon. H. Lali: With either option, the plan is to have the minimum amount of traffic disruption as is humanly possible. Most of the construction work will be done at nighttime.

D. Jarvis: One aspect I want to just conclude with is in regard to the bicycle lane, which the minister mentioned. They got their information from the British Columbia bicycle group. That really surprises me, because that is a group of people that went in and lobbied and said that we needed a bicycle lane. The minister never mentioned what the cost would be. I think the cost will far exceed the requirements of bicycles on that bridge. A lot of people, and probably the councillor in Vancouver, Mr. Price, will think I'm a heretic. But he is part of that group where there's. . . . I've sat down on that bridge and watched the traffic flows in the morning -- and this has been within the last six months -- and I'll tell you that if they get a hundred bikes across that bridge in a day, one way, it's surprising. Like this government, they've probably miscounted and misjudged the fact that. . . . Like they said before: "We were going to give you a balanced budget, but it turned out that we had a large debt."

I just thought I'd throw that in, Madam Chair, just to make sure that everyone is aware that this government has mishandled our finances over the past years. I really am suspicious as to what's going to go on with this Lions Gate Bridge or First Narrows crossing. I'd ask the minister if he could answer those two last questions, and then I'll turn it over to the member from Richmond.

Hon. H. Lali: The member talked about mismanaging the finances, and in an earlier question he talked about debt. If he's that worried about the debt and if he wants to have the interchange just north of the Second Narrows done, is he then saying that we should maybe not do it? I'm just joking; we're not about to do that.

The hon. member was talking about some B.C. cycling network. It wasn't the B.C. cycling network; it was known as the municipal bicycling advisory committee for the municipalities in the region. It wasn't set up by the B.C. government.

I also want to point out at this time that in terms of the present structure and being able to use your bicycle safely on that, there are people who use the Lions Gate Bridge right now, but it's not safe to do that. There's not enough room there, especially if you have people coming from opposing directions or somebody who is walking across. People would use it to a greater extent if it were safer for them to actually use their bicycles on the facility.

D. Symons: Just a few concerns about things he has said over the last while when discussing the issue of the Lions Gate Bridge. He reiterated two or three times that nobody has done anything for the Lions Gate Bridge in 60 years. I might remind the minister that it was 60 years ago that the bridge was actually in the process of being built, so it's not likely that anybody would have done anything before the 60-year period.

There was a time -- by the way, it was built by private enterprise, not by government -- in the 1970s. . . . The minister might not have been alive at that time or might have been a wee babe at the time. There was a time there when they did some rehab work -- considerable rehab work -- redecking the whole thing, starting from the North Shore up to the point where the actual suspension part takes place. At that time, there was a lot of discussion as to how they were going to end up completing the suspension part of the decking. They were wondering about barging things in and raising it up and all sorts of procedures in doing that. But they did discover that there was a way of doing it, but it was going to disrupt traffic immensely.

They put off doing it in the seventies because of the problems with traffic -- and with the financing, I might add, as well; it was going to be quite expensive. But considering the cost of doing that work then and the cost of doing it now, and the disruption to traffic then and the disruption to traffic now, it was false economy to have put that work off in the seven-

[ Page 7813 ]

So people have done something. "Sixty years ago" was a nonsense thing to say because the bridge was being constructed then. There were things done in the seventies. They weren't completed, unfortunately.

In the business of working on the bridge, you talked about doing a rehab of the current bridge. I think the work needed to take the current bridge up to standards needed will be slightly more than a rehab job -- a rebuild would be the case there, I would think, because rehab is at a lesser cost level.

You also talked about the options of the current rehab of the current bridge or a rehab and a two-lane tunnel. I'm wondering: when the current people were putting in proposals -- I think you have three companies that are making proposals -- were they aware that these were the only two options? I thought that when a request for proposals went out, it was basically held to a certain area they had to work in and to certain parameters. But I didn't know that the parameters were that narrow and that it must be either a two-lane tunnel with a two-lane bridge or a rehab of the current bridge. I was sure that the request for proposals that went out went a step further and allowed them a little more leeway than that. Was that not the case?

Hon. H. Lali: The member is correct that 60 years ago the Lions Gate Bridge was built privately, but he neglected to mention that there was also a toll on that bridge at that time.

In terms of the four-laning option, the member described his preference. It would have been too damaging. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. H. Lali: Let me rephrase that, then. The two-lane option that the member just stated for the record. . . . Why was that not chosen when the couplet scheme with the tunnel was chosen? The four-lane option he has described would have been too damaging for the park. Vegetation loss would have actually been fairly great, and there was no support from the parks department for that.

