[ Page 7841 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

S. Hawkins: Today in the gallery we have Mayor Paul Jean from Burns Lake, who is here, as people may have noticed, with a hospital bed on the front lawn of the Legislature. With him is Cyril Shelford. He's a former MLA and former Agriculture minister, who served this Legislature for 25 years. He was the member for Omineca. He is now retired in Victoria. Accompanying them, as well, are Laureen Williams and Ted Williams. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: In recognition of the tabling in the House today of the national unity resolution for the House's consideration, we have four members of the citizens' panel on national unity joining us in the gallery. The first is Alice McQuade, who is a teacher in Delta and co-chair of the national unity panel. Cheryl Tellier is the president of the Nanaimo, Duncan and District Labour Council and a member of the panel. Rosalind Thorn is the president of both the Prince George and the Northern B.C. Construction Associations. Meike Wernicke-Heinrichs is currently working with Lufthansa Airlines in Richmond, and is the co-editor of the Unity Link web site; she was recommended to the panel by the Vancouver Sun. I ask all members of the House to recognize their contribution and welcome them to the House today.

L. Reid: I have two very dear friends in the gallery today. Mr. Jed Dodsworth is accompanied by his son John Dodsworth, probably the youngest parliamentarian here today. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased that joining us in the gallery this afternoon are a number of students from a wonderful school in my constituency, Spectrum Community School. They've come down to see the decorum and the example that this House sets to them and to the province. I'd ask all members to make them very welcome.

M. de Jong: I'm thrilled to welcome a group of grade 7 students from Godson Elementary School in my constituency. They're here with their teacher, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Dalton, as well as some other parents travelling with them. Please make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to rise today to announce, introduce and welcome some new additions to the staff here in the Legislature: our summer tour guides, who are now part of the protocol and events branch. We have six summer tour guides. They will be offering tours in English, French, German, Japanese, Cantonese and Mandarin. They are Miranda Duffy, Chan Ly, Sonja Reid, Ryo Utahara, Janet Cho and Claudia Russ -- a welcome addition to the legislative precinct.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would like the House to welcome today a group of British Columbia fishermen who have been touring the precincts. They're here for a federally inspired retraining program. The fishermen, when they spoke to me today, explained that they can't bare much more. They're looking for some help and support from this House and from all British Columbians. I bid the House support them.

B. Goodacre: I would also like to introduce Mr. Paul Jean, the mayor of Burns Lake, a community in my riding -- and a fine community leader he is. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

STATUTE REVISION CORRECTION AND
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 20, the Statute Revision Correction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1998. This bill makes a number of corrections and amendments which arise from the general revision of the statutes which occurred last year. Inevitably, the statute revision process yields certain errors which require such correction and amendment. The need for this legislation was anticipated and is part of the general plan of the 1996 revision of the statutes.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I rise to make brief ministerial statement.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Ministerial Statement

RESOLUTION OF B.C. UNITY PANEL

The resolution reflects the fact that British Columbians love Canada and are committed to keeping it whole. A large majority of British Columbians told the Unity Panel that they supported the principles contained in the Calgary framework and, in particular, those principles which spoke of the equality of individuals and the equality of the provinces. In that context, British Columbians have no difficulty in acknowledging the unique character of Quebec society.

Furthermore, British Columbians told the panel that national unity was not just about addressing Quebec's concerns but that the federation would be strengthened if the federal government treated British Columbia more fairly and took our concerns into account. To that end, this resolution references the concerns and aspirations presented to the Unity Panel by British Columbians.

The 22 members of the Unity Panel -- ten elected officials and 12 citizens -- worked long and hard to get the views of

[ Page 7842 ]

I commend this resolution for the consideration of the members and thank British Columbians for demonstrating, by participating in this process, their vision of a strong British Columbia in a united Canada.

The Speaker: In response, I recognize the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I want to begin by thanking the Premier for his remarks. I also want to extend my personal appreciation and the appreciation of the official opposition to all of the members of the Unity Panel, including those who are here today and those who are unable to be here today, who I think worked hard, conscientiously and with enthusiasm to try and create a project that would be an important contribution to the work of national unity in British Columbia.

[2:15]

I think it's probably appropriate to say, on the eve of what is going to be for us a long weekend, that the tabling of both of these resolutions gives all of us in this House an opportunity to talk to our constituents, to come back for what I hope will be a debate next week -- what I expect will be a constructive debate by the members of this House. It's a debate that I look forward to, and I'm sure all members of the House do.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I think that what was not said in this ministerial statement but is deserving of being said in this Legislative Assembly is the extent to which members of this House came together in this process, in a non-partisan way, and attempted to consult with and include British Columbians from around the province, to seek ways in which we could express to Ottawa and to the rest of Canada what it is in British Columbia that we find important to British Columbians, as Canadians.

The second thing I'd like to say that has not been said and that I think needs to be said is that this government took an action that is unlike any other government in Canada, to the extent that they were prepared to extend that consultation beyond the strict parameters of the Calgary declaration to include issues that are of importance to British Columbians. To that extent, we have been far more exhaustive, far more extensive, in our searching of opinion than any of the other provinces in Canada. For that I think this government does deserve some congratulations.

I think also what's critically important in this process is the resolution that comes forward by way of a motion. Not only does it accurately reflect what the committee heard but I think, more importantly, it accurately expresses a growing level of frustration that so many British Columbians have with the seeming inability of Ottawa to understand that as Canadians -- as good Canadians -- British Columbians have issues that are equal in importance to those of the province of Quebec. While we do seek to find resolution to the differences between the people of Quebec and Canada, we also seek to find resolution to those issues that are important to British Columbia. This motion specifically will name fisheries, and nowhere is there a more important expression of our concern with respect to the power of the shared relationship between British Columbia and Ottawa than in the seeming inability of us to get a handle on that question, especially today.

So there are some congratulations to be given to the Premier in particular, because he took what I think is a bold step with respect to this process, unlike what we have seen by other Premiers, who had an equal opportunity. Also, as the member for Richmond-Steveston has said, we do have an opportunity in this debate, for the first time since this Legislature has sat, to be able to formally and properly express to Ottawa the position of British Columbians with respect to a new shared relationship. With that, hon. Speaker, I congratulate this government, I look forward to the debate, and I clearly hope that Ottawa is listening.

Oral Questions

NORTHERN HEALTH CARE

Hon. G. Clark: I certainly understand that the people in the north want their health care services restored as quickly as possible. That's our government's goal as well. Certainly the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has been vigilant on this question in raising it and looking for solutions. That's why the minister appointed Lucy Dobbin recently to help bring us together with doctors so we can find solutions to their issues and to those of patients in rural areas. This obviously is a difficult question. It's one which we need to find a resolution for. We understand the frustration and concerns of the people in the north. But at the end of the day, it takes two parties to come to an agreement. Frankly, we have some challenges with the highest-paid doctors in Canada, ones for which we require solutions that lead to an overall solution for people in the north and that improve services for all people in British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

[ Page 7843 ]

Hon. G. Clark: The problem of northern doctors is not unique to British Columbia. There clearly is a problem with providing adequate physician services in rural Canada and rural British Columbia. It is one which we take very seriously. That's why we spend $9 million a year on a northern and isolation allowance program, which is more generous than any other province. That's why we offered more money, to provide more service to the people in the north. Unfortunately, doctors have rejected that in favour of a scheme which would cost many millions of dollars more for doctors' wages rather than for services to constituents.

We look forward to Lucy Dobbin's report. If it recommends more funding to provide more services to people in the north, then clearly we will provide it. What we're reluctant to do is simply provide more money for fewer doctors. We want to provide more service to people in the north, and we're working hard to find a resolution to this problem.

M. de Jong: The mayor of Burns Lake is camped out with a hospital bed on the legislative lawn, because no one's listening. He's begging for someone to listen. The Health minister's not listening, the Premier's not listening and, worst of all, inexcusably, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine isn't listening. We've waited and waited for him to stand in this Legislature and speak up on behalf of his constituents, and he refuses to do so. He refuses to speak for those. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member. . .

M. de Jong: . . .constituents who are desperate to have health care services returned.

The Speaker: . . .would you put your question, please.

M. de Jong: No one's paying attention to the plight that the mayor has brought to this chamber.

The Speaker: Your question, please.

M. de Jong: I know that the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has said in the past that he'll speak up for those constituents of his. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

M. de Jong: . . .so, hon. Speaker, let him. The opposition will yield today. Maybe he can ask the Premier today.

The Speaker: Hon. member, hon. member. . . .

M. de Jong: Let him ask the Premier today, on behalf of his constituents.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. members, I have asked for the microphones to be cut, because as everyone knows, it is not in the rules to ask questions of members of this assembly other than the executive council.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I call the members to order.

Member, continue -- first supplementary.

M. de Jong: For a guy that I have learned just spent $4,000 chartering an aircraft to fly from Smithers to Victoria one week ago. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I ask you to take your seat.

M. de Jong: . . .this member has precious little to say on behalf of his constituents.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I ask you to take your seat.

M. de Jong: My question. . . .

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. member, you will take your seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That question is entirely inappropriate and out of order. I call for another question. The line of direction, you know. . . . Take your seat, please.

Hon. members know a number of the rules around question period, one of which is about long preambles on supplementaries. I've been very patient about all of that in the last couple of days. Questions are to be directed to the executive council. If you have a question that way, please present it. Otherwise I will ask you to take your seat, and we'll move onto someone else.

I recognize the member for Matsqui.

MEMBER'S CHARTER OF AIRPLANE

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would be happy, since it involves some details, to take that question on notice.

NORTHERN HEALTH CARE

For nearly four months now my constituents in Mackenzie and other people across northern British Columbia have been denied doctors' services in hospitals except in the most severe emergencies. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine indeed found out last Saturday that people are angry and that they're not willing to wait any longer for a resolution to this issue. Lucy Dobbin was asked by the Minister of Health

[ Page 7844 ]

Hon. G. Clark: No, Lucy Dobbin has not provided interim recommendations, to my knowledge. Obviously the Minister of Health is not in the chamber today, but as of earlier this morning, that's my information.

Clearly the members are correct that we understand the deep feelings of the people of the north. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has raised this issue almost every day for the last few months. We on this side of the House understand more than anybody the real deep concerns that people have about health services. I obviously, as well, want to make it clear that I have enormous sympathy for rural doctors and the work they do and the difficult nature of the work they do and the fact that they do provide service in the north where others do not.

The challenge, of course, is to find a resolution to this question which does not simply result in more money to fewer doctors but which provides a long-term solution and more medical services for people in the north. That's what we're trying to do in British Columbia; that's what we've charged Lucy Dobbin to do. There is misinformation and a fear campaign about closures of hospitals. I want to assure members: that will never happen as long as I am the Premier of British Columbia.

The Speaker: For his first supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Let me say this: if this dispute were going on in Surrey or in East Vancouver or in Vancouver-Quilchena, it would have been resolved a long time ago. Three and a half months is too long to wait for a resolution. In Mackenzie one doctor has already relocated; two more are looking for new positions. Those doctors are going to be incredibly difficult to replace.

The Speaker: Your question.

J. Weisgerber: If it's tough to keep them there now, think how difficult it's going to be to attract new doctors in.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: There's little question in my mind that doctors would go back to work immediately if the government were willing to commit itself to binding arbitration. My question to the Premier is simply: will he agree to sit down and allow the doctors to participate in binding arbitration -- that would be binding, indeed, on both parties?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order before we hear the answer.

Hon. G. Clark: The challenge we have, of course, is whom we negotiate with. Lucy Dobbin, as I understand it, has been endeavouring to meet with doctors. Some of the northern doctors have refused to meet with her. The B.C. Medical Association is also engaged in activity which essentially violates a collective agreement which they have voluntarily agreed to and signed onto, and now they don't like it. This dispute, frankly, is about money, unfortunately, rather than health services. What we are trying to do is provide more health services to the north and to ensure health services for all British Columbians.

[2:30]

COST OF ICBC ROAD SENSE CONFERENCE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm really pleased that the hon. member asked the question. It gives a chance to explain a few things. First, this year's program is an ICBC youth initiative to put young people to work across the province -- to take the ICBC Road Sense message throughout British Columbia. It's a continuation of last year's program, which was extremely successful. The result of last year's program was that we saw accidents down in this province, we saw claims down in this province, and we've seen premiums frozen for three years in a row. This year's program is a continuation of that. That $80,000 is not for some posh conference. It's to train young people to get ICBC's message out, to help bring down accidents across the province, to take the road safety message out across the province, and to take the message out that once more we will, at the end of the year, have a corporation that has a profit, with premiums frozen and claims down.

The Speaker: For her first supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: We're talking about $80,000 spent on a four-star hotel for three nights, where a third of the students lived in the lower mainland and still stayed three nights in the hotel. And here's the minister. . . . They dined them, they danced them, they put them up in a hotel, and then they slapped a gag order on them. If the minister thinks that it was such a good idea for ICBC to do it, can he explain why ICBC felt that they had to put a gag order on these students and order them to shut up so they didn't. . .

The Speaker: Your question?

C. Clark: . . .tell what was going on?

Interjections.

The Speaker: One moment, minister.

I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only gag order in this province is on that back bench that never gets up and asks a question. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 7845 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .that premiums have been frozen for three years and that ICBC. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .made a profit in the first quarter of this year and that claims are down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order, please.

I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan West, who has a petition, I believe.

Petitions

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, this petition is signed by 2,054 British Columbians from the riding of Cariboo North. It requests that the government pay physicians for on-call services and that the government provide adequate standards for medical services in their community.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
(continued)

J. Weisbeck: Before we adjourned, I was dealing with some questions on private post-secondary. There's one further question about school closures. I want to know if it can reopen and keep its Canada student loan number.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the answer is yes, provided the new purchaser assumes the assets and the liabilities.

J. Weisbeck: This question is on bonding. What are the current dollars being held by private post-secondary institutions for bonding?

Hon. A. Petter: The PPSEC requires a bond or other form of security equal to 70 percent of the unearned revenue. All I'd say is that some of the difficulty, of course, is to determine what that 70 percent number is.

J. Weisbeck: You don't have any approximate value of what is now currently being held, then, by private post-secondary institutions?

Hon. A. Petter: Between bonds and other forms of security, the number, we believe, is in the range of about $38 million.

J. Weisbeck: I guess there's been some concern by some institutions that these dollars created a hardship on the institution. They are talking about possibly having some sort of a pooling type of system. Has any thought been given to that?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there has, in fact, been thought given to that. I have talked to the head of the commission. I think it would be very desirable if we could find a pooling arrangement so that individual institutions didn't have to self-insure. It could be done on a pool basis. All I'd say is that it's a little more tricky here than it might be in other areas. In the case of travel agencies, for example, travel agencies have a fairly common set of services that they provide. One can have a pooling arrangement where there is a high degree of confidence that the self-insurance provided by that is of equal benefit to all agencies. In this area, you may have very established institutions that are very secure and some that are, let us say, less secure. There is obviously going to be a concern in a pooling arrangement, therefore, that those who are more established and more secure are not insuring other institutions unduly. So the answer is yes, there is work going on. We would like to pursue some kind of model, not just for the benefit of the institutions but for the benefit of students, so we could make sure that there are adequate funds when institutions do go down. But it is a little trickier here, because the nature of the institutions, the kind of services they provide and their stability is highly variable, and therefore the nature of the pool and how it would operate has some additional complexities to it.

J. Weisbeck: I have a couple of specific questions. This is from an individual in the north who runs a hairdressing

[ Page 7846 ]

[2:45]

As I understand it, the regulations that would apply with respect to the exams and accreditation in hairdressing are established under legislation -- as I say, within the purview of to the Ministry of Labour -- that empowers the hairdressers' governing body to set those standards. So it's not government imposing a standard upon the industry; it's the industry imposing upon itself, through its own regulatory body, the particular standards that apply with respect to examination -- under the Minister of Labour.

J. Weisbeck: The request of this individual was that it be possible for the student to work on a temporary permit. Would that come under the act as well?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, that is a matter for the association to establish: whether or not a student can undertake work prior to having completed the necessary requirements, etc. So it's part of the industry's own regulatory regime, and I would suggest that if there are concerns, they should be taken up with the industry association.

J. Weisbeck: That's the final question I have on private post-secondary. We're going to move into science and technology, if you'd like to get the people.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me say that I really have enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to debate with the members opposite this segment of my new responsibilities. I always find this a learning experience, and being at the front end of a new ministry, I have a lot to learn. I've benefited from the interchange on this, and I want to thank members for this segment of the debate.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate on these estimates this afternoon, basically on science, technology and research in the province of British Columbia. If I might just make a number of opening remarks.

