[ Page 7915 ]

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my pleasure today, hon. Speaker, to wish happy birthday to someone who is familiar to everybody in this chamber. He's probably outside, camped out and ready for us later. That's Ron Thompson, the BCTV cameraman, who is 52 years old today and who has covered the Legislature for many years. I'd ask all members to wish him a happy birthday.

D. Jarvis: It's my pleasure today to introduce a gentleman, Mr. William Denault, from my riding in North Vancouver-Seymour, who is an expert on health, safety and environmental concerns. Would you please welcome Bill to the House.

I. Chong: Visiting us today are ten exceptional ladies, members of the Lady Laurier Club here in Victoria. This club was formed in 1952, and its members assist local Liberal candidates in all elections. In addition, this club has provided two scholarships annually and raises money for the food bank. It was a pleasure having lunch with them today. I know they're anxiously awaiting question period. I would ask the House and all members to please make them very welcome.

J. Sawicki: I have in the gallery today two very special guests. One of them is well-known to this side of the House and to most Canadians; he's my good friend and political colleague in Burnaby and the MP for Burnaby-Douglas, Svend Robinson. He's here today with his partner Max Riveron. In asking the House to make them both welcome, I'm sure that members would want to join me in wishing Svend well as he continues to struggle back to good health after his accident last year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a good friend and a colleague. He's also a banker, which makes it particularly special. Larry Wyse is a member of the Royal Bank of Canada. He did serve in the area responsible for my riding, East Vancouver, as a regional banker. Now he has had the good fortune -- and Victoria has had the good fortune -- to be located here. Mr. Wyse has done wonderful community service on various levels, but particularly in working with me on the KidSafe project, bringing a great deal of safety and security to underprivileged kids in East Vancouver. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Here in the precinct there are 69 grade 6 and 7 students from Kirkbride Elementary in Surrey. I would like the House to make them and their teacher, Mr. McCallum, welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I see in the gallery next to Svend my old friend Barbara Barrett. Since Leonard Krog doesn't work here anymore, I get to introduce her. Hi, Barb.

V. Anderson: Today, on behalf of Bill Barisoff, the MLA for Okanagan-Boundary, I would like to welcome 45 grade 7 students, the adults who are with them, and their teacher, Mr. Eaton, from Similkameen Elementary-Secondary School. They are here visiting the precinct. Please welcome them.

J. van Dongen: Visiting us in the gallery today are a number of grade 10 students from Abbotsford Junior Secondary. They are accompanied by a number of parents and their teacher, Mr. Ray Goerke. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

R. Coleman: Seated in the gallery today is a group of grade 11 and 12 students from The King's School, along with some parents and their teacher, Mr. Beck. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Robertson: With us today we have the former IWA national president, Mr. Gerry Stoney. With Gerry is Bruce Ferguson. I'd like to ask the members to please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have some representatives from the Burnaby Chamber of Commerce. I might say it's a chamber of commerce that is very popular and very easy to support; I think they do a great job. We have Michael Gau, who is the president, Peter Dickens, who is the past president, and Abby Anderson, who is the general manager. They are here today to meet with the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Kasper: Joining us in the gallery later on will be some 35 students from Brentwood College in Mill Bay. They are joined by their teacher, Mr. J. Atterbury. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Nettleton: It's my privilege today to introduce a number of residents of northern British Columbia -- to their credit, none of whom are politicians. They are ordinary residents of a number of communities: Ms. Jamie Marshall of Fort St. James; Mr. Greg Deverson, Ms. Sabra McLain, Ms. Kerri Heavenor and Ms. Aneta Harris from Vanderhoof; and from Fraser Lake, Ms. Sheri Hendriks, Ms. Sheryl Parson and Ms. Elaine Storey. These are folks who have met earlier today with municipal leaders, with the Premier of the province, as well as representatives from the official opposition's health committee, dealing with the current crisis in northern British Columbia -- the crisis with reference to health care delivery. I know that they're anxious; they're looking for answers and for support. Please join me in welcoming them today.

Introduction of Bills

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that Bill 22, Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: This legislation establishes the legal supports necessary for the implementation of the mental health plan. As we announced in January of this year, over the next seven years the mental health plan will significantly improve the quality of care for people with persistent and serious mental illnesses. This bill provides amendments to the Mental Health Act that will help to keep people healthy within their communities, to provide support for people who have breaks

[ Page 7916 ]

[2:15]

The changes will improve access to extended leave by ensuring that the review panels take into account the patient's history of hospitalization and their ability to follow their treatment program when determining whether a patient should be discharged. If the patient is unlikely to adhere to the treatment needed to prevent repeated hospitalizations in the future, involuntary treatment may be continued. If the patient has been on extended leave for more than a year, a review panel chair must review the patient's file and may order a hearing to determine if the patient still meets the criteria for extended leave. If a patient on extended leave for more than six months is brought back to hospital, she or he will have the same rights to a periodic review of their detention as a person admitted for the first time.

The Speaker: Minister of Health, the two minutes for your statement is up.

Hon. P. Priddy: 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 22 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.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: This bill introduces a new means of describing parks boundaries, which will help protect the diversity of natural, cultural, heritage and recreational values that is unique to B.C. and so important to British Columbians. This new process will reduce uncertainty by describing park boundaries in a manner that is more accurate, more understandable and easier to locate on the ground. As members noted last year, current written metes-and-bounds descriptions for park boundaries are often lengthy, leading to difficulty in interpretation and understanding. Moreover, these written descriptions sometimes lack the precision necessary to meet current resource management objectives and standards.

This bill begins the process of replacing those written descriptions, which may include certain technical inaccuracies, with legally mapped boundaries which are more accurate, understandable and practical. I have provided a set of the maps to the office of the Clerk of the House and to each party for members to review. I am confident that all members will find these map descriptions much easier to understand.

Bill 23 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.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to present the Assessment Amendment Act, 1998. This bill will make the appeal process more accessible and will cut red tape, which will ensure that assessment disputes are resolved in a timely manner and will help reduce the current backlog of appeals. Bill 21 will shift the focus of the assessment appeals system from adversarial hearings to facilitated processes aimed at resolution of disputes and determination of actual values. This will reduce the cost to taxpayers and promote speedier resolution of appeals. This legislation will allow greater openness and transparency, while protecting personal and sensitive information related to assessments, as recommended by the privacy commissioner. Bill 21 will modernize our assessment appeal system, reduce the backlog of appeals and provide better value for taxpayers.

I move that Bill 21 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. POSITION ON COHO FISHERY

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for addressing this situation, which is very, very serious for British Columbia and also for our relationship not only to Ottawa but to our three neighbouring states of Washington, Oregon and Alaska.

The coho crisis report that Minister Anderson passed on to me yesterday afternoon, as a matter of fact, really contains

[ Page 7917 ]

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: The federal government has promised a decision within the next few days, and surely this provincial government has a position as to which option they want to see. I'm going to ask the minister again: which option does the minister support -- a total ban on coho fishing or up to a 10 percent level of mortality? Which option is it? Is the minister simply going to wait for the federal decision and then criticize the decision afterwards?

Hon. D. Streifel: The member is well aware that we had Dr. Parzival Copes on the coast, ahead of the federal minister and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Copes report indicated that if there are going to be recommendations on downturns in the fishing on the coast of British Columbia, they be shared across all sectors. The Copes report also suggested, and recommended strongly, that it's possible to carry on fisheries in areas where there is still a fair catch of coho to be had, and that in areas where the coho are imperilled and on the brink of extinction, we stand down those fisheries. That's been the position of this minister and this government, as supported by the Copes report.

G. Plant: Well, I'm still waiting for the answer, hon. Speaker. And do you know what? British Columbians have been waiting for a long time for this government to develop a strategy around fisheries that is something more than wait and whine, something more than do nothing and complain about it afterwards.

The Speaker: And your question?

G. Plant: Let's give the Minister of Fisheries one more chance. What is the number that he is recommending on behalf of British Columbia? What is the position he is taking on behalf of British Columbia in his conversations -- if he's having any -- with the Minister of Fisheries? Is it zero or is it 10 percent?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this once more for the members opposite.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Streifel: You may want to try harder, hon. member. Once in a while, you may want to try some support for communities on this coast that are in dire straits.

Under the Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement signed by the Premier and the Prime Minister last year, we commissioned Dr. Parzival Copes to consult with the communities and the fishing communities on our coast to develop a made-in-British Columbia plan that would support fisheries on this coast, that would support a fishery for the future on this coast and that would support coastal communities. I have yet to hear from the official opposition whether they support zero-to-6 or zero-to-10, or whether they support a made-in-British Columbia position that supports the coastal communities.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: This is the position from British Columbia: the Copes report that supports limited action in the fisheries and action in the fisheries where it's needed.

NORTHERN HEALTH CARE

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

S. Hawkins: . . .for herself and for her family.

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

S. Hawkins: She wants to know: will the Premier stand up today in the House and tell Ms. McLain that she doesn't have to worry anymore, that she will have her baby in her home hospital, in her hometown of Vanderhoof?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Priddy: Let's just put this statement made by the member into a bit of context. There have not been three months of waiting with no solutions. There was first a $450,000 solution to the Northern Interior regional health board for providing relief, which was rejected by the physicians. Then the physicians said, "For $200,000 more, we'll go back to work," and the $650,000 proposition was rejected. There was then a suggestion that we agreed to, to change the northern isolation allowance. . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .and the next day in the paper it said that the doctors had rejected that.

So let's be really clear. This has not been three months of no activity. Everybody, whether they live in Victoria or Vancouver or Surrey. . . . While they can't experience what people in the north are experiencing, they nevertheless want people to have their physicians back at work.

For the mom that's pregnant. . . . I mean, lots of us who have sort of done that wonderful experience. . . .

[ Page 7918 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Minister of Health has the floor.

Hon. P. Priddy: The Leader of the Opposition. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . . Minister, would you wind up your answer, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: The Leader of the Opposition said awhile ago in this House that I wouldn't cross the street to see rural physicians. Well, the physicians up there won't cross the street to deliver a baby for a patient that they've always looked after. Let them go back to work while the solutions are being found.

S. Hawkins: The people up there are feeling neglected and betrayed by this government. All they get from this government are broken promises and more studies; that's all they've been getting. The mayor and patients are tired of that. They are absolutely tired of a government that is unwilling to act. This issue has been studied to death.

The Speaker: Hon. member, we need your question.

S. Hawkins: We have a study, done in May 1995. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please.

We need order in the House on all sides, and we need to come to the question. You know about supplementary questions, hon. members. All of you are to have minimal preambles. I've let members have quite a lot of leeway; on preambles there has been a lot of leeway.

The hon. member may now ask her question.

S. Hawkins: The folks here today want to know why there is a study. . . .

The Speaker: No props, hon. member.

S. Hawkins: They want to know from the Premier. . .

The Speaker: No props. We know the rules.

S. Hawkins: . . .why there's a study in the Legislature, a Northern and Rural Health Task Force. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, order, order!

The members know that there are a lot of rules. In the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, let's have order. Before we proceed, we must have order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, both sides of the House must come to order before we can proceed and before I recognize anyone.

All right. The members know about props, and you know where they are to be used. They stay on the tables. Everyone knows that; hon. members know that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui will come to order.

Hon. member for Okanagan West, proceed.

S. Hawkins: My question is to the Premier. Why did he order another study when there's one in the Legislative Library from 1995 that was done by 12 northern community leaders, called the "Report of the Northern and Rural Health Task Force"? It has 139 recommendations in it. Why did he order another study when there's one collecting dust on the Legislative Library shelves?

Hon. P. Priddy: We did not order another study. What we did was place in those communities someone who is credible, who is well received by physicians, by elected people, by people in the community, to look for. . .

[2:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: Our mothers would be so unhappy.

. . .a particular solution.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Okanagan West, please come to order.

I suggest that we move on to the next question. I recognize the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Well, hon. Speaker, it's a sad day in British Columbia when people from the north have to bring in a hospital bed and put it on the lawn of the Legislature to get attention for health care in the north. Last year the Minister of Health claimed that northern patients only had to wait three months. . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Listen up, buddy.

. . .to see an orthopedic surgeon. Today, hon. Speaker, the situation is much worse. I quote Dr. Chris Coetzee: "I have close to 400 people waiting for surgery. At the current rate of OR time, it will take 15 months to work it down." That's the year 2000, almost.

With his government's commitment to health care, will the Premier now stand up and tell us why health care in the north has gotten worse?

The Speaker: The Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I encourage you to come to order. The question was listened to in some silence -- the response also. . . .

[ Page 7919 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, order! Cut off the mikes.

Hon. member, take your seat. We are not going to proceed until there is some order in this House -- on all sides of the House.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Okanagan-Penticton will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, question period is not over yet. I recognize the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, it's a sad day again in British Columbia when we can't even get a straight answer out of this government. They said in the throne speech that health care was at the heart of the throne speech and at the heart of this government, and here they're saying, "Be damned," to northerners: "We don't care about northerners and health care in the north."

You know, Mr. Premier, people in the north are feeling the pain, and I can tell you that they're feeling the pain a heck of a lot longer than they are in the rest of the province of British Columbia. Waiting 15 months for hip and knee and joint replacements is no fun -- absolutely no fun. Will the Premier admit now that his party doesn't give a hoot, doesn't give a damn. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, language.

R. Neufeld: . . .about health care in the north and that two-tier health care is alive and well in British Columbia, thanks to his government?

Hon. G. Clark: What nonsense, from those members opposite! Where was the opposition. . . ? Twice in three or four months have they raised it in question period -- when there are people in the gallery -- to put on a show for their members. Where have they been?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: Where have they been?

The Speaker: Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: Where have the members of the opposition been in going after. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .the highest-paid doctors in Canada? Where have they been in demanding that they live up to the contract that they signed?

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, would you take your seat, please.

Hon. G. Clark: The doctors. . .

The Speaker: Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .of this province signed a legal contract to provide services, hon. Speaker. They signed a legal contract -- the rural isolation allowance; a legal contract -- which they are breaking. And they're silent on that side with respect to that shameful behaviour.

On this side of the House we have added $220 million to the health care budget -- more than any province in Canada -- every year for the last seven years, hon. Speaker, and those members never once stood up here.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, thank you. Mr. Premier, time.

Hon. G. Clark: Those members that demand 15 percent tax cuts for big business paid for by cuts to health care have the audacity to stand here and demand more money for doctors.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, would you. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: We will provide more money for health services and more money for more doctors but no more money in the pockets of doctors, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, would you take your seat, please.

Hon. G. Clark: The money should go to patient services, and that's the solution that we're pursuing.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, enough.

I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, how cowardly for the Premier to wait until he thinks he can have the last word via the red light.

The Speaker: Hon. member, are you rising on a point of order? Question period is now over.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Well, you recognized me.

The Speaker: Do you have a point of order, hon. member? Question period is over; you may take your seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I have now asked you to take your seat. Take your seat. I'm asking the member to take his seat.

[ Page 7920 ]

Tabling Documents

I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think that is totally disrespectful on the part of the members. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The members will come to order. Order, order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will withdraw his comments of disrespect for the House. I will give you another chance to withdraw your comments.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will leave.

The Speaker: I recognize that the member has left the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it is within my power to order the member to not be present for the rest of this sitting. I'm not going to do that at this time, but I want it known to all members that that is within the power of the Chair.

We'll now proceed with the business at hand -- I believe it's the Minister of Finance.

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

CALGARY FRAMEWORK FOR
DISCUSSION ON CANADIAN UNITY

(continued)

I'm proud to be here for a second reason: I believe the process that produced this resolution delivers on the commitment our government made to British Columbians when the Premiers met in Calgary last fall. In Calgary we promised that there would be no backroom deals and that it would not be -- as it had been before -- a top-down process with the Premiers going out and telling the people what was good for them. This is a position still held, in some respects, today by some elements in the country who believe that the Premiers should go in and cut a deal to deal specifically with the challenge of Quebec. That has been rejected by British Columbia time and again. It was rejected by me on behalf of the people of British Columbia when I went to Calgary. This resolution continues to reflect that there have been and will be no backroom deals with respect to the issues before us on national unity and that British Columbians will have their say. It came about as a result of a grass-roots process with all British Columbians having their say -- or a chance to have their say -- on what it means to be Canadian.

[2:45]

British Columbians do not want out of Canada; they want into Canada. British Columbians believe they have con-

[ Page 7921 ]

I want to briefly touch on the process which led to the resolution and to the framework discussion in Calgary. Last September in Calgary, nine Premiers and two territorial leaders unanimously agreed on a framework for open and grass-roots public consultation with Canadians on strengthening the Canadian federation. It bemuses me to read in the newspaper that elites and others who characterize the discussions at Calgary. . . . I know it may be presumptuous of me to say this, but I was there. There was no preconceived Calgary declaration. There was no declaration; there was a framework for discussion. This is not a small point. It is a major point that many media outlets, eastern Canadian politicians and federal government politicians now somehow decide that this is a declaration which is unamendable.

This is sophistry. The discussions around Calgary were the opposite of a declaration. They were the opposite of an unamendable motion agreed to by Premiers in the back room. I would not be part of that. Going into the discussions, I said I would not be part of that; and I was not part of that, coming out of the discussions. This is called a framework for discussion not because some bureaucrat wrote it as a title but because it was agreed to. Indeed, the Premiers negotiated exactly what it would say. It was contemplated from the beginning. I was consistent from the beginning and consistent after the meeting that this statement of principles, this framework for discussion, would by definition have to include other issues existing in the country today and other concerns.

The reason for that is extremely simple. You cannot have a backroom deal with Premiers and then say: "This is unamendable, and now let's go consult British Columbians." That's what happened on Meech Lake; that's what happened on Charlottetown. That is the wrong way to go. It may still be what some Premiers and the federal government believe is the correct approach, but it is not acceptable to British Columbians. It would not pass in British Columbia.

We said we would agree to a framework encapsulating the principles that the Premiers felt had some merit with respect to the makeup of the country, but it was de facto amendable. It was desired that the people of the country get involved for a change in grass-roots deliberations with a view to amending what the Premiers said, in order that it more accurately reflect the will of the people. This, I believe, is significant. This is exactly what we wanted. This is what British Columbians chose to do, and for a change, as a result of that, we have a resolution which has some very specific elements unique to British Columbia and some specific elements from British Columbia that they believe would help build a country.

In October -- after Calgary -- I announced a panel of 22 British Columbians, a widely diverse group of individuals and elected representatives, to conduct a consultation process throughout British Columbia. I want to acknowledge the leadership of that panel in particular, although all members -- including members in the House today from both sides, particularly the opposition critic for the Attorney General, the leader of Progressive Democratic Alliance, my colleagues on the government side, the member from Cranbrook and others -- were part of this deliberation.

I congratulate all of the members, particularly the citizen panel members but also all members from all sides of the House, for their leadership and commitment to making this process work. I want to also thank, as I said, forest executive Jake Kerr and Delta teacher Alice McQuade for the outstanding leadership and time commitment they gave to this project. They held public meets all around the province, met with hundreds of young people in student groups and received 750 oral and written submissions. Every household in the province was also provided with a detailed brochure and questionnaire giving all British Columbians a chance to participate. Some 50,000 responses were received. In total, it added up to the most comprehensive consultation -- not just in British Columbia but in Canada.

The B.C. Unity Panel reviewed the information and determined where there were areas of consensus. They also did some extensive polling -- again, a kind of modern technique which should not be dismissed in terms of testing the will of the people on these kinds of questions. They presented this report to the province in February of this year. On behalf of the people of the province, I again want to thank them for their clear and comprehensive report on what British Columbians had to say.

I want to turn now to the resolution before us. I want to look at what, in the resolution, is common to the framework agreement developed in Calgary. Again, it was contemplated that this framework would be amended to reflect the wishes of the people. Anything other than that would be to prejudge the consultation process. However, it was desired and believed -- I believed, as did all the Premiers -- that there would be areas of consensus across the country flowing either out of the Calgary framework or out of the deliberations of the respective provinces.

There were three themes that became clear and were supported by British Columbians. First is the equality of individuals balanced by the recognition of diversity. It is, I believe, a profound Canadian view that equality of individuals is a prerequisite to any constitution, and we should in no way, through constitutional change or otherwise, trample on the essential belief that we have equality of individuals. But it also recognized, in an important pluralistic way, the Canadian reality of a diversity of views, conditions and peoples. In this case, all the deliberations recognized the important historic and continuing contribution and rights of aboriginal people. It recognizes the multicultural nature of Canada and the importance that Canada places on being a home to many thousands of people from around the world. So it is the equality of individuals balanced by a very clear recognition of diversity. This was clearly supported in the British Columbia deliberations, I think overwhelmingly.

The second essential feature of Calgary was the equality of provinces, but again acknowledging the distinctive features of each. This again is important. This is equality of provincial status in our constitution as an important foundation for what we believe as a country -- but not being blind to the uniqueness, or dare I say the distinctiveness, of individual provinces, including Quebec. British Columbians have no hesitation in recognizing the distinct society of Quebec, the unique nature of Quebec and its importance to the vitality of our country.