D. Symons: I'm just concerned, hon. Chair, that obviously the minister wasn't listening to what I asked. I simply asked. . . . He, not I, was making a comment that the options they were looking at, which he was referring to earlier, are either a rehab of the current bridge with three lanes, or a two-lane tunnel with a two-lane bridge. These were not my bridges. . . . I didn't mention anything at all about a four-lane option, so I'm not quite sure where he got that. I could tell him where he got it because he said that these are the only two options there.

[5:00]

Now you're trying to narrow those down, and I'm getting down to the stage. . . . The question I asked basically was. . . . You talked about two options now. I want to know if the current people -- the people who are putting bids in and, supposedly, being short-listed were bidding on just those two, or were they, indeed, still bidding on the request for proposals where there were wider parameters than just these two options before them? That's all I was asking. No four lanes at all were discussed.

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes to the two options that were put forward before you.

D. Symons: Okay. So what they've gone out to is just the fact that the request for proposals is more than that now. You're basically asking for bids, I would suspect. Or are you going to short-list these three and then ask for bids? What's the procedure at this stage? You're saying that we're going to have a great announcement at the end of the month, 17 days from now. Exactly what will you be announcing? The builder who's doing it, and the cost?

Hon. H. Lali: They've already been short-listed to the three proponents, and I will be announcing the final design scheme.

D. Symons: After you announce the final design scheme, will you go out for tendering and take tender proposals from more than one? Or will it simply be the one who has given you the nicest design scheme that you will be asking to cost out?

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes to a public proposal call.

D. Symons: Thank you. Just to finish off the bridge. . . . I'm almost at the end, and then we are going to move up to the Okanagan. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea, because you didn't quite give the answer. You said that there is going to be $8 million set aside over the next three years. I guess it's to keep the bridge in shape so it can be used until the replacement and the tunnel are built. How much has been spent since 1992, since we started this whole issue with the Lions Gate Bridge, on keeping it in shape enough that it can be used? You spent $3 million last year. You went out for tender, and that involved the stringers and so forth that you've mentioned. How much the year before and the year before has been added above what would be normal maintenance costs for the bridge? There are considerably more expenses that have gone into that total -- rough figures, a ballpark figure.

Hon. H. Lali: The $8 million figure that I cited earlier is regular maintenance that we would have to do on a regular basis anyway. In terms of the costs from 1992, I gave the hon. member the $3 million cost for 1997-98. We don't have all the other figures from '92 onwards. Presently we will supply them -- even though they were canvassed last year and given.

D. Symons: I gather that if we take $8 million for the next three years and work backwards, we are looking in the neighbourhood of somewhere around $10 million or $12 million from 1992 until the time at which the building of the new bridge takes place will have been spent keeping it in a condition to be used. So we'll take a few million on that.

[ Page 7814 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The cost is $78 million. It's from the TFA and not MOTH. I wanted to point that out. Certainly the costs incurred in the last few years are part of that $78 million.

D. Symons: Can you give me just a ballpark figure, then, on the costs incurred? In effect, what will the company that might win this bid have to work with in order to build the bridge or do the rehab or whatever they're doing? What contribution are they likely to get beyond the costs that have already been used?

Hon. H. Lali: As I indicated in my last answer, the cost is $78 million. We've gone through the choices process, and with all the design and engineering work that's already been done, what's still available for the bidders is $65 million to $70 million.

S. Hawkins: Before I start with my questions on projects, I want to just put on the record my appreciation again this year to Geoff Freer and Ed Sanders, ministry officials in my riding. Given the resources and workload that they have to deal with, they've certainly been of great assistance to our office. They try to help out as much as they can, and we do appreciate that.

Now, I heard my riding and my name taken in vain a few minutes ago. It just really burns me when I hear stuff like that. I hear across the way that we're standing here and asking for things for our constituents. That is not. . . . We're asking the government to keep the commitments that they made for our constituents. I'm serving my constituents. I'm keeping my commitment here today by asking this minister and this ministry if they're going to keep their commitments and the promises they made.

I didn't make those promises. I didn't promise a bridge or rehab projects for that bridge -- that wasn't me. I've lived in the Okanagan for seven years now, and every year that this government has been in power, they have promised improvements to the bridge. They even promised a new bridge. They've studied this thing to death. In fact, I've got an article here from the Okanagan Daily Courier that says "Bridge Over Studied Waters." Well, I think that's an understatement. For all the money they've put into studies, they probably could have paved that bridge for all I know.