This century has certainly been about information technology in the province of British Columbia. Certainly in Canada, North America. . .the globe, the focus has been primarily on information technology. The next century, if I might predict, will be about biotechnology. It will definitely be about finding solutions to particular health care problems that are out there today. The questions surrounding Alzheimer's, breast cancer research and the areas of MS -- those kinds of predicaments are what challenge researchers today, not just in British Columbia but the world over. Those are the kinds of issues that confront and confound families, as the minister well knows in terms of ongoing discussions around health care delivery in this province.

I believe that there are some opportunities for this segment of this minister's ministry to look very carefully at solutions -- putting into place mechanisms that allow the best scientists in the world to come to British Columbia to do their work and honouring and valuing the work that they do. They will create a cluster, a microcosm, of some of the finest minds in this province so that we can indeed find some solutions to some of these very pressing questions. At some point in the future we will see a reduction in health care expenditure because people will indeed be healthier. That is the goal. That is the framework around which I will be placing my remarks today. I think that's the goal of every single member of this Legislature: that indeed this should be about solutions, that indeed we are looking for ways to spend the taxpayers' dollars much more prudently and, frankly, much more strategically.

I do believe that some vision is required in this ministry when it comes to deciding the best allocation of those dollars. I look forward this afternoon to the debate with this minister because I do believe that he possesses that vision. Certainly, if you go back to the 1995 Klopfer report, it talks about. . . . Recommendation No. 3 -- their most significant recommendation, I believe -- was to select a minister that would champion the industry. So my first question to the minister is: are you that individual?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is that I aspire to be. It would be a bit presumptuous for me, having been on the job for a little over two months, to say that I can claim to have fulfilled that expectation and role. But certainly that is my intention. I think it was the mission that I was given by the Premier in this new assignment.

I have had an opportunity. . . . In fact, within the first few days of being assigned to this ministry, I asked that we pull together some of the leading minds with expertise in areas of science and technology within universities, the private sector, research. Since then, I have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Science Council and the Premier's advisory committee. I dropped in unexpectedly -- unexpectedly to them, at least, but not to me -- on one of the major industry dinners and was very well received and roasted for my efforts. So I'd say that I have made it my mission to try to reach out to the community.

There's a huge appetite of interest within this segment, both the education system and the private sector as well as government, for us to work together on a vision for this province around science and technology, around the future -- one that will help benefit the economy, that will provide jobs. It will do many of the things that the members refer to and provide those wonderful benefits that come from research. We're already seeing that in this province. So absolutely, that's what this is about.

I have already announced that we will be pursuing a provincial strategy -- not a government strategy, but a provincial strategy. Another recommendation that's been made in a number of reports is to create a vision for the knowledge-based economy: what it can provide to this province and how we can work together. I hope to convene a group around that strategy very quickly -- not to reinvent the wheel but to build

[ Page 7847 ]

L. Reid: I accept the minister's offer for the official opposition to participate, because we certainly believe strongly in the entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians, and with some mechanism in place, I believe they will go forward and do some very fine things. I have shared with the minister a list of the issues that I intend to canvass this afternoon.

First off, I want to spend just a few moments on the recommendations flowing from the Klopfer report in terms of, perhaps, an update. I will also canvass the TIA report card of 1997 to government. Certainly one of the recommendations -- I believe it's recommendation No. 9 -- talked about the outsourcing of computer services to government. The actual recommendation reads: ". . .outsource much of the provincial government's computer services work and privatize most of the functions of the B.C. Systems Corporation." Would the minister kindly give us a synopsis of the status of that?

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I'd be happy to respond. Before I do, I might just introduce some of the very able staff that I have been fortunate enough to inherit. First is the deputy minister, who, like me, is new to this assignment and almost as enthusiastic, perhaps even a little more so at times. He has more time to be enthusiastic, because of his focus on this. The deputy, Stuart Culbertson, is both deputy and chief information officer. He is seated to my left. Seated to my right is Calvin Shantz, the executive director of the science and technology branch. Behind me are Carol Pereira, financial manager, and Lois Fraser, assistant deputy minister, for the information technology services division. I am very ably served by them and others.

With respect to the recommendation about the outsourcing of information technology services, the member will be aware that the most significant development in this regard has been the agreement reached with IBM. A key component of that agreement was that a company, ISM-BC, will take over the operation of data processing at the former B.C. Systems building on Seymour Place in Victoria. Not only will they take it over, but they will in fact more than double the capacity that exists in that facility. That in turn will make that facility one that can compete internationally for very high-powered data-processing opportunities -- competing with other leading centres around the world -- and should help to spur a whole second tier of development amongst software and other related service-providing companies right here in Victoria. I'm very excited about that initiative, and I think it has been viewed very positively, to date, at least within the industry.

There are other elements to the IBM agreement, but they relate to other matters. We'd be happy to debate those. There are some other requests for proposals out there. Some of those are still under consideration insofar as decisions have not been made -- other than saying that we have narrowed the list to some final applicants and they are being evaluated. I probably shouldn't say much more than that until they are finalized, but the member will be aware that they relate to services like the B.C. OnLine service, the voice mail services and the like.

I want to say one other thing, though, and that is we are looking for the best solution in terms of what will produce the most cost-effective solution and the best economic solution for the province. So while there has been some outsourcing in terms of IBM and the direction taken in these other requests, we certainly would not proceed if we didn't feel it was effective. In one case at least we have sort of gone in the other direction. We decided that a much more cost-effective solution to delivering the provincial learning network could be provided by using government employees and the services that exist within government rather than outsourcing -- although there is a partnership dimension to that. So it isn't a question of outsourcing or not outsourcing. It's a question of the best solution in terms of growing the economy and taking advantage of the opportunities that exist.

L. Reid: I too would like to take a moment to acknowledge the minister's staff. I thank you all most sincerely for your efforts to instruct me on the workings of your ministry over the last number of years. Thank you most sincerely.

In terms of the minister's comments on what needs to happen in this province in terms of large companies hopefully spawning smaller companies, perhaps the minister could update us on the Sun Microsystems discussion -- and I believe that Motorola was also one that was first raised in '95-96.

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to Motorola, there have been discussions. We are in the process of talking to them about hopefully having them develop a software development centre here in British Columbia. I expect and hope to be speaking to the head of Motorola Canada in the next week or so, to indicate the government's interest and commitment to work with them to that end. I believe the Premier had discussions some time ago with representatives of Motorola, as well.

I think the discussions with Sun Microsystems are in a more preliminary stage. We're certainly interested in pursuing similar opportunities, but they are not as far advanced, so I can't really give more of an indication than that.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that update.

One of the other issues that confounds a number of local entrepreneurs and businesses is marketing and managerial expertise. They have the brilliant science idea and they're ready to take it to the marketplace. They're oftentimes not able to attract certain individuals from the United States, because of the sheer cost of bringing those individuals to British Columbia. Are there plans underway in terms of the minister putting in place some more marketing-managerial kinds of components -- perhaps at the university level, perhaps in community co-op programs -- so that individuals. . . ? Let's say the minister is the brilliant scientist of the day. He has the idea, but needs some assistance in terms of taking it to the marketplace. Will there be a greater emphasis in the coming year on a resource package, if you will, or a single resource, so that the scientist will have an opportunity to have someone guide him or her through that process of marketing that product -- commercializing that product and taking it into the public domain?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that there is a specific fund consisting of some $600,000, called the market research and development fund, which was established and is jointly funded by the federal and provincial governments, and that is available to assist in providing marketing support and information. I believe that the ASI also provides some support in this regard.

[3:00]

[ Page 7848 ]

Having said that, I think there's more we can do. There's a tremendous need for more marketing skills and resources -- not only directed at researchers but within the industry itself. It's one of the shortages of talent that we have to work hard to address.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. If he would be so kind as to share the information on the market research fund with me, I would be very interested in receiving that. As the minister knows, there are a number of fledgling companies in Richmond -- and certainly in the riding of Richmond East -- that would benefit from being able to pool some resources around managerial competence and ensure that the mind-set for that kind of science stays in British Columbia.

My colleague has just pointed out that there are individuals who are not able to secure financing in British Columbia and often end up selling their best ideas to another country, typically the United States. Again, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we retain that best idea, that brilliant strategy, that best product line within British Columbia, if there are ways that we can do that.

I appreciate the minister's comments about delivering service in the most cost-effective way, but once we've crafted the idea here and end up purchasing it back from another country. . . . That doesn't tend to be the best use of the tax base. There are some issues around tailoring services to a variety of different companies -- different-sized companies, different companies within information technology or biotechnology or environmental technologies. The minister and I would agree that there probably isn't ever going to be a one-size-fits-all solution for any of these new science companies that are entering the marketplace.

In terms of this ministry's dealings with the financial institutions of this province. . . . I will reference the province of Newfoundland -- which I had the opportunity to visit last year -- in terms of better understanding how they got the banks onside to do some good things in terms of science funding. The Royal Bank and, I believe, the Bank of Montreal basically have committed individuals who understand start-up companies, who understand emergent technology protocols, if you will -- the kinds of things that new companies are looking for, and frankly, need to survive.

They're people who understand the fact that new companies eat up enormous capital in the research phases of their company, sometimes millions and millions of dollars, and that funding is sometimes difficult to receive. Has this minister made some overtures to our financial institutions here in British Columbia in terms of encouraging some receptiveness on the part of these institutions?

Hon. A. Petter: The member's points are extremely well taken. There is obviously a need for venture capital, for financing, for marketing expertise. I think that there is a need for additional resources, and I will certainly be knocking on the doors of banks and other financial institutions to make sure that they are being as responsive as they can be to the opportunities that exist. I think some of the major banks do have very strong expertise in some of these areas, but whether they are being as sensitive to the needs of British Columbia and some of these companies that are in an embryonic stage. . . . If I can play a role in making them more responsive, I would certainly like to do so.

I have also had an opportunity, both in my previous ministry and in this one, to talk to those who are more directly involved in venture capital -- the Working Opportunity Fund, Ventures West and others -- and I think it is very important that we keep them involved if we're going to develop a strategy for this province. Obviously, making sure that the capital is there to fund the development of this segment of our economy is critical.

I would also say that I think it is important, in the support that government does give, to make it clear that we expect one of the quid pro quos of that support to be that companies that generate ideas do have those ideas translated into benefits for the province. By way of example, the fund we announced. . . . Gee, was it only Monday of this week? It's the $100 million over six years for research infrastructure which we'll partner with the federal fund, the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

One of the key added criteria that we have brought to the table is that we want to make sure not only that projects that are funded produce excellent research but that that research has some long-term benefit here in British Columbia in producing jobs and economic value, so we can persuade those companies. . .give them the opportunity of collecting -- between us and the federal government -- 80 percent of their infrastructure costs in partnership with educational institutions, but then have them clearly understand that the exchange is that the research would then be developed in the province to produce long-term benefits.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. He mentioned the Working Opportunity Fund. I'm wondering if there is any status report on the B.C. Focus funds and the MDS life sciences fund, which I understand were both crafted within the last five years. I have a little bit of background on the MDS life sciences fund, but I'm wondering if the minister anticipates any other funds of that nature.

Hon. A. Petter: We're not aware of any additional funds. The two that were mentioned by the member have continued. I don't have the information in a status report as such, but I would be happy to get that information to the member and give her those particulars.

L. Reid: I look forward to receiving that material.

The last comment I will make is regarding the Klopfer report. It says, in recommendation No. 19: "A comprehensive communications plan should be developed which presents the knowledge-based industry in British Columbia in a positive manner." I know this one has been on the books -- at least with Alex Klopfer, for his working life. . . . But in terms of the report, it's probably been two or three years. Has there been a strategy developed that will continue to not just craft this for the consumption of the general public but, hopefully, work toward creating the science student in British Columbia? I know there are some programs that typically focus on the grade 10 science student -- biology, chemistry and math -- and certainly we've put some focus on women in science. But my goal, having been an educator in the past, is that we do

[ Page 7849 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I think one of the primary objectives of the strategy that I referred to earlier will be to craft a communications approach that industry, government and educational institutions can use together. From talking to those in the industry, my sense is that the primary focus of that, in terms of this recommendation, is to be external -- that is, to tell the world about how British Columbia is a good place to invest, locate and encourage research -- and to really make this province a technology-friendly leader in terms of the knowledge-based economy. Of course, we have tremendous strengths to promote, not the least of which is the excellence of research that takes place in our post-secondary institutions. There's also our quality of life, the fact that we are investing in a new university dedicated to technology, and a number of other elements -- I won't necessarily go through them all -- that really recommend B.C.

The member's suggestion, however, is an excellent one, and that is that the focus of that vision shouldn't be projected just externally; it should be projected internally to capture the imagination of kids and of youth. That, I think, is important. One of the most exciting events I attended since becoming the minister responsible for this area was the ASI Exchange in Vancouver, in Robson Square. It's an exchange at which students -- albeit, in this case, university or technical institute students, for the most part -- bring their displays side by side with industry. There's a huge interchange, and indeed, some of the people making displays on behalf of industry were students a few years before. The sense of excitement that takes place there can be carried into elementary schools and can give people a sense of what the potential of the knowledge-based economy is.

Some of that, I think, we're already working on. The information highway, the provincial learning network on the information technology side, plus some of the new software agreements we've reached, which the Minister of Education and I announced recently, will give students in small communities -- be it Nakusp, Vanderhoof or wherever -- the same kind of access to the information highway, to the software, to the skills with respect to the use of those technologies as students in Vancouver are enjoying today. We went and visited some students who were enjoying that technology, in terms of a computer animation course, in a Vancouver high school recently.

But if the member is saying there's a lot of excitement and imagination that can be tapped out there amongst kids and amongst communities around this, I have no disagreement with that. In fact, I think it's an excellent suggestion.

L. Reid: I would definitely concur with the minister that the ASI Exchange was a wonderful endeavour. I trust that at some point we will have the younger set of the population side by side with industry, presenting the kinds of things that they have developed.

I want to move to the British Columbia Technology Industries Association, and the TIA report card for 1997, because I think it builds on the document we just referenced in terms of the Alex Klopfer report. "This progress report is an update on the 1995 Science Council-sponsored report entitled, 'High Technology Industries in British Columbia: The Agenda For Growth,' authored by Alex Klopfer." It goes on to talk about the 22 percent growth in the industry, the spinoff effect of 57,000 people and several thousand companies earning over $7.5 million in revenue, much of it from exports. Certainly one of the areas that I've referenced for the minister that I want to come back and touch on is the level of exportation today into the Philippines and Indonesia. We'll come back to that a little bit later. In terms of what the report says, for the most part, I agree with it.

I think there are some things that the province still needs to do in terms of building the template, if you will, so that these companies have an easier time of crafting job opportunities. I think we can agree that science and technology research is about being an economic driver. The goal in this is to create wealth, employment and profit. These are individuals on the free enterprise side of the spectrum who are indeed best able to craft employment opportunities. Those jobs have some durability and, hopefully, some predictability over time.

The sense that I get from the report is that the industry has done their part. There are a number of outstanding issues that they would wish government to address. I am more than happy to put on the record a number of their issues. Certainly I welcome the minister's comments of a few moments ago when he talked about a $100 million combined venture with the Canada Foundation for Innovation around infrastructure, because that is one of the areas of consideration for this report.

They talk about the need for sterile rooms, about the need for good research facilities. Oftentimes, I think the minister will agree that small business -- brand-new companies of one or two individuals, of the inventor and one or two others -- simply don't have those resources in terms of building that one-off sterile room, if you will, times 40 new businesses. But if there are opportunities to come together and share those bigger expenditures cooperatively, is that something the government is looking at in terms of the $100 million?

[3:15]

With respect to the question of the use of the fund, the fund will be drawn upon based on the quality of submissions that are brought forward. The universities, colleges and institutes will have a central role to play in bringing those forward. I expect that in the course of bringing them forward, there will be opportunities to look at pooling resources and benefits. In fact, I happen to know that the University of Victoria, for example, is looking at a proposal to create a centre in which they may have some research presence, and private companies may cluster around that in a sort of incubation-type facility. When I was at UBC, I had the opportunity to see where UBC has essentially created a little science knowledge development centre right on campus, which does the same

[ Page 7850 ]

L. Reid: To continue with the report, I will quote: "The less happy news is that we are still not doing as well as our neighbours, particularly Washington State and Oregon, and in the global economy this is a problem. If other nearby jurisdictions are doing better than us, we risk losing people and outside investment to them. It means that we are losing the race to the New Economy."

I think we have touched on these issues in the budget debate in this Legislature, where we talked about the cost of regulation. The fact is we do not have a competitive tax regime in the province of British Columbia today. Certainly this minister, having been the previous Minister of Finance, will have been lobbied significantly by individuals who know what needs to happen in terms of being a more receptive region of this country, in terms of attracting investment and, in this case, particularly investment around science, technology and research.