[ Page 7922 ]

The third theme was that cooperation and partnership can best renew federalism and serve the needs of Canadians. Now, that may sound a rather elementary view. It may sound like motherhood, someone has stated. But I think it's profound, and I think it is deeply held by Canadians that it makes no sense to have one province going one way on national programs and other provinces going another way, or the federal government unilaterally imposing positions on provinces without consultation. The only way a decentralized country like Canada can prosper is with cooperation from both levels of government: the provincial and the federal. This sounds simple, but in reality it is the source of much of our tension. Much of our problem is a failure of governments to respect that we are not in a country with one level of government superior to the other. We are not in a country where the constitution says that a province is subordinate to the federal government. We are, frankly, in a country -- perhaps unique in the world -- where provinces have sovereignty in areas of their jurisdictions and where the federal government has sovereignty in areas of its jurisdiction. And it only works when both levels of government work cooperatively, in the interest of the people. That is a profound statement; it is not motherhood. It is real, and it is something worthy of reminding both the provinces and the federal government, every day.

Hon. Speaker, in addition to these three themes -- which really came out of the Premiers' discussion in Calgary as a framework for discussion and which I think are consistent with the views expressed by the people of British Columbia in the deliberations -- British Columbia has added further principles, in the spirit of renewed federalism. This, I say, is significant. British Columbia does not put forward add-ons, as I've heard, for British Columbia's benefit; these are British Columbians' suggestions for how to make the country and the federation stronger. I want to list those three areas that they talked about and that came up in our deliberations.

First, support for national standards. Now, this is what nation-building is really all about. There are those who say: "British Columbia and the richer provinces want more. They want to add something on." That is not what this is about. In this section -- and this may surprise people. . . . It may surprise some of the elites in Toronto. British Columbians said, "We want national standards for national programs" -- not: "British Columbia standards are better because we're richer" but "National standards for medicare and education."

This is significant because this belies those people that say British Columbians don't want in to Confederation, that British Columbians are greedy or whining or want more. British Columbians said they were deeply concerned about medicare. They were deeply concerned about uneven standards across the country, and they wanted national standards set cooperatively by the provinces and the federal government. This is a significant contribution to the national debate. I have not heard a wealthy province, for a long time, come forward and make the case for national standards for our medicare system. British Columbia is doing that with this resolution. This is saying that this House and the people of British Columbia do not want checkerboard federalism; they don't want uneven standards in poor parts of the country. They want a national medicare program -- national standards for national programs set cooperatively with the federal government and the provincial government.

Secondly, British Columbians said they support the equalization program and the principle that each province should receive the same level of federal funding per person. Again, it's tempting to dismiss these as simply motherhood; these are not. This is a very significant statement. British Columbia pays into equalization. Indeed, just about three or four years ago British Columbia was the only province in Canada that paid into equalization and did not receive any equalization payments.

[3:00]

If there is an unequal distribution of wealth in the country, then the way to equalize is through equalization, not through discriminatory treatment on national programs. If you want British Columbia and British Columbians to passionately support the need for equalization and national standards, then you must treat British Columbia citizens the same when it comes to national programs. So it says: "Support for equalization. Support for national standards but also per-capita funding for national programs." It is an essential component of the social contract that keeps our country together.

You cannot ask British Columbians to support equalization and then discriminate against British Columbia in every single national program. We support equalization because we want a strong country, and we recognize the need for the richer regions to contribute to the strengths of the country. But we must have national programs set up that treat people the same, regardless of where they live. That is what has broken down. That is really what has been broken in this country over the last 15 years, and it has led to -- I think it is very dangerous -- what really is three Canadas: Quebec, the richer provinces and the poorer provinces. As long as the federal government fails to recognize the need for national programs that treat everybody the same and to use the equalization program as a form of equalizing the regions, it is a recipe for disaster for the future of this country. And I fear for it greatly, because every time I'm at a Premiers' conference -- and my successor and, I'm sure, my predecessors -- it is extremely difficult to seek to express the generosity of the people of British Columbia to national programs when we are treated systematically in a discriminatory fashion. So the coupling of those two -- reinvigorated support for equalization, combined with the principle that each province should receive the same level of federal funding per person -- was an essential thrust of the discussion.

The third theme or principle in this resolution is support for provinces assuming greater responsibility in areas important to them. This is also important. The challenge in this country is the domination of the issue of Quebec and their aspirations, legitimate or not. When I go to Ottawa, the only question the media ask me is whether Quebec should get this or whether Quebec should get that or what our position is on

[ Page 7923 ]

Clearly the issue of Quebec is critical to the future of the country. Clearly we should be dealing with this question and not be afraid of this question. But are we to put aside every single substantive issue in this country and in its regions until we get something that deals with the issues of Quebec? Is it not far healthier to deal with the legitimate aspirations of peoples, regardless of where they live, including the people of Quebec? Is it not healthier to go to the people of Quebec and say yes, you have legitimate aspirations, and so do the people of British Columbia with respect to unique things about B.C. -- for example, the fishery, which should be managed and operated by coastal communities here in British Columbia?

But make no mistake. What British Columbians said was not a naked power grab for constitutional change for the fishery resource to come to B.C. It was an essential principle that the country should be flexible enough to deal with legitimate issues that pertain to each and every province. I tell you this, hon. Speaker: if the federal government for once was to recognize the legitimacy of issues pertaining to British Columbia, I know for a fact that British Columbians would be far more generous with respect to the legitimate aspirations of other provinces and other peoples, including the people of Quebec, to deal with their legitimate regional aspirations and concerns. I think that is a very important point.

The three principles we have added to the Calgary declaration, which fleshed out Calgary and came out of the discussions, are ones that have some peculiar or unique aspects that pertain to British Columbia. But they are also British Columbians' way of saying: "Here are some ideas that can actually strengthen the federation" -- which includes Quebec, by the way. Again, I just want to summarize:

1. Equality of individuals balanced by diversity.

2. Equality of provinces, but recognizing the unique nature of Quebec in Canadian society.

3. Cooperation and partnership with respect to a renewed federalism that involves both levels of government.

Then the three issues we've added: first, support for national standards -- important, coming from British Columbia; second, support for equalization payments but also support for per-capita funding on national programs; and thirdly, support for all provinces assuming greater responsibility in the areas closer to home or important to them which don't denigrate the national programs and national standards, which we all want.

It's clear from the discussions -- and from this deliberation, from this resolution, from the report of the unity committee -- that British Columbians feel passionately about what it means to be Canadian and about their desire to build a strong and united nation. This is not some trivial exercise to rubber-stamp what the Premiers have decided in Calgary or to try to add on powers for British Columbia.

When you listen to what these 22 men and women who travelled British Columbia had to say, they were passionate about the country. They were passionate about British Columbia playing a role in that country, and they were passionate about the legitimacy of British Columbia having a say on the national agenda about ways in which we could help contribute to a stronger country. Sometimes we're so preoccupied with the differences between us that we forget what a great country Canada is already and how fortunate we all are to be Canadians.

British Columbians want to play a constructive role in building a strong and united nation. We recognize not only that Quebec is unique in Canada but that it's an important part of the country, and I say this proudly. It was said to the panel repeatedly, and it belies some of the eastern media's perception of British Columbia. I'm advised by the people who were on the panel that people came out and passionately said that they love Quebec, that Quebec is unique, that Canada includes Quebec and that we want them to be part of our Canada.

British Columbians have a passionate commitment to Quebec being part of our country and to the recognition of its uniqueness in our spectacular country. The resolution before us moves the Calgary framework forward for discussion by offering a uniquely British Columbian perspective on the national debate. I commend all members to support this resolution unanimously.

G. Plant: I'm honoured to have an opportunity to participate in this debate and to make remarks that I think need to be made, perhaps as nothing else other than a cautious counterpoint to what the Premier has said, much of which is passionate, powerful, important and, I think, necessary to this debate. But I think I would not be making the contribution which an opposition is required to make if I did not express a few cautionary observations.

Let me begin by getting to the point. For all my doubts and reservations about this resolution, about where it came from and where it's going, I believe that there is enough good in it that it warrants my support. But I will not be passionate about it. I will be passionate about Canada, but I am not passionate about this resolution. A speaker said yesterday that this was a historic occasion. Well, I say: "Let history be the judge of that." History is not very forgiving.

Some of those who have spoken on this resolution -- some who spoke yesterday -- were party to a few of those historic occasions in the past. Some spoke in defence of the Meech Lake accord; some spoke in defence of the Charlottetown accord. They assured us then that we were, with those document and those processes, at last along the road to national reconciliation. Well, they were wrong then, and some of them have been wrong more than once. I hope they're not wrong now.

At the heart of this resolution are the seven principles of the Calgary declaration or framework or whatever it is. In an odd sort of way, there is some hope in this document. It was something that nine Premiers and two territorial leaders could agree on last September, and it appears to be something that nine legislative assemblies and two territorial assemblies will agree on. There's hope in that; there's always hope when people can agree. I have concerns about where this is going to lead us, but if, like me, you see this declaration or this framework as a statement of principles about what it does mean to be a Canadian, then it is surely a good thing that there is growing agreement about these principles.

It is a curious thing -- I think, anyway -- about this declaration that its strength lies less in its individual parts rather than in its whole. If you scrutinize the document carefully -- and I guess it's just my professional background that sooner or later I can't help but do that for a moment or two -- and you read the individual principles carefully, I think you would agree that many of them are, at best, inelegant and some of them are, at worst, confusing.

Let me give two examples. The authors of this document originally described aboriginal peoples as a "gift" to Canada,

[ Page 7924 ]

Yet if you put the details to one side, the declaration strikes a useful balance of competing themes. The Premier spoke about this balance. First and foremost is the theme of equality -- the theme of equality of persons and the theme of equality of provinces. But the counterpoint to that theme, and equally important, is the recognition of diversity -- the recognition of difference and the recognition of uniqueness. Someone in the debate yesterday used the word "sameness." Well, we're not all the same. We're not all the same even in the eyes of the law. But we are all as Canadians entitled to equality. Similarly, the provinces of Canada are not all the same, and each has a role to play in protecting its diverse, unique and special interests; but as provinces they are equal in status. To state the obvious, because sometimes the obvious needs to be said, the government of Quebec has for itself a role to protect the unique character of Quebec society within Canada. But this does not imply special or unequal status for Quebec as a province.

[3:15]

As part of the work done by the Unity Panel, there was a poll. The respondents were asked to walk through what amounted to a three-stage process during the course of the telephone poll. First, early in the poll there were asked whether they approved of the Calgary declaration. At that point in the questioning, 49 percent of the people said that they approved or strongly approved of the declaration, while 38 percent had no opinion. Then the questioners went through the individual principles of the declaration one by one, read them to the people at the other end of the telephone line and asked them one by one whether they agreed with the individual principles.

Here, not surprisingly, there was a diversity of opinion. Although all of the principles received more than a majority of support from the respondents, the range of approval was from a low of 62 percent to a high of 93 percent. That was the result as we went through and asked people one by one about the seven principles in the declaration.

Then the respondents were asked one more time: "Overall" -- and that is the key word -- "do you support or oppose this declaration?" By that point, 80 percent supported the declaration, while only 12 percent opposed it. I think that one of the reasons why that number is so high is because even those British Columbians who might argue about the individual principles and disagree about them are nonetheless prepared to support the declaration as a whole.

I just want to say a thing or two about the Unity Panel, of which I was a member. I think it is significant that when we met as a panel at our first meeting, we decided that we would not try to solve the problems of national unity but, rather, that we would go out and listen to British Columbians, and that when we came to the end of that process, our job was not to forge a new consensus -- not to invent a consensus, a principle or an approach where none existed -- but simply to report what we heard.

We asked British Columbians some questions, and this is what they told us. That is what the report is all about. The Unity Panel report in fact contains no recommendations; it contains no proposals. The Unity Panel simply reported to British Columbians, to the Premier, to the members of this House and to the government what they heard when they asked British Columbians the questions. I think the report is perhaps unique in this respect. It really is a conduit for the voices of British Columbians, and it comes to us as that.

On that basis, what did the Unity Panel hear? Well, British Columbians told the Unity Panel that they had lots of other things on their minds besides national unity. They are, not surprisingly, more concerned about jobs and the economy than they are about national unity, Quebec, bilingualism or those issues. In fact, a majority of British Columbians had not actually even heard of the Calgary declaration; or if they'd heard of it, they were unable to recall anything about it. Polls taken since January suggest that the percentage of people in Canada who know nothing about the Calgary declaration is even higher. It's worth observing, as a cautionary note to ourselves, that the issue which is occupying our attention today has not in fact grabbed the attention, let alone the imagination, of the majority of British Columbians.

At the same time, I return to the statistics and the figures that I cited a few moments ago. When the Calgary declaration is read to British Columbians point by point, and when they are given a chance to think about it and then asked if they support it, they do support it. So altogether apart from my own views about the Calgary declaration and my own support for it, I think it is entirely appropriate for us in this assembly to pass a resolution which gives expression to the voices of British Columbians who support the declaration.

Let me sum up the good-news side of my remarks this afternoon. I think the support for the Calgary declaration says something about what it means to be a Canadian living in British Columbia, faced both with our own concerns about the federation and with the continuing presence of a strong sovereigntist movement in the province of Quebec. As the resolutions which have thus far been passed in the other legislatures have made clear, the principles in this declaration are principles shared by Canadians across the country. It's starting to look like there is a common set of values which informs our national identity. But recent history warns us to be cautious and clear at every step of the way forward when we're dealing with the subject of national unity. The Calgary declaration is about renewing the Canadian federation; it is not about amending the constitution. The Calgary declaration does not seek to resurrect the ghost -- long since dead, and rightly so -- of distinct society. Nor does it even begin to invite the reconsideration of the veto formula that exists in our constitution for amending the constitution -- a formula which I think was right for Canada in 1981 and is right for Canada today.

I want to emphasize the point about constitutional change. In British Columbia, it is the citizens who have the last word on amendments to our constitution. We have a statute; it's called the Constitutional Amendment Approval Act. The preamble to that act says: ". . .it is essential that the Constitution of Canada reflect the values of British Columbians and

[ Page 7925 ]

The preamble to the resolution before us reminds us of these important parts of the law of British Columbia. The preamble helps in putting limits on what it is that we are doing here today. I am glad to see those words in the preamble, because I do not think that this resolution sanctions constitutional change; nor do I think it gives the government of British Columbia a mandate to negotiate that change.

Now I want to say something about the three additional clauses that have been added to this resolution. On Friday of last week, when I was asked about them, I said that these clauses were. . . . I think I used the word "complications." Well, I've not changed my mind about that. Although I respect the Premier's statement that the Calgary framework is not a declaration, is not a code, is not an unamendable document, it sits there and gathers life and has some force of its own. One of its virtues, I think, is that it is not overly ambitious. It seeks to identify some basic principles that unite us. If history has lessons, surely there is a lesson in the Charlottetown experience about the risks of a shopping-list approach to nation-building. Long lists of special-interest demands create too many opportunities for disagreement, and they obscure the task of identifying the areas where we do agree.

So now we have the three additional clauses that the Premier wants added to a resolution in support of the Charlottetown. . .of the Calgary framework or declaration. That was a Freudian slip; I hope I have no reason, ever, to look back to. When you add to the list, the question I ask is: "Who else will add?" How long will it be before every province has its list? How much and how many things will be on that list? How soon will it be before we pay too much attention to the list of special demands and lose sight of the agreement on the Calgary principles themselves?

Let's look for a moment at the principles that the Premier wishes to add. The Unity Panel did ask a number of questions of British Columbians in addition to the questions about the Calgary declaration, and it was right that they do so. I don't quarrel with that for a moment. But there was a wide range of those questions, a far wider range than the three points in the resolution that is before us. Questions were asked of British Columbians about immigration, education, social services, employment training. Questions were asked of British Columbians about a range of subjects, none of which appear in the resolution before us.

I want to say some things about the relationship between the Unity Panel report and the three principles which are added to the resolution, because there is nothing in the Unity Panel report which justifies the selection or choice of the three principles which have been added to the resolution. The Unity Panel was not asked, for example: "Please identify two or three or four additional principles. Please choose two or three or four additional principles which should be added to a resolution approving the Calgary declaration, if you think that is the appropriate way to go."

The British Columbians who were contacted by the Unity Panel were not asked. They did not say that their support for the Calgary declaration was conditional upon the support that they might have for other principles. I have heard no explanation yet that persuades or convinces me of the reason why these three principles were chosen as opposed to others for which there is support in the Unity Panel report -- support which is available to the government as it moves forward on the national unity front -- but which do not find themselves on the face of the resolution before us.

So the real question, I suppose, is: how can we justify the selection of the three principles which have been added but not some others? Well, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the list of three is more interesting for what is left out than for what is included, because one of the persistent themes of the Unity Panel report is the sense of alienation which people feel, the alienation that British Columbians feel from their governments, from their political institutions.

As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, 90 percent of the people surveyed by the Unity Panel believe that political institutions have to change to allow more public input into the decisions of government; 90 percent of the people surveyed by the Unity Panel believe that British Columbia needs a larger number of seats in the federal House of Commons to match its population size; 68 percent of the people surveyed believe that people who live outside Vancouver and Victoria tend to get ignored in provincial politics.

[3:30]

Frankly, the message here is not so subtle. This government is not interested in how we are governed. After all, this is a Premier who, in the two years since he has taken office, has taken not one step to make government more accountable or more representative. People want governments to change the way they work, to do the public's business in public rather than behind closed doors, to hide less and open up more, to respond to the initiatives of citizens rather than the ideas of bureaucrats.

What has this government done? Well, they constituted a Unity Panel. But you know what, hon. Speaker? When the government in Alberta decided to consult with British Columbians about the Calgary declaration, it did so on the signatures of all three leaders of the political parties of Alberta. In this province, the Premier designed the Unity Panel process himself. We asked to have input in it; we were not given that opportunity. I will be the first to congratulate the Unity Panel for having, despite the obstacles that faced it, achieved the goals of openness, accountability and independence. But it was the Premier's panel; there's no mistaking that. We were there ultimately to do the Premier's business. Now, it's a step in the right direction that we were there at all; I'm glad of that. But there are many more steps that need to be taken before government in British Columbia is truly open, truly accountable and truly more respectful of the views of British Columbians.

What else has this government done to indicate its respect for the institutions of democracy in British Columbia? Well, through budget cuts and fee increases, it's working as hard as it possibly can to deny citizens public access to government information, undermining the Freedom of Information Act. When someone dares to release an internal government report which shows the Crown Lands ministry in chaos, do we get: "Let's fix the problem"? No, we get: "Let's find the

[ Page 7926 ]

No other government in history has used special warrants as often as this government. Special warrants are a tool a government uses when it wants to spend money without public accountability. This is the government which enthusiastically deregisters political parties under the Election Act and enforces a gag law that is intended to deny people free speech during election campaigns. So even though British Columbians sent a strong message to the Unity Panel that they want change in the way government works, that message has been ignored by government. When I am asked if I trust this provincial government to represent the interests of British Columbians on the national stage, I say no.

This provincial government is good at whining, at megaphone politics, at walking away from negotiating tables. But it is not good at solving real problems. The last time I looked, after two years of bluster the Premier hadn't saved a single fish. When it comes to the hard work of protecting British Columbia's interests on issues like the delivery of immigration services, the government fails. When it comes to listening to the voices of British Columbians who want a government which connects with them rather than alienates them, this government is uninterested.

Some would congratulate the Premier for striking out on his own, for saying that he intends to speak up for British Columbia. Some who say that are also powerful advocates for popular democracy as the tool or basis for constitutional change. Well, let me say this to them: you can't have it both ways. You can't ask for popular democracy and then congratulate a Premier who ignores its results and goes his own way. You cannot on the one hand say that the voice of the people is all-important and then say that the real question is whether the Premier can stand up to the Prime Minister of Canada. If the question is, "Do we trust the people or do we trust this Premier?" then my answer is that I choose to trust the people. But for all of that. . . . I said there would be some cautionary notes, and I think it's important that those cautionary notes be sounded.

I began by saying that there is some good in this declaration. Frankly, I think the declaration, framework, seven principles or whatever we choose to call it is the heart of the resolution. So I put my concerns above the political agenda of the Premier and into that larger context. On that basis -- recognizing that the constructive challenge that faces all of us is to advance the interests of British Columbia within a framework that contains a basic set of values that are shared by all Canadians -- I think it's fair to say that the additional clauses are an unhelpful distraction but not, in the final analysis, determinative. I said I had doubts and reservations; I have doubts and reservations.

Interjection.

G. Plant: I hear the minister saying he has them too. Well, it's right that we all move cautiously; it's right that we step carefully; it's right that we not overstate the importance of the moment. If we raise our expectations too high, then we will hurt the more for failing. I don't think this is the time, in the history of British Columbia, for grand failures. It is perhaps the time for modest successes, so let's work hard to make some of those.