The other thing that really burns me is that the money that was committed to this bridge keeps getting chipped away and chipped away, and downloaded now to my constituents. From an $86 million project, we're getting $64 million from the province and now $22 million from my constituents, who already are paying for downloading by this government. People are getting awfully frustrated and cheesed off, so my question -- because I'm keeping my commitment to my constituents to ask on their behalf about what's going on with this project. . . . Last year and the year before, I stood here and asked the same questions.

It's getting frustrating that every year we're standing here and asking those same questions. If the minister can be so honest as to say. . . . If the bridge is not going to be built, then say it, because people will deal with that. People just want to know. They get tired of having to stress over it all the time. Is this project going to go ahead? Or is it not? I think they get more frustrated seeing their money frittered away in studies. It's totally mind-boggling how money keeps appearing for studies but nothing real seems to happen.

So I want to know what the status of this project is, because that's the commitment that I've made to my constituents. I've made the commitment to ask what the status is of this project and what the government is willing to pony up money for.

Hon. H. Lali: Typical Liberal doublespeak is what you hear, especially from that member across the way. I think she's on record, time and time again, for having done that, and I want to tell her. . . . She keeps mentioning that we're chipping away at the original amount. That's the comment she has made -- time and time again we're chipping away.

Here is a BCTFA press release from October 24, 1997, in which the commitment was for $63.7 million -- the exact figure that we have indicated on several occasions. There's no chipping away on this. I also want to point out to the hon. member, who says that she didn't make the promise for this particular bridge, that she has no problem coming up every year in estimates, year after year, wanting this structure to be built but she doesn't want to pay for it somehow. That's the kind of doublespeak that we see from that particular member, time in and time out.

Certainly the construction of this particular project is subject to financial agreement with the local authorities. Discussions are underway between the BCTFA, the city of Kelowna, the Central Okanagan regional district and the Westbank first nation, who have done their research on this issue and happen to be a lot more in tune than the member opposite seems to be. The design of the project is occurring while the funding options are being investigated. The province is confident that an agreement will be achieved. We will go to an announcement sometime in the future.

S. Hawkins: Somehow the future never comes. You know, the future is. . . . This bridge -- the minister should just admit it -- is never going to be built during their mandate. And their mandate will be small, I can guarantee that. I mean, I can't believe the rhetoric coming out of the mouth of that minister over there. I can't believe it, you know -- unbelievable.

I didn't make the promise. I wasn't around seven years ago to make the promise that they were going to build this bridge. When I moved to the Okanagan, we kept hearing about this bridge that was going to built -- four lanes, a brand-new bridge, a second crossing. Holy cow, you know, we've heard it all from the members from that side of the House. For the seven years that I've lived in the Okanagan, nothing has happened. It's probably the most studied bridge. Why do I want it built? Because they promised it. If they couldn't fulfil that commitment, they shouldn't have made the

[ Page 7815 ]

What I'm asking, because. . . . What I see from 1997, last year or whatever, is a $64 million commitment on the part of this government. But that isn't what they promised. They promised to redo that bridge, to either pave it or third-lane it or fourth-lane it or a brand-new bridge -- whatever. They promised a bridge.

Now we get a $64 million commitment and a $22 million off-loading. Before, it was that we were going to get the bridge. Now, the city, the regional district and all the other partners have been asked to help out with the $22 million. I mean, we've seen this government off-load onto the municipalities, regional districts and local government in so many different ways. They are very willing to sit down and help cut costs. But we pay enough in taxes there; we honestly do. What we ask the government is to spend our money responsibly; that's what we asked for. We haven't seen that coming.

Again, all I'm doing is fulfilling the commitment my constituents have asked me to do, and it's to get some movement on this bridge. These are promises that these members opposite made -- not me, not this side of the House. They did it; they said it.

Sometime in the future doesn't cut it; it just doesn't. This is the third year or third session I've been sitting here asking: "When is the work on this bridge going to start?" We haven't seen the shovel in the ground. As I've said of other ministries: the shovel's been somewhere else. These guys have been shovelling a lot lately, and it ain't projects that are going to any riding in any significant way. When, when, when are we going to see any movement on this bridge?