If the minister could give a sense of what the province might expect over the next year or two years in terms of the work of this government on reducing regulation around new business startup, particularly science and tech businesses.

Hon. A. Petter: A couple of points. First of all, I must say it's refreshing to be exposed to a sector of the economy that thinks a 22 percent growth rate is underachieving. Having said that, I think they are quite right: we should be setting the target against Oregon and Washington. That's exactly what I propose we do as part of this partnership that I hope comes out of our common strategic vision. If we were to compare what's happening in B.C. in high-tech and biotech with other jurisdictions in Canada, I suspect -- in fact, I have a pretty good indication -- that we're doing relatively well. This is anecdotal, but I've heard back from representatives in Ontario that they understand that in terms of biotech, at least, B.C.'s the place to be, and that's where researchers are looking to. It's sort of hard to compare numbers, but our rates of growth compare very favourably with Ontario, Alberta and other jurisdictions in this sector of the economy, even at a time when our economy as a whole is not doing as well.

In terms of some of the tax issues, I point out that the survey was a survey of the perceptions of CEOs of companies, who clearly have an interest in reducing taxes. I'm well aware of their concerns. The good news is that I think it is acknowledged within the industry that the budget introduced in this session has been responsive to many of those concerns. It's no secret that in the high-tech sector, the concern of being able to attract human capital is the predominant concern. So reductions in high marginal tax rates. . . . Highly skilled marketing and research talent tends to fall into high marginal tax rates. The reductions that were announced by the Minister of Finance have been seen as responsive to these concerns. It's never enough; we know that. But they're certainly responsive and a step in the right direction. I think it's been seen positively.

Similarly, the great preponderance of businesses in this sector, some 97 percent, have less than 50 employees and qualify as small businesses. Again, the focus in the budget on reductions in the small business tax rate is particularly responsive to this sector. The survey which was taken prior to the budget is one that points to the concerns of CEOs, which have been acknowledged and responded to favourably the budget, in addition to the elimination of the corporate capital tax for small business and some targeted tax initiatives around call centres and the like.

Also, I'd point out -- and the member is aware, I'm sure -- that the Minister of Labour announced a process to look at regulatory issues that are of concern to this sector. Obviously we want to make sure that we have a good Employment Standards Act that protects workers, but if it is inadvertently having the effect of constraining workers who don't need protection -- skilled technicians who want to work around-the-clock to get a product together, for example, in the software industry -- then clearly we want to review that. We've agreed to review that, and I'm quite optimistic that process will produce some changes that, again, will be positive and viewed as responsive within the community.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. Certainly he is correct when he says that it's the perception of the CEOs in the industry who were targeted for this report. However, I think that's valid. I think that those are the ones who, probably being closest to the industry, know full well how best to interact with their suppliers and investors so those kinds of industries can continue to flourish in this province. So I put the quotation on the record.

Also, the industry's perception of the government in British Columbia is disturbing. The TIA believes that in a small place like B.C. much is to be gained by different groups, including government, employee groups, academics and the industry itself, working together. An encouraging example of this is the cooperative effort currently underway to address the critical skills shortage, which the minister referenced earlier.

I applaud that kind of collaboration. I think that is the answer to some of these ongoing issues: that if people were aware of what was happening in other sectors, some headway could indeed be made. And certainly I agree with the intent of the report when it talks about the goal of government being to foster a climate for good research and development, for good entrepreneurial spirit, so that those companies can take the bit between their teeth and move ahead.

The minister referenced the labour relations climate in the province, as does the report, making sure that the inappropriate aspects of the labour standards act are examined and ensuring that the tax regime aspects are examined in more detail. I would applaud the minister's example when he talks about people working around the clock. That's certainly the case, particularly in my riding. Those individuals are burning the midnight oil in terms of getting a product to market. They may work flat out for three or four or five months, but then they'll take the same amount of time in vacation. We need to be responsive, and I think we need to be much more aware as a province of how people do business, particularly in the science and technology sector.

So if I can take from the minister's comments that he's prepared to examine, but then further to ensure that these companies are unfettered -- and I believe that was his undertaking -- so they are able to go forward and deliver products to the wider global marketplace where a constrained time of closure for their business makes no difference if their product is being sold to Switzerland. . . . Indeed, we have to expand our horizons around what is globally competitive. Could I have the minister's comment on where he is prepared to take his examination of appropriate labour standards around the science and technology industry?

W. Hartley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 7851 ]

W. Hartley: Visiting us today from the Crystal Springs Elementary School in Bothell, Washington, are some 26 young visitors. They're here with some adults and their teacher, Miss S. Moe, for comparative government and local history. Please welcome them.

Hon. A. Petter: What I need to say is this: that the creation of this particular task force looking at employment standards was done with some dispatch. It has a very well defined time limit, about a 30-day time limit, because government does want to get on and solve some of these concerns. I don't want to prejudge what they recommend in any way, but I think the evidence is that I and the Minister of Labour, who appointed the task force, clearly understand that there is a concern. We've created the task force to get on with the job quickly and to recommend back, and we've done that because we think there is a need to be responsive to these concerns. So I'll leave that to stand as the evidence, and then when the report comes in, I'll certainly be working quickly with the Minister of Labour and others to review its findings and act in the spirit that led to its creation.

I'd also just point out as an aside that I'm very pleased that the Minister of Finance has included representatives of the technology sector on the task force that she and the Minister of Small Business have established on small business, so that they can participate in a larger review of regulatory issues as well. I think that's a very positive sign. It's one that I asked to take place, and it has taken place, and I think it's further evidence that government is listening and being responsive to concerns in this sector.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

L. Reid: I believe the minister referenced the regulatory report and the employment standards review. Could he indicate the dates that those reports will be before this Legislature?

Hon. A. Petter: On the employment standards review, I believe the report is to be submitted to the minister and to cabinet on May 30. On the other, I don't know the time lines. The Minister of Finance or the Minister of Small Business may know the time lines. As I understand it, the review is to take place over a period of time next year. I don't know those time lines. I can get them for the member, or the member could raise them with the Minister of Finance in her estimates.

L. Reid: I simply asked the question because I think there is tremendous concern among industry representatives that these reports will not be timely, that the examination will in fact extend beyond this government bringing in a new labour bill. That's enormous concern out there today. If the minister tells me that the time frames are tighter than that, and that there will be an opportunity for that information to be shared with the members of this chamber, I would be delighted by his response.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, as I say, on the employment standards issue, the report is to be submitted by May 30. On the other, the task force is a more generic task force on business concerns with respect to regulation. I'll leave the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Small Business to deal with that.

L. Reid: I agree -- and I did hear the date of May 30. Is that to the minister? Is that to this chamber? Is it public on May 30?

Hon. A. Petter: No. As I understand it, it's a report to the Minister of Labour and through the Minister of Labour to cabinet. But as I say, this task force was created quickly. It was given a short time frame in which to operate, and that is not accidental. It's because we understood the concern within the industry that this issue be considered with dispatch and that the government respond quickly. So I would anticipate that once the report is received, government will be giving it speedy consideration and, as soon as we're able, bringing forward whatever the outcome might be in the form of regulatory changes or, if they are required, legislative changes.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. I look forward to that information.

Certainly one of the other aspects this TIA 1997 report card talks about is the issues that government can be responsible for and, frankly, issues that only government can take responsibility for. It talks about taxation; it talks about regulation. So again, I am delighted that both of those works are ongoing.

[3:30]

The other place that's at the top of the list is Newfoundland. In fact, Memorial University of Newfoundland started the first formal incubation centre for fledgling science and technology companies in the country. If you take the province of Newfoundland. . . . It hasn't the same level of resources as British Columbia. You realize that there are many, many things that this province could be doing if indeed we targeted some energy and some resources to ensure that these things happen. So I applaud the minister in terms of the $100 million. To incubate fledgling companies and keep some of those fine ideas and hopefully employ some of the finest minds here in British Columbia is only to the good.

I trust that a focus will be placed on incubation, and I do believe that the industry-university liaison offices in operation today are doing a superb job, a first-class job. Whether it's Simon Fraser, the University of British Columbia, UVic -- those institutions that take the product from the workbench and commercialize it into the marketplace. That is exactly what is required. They are there in a mentorship role for ideas that are spawned, that originate at those universities. That is all to the good.

My concern is for the companies that do not flow from the universities today. There are many scientists that come to this province who have no formal attachment to a university. They are not a graduate student, a doctoral student or on an honours fellowship. They are simply in this province, and if we can ensure with some of these dollars that the same level of support is in place for those companies, I think that would be welcome. I think it makes strategic sense for the province. Would the minister kindly comment?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that there are a couple of programs that are directed at smaller companies that are not university-based, such as the member is referring to. Tech B.C.

[ Page 7852 ]

For example, as I referenced before, there is an idea for some kind of incubation facility in which university research anchors a range of other companies similar to what we are hoping will emerge out of the IBM agreement here in Victoria. There are ways that we can bring together expertise at the university level with what's out there in the marketplace and start to get some double benefits.

Everything we can do to assist in that. . . . Other educational institutions like colleges are providing their own form of incubation assistance to entrepreneurs. We should continue to press in that direction, and I'll be happy to follow the member's example and try to get up to speed on some of these examples that she refers to in other jurisdictions.

L. Reid: In terms of other things absolutely worthy of attention in the province of British Columbia, certainly the Science Council of B.C. is one that I think is a world-class agency. They have done some things for new companies, new scientists, students in the system who have gone on to become those world-class scientists. I believe their contributions have been absolutely unparalleled. They have done some wondrous things.

I had the opportunity to visit each of the regional science councils in the province in terms of trying to garner some support for science that's not lower mainland-based or southern Vancouver Island-based. It is important to acknowledge the very fine work in ginseng research in Kamloops, the forestry work in Prince George, and the fact that those regional science councils are taking the initiative to ensure that at least some profile is developed in those areas of the province and that indeed they can attract some investment dollars to those areas of the province. If the minister has not had the opportunity to visit those regions, in terms of visiting the regional science councils specifically, I would certainly encourage that.

I inquire as to the overall strategy for ensuring that science, technology and research applications are fostered throughout British Columbia and not just in the lower mainland and on southern Vancouver Island.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's suggestion. Certainly, if I can get around and visit some, if not all, of these councils, I would be very happy to do so. I do think it's important that we think of the opportunities and applications of science and technology not just in terms of some isolated knowledge-based sector that exists in the lower mainland or on southern Vancouver Island, but in terms of the applications and opportunities that exist in other parts of the province. Certainly one of the points that I've had some fairly lengthy discussions on with the current head of the Science Council is the potential, for example, of applying technologies to our resource-based industries -- forestry being an obvious example. If we can, through application of technology, get better utilization of forest products or better rates of growth of forest products, we can get double and triple benefits. Some jurisdictions have been very successful in this regard. Finland, I think, is often touted as a bit of an example -- a jurisdiction that has developed a generation of technology that's applied to its forest products industry and that not only makes that industry more competitive but then becomes itself the subject of export, just as Finland is developing the next generation. So they're always one step ahead.

Indeed, in B.C. we have seen companies develop some major product breakthroughs in terms of wood-composite products. The initiative -- the investment of the Forest Renewal and the province, along with the private sector and the federal government -- in a wood products centre at UBC is designed to build up some of that capacity in terms of innovation here in the province.

I think there's a lot that can be done in terms of not only creating opportunities for science and technology throughout the province but applying those skills to other resource and non-resource industries in ways that produce double and triple benefits for those communities and for the economy of the province as a whole.

L. Reid: I would certainly concur with the minister. I recently had the opportunity to visit B.C. Research to look at their new embling technology, where they're taking brand-new saplings -- or what we used to consider saplings in the earlier days -- and crafting an entirely new technology around how best to have some durability in the forest. So there's some fabulous science going on in British Columbia.

To come back to the Science Council, certainly two individuals who have taught me great things around science and technology research are Dr. Suezone Chow, who I think is a leader in this province when it comes to science and technology, and. . . . Frankly, I want to pay tribute to Dr. Martha Salcudean, who is the recent recipient of the Killam Prize for extraordinary talents in the area of engineering. Those kinds of world leaders who are currently residing here in British Columbia and making contributions back to our province do some wonderful things, I think, in terms of crafting in the science student we spoke of earlier some recognition that this could be a lifelong career and that they could make some enormous contributions.

So again I'm paying tribute to the Science Council overall, because I do think that that agency deserves the support of this government. I know they have experienced variations in funding over the years. I'm wondering what the minister has in mind for them as we lead into the next century. Indeed, are they going to have some certainty -- year 1, year 2 -- leading into the next millennium?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess that much as I would like to have the power to prejudge the Minister of Finance in future budget determinations, I best not do that. But suffice it to say, I think the creation of this ministry, the emphasis that has been placed by government in a number of different ways in recent months on the need to provide support to the knowledge-based sector and the central role that has been played by the Science Council in that are all very positive signs that should provide some comfort and security to those involved in the Science Council. I met recently with Dr. Chow and others and certainly had a very positive discussion. We will be relying very much upon his input and that of the Science Council in creating the vision and strategy that I've talked about. The council still draws the largest share of the fund that we have, and I can't help but agree with the member, even based on my more limited knowledge of the council, that what they have done in a range of areas -- everything from export to encouragement of research -- has had a very positive and significant benefit for the people of the province. I certainly want to make sure that that benefit is not lost, but in fact that we build upon it and better utilize the talent that's represented within the council.

[ Page 7853 ]

M. de Jong: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Chair.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: I'm very pleased to welcome to the precincts and the gallery a group of students from Yarrow Elementary. They are here in strength to watch the proceedings in this House, and I hope all of us will make them welcome here today.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the Information, Science and Technology Agency was a part, as the member will know, of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. It has essentially been moved into this new ministry without any reduction of its function. It retains the basic mandate and mission that it previously had, but I think the relationship that it will now have with Advanced Education, with skills training, creates a new opportunity for the agency to help to advance the government's objectives of helping to grow this segment of our economy, providing some strategic vision and utilizing the very necessary relationship between the education sector and the knowledge-based component of the economy.

There are a number of particular objectives or initiatives that the agency is involved in. The member is probably aware of them, but I will just touch on a few: the implementation of the electronic highway accord and the Youth on the Internet program; development of the comprehensive corporate information management strategy; providing support and information to the legislative committee reviewing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and on it goes.

So the agency continues to provide all of those functions, but as I say, it does so within a new framework and a new ministry. It has clearly been given a priority within government that will challenge it to work with this ministry in promoting this sector of the economy.

L. Reid: From the minister's remarks it would appear -- certainly from the examples that he's given -- that the focus seems to be on information technologies. I wonder where the emphasis will be when it comes to science in this Information, Science and Technology Agency.

[3:45]

I. Chong: I appreciate my colleague yielding to me for a moment while I ask some questions.

Regarding the B.C. knowledge development fund, which I know the minister recently made an announcement on. . . . What I'm curious about, first of all, is whether the minister can advise me where, particularly, that fund falls within the estimates book. Is that under the Information, Science and Technology Agency vote within the ministry?

Hon. A. Petter: No, the fund -- I think we had talked a bit about this yesterday -- is a fund with respect to capital. So it will come out of the capital allocations of government, not out of the operating allocations of government.

I. Chong: I appreciate that, because I was curious whether in fact it was part of operations. Even though it suggested it was capital costs of research and infrastructure, it alluded to upgrading of equipment, possibly. Sometimes that is considered operational -- where you have to improve, replace or upgrade equipment. What I'd like to know is whether the minister can advise. . . . Of this $100 million that's to be invested over the next six years, what has been allocated for the 1998-1999 fiscal year?

Hon. A. Petter: Up to $8 million.

I. Chong: So I would have to imagine that it becomes progressively larger as we get into the latter part of the year. Of that $8 million, has the minister a schedule as to which universities, colleges and facilities may be applying to this fund? As I understand it, there is an application process to apply to this program. Does the minister have an idea of the facilities that would be making applications? As I understand it, $8 million may not come close to covering the requests that come through in one year. Often we find that the government makes announcements on new projects, new programs or new funding, and if you very quickly add up all those who wish to avail themselves of those programs, it's very soon found that one area, one district or one region will easily more than take 50 percent of what has been allocated. I'm just curious about whether the minister has taken that into consideration. If so, what cap level has been placed on each particular application?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the fund will be allocated in response to the applications that come forward and the quality of those applications. The member is probably aware that under the Canada Foundation for Innovation, there is already an application process. What we intend to do is not to replicate that entire process but to provide some additional screens for provincial funds to ensure that the research will have long-term benefits to the province. We don't have an explicit regional screen in mind, to my recollection. Clearly some equity of allocation will be important, but not at the expense of the quality of the proposals.