E. Walsh: I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the motion and the resolution. I'm also especially pleased that I was one of the members that sat on the Unity Panel. This Unity Panel was especially to hear from British Columbians their concerns, their views, their suggestions and their recommendations, not only with regard to the Calgary declaration but, more specifically and personally, with regard to how they feel about Canadian unity.

I just want to say right at the outset that it's a little bit disturbing when I hear an eloquent speech such as the one given by the member across the way. . . . To hear the political rhetoric included in that speech, especially on Canadian unity. . . . I think that is something that people we spoke to hoped wouldn't happen. The message -- that Canadian unity is of the utmost importance to the people of British Columbia -- has not been ignored by this government.

I thought what I would do today is speak a little bit more on what we as a panel heard from the people in British Columbia. To begin with, I want to speak about the promise that the Premier did make, and that was that we would consult with the people of British Columbia on the Calgary framework for a discussion on Canadian unity. We did just exactly that. Never before has there been any government that has been as open in a process as this government has been. Never before has there been as much consultation as what we have had in this province.

Our Premier also stated that these talks were not about changing the constitution, and that in fact is not what it is going to be about. We as a panel were to go out and listen to what British Columbians had to say. That was the direction we were given. That's what we wanted to do, and I'm proud to say that, yes, that is what we did. We heard from seniors, veterans, students, youth, francophones, aboriginal peoples, labour and businesses. If this wasn't reaching out to the public, to the people of British Columbia -- and it was only a very small number of people that we spoke to -- then I really don't know what it was.

All the people we spoke to and all the people who came and made submissions spoke to us with a depth of passion, with a depth of emotion, that in fact our Premier this afternoon spoke to us about. Those depths of emotion and passion come from the love for our country, the love of our province and also from the love for our way of life. In that way, we wish to remain united.

We heard presenters say various things, and one of them was that they were tired of hearing about some of the issues that are out there in the province and in Canada. But by the same token, we also heard of the need to further educate Canadians on the history of Canada, Quebec, and our own provinces and our own people. We need to know more about the country we live in. We heard that some people feel that even bilingualism has driven a wedge between us. Yet we heard, too, that the languages that we have in Canada define our culture and who we are.

We heard concerns about aboriginal people, the residential schools and the need for signed treaties -- about their voices that need to be and must be heard. We heard about the feelings of alienation from Ottawa, the federal government, eastern Canada -- in fact, probably much like what we have here in the province of British Columbia, in the rural areas. It's not so different: the further away you are from Victoria, the further away you feel from those decision-makers. Concerns were also expressed that this is a vital process, but also that the hope that comes with this process won't be lost in a lot of rhetoric. Hon. Speaker, I truly hope that will not happen either.

[ Page 7927 ]

We heard much on equality of status -- on the words "equality," "distinct" and "unique." Though British Columbians agree that all Canadians are equal and that all provinces should have equality of status, there seemed to be a difference in definition and confusion as to exactly what these words mean -- differences in their points of view and differences in the changing times. We heard about the importance of culture and what culture means to so many people in all the different provinces of Canada. There were suggestions such as culture being a preparation for growth. A very important point made in some of these submissions was that one of our major growth areas is people. It defines how we as Canadians express ourselves, and it also explains us to ourselves. Some people felt that the arts have failed to make their case to politicians.

There were ongoing discussions about hyphenated Canadians -- for example, German Canadians, Indo-Canadians, French Canadians. Some felt that perhaps this is working towards defeating that purpose towards which everybody was working so hard. Many people felt that being a Canadian was just that: being a Canadian. Others felt that hyphenated Canadians will exist as long as Canada exists.

Some of the veterans, in their submissions and in their presentations, also queried the direction of Canada right now and the lack of knowledge about what's really going on in all of Canada and the provinces -- whether or not the wars and the fights that they fought and that their colleagues and families died in were all going to be for naught. A veteran read a poem that he had written. Yet they were all very proud of their fight to keep this country a united country.

[3:45]

Some people spoke about what they saw as strengths and weaknesses. Some of what they felt were weaknesses were parochialism, a sense of disparity, selfishness, the alienation of politicians, temperamental differences and lack of knowledge. This is just to name a few. Some of the strengths that were mentioned were a high level of tolerance; compassion; long-term momentum; political, economic and social stability; and humour and caring in our country. These are just to name a few.

Some concerns were expressed about the apparent lack of knowledge of Canadians across Canada. Even so, the longer we met, the more hearings we had, the more conversations we had and the more submissions that were produced. . . . They stated clearly that there were impacts from the lack of knowledge about the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment, and NAFTA. The concerns were about what these agreements actually mean to the people of British Columbia and to the people of Canada -- what the need to sell resources, products, at a cheaper cost to the international markets means to the provinces, to our environment and to our jobs. With projects like the Island Highway project, the jobs and timber accord or any project where we could further economic stability to protect our people and our communities -- whether these would be at risk. . . . Would many of our laws even be deemed illegal? That intrusion in our laws and resources from outside bodies would literally tear at the very fabric that our national unity is made of.

We heard many other issues. As you would expect, in the 700 or so submissions that we received and in the oral presentations, we heard issues on health care. Who should be setting national standards? Should it be the federal government or the provincial government, or should it be together? Whoever sets these standards, British Columbians have clearly stated that what they do not want is another layer of highly formalized bureaucracy. They have also said that they want greater responsibility as a province for setting these standards, along with the federal government in partnership. British Columbians spoke about the equalization payments and funding to provinces. They spoke about the support equalization payments to the poor provinces as a necessity, but they also feel that funding for health care, education and social programs should receive the same level of federal funding per person -- what we've also heard earlier today.

Throughout the hearings, there was much anxiety and concern expressed by so many of the presenters who came out. I don't know that you can in fact not display anxiety and concern when you speak of something so passionately; but at the same time that they displayed these anxieties and concerns, they also displayed their pride in our country and in ourselves as Canadians. I believe that is so very fundamental to us as Canadians: who we are and what we believe in.

People feel that the Calgary declaration is a very sensible document, that it's a document that should be at the top of the agenda for every federal and political party in Canada -- not just one party and not just federal, but for every federal and provincial party. We need to work together to achieve a common future for everyone in Canada.

British Columbians said that the Calgary declaration was the first step, a very significant and important step, in how we as provinces will be addressing Canadian unity. We heard thanks to the Premier and to the B.C. government for reaching out so that citizens could be heard. We heard many, many diverse opinions, views and observations. We heard the need to recognize our diversity, the uniqueness of Quebec society, and also the need for greater responsibility, a stronger voice for British Columbians in areas that specifically concern them, as we've heard earlier too -- like the fisheries.

We've heard that where British Columbians felt that the seven principles were in fact the right step, they also felt they needed to be expanded upon, and that is where the other issues that we spoke of earlier come in. British Columbians felt that it could go further, and they said we cannot and must not forget to stand together if we are to survive economically and sociologically as a whole. British Columbians are passionately committed to a united Canada.

Much as in the province of British Columbia, geography does in fact separate all of us throughout Canada, and this geography is sometimes a challenge. But it's not the only challenge. British Columbians, no matter where we are in the country, feel that we share a common vision and that our leaders need to fight for the future of our provinces, our country and all of our people.

Hon. Speaker, I know that through the Calgary declaration and the three principles that have been added on, our

[ Page 7928 ]

Before I finish, I would like to say that I hope that everyone in this House stands in support of this resolution. It is a good resolution; it is a fine resolution. I know it's a resolution that will ensure that we are able to go into the next millennium as a united country, as a country that is together. It is a message from British Columbians to Canada. That message is very clearly that we will "stand on guard for thee."

[4:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; we're debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. And in this House, I call Committee of Supply B. For the information of members, we're 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)

G. Plant: I have a question or two of the minister in his capacity as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I can indicate that I expect there may be some questions around B.C. Buildings Corporation, following which there will be some questions on the Crown corporations secretariat.

The House just passed a motion. The motion endorses the seven principles which are sometimes called the Calgary framework or the Calgary declaration, as well as giving expression to a number of other principles. Not to put the point too cutely, but having just been given this new toy, what does the minister intend to do with it?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I will not repeat in full detail the statement I made in the context of that debate. But just to summarize, I think it's very important that we show Canadians and British Columbians that the Calgary framework and the principles contained within it, which have now been endorsed through this resolution, are not simply principles that can now be stored away to collect dust. They are principles that will animate the work we do in terms of the intergovernmental discussions that are going on across the country. In that regard, the three additional principles that British Columbians recommended to us and that were incorporated point, I think, in the direction of what exactly we now do.

In the context, for example, of how we give effect to the principles of equality within Calgary, I think that one important way we do that is in the context of discussions that Finance ministers are having around equalization and funding formulas with respect to the CHST and other federal transfers. I expect that B.C. will strengthen its arguments in favour of there being a more principled approach to funding based upon the principles of equality that are found in Calgary and amplified by the additional principles that British Columbians added, arguing that we indeed support a renewed equalization program. That program is up for review, as the member is probably aware. We want to see it continued; we're prepared to consider measures that may strengthen it in some respects. But we expect the principle of equality to also be respected outside of that program to ensure that British Columbians, along with other Canadians, receive equal recognition when it comes to funding for other programs, be they health care, social services or education. So within the context of Finance ministers' discussions and within the context of my discussions as Intergovernmental Relations minister with my counterpart, I will be urging very strongly that we move on those items that are currently on the agenda -- not just because they are on the agenda, but because they are important to give meaning to Calgary and to the principles contained within it.

With respect to cooperation, the Calgary framework talks about more cooperation between the federal government and the provinces. We are having discussions on a social framework right now -- again, I think the member is aware of this -- around how we come up with a new social framework around medicare, education and social programs. Again, I will be arguing strenuously within those federal-provincial discussions that we must come up with that framework in a way that energizes the principles of both cooperation and equality. Again, we can derive further help from the support given by British Columbians for a national set of standards in health care and the expectation of British Columbians that the provinces will be more fully involved in articulating those national standards on health care, as well as in pressing the federal government to ensure that there is adequate funding for such a national program -- in particular, not to direct new funding into new program areas but to put it into those base funding programs.

Similarly, we will be urging, both bilaterally with the federal government and in conjunction with other provinces, that a good way to respect equality and respect the principle of cooperation which is found within Calgary in a way that allows for diversity -- another important principle in Calgary -- is through some measure of greater decentralization in key areas like labour market training. We're into a second round of discussions with the federal government to now take the next step around labour market training within this province to give the province a greater direct say over the administration of labour market training programs. We would like to see further progress made with respect to the fisheries. Other provinces have their issues. In all of these areas, what I would like to see is for us to now give meaning to Calgary in very concrete and practical ways.

The only thing I'd say by way of conclusion -- again, reiterating my comments yesterday, hon. Chair -- is that I think B.C. is uniquely positioned to help give Calgary meaning in these areas, because our position is not a position that sits at the very periphery of this discussion. It is a position that sits very much in the centre of this discussion. We support a strong federal presence and role with respect to protecting national standards and making sure that that serves as a force for Canadian unity on the one hand, but we also support more decentralization on the other. We support equalization on the one hand, but on the other hand, we support a greater recog-

[ Page 7929 ]

We have an opportunity, if the federal government will listen to British Columbians, to act as a bridge between competing visions within the country and to energize these principles in practical ways. That's what I think will be the strategy that's most likely to produce success. If we do that, and if the federal government were to participate rather than seek to play off areas of the country against each other, then I think we could construct a new model for cooperative federalism that would serve us well as we enter a new millennium -- much as the old model of cooperative federalism served Canada well in the sixties but is clearly no longer serving us well today.

G. Plant: That's what I get for asking an open-ended question.

The minister's answer speaks of the progress towards the implementation of what I suppose might be called administrative reforms and public policy developments that involve both levels of government -- in a way, taking the principles out for a walk and applying them in the contexts in which they will arise, which includes the ongoing business of intergovernmental relations around issues like equalization, as well as policy initiatives in terms of the social framework. I think that's a logical thing to do with a set of principles. In fact, it's probably good public policy to ensure that there are some principles that lie behind the province's positions with respect to issues like fisheries, social policy and so on.

Let me say this: it seems to me that there is a potential, a possibility, for that to be a modest, successful, constructive, concrete way of moving forward to implement principles by application, if you will. There may also be initiatives among the Premiers to do something else. I don't know. I suppose one scenario would be that if all of the provinces except Quebec and all of the territorial assemblies pass resolutions roughly similar to that which we passed here, then that will be taken as a mandate to move into a new round of constitutional talks. On both sides of the House, comments have been expressed about whether or not that would be a good thing. I guess my thoroughly careful question in that context is: are there currently any plans in that regard? Or is the minister saying, in effect, that for now the operating strategy is to implement the principles in the other contexts he has referred to?

Hon. A. Petter: I very much like the metaphor that the member has used about taking the principles for a walk. It is my belief and the belief of this government that we have talked the talk on principles to the point of exhaustion for ourselves and for British Columbians. The constitutional discussions of the past tended to be about abstract principles. I think what British Columbians and Canadians want to see us do is start taking some principles that we can agree upon, start taking them for that walk and start showing Canadians that they mean something.

I think there is a sense of fatigue around the talk and that some walking would be seen as a very productive step. Beyond that, there is a question in this country about what the principles that energize this country are. We've seen an erosion of commitment to principles. In the last ten years we've seen an erosion of a commitment to equality in terms of federal funding of provinces. That has a very alienating effect. British Columbians don't like the fact that they are given 94 cents of every dollar that goes to other provinces for social programs, on a per-capita basis. It is part of the sense of alienation we feel. So it's not just taking the principles for a walk; it's actually making sure that the principles are agreed to in more than form -- agreed to in substance.

As for going into another constitutional round, certainly at this stage that is something that I think the Premier indicated in his remarks earlier that we are not keen to do. We have said very explicitly, in fact, that that is not what we believe would be a constructive course. It would be about more talk, more argument and more abstraction, when what Canadians and British Columbians really want is to see some concrete action. So walking the walk is something that I think is very important and something that we want to concentrate upon.

[4:15]

The challenge, it seems to me, is to recognize that it's not always going to be easy to identify the context that we're in: whether we're in a context in which the legitimate demand is for national standards or a context in which the better demand is for decentralization -- or perhaps both working together. I'm not sure -- and this is not unusual when you have a statement of principles or a discussion about principles -- that we have, by expressing some commitment to the principles that were talked about today, provided perfect answers to all the challenges that are going to face the minister when he decides whether or not education, for example, is something that there needs to be national standards around or greater provincial autonomy over.

I don't think that today is the time to sort out the tension. What I would like to say, though, is that one aspect of the federal-provincial process that doesn't work very well is first ministers' conferences and dialogues, where almost all that happens happens behind closed doors. I would like to encourage the minister to take with him -- and for the government to take into the discussions that they're going to have -- a recognition that if these discussions are to be informed by principles, as they should be, they will be better discussions if the public is brought in sooner rather than later.

There was, for example, public consultation conducted by the Attorney General in his capacity as Minister Responsible for Immigration, in the period leading up to the agreement which was signed earlier this week. The organizations in British Columbia that deliver immigrant settlement services were, I think, generally consulted. There's a need to ensure that that continues to happen in this context. As I say, rather than sort out the interesting questions that will arise, I want to identify them and encourage the minister to involve not just the public but, frankly, this Legislature in the discussion, the debate and the resolution of those principles.

Hon. A. Petter: I fully agree with the member that there are times when the principles, in their application, will raise

[ Page 7930 ]

Having said that, let me say that one of the frustrations that provinces have had of late is that even in areas which are not contentious -- at least amongst the provinces and their citizens -- the federal government seems to have not been willing to work with provinces. We'll see the test of this, I suppose, in the social framework discussions. But there's been a propensity on the part of the federal government, I think, to play off the poorer provinces against the so-called richer provinces and Quebec against the rest of the country, all in the name of trying to forge national unity. We do have this syndrome in Canada where there are almost three Canadas, and if we allow that to be exploited by the federal government, then it becomes a reality. It's the have-not provinces and the so-called have provinces and Quebec. You can pick any issue, whether it's equalization or equal per-capita funding, and the federal government will often respond by playing off one region against the other.

One challenge that I think we have and that we can meet. . . . The provinces, in my mind, are more united on most of these issues than they have been in the last ten years. If we can get the federal government to begin to take seriously the provinces' positions and to resist the propensity to play off provinces against each other, then we can do a considerable amount of work that isn't contentious and that simply takes us down the road to applying some of these principles -- such as a more collaborative framework on national health standards, for example. Then we will confront the issues that the member is talking about: issues where there are choices to be made on which we don't have clear guidance. At that point, I fully agree that we should come back and seek reference from our constituents, from the Legislature and from others. Certainly it will be my intention to do so.

G. Plant: On one particular area, the discussions around social framework, I had the assistance of a briefing from the minister's staff. Is there a timetable with goals, expectations, targets, deliverables -- those kinds of things? Or is this essentially moving forward, like Topsy? This is, I understand, an issue where the minister is, among his provincial colleagues, attempting to take a leadership role. I'm interested in the organizational context within which that's happening.

Hon. A. Petter: The goal has been to have a draft framework to take forward for the benefit of the Premiers, who, I believe, are meeting in August. So the goal has been to have some draft document together by July. Whether we can meet that goal -- whether the draft document will be complete -- is still, I think, a bit of an open question. Certainly we are trying to have something in the form of a draft framework document ready within that time frame.

G. Plant: May I just ask which governments -- provincial, territorial or federal -- are participating in the discussions? Is everyone playing along at this point, or are some people not part. . . ?

Hon. A. Petter: All provinces and territories and the federal government are participating. At one point, the province of Quebec was participating simply through observers, but more recently -- at the last meeting -- the province of Quebec has had ministerial representation, and it seems that it will be continuing that representation. One can never be sure, but that seems to be the case.

C. Hansen: I'd like to ask the minister where the B.C. government is at this time in terms of the Agreement on Internal Trade.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I'd encourage the member to raise that issue with the Minister of Employment and Investment. I have some very passing familiarity, but that matter falls under the Minister of Employment and Investment's responsibility, much as the immigration agreement falls under the direct responsibility of the Attorney General.

C. Hansen: I was half expecting that answer, but I thought I should ask that at this point anyway.

Could the minister tell us if there are ongoing discussions at the interprovincial level, in terms of first ministers' meetings, on the Agreement on Internal Trade at this time? Or, again, is that something I should direct to the Minister of Employment and Investment?

Hon. A. Petter: Certainly matters of internal trade come up from time to time in Western Premiers' meetings, in Premiers' meetings and in first ministers' meetings. I frankly don't know whether it will be on the agenda of either the Western Premiers' Conference in July, which is the next such event coming up, or the Premiers' meeting in August. It wouldn't be unusual for it to come up -- probably in the nature of a status report from, in our case, the Minister of Employment and Investment.

G. Plant: Those are the questions I had on intergovernmental relations.

The other area I want to pursue with the minister relates to his responsibilities in respect of information services within government. I'll wait a moment to ask my question. My question is fairly simple. There has been some publicity lately around funding within government ministries for the services which ministries have to provide in order to respond to FOI requests. Each ministry has some FTE component and some budgetary component devoted to responding to FOI requests that are made of the ministries in their capacity as public bodies. I could probably leave this as a question that. . . . If the minister is willing to do it this way, I'd be happy to go along with it. Rather than ask each of the ministers, during the estimates debate, for the particular budget numbers for their ministries, is it possible to place a request of this minister to have him or his staff provide me with the budget numbers for each of the ministries? Then we'll have the numbers, and we can argue somewhere else about the political significance of them.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to try to aggregate those numbers for the member and provide them to him. Let me just provide a little general context, which I hope won't prolong the debate but will at least provide some context for the member in assessing those numbers and in any other concerns he may have. As part of our general program reviews of government last year, there was some reduction in the central functions of government with respect to information. Some cuts were made as part of the other cuts that took place in last year's budget to protect money for health care and education and to transfer it over.

This year the program reviews that were undertaken as part of the preparation for this year's budget focused on the freedom-of-information capacity of ministries. As part of the general program reviews that have really been taking place

[ Page 7931 ]

As the member is aware, the scope of the overall cut is about $2 million in salary votes. It is about 10 percent of the total cross-government allocation in this year's budget for FOI. However, it's a higher proportion of the ministry salary votes, and that varies from ministry to ministry. What I want to say is this: the assumption is that with this reduced amount, ministries will be able to meet all of the legal requirements within the time frames specified under the legislation in order to comply with FOI. That's the working assumption.

Should it be the case that particular ministries have difficulty, then the expectation is that ministries will have to find it within their budgets to reallocate. I would be happy to provide the member with a briefing in which more detail is given and also some of the ways in which we think that ministries can still meet those requirements with these reduced resources through, for example, releasing information more regularly so it doesn't have to be FOI'ed.

[4:30]

G. Plant: I hope to have the opportunity to take the minister up on his offer.

Let me attempt to pursue two points that arise out of what he just said. The minister used the $2 million figure in relation to staff cuts or costs in ministerial budgets. I am told that there is also the expectation of about a million dollars in additional fee revenue. So there are two components to the decision that has been made: one is that there will be cuts on the order of $2 million, and the other is that there is an expectation that government, on a ministry-by-ministry basis, will have to raise an additional million dollars or thereabouts by way of fees. Is that a fairly accurate statement?