[5:15]

I want to point out that the only person who doesn't seem to be on board is the hon. member for Okanagan West over there. I want to quote from Mayor Walter Gray of Kelowna -- and this is from that press release of October 24, 1997 -- who says: "The city welcomes steps being taken toward a solution for congestion on and around the bridge. Staged improvements will provide some relief from congestion while we explore funding options, such as the introduction of a regional fuel tax for major work at the bridge." This is a direct quote from the member's mayor.

I also want to quote, from the same press release, Robert Hobson, chair of the Central Okanagan regional district, who says: "In the interim, we will assist the province in considering options to reduce congestion for Central Okanagan residents." I want to point out to the opposition across the way that there is a process in place. We are working with the stakeholders in the particular region to come to a decision on this particular project. They're on board with this. I want to point out again to the hon. member that you can't build unless you design it first.

S. Hawkins: Well, I'm so happy that the minister quotes from his own Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- the government's news release. Of course everybody's on board; they want to see something happen here. I've been standing here -- this is the third session -- asking when something's going to happen. The mayor's on board -- the former mayor; Jim Stewart was on board. Mr. Hobson's on board. I talk to them all the time. Of course we're on board. You know what? The only people who aren't on board are you guys; it's the members sitting opposite. They've dragged their feet for seven years. In the seven years that I've lived here, all we've heard is maybe -- maybe, maybe, maybe; someday, someday, someday; maybe in the future. You know what? For these guys, the future never comes.

If we're into reading quotes from people, I want to read a November 4, 1997, letter that the chamber of commerce president, Lorne Ettinger, sent to the previous minister. It reads: "This government has previously taken the position that full funding would be made available for such projects as our bridge unless there was a second or alternative route. As this is not the case, we hold the government to their commitment to provide the funds necessary to complete this vital project." So I'm not making it up. I wasn't the only one saying that I heard that this government was going to provide full funding for the bridge.

I guess I get pretty perturbed, like other people in my riding who I represent, when I hear government backing down and backing away from commitments that they made. Let's be honest here. If you're not going to build it, just say it. The process has been going on way too long. If it takes seven years to finally get to the design stage, it might take 70 years before we ever get anything done with the bridge, at the rate these guys are moving. That is absolutely ridiculous.

It's frustrating to keep hearing from constituents over and over again. They just want an answer. If nothing's going to be done, then stand up and have the courage to say: "Nothing's going to be done. There's no money." But don't keep promising $66 million, because ten years from now $66 million is probably going to be $80 million or $90 million or $100 million. Then you're going to say there's no money. Then, if there's a partnership with the city or with other stakeholders, you're going to want more money. Let's say that we're going to do it. I just get absolutely burnt when I hear comments that it may be in the future. Let's set a reasonable time line and say we're going to do it. If there's no money, then say that. All people want is an honest answer. All people want is government to hold their promises, to fulfil their commitments. That hasn't been done in this case.

I do support the fact that this bridge needs work. I support that very strongly. You know why? That bridge was built the year I was born. That bridge is an old, old bridge, and there's been hardly any work done. It's a really old bridge, and it's time there was some work done on that bridge. It's a safety factor. It's a floating bridge. There are not too many of them around the world. The last floating bridge that was worked on sank, so of course we want the studies. But let's be reasonable here. Don't just keep telling people, "It's maybe in the future," and: "Now we're in the design process." I've lived in the Okanagan seven years, and we've finally got to the design. My goodness!

Let's have an answer. Is there a set deadline? Is there a plan for this bridge? Is there a deadline that we can take back

[ Page 7816 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to correct the member opposite. We've heard a lot of rhetoric, and we heard it last year and the year before and the year before. I want to point out that the process for this bridge didn't start seven years ago; it started in 1995. To date, we've spent $1.5 million on this. I heard the member say earlier that she didn't want to see any studies, and now it's indicated that we should do some studies. We're beyond the study stage; we're into the design and the engineering. The design and engineering work, if you're at all familiar with highways projects, takes time. Design and engineering are underway, and the work will be completed next year. After that is completed, the province is ready to go to construction.

If the member had done her research, she would know that the delay is not from the provincial side. The delay is with regard to the funding issue, which is related to improvements to the municipal roads on the other side of the bridge. The holdup is not the province, so I want to correct the hon. member across the way.

S. Hawkins: I know that there has been more planning for the bridge since 1995, but the planning was in place before 1995. I moved there in 1991, and the questions were flying when we moved there. That issue has been with me since I moved to the Okanagan seven years ago -- and that's where the seven years come in.