The $8 million I referred to is designed to lever $20 million. Because we are funding up to 40 percent, the expectation is that much of that funding may be matched by CFI funding, although there may well be cases where the CFI funds projects that we don't and where we fund projects that CFI doesn't. I suppose it will frequently be the case that we

[ Page 7854 ]

I guess another obvious objective that we have -- and I make no secret of this -- is to make sure that through this fund, we maximize all the CFI dollars coming into this province that we can. Too often British Columbians have seen federal dollars distributed in a way in which British Columbia gets less than the share you would expect, based on population. I must say that the enthusiasm of some in the academic community, particularly the president of UBC, is quite inspirational on this score. Dr. Piper is quite determined that we in B.C. are going to get a much larger than proportionate share from this fund, and I hope she's right. I think the presence of the B.C. fund will certainly help steer the maximum number of dollars here.

I can't predict where the money will be allocated. I can assure the member that it will be done through an evaluation process, in conjunction with that taking place under CFI. That will ensure that we get the maximum return. I can say, just from the enthusiasm that I have witnessed from colleges, universities and others, that there is a lot of interest in uptake. The colleges want to get involved in this, which will give it a regional perspective as well as just concentrating it to sites where there are universities -- and some of the institutes as well. I'm very excited about what this fund may do for British Columbia.

I. Chong: Certainly I would agree with the minister that at all times all of us in British Columbia would fight to ensure that we get our fair share of federal dollars in whatever form they might arrive. So I am hopeful, as well, that that does occur.

My concern, as I stated earlier, is that all too often announcements are made without. . . . I wouldn't say without consideration, but sometimes -- not always -- the facts are before us, and we see too often that an announcement is made. But there are so many requests made that we then have to deal with our constituents and neighbouring constituencies as to why they haven't gotten what they consider to be their fair share. You have fair share in terms of provincial jurisdictions when you're dealing with the feds; you also have fair-share criteria when you're dealing with regional disparities here in the province.

I'm fortunate enough to represent a university. I appreciate the minister having attended there several times over the past month and making some of these announcement for these students. At the same time, I know that they are hopeful of receiving a substantial portion of this fund. I suppose that UBC would also like a substantial portion and that Camosun College, as well, will ask for a substantial portion. My concern is that although you do wish to ensure quality, if three or four of these universities that I just mentioned maximize the $8 million, then what do we do? What happens, and where do we go from there?

If in fact there is no cap level, my concern is whether in fact one area will benefit more than another. With $8 million, I don't want it all going to one university, nor do I expect that should happen. But if, as the minister says, some quality research facility program were introduced and worthy of all that $8 million, what would the minister then be doing? That's what I'm really searching for here. As I understand it, the University of Victoria is looking to receive 10 percent to 15 percent of this fund. I don't know if that's over the course of the six years. You know, if they absolutely have that requirement or a plan in place, we've got a problem here.

So I'd like the minister to at least give me some idea so that when these institutions come forward, I don't come to the minister and say: "Well, there's a problem here. We started the process, and then we've suddenly limited, it because we've just run out of money." If the minister could just give me an idea -- I know it's in its infancy -- of how this problem could possibly be dealt with, I would appreciate a bit more elaboration.

Hon. A. Petter: I encourage the member not to think of this fund as $8 million but to think of it as $250 million at minimum, because the $100 million that we have allocated is 40 percent. The other 60 percent will have to come from other sources: potentially another 40 percent from CFI, and then the remaining 20 from the private sector or elsewhere. So we're talking about a substantial investment -- $250 million over the next five to six years.

But I think that at the end of the day, we want to make sure that there is a merit-based criteria that applies. I am confident -- and I suspect that the member, if she examines the issue, will be confident as well -- that the University of Victoria has nothing to fear in a merit-based competition. They have excellent researchers and excellent strengths. They also happen to have some access to discovery park funding, which has yet to come their way, and have shown some real strength. In fact, I think some of the vaccines that are now being marketed worldwide with respect to fish farming were developed at the University of Victoria and gave rise to some commercial applications.

So I encourage her. I have an interest in making sure that these funds are distributed fairly with respect to regional allocation, as well, but at the end of the day, I don't think we should be afraid of quality being the overriding concern. I have every confidence that all of the universities and institutions in this province have something to contribute and will do well, based on that standard. And remember: they're going to have to persuade private sector contributors, as well, and that will help to influence where the investments are made. So think of it as at minimum $250 million. I think the president of UBC will tell you that she's going to get even more than that.

The one other thing I should say, just to clarify my earlier remarks, is that this is a capital fund, so there's no provision for the fund per se in the budget. There is, I believe, a small provision for the debt-servicing costs for this year's allocation in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology budget, but the capital is provided for within the capital plan of government.

I. Chong: One final question, and just a comment as well. I do appreciate the fact that the criteria will be merit-based. Certainly we would all agree that that is the necessity for looking at these programs.

The minister mentioned an evaluation process earlier. I was just wondering whether that evaluation process included a panel, a commission, a board or some authority separate from what the CFI has. If so, could the minister quickly elaborate on that? That should be my last question in this area, and I will then yield to the member.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll elaborate just insofar as this: what we have now done is announced the presence of the fund. We've announced the criteria that apply with respect to the fund, which add some of these dimensions around making sure that the fund is directed towards research that will produce the maximum benefit to both the economy and to employment creation here in British Columbia, amongst a few others.

[ Page 7855 ]

I. Chong: From that perspective, objectivity is certainly an important factor, because it lends itself to accountability, which of course the hon. minister knows I have very great admiration for.

With that, I would like to thank the minister and his staff for their time, and I'll yield to the member for Richmond East.

[4:00]

When my staff was phoning to discover the kinds of information we could receive prior to these estimates, we weren't inundated with material, hon. minister. There seems to be some resistance, if you will -- if indeed the information exists -- with sharing it with members of the opposition. I would invite the minister to share the business plans of these agencies. I certainly mentioned a couple in my remarks earlier. In terms of progress and in terms of stability and a sense of where we might want to be six, ten, 15 months from now, those things are all to the good. So I would simply invite the minister to continue to ensure that that level of dialogue continues. I think it's a useful exercise.

I would suggest to the minister that I'm about a third of the way down my list of things I wanted to canvass with the minister, so I think it's going remarkably well.

In terms of issues still before us, I want to reference a press release from earlier. I realize that it's from the Ministry of Employment and Investment, but it talks about eight high-tech B.C. companies chosen by the Japan External Trade Organization to participate in Comdex in Tokyo, April 6 to 9. With those kinds of events that occur that actually have British Columbia companies as participants, does your ministry receive some feedback? Is there some evaluative tool? Is this something that provides some information to the ministry that indeed is of assistance to other information-based companies in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: We're at a bit of a loss. It was the B.C. Trade and Investment Office that made that selection, as the member indicates, which is not within this ministry, so I don't know the answer.

On the other point that the member raised very briefly about setting goals and objectives and making them measurable, I agree. The member may be aware that since I've become minister and since the new deputy is in place, there is a strategic vision being developed for ISTA that will give rise to a business plan that will have such objectives. I'd be happy to brief the member on that. I think it's very important. I also think it's important that as we move on our provincial strategy, we start to create some benchmarks and measurability, not just for government but for all players, as to how we play our part in terms of moving forward to maximize the opportunities that exist in this sector.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, and yes, I very much appreciate the offer of a briefing on that. If in a later comment the minister could simply state a time line for when that strategic plan might be complete. . . .

One of the issues the minister raised earlier was, I believe, around fish vaccines. I believe the company he was probably referencing was Microtek, here on Vancouver Island. I have had the opportunity to visit that company, and they're doing some wondrous things. It's going to be my privilege at some point to actually vaccinate a fish, and I would hope that the minister takes advantage of that opportunity as well. It's world-class technology. There are companies in British Columbia doing things that no other company in the world is currently doing. And I will reference again a company in my riding, Mitroflow, which is the world leader in heart-valve technology.

That leads me into my discussion around medical instrumentation. We talked a little bit about information technology, a little bit about biotechnology. I think the future is bright for medical instrumentation for medical devices, and it seems to be something that British Columbia can do very, very well. We've had no difficulties launching ourselves onto the world stage. Has the minister a particular focus that would include ensuring that there are some things in place that would assist new medical instrumentation companies?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I'd say again that I agree with the member that there is huge potential in this area with respect to medical devices. I have met with Jim McEwen, who will be known to the member and who is very much involved in this sector. I believe he is being invited to be involved as part of our strategy session as well.

This is an area that does benefit from all the programs we've talked about. I agree that we have huge opportunities not only to develop an indigenous industry but to maximize export opportunities with respect to medical devices, biotech and a whole range of other areas -- fish vaccines, etc. I look forward to the opportunity to vaccinate a fish, hon. Chair. I never thought I'd say that in this House, but I might as well fess up and say that I look forward to an opportunity to vaccinate a fish.

L. Reid: We have an aspiring doctor in our midst.

I believe Jim McEwen is the individual who put on the general patent for the tourniquet which is in place in most hospitals in North America and perhaps around the world as we speak.

In terms of the minister's earlier comments about Martha Piper, yes, I do believe that she will be knocking on your door on a regular basis in terms of putting the University of British Columbia on an even greater footing when it comes to being the centre for research and development in the province. I will

[ Page 7856 ]

I'll move now to the First Job in Science program and the jobs-in-science initiatives that have been undertaken over the last number of years. What's their current status? Is this something that the government is going to continue to fund and support?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, first of all, let me just say on the industry liaison offices at the universities that they are funded out of this ministry and, I agree, have done tremendous work. I look forward to getting to know more of that work and working with them in that endeavour.

The First Job in Science and Technology program. In fact, I had the opportunity to announce the funding for this year's component at the ASI Exchange. We increased the funding this year to $2 million, an increase of $200,000. I think the hope is to fund more than 200 jobs in this fiscal year out of this fund. It is an opportunity to provide B.C. graduates access to long-term opportunities in companies here in the province.

The member will be aware that companies will very often be looking for highly skilled workers. They will sometimes have the choice of going outside the province for someone who has immediate experience or, perhaps, hiring someone just out of a program within the province who isn't quite as ready to fill that role. What this fund does is sort of bridge the gap. It provides the incentive to the company to invest in the British Columbia graduate over the more experienced person from outside the province, creating a form of apprenticeship.

Once that person has served that period of time under the program with the employer, that person has then, of course, got the skills that position him or her to continue in that company. It's been a very successful program and very well received by the industry. It reimburses employers up to 50 percent of the new employee's salary to a maximum of $1,300 per month for a term of up to one year. I'm very pleased that we're able to increase the funding in this year's budget.

L. Reid: Could the minister provide me with the number of students that the fund would have accommodated last year?

Hon. A. Petter: It was about 150 students last year, and we're hoping -- through the increase in funding and also by making the funding go a little further -- to have the number up in excess of 200 and perhaps as high as 220.

L. Reid: Would the minister indicate what number of those individuals would be female? Indeed, is there additional funding for the women in science program?

Hon. A. Petter: We don't have the information here, but staff tell me they would be very happy to obtain it and provide it to the member.

L. Reid: In terms of the second part of that question, are there additional dollars available for the women in science program? Is that still in existence?

Hon. A. Petter: The great thing about estimates is that one learns so much along the road. I take it that we do not have a dedicated women in science program, but we do provide support to others. SCWIST is the acronym for the organization to which we have provided funding. It undertakes projects specifically geared to encouraging the involvement of and opportunities for women in science and technology. That project funding has continued from this ministry.

L. Reid: I thank the minister and look forward to receiving that information.

The Technology B.C. program. My information tells me that the budget had been $4.5 million, and for 1997 it was increased to $6 million. The difference. . . . Have those funds been targeted for any particular area?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, in 1997 we did allocate up to $6 million, but substantially less than that was in fact spent. It was closer to $5 million. That same amount is reflected in this year's budget.

L. Reid: If I can move to consideration of the electronic highway accord, perhaps the minister could also give me some background into the kinds of decisions vetted through the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. What kinds of areas are they currently addressing, and how much assistance would they be providing to yourself as minister?

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to PACST, the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology, I must say that I had the privilege of meeting with representatives recently. They're a very committed and enthusiastic group, and I appreciated that opportunity. They too will be involved in this strategy session. In fact, they've done some very good work, I think, in setting forward some objectives that will help to craft a provincial strategy on science and technology opportunities.

[4:15]

L. Reid: Perhaps the minister could spend a moment on the electronic highway accord and then also tell me about the appointment process for the Premier's advisory council. I understand they are appointments, but I'm wondering if they're for one year at a time or they're staggered appointments.

Hon. A. Petter: First, on the appointment process for PACST, the appointments to that body are made by order-in-council for up to three years, I believe.

With respect to the electronic highway accord, that has three basic elements to it. One is to try to grow the sector, and we've talked a fair bit about that. It also aspires to help better connect British Columbians, and again, we've discussed that,

[ Page 7857 ]

L. Reid: To turn to Forest Renewal. . . . The science expenditure for last year, I believe, was $35 million. Has that sum changed for fiscal 1998, and what percentage of the $35 million allocated last year was actually expended?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't believe there has been an allocation announced for this year by Forest Renewal with respect to the funding they provided last year to the Science Council. I suggest that the member may want to bring that up with the Minister of Forests or wait for that plan. I think it's expected that there will be some reduction in the funding this year over last because of other pressures on Forest Renewal, but we'll have to wait until that announcement is made or raise it with the Minister of Forests, who is directly responsible.

L. Reid: The province of Quebec has certainly decided that science, technology and research is the platform on which they wish to go forward into the next century. They have basically discovered or targeted four pillars, if you will. One of their pillars is aerospace, and the other one is pharmaceuticals. I believe both of those industries have much opportunity to grow within British Columbia, and I would certainly reference BCIT -- in terms of its airport campus -- to get the skill sets around aircraft maintenance and all those issues. I think we're on the right track in continuing to build an air force-aerospace sector within the province.

I have some concerns around this government's treatment, if you will, of pharmaceutical industries. I don't think it ever makes sense to alienate the geese that are laying the golden eggs. In this case, it's around therapeutic initiatives. It's around the best science for individuals, which hopefully has the responsibility to keep them out of hospital. We all understand the costs of hospitalization. A comment from the minister on what the future holds for the pharmaceutical industry in British Columbia and whether or not it can be valued by this government in terms of the contribution it makes to reducing overall health care costs and ensuring that individuals hopefully have an improved quality of life and stay out of hospital for extended periods of time. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: First, with respect to aerospace and aviation, I agree with the member: there is huge potential. The recent announcement of a major contract for MacDonald Dettwiler in respect of aerospace is obviously very, very significant for the province. I had the pleasure to participate -- and this is on a smaller scale but is nonetheless significant -- in an announcement locally, here in greater Victoria, concerning the future of Viking Air and its inclusion into a new facility with BCBC at the Victoria airport. There is work going on in the Ministry of Employment and Investment, dealing with Avcorp, to look at possibilities for expansion of that company. I've talked to representatives of BCIT about some of their aspirations for aviation-based training. So I think there are opportunities there, and again I have asked that we have some representation from the aviation sector in terms of the strategy group we're bringing together, if we can possibly do so.

With respect to pharmaceuticals, clearly there is a very high potential for further work with respect to biotech pharmaceuticals. We have some very successful companies -- Quadra Logic and others -- that are active in this area. With respect to the pharmaceutical companies, it is no secret that the pharmaceutical companies have not appreciated the fact that this government has insisted upon constraining the costs of brand-name pharmaceuticals within our Pharmacare budget, through reference-based pricing. I don't think we make any apology for that; in fact, I know we don't make any apology for that. I think we as a government have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are used and stewarded in a way that is most efficient in terms of our own pharmaceutical program. If reference-based pricing can make those dollars go further while providing high-quality applications and pharmaceuticals to clients, then we will do that.

It's unfortunate that that has provoked a negative reaction from the pharmaceutical community. I would have preferred that they support those kinds of initiatives. Having said that, that does in no way temper our desire to try to work with the pharmaceutical communities, to try to get more investment here in British Columbia. I know there are efforts that have gone on and will continue to go on. Discussions are taking place with the pharmaceutical companies to see if they would yield to what is the obvious, logical tendency: that they locate more research here in B.C., based on some of the strengths that we have in research, based on our strength in terms of infrastructure and the quality of life we offer. At the end of the day, that will be their decision, but we're certainly working hard to try to encourage it.

L. Reid: The minister referenced the enormous potential of the aerospace industry. I agree. MacDonald Dettwiler and the Radarsat arm technology, the satellite-imaging technology, are in my riding, so I'm absolutely delighted that that's continuing to receive both federal and national recognition. Avcorp Industries, as well, has done some wondrous things in terms of being part of the apprenticeship programs to ensure that students at Hugh Boyd Secondary and Charles E. London Secondary in Richmond have indeed been able to participate in those aviation training programs from grade 10 onward. Those are all to the good.

I appreciate the minister's comments about the necessity to keep pharmaceutical research happening. I mean, his comment led off into curtailing the outputs; frankly, I think that's a different discussion. I think the commitment I'm looking for today is that pharmaceutical research has an enormous role to play in terms of people receiving the best-quality interventions that either maintain their lives and livelihood or sustain their actual lives. Those are the kinds of issues that we started off today's discussions on, in terms of responses to the Alzheimer's question, to breast cancer, to MS. The things that confound families today are issues that, frankly, are often addressed by pharmaceutical research. So if the commitment that the minister spoke of is evidenced in a commitment to ensuring that pharmaceutical research is one of the pillars of this economy, I will certainly accept that and applaud it. I would take my hat off to the minister if indeed he could move us along the road to ensuring that those companies come to British Columbia. I know that they have an enormous gift to bestow upon the province and our taxpayers when it comes to ensuring a better quality of life.

In terms of other issues I wish to touch on in the time remaining today, we talked a little bit about the B.C. Biotechnology Alliance and the B.C. Technology Industries Association. I will say that the B.C. Technology Industries Association, in my view, has been lucky enough very recently to acquire the services of George Hunter, who is a superb scien-

[ Page 7858 ]

I also indicated to the minister that we'd be coming back in the discussion to issues of export around the Philippines and Indonesia. Does the minister have plans to be actively involved in that? I know the Science Council is, in terms of some of its committee work. Is the minister going to participate actively in securing those kinds of opportunities for B.C.-based businesses?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all on the question of pharmaceutical research, let me just confirm what the member was indicating. Absolutely, if there are opportunities out there to increase pharmaceutical research in the province of British Columbia, then I want to make sure that we maximize those opportunities. I did have a bit of an opportunity in my previous portfolio to play a role in respect of agreements that were reached with Merck Frosst to undertake investment in the province. Everything we can do to encourage more pharmaceutical-based research in the province will be beneficial to the economy, but the benefits that will flow from the research itself, as the member indicated, could be of tremendous social value to not only British Columbians but people around the world.

In respect of the export opportunities that exist, which the Science Council has helped to identify, I have indicated to that council that I am very interested and supportive of their efforts to encourage export opportunities for B.C.-based companies to make some of the key linkages in the Pacific Rim and elsewhere that can help to advance the economic opportunities for jobs and research here in B.C. The member can be assured that I will follow up on that. I've indicated to Dr. Chow, for example, that I would like to find out more about those activities and help to make what linkages I can, wearing all of my hats in Advanced Education and Intergovernmental Relations and whatever to facilitate that, plus working with the trade branch in the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for those comments.

Certainly we talked a little bit about the Networks of Centres of Excellence program earlier on and about the importance of clustering: having large companies spawn smaller companies.

One of the agencies in this province that I think does an outstanding job is the B.C. Cancer Agency. Very recently I had the privilege of touring the site for the new genome-sequencer which, hopefully, will be operational by year-end. I'd simply like to pay tribute to Dr. Don Carlow, who I think is a visionary when it comes to ensuring that networks for cancer care are in place to benefit every single British Columbian and, frankly, every Canadian who comes to this province for care.

[4:30]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I am well aware of the contribution of the B.C. Cancer Agency. During my very brief duration as Minister of Health, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the agency and make an announcement or two with the agency. Also, I had the very great privilege of spending an hour or two the other day with Dr. Michael Smith, a Nobel laureate at UBC who is involved in the agency. I guess the member will be aware, but I am very happy that the B.C. knowledge development fund will be working not only with educational institutions and teaching hospitals, for that matter, but also with non-profit agencies, of which the B.C. Cancer Agency is certainly one. I know that they have aspirations to secure some of the funding from CFI and the B.C. knowledge development fund. I can do no more than enter the debate by agreeing with the member and her very complimentary comments about the role and future of this agency.

L. Reid: I might ask the minister to return to just a few moments of consideration regarding the IBM deal coming to British Columbia. There's been lots of discussion, and I certainly have had the privilege to monitor this discussion about the prospective deal, probably over the last two or two and a half years. I'm delighted that it's coming to British Columbia, but there certainly seems to be some conflicting information in terms of the number of jobs it will actually generate. I have reports that suggest 200 and all the way up to 1,200. The question is simple: which is it? If the number is in flux, I'd be interested in hearing that information as well.

Hon. A. Petter: The 200 figure refers to direct jobs in the development centre in Burnaby, which was part of the agreement. The larger number referred to by the member refers to the conservative -- I think it's fairly conservative, frankly -- estimate of the number of jobs that will likely result from the whole agreement and in particular from the commitment that IBM made to ensure that 50 percent of the software application work they do will be undertaken by local companies.

As IBM uses its software development capacity to work on certain government projects, they are obliged under this agreement to work with local companies. The estimate here is that that work and the activities that they undertake, combined with some of the opportunities that IBM will now be involved in through the ISM-BC data processing centre in Victoria, which will bring in worldwide work in data processing. . . . All of that will, conservatively, produce in excess of a thousand jobs.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. I thank him most sincerely for his commentary this afternoon. I can say with all candour that he is far more thoughtful and congenial than his predecessor, and I will enjoy receiving the information that the minister has so kindly offered.

I think, as I stated earlier, that this is the sector worth watching in British Columbia as we lead into the next millennium. Certainly biotechnology, information technology, environmental technology and telecommunications -- how people communicate and interact -- will be the focus of the next century. I look forward to working with the minister.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me thank the member for her contribution. Obviously she has done an awful lot of work and is very committed to this. I know I will benefit from that not just in this afternoon's session but in the future. I invite her to provide me with her insights, criticisms -- constructive, of course -- and ideas as we move forward, because this is clearly a non-partisan endeavour. It's an opportunity that will

[ Page 7859 ]

J. Weisbeck: I want to conclude today with just a couple more items. One of them is the PLNet, of course. We've talked a lot about it. It's something that I've been interested in and have been following for the last couple of years. I've never been able to get any information on it, obviously, because it wasn't in place.

I'm interested to note that it was $123 million over six years, and obviously supplying 1,700-plus outlets. . . . If my math is right, that's around $72,000 per hookup, basically. I'd like to know what that $72,000 actually gives the institutions.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me say at the outset that the difficulty in answering questions like this does not lie in the expertise of my staff, but in my ability to communicate.

In general terms, and let's keep it general for a start, what the PLNet will do is link up all of the schools and colleges and some of the community skills centres in the province with a connection called a pipe -- in the jargon of the industry -- with a broad bandwidth. What that all means to those of us who aren't conversant with the lingo. . . . As I understand it, it means that schools and colleges will have the capacity to exchange a much broader range of information. I had a demonstration, in fact, on the day of the announcement. I was in Victoria while the Premier and the Minister of Education were in New Westminster. Not only were we able to listen in on the news conference, but there was actually, on the Internet, the linkage by picture of what was going on. So the opportunity here is to provide a provincewide capacity to students in the college and K-to-12 system to link up with each other, to link up with Internet and to link up with the world. That link is to be sufficiently well developed that the information they can bring in is not just information in the form of data or conventional information that would come through the Internet, but it can be interactive.

Here is one thing it can do. For example, if you have a teacher sort of drawing on an electronic chalkboard, that information can be projected into a classroom at another end of the province. This is going to be a huge equalizer in terms of education. It means that a student in a very small community can participate in a class with respect to a subject area that previously wouldn't have been available to that community. So that's what it's all about. It's about providing the pipe that allows that kind of information and interaction to flow back and forth between schools, between schools and colleges, and for agencies like the Open Learning Agency to provide teaching materials and to deliver courses, for example, throughout the province. It is, I think, a very exciting, equalizing initiative that will give students access to information and give them access to technology, as well, and to some of that excitement that the previous member referred to in terms of opening up the eyes of students to the opportunities that technology -- in this case, information technology -- can provide.

J. Weisbeck: I guess the question is: is the pipeline extending to enough rural areas to live up to your press release, which states that courses are available in small and remote schools? If the loops aren't completed yet, when will they be done?

Hon. A. Petter: The intention and, beyond that, the objective and the commitment is to link up all of the schools in the province and to try to do that over the next two to three years. There are some challenges. There are some communities that still have party lines or that don't yet even have adequate telephone hookups, and obviously that presents a bit of a challenge. But the goal is to hook up to all of the schools in the province -- that really means all of the communities of the province in which there are schools and provide to students, therefore, a level playing field in terms of access to this particular network of information, education and technology.

J. Weisbeck: You were saying that currently there are 20 skills centres in British Columbia. I wonder if that might be a model to extend the number of skills centres. We could extend the PLNet to give greater access throughout the province.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the intention is to include community skills centres in this network. Libraries may also choose to hook up to this network. In fact, I participated, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the day, in a very positive announcement on library access to the Internet and on the hiring of students who will develop sites for those libraries and also educate the public, both young and old, on how to gain access to the Internet. The member is right: this isn't limited just to schools, although schools are a pretty good distribution network in terms of reaching all communities. From those schools, linkages to that same pipe can then be made through community skills centres, libraries and others.

J. Weisbeck: My question was whether or not you'd be expanding those skills centres -- or rather, increasing the number of skills centres. It looks like a fairly good model to get to people who don't have access to other places.

Hon. A. Petter: That question is outside of the provincial learning network area; it's more back in the Ministry of Education's training side. As I understand it, though -- and here I'm operating without the benefit of staff assistance, so it's dangerous -- the community skills centres were set up with a mandate to become self-supporting over a number of years. Some of those are moving very successfully in that direction, gaining private sector and community support. I think the idea is that in many communities, community skills centres are likely to continue. We may see some expansion, but in many communities there are also colleges filling much the same role; they're doing outreach, community development and training. In other communities, those services are provided through other non-profit agencies and the like.

The involvement of community skills centres in the provincial learning network is simply due to the fact that those skills centres have, for educational purposes, a reason to link up. The purpose of this network is to link up all of the learning centres in the province, or at least all of the public learning centres -- all the colleges, skills centres and schools. If there are more skills centres, then they will be linked up too.

J. Weisbeck: There are obviously a number of different parts to this whole system. One of them is, of course, the pipe, and the second is the appliances. I wonder whether or not there are enough appliances out there to be able to access the system. And I wonder about the state of them, whether they're current or not. I keep using the example of OUC, which has a number of labs with 486 technology. I mentioned this morning that some of the libraries are still working on 386 technology. You made the announcement of $2 million to upgrade, but most people feel that's not nearly enough -- as it never is. It's all very well to have a pipe running up to the side

[ Page 7860 ]

[4:45]

In respect of software, the agreement we've reached with software providers to provide software at well below their previous educational rates will mean that schools and colleges will be able to purchase their basic software at a lower cost. Some of that software is relevant to communications using this pipe. But as significantly, it will mean that those institutions will save a significant amount of money -- my recollection is that it's over $5 million -- that they can then reinvest in further software or appliances to take advantage of the pipe. So I agree with the member. The pipe by itself isn't enough, but it's a necessary condition, and we have to also work on improving the hardware and software that then takes advantage of that pipe.

J. Weisbeck: My final item today that I want us to talk about is the year 2000 problem. I want to know whether you're going to be year 2000-compliant.

Hon. A. Petter: The year 2000 problem is one that's being addressed across government. Each ministry has the responsibility to ensure that its initiatives are up to speed -- and, I guess, up to date, in a very literal way -- with the problem. Having said that, there is a fairly high degree of confidence that at least within the central activities of government as opposed to some agencies that may be at arm's length from government, we are well on track to meet the challenges of the year 2000. The auditor general, in fact, did a report that the member would be aware of that gave some indication that that was the case. We are working hard, as are the individual ministries, to make sure that we do comply with the year 2000, and that when all those digits kick over, it'll be in celebration of a new millennium and not in frustration over computer failure.

J. Weisbeck: Getting back to that auditor general's report, one of the major concerns he had was the scarcity of skilled personnel. Considering that now we've got this combination ministry -- we've got post-secondary plus the high-tech -- I wonder whether you couldn't have been a little bit more proactive as you were in the case of Camosun College, where you contracted with them to train a number of individuals to deal with this problem. I wonder if we could have been a bit more proactive and developed more personnel out there -- or if there is still an opportunity to do it.

C. Hansen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Hansen: There is a group of students from Madrona School that have just joined us for the last few moments of our week's work in this chamber. I ask the House to welcome their teacher, Sally Piccinato, and a parent accompanying them, Moira Cryer, and a bunch of very great kids from Madrona School. Will you help me in making them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, the example that the member gives concerning Camosun is an example of government being proactive. As I understand it, we worked with Camosun in the development of that program, benefited from the graduates of that program and have hired a number of the graduates of that program. So it is, in fact, an example of the very thing the member is talking about. Having said that, I think we are fairly far out ahead of others in terms of our anticipation of and response to the year 2000 program, and we'll continue in that vein. Obviously the private sector has a major role to play in terms of meeting the year 2000 challenge. I hope they are meeting that challenge in their own way as well.

J. Weisbeck: Noting the hour, I 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: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday next. I would just like to wish all members a very happy, safe and productive long weekend. I hope they come back refreshed and energized for our activities next week -- but not too refreshed.

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

[ Page 7861 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: I have a few questions, some of which are related to my riding, and one in general. For the TFA, do you have any funds within your budget allocated for bridge repair or road repair that is of imminent need -- that would apply to roads that are considered for devolution today?

Hon. H. Lali: Questions regarding devolution are under the Highways estimates, so we'll debate them then.

[2:45]

Hon. H. Lali: None of these roads proposed for devolution are in our capital plan. In terms of devolution, I would again say to the hon. member across the way that we should discuss this under Highways.

T. Nebbeling: I agree with the minister. When we come to talk with the Ministry of Highways, we will certainly have questions on the devolution. However, I'm looking at the financial need of some communities that today will take responsibility for infrastructure that is inadequate or, in certain cases, dangerous. I'm just asking if, for these communities, money is to be made available through the provincial financing authority. I'm asking this because it was the Premier who said we have to find economic criteria that will assist communities that face these kinds of situations. That statement was in the letter that was addressed to John Shields, the president of the BCGEU.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, these proposed roads are not in our capital plan for the TFA.

T. Nebbeling: Then I would like to ask the minister: who will pay for the cost of the replacement of bridges and other infrastructure work that is imminently needed?

Hon. H. Lali: I will not be answering questions on speculation. The letters to the mayors will be going out tomorrow, and they should be informed before we proceed on any questions regarding the capital plan. I answered the question already: these roads that are proposed are not within our capital plan, and any other discussion on devolution should be directed to the Highways estimates.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not talking about devolution; I'm talking about financial consequences that will be imposed on municipalities throughout British Columbia where devolution of arterial roads has been happening. I would like to ask the minister one more time: if there is no financial consideration within the capital plan today, who does the minister expect will be responsible for the cost of these imminent works that are needed to avoid not only safety issues but also transportation issues of importance?

Hon. H. Lali: Perhaps the member can tell the committee which roads he is referring to in particular.

T. Nebbeling: Now I get into devolution of arterial roads, but it's at the request of the minister, and I want to make that clear.

One of the roads in Squamish up for devolution is the road into the Squamish Valley. We talked about the road because of the letter that the member for Richmond Centre spoke of where a route to Port Mellon was suggested. The Squamish Valley road has a bridge that is in extremely poor state and has to be replaced immediately, and this will add a bill of a considerable amount to the community of Squamish. So here is one situation that I believe merits consideration for capital influx at this time.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: Once again, arterial devolution is the purview of the Highways estimates, not of the TFA. My staff do not have any lists at their disposal in terms of devolution. Again, I would say to the member that we should canvass this during the Highways estimates.

T. Nebbeling: I did not introduce devolution of arterial roads into the discussion; it was the minister who did so. If the minister would listen for a minute rather than having chitchat with his bureaucrats, he might get the point. This is a bridge that has been declared by the Ministry of Highways -- for a long period of time -- to be in need of imminent replacement. As of tomorrow this road -- and thereby the cost of the replacement of this bridge -- will be under the authority of the district of Squamish, unless there are other mechanisms in place to deal with the kind of financial burden that would come with this devolution. I'm asking the minister what, indeed, the provincial financing authority has done to deal with issues like this. This is not talking about the bridge itself; it's about the cost that comes with the district of Squamish taking on the responsibility of these roads.

Hon. H. Lali: The particular issue that the hon. member talks about is not within our capital plan.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

T. Nebbeling: Now that the minister has made it clear that the cost of the replacement of the bridge on the Cheakamus valley road is not within the capital expenditure plan of the provincial financing authority, who will be responsible for the cost of the replacement of that bridge? Who will be responsible for the legacy that comes with the devolution of arterial roads?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I will answer that question during the estimates of the Ministry of Highways.

T. Nebbeling: By the time we will be discussing this issue under the Ministry of Highways, that road will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the ministry, because as of tomorrow that road is under the jurisdiction of the district of Squamish. I'm not going to be set up by the minister telling me now that we'll be discussing it then, and then when we get to the Ministry of Highways, to get a response such as: "Well, these roads are no longer under our jurisdiction or under our responsibility, so I have no comments on that." I'm asking today, the day before the transfer of these roads to new juris-

[ Page 7862 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I have already answered that question. It is not within the purview of the TFA.

The Chair: I'll caution the member that the minister has stated a few times that he has already answered that question. I would ask you to take a different line of questioning.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to see, then, that you make sure that questions do get answered and not get danced around. I think the minister is skating on thin ice, and if this goes on much longer, then I'll think he is going to go deep into it. I'm asking a question that merits an answer, and I believe the minister has not yet answered it once.

So having said that, Madam Chair, I don't mind going on. I think it is clear that the minister either doesn't know where funding will come from -- and that wouldn't surprise me -- or is just not willing to accept the responsibility that he is off-loading on the district of Squamish, which is already, of course, under serious financial constraint because of what's happening in the forest industry. And I'm not going to go into a 20-minute speech of reasons why the forest industry today is in disarray -- we all know that. But suffice it to say that Squamish today is suffering more than many other communities, and to see this community being lumped with an additional cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars is something that this government should be ashamed of, and this minister should not dance around this issue.

This morning, Madam Chair, we talked about the road to Mount Washington, and the minister used an accident that happened in the past to justify the cost-sharing of the road up to Mount Washington. Could the minister clarify what accident he was talking about? When did it happen?

Hon. H. Lali: It was a charter bus on a school trip from Victoria, and the occurrence took place in the early nineties. If the member so wishes, we can provide him with more details at a later stage.

T. Nebbeling: I don't know the seriousness of the accident, and I would like to know if the minister is aware if there were fatalities or if it was just an accident that affected school children.

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes, there were fatalities and injuries.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you. I needed that information to deal with another issue, and that is Highway 99. Can the minister explain to me what is incorporated in the provincial financing authority budget as far as the serious conditions that relate to Highway 99, and how the capital plan reflects the urgency for some very serious remedial and expansion work on Highway 99?

Hon. H. Lali: Highway 99, as the member knows, actually comes up through his constituency and into the back door of my constituency through the Lillooet area. I want to point out to the hon. member that in terms of long-range objectives, the four-laning of Highway 99 is a very long-term objective due to substantial costs. Because of the rugged terrain that is involved, it's approximately $1 billion; however, rock-scaling programs continue, safety improvement programs also continue and design of the widening of the -- I hope I say this right -- Culliton Creek-to-Cheakamus Canyon section is also underway.

T. Nebbeling: Making Highway 99 a more efficient and safer road has been an objective of the ministry since 1984, I believe, so that's 14 years. Today, I can tell you that we still have five to eight fatalities on an annual basis and still have millions and tens of millions of dollars of vehicle damage. We have long-term consequences to individuals, not because of the lack of capacity of the road but because of the unsafeness of the road. So when I heard the minister this morning justifying all the money that was spent on Mount Washington because of a fatality -- as he just explained -- I'm just baffled by his response now that all the ministry is doing today, through the provincial financing authority, is to have a very long-term plan. Well, that long-term plan started 14 years ago, and I don't think the Sea to Sky Highway can continue for another 14 years the way it is. Like I said: fatalities are on a monthly basis. This Sunday, in spite of the rate of vehicles on the road and extra police on the road, we had one accident with eight serious injuries, of which five were kids. We had a number of other accidents. Clearly the road cannot accommodate the volume of traffic. But what is worse is that the quality and windiness of the road and the lack of passing lanes are continuing to cost us lives and to have long-term consequences on the health of a large number of people.

[3:00]

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of fatalities, it's tragic that fatalities do occur. Unfortunately, they are also a fact of life. I think everyone of us is aware of traffic safety and issues all over. I also want to point out that, unfortunately, the Sea to Sky Highway is another stretch of highway where fatalities have occurred in the past. I share the safety concern of the hon. member opposite. I also want to point out that another unfortunate issue is that financial resources are not endless, and we can only do so much with the financial resources that are available and at our disposal.

In terms of Mount Washington, which the hon. member had raised earlier, the big difference between that area and some other parks is that we had a cost-sharing agreement with the private sector for that particular project.

In terms of the capital plan, I can tell the hon. member about what is involved in some projects. The project would involve. . . . We announced the planning last year, but the actual project hasn't begun this year. The project involves the widening of the six-kilometre section of Highway 99 between Culliton Creek and Cheakamus Canyon from two lanes to three or four lanes, consistent with the longer-term improvements for the Highway 99 corridor. There are other minor capital improvements along that whole corridor, which include rock-scaling, pothole-patching, and also seal-coating on Duffey Lake. There are some other small projects in minor capital.

T. Nebbeling: I'm aware that the stretch between Culliton Creek and Cheakamus Canyon is being considered at

[ Page 7863 ]

However, the real safety area, again, is between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish. Having been involved with the highway committee over the years, I can also say that since 1980 there have been ongoing plans presented to the communities in the Sea to Sky corridor. I am surprised at the latest plan, which was introduced in 1993-94. It was, indeed, a capital plan that was close to $1 billion -- if it had materialized. It was for a six-lane highway from Horseshoe Bay right up to Whistler, with tunnels and aqueducts and viaducts and everything. It didn't really make much sense to spend that kind of money on a scenic highway -- and it is a scenic highway, after all -- to get traffic to go 130 kilometres through that area on a highway that nobody in the Sea to Sky corridor wanted. It was just a situation where we were going through the motion of saying: "Hey, we're doing things for you here; here's another $150,000 plan." But nobody believed that it would ever materialize.

However, having said that, from the time this billion-dollar price ticket has been announced or spoken about, when that was happening we had much more emphasis than if we immediately focused on whether there is a billion dollars available. If there is, and nobody believed there would be, then why not an alternative route? Of course, for the last four years we have seen and heard many discussions based on this alternative route. Can the minister maybe enlighten me? What has materialized over, let's say, the last two years as far as an alternative route is concerned?

Hon. H. Lali: I can't speak for what happened in 1984; it was under another administration, under the Social Credit administration.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I also want to point out that there were no announcements or anything made by this administration in 1994. In 1984, if the Socreds had made an announcement, obviously they cancelled and changed their minds, because they were building the Coquihalla Highway. So the money got transferred to another part of the province.

On the issue of the alternative route that the hon. member talks about, we haven't pursued that particular avenue for at least three years now, and there are no current plans in place to pursue anything on that particular alternate route. Part of the reasoning was that costs would be prohibitive -- as well as environmental damage.

T. Nebbeling: This is the first time that the Minister of Transportation and Highways has categorically put to bed the issue of an alternative highway. This is the first time, and I appreciate that. Now we have to go back to the real focus -- or where the real focus should be -- which is indeed Highway 99.

Can we morally, legally, truly carry on using the excuse of lack of funding to allow almost a dozen people to be killed on that highway annually? Can we morally or legally carry on, knowing that this is happening and that we have people in wheelchairs because of that highway and the recognized condition of that highway? Can we morally and legally continue to do that? I don't believe so. Maybe legally we can get away with it, but morally I think it is a big wrong. How can we as a province accept that today, knowing that that road will still get busier and busier, knowing that the statistics of the Ministry of Highways clearly show that the capacity of that road is so much higher than its holding power is? How can the minister say: "Well, in the long, long, long-term plan, we will consider some four-laning and some three-laning." I can't understand that, and I think maybe the minister should look. . . .

I'm not going to tell the minister what he has to do; I would like to hear from the minister what he's going to do. Now that he's put to bed the whole issue of an alternative route to the Sea to Sky corridor, what is he going to do with the extreme lack of capacity of Highway 99, which to a large extent has led to multiple fatalities and has led to many people sitting in wheelchairs today as quadriplegics, because of no willingness by this government to tackle these problems?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the member and put on the record that there were planning studies done in 1989 and also in 1991 on the issue of Vancouver to Squamish and Squamish to Whistler respectively. They were done by G.D. Hamilton and Associates, who investigated three alternative routes -- Capilano, Seymour and Indian Arm -- but concluded that four-laning of the existing corridor was the preferred option. So a preliminary design between Horseshoe Bay and Furry Creek has been completed.

I also want to point out to the member that there are a variety of safety improvements that will be announced shortly, and the member will get his briefing package, just like all the other 75 MLAs in the House. These are to make sure that in the short term we have improvements in place for the safety of the travelling public. We are in consultation in terms of doing the major $1 billion scope -- or whatever the actual figures end up being -- but I'm talking about the major portion, the major dollars that would be spent. There is consultation taking place between the government and ICBC. We're working with them; we're working with communities; and we're also working with first nations groups. We need to have involvement from the forestry sector, as well as other stakeholder groups in the area.

On the section the hon. member refers to, the Horseshoe Bay-to-Squamish section of Highway 99, I understand the issues the hon. member is raising, and I share his concerns. The major roadblock, if you can call it that right now, is the cost of this particular section of the road. It's actually a major portion of the entire corridor. The major portion of the moneys that would be spent for the entire corridor would be Horseshoe Bay to Squamish.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm not going to beat this horse to death any further, but I'm not finishing without really expressing my extreme concern about the lack of any improvements, even if it is based solely on the safety issue. I'm not going to rehash all the fatalities we have seen last year alone. To suggest that in spite of all the programs you just mentioned, which have been introduced to reduce accidents on Highway 99 -- be it ICBC programs or with the assistance of the various police forces -- accident rates on Highway 99 have increased dramatically, and fatalities have increased dramatically this year. I really think that we cannot afford to sit back and let this go on because of lack of funding.

Having said that, I have one more quick twist to this whole issue: in the year 2010 we hope to attract the Winter

[ Page 7864 ]

[3:15]

However, I'm turning now to the issue of the possibility of the Winter Olympics. There's nothing that I or this government would like to see more than B.C. becoming successful in hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics. I think that would be a great boon for our economy, for the people of British Columbia, giving us exposure in terms of tourism dollars coming in from other parts of the world. I would certainly join hands with all parties -- opposition, private sector, government bodies, non-profit organizations -- in an effort to make sure that the Olympics could be attained by this province. I would also participate in any federal cost-sharing in terms of improving that corridor so that we can make it easy for the Winter Olympics if we were to be successful. I also understand that the bid has not yet gone forward, but when the bid does go forward. . . .

I think that as far as the federal government is concerned, we all realize. . . . It's been very disappointing that the federal government has not participated in any kind of a national highway scheme. We seem to be one of the only countries in the western world that is not participating in a national highway system. Just to give the hon. member an example, last year the federal government took approximately $740 million in fuel taxes out of this province, and yet over the last three years put back only $6 million a year. I think they've abrogated their responsibility when it comes to transportation and highways improvements for the province of British Columbia. I would certainly seek the support of the opposition in helping us: go beat up on the federal government so we can make that happen.

T. Nebbeling: We're talking about B.C., and we're talking about the federal government. To the minister, if somehow, through lack of communication, you don't feel you get enough out of them, maybe you haven't been pursuing funding in that area aggressively enough.

However, the minister did say something very interesting. That is that the justification for a bigger portion of money coming to B.C. from the federal government is based on the fact that the federal government takes $600 million or $700 million in fuel taxes. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: They take $750 million out of this province, and they return very little. Well, take a guess. How much does the minister believe the provincial government takes out of the Sea to Sky corridor in provincial sales tax, in land sales? It's hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and we get zilch in return. The minister is, I think, questioning the numbers. I can tell him that in the last four years the land sales in Whistler alone add up to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. The provincial sales tax, if he checks it, is close to $100 million a year. All other types of fees and funding coming out of that area add up to a considerable amount of money. So if indeed the minister wants to see a link between how much is taken out of an area and then how much can be put back into it, I think we just made the case that we should look for considerable improvement in these areas that we've been talking about this morning.

Hon. H. Lali: Over the last five years the provincial government took in, on average, $700 million a year in fuel taxes in British Columbia. Over the last five years we have averaged over $800 million in expenditures between the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Transportation Financing Authority. I'm sorry, I don't have the figures on the Sea to Sky Highway portion, but I would hazard a guess that it's considerably lower than hundreds of millions.

T. Nebbeling: I'm only concerned about the Sea to Sky portion and the lack of transportation opportunities through the Sea to Sky corridor. The minister makes the link that an area that produces income of a certain amount for the government should be entitled to a return of some of that money. The minister complains about the federal government not giving back enough to British Columbia; that is something he has to pick up with the federal government. But I will pick it up with the minister when it comes to the money taken out of the Sea to Sky corridor -- that is, hundreds of millions of dollars. If the minister checks the numbers, he may be very surprised. A justified percentage of that money coming back to the corridor to pay for infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, is only justified, in my opinion. It's a case we have made for many, many years. So I'm really happy to see that the minister is making that link between what you take out and what you put back. I hope that in his deliberations on what will happen with the Sea to Sky corridor, he will keep that in mind -- otherwise, I will remind him. That was the last question I had.

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of sales tax and other taxes, roads are not the only places where we invest. We invest in health care and education, policing, social services and other services that the province of British Columbia provides on behalf of the people.

On the issue of dollar in, dollar out, if we were to refer to that particular scenario, then Vancouver -- the lower mainland -- would be the area which would be contributing the most and also taking in the most. So we have to work out some sort of an equity basis. I share the concerns of the hon. member. I live in a rural riding similar to that of the hon. member, and roads and bridges and other transportation issues are important. I want to thank the member for raising some of those issues.

P. Reitsma: Changing lanes and changing direction to Vancouver Island. . . . But before I start talking about some questions on the inland Island Highway, I do share the enthusiasm of the minister and everyone else in terms of the potential Olympics in the year 2010. I'd just remind everyone how fruitful and beneficial Expo 86 was to all of us.

[ Page 7865 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes, definitely.

P. Reitsma: Would the minister please elaborate on that: what is in place? What kind of a committee is it? What kind of a monitoring system is there?

Hon. H. Lali: To elaborate, consultation with local stream keepers is ongoing as well with as salmonid enhancement societies. Also, consultation with agencies has increased, with $10 million spent to date on environmental assessment and monitoring. Remedial work associated with the heavy rains in 1997 has also been completed in consultation with local stream keepers.

P. Reitsma: Could the minister advise, going on for quite a number of years. . . ? Certainly we had a fair amount of rain in '96 particularly. What streams, particularly the completed sections, have been affected, and what kind of remedial action has taken place and at what cost?

Hon. H. Lali: The ministry is the delivery mechanism for this. I think these specific questions can be canvassed in the Highways estimates.

P. Reitsma: Turning to the ongoing construction of the inland Island Highway, I wonder if I can get a progress report on the portion to Mud Bay and from Mud Bay to Courtenay.

Hon. H. Lali: The work is on schedule, and we're progressing very, very well. On the Mud Bay-to-Courtenay section, we will have completed the Tsable River bridge in June of this year. The inland Island Highway work to Cumberland is also progressing fairly rapidly. We will have completed to the Cumberland road by 1999.

P. Reitsma: Could the minister tell me: what was the anticipated cost of that particular portion and the projected costs? I hear the minister saying it is on budget, but I don't know if it is on time. Secondly, I'll go to the Courtenay connector as well.

[B. Goodacre in the chair]

Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the hon. member that work is on schedule as projected. While the south Courtenay connector, the member is aware, is. . . . We're awaiting a decision from the ALC on that particular section. But within the 1998-99 work program, I want to point out some details. From Parksville to Mud Bay we will continue environmental monitoring, continue property expropriation negotiations and complete design services and construction related to turnover of the facility. From Mud Bay to the Cumberland road, we'll continue design services during construction, start design of rest area infrastructure, complete property acquisitions and property expropriation negotiations, and continue grade and bridge construction, as well as crushing and placing base coarse aggregates. We will also start paving construction. On Cumberland Road to Dove Creek, we will continue a functional and detailed design and start the bridge design, provide design services during construction, continue property acquisition, start the bridge construction and verify sources for aggregate supply. For the Dove Creek-to-Campbell River section, we will continue a functional and detailed design. We will also start the bridge design, provide design services during construction, continue property acquisition, start grade construction and verify sources for aggregate supply.

[3:30]

Hon. H. Lali: Some of the details the hon. member asks about actually should be canvassed under the ministry. However, we will make sure that we protect salmon habitat. We have a no-net-loss policy regarding that.

On a previous question regarding costs, I have some figures for the member that I want to read out. Although Dove Creek is a bit further than Courtenay, the cost under the current budget for Mud Bay to Dove Creek is $181.7 million, and work to February 28, 1998, was $63.1 million.

P. Reitsma: I did ask the minister -- unless he is suggesting that I either put it in writing or do it another day -- about the portion over Piercy Creek and Mallard Creek. Are those to be bridges? Have they been engineered at all? Is there any particular cost associated with those particular bridges?

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. member, we don't know. We can provide the details under the ministry estimates when the ministry officials are here, but again I want to assure the member that we will protect the salmon habitats.

P. Reitsma: When is it anticipated that the officials will be here?

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: Okay, fair enough. That being the case, hon. Chair, as most of my questions relate more to the specifics, actually, of the Tsolum River, Black Creek and the Tamarac Street bridge in Campbell River as well, I'll wait until the appropriate time.

Last but not least, I met, of course, with the representatives and the mayor of Qualicum Beach about a week or a week and a half ago and talked, as well, with the associate deputy minister, Claire Dansereau, in Parksville. I was assured at that time that a letter would be forthcoming. I would assume that there was no time to do that on the request by both municipalities, so do I take it that an answer to the questions posed through me by the two municipalities will be addressed before the 15th? There were some very specific questions in terms of a portion from Craig Bay to the orange bridge, maintenance of which expires September 15. I just wonder, on behalf of the municipalities, when we could expect an answer on that.

Hon. H. Lali: All communities to be affected will be receiving their letters tomorrow.

[ Page 7866 ]

Hon. H. Lali: On the South Courtenay connector, we're waiting to hear from the Agricultural Land Commission. They are going to be holding some public hearings soon, and we don't want to interfere with their process that's taking place right now. We'll just have to wait until they decide what they're going to do or not do.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might just ask the minister, then, whether all the options are out there for the various connectors. I believe there's some more up in Campbell River, as well, that are under contention. Are they all involving agricultural land? Is it just some of them? Do you have to wait for the Agricultural Land Commission before you can make a decision that affects even the one that aren't agricultural land?

Hon. H. Lali: No, the South Courtenay connector is being discussed by the Agricultural Land Commission. If you're referring to the proposed Miracle Beach connector, that's actually been taken out of the capital plan.

D. Symons: So the Black Creek-Miracle Beach is taken out? You say there's not going to be a connector at that point? Is that the answer?

Hon. H. Lali: The decision to take it out was announced after the capital review.

D. Symons: The connection, then, to the ferry going across to Denman Island and so forth comes at what point along the highway? Is that somewhere around Mud Bay or Oyster Bay?

Hon. H. Lali: It'll come out at Fanny Bay.

D. Symons: I think that really covers it. I'll probably get some more questions to do with the Island Highway when we get further along, so I'll turn it over now to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: I have a few questions concerning potential projects and needs in my own constituency, and of course some of these may be areas the minister will elect to deal with later. I thought I'd broach them now because I think some of them come under the TFA.

One is an issue that I have raised each of the last two sessions with regard to the highway which runs up the North Thompson River valley, Highway 5, and its lack of passing lanes from Heffley Creek, just outside Kamloops, pretty well to Little Fort. After Little Fort there's been some good work done. But it's quite congested. It's heavily used by truck traffic and also by recreational vehicles, and this makes for long and impatient lineups, particularly in tourist season, and risk-taking behaviour by motorists who've felt jammed too long. I'd like to find out the TFA's present plans for passing lanes along Highway 5.

Hon. H. Lali: We haven't made any announcements, but we certainly have looked and are continuing to look at the priorities as they come up from the district and regional level. We are presently looking at four-laning -- no, sorry or creating a passing lane in that particular area.

K. Krueger: I have made the point many times that I think it makes a lot of sense to add passing lanes as they can be afforded year by year, rather than massive four-laning projects. I know that was just a slip of the tongue.

I wonder if the minister could be more specific. I was told in a previous session that there was a possibility that a passing lane at Fishtrap Canyon was imminent, and I wonder if he could specify which passing-lane project he was referring to in the previous answer.

Hon. H. Lali: I was referring to Highway 5, near Badger Creek.

K. Krueger: Is that the only passing-lane project presently on the drawing board? And when might we expect an announcement in that regard?

Hon. H. Lali: We reviewed three projects in the member's constituency: Badger, Devick and Darfield. I believe the hon. member is familiar with all three. The one that we are looking at most seriously is obviously Badger Creek.

K. Krueger: The North Thompson Indian band reserve is serviced by a road called the Dunn Lake Road, and the road is in very poor shape. Its surface has numerous soft spots, and the aboriginal people who live on that reserve find this a tremendous annoyance. They are a very cooperative group of people, with tremendously progressive leadership under the guidance of Chief Nathan Matthew. This is just a real irritation to them, on top of all the other concerns that all of us have with regard to aboriginal people's issues. They've made it plain to me that they expect some service on that road. I wonder if the TFA has any plans to upgrade the surface of Dunn Lake Road.

Hon. H. Lali: The particular project the member is referring to is not under the purview of the TFA; however, we will canvass it. It is actually under highways maintenance, so we will canvass it under the Highways estimates when they are being done. I also want to point out to the member that his briefing book will be given to him shortly, when the estimates are over and we're ready for announcements, and he will receive all the details.

K. Krueger: I'm not sure about the rationale for the timing of that, because I might have saved the minister some time by having it in advance. Perhaps it's a Christmas bonus that he's lining up for the constituencies.

Hon. H. Lali: Not that late.

[ Page 7867 ]

Hon. H. Lali: No -- not that late.

K. Krueger: There is an overarching issue in my constituency, and I think around the province, around the continuing rehabilitation and maintenance of roadbeds. I've seen alarming studies about how rapidly the roadbed declines if it isn't serviced faithfully. By the 15-year mark, the amount of wear and tear over the next five years is almost the same as in the first 15 years. I've certainly had those complaints about secondary roads in my constituency. This may be a question for the ministry rather than the TFA, but I wonder if the minister would like to comment about that now.

Hon. H. Lali: I agree with the hon. member in terms of the issues ranging from bridge and highway maintenance and rehab throughout the province, especially in rural areas. The member's constituency is not too far from mine and has very similar characteristics to my constituency. I want to point out that it's for that particular reason that our rehab budget for this year has been doubled from the year before. It was $80 million last year, and it's $153 million this year. I made an announcement earlier in April of $66 million for the northern half of the province; I'm just waiting to announce the rest for the southern half of the province shortly.

[3:45]

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: It's not actually done in the manner that the hon. member proposes. Even though there has been a big emphasis on the north, one of the considerations was that moneys would not be taken away from areas in the south to make up for 20 years of neglect up in the north. We will try to go on a priority basis, in terms of safety and congestion. . . .

The hon. member for Okanagan West is pointing fingers at herself: "Give me some." I assure the hon. member that her constituency will get its fair share as well.

I was just talking about trying to do it on an equitable basis. However, if there are areas in the southern half of the province which need special attention as compared to other areas, then that is certainly a consideration in my mind.

K. Krueger: Well, prior to the 1996 election there was a promise -- a commitment -- made by the MLA who I replaced in that election that a bypass would be built at Little Fort for the intersection of Highway 24 and Highway 5. I have been on the record several times as requesting that the ministry and the TFA have a look at whether or not it might better reallocate the money that was committed to that project to the passing lanes that we discussed earlier. I'd like to know the status of the bypass project at Little Fort and the ministry's answer to whether those funds might potentially be used to accelerate the construction of the passing lanes we discussed.

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of the Little Fort bypass, the member is aware that it came under the capital review. As a result of the capital review which took place a year and a half ago, it was deferred to a later date. It's not in the capital plan for this year. I've had some similar projects within my constituency that I'm still working on, one of them being the Lytton Bridge, which I had initially announced as early as the summer of '94, I believe. I might be a little off on my dates, but it was announced almost four years ago. I'm still waiting and working on that particular issue for myself. Unfortunately, this was one of those. . . . Little Fort was deferred as a result of the capital review.

K. Krueger: I asked a rather lengthy question. The second part of the question was whether the ministry or the TFA has actually looked at my proposal that -- without committing to this being a preference -- the money for that project instead be used to accelerate construction of passing lanes on Highway 5.

Hon. H. Lali: It was long-winded, so I missed the last part. We all have a habit, as politicians, of going a little bit over sometimes. I actually answered the question previously, in that we are seriously looking at the passing-lanes issue that the hon. member raised.

K. Krueger: I don't mean to drag this out, but perhaps we have different definitions of the word "deferred." I don't take it to mean that the promised construction project has gone to never-never land but rather that the TFA expects to do that project and spend that money at some reasonably predictable date in the future. My question is: if my constituents feel that it's a higher priority to have all three of those passing lanes constructed than to see $2.5 million spent on the Little Fort bypass, is that something that the TFA is considering?

When I mention that, I'd like to put on the record that one of the reasons that bypass was considered in the first place was that the existing highway runs by the elementary school in Little Fort. There were concerns about children walking on the highway. The school district has actually closed the elementary school in Little Fort, and it isn't anticipated that it's likely to ever reopen. Clearly that's a reason to reconsider that allocation of funding at whatever date it's been deferred to.

Hon. H. Lali: The Little Fort bypass project has been deferred; it's not in the near future. Actually, it has been deferred beyond the four-year span. The whole point to deferring this as a part of the capital review was that we were trying to save money. Obviously this was, unfortunately, one of those issues that were caught in the capital review.

K. Krueger: I'm probably going to be told that this next question more properly goes to the ministry. I'll just make sure of that. I want to deal with the issue of maintenance of road conditions on Highway 5 in the winter. That is a ministry question, I take it.

I'll pass the floor to one of my colleagues.

S. Hawkins: Last year I raised the issue of Westside Road. I was pleased to see that Mr. Dan Doyle, I believe it was, actually took us up on our offer to come and drive down that road on the west side of the lake. It's a long, winding and rather dangerous road. Unfortunately, Mr. Doyle didn't take up my offer to drive him down that road, but I'm glad he did drive with somebody. I understand that the ministry then did come to an agreement with the regional district and the private sector to provide funding to fix that road. I'm just asking about the status and any update on the improvements to that road.

Hon. H. Lali: We have an agreement in place on that particular issue, and we're continuing to implement it. It was

[ Page 7868 ]

S. Hawkins: Does that mean that you're completing the study or that you're completing the road this year? How much funding is going into completing that road, and how much of it is going to be fixed?

Hon. H. Lali: There's half a million dollars in this year's budget, and we will finish the project. I just want to read from here what the scope of the work is:

". . .reconstruction of about three kilometres of road in various locations, including realignment of dangerous corners between Bear Creek Provincial Park and Brouse Road near Sailview Bay, which is five kilometres from Highway 97; between Sailview Bay and Jennie Creek, which is 12 kilometres from Highway 97; and near Jennie Creek, which is 15 kilometres from Highway 97 near Brows Road. The project involves significant drilling, blasting and grade construction."

Hon. H. Lali: I'd be happy to supply the details. Plan B has $400,000 this year, $300,000 of which will be for the Central Okanagan. That is to confirm the long-term transportation strategy for the Central Okanagan, which will actually complement the growth strategy of the region.

S. Hawkins: If I could just ask one more thing, could I be provided with a copy of the completed phase A study? Is that possible?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

P. Nettleton: A few questions. The first thing I should do, however, is ensure that the highways I'm referring to fall under the TFA. The first highway I want to make reference to is Highway 37, which runs through Bulkley Valley-Stikine up to the Yukon -- the upgrade of Highway 37.

Hon. H. Lali: It depends. Does the hon. member want to talk about capital? In that case, we'll talk about it under the TFA. If it's maintenance, it'll be under Highways.

P. Nettleton: In fact, I do want to discuss capital rather than maintenance, so I will proceed, focusing on Highway 37. Each year -- for the minister's information -- the B.C. Chamber of Commerce compiles a list of policies and positions it has taken that relate to specific ministries -- in this case, Transportation and Highways. Specific recommendations focus on particular highways, and in this case, they have focused on Highway 37. I refer the minister to the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce '97-98 policy and positions manual, in which they make the comment that the provincial government should, in their view, accelerate the upgrading of Highway 37 to current standards, giving the highest priority to the widening of the highway and the replacement of the existing temporary Bailey bridges with modern structures.

[4:00]

"The value of this highway to the tourist industry in the northwest cannot be understated. Many tourists value the northern part of B.C. for its pristine lakes and wilderness state. This region is really a frontier in terms of tourist potential.

"Highway 37 is a key artery to north-south access between Alaska, Yukon and the rest of British Columbia. Many motor-vehicle-oriented tourists elect to take a circle route to Alaska and the Yukon, utilizing both the Alaska Highway and Highway 37. The statistics can be verified by your ministry's origin-destination surveys for the summer months.

"Highway 37 should be paved in its entirety sooner, rather than later. All of the communities along it and along Highway 16 are dependent upon those tourists. At present it is documented that many people choose to use only the Alaska Highway to avoid the gravel and washboard of Highway 37."

I have a specific question, then, with reference to Highway 37, and perhaps the minister may want to comment generally. I do know that there has been a recent release from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways dealing in some detail with Highway 37. I have that information in front of me dealing specifically with Willow Creek Bridge, Hodder Lake to Morchuea Lake, and dealing with base repairs and a couple of other points along Highway 37. The minister may want to comment further, other than the release that I have referred to. After having reviewed the recommendation of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, a question that comes to mind is, for instance, about bridges. I don't know how many Bailey bridges there are on Highway 37, but I do see that you have addressed the whole question of bridges in at least two instances. The other question that comes to mind is. . . . Perhaps I should just let you deal with that and then move on.

Hon. H. Lali: That was quite a long-winded question, there. First of all, I want to state on the record that I agree with the hon. member about the importance of Highway 37 and a lot of the situations that the hon. member has put before us.

I want to go back to 1997, when there was the Premier's economic summit that took place in Prince George. Northern roads were actually a fairly hot issue. One of the recommendations that came out of there was that we needed to develop some sort of a long-term strategy to start to put more funding into the northern roads -- to start building and rebuilding some of the bridges and roads up there.

Following that, when I first became minister, I had the opportunity to make a tour. Unfortunately, I did not go into Fort St. James, where the hon. member lives. I made a promise to his mayor -- and I will live it up to it once the session is over -- to actually go and visit him, his council and the community and take a look at the issues there. I did get a chance to go into Prince George on four occasions already this year, and I had a chance to drive through major sections of the roads in the north. I started out in Kitimat and Smithers. As well, I was up in Prince George, the Peace region and some other communities, where I had a chance to look at some of the roads and the bridges in the area. Then I had a chance to go back again three weeks later, in April, to make a major announcement in the north -- the northern roads initiative.

[ Page 7869 ]

In terms of Highway 37 and the specific question, I just want to say that in 1998-99 the province will invest $2 million for major rehabilitation of 32 kilometres between Bell No. 1 and Deltaic Creek, $2 million to reseal 97 kilometres between Hodder and Morchuea lakes and complete replacement of Rescue Creek Bridge. There was $350,000 spent in '97-98, and an additional $200,000 in this year's budget. We will also replace Willow Creek Bridge with a two-lane structure -- that's $500,000 -- and undertake road stabilization in varied locations. Our future plans will entail further seal-coating and alignment improvements.

The member made a statement about paving the road in its entirety. It's actually a fairly long road, and it's very, very expensive in terms of dollars. We do have plans to do major work on that road, but we're going to do it in increments.

On the issue of Bailey bridges, that's an ongoing program, and I guess we'll just have to wait for the future.

P. Nettleton: I appreciate the minister's rather general response -- well, general in the sense that he dealt with constituencies other than that constituency and highways other than that highway to which I had attempted to direct the minister's mind. In any event, I appreciate that in fact, as the minister has rightly pointed out, there appears to be, at this point, at least, something of a commitment to northern roads and northern infrastructure. I know that there are many constituents -- and I think I mirror their skepticism -- that feel that they will believe it when they see it, in the sense that they will believe it when they see roads being repaved and bridges being widened and things of that nature. There is a certain amount of skepticism any time there is an announcement emanating from Victoria, whether that be in Prince George or elsewhere. So we certainly will be staying tuned with some interest.

Specifically, though, in reference to Highway 37, I know that there has been some concern which has been laid out in the chamber recommendations dealing with the whole question of Bailey bridges. Does the minister know specifically how many Bailey bridges there are on Highway 37? What are the plans to deal with the whole question of Bailey bridges?

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of Bailey bridges, at this moment we don't know exactly how many Bailey bridges there are, but we will get back to the hon. member with the details at a later time.

In terms of commitment, when I came on board as minister, I went up into the north part of the province to meet with mayors and councils and regional district reps and chairs, aboriginal leaders, business leaders and community individuals in the various communities that I visited throughout the north. I've already indicated that I've made a promise to Mayor Jim Togyi that I will come up to Fort St. James to take a look firsthand. So I made a commitment at that time when I went on the tour, and I followed through with the commitment and doubled the rehab budget for the northern roads.

The member raised the issue of skepticism. It was there. I have to admit to it: when I visited in the north, people often did not believe that we would come through and deliver. When I did revisit the north to make the announcement, I did come through. I received a lot of positive comments from a lot of people, including Mayor Jim Togyi, who phoned my staff here in Victoria and said: "Good work. The announcement was better than expected."

P. Nettleton: That doesn't come as news to me, in that I just happen to have in my hot little hand a copy of today's clipping from the Citizen in which the minister. . . . Presumably, you do recall having written that letter to the Citizen, quoting from my mayor, Mr. Togyi, in which he points to your announcement as good news.

I think, however, that it's old news in the sense that Highway 27 has been a longstanding problem. The fact that the minister has changed, given that the former minister was from Prince George and certainly was aware of the problem with reference to Highway 27. . . . We've now somehow moved from Highway 37 to Highway 27. I'm not sure how that's happened, but we'll soon move back to Highway 37.

I recall having met with the previous minister and with members of my community, and we expressed our concern. Her response was simply: "Stand in line. There's no money available." She didn't extend any hope to us at all in terms of addressing what has been a longstanding problem not only for the residents of Fort St. James and the outlying villages and communities but for the truckers who travel that road hauling logs southwards. Again, I will deal with Highway 27 in some detail at some point soon.

Back to Highway 37, if I may. We've addressed the question of bridges. The other thought, the recommendation that has been raised by the chamber, has been with reference to widening and generally upgrading the highway. I understand the minister to have said that there is some plan in terms of doing this incrementally -- that is, address the whole question of the need to widen the highway, deal with the question of bridges and upgrade Highway 37 at some point in the future. Can the minister be more definite? If in fact there is a plan afoot to do just that, what is the time frame?

Beyond that, I know that you have referenced, in your backgrounder, specific improvements to be made sometime soon -- Willow Creek Bridge and others. The other question I would like to ask is: what is the time frame for that in terms of tendering those projects? When can we expect those projects to commence?

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of Highway 37, I agree with the hon. member that it is a very old issue. But the announcement that I made this year was new money. So maybe it's an old issue, but it's actually new work that we're doing on that.

I also want to sort of correct any impression that may have been left behind as far as the role of any previous ministers before me, in particular the member for Prince George-Mount Robson. The former minister before me was co-chair of the Premier's economic summit in Prince George and has been making a very strong case on behalf of not just northern communities but rural communities specifically, all throughout the province, including areas that I represent. She's still a very strong advocate. I refer to her for advice on a regular basis. She had been the minister for a year and a half. So basically, what I have been doing for the last three months is following up on the great work that she has done for the last two years in this particular ministry. I want to point that out to the hon. member. Often when we make plans, they're not plans that we come up with overnight. They're plans that go

[ Page 7870 ]

On the definite plans the member is asking for, the estimated costs associated with upgrading the entire highway to a paved, two-lane, 80-kilometres-per-hour design standard are estimated to be approximately $100 million in 1998 dollars. The southern sections of the highway have been upgraded to meet this new standard, and other sections have been seal-coated to preserve the base and improve riding comfort.

[4:15]

I can tell the minister that I would like some more detail with reference to Highway 37. For the sake of time and expediency and all those things, I will not belabour this point. But if the minister could provide for me, sometime over the next few weeks and months, some detail in terms of addressing the whole question of Highway 37 with some kind of long-term plan, I would certainly find that most helpful. I'm sure that the residents of the Bulkley and Nechako regions would find that most helpful. That's what I'm looking for now, I guess -- some assurance that in fact that detail can be provided sometime soon.

Hon. H. Lali: On Highway 37, I want to assure the member that it is an ongoing program and a long-term program. Some of the announcements will obviously have to wait for each fiscal year to determine how much money is available for my particular jurisdiction. What we can do is have the staff provide the hon. member with materials that will be able to satisfy some of the questions -- perhaps not all, but some or most of the questions -- the hon. member may want to raise.

I also want to assure him that in terms of the overall situation in the north and specifically in the member's riding, I firmly believe that there has to be a certain measure of equity in terms of where the funds would be going. When you look at the entire province. . . . If you look at the urban areas, there are issues related to the safety of the travelling public and traffic congestion -- in particular, the Port Mann Bridge or the Lions Gate Bridge and those kinds of issues. In some of the others that the hon. member for Richmond Centre canvassed in the estimates yesterday and today, and also in the north, in the rural areas, in the areas east and west of Hope and in the northern half of Vancouver Island, the issues are straight infrastructure issues. You're talking about bridges and roads.

A lot of those are up in the north, and it is my opinion, as minister, that I have to make sure that funds are allocated on an equitable basis. That often means trying to place competing demands against each other. At the same time, one must also look at the whole issue, where some parts of the province are obviously in worse shape than other parts of the province. I recognized that on my tour of the north, because I was able to listen to people and look for myself at the quality of the roads or the bridges that were in question.

I recognized that at the time I made the statement. I stand by the statement that some of the worst situations in terms of roads and bridges are in the north. I've recognized that, and obviously, as long as I am minister, I will pay heed to issues such as that when allocations are made.

P. Nettleton: I can tell you for the record that I am not satisfied there is in fact a long-term plan for Highway 37. That is certainly not clear to me. I suggest to the minister that there is no long-term plan. There may be some awareness of the difficulties, but I do not see or hear today that a long-term plan has been developed, nor is there a long-term plan that is presently being developed to address the concerns of Highway 37. Nevertheless, I will, as the minister has suggested, be in contact with his officials. I certainly stand to be corrected if there is a long-term plan. I would certainly like to see that. I would like to work together with the ministry and the residents of Bulkley and Nechako in terms of working towards seeing their concerns addressed.

The minister has brought up the whole question of Highway 27, which is a road that is near and dear to me, in that the highway runs from Vanderhoof, a town roughly half an hour from where I reside, to Fort St. James. The Caledonia Courier, on April 1, 1998 -- a fairly recent article -- talked about Highway 27 and meetings dealing with Highways representatives and about questions raised at council re Highway 27. They indicate that it's bad news for anyone hoping that Highway 27 -- specifically, the downtown portion of Fort St. James -- might get repaved sometime in the near future.

They go on to indicate that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways officials addressing the council said that they recognized that Highway 27 needed work, and they have listed four priorities for the road. They go on to talk about those priorities. They talk about the budgetary difficulties: "Projects take money, and we don't determine what ministries get what amount of money." That's the comment from the ministry officials. They talked about the costs -- anywhere from $75,000 per kilometre up to $100,000 per kilometre. They talked about how, over the last two years, there had been zero capital improvements for the central northeast region -- one of the largest in the province. "There's no money to spend on Fort St. James or other roads. That's the state of the provincial economy." That's the comment of Errol Redman, Highways representative, speaking to the council in Fort St. James.

The mayor, to whom the minister referred some time ago with reference to Highway 27, went on to say. . . . He referred to the local part of Highway 27 as "our main street, the busiest logging road in British Columbia." By the mayor's estimation, 10,000 loaded logging trucks leave town in a year. A past comparison labelled one logging truck as equalling 3,500 cars going over the pavement. Using that figure, 35 million passenger cars go over the pavement. And Fort St. James pays about $100 million in stumpage fees in any year, which is a considerable amount of money.

Dealing with the whole question of repaving, the mayor indicates that the last time it was done was in 1970 -- considerably beyond the life-expectancy of the highway. He talked about how he's personally embarrassed when he takes out-of-town guests or friends on this road to his town. He wanted the representatives to go back to Victoria, presumably to tell the minister that Highway 27 needs to be addressed and sometime soon.

So certainly Highway 27 is a huge concern. Again I would point to the backgrounder of the minister and his ministry, in which there is some reference made to Highway

[ Page 7871 ]

I don't expect the minister to be as familiar with Highway 27 as I am, certainly. That would not be fair. But I can tell the minister that Highway 27 has virtually no shoulder and that safety is a huge concern with reference to that point. It's not uncommon, particularly in the wintertime, to drive along Highway 27 and see cars and trucks upside down in the ditch, presumably because of the fact that there is no shoulder. What tends to happen is that the snowplows push the snow off the centre of the road. Then cars unexpectedly drive off the centre of the road and end up upside down.

On the one hand, this is a question that appears to be recognized and perhaps is going to be addressed within Skeena. Again, I refer to the memo from your office in which there's some reference made to enhancing safety and a better ride. But I don't see any reference to address that problem on Highway 27. Finally, I say to the minister that while there has been some moneys devoted to Highway 27, it's certainly not enough, particularly in light of the fact that $100 million in stumpage flows southward from Fort St. James on an annual basis. Perhaps the minister may want to comment on that.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member is incorrect in assuming that there is no long-term plan. I would assure the member that there is a long-term plan for Highway 37. I have already read out some instances where we are spending money, and I want to recap some of them. There was $9.5 million spent on the Meziadin bridge; we're spending $5 million this year on Highway 37. Over the last several years up to $5 million worth of work has been done on minor projects and on some seal-coating as well, and that will continue on a regular basis. That is roughly $20 million that I am pointing out right now to the hon. member, which has been spent in the last few years.

The plans are to continue in the future with upgrading and building that highway on a long-term basis. I have already explained to the member -- maybe not to this member, but to other members -- that we're doing as much as we possibly can with the number of dollars at our disposal. The fairly angry public out there doesn't want to see an increase in debt, and they don't want to see tolls. So basically, you have to do with what you've got. I've pointed out how the northern half of the province is actually receiving more than its fair share of the rehab moneys I've already announced. They've got nearly half of all rehab moneys that are at my disposal.

The hon. member also raises the issue of shoulders on the road to Kitamaat Village and how there are some areas of his riding that need to have that kind of safety issue addressed. I would also like to point out to the member that in my constituency, I have the greatest number of kilometres of roads than any other constituency in the province. I can assure him that I have dozens of instances like that in my riding where the safety issues could be addressed, but, unfortunately, we can't do that due to the budget limitations.

I don't want the hon. member to get an impression that there is any kind of favouritism going on vis-à-vis NDP ridings versus Liberal ridings. The briefing books will be at your disposal; you can compare them. The Peace River region, represented by non-NDP ridings, received $27 million of the $66 million I've announced. I believe there are six. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I wish I could.

Almost half of the entire northern budget went into those ridings. I want to point out the two instances the hon. member mentioned. . . . The member for Skeena received a little over $2.5 million in the budget that was announced for rehab in his particular constituency. The hon. member across the way. . . . His constituency was well over $5 million; it was $5.8 million, I believe. So I don't think it's fair to try to paint the picture that there is some sort of favouritism. If anything, I'm feeling favouritism to non-NDP ridings, and I'll probably get killed by my caucus when I go there tomorrow.

[4:30]

P. Nettleton: With reference to the long-term plan on Highway 37. . . . Again, I don't want to beat this to death. But has any other group or individual other than the minister and his ministry staff, of course, been privy to this long-term plan -- for example, the Bulkley-Nechako regional district?

Hon. H. Lali: The folks who the hon. member mentions are in regular contact with Highways officials at the district and the regional levels. The priorities that are funded are developed at the local level and then sent to Victoria before the funding mechanism is in place.

On the issue of Highway 27, the member made some very useful comments in his earlier question. I will take those comments into full consideration, as I will the comments from any other groups within his riding, and when we come up with a plan in the future, hopefully they will reflect some of the comments made by the member.

P. Nettleton: You've really got me scratching my head now, hon. minister. Moments ago you claimed that there is a long-term plan. I expressed my skepticism. Your response was that there is in fact a long-term plan. You said that I could have access to that long-term plan. My question to you then was: if in fact there is a long-term plan, as you claim, who else is privy to that long-term plan? You've now made the comment that at some point there may be a long-term plan but that there is in fact no long-term plan. So is there a long-term plan or isn't there a long-term plan? I'd like an answer to that.

Hon. H. Lali: I think there's maybe a bit of a gap in communications here. The member first talked about Highway 37. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: If the member would just wait for me to finish. The member first talked about Highway 37, and then

[ Page 7872 ]

I also told the hon. member that the total cost of doing the kind of work that the hon. member asked for would be in the neighbourhood of $100 million. I also told the hon. member that on Highway 37, we don't have the money to undertake the entire $100 million at once. But in terms of the long-range plan, we are doing that on an incremental basis, on a year-to-year basis. I think that's fairly clear.

On the issue of Highway 27, the hon. member made some comments about that, which I indicated that I would take into consideration. I think that's where the clarification is.

P. Nettleton: This is getting more interesting as we progress. But my question to the minister is: is there in fact a long-term plan -- a definitive, long-term plan -- on Highway 37?

Hon. H. Lali: And I think for the fourth time I will answer this question. Yes, there is a long-term plan.

P. Nettleton: I'm delighted to hear that. And again, without beating this to death, is there another group or organization -- for instance, the Bulkley-Nechako regional district -- that's privy to this plan other than the minister and his staff?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I want to clarify something for the hon. member. Something may have gotten lost in the translation. We're all human beings, on both sides of the House, and I just want to clarify; I'm not trying to get into any kind of argument. If the hon. member across the way is looking for a document -- this thick or that thick -- there is no such document that has been printed and/or distributed, even to the group that the hon. member mentioned. What I said to the hon. member was that this is an ongoing process, and we have an ongoing program. It is for the long term, and we are going to do it on an incremental basis. If the hon. member so desires, my staff will provide the hon. member with the necessary materials.

P. Nettleton: Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the one hand, you claimed that there is a plan. On the other hand, you tell me that you're doing this on an incremental basis, which to me suggests that there is no plan -- that you're doing this on an ad hoc, incremental basis. Which is it? Is there a plan or isn't there?

Hon. H. Lali: I believe I answered that question on four different occasions already.

P. Nettleton: I take that to mean that there is in fact no long-term plan. I don't see how I could take it any other way.

Hon. H. Lali: Yes to the plan.

P. Nettleton: In any case, I'll resist the temptation to pursue this line of questioning, because I can see it's leading us nowhere.

In any event, I understand that we're going to be adjourning in roughly five minutes, so perhaps I could focus the minister's attention again on Highway 27, if I may. Please, hon. minister, I beseech you, on behalf of my constituents, my family, my friends: can you give me any sense of your long-term plan -- here we go with the plan again -- for Highway 27, bearing in mind the revenues that flow southward on Highway 27?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for his comments, and as I assured him before, I will take the hon. member's comments under advisement -- just like any other member of the House -- when budgets come up next year and the year after.

There are a series of safety improvement issues already in place for Highway 27. The member is aware of some of the announcements that have been made. There are some resurfacing projects on Highway 27 from Braeside to Fish Lake Road. From Stuart River Bridge to Fort St. James there's a repavement project. There's also a bridge project at Pitka to install a multi-plate culvert. Again, I want to turn to the comments made by the mayor whose community the hon. member lives in, Mayor Jim Togyi, who phoned my office and said: "Good work! Announcement better than expected." So I want to point out to the hon. member that this has already been done.

P. Nettleton: Well, to convey to the minister, if I may, the comments or concerns of constituents -- and I certainly wouldn't claim to speak for the mayor to whom the minister made reference -- their sense, I think, is: "We'll believe it when we see it." But having said that, they certainly do hope to see it sometime soon.

With reference again to Highway 27, just for my own benefit, what would be the costs associated with putting some kind of shoulder on Highway 27?

Hon. H. Lali: My staff don't have the estimate or the figures on that. We'd have to determine how many kilometres the length is, and the quality and all that. We can provide the figure at a later time.

P. Nettleton: With reference to the portions of Highway 27 that have recently been announced, when can we expect those portions of the highway to go to tender? And following on that, when can we expect those portions of the highway to be under construction?

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is a.s.a.p. The hon. member will actually see the work being done this summer when he goes home -- if the session is over by then. At the rate the member is going, we might be here all summer, but when he goes home, he will be driving on some of this stuff -- by the fall, when everything is completed.

D. Symons: Just a very short question leading up to adjournment. We were talking earlier about Westside Road. I didn't interrupt during the conversation on that. You were talking about some improvements done a little bit north of Highway 97. I gather there is a corridor protection plan in there for the whole corridor -- to carry it considerably further north. I'm just wondering whether that plan is still in place. At

[ Page 7873 ]

Hon. H. Lali: No, we are not protecting the corridor for any new freeway on the west side.

D. Symons: Noting the time, I would suggest that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:44 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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