Hon. A. Petter: I think it's accurate to the extent that right now, by way of fees, government collects an infinitesimally small amount of the overall costs. At one point I calculated that it's some fraction of 1 percent of the total cost of the FOI system. I think there has been a sentiment that there should be more room for cost recovery. No decision has yet been taken by cabinet; I think we are looking at options. The figure of a million dollars has certainly been looked at as an objective. It would be a fee recovery in the nature of 5 percent of the total costs, and it doesn't seem unreasonable. But cabinet has not yet decided to proceed or how to proceed in that regard because, frankly, we want to be careful that it does not in any way act as a barrier, particularly to individuals who do not have resources. The great bulk of requests is by individuals with respect to their personal information. As well, we want to make sure that where fees do apply, while they do recover and discourage the sort of unnecessary broad requests that pose huge costs, they do not act as a barrier to legitimate inquiries for information by anyone -- the opposition, the press or anyone else. So we're testing whether the million-dollar figure is achievable, and we have not yet made that decision. Even if we went for something of that nature, I would just reinforce that it would be less than 5 percent of the total cost.

G. Plant: I appreciate the response. The second point that arose that I wanted to pursue has to do with how big the number is, I suppose. There are two numbers that I hear used in the context of how much FOI is costing government. One is the $20 million to $21 million figure, which, actually, members of the statutory review committee heard from the person who was the deputy minister at the time. If we're looking at a million-dollar figure as being the number that the government at this point might like to try to raise by way of fees, clearly that's about 5 percent. So I understand that.

But there's also a figure, something on the order of $4 million to $6 million, which I'm told is the aggregate cost, ministry by ministry, of actually dealing with FOI requests. So the question is: what is the difference between the $4 million to $6 million figure and the $21 million figure? I'm speaking in broad conceptual terms rather than asking for a detailed breakdown.

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, I read a bit of the transcript of the debate in which the member asked the former deputy minister and chief information officer this very question. I don't quite recall it, but as I recall, the answer was something like: "I would be included in the $20 million, but the person next to me wouldn't" -- that kind of thing. Basically, it comes down to this: the actual budgeted salary votes specifically targeted to FOI in the ministries is in the range of $5 million.

But the actual process of human resources and time that's required within ministries to service those requests obviously engages many more people than the direct FOI personnel. Other staff involved in the collection of the information, in doing the due diligence, in preparing the information for release -- all of that. . . . If you were to include all of that -- not the additional people the deputy minister brought along with him to the briefing, but the core people who get involved -- I think that the cost, conservatively, is about $14 million within ministries. Then if you add the costs of the central information functions of government, that brings it close to the $20 million figure. So I think that helps to explain the different numbers that one hears -- as best as I understand the different apportionment of those costs.

G. Plant: The number doesn't include, for example, the cost of operating the office of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: The $20 million-plus figure would include the office of the privacy commissioner, as well, as a cost of government.

G. Plant: The central agency that the minister referred to a moment ago as being another component of that is the agency that he is the minister responsible for, which has some acronym like ITAO, or whatever it is. It changes often, too

[ Page 7932 ]

Hon. A. Petter: That's correct.

G. Plant: So the third component, which I think is the $14 million component, if I understand the explanation correctly, is the imputed value of the time spent by ministry employees who have to help with responses to FOI requests. For example, if there is a request made to the Ministry of Forests for the disclosure of documents relating to the issuance of a cutting permit, there is somebody in the Ministry of Forests who is an FTE dedicated to FOI business. But that person probably has to get on the phone or go down the hall or write a letter or send a memo to the district forests office and say: "There is a request for this cutting permit file." The person on the other end of the phone, who is probably just an employee in a regional forestry office somewhere, has to spend ten minutes or half an hour or an hour or a day, or whatever it is, in order to ensure that the file is properly made available. I take it that this other number, this $14 million, is the attempt to assign some kind of value to the time spent by those people. Is that right?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I think that this ministry, the Information, Science and Technology Agency, and Treasury Board, as part of program review and the like, have tried as best they can to track the costs of processing FOI requests. The member is correct that when you track those costs, they don't include the personnel who are specifically dedicated to FOI alone. They include a whole range of other activities: field offices. . . . The due diligence then has to be shown, communications functions -- a whole range of activities. Conservatively, those additional activities, which consume time and resources within those ministries, bring the costs up to considerably more than the direct budgeted salaries. That's where the number goes beyond the budgeted salary number of nearly $5 million to the $14 million: in the engagement of all those additional personnel and resources in order to process FOI requests and make sure that they are ready for release in a timely and appropriate way.

G. Plant: I believe those are all my questions in the area of freedom of information. I expect that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is up next.

R. Coleman: I would like to welcome the minister to the Crown corporation of BCBC, since for the last few years there has been a different minister.

I thought I'd start out with some closing comments from last year, and I'd like to take the corporation to its strategic plan with a quick discussion about its annual report and a couple of questions relative to some specific projects that some of my colleagues might have.

First of all, I'd like to reiterate that this company has been moving into an expanded role, and that expanded role is a welcome expanded role for government, so that it can provide the services to its clients that other client groups within the province require. BCBC is a highly professional organization that is extremely well run and provides a very good service to the province. I would like to reiterate to the people watching that this corporation and the services they provide with regard to what they put on the Internet, and the other services they provide to this province, are very valuable to us. Their tendering processes and their documentation would be an asset to any government agency, should they choose to copy them and use them.

I would also like to say that corporate relations and management within this corporation are very strong. I'm very impressed with BCBC, and I think we should be thankful that this Crown corporation is functioning in the manner that it does and that it provides the services to the people of the province that it does. For the minister, I have now reviewed BCBC for the third year, and I have to admit that those words stand as true today as they did three years ago. This is a very well run corporation.

I would like to now go into a discussion for a few minutes with regards to where the corporation was last year and where it is today. It's more as an exercise. . . . I know that the first year we did estimates on BCBC, we went three hours. The second time we did BCBC, we went about 45 minutes. If I had my druthers, I could have probably told you, "It's a great corporation; don't mess with it," and we could have been out of here in five minutes. However, there are some questions that we should touch base on.

[4:45]

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me say that I very much appreciate the member's comments in support of the work done by the corporation. I share his view. This is a very dynamic and successful corporation, and it's a good example of a public corporation serving the public interest but doing so in ways that are creative and efficient and that work with and draw upon the experience of the private sector.

I'd also like to make note of some of the support I have in answering these questions today. I am accompanied by Dennis Truss, who is president of the corporation; Lak Parmar, who is the vice-president of finance; and Denis Racine, who is the director of corporate communications. Because I omitted to note who was here on earlier questions with respect to freedom of information, I should also note that Stuart Culbertson, deputy minister for ISTA and chief information officer for the government, was also assisting me on that particular part of the estimates.

The short answer to the member's question is that in 1996-97 the savings realized were $21.7 million; and in 1997-98 an additional $13.7 million was saved. So the cumulative total of savings, if you take it from the base we started from, is $35.4 million.

R. Coleman: The corporation, with the support of its customers, was setting up some guidelines with regard to the number of square metres per person -- to reduce it from 23.5 metres to 19.5 metres per person as far as occupancy is concerned. Some of that was for new clientele, but it was also to try and reduce it within the ministry. I'm wondering how successful you have been on that.

[ Page 7933 ]

R. Coleman: The corporation is also taking measures to ensure that it is recognized as a leader in integrated workplace strategies. Now, the interesting side of this is that over the three-year horizon of the strategic plan, these workplace strategies were to contribute about $3 million, or 10 percent of the $30 million, in space saving. There are two questions -- there's a double-barrelled question here. Firstly, we've already gone over the objective of the $30 million in savings. Have we realigned our objectives to where we're going to be at the end of the three years as to the total savings we're now shooting for? And how are we making out with 10 percent of the $30 million savings being attributed to the integrated workplace strategies?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the integrated workplace strategy is, of course, part of the way in which the corporation has succeeded in reducing the space requirements, while doing so in a way that provides a functional work environment. So it has been part of the reason why the reduction in space requirements has been achieved.

In terms of the question of goals for this year, because the corporation has been fairly aggressive and has achieved a large measure of the savings they hoped to achieve over three years in respect of some of the initiatives the member spoke about, it's hoped that some additional savings can be achieved this year -- but frankly, probably not the scope of savings achieved in the previous two years. It's something more in the range of $2 million to $3 million in the coming year. What the corporation is planning to do, however, is to then focus on other elements of the strategic plan in terms of the next two year and work to improve its performance and its capacity in other areas, something it now has the ability to do because of the fact that it expedited the initiatives that were designed to achieve these savings.

R. Coleman: The corporation also achieved a reduction in cost-to-tenant improvements by about $5 a square foot through a value management system. In the last discussions we had last year, that was going to become a requirement on all projects of $5 million or more within the public sector: to achieve those $5-per-square-foot savings in all sectors of government. I'm just wondering if that has been applied to the other sectors and if I could have a couple of examples of where it's been successful.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member is talking about two complementary initiatives of government, one which the B.C. Buildings Corporation can quite readily take some credit for and another which is being pursued, to some extent, based upon the example shown by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. So with respect to the value management system within the corporation, yes, there have been efforts that have been very successful in reducing the tenant improvement costs by $5 or more a square foot. I think what the member's referring to is the fact that as part of the overall capital review, which was done by a very enlightened previous Minister of Finance, we decided to apply that same principle to a whole range of other entities and capital projects. So this same approach to value-managing tenant improvements is now being applied in the context of upgrades to hospitals, schools and the like that fall outside of BCBC's mandate. It's not being done by BCBC itself, but it's done in the same way BCBC has acted and draws upon the experience and examples shown by BCBC.

R. Coleman: So I guess that it would be safe to say that the model that was established by BCBC is now being applied throughout the rest of government with regard to their projects. That was basically my question. I was being polite.

The corporation had established a year ago a private-public partnership, a P3 team. At least, that was some of the correspondence and information I had. That was to develop alternative sources of capital in order to leverage spending targets set by Treasury Board. Last year during estimates, when we got into the discussion relative to this, this was pretty much in an embryo stage; it was very early on. The minister at the time basically made the statement that there were two P3 projects that were under consideration. One of them was Selkirk, and the other one, I think, was with regards to the museum's theatre. Those were supposed to be undertaken. Also, they were supposed to look into alternative financing operations or leveraging in finding money -- basically, I guess, to find funds.

One of my questions last year was whether BCBC was also going to develop a P3 model that could be adapted or used by other ministries relating to P3 projects. I was told at that time that this was being looked into. I have a number of questions. How are we making out with identifying alternative sources of capital? How did the two P3 projects go that we identified last year? Have we now developed the model through BCBC for P3 projects for other ministries and government?

Hon. A. Petter: Starting first with the projects that the member referred to, I encourage the member to get out to the Selkirk Building. It's a beautiful site, and there's also a wonderful bicycle trestle out there, which a lot of employees use to get to and from work.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: He's been there. Excellent! Then he knows what a wonderful building it is and what a success it has been. I keep running into employees who tell me how much they like being there, not just because of the bicycle trestle but because of the great building. So that's been a very successful experience.

The IMAX theatre, which is associated with the museum, will be opening next month. I believe that the projector was delivered today. I'll make sure that the members get an opportunity to come and see it, along with the rest of us, when it opens. I know it's something that's going to be viewed very positively by this community in terms of drawing visitors and also for the educational benefits it will provide for local residents.

With respect to where we go, yes, the corporation is looking at additional possibilities in which P3s may help to

[ Page 7934 ]

[5:00]

R. Coleman: How about expanded levels of capital and outside capital? What sources are we looking at and dealing with? Could we have some examples of that?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is that the capital comes from private sources, where there is an economic interest for private capital to invest in a project. In the case of IMAX, there's been a very creative arrangement met. Because the IMAX theatre will increase the operating revenue for the museum, there is an opportunity there for private sector investment that can produce a public sector benefit: it can turn a profit for itself, but it can also increase the benefits to the museum. My recollection is that after a certain number of years, once the company has realized its profit, the amenity then becomes public. The Selkirk Building was a case of a private investor investing in the construction of the building, and then a lease arrangement. In the case of Robson Square, it would be done through a ground lease mechanism. In each case, you're looking for a mechanism in which you can find an opportunity for a private sector participant to invest and realize a profit, but doing so in a way that hopefully adds to the efficiency and appeal of the project so that it doesn't increase the cost.

R. Coleman: Just a couple of specifics relative to how we've done in the past year with regard to some specific buildings. . . . One is the Langley courthouse, which is downtown in the city of Langley. It was estimated that rent and OandM for four months until a new tenant occupies it would be approximately $50,000, and the estimated cost to BCBC was $150,000 on that courthouse closure. I'm just wondering how we came to that figure of $150,000 as the estimated cost of closure.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the Ministry for Children and Families is going to be an occupant as of July 1. The figure the member referred to is still seen as the likely amount that it is expected to have cost the corporation.

R. Coleman: It's $150,000 for the Langley courthouse. The figure would be coming pretty close to that, because it has taken until July 1.

The second one would be: how are we making out on the backfills on three projects that we discussed last year? One was the Ganges courthouse, another was the Sidney courthouse, and the other one was the Mission courthouse. Ganges had an estimated $10,000 annual cost, assuming no tenants were found; Sidney was $30,000, assuming we would find no tenants; and Mission was $7,000, assuming we would find no tenants. I'm wondering what our status is on backfilling those three buildings.

Hon. A. Petter: In the case of the Sidney courthouse, I believe there are plans to locate some probation staff there, and that will generate some appropriate use for that facility. Ganges, I believe, is slated for sale. Mission -- I don't know. We don't have that information at hand, but I'd be very happy to undertake to get the member an update on the status of Mission.

R. Coleman: As you know, in November of '96 the Minister of Human Resources announced the closure of 14 service delivery offices. Last year we reviewed those 14 offices briefly, and I got some background back from BCBC. Basically a number of them were backfilled by Children and Families -- and there is no need to belabour those, as long as those backfills took place. The backfills were in Abbotsford, Burnaby, Delta and Kamloops, as well as two in Vancouver, one in Victoria and one in Surrey.

The ones I have questions about are, first of all, in Ladysmith at 710 -- 1st Avenue. Our occupancy cost was $57,000 a year. It was vacant from March 7, 1997. I am wondering what the status is of that particular building.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, we don't have that detailed information at our disposal, but if the member is interested, I would be very happy to provide him with that information in a written form.

R. Coleman: Just to save belabouring it, then, maybe at the same time we could also have the status on 3251 Chatham Street in Richmond. A Ministry of Human Resources office was still open, but they were still searching for a solution last year at this time. You could get me that.

The other one is basically what was going to become the new location for the office in Kelowna, at 532 Leon Avenue. In '95 the landlord on Leon Avenue requested that the corporation vacate the premises and that they lease from the ministry's clientele. There was a new building under construction at 1345 St. Paul Street at this time last year. There hadn't been a solution found for that; it was still under construction. I wonder if I could get the status of that building.

Hon. A. Petter: The information I am being given is that St. Paul Street, Kelowna, was backfilled by another ministry -- probably Children and Families. It has been backfilled; it has been resolved.

R. Coleman: I can get that confirmed in the same information; I don't ever have any trouble getting information back from BCBC.

Maybe I can just save some trouble relative to getting into some detailed discussion. We had a lot of remote vacant office space that we owned. We actually had about seven or eight places that we owned which were remote office space. I would just like to get a status update on those. Those would be Dease Lake -- Highway 37, Dease Lake -- Stikine and Commercial, Fort St. James, Grand Forks, Lillooet, Salmon

[ Page 7935 ]

I think that basically covers the strategic plan; we've probably walked through it. Most of the other parts of the strategic plan have been implemented. I'm satisfied that they're in progress or have been implemented, and I don't see any reason to spend time on them.

There was a question that one of my colleagues had. Unfortunately, she's not here at the moment, so I will ask it for her. It relates to the Victoria accord. The accord was not supposed to take a certain amount of activity out of the downtown core of Victoria, relating to moving space from space. The question is to me, so I'm going to ask the question of you, because I understood the Victoria accord slightly differently. When the people moved into St. Ann's Academy, what space did they vacate, and what lease provisions were they in prior to that? That would be E&I, I assume, which moved into St. Ann's Academy. What space were they in? What was our lease commitment to that space, or was it our own space?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, here's the short answer, and then I'll give a slight elaboration on it. The short answer is that most of the people who came to St. Ann's came from 818 Broughton Street. It was a lease that was expiring, so there was no loss on that.

In terms of the Victoria accord, which is slightly different. . . . It wasn't the direct responsibility of BCBC, although obviously BCBC would be interested in it. The Victoria accord was an effort to work in cooperation with the city on a number of deliverables including, for example, some redevelopment of the legislative precincts and redevelopment in the Humboldt Valley area. What's come out of that is some housing development in the legislative precinct areas and the St. Ann's redevelopment.

I think the concern that underlies the member's question about private sector office space has come about for a couple of reasons. One is that the downsizing that took place in government in the last two years has had an effect on reducing demand and increasing vacancy rates, as the Selkirk Building has, and that has caused some concerns. I share that concern, and I'm hopeful that we will be able to be strategic in the way that we relocate employees within the area to make sure that we maintain the vibrancy of the downtown area.

R. Coleman: I've just a couple of other quick questions. I must say that the St. Ann's Academy project has been not just a great restoration of a heritage building but also. . . . I've been through the building, and I think that whoever did it should be complimented, because that particular project as part of the accord is very important from a historical perspective, if nothing else.

A couple of quick comments before we move off the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Oh, one of my colleagues has a couple of questions before I conclude. So maybe I could just have him ask a couple of questions prior to moving on, and then we'll conclude this.

V. Anderson: My question is about the site the Taiwanese community is asking about on 8982 Hudson Street, and perhaps the minister will remember the history of that location. Originally there was a hotel complex on that site back in the early years, and then, after the Second World War, it became the infirmary for those who had illnesses and diseases. It was also used by veterans when they came back. Those people were housed there until they were removed, and it became Pearson Hospital.

The two buildings that are still on that site are B buildings. At least, the one in the front is a B heritage building. It was put there for the nurses' residence, which was part of the infirmary that was there. That has been used, as the minister is no doubt aware, for Corrections purposes over the last number of years. It has been vacant, except that it has been used during the winter -- and well-used -- by a hostel in the community as an overflow hostel.

The area in which it sits, though, is extremely important. Right across the road from there is the Hudson Street entrance to the Fraser River, which was the beginning of Vancouver. In fact, it predates Vancouver by a week or two, back in about 1862. It's one of the very real historic parts of the city of Vancouver, the history of which is just currently being developed by the historical society and the community.

It's a very historic area. It has the Metro Theatre just across the street, which is also a historic theatre of the old city, because the main street of that part of Vancouver was Hudson Street and Marine Drive until the Oak Street Bridge was built. Then there was some reallocation in the middle fifties and after the Arthur Laing Bridge, additional allocation was taking place in that area as a business community. So there's a lot of history in that area.

The Taiwanese cultural centre, which has its current cultural centre in Airport Square adjacent to this property, is quite anxious to continue to be in that location. In searching around, they were put onto this particular possibility by a member of the social planning group of Vancouver city council. I wanted to highlight briefly the historic background there, as well as the opportunity we have.

[5:15]

They are very concerned about the possibility of being there and so are very anxious. As the minister is aware, they've been working hard in the last two years to raise funds for the centre. Prior to last weekend they had raised $2 million, and then they raised a considerable amount more -- the exact amount I do not yet know -- from their big dinner last weekend. At that dinner, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture indicated his and the government's strong support for the development of the cultural centre -- without any comment, at that point, about location and without any comment on the nature of that support.

The minister is aware that the community has very much in mind that a previous MLA from Fraserview came to the opening of the present centre and, as part of his greetings to the community, indicated that the government would be pleased to give them a grant of $1 million -- which they have on record at this point -- when they had reached $2 million themselves. They've surpassed the $2 million, so I'm just putting it in context to say there would be good support from the community for this particular activity and contribution to

[ Page 7936 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Let me briefly respond. I had a very productive meeting with the Taiwanese-Canadian Cultural Society at the urging of the member and others, and I had the opportunity to talk to them. The obstacle, I think, is quite obvious: the British Columbia Buildings Corporation has an obligation and a mandate to ensure that it receives fair value for any property it disposes of. I know that the Liberal opposition, because of their concern about fiscal prudence, would not want us to depart from that mandate.

Having said that, obviously there is a challenge here as to whether or not we can work within that mandate to assist this society in achieving its very laudable and important goals. I think there may well be. . . . Some of the options would be to look at how we might creatively use this site, which -- certainly in the view of the corporation -- is larger and probably higher in value than would be necessary for this single use. It might well be possible that if a private developer had aspirations for this site that were consistent with the heritage values the member referred to, part of a rezoning of this site could incorporate a use for the cultural society. That might assist in persuading the local council to allow that rezoning to take place. Therefore in that rezoning and redevelopment there might be room for the 20,000 square feet or so that the society seeks at a relatively low cost, because of the package that it would provide to the larger development of the site. That's one possibility. I know the corporation is going to be following up with the society in that vein as well as looking at alternative sites that might be available in the area.

Clearly we want to assist the society. It has important goals. The fiscal limits are challenging, but they don't dissuade us from trying to be creative. Some of the funding sources that were available when the previous member for Vancouver-Fraserview referenced assistance -- for example, the B.C. 21 fund -- are not available right now. I believe that if we work creatively and find ways to assist this group in finding a site and perhaps benefiting from an association with some private development of this or some other site, we may be able to reduce the cost and effectively give the society the kind of support that they are looking for.

V. Anderson: Thank you for your comments. I know the society is very eager to work with. . . . They have been looking at fair market value. In their recent proposal they indicated fair market value as they understood it. They also indicated that as well as their particular project, they would be willing to incorporate -- or assist on the incorporation of -- the historic value of the historical B heritage building that is there, which might well be a very important museum complex that would have tourism value as well as historic value. As I indicated earlier, the portion of Vancouver in that location is part of the history of B.C. which has not been told or maintained.

Across Marine Drive from that is the Eburne Sawmill, which has just closed down. That mill is part of the history of the community which needs to be maintained, because it had been a continuous mill since before the turn of the century. That whole area is a historic tourist opportunity as well, because when you come down to the foot of Hudson Street -- I mention this so that the persons there might know -- there is the original landing where the swing bridge used to go across. Right across is the junction of the north and middle arms of the Fraser River. The Harbours Board has its location there, and it's a wonderful location for tourism and for use of the Fraser River.

Another possibility there is that just at the Fraser. . . . Across the street from the Fraser Arms area is an old dock area -- which also predates, probably, the turn of the century -- with one building still remaining, that Langara College has thought of using. This might encourage the Minister of Advanced Education. Langara College has started a Fraser River study program. Students there have been a part of a yearly excursion from the foot of the Fraser down to the mouth of the Fraser and have amalgamated with the University of Northern B.C. in a Fraser River study program. For them to have this outlet on the Fraser -- across the street, just down the block from the museum. . . .

That this whole complex is looked at together is an historical opportunity which I think we should look at as a total package. It has an Advanced Education possibility with Langara College; it has the museum possibility; it has tourism possibilities. Many of these things could be together. It's just a matter of finding the mechanism to bring these together and having them developed concurrently to be supportive of each other. It would be too bad if we lost the overall picture by not being able to move, with somebody bringing these together.

Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the member's suggestions. I hadn't been aware of this particular perspective. I will certainly follow up his suggestion with the ministry and see where we can go with it.

V. Anderson: I'd be delighted to sit with anybody from the ministry, give background in detail and put them in touch with some of the other people who are interested in a number of facets, which together could be a very exciting package for the entrance to Vancouver, because it's right up Arthur Laing Bridge and right off Oak Street. It could be a very historical as well as a cultural opportunity, bringing together the past and the future.

Just one comment: down there on Hudson, right before you get to where the bridge was, one of the first settlers. . . . The Irish settlers cut the path, which is now Marine Drive, through to New Westminster in 1881. But the first settler there was Mr. Garypie. Mr. Garypie's wife was from the Musqueam band. So have a multicultural-historical connection, which could certainly be developed in many ways. I look forward to discussing this further with the minister and the people from the ministries.

R. Coleman: Since my mother-in-law was a Murphy, the Irish perspective could be very important here.

I just have a couple of other questions with regard to some land use planning that was going on last year at this time, to see where we've progressed to date. The first one is the report on the Riverview land use plan. On March 31, 1997, we had finished the first two phases of a five-phase plan to get the project ready. The first of the two phases was data collection and analysis; the second was identifying community objectives and priorities. The next three phases are developing the planning principles, preparing a land use concept and plans, and selection and approval of the land use plan. I'm just wondering what our status on Riverview is.

Hon. A. Petter: Essentially, this is on hold as we review the implications of the new mental health strategy. So the

[ Page 7937 ]

R. Coleman: The other project that we discussed, relative to some planning process and discussions last year, was Woodlands. I wonder if I could just have an update on Woodlands.

Hon. A. Petter: Essentially the same answer: we need to see if any part of Woodlands will be required to meet the objectives of the new mental health strategy. Pending that review, things are on hold.

R. Coleman: There are a number of other projects. Maybe I can just meet with BCBC relative to where we're at with those.

But I would like to know if we have any new projects planned or any in the hopper for this year, which aren't mentioned. There wasn't a lot mentioned in the annual report relative to new projects and whether we have some new Crown land types of redevelopment opportunities that we're looking at and what they might be.

Hon. A. Petter: The only new project that is not a renovation, a new project that's in the works for this year, would be the North Fraser pretrial centre.

R. Coleman: I've brought this up the last two years. I know we've had some discussion, and I want to bring it to the minister's attention this year as well. I did a review of a school district where there was a criticism, done by an auditor, relative to school construction. The auditor's report basically said, when it reviewed the school construction, that to put a substantial multimillion-dollar project in the hands of the secretary-treasurer of a school district, who has no construction experience, was folly. Extras in the construction management of the project were oftentimes the reason we went over budget, and it cost us money.

Last year when we visited it, we were talking about the possibility of some pilot projects with regard to BCBC stepping into construction management relative to some of these facilities. I understand there may be some pilot projects either in the works or ongoing. I'd like to know what those pilot projects are, how we're doing with them and then where we're going from here.

Hon. A. Petter: Again this relates to the larger objectives of government, through its capital plan, to try to achieve efficiencies in public construction -- in this case in the construction of schools -- to see if, through more direct forms or different ways of project management, savings can be achieved. In that effort, BCBC was enlisted to take on some specific elementary school projects in Sechelt, Qualicum and Errington. I think that experience to date has been a very positive one. Hopefully, BCBC will be looked to -- perhaps not only in the area of education but in other areas -- to lend its expertise to ensuring that these projects proceed in a way that meets both the functional requirements and the fiscal requirements that are now being expected, as we try to squeeze more value out of our capital dollars.

[5:30]

Hon. A. Petter: No, none of the projects are complete. They're all proceeding in earlier stages of development. They involve, in the case of Qualicum and Errington, the use of stock plans, and in the case of Sechelt, design-build procurement -- and again, can provide a models for how we can deliver good school construction to replace the portables and provide better classrooms at lower costs. The completion date for all three is in the range of September of next year.

R. Coleman: I didn't even think BCBC could build a school that fast. I was just curious. I look forward to the results of that, because I think that's a valuable step forward. Over the next year, I'll get the opportunity to talk to the people in BCBC to see how this is progressing. Those are the questions I have for the corporation today.

I would like to close by again reiterating to the minister that the expansion of the role of this corporation -- with its professionalism and the way it can handle tendering, construction management and that sort of thing, and the way it presently manages, at something like 2.3 percent, its vacancy rates within the entire portfolio of property that it manages -- is one that we can look to for an example of operations, as it moves through its strategic plan. I look forward to the next three years' strategic plan, which I assume is being worked on now, because this one will run out next year. I think the minister should just be aware that my compliments go out to the president of the corporation and to BCBC themselves, for the cooperation they've given us in the last year. We look forward to another cooperative year in the next year.

T. Nebbeling: I believe we now go into the Crown corporations secretariat. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on introducing my thoughts about this agency, primarily because we have got 25 minutes left. I have some questions about the agency.

One of the things that I learned quickly when I became critic for this secretariat is that it does play a rather important role in evaluating projects within the Crown corporations, especially when integration of a number of Crown corporations is needed to bring a plan to fruition. At the same time I also found it difficult to really find out how many people were involved with the secretariat. My first request to the minister would be to just give me a feel for what magnitude we talk about when we talk about the Crown corporations secretariat. How many people do we employ in the secretariat, and what is its budget?

Hon. A. Petter: The budget is $2.4 million, and the staff complement is in the range of 20.

T. Nebbeling: One of the things that really intrigues me is that part of the mandate of the secretariat is not just to advise Crown corporations on projects, directions and economic stimulants. The intriguing part of their role, I find, is that they as an agency or as a secretariat go through a process of finding alternatives to a proposed project and evaluate the values of this alternative against what I suppose is the objective in the first place. That, to me, must represent a big challenge for the agency, considering that they have a staff of 20 people. We have a fair number of Crown corporations that are right now in the process of finding new directions as Crown corporations -- how to tackle the future. To illustrate my -- how would I say it? -- surprise that the staff is 20 people and that they do the work they're supposed to do according to the mandate that I found on the Internet for this secretariat. . . .

[ Page 7938 ]

Hon. A. Petter: First, let me just very briefly introduce the staff who have joined me for this component of the estimates debate. Seated to my left is the deputy minister responsible for Crown corporations secretariat, Lawrie McFarlane, and to my right, Bob Adams, who's the director of transportation, Crowns.

The Crown corporations secretariat plays a number of roles, but in respect to the member's questions, the role it really provides is to vet some of the proposals that come forward from Crowns and to provide advice to cabinet and committees of cabinet concerning some of the options -- evaluating the options, ensuring that they meet policy objectives, etc. In this case, the Crown corporations secretariat's role would not have been so much to have generated the policy options but to have evaluated the options that were being generated within B.C. Hydro, providing advice to both Treasury Board and cabinet on those options and working with the Crown corporation in ensuring that the objectives were being met in a way that was consistent with the objectives of government.

T. Nebbeling: To go a little bit further on that. . . . The minister just gave us an explanation of the role of the secretariat. There are certain values that have to be incorporated into the deliberations on a new policy or a new direction of the Crown corporation. If you don't mind, I'll stick with B.C. Hydro because of what's happening in that Crown corporation today. They talk about values that have to be incorporated, such as community needs, social impact, economic development and environmental impacts of whatever is being proposed. Is the minister saying that when B.C. Hydro came forward with a new policy or a new direction as to how their relationship with commercial and residential customers was to happen in the future, within the presentation by B.C. Hydro these aspects were already incorporated at that time? Or did the Crown corporations secretariat actually become the catalyst for including these elements in deliberations on the new policies?

Hon. A. Petter: It's never as simple as one or the other. In fact, the secretariat does both. It adds value and does due diligence on the contribution made by the Crown. I'm a little bit more on familiar territory right here with the role played by the secretariat in respect of ICBC. I'm new to this responsibility, but I have benefited from the role of the secretariat in respect of ICBC policy changes.

To be more directly responsive to the member's concerns on Hydro, an example would be job impacts. Hydro will no doubt come forward with ideas on power, etc., but they may not be as preoccupied with the impact that it would have upon employment and jobs as government itself might be. So what the Crown corporations secretariat will do is both evaluate and provide input into the policy to try to ensure that the policy is one that will maximize the potential to retain or create jobs.

In terms of social policy, I can give the hon. member a very concrete example of the secretariat's involvement with Hydro in respect of some of the independent power projects that are being pursued at Elk Falls in Alberni. Those projects came about through interaction between the secretariat and B.C. Hydro in terms of pursuing a cost-benefit analysis. Demonstrating that analysis in fact made the case for those projects going ahead. Included within that analysis were the larger implications of those projects for economic benefits to those communities. That's a way in which the Crown corporations secretariat can add a broader social perspective that also helps in the evaluation of the economics of a particular project and ensures that projects meet the larger social and economic objectives of government.

T. Nebbeling: I'm happy that the minister actually touched on the social and the community impacts that Crown corporations have through changing directions or including new elements into their strategy. When I look at what has been happening in the last year in particular when it comes to aluminum smelters, for example -- and again it is directly related to Hydro -- there is no doubt that if the Premier had been successful in bringing smelters to British Columbia, with the numbers reflecting the companies that have been approached to come to British Columbia to build smelters here, the amount of power for B.C. Hydro would be just phenomenal to serve the four or five aluminum companies that so far have been seen as potential investors in British Columbia.

Before the Premier went out and solicited this kind of interest, was he in any way informed of what the impact would be on the social structure of certain regions, be it the provincial or community planning structures that are needed? I'm asking this, Mr. Minister, because the average smelter uses 450 kilowatts. If all these smelters were to come here, we would be looking at a number of new dams in the province to provide that kind of energy. It's just not available today. So before we look at that impact, and if the secretariat works the way I think it works. . . . How has regional and community planning been incorporated into the planning process in order for B.C. Hydro to feel confident that they can supply that need?

Hon. A. Petter: The example the member gives reaches into a whole bunch of different areas. For example, the power that is being looked to for many of these smelters and for Power for Jobs is not Hydro power. It's downstream benefits power, which is not owned by Hydro. It's owned by the people of B.C. Therefore, the Power for Jobs initiative and the power for those initiatives has, in some respects, been pursued through the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Having said that, the Crown corporations secretariat clearly has an interest in involvement, because Hydro is involved in terms of the grid and the interplay between that power and other power. There is now a social costing methodology applied through the Crown corporations secretariat to all projects that Hydro may be pursuing, to ensure that the benefits and costs of those projects -- not just in terms of bottom-line numbers but in terms of communities -- are factored in. That certainly provides part of the information base that government draws upon in approaches it makes to attract new investment here in the province, around aluminum projects, for example.

[5:45]

[ Page 7939 ]

I thought, reading the mandate of the secretariat and some of the other materials, that it was exclusively the role of the secretariat to make that need public -- up front, before any commitments or ideas are spread. The secretariat was to solicit the communities that could be impacted, and incorporate in its decision how to advise the Premier on this particular one -- or B.C. Hydro, for that matter -- in such a manner that these concerns, or whatever directions come from these communities, are incorporated into the final presentation on how the whole relationship of B.C. Hydro to future smelters can develop.

Hon. A. Petter: Certainly the secretariat does play a role in providing information regarding social costing and the implications to ministries, government and agencies, but the secretariat is doing that in a support role. The actual engagement with the public and policy-making would be done by the respective agencies concerned, be it the Ministry of Employment and Investment, B.C. Hydro, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro or the Premier.

I just want to clarify that when I say that the downstream benefits power belongs to the people of British Columbia, I mean that it is not owned as part of the corporate entity of B.C. Hydro; it exists outside of that entity. Therefore, while Hydro obviously has a role in how that power is delivered to the province and has an interest in it, it does not exist within the basket of power resources that Hydro is directly responsible for. So if the member is interested, for example, in pursuing the social implications of Power for Jobs or of some of these new projects, the Ministry of Employment and Investment is probably the best place to pursue that. Some of the information that they would use might well be derived from some of the social costing that is done by the Crown corporations secretariat with respect to some of the projects that Hydro may have in mind as part of these initiatives.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate your conclusion that this is a rather complicated issue. I think I would be wise to wait until I meet with the Minister of Employment and Investment -- I am his critic -- and bring these kinds of questions back to the table. I think there is not necessarily a form of criticism pursued here; it is more an understanding of how, through your agency, because of your search for alternatives to proposals, the public at large gets a say in this.

Having said that, looking at the time and seeing that the other House is already here, I would ask you to ask for the vote.

Vote 11 approved.

Vote 12: ministry operations, $1,622,553,000 -- approved.

Vote 13: Crown corporations secretariat, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 14: Information, Science and Technology Agency, $39,587,000 -- approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

K. Krueger: When we were dealing with the TFA last week, we began to touch on some issues which the minister asked me to bring back in this portion of his estimates. We were into a discussion of the rehabilitation and maintenance of highways and secondary highways in British Columbia, and in my constituency specifically. There's a road called the Dunn Lake Road, which services the North Thompson Indian band reserve. I've had many complaints about this road surface. It has some tremendous soft spots that can cause people to lose control of their vehicles. I've found people in the ditches when I've travelled out to the reserve. I've certainly noticed the bad condition of the roadway myself. Chief Nathan Matthew of the North Thompson Indian band specifically asked me to raise the condition of this road in this legislative session to learn whether the ministry has any concrete plans to upgrade the surface and deal with Dunn Lake Road. That's my question.

Hon. H. Lali: Before I start, I want to point out that I have with me my associate deputy minister, Claire Dansereau, and my three assistant deputy ministers, Dan Doyle, John Dyble and Har Singh. Also accompanying me is Ross Fuller, who is budget manager, and Colin Hanson from the Motor Carrier Commission is sitting in the other section.

I want to thank the hon. member for raising this issue. Now that he has raised it, we'll ask the maintenance contractor about it. In terms of improvements and stuff like that, the specifics have not been finalized and announced yet, but the member will be getting his briefing book just like everybody else. When the announcements are made, we'll know what is or is not being done.

[ Page 7940 ]

I wonder if it would be possible to have a type of first-responder system built into the highway maintenance contract, where perhaps ranchers or farmers along the way who have small equipment could go out and sand 20 miles of road, just until the major equipment could get there. Because it is a real problem. Again, this is an issue that I have heard a lot about from constituents, even though it was a fairly mild winter. I wonder if the ministry has any plans to include anything like a first-responder system in their contracts.

Hon. H. Lali: Highway 5 has the highest level of winter maintenance. It's also. . . . Actually, the short answer to the question is no, because there are issues of standards and liability that farmers would have to carry, and there is a lack of proper equipment for clearing the highways. The contractor, in addition to their own equipment to do the kind of work that is necessary, also has an on-call list of local contractors standing by with equipment if there is a long, sustained drop of snow.

K. Krueger: How is the contractor expected to know when the snow starts falling at particular points along the highway? Is there provision for someone to monitor that? If the contractor has an employee driving up and down the highway, he may be in an area where snow isn't falling, while an emergency has already developed 20 kilometres behind him. So having listened to the minister's answer, I wonder how he can have any sense of peace or assurance that a contractor knows when he needs to get out and start working on hazardous conditions that are developing.

Hon. H. Lali: There is regular monitoring. There's a regular patrol of the highway conditions, not just in winter. The contractors have their own weather monitoring systems, and they are in regular contact with the ministry in terms of doing spot forecasts.

K. Krueger: It isn't working well enough. Again, without meaning to criticize anyone, I'm serving the minister notice, through you, hon. Chair, that it isn't working well enough. The roads are in bad condition for much longer than they should be when a weather system begins to dump snow on the highway. It is putting people in danger, and I believe it has cost people their lives. My constituents are very concerned about this. I would like the ministry to re-evaluate how it does its assessment of changing weather conditions, and how it manages to respond quickly across a wide area when something is going wrong. In the Fraser Valley, you might well have dozens of trucks over a stretch of road that long; in the North Thompson Valley, you have very few out on the roads. It just takes too long to bring the highway back to a safe condition.

The minister referred to standards in his answer to my initial question about how quickly emergency crews respond to a snowfall. I wonder if the minister could describe those standards for the House.

Hon. H. Lali: There are a couple of issues here. On the first one, the member said the system isn't working. I'll take it on notice. I'll ask my staff to look into it and re-evaluate it.

I also want to point out that in terms of the standards, it's actually a very, very complex issue. A list of standards has been developed, ranging from the equipment and how it's supposed to be decked out, what kind of lighting and how much lighting is supposed to be on. . . . I'll direct staff to sit down with the member and go over it. All of these standards are actually part of the terms of the contract that is signed by the contractor.

K. Krueger: When I suggested that ranchers or farmers along the highway might well be of benefit, I didn't mean driving out with a pickup truck and shovelling sand off the back of the truck. But it seems feasible to me that the highway maintenance contractors could park equipment at the locations of various ranchers or farmers who are qualified to operate it and have them go out when the snow starts falling -- understanding that a truck can only get a certain distance in that first crucial time when the highway has turned to ice. We could make use of that possibility. I would just like an assurance from the minister that he and his people will consider that, because I think it's a worthwhile suggestion.

It also leads me to my next question, which pertains to what local people refer to as "day labour." One of the strengths of the rural communities throughout British Columbia -- and certainly up and down the North Thompson Valley -- is the way that people pitch in in time of need or crisis. When the river began to rise in the last two summers -- particularly in the spring of 1997 -- it was amazing to me how people rallied, how contractors came out of the bush with their equipment. Everybody got ready to pitch in in the emergency to make sure that people's homes weren't flooded -- in the same way people pitch in during all sorts of emergencies in rural communities. It's good to have people there who can respond with equipment.

[3:00]

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of day labour, it all depends on the size of the program, and the larger the program the more day labour there will be. Obviously, this year the program is larger than it was last year. It's almost double. It has gone up from $80 million last year to $153 million for rehab.

[ Page 7941 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I'll actually read the criterion out so that there's no miscommunication. "Where an existing arterial highway carries significant traffic -- annual average daily traffic count greater than 400 vehicles per day -- and the through non-stop traffic component exceeds 50 percent, the road will be retained as an arterial highway."

R. Thorpe: In reaching this criterion, and before downloading the roads, one would assume, then, that the ministry in fact did conduct traffic counts and studies on those particular roads. Can the minister advise if in fact that was done in the downloading of this particular road?

Hon. H. Lali: No, we have not done this in all cases. The staff know most of the roads that were devolved; they're quite familiar with them. However, we have made the offer to communities that where there is a discrepancy, then we can, on a cost-shared basis, do a study with a particular municipality to determine if it is or is not something that meets the criterion that I just read out in the last question.

R. Thorpe: You know, I have a problem when the government says, "For the first time in history we have clear definition on how we're going to do things," and "We've done it in a consultative process," and "We've worked together with municipalities," and "We are prepared to do the studies" -- after the fact, as opposed to before the fact. So if in fact we were serious in having meaningful consultation in a timely manner, why would we not do it prior to putting an extremely onerous burden on a small community of less than 5,000 people?

Hon. H. Lali: We have for the first time set out a criteria. Roads, as the hon. member is quite familiar with, have been devolved for a very long time. It's done all the time, and this time we have certain criteria to follow. The criteria was developed late in the process. Consultation has been going on for at least a year and a half. That's why the deadline has been changed three times already. Certainly there's been an open dialogue with communities by our staff at the local level, and also by the staff here in Victoria.

R. Thorpe: Well, you and I both know that the reason it's been delayed so many times is because in fact there hasn't been meaningful consultation, or we would have actual studies. The fact is that municipalities have been protesting this action, and it's an unfair action.

Let me ask the minister. . . . In downloading these roads to the small community of less than 5,000 people, can the minister tell us if in the criteria they had any standards for the condition of the road before it was downloaded?

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the hon. member, on the record, that we are not downloading. We are giving back to the communities -- the municipalities -- the roads which are theirs. The province has maintained them over the last number of years. Also, the standards the member made reference to are the same. We've kept over 90 percent of the roads outside of the GVRD region. Also, in terms of the size of a small community, through consultation and also in consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, it's 1,500 people, not 5,000.

R. Thorpe: I'm referring to the community that's being downloaded the 11.46 kilometres of road. It is under 5,000 people, and that's what I was making reference to.

Unless I missed it. . . . Perhaps I didn't ask the question clearly, so I'll attempt to rephrase it. With respect to these 11.46 kilometres that were downloaded onto the municipality of Peachland, can the minister advise what standard, if any, they had in making that decision to download them?

Hon. H. Lali: The standard of the roads that we have given back to the municipality is the same as the standard of the roads that we have kept.

R. Thorpe: So is the minister saying, then, in downloading this road to this municipality -- part of which is undercut by drainage, with drainage culverts that are substandard, with very little, if any, shoulder, and with pavement that is collapsing along the ditch -- that this is the standard to which his ministry keeps the roads in British Columbia?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, the standard of the roads that have been given back to the community is the same as the standard of the roads that we have kept.

R. Thorpe: Once again, we have a government represented by a minister here today who will not directly answer the questions -- not only of the taxpayers, the residents, of Peachland but also, in fact, of the citizens of British Columbia. Once again, I'm going to ask the minister: what are the standards? Does this government have any written standards that they used in producing their assessments and reaching the conclusions of which roads they were going to download to communities throughout British Columbia?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to read into the record. . . . It'll be a little lengthy, and I hope the hon. member will bear with me.

R. Thorpe: I'm a patient man.

Hon. H. Lali: Thank you. I appreciate that.

When we were giving the roads back to the municipalities, we didn't apply any specific standards because all the roads that we had were the same. Those that were given back to the municipalities had the same standards as the roads that the provincial government kept. Having said that, I want to put into the record the main criteria upon which the decision was made. "A road will have to meet one or more of the following criteria to retain its arterial highway designation and remain the responsibility of the province: that it is a component of the main provincial system; that it provides access to provincial and/or international ferries or regional airports -- where there is more than one route, only the primary access will be retained; that it provides primary access to an Indian village outside the municipality; that it provides access to another non-contiguous municipality; or that it is an existing arterial highway which carries significant traffic -- an annual average traffic count greater than 400 vehicles per day -- and has a through, non-stop traffic component which exceeds 50 percent. The province will retain roads within municipalities meeting one or more of these draft

[ Page 7942 ]

[3:15]

When I'm talking about the standard, I'm talking about the actual standard, quality and current condition of the current road. Now, since we have standards on how people are to clean highways, one would think that we have standards or conditions or quality assessments on these current roads that we're downloading. My question is: do we have -- in particular, for the 11.46 kilometres downloaded to Peachland -- standards of condition or quality of the road? Do we have those in place from this government?

Hon. H. Lali: I believe I've already answered the question.

R. Thorpe: It is a very simple question. If the minister believes that he has answered the question about the 11.46 kilometres of that road, I would ask his indulgence to please simply repeat, in a very concise manner, the quality and the standards and conditions of that road that is being downloaded.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I've already answered that question.

R. Thorpe: It's very obvious to me that the question has not been answered, and that the government, through this minister, hon. Chair, wants to stonewall not only me, which is probably fair game. . . . But the unfortunate part is that he's stonewalling the council and residents of the municipality of Peachland. And that is not acceptable. But if that's the game that this minister wants to play, if he doesn't care about these small communities, then that is a position he can take. I don't know whether the minister wants to comment on that, but if he doesn't -- because he has said that he has already answered it, and he probably does not care about those folks. . . . Quite frankly, it's interesting that as we go through these discussions, the minister sits there and laughs. This is not a laughing situation.

Now, I want to ask the minister, since he will not answer the question. . . . I want the minister to search deep for the answer to this one. The real reason you've devolved this particular road is because you know that it's going to cost $2 million to bring it up to an acceptable provincial road.

When the minister doesn't stand to answer a question, do I assume, then, that I move on to the next question? Or do I assume that perhaps the minister didn't hear the question? Or do I make any assumptions, hon. Chair? I ask for some clarification on that.

Hon. H. Lali: I have stated already in the record that we have devolved roads according to the criteria which I read into the record.

R. Thorpe: Then would the minister confirm that it is going to cost up to $2 million to bring this road up to a suitable provincial standard?

Hon. H. Lali: We have not given the municipality any plans for that particular road, and we have also not given the municipality any estimates.

R. Thorpe: The minister says he has not given any information to the municipality. I wonder if the minister could say that they do in fact have that information in the ministry, either at the provincial level. . . . I would hope they have it at the provincial level, because that's where they're making the decisions on what's being downloaded. So perhaps they haven't given the information to the municipality or to the council. But do they in fact have that information within their ministry?

Hon. H. Lali: We'll have to take that question on notice and provide the hon. member with this information later.

R. Thorpe: I do appreciate that the minister is going to provide that information.

I ask this of the minister and, obviously, of the staff of the ministry. One of the things I'd just ask a little bit of clarification about is: what time frame might one expect to get that answer, because some of these things tend to drag on for some time? Would we have a reasonably tight timetable for getting that information?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

R. Thorpe: One of the things that troubles me a little bit here in this definition of "provincial function" is the issue of the criteria of revenue to the Crown. Was that a thought in the criteria that was. . . ? Or did you ever think of that?

Hon. H. Lali: Could the hon. member please provide some clarification as to what he means?

R. Thorpe: I'd be pleased to provide some additional clarification. As the Chair knows and as the minister knows, we're a resource-based province. In many smaller communities we don't carry on quite as much mining as we used to, but we do continue with forestry in this province. Now, I'm sure it will not come as any surprise to the minister that this road is used by two major Okanagan logging companies to bring down the logs that they cut in the forest. I was wondering if the fact that these roads are used as an artery for the Crown to get its revenue was taken into account when establishing your criteria for maintaining provincial roads.

Hon. H. Lali: No.

R. Thorpe: I would suggest, given the state of the finances of this province, that you may want to give that some consideration in going forward. The reason for this question -- and I would like the minister's comments -- is because of the condition of this road, which, as I said, is used by two major logging companies and numerous logging contractors. With the condition this road is in, they're probably going to have to put right-restrictions on the road, and we won't be able to get the logs out of the hills and down to the mills for processing. I wonder what comments the minister has on that.

Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the hon. member again that in addition to the letter that was sent out by my

[ Page 7943 ]

"Where an existing arterial highway carries significant traffic -- i.e. annual average daily traffic greater than 400 vehicles per day -- and the through, non-stop traffic component exceeds 50 percent, the road will be retained as an arterial highway. The criterion would not apply in situations where: [a] contiguous municipalities are served by another main highway, such as the capital regional district, or [b] an alternative highway route exists, such as in Prince George, Qualicum Beach and Parksville."

R. Thorpe: You know, the more questions I ask. . . . I don't think it's the questions that puzzle me; I think it's the answers that puzzle me. I thought I heard the minister say that we didn't do the traffic counts.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: You get to talk when I sit down.

What I want to know now is. . . . I was led to believe earlier, when we talked about that, that there were no studies done, but we are going to be kind enough to cost-share if people want to do them. Am I correct in arriving at the conclusion that I'm getting close to arriving at? Based on the fact that the minister and the ministry now know that this is a revenue-generating road for the province that major logging vehicles come down, is the minister now saying that if the municipality goes out and does the traffic count and it meets the 400 annualized. . . ? I'm sure we'll get into a debate on what that means later, since we don't log all year round. Assuming that the traffic count meets 400-per-day annualized in order that the province may continue to receive its revenues from logging, are we reaching the conclusion that this road may still be a provincial road?

Hon. H. Lali: I pointed this out to the hon. member before, but I don't mind repeating it. Local Ministry of Transportation and Highways staff know these roads in question quite well. We don't think that these roads would fall under the criterion -- and I'm going back -- but we could be wrong. In that case, where the roads are in question, a cost-shared traffic study by the municipality and the province would be done. If under that particular study it is proven that it is a provincial road, then we would take it back.

[3:30]

Hon. H. Lali: It's a very good question, and the answer is that over a year the average is 400-plus. We also have to be mindful of a leap year.

R. Thorpe: Let me assure you, hon. Chair, that that's not the only thing British Columbians have to be concerned about with this particular government -- whether it's a leap year or not. Unfortunately, British Columbians are going backwards while the government thinks it's leaping forward. But thank you very much, hon. minister, for allowing me to have that opportunity.

This is a very serious issue for the folks in Peachland and for Mayor Waldo and all of his council. I want to have some resolution -- as best we can in the estimates process -- that we are not going to embark upon a process here of doing traffic counts and, since logging is a seasonal business, that we're not going to get penalized down the road because the traffic doesn't quite meet the 400 annualized. Do I have the commitment of the ministry and the minister that they are going to approach this subject in a very serious manner and that they're going to take into account the provincial revenues and the seasonality of the business in arriving at the conclusion that this may still be a provincial road?

Hon. H. Lali: Of course, the ministry will be diligent and fair and also very serious. I have read into the record what the criteria are, and we will be following those criteria.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister or his staff give some indication -- obviously they must have done some work when they decided to do the traffic counts on a cost-split basis -- of what they anticipate an acceptable traffic count is going to cost in an effort to meet the criteria set out by this ministry?

Hon. H. Lali: We will work with the municipalities to develop a fair process.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that you will work for a fair process, but I asked. . . . Obviously, because you committed it to paper on May 14 that you would split costs with them, one can only assume that you must have done an analysis, an estimate, of what those costs may be. So I would appreciate an answer to that question.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I will just repeat that we will work with the municipality in question to come to a fair process, taking into consideration the cost. Each municipality is different, so it would just be pure guesswork to state on the record here how much it would cost.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister, in consultation with his staff, advise what time frame they and the minister believe is an acceptable analysis of traffic count for the process of making this assessment?

Hon. H. Lali: The municipalities and local staff would carry out the process in consultation with each other. The reason it is cost-shared is so that both the province and municipality would be able to live with the results.

R. Thorpe: Oh, dear. We'll just leave that alone and let that verbiage stay on the record. So then it is up to the municipality to work with the local office in making all of the arrangements to move forward. Then would those results come together to Victoria for interpretation, or would the decisions be made locally -- based on the results of the test, of course?

Hon. H. Lali: The answer to the first question is yes. On the second question, the criteria would determine the outcome, and the outcome would be revealed at the local level. If there is a change to be made, then Victoria would have to carry out the order-in-council to make the necessary change.

R. Thorpe: I look forward to working with the council in Peachland, and I'm sure the council in Peachland looks forward to working with the local office to pursue this matter, which does have to be pursued.

[ Page 7944 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The issue of the signage is actually good news. The Premier, in consultation with people within the business community, had asked me to review that whole issue with my staff. We did a review and decided we would withdraw the original decision. In terms of the specific dollar figure, some of the work is still underway and we don't have a specific figure. However, I would be more than happy to get that for the hon. member.

R. Thorpe: We all know that it was definitely the goodness of the Premier and not the onslaught of pressure from the struggling small business and small tourism sector of British Columbia that had a thing to do with reversing that ill-thought-out position that had originally been taken.

To conclude, I just want to let the minister know that all too often we can be critical of people in government for some of their actions. Geoff Freer is on leave right now from Penticton working on some other projects in the lower mainland, but I do want to say for the record that Geoff and Jeff Wiseman -- and, in fact, the entire staff in the Penticton office -- are very accommodating and try very hard to service the needs of the people within my riding, and I want to express my appreciation to them.

T. Nebbeling: I also would like to ask the minister some questions on the devolution of a number of roads in my riding. Before I do that, I'd like to come back to Highway 99, which we discussed last week, and the safety issues related to that part of the highway from Horseshoe Bay to Squamish.

Last week we discussed at length my concerns with this road, which are the levels of fatalities and serious injuries, and I asked the minister what he sees being done to that road in the very near future to start alleviating some of these serious accidents. The minister didn't give me a level of comfort or any sense that serious consideration was being given for action to be taken on that stretch of highway. As a matter of fact, he accepted some of the negative consequences of the volumes that that road has to accommodate in a manner that fatalities are a fact of life. That is, to me, not an acceptable position. We argued a little while on that point; it didn't get me anywhere. But last Sunday a serious accident again happened on that same stretch of road. This time it wasn't eight individuals that had to be taken to hospital; it was only four. However, that was four too many, and the road was once again blocked for two hours.

The mayor of Lions Bay, who has been quite silent on this issue up to now, has joined me in basically standing up and, in as loud a voice as possible, demanding that this government start taking Highway 99, between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish, very seriously. We cannot just sit back and say that in spite of five to eight people being killed annually on that road, in spite of injuries to numbers of people, often leading to situations where people are either hospitalized for a long time or actually finish their lives in wheelchairs. . . . That is no longer acceptable. I would like to ask the minister if, after last Sunday's accident, he has changed his mind. Is he at least willing to start considering some remedial work in areas where accidents frequently happen -- through the introduction of passing lanes or three-lane sections or four-lane sections where that may be necessary? I understand that it does upset the program for the ministry to a certain extent. But I believe that it is no longer acceptable to take life away from people on the basis that it is a fact of life. So can the minister tell me if there's been any change since last Wednesday?

[3:45]

I also want to point out to the hon. member that staff are working with the various municipalities along the highway. I have personally met in Victoria with members of the municipalities. I've promised them that I would go on a personal drive-through, and I intend to live up to that promise. I just have to find some time after I take a little bit of a holiday after the session is over. Also, the mayor of Lions Bay has indicated that our relationship with local and regional staff is a really good one -- and we hope to continue that relationship.

T. Nebbeling: I am fully aware that there has been a highway committee comprised of mayors and chairs of regional districts throughout the Sea to Sky corridor that as a committee has been very active in bringing to the attention of the ministers over the years the ills of Highway 99. I myself have been on that committee for about 11 years. Prior to coming to Victoria as an MLA, I frequented this area as the mayor of Whistler and as part of that team to highlight the concerns that we experienced throughout the Sea to Sky corridor.

The minister pointed out that over the years, activities on Highway 99 have really been primarily focused on eliminating as much rock fall as possible, thereby making Highway 99 safer. When this process was introduced in, I think, 1984 -- 14 years ago now -- this was a temporary measure. At the time, there were plans created or commissioned by the Ministry of Highways to deal with what at that time was clear: the tremendous increase in volume on Highway 99. The highway as it existed then just could not absorb the increase in volume due to activities in Squamish, Whistler and the region as a whole because of the tourism potential and the recreational potential that began to develop over there. So the problem was truly identified, and the problem was not just to keep rock-scaling and make the road safe. The problem was then identified that there was clearly a need to give people opportunities to pass or overtake without having to cross a solid line. That was 14 years ago. Today we are still involved in rock-scaling. There may have been some guard rails put along certain stretches. We have made some improvement with eyes in the road so that during the winter months you can actually see where the road is allocated. But that has never, ever, ever done anything for the real problem, which is the volume.

The volume on that highway today -- and I don't know if the minister has the numbers, but I'm sure Mr. Doyle can provide him with the numbers -- is such that, in the words of

[ Page 7945 ]

So in spite of the minister saying, "Well, listen, we are putting up so much money for this, and we're putting up all these rock scale activities," it does not deal with the problem. Mr. Minister, through the Chair, I would once again like to suggest that the ministry start on a path where annually they will identify the most dangerous stretch of highway. Once you start going into that kind of review -- and you will see there are short stretches where this happens -- on an annual basis add a three-lane section or, where needed, a four-lane section, and ten years from now we will truly have some improvements. Every year we will have improvements, but then years from now we will have some considerable improvements that most likely will dramatically reduce the chance of accidents on that road. That is what I'm looking for.

So would the minister consider starting to look at a process where a safety improvement is made annually on the road itself, an improvement that consists of widening the road or any other form that the minister's workers can suggest?

Hon. H. Lali: Before I can make any comment on the specifics of what work I should or should not direct staff to do, I have stated earlier -- and I don't mind stating again -- that I have made this particular stretch of highway a priority. I have met with various representatives of municipalities in my office in Victoria, at which time I committed to them that I would go on a personal drive-through. I've gone on that road several times. It's one thing if you're travelling as a tourist or going to a meeting or something, but it's actually another to be able to stop along the way and take a look at some of the worst spots. I will be bringing with me not only staff from Victoria, but also local staff, as well as somebody from ICBC, so we can stop and take a look at some of the worst-case issues.

The Chair: Committee A will recess.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:05 pm.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

T. Nebbeling: Before I go onto the devolution, I have one more question on the issue we were discussing prior to the call. I feel that the minister has somehow loosened up in his position on the need for some action on Highway 99. I understand the budget is set for this year.

Would the minister be able to find a way right now to give me assurance that the least he can do is have a study done on what could be done -- not in the long term, but a study that can be focused on how we can implement segments of improvements starting, say, next year? Is that possible at all?

Hon. H. Lali: The community members I talked to. . . . The study that we're going to be doing is a corridor management plan. Obviously anything that would be done would have to be done in an incremental way, because of the shortage of finances. I see the member nodding; that's an understanding on that regard.

Again, I want to be able to take a look firsthand at some of these areas where the hot zones for accidents perhaps are in need of some of the most desperate repair. I want to be able to take a look at that and also at the corridor management plan before I can make any kind of commitment. But certainly anything done will be done in an incremental way.

T. Nebbeling: Well, that's an answer without an answer, but that's okay. I was hoping that because of the need that's clearly identified, at least a study could create a type of master plan that would set the steps in motion, so that the communities along the Sea to Sky corridor can have something to look forward to. Maybe I will ask the members of the highway committee, through you, Mr. Chair, to bring this point back to the minister before he comes to the Sea to Sky corridor to pay us a visit, or afterwards.

Let's go on to the devolution. I do not have a lot of questions on that, although I do have some suggestions. The first one I would like to talk about is the Squamish Valley road. For Squamish, four roads have been designated to be candidates or have become candidates for the devolution. Before I go on, could the minister explain his knowledge about where this road stretch really starts and where it finishes?

Hon. H. Lali: We don't have the detailed description here; it's a legal description. Certainly we can forward that information to the hon. member.

T. Nebbeling: Now I understand that it's a legal description, but I'm trying to find out if the minister is aware of its physical location: where it starts -- the stretch there is 7.29 kilometres -- and where it finishes, being, then, this devolutionized road. Is that proper English, devolutionized?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, we can't provide the answer at this moment.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I can help. Is it the road that leads to the upper Squamish Valley?

I see the exchange happening on the other side. I understand that you don't know exactly where it is, which is understandable, because there are thousands and thousands of roads throughout British Columbia. I don't expect you to know each and every one.

However, the reason I'm asking you to look at the location is that it is indeed the road that leads to the upper Squamish Valley. The upper Squamish Valley is primarily occupied by a large Indian village, the Squamish nation village. The land is Squamish nation land, and there are a number of small farmers. This land is not in the Squamish district; it is in the regional district. So to me the Squamish Valley road really qualifies for the exemption under the guidelines that the minister earlier introduced as the criteria under which the roads are being designated, or not, as candidates for devolution.

So I would like to ask the minister to look at this road and consider the facts. Firstly, it leads to another jurisdiction -- not another municipality but another jurisdiction -- that being the Squamish-Lillooet regional district. Secondly, the main population in that section of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district is actually a village occupied by the Squamish nation, so it would classify under row 2 as well as under "Indian village." So that was on that one. Would the minister consider further consideration for that stretch?

Hon. H. Lali: We are always looking for further information on issues such as this, so we're willing to look at it.

[ Page 7946 ]

Hon. H. Lali: It's a private ferry.

T. Nebbeling: Roads that lead off Highway 99 are under the responsibility and control of the Minister of Highways, and are totally disconnected from the district of Squamish as an urban core. Does it make sense that the community of Squamish suddenly has to take on the liability for a private road that comes off a highway and services a ferry that brings people to Woodfibre? I don't understand why the district of Squamish has been given this road as their responsibility when the minister just said it's a private road.

Hon. H. Lali: Without knowing the specifics, I can only give the hon. member a general answer. If the municipality is open to doing some sort of a traffic count study, that's something they'll have to discuss with the local staff -- if they're interested in that. The municipality of Squamish is the centre of activity in that particular area. From our information, most of the users of that particular road are local people.

T. Nebbeling: It doesn't say anywhere in the criteria that if the users are local people, the road has to be designated as a road under the jurisdiction of a municipality. Highway 99 is also used by the local people, and I don't think you would consider making Highway 99 the responsibility of the district of Squamish. I thought the foremost consideration in looking at the devolution of arterial roads was more like whether or not there was clearly a municipal interest in a stretch of road. I hope the minister will look further at this particular issue, because it just doesn't make any sense.

I actually have another problem. It says here: "Darrell Bay Road, 1.04 kilometres." If you know the road, it's about 200 yards, max. I think there is some confusion. You can see the dock and everything from the highway. Maybe this stretch of road should be reconsidered or looked at again, because I think that (a) the data is incorrect and (b) the justification under the criteria doesn't seem to mix.

Hon. H. Lali: On the first part of the member's statement, the traffic volume criteria is all about trying to determine the origin and destination of the traffic. On the second part, in terms of the Darrell Bay Road, I think the figure of 1.04 that the hon. member has is lane-kilometres. In terms of actual road kilometres, it would probably be somewhere near half a kilometre.

[4:15]

Hon. H. Lali: Again, on that particular road, our local staff determined that it is a road that could be devolved, because the traffic is primarily within the municipality. However, if we are wrong, there is the avenue of the traffic-count study that I mentioned previously. I don't think the ministry is wrong, but if we are wrong, we are prepared to look at this whole issue if the municipality wants to go in on a cost-shared study for doing a count on this road.

T. Nebbeling: I don't think what the minister just said is right. The district of Squamish should not have to cost-share in a study of any nature that is to be used by the minister to justify the ministry's decision to devolve a stretch of road that is not a municipal road. It's worse than not being a municipal road; it's also a dead-end road. It's outside the urban area; it's off Highway 99 -- you're almost in Whistler to get there -- and it leads exclusively into a provincial park.

I think the minister should recognize that these points alone clearly indicate that the local staff is wrong. I would like to know how the minister, without expecting money from the district of Squamish -- a community that is already suffering from all the other problems it faces economically because of the demise of the forest industry. . . . I'm not going to make a political statement on top of that, because then I would start looking into why the forest industry is in such bad shape. But I would like to ask the minister, based on what I have told him and after checking the facts as I have presented them, to reconsider and let the community of Squamish know that this road was analyzed with consequences that were wrong.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: What I'm looking for, after I have explained to the minister that this road is exclusively in the domain of a provincial park. . . . The community of Squamish cannot absorb this additional cost for maintenance and upkeep. Will the minister, after checking the facts that I just presented to him, recognize that his staff may have indeed miscalculated the use of this road, and will he reverse the decision to include this stretch of road in the devolution of arterial roads?

Hon. H. Lali: In my letter of May 14, I proposed the new criteria, which indicate that if the municipality believes that this road should not have been devolved because they believe the traffic is primarily from outside and not within the municipality, then the avenue is offered by the new criteria to do the traffic-count study in order to analyze that. And if the study proves that. . . . Let me read the criteria again for the record.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: According to the criteria, on an average daily basis over a year, with 400 cars per day, if the through and non-stop traffic component exceeds 50 percent, the road will be retained as an arterial highway.

T. Nebbeling: This is a dead-end road, so every car that goes in there stops there and returns. So I don't think that the new criteria the minister has introduced -- a daily traffic count greater than 400 vehicles per day, and a through, non-stop traffic component exceeding 50 percent -- apply to this stretch of road. This is a provincial park -- dead end. Any-

[ Page 7947 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The traffic-count study takes into consideration not only where the traffic goes to but also where the traffic comes from.

T. Nebbeling: Without trying to put a burden on the community of Squamish, I think that if the minister or the ministry took the time to check with the provincial camp operators or the management organization that looks at the use of campgrounds, you will see that the use of that campground is exclusively for non-Squamish residents -- well, I wouldn't say exclusively, but 90 percent are non-Squamish residents -- because Squamish residents do not have to occupy the campgrounds at this park site. The nature of the use of that park indicates that it is indeed a non-residential-use area. I think that is the primary use of the park; the campsites are available to the public at large. That the users are indeed people outside the Squamish urban area should be a given, considering the nature of provincial parks.

Hon. H. Lali: I think the hon. member may be referring to summertime traffic. He may be correct that most of the traffic is from outside, in terms of people using that. The traffic study takes into consideration a 12-month period, both day and nighttime traffic, and that's how the averages worked out.

T. Nebbeling: I find that to be a good point that the minister raised. However, when the road is not accessible for six months of the year because of heavy snowfall and very little snow-clearing, the use during the winter months is really very limited. There may be some cross-country skiers. But again, they are not necessarily from the Squamish area; they come primarily from the Vancouver area. So if there is winter use, it is recreational. That recreational use is truly primarily by lower mainland users that come to the area.

Hon. H. Lali: I think the only way we can truly find this out in a non-subjective manner is to actually do a traffic-count study.

T. Nebbeling: I may agree with the minister. But that's the thing: the minister will then immediately stop handing over the authority on this road or the devolution of this road onto the district of Squamish, so that they do not have to start the immediate expenditure for maintenance until such time as the traffic study proves that they were indeed right in the points that are raised. But they were made by the mayor of Squamish to the ministry a long time ago. So I think a traffic study may well be in order. But it should be based on who the occupants are and where they're from. Until that traffic study is available, the minister should not devolve this road onto the community of Squamish.

Hon. H. Lali: I've already answered the gist of the question several times for the hon. member. If the municipality feels the road in question should not be devolved, then they should start this process of a traffic-count study immediately.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister tell me when the authority, or the obligation of maintenance, of that stretch of road was put upon the district of Squamish.

Hon. H. Lali: The official devolution was on May 15, 1998. The effective date is October 26, 1998.

T. Nebbeling: Under the Napoleonic Code, you are guilty until proven innocent. Over here I think we are innocent until proven guilty. To have the minister now say, okay, if Squamish is willing to start this traffic study, at a cost of whatever, and they can prove that indeed this road was not supposed to be devolved under the criteria set by the minister, then consideration will be given for that. . . . That is turning things around, Mr. Minister. It is the Ministry of Highways that has determined that this road qualifies for devolution. When Squamish stated in writing to the minister that, for the various reasons that I've just put on record here, this is wrong, and here are the elements that are wrong, then it shouldn't be up to Squamish to start spending money to back up their claims. It should be up to the ministry to say why you are right. I think that is the only way you can go.

I think the minister has to take some responsibility. He will find that not only has this road been put into this program but that there will most likely be other routes throughout the province where the same situation will happen. I don't think it takes a lot for a person to admit that from time to time we make mistakes. I would expect the minister to do that as well, but not at the cost of others, and that is what the minister is trying to say -- that if Squamish wants to fight this and spend a certain amount of money, it's fine with the minister. I don't think the minister should ever consider that. It should be the ministry doing the study. Then very soon you will find that the points raised by Squamish are indeed solid, valid and justify the decision on the return of the road to the status it had before.

Before I finish, I would like to ask the minister: what is the legal authority now for Squamish on these four roads as they stand today?

Hon. H. Lali: They now own the roads, and maintenance will be transferred on October 26, 1998.

T. Nebbeling: So if Squamish decides to put a toll on that stretch of road to Alice Lake, has the Ministry of Highways no authority to stop that?

Hon. H. Lali: I don't believe that we have any authority to stop them.

T. Nebbeling: If that's the case, could Squamish also exercise that right on the users of that park, including introducing some elements that traditionally have not been part of the park? Could they put a restaurant in there, commercialize the area? Could that happen because they now have the legal right to that area?

Hon. H. Lali: I believe the hon. member should be directing that question to the minister responsible for parks.

[4:30]

Hon. H. Lali: I can't think of any offhand.

T. Nebbeling: I don't mind if the minister provides me with the answer to that question in writing in the near future. I look forward to that answer.

[ Page 7948 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I want to put this on record. I believe the hon. member knows that I did not state that they could put up a toll. You check the record, hon. member. I did not say that they could put a toll on there. What I said to him was that I don't have the authority to stop them if they do put up a toll.

T. Nebbeling: Who would have the authority to stop the Squamish district from putting up a toll road? That's my last question.

Hon. H. Lali: We don't know specifically, but there may be something in the Municipal Act. I believe the hon. member should canvass that in the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

L. Reid: The minister will recall that in our last discussion we were canvassing issues regarding the Alex Fraser Bridge. The minister indicated to me that he would suggest a particular staff member that I might consult regarding the creation of a berm for the residents in the Bridgeview Court complex. Could the minister indicate who that person might be?

Hon. H. Lali: Talk to my associate deputy minister.

L. Reid: Thank you very much.

To continue on the issue of roadway devolution in the province. The minister will know that I'm the critic for Municipal Affairs, so there are a number of mayors who have indicated an interest in this area and have asked me to pose some questions. If these issues have been canvassed. . . . I will certainly check the Blues, but I do know that, in the words of the hon. member for Prince George, the discussion regarding Prince George has not been canvassed sufficiently. So I'm happy to continue the discussion.

Perhaps for my information. . . . A number of issues I'm going to raise this afternoon are regarding roadways that lead into what are now regional airports. It seems to me that those are indeed in the provincial interest. Certainly the issue of the road into the Prince George airport is currently under discussion. Could the minister indicate why that roadway would not be in the provincial interest?

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of the municipal airport, if there were one road, we would keep that. If there were more than one road, we'd keep the one main link.

L. Reid: Is the minister saying that the two roadways into the Prince George airport. . . ? One is going to be maintained by the province in the provincial interest, and one is not?

Hon. H. Lali: We would maintain one, and the municipality would maintain the other one.

L. Reid: For my clarification, the one that you're maintaining, the entrance to the regional airport, is the one that's considered to be in the provincial interest. Correct. The minister nods his agreement.

The other one I will canvass with you is the Old Cariboo Highway. The city -- or George Paul, as the city administrator -- is stating that it doesn't meet the province's own set of criteria, and it will send a letter arguing that it shouldn't be under the city's jurisdiction. Its contention is that it is a provincial roadway, because a lot of people use it as a commuter link to the province of Alberta. If that is the assertion, will the minister kindly comment as to whether or not he believes it is in the provincial interest?

Hon. H. Lali: We have proposed a new criterion: where an existing arterial highway carries significant traffic, and the annual average daily traffic is greater than 400 vehicles per day, and the through, non-stop traffic component exceeds 50 percent, the road will be retained as an arterial highway by the province.

L. Reid: I would certainly believe that the Old Cariboo Highway probably meets those criteria. But who determines that? Is there a study in place today that will give us that information? If that's the case, what is the time line for the receipt of that information?

Hon. H. Lali: Several members have actually canvassed that particular issue on the study. The member would be well-advised to read the Blues. We've gone through it over and over again.

L. Reid: My colleagues indicate that the answer to that question will not be found in the Blues. When will the information be available for this municipality and for myself, as Municipal Affairs critic?

Hon. H. Lali: For the record, I would suggest that the member read the Blues. But I will, in case the hon. member hasn't read. . . . The Blues will be out tomorrow, and all the issues have been canvassed by at least a couple of members today. But I will again, for the record, state it for the member's benefit. I don't have any problem doing that. Up until now the ministry staff did the study, but since May 15 we have offered to do it on a cost-share basis with the particular municipality in question. We will do the study. It will be over a 12-month period. I've already read the criteria into the record. But if it is proven that greater than 50 percent of the traffic is from outside, the road will be retained as an arterial highway.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his courtesy. I appreciate the answer. The question, in terms of the answer not being available for a year. . . . From what I'm hearing the minister say, the answer to the question is that the information will become available in May of 1999. In that the funding responsibility is theirs as of a week ago, they will indeed be paying. . . . I can give the minister the actual amount of dollars that will indeed be theirs over the next number of months. We're looking, roughly, at an annualized maintenance cost of, let's say, approximately $90,000. If the city of Prince George assumes that cost for fiscal '97, leading us into May of 1998. . . . If they expend approximately $90,000, and then it's found that the roadway is in the provincial interest -- that the arterial roadway should indeed be retained by the province in terms of maintenance -- will that $90,000 be returned to the city of Prince George?

Hon. H. Lali: If the traffic study were to prove that the road is indeed an arterial highway, the province would take back the road. And I think the hon. member asked whether the money would be paid back. The answer to that question is no, because for all the years that the province has been maintaining those roads which should have been municipal

[ Page 7949 ]

L. Reid: I will indicate to the minister that there is some flaw in that argument in that the definition around what is a provincial road and what is a municipal road has constantly been in flux on behalf of this minister's government. So I don't believe there are moneys owed on behalf of municipalities. I believe that this program hasn't been handled very competently by your predecessors in this role. Indeed, the information that has gone back and forth has been questionable at best. I believe that the minister actually agrees on that point.

If the dollars have been paid on a roadway that is found to be in the provincial interest, it is my contention -- and I'll put it on the record today -- that those dollars will be owing to the municipality. They have taken on a service on behalf of the province that frankly was not warranted, because this ministry did not do its homework in terms of deciding which roads were truly in the provincial interest.

Doing the research after the fact is dead wrong and unfair when it comes to putting those kinds of financial responsibilities on municipalities. I know that the minister will get to his feet and indicate that there was some warning involved in that discussion. I can tell the minister, from all the correspondence I have on this question, that it's the on-again, off-again, downloading, off-loading program. There are some issues where agreement has been reached -- and I accept that -- but there is a list of municipalities where agreement has not been reached. If the definition changes a year from now for a particular roadway and dollars have been expended, I believe those dollars should be returned. I'd ask the minister for comment.

Hon. H. Lali: I've basically already answered the hon. member's question in a couple of other questions today. I just want to say that in terms of predecessors, the Socreds obviously did not have any criteria in place, so any devolution that had taken place under them was done in a haphazard way. We have for the first time developed criteria which were used to come to the realization that certain roads would be devolved, and that is what has happened.

Again, for the record, if the traffic count study proves that the road should be taken by the province, we will do that. We will take that road back.

L. Reid: The minister has raised an interesting comparison when he talks about the haphazard approach of the previous administration. I don't believe this is a drive to mediocrity; I think this job could be done well. What alarms me about this discussion is that the smallest municipalities will be the ones hardest hit. That is certainly the case. I will take the minister's advice if there is no financial hardship to be placed upon these municipalities, but I believe there is: Courtenay, Esquimalt, Gold River, Invermere, Kamloops, Kimberley, Lake Cowichan, Logan Lake -- the minister will know that he and I have canvassed Logan Lake in the Legislature -- Merritt, North Cowichan, Port Hardy, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Princeton, Revelstoke, Sparwood and View Royal. These are the ones remaining on the target list for arterial downloading. They are, as the minister will concur, not the largest municipalities in the province; these are for the most part small municipalities. These are municipalities which will have a very difficult time assuming this gift that the province has so wisely attempted to place upon them.

[4:45]

Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the hon. member an incorrect statement that she has made. We clearly and explicitly excluded the smallest communities -- communities with a population of 1,500 or below -- from devolution. I also want to point out that with Logan Lake the impact is zero, and Merritt is half of the April 3 letter that. . . . The hon. member used those two specific communities.

I also want to point out to the hon. member, for the record, the extensive consultation that has taken place since the government's intention to devolve roads was first announced. I want to point out that in the spring of 1997, district Highways managers met with municipal representatives to listen to their concerns about arterial devolution. In the fall of 1997, a process for consultation was discussed with joint council prior to UBCM's annual convention. In October 1997, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways staff held a workshop on arterial devolution at the UBCM annual convention. In November 1997, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways worked with UBCM staff to arrange a meeting with an ad hoc committee of the UBCM comprising mayors and municipal representatives. On December 2, 1997, the meeting of the ad hoc committee took place. On December 22, 1997, a news release announcing the deferral of devolution to April 1, 1998, was sent to all mayors, as well as to the provincial media.

On April 3, 1998, letters were sent to mayors outside of the GVRD with information about criteria and their impacts. Copies of letters were sent to MLAs, and information on devolution was sent to the president of the UBCM. On April 16, 1998, there was a meeting of the provincial-local government joint council to discuss the status of arterial devolution. April 24, 1998, was the deadline for written comments from mayors on criteria on roads proposed for devolution and for district Highways managers to be contacting mayors for further consultation. From April 24, 1998, to May 14, 1998, the review took place, and we responded with written comments to each one of those. So, as a result of the consultation process, the number of municipalities to receive roads has decreased from 59 to 31.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister referencing the chronology. For the record, December 22, 1997, was the date that the municipalities in this province believed they had been heard. They believed that program had been shelved. They did not expect it to come back. This minister is not operating with the full support of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. In fact, their very recent correspondence and press release say that they are absolutely not in support of the initiative of this government to give them a gift without any financial compensation. They certainly have indicated very strongly in their press release, when they talk about what they believe to be a rift, if you will, between how the GVRD has managed to negotiate a fairly decent cash flow -- a 4-cent fuel tax -- to support their roadway devolution. . . . The rest of the province is left on their own hook. I would ask the minister to perhaps justify that decision.

[ Page 7950 ]

The agreement also states that the GVRD area would not only take on those roads that were in the November '96 plan, but they would also take, in addition to that, other bridges and other responsibilities and other roads that are for a regional purpose. So any tax room that is given to them is for those issues that are above and beyond the November '96 letter. I also want to point out that the GVTA would also carry over debt from the province of B.C.

L. Reid: The reason I referenced the GVRD. . . . It was the GVRD that actually negotiated with the government prior to the creation of the GVTA, as the minister is aware. Indeed, it is the understanding of the GVRD that they negotiated an agreement with the provincial government which included the devolution of arterial highways in exchange for a 4-cent fuel tax. They believe that was a negotiation that was done on both sides of the question. It's not that they did something in addition or had some ancillary discussion; they took on that responsibility in exchange for that 4-cent fuel tax. They believe that to be the case. So if the minister is saying that that is actually not what they agreed to, it would be helpful if he put that on the record. Their very strong position is that they took on that only in exchange for a 4-cent fuel tax.

Hon. H. Lali: The GVRD, when the negotiations began, were fully expecting that devolution would occur across the province. Negotiations went on for 12 months. As part of the negotiations, devolution was inseparable from the agreement that was made with the GVRD.

L. Reid: Agreed, hon. minister. . . . The question was that they made that agreement with you, with your government, in exchange for a 4-cent fuel tax, which is unique to the GVRD. It is not a situation that is available to any other municipality in the province. And that's the issue. Indeed, they have been privy to an exceptional deal financially, and of course they've accepted it. But they have not, and you have not, given consideration to how the rest of the municipalities in this province handle the $100,000 to $200,000 annual maintenance costs for roadways they have now inherited.

Hon. H. Lali: On the issue of the 4-cent fuel tax, I'm going to tell the hon. member what my understanding is. The GVRD took on responsibilities which were in addition to the list that was going to be devolved in November 1996. These additional responsibilities included transit; regional roads, major bridges and other added responsibilities, including debt. That's what the 4-cents-per-litre tax room is for.

I also want to point out that outside of the GVRD, the province still retains the structural maintenance of bridges, which the province does not do within the GVRD. I also want to point out that it's my understanding that the member should more appropriately be asking these questions of the Minister of Finance.

L. Reid: I'm sure that the Minister of Finance will be delighted by that, because she indicates that they are appropriately asked here. So I will decide how best to move back and forth between you both.

One of the definitions the minister referred to was "major bridge." That's problematic throughout this correspondence. Could the minister put on the record today the definition of "major bridge"?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I just want to clarify for the hon. member. If the member is talking about finances, it would come under the Ministry of Finance estimates. If the member wants to talk about the kilometres of roads and the criteria, that would fall under my ministry.

On the definition of major bridges. It started out that we had said that the bridge would have to cross a major stream, such as the Columbia River or the Fraser River. We have now included the Nechako River, and that would mean the municipality of Vanderhoof.

L. Reid: So we're going to make the assumption that "major river" also includes the Fraser. . . . So we're going to look at the Knight Street Bridge, within the riding of Richmond East.

Hon. H. Lali: The Knight Street Bridge would be a responsibility of the GVTA, as per the agreement. That's the primary reason why, outside of the GVTA, we're not giving to municipalities those bridges that cross those major streams.

[5:00]

Hon. H. Lali: The day-to-day maintenance of the bridge, such as sweeping and snow clearance, would become the responsibility of the municipality. Anything that has to do with the structural integrity of that particular bridge would come under the Ministry of Highways.

L. Reid: From what the minister just said, I would assume he's making that comment based on municipalities outside the GVRD. Is that correct? The minister is nodding in agreement. So within the GVRD. . . . Let's take the Knight Street Bridge as an example. The city of Richmond would be responsible for snow removal, and the GVTA would be responsible for bridge resurfacing and seismic upgrade, which I understand is in the works and required for the Knight Street Bridge.

Hon. H. Lali: We don't know what the GVTA would have in mind in terms of how it's going to be done. It's up to them to decide, starting in April of 1999.

L. Reid: So if this were 11 months from now, the city of Richmond would continue to be responsible for the Knight Street Bridge in the lead-up to April of 1999. Or will the current Ministry of Transportation and Highways continue to have responsibility?

Hon. H. Lali: This is actually a very complex issue. I would offer my staff to sit down with the critic, and however

[ Page 7951 ]

L. Reid: If the information is forthcoming, certainly the answer that I'm looking for is: who is responsible for, as an example, the Knight Street Bridge between now and April of 1999? If the minister wishes to come back to me at a future point, I am certainly happy with that.

One of the issues I raised earlier with the minister was the issue of snow removal. Let's take an example. Sidney has been given a cost of $10,000 per lane-kilometre, and Sparwood, which certainly has greater snow-removal needs, has been given a cost of $2,200 per land-kilometre. How has that decision been reached? What is the criteria around snow removal and highway devolution?

Hon. H. Lali: The ministry did not give those numbers related only to snow removals, so I don't know exactly what all of those numbers are referring to.

L. Reid: Certainly I'm more than prepared to put the question back on the record. Sidney has been given a cost of $10,000 per lane-kilometre for roadway maintenance, and for Sparwood, for the same per lane-kilometre, it's $2,200. The question I pose to the minister is that. . . . Frankly, it's a difference of $7,800, so it's a whole lot less where it doesn't snow. That's certainly confusing to the municipalities in question, and I'm wondering if there is some formula which would allow the cost of roadway maintenance in Sidney to be five times that of Sparwood, when Sidney does not have the snow removal responsibilities that Sparwood would have for probably five or six months of the year. I mean, I think that the snowfall in Sidney is an event that happens perhaps once a decade, as opposed to being a daily event. I believe that there needs to be some explanation on how these figures were reached.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: The numbers that we obtained were from the maintenance contracts that were already in place. Obviously it doesn't involve just snow removal; there are other complexities that have to be taken into consideration. Sparwood is a rural area, compared with Sidney, which is urban, and you have more electrical and traffic lighting issues in Sidney, which would also drive the maintenance costs up.

L. Reid: If I could have the minister, at a future point, flesh out that discussion for me. I appreciate what he has said in terms of electrical and street lights, but we are talking of a vastly different cost factor to maintain a roadway in Sparwood than to maintain a roadway in Sidney. So the explanation was weak. I would certainly be interested in receiving additional information and the formula that drives that. I can appreciate that they've looked at previous contracts and have simply brought those numbers forward, but it seems to me that snow removal would be a significant portion of the maintenance on the Sparwood highway devolution but would not be significant factor on the Sidney highway devolution.

Certainly the minister will agree that it snows mightily in Sparwood, and certainly he and I have probably both been on the bus when the planes could not fly. There has to be some recognition that those costs are not explained very well in the material. So if the minister could come back to me at a future point, I would very much appreciate that.

One of the minister's earlier comments was that highway devolution would not impact on communities of fewer than 1,500 people. It's interesting, but I think communities of 2,000 people are in no greater position to fund $30,000, $40,000, $80,000 or $90,000 a year. Those dollars will in fact be borne by property owners in their tax base; they have no other way to look at revenue. If the minister has some comment he might like to make in terms of revenue-sharing, I'm certainly open to that discussion. As it stands today, municipalities only have revenue from property taxes to pay for this off-loading.

Certainly he indicated that Logan Lake was no longer a discussion. Well, up till very recently, Logan Lake was looking at a tax increase in the neighbourhood of 6 percent -- an enormous cost. If he has somehow saved Logan Lake from that fate, I give him full marks. But the other communities that have come to me. . . . The town of Lake Cowichan has 2,800 people; the city of Merritt has 7,600; the district of Kent has 4,800; the district of Vanderhoof has 4,400; Logan Lake has 2,400; Qualicum Beach has 6,700; and the district of Port Hardy has 5,200. These are not large communities. The minister knows that those dollars will be borne by property owners, because there is no other funding source. Perhaps he has an explanation as to why the community size of 1,500 was chosen and can say if there's going to be some further discussion and enhancement of population numbers.

Hon. H. Lali: Kent, Lake Cowichan, Logan Lake and Burns Lake have all come off the list from the letter of April 3. I also want to point out. . . . I hope the member isn't in any way inferring that some of these have come off -- like Logan Lake -- because they happen to be in NDP ridings. I just want to put that on the record. This is not the case. Roads are being devolved to 16 communities which fall in NDP ridings, 12 in Liberal ridings, one in a PDA riding and two in an independent riding.

L. Reid: If the minister was correct in his earlier assertion that communities would not be affected if they had less than 1,500 people, the fact that Logan Lake is now not on the list. . . . There are certainly other communities of similar size. Lake Cowichan, I believe, is a similar size. Are we now up to a 2,500-person criterion? How did those ones get off the list, hon. minister?

Hon. H. Lali: Kent and Lake Cowichan came off the list because of the additional criterion that was added, which I read into the record, in terms of the traffic count. Obviously we had made an error on that one.

Logan Lake came off because of an error. I want to point out that in Logan Lake, ministry staff inadvertently informed the municipality that it would not be assuming maintenance costs. It would not have been fair to the municipality for the ministry to actually go back on its word and then say: "We're going to devolve to you." However, the status of Logan Lake's roads could be reviewed again at a future date. But I don't think the community's in a big hurry to come out and say: "We're going to do a traffic-count study on that particular road."

In Port Hardy we came to an agreement whereby we took back some roads and they took responsibility for other roads. I'm sure we've got a record of which roads they are. We don't have the actual names here right now, but we can certainly provide you with those.

In Burns Lake, the road had. . . . Obviously this is where we made a mistake. The road actually came through an Indian reserve, and that's one of the criteria.

[5:15]

[ Page 7952 ]

The minister makes the case that some agreements have been reached; I applaud that. My concern is still that these are very small communities. Five or six thousand people simply don't have the revenue base to accept this download, which I'm sure the minister would rather characterize as a windfall. But these municipalities are not accepting the contention that this is a gift. This is going to be an enormous annual cost. If the minister will kindly comment.

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of the size, after consultation the ministry drew a line at 1,500 and below as being the size of a small community. I ask the member opposite: if some of the communities that the hon. member mentions as being small communities are above the 1,500 mark, where does one draw the line? Is it 2,000, 2,500 or 3,000? Where does one draw the line? I would venture to say that if the line were drawn at 5,000, the opposition would say that it should be 6,000. And if the line were at 6,000, they would come back and say it should be 8,000. And I think they would have gone on. So the ministry made the decision that the line should be drawn at 1,500 and below.

L. Reid: I appreciate that the ministry has taken a decision. I was seeking the explanation as to why 1,500 was the magical number. I'm not clear that the minister has an explanation.

Hon. H. Lali: In consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

L. Reid: I will disagree vehemently with this minister when he talks about "in consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs." I have been in numerous briefings with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and they tell me that this project is exclusively in the hands of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They are not sharing that sense in any way, shape or form.

The minister referenced roadways through reserve lands, aboriginal lands. I ask the minister if I might draw his attention to the easement question. I'll give you an example. The tourist information area for Richmond sits on the north end of the Deas tunnel. It is on a highway easement. Who takes responsibility for that, and who will become the new owner of that property, which is home to a building currently occupied by Tourism Richmond?

Hon. H. Lali: Highway 99 is retained by the ministry, even with the GVTA agreement in place. If the tourism information centre, which I think the hon. member is referring to, is within that right-of-way, then obviously the province would retain the easement.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that. Certainly I haven't found tremendous reference to how other easements within the province will be handled, so if the ministry has some information they can share with me. . . . I believe there are more easements found in rural municipalities. The question will be whether or not highway devolution takes responsibility for easements, whether it's through aboriginal land or private land, or through access to lake country or to waterways. I mean, those easements are in place. I believe they have typically been maintained by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Will those easements be an additional burden placed on local municipalities?

Hon. H. Lali: We're not 100 percent sure, but if there are any easements, we can look into it and provide you with the info.

B. Penner: I'll begin by saying that the best news Chilliwack has received in a long time in terms of transportation improvements was announced yesterday. I'm referring to the latest instalment of the federal, provincial and municipal infrastructure program. Chilliwack will receive about $1.8 million for replacement of the Keith-Wilson Road Bridge. That's a structure that I've made reference to, in previous sessions of the Legislature. It's a bridge that provides an alternate route across the Vedder Canal, next to the Trans-Canada freeway. It provides an important backup link for the upper Fraser Valley, particularly in times of snowstorms and limited visibility.

I'm pleased that that project has been approved as part of the Infrastructure Works program. I'll state for the record that I'm grateful for the assistance provided by David Anderson, the federal senior minister for British Columbia. I met with him in Ottawa in February and spoke to his staff about this particular issue. I encouraged him to do everything possible to get the province to agree to participate in that program rather than allocating money for things other than transportation infrastructure.

I note that although Chilliwack did receive $1.8 million in total from that program -- that includes, of course, $600,000 from the district of Chilliwack itself. That's their contribution to that project -- $4 million went to a community centre in Burnaby, and $2 million went for a swimming pool complex in Nanaimo. I'm not sure if that really falls within transportation infrastructure; nevertheless, I'm sure that people in those communities will be pleased with those projects.

Moving to an issue that has already been touched on today, the issue of the downloading of responsibility for highway maintenance in British Columbia, there's one specific issue affecting the municipality in which I live -- the district of Chilliwack. The province has notified the district that they will now be responsible for maintaining the surface of 2.5 kilometres of Chilliwack Lake Road. Now, that's not a tremendous distance, but when you find out about the particular circumstances of that road, you realize that it's a fairly ludicrous position, I think, on the part of the ministry. While the 2.5 kilometres are in the district of Chilliwack, the vast majority of the road is not. The road is about 42 kilometres in length, from the Vedder bridge to Chilliwack Lake. The first 2.5 kilometres are, strictly speaking, within the boundaries of the district; however, no people live there. The people whom that road services live almost entirely outside of the district, in unorganized territory.

In addition, that 42 kilometres of road leads past trailer courts -- which are, as I've mentioned, in unorganized territory -- and to three provincial correctional facilities. Those correctional facilities are owned and operated by, and are the responsibility of, the provincial government. Furthermore, at the very end of those 42 kilometres of road is Chilli-

[ Page 7953 ]

Clearly that entire stretch of road serves the provincial interest. It doesn't do much to benefit the district of Chilliwack. Virtually none. . . . I'm almost certain that there are no people living within the district who are serviced by that 2.5 kilometres of road that the minister is now saying will be the responsibility of the district to maintain. I spoke with the mayor of Chilliwack this morning, and he says he's prepared to completely ignore the ministry's position because he believes it's ludicrous. I'll point out, for the benefit of those here, that over the last ten years, entire portions of those 2.5 kilometres of road have been washed out during floods of the Chilliwack River. That damage is still obvious today when you drive that section of road -- as I do on a regular basis; I was up there this past weekend.

So I'm going to ask the minister for some further clarification about that decision. There are no people living within the district who rely on that piece of road to get to Chilliwack. It's not an integral part of the district of Chilliwack's transportation infrastructure; rather, it serves a provincial interest. It helps people transport themselves to unorganized territory, to go to three provincial correctional facilities, as well as facilitate tourism up to Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park.

Hon. H. Lali: I thank the member for raising some of these issues. On the whole issue of the Canada-B.C.-municipal infrastructure program -- it's a three-way deal -- the member indicated he was very glad that that program is in existence. I agree with the hon. member. I also want to point out that the feds had to be brought in kicking and screaming in terms of the program, especially the initial one -- the last under the Harcourt administration -- where the total was for $675 million.

I also want to point out that the former Premier of the province, in his days on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, drew up the original plan along with his colleagues at that time. He went to Ottawa and said that there should be a hard infrastructure program put in place to deal with the water, sewer, road and sidewalk kinds of issues, because the municipalities were not going to be able to do it on their own. So I was really glad to see that the federal government, after 1993 -- even though they came in kicking and screaming -- participated within that particular program.

On the particular issues of the $1.8 million out of that fund for the Keith-Wilson Road Bridge, again, Mr. Anderson, who the hon. member praised, was also the individual who was holding up the announcements for the last number of months. This was after he had actually agreed to a specific program and then dug in his heels because he wanted $10 million spent in his own particular riding, which I think would not have been fair because it would have meant that communities such as Logan Lake and Hope, in my riding, and Chilliwack, in the hon. member's riding, would not have gotten their fair share. Obviously I'm very glad that Mr. Anderson finally came on board and that Chilliwack was the lucky recipient -- and all the more power to the hon. member, because I know he had raised that issue on several occasions.

On Chilliwack Lake Road, again, similar kinds of situations have been canvassed by other Liberal members in the last few hours. I want to point out that this is probably one particular case which would be primary for a traffic-count study on the specifics of washouts in the past. There are moneys available from the provincial emergency program; they will still continue to be available if that were to occur in the future.

B. Penner: I know it has cost literally millions of dollars in the past to repair the portion of the Chilliwack Lake Road that has been washed out during serious flooding in the Chilliwack River valley. Certainly the district of Chilliwack has expressed -- at least to me, if not to the minister -- their unwillingness to assume responsibility for that. So I appreciate the minister's clarification.

[5:30]

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

B. Penner: Hon. Chair, when I was in Ottawa, I was informed by staff that if it were not for the position of the federal government, Chilliwack would not have received anything for the bridge crossing at Keith-Wilson Road. That's why I made my previous remarks about the Infrastructure Works Program.

Moving on to an issue I've written to the minister about. I'm referring now to the No. 3 Road overpass on the Trans-Canada Highway, the intersection which takes you from the Trans-Canada Highway to the community of Yarrow. Strictly speaking, that's outside of the boundaries of the particular constituency that I represent. However, in the past year -- less than a year -- two individuals from Chilliwack have lost their lives at that overpass, essentially due to the same reason. On August 17, 1997, a gentleman whom I knew and who attended my church, Michael Head, passed away when his vehicle struck the concrete support structure that's immediately adjacent to the side of the highway as the road goes underneath the No. 3 overpass. Four months later, Constable Gerald Fortis, a 32 year-old gentleman with the Chilliwack RCMP, lost his life on Christmas Day when his police cruiser struck the unprotected concrete support structure of the No. 3 overpass.

The No. 3 overpass is particularly dangerous because the highway curves immediately underneath the overpass and the concrete support structures are immediately adjacent to the roadway. So if a person does lose control in that corner, there's no forgiveness; your vehicle will immediately strike the concrete support structure. There are no barriers in place on the inside of the eastbound lane, and that is the location where constable Gerald Fortis lost his life.

I wrote to the previous Minister of Highways in early January of this year asking for a review of that structure and asking whether there was something that could be done to place safety barriers in such a way that any further incidents would be minimized in their impact. I did receive a reply, dated April 30, from the current minister indicating that a review has been completed. I'll quote from the letter: "An impact-attenuation system will be installed on both the inside and outside shoulder piers, and breakaway bases will be

[ Page 7954 ]

In years gone by, the No. 3 overpass has been the site of other fatal accidents caused during serious snow and windstorms that we experience almost annually in the Fraser Valley. It appears, from the tone of the minister's letter, that it's the ministry's view that the existence of the No. 3 overpass -- or its current design -- contributes to wind disruption and the drifting patterns that are experienced on that section of the freeway in winter. First of all, I'd like to get the minister's comments about what specific impact-attenuation systems they're looking at. I presume that really means an impact-reduction system. I'll let him address the bigger issue about what can be done to reduce the visibility problems that the No. 3 overpass causes.

Again, this is a matter of public safety. Lives have been lost there in the past. I spoke to Mr. Head's mother at church this past Sunday. She's looking for some answers, too, as their family continues to overcome the loss of their son.

Hon. H. Lali: It is actually very, very tragic when accidents and injuries and fatalities occur. On the issue of the No. 3 overpass, staff have met with the RCMP and also with the ambulance attendant who was on the scene, and as a result of that there is the impact-attenuation process that the member talks about. I'd offer my local staff to talk with the hon. member to provide him with some of the details on this.

I also want to point out. . . . On the issue of the infrastructure program, the hon. member quoted me some figures saying that the B.C. Liberals hold 43 percent of the ridings and receive only 30 percent of the funding. He expressed some thanks for the federal Liberals and Mr. Anderson, and I would hazard to say that there's nothing that he needs to be thankful to the federal Liberals for. He may not like the NDP, but if you look at the federal Liberal record, they collect over $740 million in fuel taxes annually from the province of British Columbia and have contributed, on average, about $6 million a year for the last three years. This year they contributed only $8.1 million through the IWP 2 program. That's the lowest per capita highway funding of all of the provinces that comes from the federal government. That's highway robbery.

We're the only western country that is without a national highway program. I also want to point out that if Mr. Anderson and the federal Liberals had had their way, especial Mr. Anderson, that figure of 30 percent, which the hon. member cites, would have been much lower. It would have been closer to 10 percent. Mr. Anderson held up the entire announcement for many, many months because he wanted $10 million to go into his own riding. We dug in our heals, and I think it is a little over $2 million that is going into his riding. That $10 million would have represented NDP ridings provincially, so that figure would have been even lower if Mr. Anderson had had his way.

B. Penner: I'm sure Mr. Anderson's office will be pleased to respond to those comments made by the minister. But I will agree with the minister here in that certainly in recent years the community of Chilliwack has had very little to thank the federal government for. I am referring particularly to the closure of Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack, which has had a significant impact not just in my community. I think it's endangered the entire province, because we no longer have a land-based military force.

You'll recall the severe snowstorm that the lower mainland encountered not this winter but the previous winter. Where did the forces come from to help clear the roads and save people who were stranded and could have otherwise died during the cold? They came from CFB Chilliwack. Those people are not there today; they are in Edmonton -- probably about 20 hours away, at the quickest. That is assuming that travel on the roads is possible and that the roads are in good condition.

One of the things I've advocated in the past -- and I know the minister's been familiar with this -- is for the provincial government to take a look at how they can save taxpayers' money by utilizing Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. The minister has tried to characterize my comments as encouraging the provincial government to spend more money in my riding, when in fact the complete opposite is true. I've said before that only a member of the NDP wouldn't know the difference between saving money and spending money.

The provincial government has said that they're thinking of spending $100 million on a new technical university when an existing facility sits empty in Chilliwack. The minister recently wrote a letter to the Merritt Herald, dated April 22, 1998, where he makes a comment that I'm trying to get $200 million for the Technical University. Of course, I've never said that. The figure being discussed is $100 million, and I've said that the government should save $100 million -- not spend it. The minister went on to say in the same letter that I'm advocating $50 million for highways work in my own riding. I'm wondering if the minister could detail what that spending would be on -- if he knows what projects he's referring to.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member across the way said a lot of things that were not a part of this ministry -- talking about the Technical University and that. But I have heard the hon. member across the way rail against the provincial government in terms of spending -- in terms of the deficit situation and the debt control and how it should be lowered. He was on record, during the election campaign, to put into place massive cuts totalling $3 billion, including cuts to health care, education and other areas. If there's one thing that is consistent about the hon. member, it is his consistency about making those kinds of cuts.

But when it comes to specific projects in his own backyard, in the hon. member's own riding, he wants more money to be spent. He wants more money to be spent on a flyover on the Trans-Canada Highway, on specific infrastructure works types of programs and on roads and other Highways-related issues, as well as on a technical university. Indeed, if one were to add up all those figures, it would total in the hundreds of millions.

I want to point out that on the one side the hon. member talks a good talk when he's talking about the debt and the deficit. Then he turns around and, in the same breath, starts talking about spending more money in his riding. When asked, "Where would you identify some of those cuts? Where would those cuts be made? Where would you take the money?" he does not have an answer.

Not once have I heard the hon. member across the way make any suggestion as to where some of the money could be taken. I listed, in that particular letter to the editor that the hon. member mentioned, a series of specific projects that were in my riding, because the issue was in my particular constituency. I outlined them, and I outlined where the funding came from and how much the funding was on a variety of projects.

[ Page 7955 ]

Not once has the hon. member mentioned where the cuts would come from. But he talks about deficit; he talks about controlling the debt. Not once has he ever mentioned where the money would come from, but he has no problem asking for funding in his own riding, whether it's an issue related to education, an issue related to health, an issue related to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, or any other issue. But he wants that funding to be put into place. Well, hon. Chair, he can't have it both ways.

Noticing the lateness of the hour, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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