As far as saying that you will pay for the bridge from one shore of the lake to the other shore of the lake and that both sides -- on either side of the lake -- are the municipal or local government responsibility, I guess that's the downloading that the province is deciding is okay for municipalities. That's what you're saying. That's the $22 million that the government is now asking local governments to make up. You know, if you're going to build a bridge and make it wider or add another lane, of course you're going to have to make improvements to both sides for access coming on and off the bridge. I just find it really troubling that now. . . . We did get moving down the road in the last few years, and finally we're at the design stage. I don't know how long it's going to take to get to the building stage, but we've decided to off-load $22 million onto local government. And yes, they're willing to work and find ways to change the designs -- anything but hit the taxpayers back home again. The minister knows as well as I do that there's only one taxpayer, and they've been hit pretty hard during this government's mandate.

They need this project. It's been a priority project, I understand, in the Okanagan. People feel it is a priority, and they don't want to be hit again. I find it rather offensive to hear that the mayor and Mr. Hobson and some of the other local stakeholders are happily walking hand in hand with this government to find that $22 million -- because they're not. I can tell you that right now. They represent those constituents as I do, and they are not. It's a forced relationship. They will work, because we know that for safety and transportation access in the Okanagan we need that project. That's why we will work with it, but it's not a happy relationship -- I can guarantee you that.

I have a couple more projects I want to talk about. Last year -- guess what -- we were promised that the Glenrosa interchange was going to be started last fall. Gee, I drive past there, and I don't see anything happening. I know the property acquisitions were promised last year, and I believe that's the stage that they're at right now: the ministry is looking at property acquisition. Can I get an update on what's happening with the Glenrosa interchange?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to go back to the first part of the hon. member's statement. I gave the member a figure of $1.5 million that we spent on the Okanagan Lake Bridge issue last year. In this year's budget, it's $2.16 million that we will be doing. These are not moneys that you can just sort of sneeze at. I've already indicated the design and engineering that we're doing.

The issue of downloading that the hon. member mentioned. . . . I mean, obviously she doesn't understand the issue. We're helping the community. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Chair, when the hon. member is speaking, I sit here and quietly listen. I wish that she would afford the same kind of courtesy to this side of the House. Thank you.

Just to continue on that particular issue, we're working with the communities. We are actually helping the community to fix their municipal road system as a part of this whole deal. To be quite honest, Kelowna is one of the most cooperative municipalities that this ministry has had to deal with, if the member actually realizes that. . . . Anytime there are negotiations going on, you go back and forth, and I don't know if the member actually understands the nature of negotiations.

On the issue of the Glenrosa interchange, the project was first announced in 1995. We had the capital freeze that was instituted in 1996. One of the issues that came out was that we had to do a value-engineering exercise on that; we're doing that. We're trying to do that in the most cost-effective way that we possibly can. The results of the value-engineering review should be available in the near future. We're expecting to put the shovel in the ground either later this year or early next year.

S. Hawkins: I guess I should just get it on the record: when will the shovel be in the ground for the bridge?

Hon. H. Lali: As soon as we can come to an agreement on the cost-sharing issue that is at stake before the players.

S. Hawkins: Well, I guess that tells me a lot. We don't know, and we'll just continue not to know. For the record, this member has a very good relationship with her city council, Kelowna city council, and with the regional district -- unlike some of the other members that perhaps don't even get home to some of their constituencies and meet with their local councils. The information I am giving today comes from local government, so I'm surprised the minister hasn't heard some of those concerns. Maybe he's not listening.

[5:30]

Hon. H. Lali: I believe that's an IWP project. It's a municipal bridge. We can talk about that under IWPs.

S. Hawkins: I'll defer to the member for Okanagan-Penticton, then.

[ Page 7817 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes, and we will tell you later when the announcements are ready to be made.

R. Thorpe: I thought that when the minister got finished with the member from the other part of the Okanagan and some of the silliness, perhaps we'd try to be serious as we approach the southern end of the Okanagan. Since the minister wants to play the photo-op-and-ribbon-cutting exercise, perhaps the minister could tell us -- as he told the people from Vancouver -- what options are being considered for capital projects in the southern Okanagan.

Hon. H. Lali: I think the member has been in the House long enough to know that it's future policy, and he's just got to wait for the announcements to be made.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister provide the residents of the south Okanagan with an update on the spending initiatives -- not the policy initiatives -- with respect to the Okanagan Valley transportation system, excluding the bridge -- south of the bridge?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I would say to the hon. member that any future announcements or future policy. . . . I would not be revealing that here. It would have to be done at a later time. He will just have to wait like everybody else for the announcement to come. However, if the hon. member across the way has some specific issue or project in mind that he wants to get some information on -- hint, hint -- he may ask accordingly.

R. Thorpe: We thought we might be finished tomorrow sometime, but it doesn't appear we will be, at this rate. Perhaps the minister -- hint, hint -- would listen to the previous question -- hint, hint. Could you please tell us the spending program for the Okanagan Valley transportation system, excluding the bridge: the Peachland-Coquihalla connector, south to the border.

Hon. H. Lali: Approximately $2 million.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister perhaps give us a little more detailed explanation on where they may spend that $2 million in this coming year?

Hon. H. Lali: Some of the projects are around Penticton, and some are around Oliver and also on Highway 3. They include various roads with some minor repairs, others requiring perhaps seal-coating and repaving work and guard-rail installation -- projects in various parts of his constituency.

R. Thorpe: First of all, for the minister's benefit -- and I realize that it's very difficult to understand every riding -- my riding doesn't go down to Oliver. That's the member. . . .

Hon. H. Lali: You asked for a summary on the Okanagan.

R. Thorpe: Yes. But with respect to your Okanagan Valley transportation plan, have you been looking at and are you studying putting any pullout lanes on the highway between Peachland and Penticton?

Hon. H. Lali: The Okanagan Valley transportation plan is a long-range plan; it's a 25-year forecast of traffic patterns. Some of the specifics the hon. member is looking for are too specific for the kind of plan that is being envisaged.

R. Thorpe: We know that this government has great difficulty in dealing with specifics. It's always never-never land; it's like going to Disneyland. Hon. Chair, can this minister tell us if we are actually going to spend the money on road improvements? Or are we going to continue to pile up the studies?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes to the first part and no to the second.

R. Thorpe: Now that we know that we're going to spend the money on the road, perhaps the minister could tell us what he's going to do and where he's going to do it, so that we know that, and we don't have to worry about the photo ops.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, that's asking for the specifics that he asked for in his original question when he first got up.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the $2 million that the minister indicated they will spend on the roads -- but I get the sense it may not be spent on the roads -- could the minister tell me which specific municipal government in the riding of Okanagan-Penticton his group is working in coordination with to develop this spending?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. H. Lali: The member is familiar. . . . I know the member for Okanagan West indicated that she had been working with a couple of members of the regional team for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. These plans are drawn up. . . . These priorities are the ones that come up from the ground -- from the local areas, through the system -- and they are funded on a priority basis. Obviously traffic congestion and the safety issues of the travelling public are main issues of concern when they are being funded. The various municipalities in the southern Okanagan are in regular consultation with district and regional staff in terms of setting out the priorities that they want to see the government fund.

R. Thorpe: I don't recall the minister actually answering the question. The question was very specific: which municipality -- is it Peachland, Summerland, Penticton or the regional district of South Okanagan. . . ? In consultation with which of those organizations -- or is it all of those organizations -- is this $2 million going to be spent?

Hon. H. Lali: It will be spent in consultation with all of the municipalities in the South Okanagan region. The member will very shortly be getting his briefing binder, which will give the specifics, so that if he chooses, he can go out and announce them on his own.

R. Thorpe: No, we expect that the photo-op government will be there.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members!

[ Page 7818 ]

Hon. H. Lali: That is exactly what I'm saying. You will get those notes.

R. Thorpe: Well, perhaps in the future. . . . Instead of all the political rhetoric, the minister could have been direct and to the point 16 questions ago. That would have saved us all this time.

I now defer to my colleague from Okanagan-Boundary.

B. Barisoff: Just a few questions. I'd like to know the status of Highway 33, in particular the Big White hill. What is the status of that particular area, considering that there is an awful lot of traffic coming from the Boundary country towards Kelowna?

Hon. H. Lali: That's an excellent question, but unfortunately, it's a ministry issue. I would be more than happy to deal with that under the MOTH estimates.

B. Barisoff: On the record, I hope that he can answer that tomorrow or next week or whenever we are there.

Going back to the Okanagan Valley transportation plan, I noticed that it says in the plan that one of the really congested areas is the area from OK Falls to McAlpine Bridge. I'm just wondering, in particular, about the Vaseux Lake corner. I bring this up year after year. I would just like to know what the status is on that.

[5:45]

Noting the late hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada