2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 2
[ Page 15107 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
The Speaker: Are there any introductions by members?
If I may, members, I'm very pleased to see that we have a group of grade 10 students from Westview Secondary School in Maple Ridge visiting the Legislature today. They're here today with their teachers, Ms. Thompson and Mr. Reid. Would the House please make them welcome.
Tabling Documents
Hon. H. Lali: I have two reports I'd like to table, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways business plan for 2000-2001 and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority performance plan for 2000-2001.
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: I want to call Committees of Supply. In this House we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In Committee B
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I've always argued that the As and Bs are counterintuitive, Mr. Speaker.
[1005]
The House in Committee of Supply B; P. Calendino in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
On vote 34: ministry operations, $297,814,000 (continued).
Hon. J. Doyle: If I could, hon. Chair, at the present time, I'd like to introduce two staff that I have with me -- Ian Forman from the Ministry of Finance, and Katharine Rowe from Forest Renewal to assist me today with questions that may be asked.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
The Chair: I recognize the minister
G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair, for almost promoting me this early in the day. It's good.
The Chair: I could see the potential.
G. Abbott: Thank you. The understanding we have is that we are going to proceed by agreement with a discussion of the forest worker transition program this morning and perhaps into this afternoon as well. I just want to confirm with the minister, first of all, that all the staff are present that are necessary in order to proceed with this discussion. Is that correct, minister? Yes, it is. So I'll proceed.
I think what I should do at the outset is set some of the background and the context of this issue as I understand it and of course invite the minister, in fairness, to correct those areas where, in his view, my understanding of it may be faulty. I want to set out the issue fairly dispassionately here and hopefully in a fair way so that as we begin, we have some common understanding of the issue that we're discussing.
The forest worker transition program, as I understand it, is a program that was initiated in 1996 and really got kicked off about mid- to late-1996. As its title suggests, the object of the forest worker transition program was to provide educational opportunities, training opportunities, for displaced forest workers who wanted to be trained for vocations primarily outside the forest industry -- for better or worse. We've obviously had some debates at the Select Standing Committee on Forests around the wisdom of training and educating people out of the forest industry, but that's not at issue here at all. We've had that discussion, and I don't propose to go back to it.
[1010]
The program commenced, and there were a lot of potential recipients of this program, a lot of clients. Over time, as I recall from our discussions at the standing committee level, something in excess of 10,000 have been involved in some respect in the program. One of issues which has dogged this program pretty much from its beginnings was whether the benefits of the program would be taxable. Of course, that's going to be the core of our discussion here today -- the issue of whether those benefits which came through this program would be taxable by Revenue Canada, now retitled the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. For convenience, I hope that we can work with the shorter term, Revenue Canada, as we discuss the agency over the course of time.
So the core of the issue was whether those benefits would be taxable by Revenue Canada. The problem was -- and again we'll go through the detail of this -- that rather conflicting messages were delivered from the executive of FRBC as to whether those benefits would be taxable. We'll be going through in some detail the documents, the evidence, around that particular issue here today. I have a lot of questions with respect to that. It's been a big issue for the IWA. It's obviously been a huge issue for the approximately 6,300 displaced forest workers who participated in this program, many of whom, it appears, were given the understanding that the benefits which they were receiving would not be taxable by Revenue Canada. From their perspective, they are today faced with the dilemma that they owe Revenue Canada -- the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency -- in some cases, several hundred dollars and, in the more unfortunate cases, up to several thousand dollars in taxes, as a consequence of this issue. So there are some grave concerns around this.
I think it obviously has to be a concern to all of us in this chamber that a situation like this occurred and continues to go on. I know the government has taken the position that this issue has been resolved. But from my perspective and certainly from the perspective of the many recipients of this program that I've heard from -- and I know the minister's office has heard from them too
[ Page 15108 ]
ter advised that an agreement-in-principle had been reached with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency around this issue. But it appears that the 6,300 displaced forest workers who participated here certainly have not bought into the notion that some kind of agreement has been reached and that they can somehow put this issue behind them; that certainly is the case.
Let me begin by asking the minister this. Of course, again I invite him to correct any of the context, which I may have incorrectly summarized. I want to ask the minister, with respect to the news release of March 29: is the agreement-in-principle with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency alone, or are there additional parties to that agreement-in-principle?
[1015]
Hon. J. Doyle: I would just like to -- something the hon. member raised regarding this program
G. Abbott: Was there any attempt to engage representatives of the 6,300 former participants in this program in the agreement-in-principle?
Hon. J. Doyle: No, there wasn't, because there were no recognized representatives of the group of people that you speak of.
G. Abbott: So when the press release was issued on March 29, the minister had no sense of whether the agreement-in-principle that had apparently been reached with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency would provide any solace or comfort to those displaced forest workers.
Hon. J. Doyle: Following up on the press release, I gave some stats yesterday, when we referenced this article here in the House. I have some new stats as far as how the people who were in this program feel. Between March 30 and yesterday, April 19, there were 264 calls to the FRBC office. Of these calls, 228 were from clients with questions about the announcement regarding taxes; they were given further explanation regarding the tax issue announcement. Of those 228 calls, only 5 percent, or 11 calls, had negative comments or feedback. The remaining 95 percent of the calls were positive. The vast majority of those clients have said that this agreement-in-principle meets their needs, and they are satisfied that Forest Renewal has responded to their concerns.
G. Abbott: So on the basis of 264 calls to the FRBC office between March 30 and the present, the ministry has concluded that this issue is behind the ministry, that everybody is satisfied -- or 95 percent of the folks are satisfied -- with this package and that you intend to move on. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: I as minister went as far as I could, within provincial jurisdiction, on this issue.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise whether the calls to the Ministry of Forests office in Victoria over the past two months with respect to this issue have also been monitored?
[1020]
Hon. J. Doyle: Calls were monitored at the Ministry of Forests office. Few calls have been received at the ministry office. If they did call the ministry office, clients have been provided with a dedicated toll-free line in Nanaimo, and that's where the calls were tabulated -- the ones I referenced a minute ago.
G. Abbott: The reason I ask is that during the tenure of the previous Minister of Forests, one of the assistants in his office suggested to me -- this would probably be about a month ago -- that there had been a horrendous number of calls to the minister's office and that in fact the tone of those had been overwhelmingly negative. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: There were approximately 500 calls received between November and March. Yes, most of the calls at that time were negative before the AIP was announced by myself on the 29th of March.
G. Abbott: So there were about 500 calls to the minister's office before the AIP and about 264 to FRBC after the AIP. The suggestion being made here is that the 500 calls made pre-AIP were probably running, I presume, around 100 percent negative, and after the AIP, 95 percent were positive. So the situation from the minister's perspective is that the balance has been reversed and that the great majority of the former participants in this program are satisfied with the AIP. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: The total of 500 calls that were referenced were mostly to FRBC. It is the opinion of the ministry and FRBC
G. Abbott: I want to explore with the minister for a moment the nature of the current discussions with the Canada Customs and Revenue agency. In another release -- I don't have it immediately in front of me -- I recall that there is some reference made to the end of April being some sort of pivotal date in terms of negotiations. Can the minister confirm that? And could he, at the same time, provide me with an outline of what remains to be discussed with the Canada Customs and Revenue agency?
Hon. J. Doyle: As far as the discussions on the agreement-in-principle that I announced on March 29 -- discussions between the B.C. government and the federal government -- the feeling is that we're 85 percent of the way to getting an agreement in place. The hope is that we will have it in place by the end of this month.
G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's response. So we're 85 percent of the way to somewhere. In the minister's view, where is that destination that we are 85 percent of the way to?
[1025]
Hon. J. Doyle: When I made the announcement at the end of March, it was an agreement-in-principle. We're 85
[ Page 15109 ]
percent of the way to getting that done so it could be signed off between the federal and provincial governments. We would have an agreement, not an agreement-in-principle anymore. So hopefully -- today is April 20 -- by the end of the month we would have an agreement.
G. Abbott: I just have to ask the minister to clarify this point, then. Are we 85 percent of the way in terms of the process that we are engaged in, or are we 85 percent of the way in terms of the content of the agreement which will ultimately be reached?
Hon. J. Doyle: We're 85 percent of the process that has been worked out between the two bodies -- federal and provincial governments.
G. Abbott: Thank you for the clarification. Then what's clear is that we are still engaged in a process of finalization of an agreement but that the content of that agreement will, in the final analysis, reflect the content of the agreement-in-principle as stated in the news release of March 29. Correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.
G. Abbott: I do want to briefly explore the character of that agreement-in-principle. The key provisions, as set out in the news release, are: "
Those are identified as the key provisions. Are there other provisions which are part of the agreement-in-principle but which are not stated in the new release of March 29?
Hon. J. Doyle: The province of B.C., through FRBC, will pay its share of the income taxes that are owing on the income support received by the affected clients. The province of British Columbia will pay an amount equivalent to 24 months' interest charges on the remaining eligible taxes. Forest worker training clients are responsible for paying the remaining tax and interest charges beyond the 24 months' equivalent.
The measures will not interfere with the clients' right to appeal the tax decision by Revenue Canada on income tax support.
G. Abbott: Essentially, what the minister has done is repeat or perhaps rephrase the two key provisions there. I would presume, unless there is a plan to get the former clients of the forest worker transition program to somehow sign off on an agreement, that it's not a provision of the agreement to say that the worker is going to pay the rest of the money that's owing. I would have to say that's simply an assumption on the part of the government. Is that a fair characterization of it?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.
[1030]
G. Abbott: So again, to try to set into perspective this agreement-in-principle, what we have is an agreement that the province will pay the provincial share of the income tax owing, and the province will pay to the federal government an amount equivalent to the interest charge on the balance of the tax debt for 24 months.
Could the minister define for me those 24 months and the rationale for setting them out?
Hon. J. Doyle: The rationale is to provide clients time to pay the federal tax without burden of interest charges and to allow clients to pursue an appeal with Revenue Canada without the burden of interest charges. The 24 months start from the time Revenue Canada assessed or reassessed taxes against income support.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what that date was?
Hon. J. Doyle: As to the date that the hon. member asked about, the date will differ as to individuals and tax year. For most clients who received dollars in 1997 and 1998, this would be around December 15, 1999. For 1999 clients, it would be April 30, 2000, and for year 2000 clients, it would April 30, 2001.
[1035]
G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that clarification. The thing that struck me about the agreement-in-principle when I saw it on March 29 is that it seems to be the kind of agreement where the minister and I agree that I will give the minister a million dollars, and he'll accept it. I think that is how I would characterize this agreement between the province and the federal government, because I see in this agreement-in-principle absolutely nothing in the way of the federal government doing anything. Is that a fair characterization of this agreement?
Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes. The opposition had asked us to go to Ottawa to negotiate the best deal that we could, and that's what we did. We could only act on areas within provincial jurisdiction, which was the provincial income tax, and that's what we took care of.
G. Abbott: I thank the minister for his frank response to my equally frank question. The other noteworthy aspect of the news release of March 29, at least from my perspective
Just so we're sure, what is being said here is rather than
G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Chairman, I'd just ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 15110 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want the House to welcome some visitors here from Vancouver. We have about 30 grade 5 students from St. John's School, their teacher, Mr. Brown, and some other adults that are accompanying them. They are from Vancouver-Point Grey, the riding of the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I would ask members of this House to make them welcome.
[1040]
Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no. The payment goes from FRBC to Revenue Canada. Revenue Canada will then issue a credit against each client's tax account and, if appropriate, issue a refund to the client.
G. Abbott: But the effect of all that is that FRBC is going to pay the provincial portion of the tax owing -- correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: FRBC will pay the provincial portion.
G. Abbott: So just to finalize this agreement-in-principle which, process-wise, we are very close to concluding, the guts of it are that the province is going to pay the provincial share of the income taxes owing through FRBC. And again, presumably through FRBC, the province will be paying the equivalent of the interest charged by CCRA for a 24-month period. In short, there is nothing in this agreement that has been extracted from the federal government in terms of concessions around this issue. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: The federal government, as far as what they have contributed, has waived the interest that could have been charged on taxes assessed for tax years 1997 and 1998. Also, the payments for provincial taxes and interest will not be a taxable benefit for the client by the federal government.
G. Abbott: The agreement-in-principle in some respects resembles the proposal which Revenue Canada made to Forest Renewal B.C. and presumably to the Ministry of Finance back in July of 1999. The one element that was mentioned at that point in time, as Revenue Canada agreed to go along with essentially the proposal that's been laid out here
[1045]
Hon. J. Doyle: No, Revenue Canada never asked the province to deduct and remit taxes at the source.
G. Abbott: I will strive over the course of this debate to find that particular document, because there certainly was some language in it which suggested that some things should change -- and the way that it did it.
Okay, I have found the letter. It's actually a letter of August 23, 1999, to Forest Renewal B.C., and it says: "The department would only accept this alternative with the understanding the amount is not recoverable from the employees and Forest Renewal B.C. will undertake to issue proper information slips in the future."
I guess the minister is right; it wasn't a suggestion about deductions at source. But has the suggestion from Revenue Canada around the issuance of proper information slips in the future been achieved, or was it achieved at that point?
Hon. J. Doyle: Revenue Canada asked that we issue T4A tax benefit slips, which we did issue.
G. Abbott: The forest worker transition program, as I understand it, ceased operation on March 31, 2000, so I presume that in some respects this is not an ongoing issue. But in terms of whatever training is currently being undertaken by Forest Renewal B.C., is there a lesson that has been learned here in terms of clearly offering to the participants in that program the opportunity to have deductions made from their cheques on an ongoing basis or clear advice that these are taxable benefits and that this problem of ambivalent, unclear or ambiguous advice is not a continuing problem with respect to Forest Renewal B.C. training programs?
Hon. J. Doyle: Revenue Canada considers the money to be bursaries, which are not subject to deductions at source. Revenue Canada has no mechanism to accept deductions even if we made them.
G. Abbott: That is with respect to the current ongoing programs under FRBC? The official nods yes, so I'm assuming that to be the case. We will not be seeing this issue popping up again in the future. Is that correct?
[1050]
Hon. J. Doyle: You're correct.
G. Abbott: I want to now look at some of the documents which the opposition obtained through a freedom-of-information application, which became public in January of 2000. The documents, in some cases, have been severed. And I expect that in some cases there may be relevant documents which the official opposition doesn't have access to -- period. Hopefully those gaps, whether severed or otherwise, will be filled out here in this discussion.
At any rate, I want to go back to the beginning and obtain from the minister the date at which grant funds were first expended in the forest worker transition program.
Hon. J. Doyle: Thank you for the question. As the member knows, his colleague the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove introduced a motion at the select standing committee which acknowledges a potential outstanding class action suit related to this matter. Out of respect for the courts and as directed by the member's motion, I suggest that we suspend the question of this matter until the conclusion of the court proceedings.
However, I am prepared to discuss the details of the agreement-in-principle announced on March 29 which addressed this motion. For the House's information, the motion that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove brought forth in the select standing committee on February 11, 2000, at 10 a.m
[ Page 15111 ]
conclusion of any court proceedings, such review to include, but not be exclusive to calling as witnesses representatives from Forest Renewal B.C., Revenue Canada and affected workers."
G. Abbott: I was certainly there on the day on which the member put forward that motion, and I can assure the minister that the motion was made out of frustration with the manner in which the Chair and the government majority on that committee were dealing with the issue of the day, which was about a dozen displaced forest workers -- who had participated in this program -- wanting to appear before the committee and wanting to get some answers.
Frankly, I think the whole notion that we have to set aside this discussion is irrelevant. The minister himself is obviously prepared to discuss this matter. We have raised it in question period in the House. The minister has issued news releases around it. I don't think there is any reason why the minister cannot tell me today when the first grant funds were expended from the forest worker transition program.
[1055]
Hon. J. Doyle: The motion that was made by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove did not result from activities at the meeting of February 11. The motion resulted from advice given by the Clerk of Committees, who advised that no part of the matter should be discussed while it is before the courts.
G. Abbott: I'll seek the guidance of the Chair here. Is there any reason why my question about the expenditure of funds from the forest worker transition program cannot be answered in these Ministry of Forest estimates?
The Chair: The Chair will permit general discussion where it does not actually interfere with a court proceeding.
G. Abbott: I appreciate that ruling. I also want to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that there is not a court proceeding underway. I presume that has some considerable bearing on our ability to discuss it. Is that correct, hon. Chair?
The Chair: Thank you for the information, member.
G. Abbott: Thank you. I'm gathering that at this point the Chair does not wish to offer any further clarification beyond that offered initially here.
The Chair: Yes, I think that the member does understand the Chair's position.
G. Abbott: Thank you for the clarification, hon. Chair. I will then go back to what is an utterly factual question, as I'm sure the Chair will agree, of what date the disbursement of funds began under the forest worker transition program?
Hon. J. Doyle: The first payments were made to clients on November 24, 1996.
G. Abbott: November 24, 1996, was the first expenditure. I would presume, based on that date, that there had been some discussion within the forest worker transition program about that prior to November 24, 1996. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: Matters that were discussed by Forest Renewal are a matter of public record, and the member is aware -- and has a copy of the public record -- of those events.
[1100]
G. Abbott: I don't find the minister's response to be a particularly useful, open or transparent response to the issue. FRBC, at a variety of points through the evolution of this issue, has issued news releases about it. Frankly, many of them have been of -- and I'll be generous here -- an ambivalent character. I think that it would be useful to have an informed and straightforward answer on this in this new era of openness and transparency.
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes, FRBC obtained professional tax advice in October, 1996, which indicated that funds should not be taxable.
G. Abbott: I appreciate the response from the minister. That's reference to the advice received by accounting firm Doane Raymond on October 9, 1996, and we'll discuss that shortly.
Obviously the issue of taxability was discussed. There is some question, though, around the recommendation of the director of the program with respect to deductions. Again, in terms of understanding the evolution of things here, one of the documents which I have very recently received is a chronology of FRBC regarding income tax issues of the forest worker transition program. Again, this is now on public record as a freedom-of-information document. It says:
"A critical question was posed to Mr. Cochrane" -- he's the program director -- "regarding the tax status of these supports. At that time, Mr. Cochrane was unable to confirm the matter, but stated he would be following it up.
"The program received its first funding on October 1, 1996. As it was starting from scratch with no facility, staff, policies or equipment, it was not possible to immediately offer much assistance other than to start a registration process and to provide a general overview of the program. "On October 16, 1996, Mr. Cochrane, now the contracted executive director for the forest worker transition program, advised the Vancouver centreThis is a chronology prepared by IWA Local 2171, dated December 3, 1999. Does the account of events as set out in the chronology reflect the reality around the taxation issue?. . . that the income tax issue had been unequivocally resolved and neither income support nor tuition was deemed taxable."
Hon. J. Doyle: The internal discussions with FRBC will be the subject of the class action filed against FRBC. So we would ask the House to respect the previous motion.
[1105]
The Chair: If the member is asking for the sub judice rule to apply here, it only applies if the matter is set down for hearing. Actually, the matter is a civil matter.
Hon. J. Doyle: With the committee that is referred to back on February 11, the Clerk was aware that a writ had been
[ Page 15112 ]
filed against FRBC, that FRBC had responded and that no hearing date had been granted when he gave his previous advice.
G. Abbott: I believe that the Chair's ruling with respect to this matter just shortly furnished is very clear. I think the question is entirely in order, and I'll ask the minister to respond to it.
Hon. J. Doyle: I ask the hon. member to repeat the question that he asked some minutes ago, if he could.
G. Abbott: The question which I posed was following a quote from a chronology prepared by IWA Local 2171 around the issue of the taxability of benefits. The final part of the quotation -- I won't go through the full quotation again -- was: "On October 16, 1996, Mr. Cochrane, now the contracted executive director for the forest worker transition program, advised the Vancouver centre
Hon. J. Doyle: No, the IWA account contains many functional errors, of which this is one.
G. Abbott: I'm not going to ask the minister to enumerate the many other factual errors that are contained in the chronology, if that is the way he chooses to characterize it. The issue, though, is -- and again, the question was -- whether the IWA's account of Mr. Cochrane's apparent response to the issue of taxation was that it had unequivocally been resolved. Fortuitously, I have the answer to the question as well, hon. Chair. One does occasionally ask questions that one knows the answer to, and this is one of those occasions.
We get the answer from a FRBC issue briefing note to the former Minister of Forests, dated December 9, 1999, which states in part: "There is no evidence on file that indicates that staff and/or contractors felt this issue to be 'unequivocally resolved' on October 16, 1996. To the contrary, contractors, including Don Cochrane, were advised to tell clients that, in the opinion of the accounting firm, the moneys should not be taxable, but that Forest Renewal was seeking confirmation of that opinion from Revenue Canada."
[1110]
So the question I have here is this. It says: "To the contrary, contractors, including Don Cochrane, were advised to tell clients that, in the opinion of the accounting firm, the moneys should not be taxable. . . ." Who was it that advised the contractors to tell clients that this was the case? Who was the who in that case?
Hon. J. Doyle: The who is Judy Pryce, comptroller.
G. Abbott: So Judy Pryce is advising the contractors that the issue has not been resolved, that an opinion has been sought from an accounting firm, Doane Raymond, and that, in turn, there is a hope that some resolution of that will be provided by Revenue Canada. Is that a correct summation of it?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.
G. Abbott: The first document, then, is the Doane Raymond document of October 9, 1996, in which G. Andrew Little, CA, a partner in Doane Raymond, responds to FRBC on the tax issue in part by saying: "As mentioned, these are our views only. I suggest that we approach Revenue Canada, taxation on a more formal basis to ensure they agree with our comments. To that end, I attach a draft letter, for your comments and approval, to obtain that confirmation."
What they were hoping to achieve, obviously, was a ruling that the benefits would not be taxable. Is that a fair summary of what was happening on October 9?
Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no. Based on legal advice, I do not wish to get into a further discussion of the internal discussions with FRBC while the matter is still pending before the courts.
[1115]
G. Abbott: While I appreciate the sensitivity of the minister and the embarrassment of this issue -- potentially -- for the government, the Chair has given a ruling on this issue. Nothing I have asked to this point has been anything other than what is clear from the factual record. Again, while it may be unpleasant, while it may be embarrassing, it is entirely in order. You may not want to answer the questions. It may not be something that furthers your case -- if this case should ever go to court -- but that doesn't get you off the hook. You're on the hook; you have to answer.
Hon. J. Doyle: The member who has been asking the questions this morning has himself noted that this discussion may impact on the suit. Therefore I choose not to answer those questions.
G. Abbott: The minister's response
Indeed, I think the minister is reluctant is to answer these questions. He's attempting to hide behind an entirely specious veil of legality, when the Chair has ruled -- and everyone knows full well -- that there is not a proceeding with respect to this at this point in time. We don't know whether there may be in the future, but there is not at this point in time. Again, I'm asking the minister to respond to my entirely factual question, which is very much a part of the public record already. I am merely attempting to get from the minister a confirmation about that. I ask the minister to respond to my question.
Hon. J. Doyle: I've said before that I choose not to answer questions on this matter.
G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, we are involved in the Ministry of Forests estimates. Whether the minister likes it or not, he is responsible for the programs and for the policies and for the procedures and for the actions of Forest Renewal B.C. This is a
[ Page 15113 ]
very important issue. There is no legal reason why the minister cannot answer this question. He can sit in his chair and attempt not to respond to my questions on this matter; it is going to be a very long and unpleasant day as a consequence of that.
I'll ask the minister again to respond to my very reasonable and factual question.
[1120]
Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. member across the floor, I have given my reasons for not answering those questions. The matter will be settled through the courts.
G. Abbott: The minister's response to my question was, "No," followed by: "I don't choose to discuss it further." So we'll move on to another question.
In the Doane Raymond letter of October 9, 1996, the final sentence of that from Doane Raymond says: "To that end, I attach a draft letter, for your comments and approval, to obtain that confirmation." That's dated on October 9. Can the minister advise -- approximately, at least -- on what date Forest Renewal B.C. responded with their comments and approval with respect to that draft letter?
Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. member, as I've stated previously as to legal advice, I choose not to answer that question.
G. Abbott: Could the Chair advise here, because -- it is perhaps only an intuitive sense -- I sense a long and quite unproductive day ahead of us. Would the Chair care to restate the Chair's opinion with respect to whether this matter is sub judice?
The Chair: The Chair reiterates its previous ruling that the matter is only sub judice if it has been set down for trial. It's the Chair's understanding that it is a matter that has not been set down for trial. However, the minister may answer in a manner in which he decides.
G. Abbott: So it's the Chair's understanding that through the balance of these Forests estimates for the year 2000 in this Legislature in British Columbia, if the minister chose to say, "I prefer not to comment on that issue," that would be a reasonable response to Forests estimates questions. Is that correct?
The Chair: Yes, it is up to the minister to answer questions in a manner that he wishes.
Hon. J. Doyle: If the member wishes to ask questions on AIP, I'm more than happy to answer them. Of course, other questions will come up with the Minister of Forests estimates, and I'll be more than happy to answer them. But in this case, based on legal advice, I choose not to answer this matter on the floor of the House until the legal matters are resolved. But I'm more than happy to discuss other items to do the estimates, as I should be.
G. Abbott: This is an important question. I actually appreciate the ruling that the Chair has made on the advice of the Clerks of the House, because I think it goes to the heart of democracy here. Any issue in any area of provincial jurisdiction can, at some point in time, become the subject of litigation. We all know that. If a minister chooses to hide behind the shield that someday, somewhere, someone may take umbrage with an action of the ministry and therefore take a civil or other action against the government, then presumably we can hide behind that shield for virtually anything.
[1125]
The minister has already stated -- and he was happy as heck, open, completely transparent with respect to this matter -- that between whatever dates it was, the last couple of weeks, 95 percent of the people contacting FRBC's offices were really happy with the settlement. Why, given that, are we saying: "Oh no, we can't answer that; it may end up in a court some day." It's not in a court now. The minister has said that 95 percent of the program recipients are really happy with this. Let's get on with it; let's explore these important questions.
So I'll ask again, hon. Chair, when the comments and approval of Forest Renewal B.C. were provided to Doane Raymond for their letter to Revenue Canada.
Hon. J. Doyle: It's not someday. A writ of summons has been filed; legal proceedings have commenced.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise of the date of the Doane Raymond letter to Revenue Canada?
Hon. J. Doyle: I will not be asked on that question, because it's part of following up on the answer I gave a minute ago.
G. Abbott: Does the minister not acknowledge that the date of the letter from Doane Raymond to Revenue Canada is not a matter of public record and should be?
Hon. J. Doyle: I think the member opposite has the date that we're speaking about in his files. But I am more than happy to discuss any item to do with the AIP that we announced at the end of March.
G. Abbott: It would seem to me that the content of the news release of March 29 is no more and no less an issue than the date of the letter from Doane Raymond to Revenue Canada. It's a letter. Again, this goes to the heart of the ruling by the Chair. How can your future legal position possibly be jeopardized by a fact which is part of a public record? That's the question, again. Think about this. I'm asking what the date was that Doane Raymond wrote a letter to Revenue Canada. It is a question of a purely factual nature, and if the minister wants to get up and say: "No, because of legal advice, I don't want to discuss that
Hon. J. Doyle: Chair, I'm asking you to ask the hon. member to pursue other matters, as I've made my position on responses to this matter quite clear.
The Chair: Thank you, member. The minister has clearly responded to this line of questioning that he does not choose to answer these questions for his reasons. So we would ask that you move on to another line of questioning, please.
G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, in line with your ruling, I'll certainly move on to another question. One of the issues
[ Page 15114 ]
which has puzzled me in looking at the documents that we received under the Freedom of Information Act is with respect to the lag that appears between October 9, when a draft letter was provided to Forest Renewal B.C., and I guess January of 1998, when finally it became clear that Revenue Canada ruled that these benefits are taxable. It seems remarkable, based on the documents we have
[1130]
Hon. J. Doyle: It's my understanding that the Chair asked you to pursue another line of questioning, not another question on the same matter that we've been discussing for the last while.
G. Abbott: The question, pursuant to that answer would be this: in the absence of a clear direction on this matter from Revenue Canada, why was it not assumed that the matter would be taxable, rather than assuming that it would not be? That is certainly one of the things that puzzled me as well.
Hon. J. Doyle: Chair, I have tried twice now to say that you have asked the member to ask another line of questioning.
The Chair: Again, member, the minister has chosen not to answer the question for his own reasons. Therefore I would ask that you move on to another line of questioning, please.
G. Abbott: Again, just to be sure here, hon. Chair, we do have the ruling that this is not sub judice and that questions are in order here. The minister may choose not to respond to them if he wishes. I'm certainly not going to ask the same question over and over again. But I expect that there are probably some of these questions that the minister might respond to, and there may be others that he would decline to respond to.
I hope, in fairness, given that we've now been discussing this matter for an hour and half, that the minister can just
The issue of why a worst-case scenario around the taxation issue was not assumed is relevant because of a couple of documents. One is a memo of January 2, 1997, which reads: "Would like clarification on client benefits. Are they taxable or not? Judy Pryce said to assume that they are not taxable. Barb suggested putting a warning with each paycheque to the client." My question to the minister is: was a warning put with each paycheque to the client?
[1135]
Hon. J. Doyle: I am not responding to any questions on this matter. However, I am more than happy to talk about items such as the agreement-in-principle.
G. Abbott: The relevant issue here is discussed further in a forest worker transition program memo of March 25, 1997. Again, I want to reassure the Chair that I am in no way prejudicing any future legal position of the province of British Columbia or the Minister of Forests in this. These are all documents which I can assure the Chair have been made available to all parties in this through freedom of information. There are no secrets here, frankly, so I'm very happy to ask these questions.
To reiterate the point about why worst-case scenario around taxation was not assumed, in this unit directors' account of March 25, 1997, it says: "Clients entering the transition program since December have not been advised that income support provided under the program could be taxable. Many of these workers have made career decisions based on the assumption that this income is not taxable."
That, it seems to me, would be a fairly clear description of the situation. The unit directors themselves are saying that clear advice has not been provided to the workers. Is the summary contained in the unit directors' meeting of March 25, 1997, an accurate portrayal of the real situation?
Hon. J. Doyle: I'll repeat the same answer I gave last time. I'm not responding to any questions in this matter, but I'm more than happy to talk about other items in the agreement-in-principle of March 29.
G. Abbott: The unit directors' meeting policy discussion goes on to say that this is the recommended action: "Forest Renewal B.C. should make a commitment to cover the tax payable by these workers. Barb Pley will prepare a rationale and options for covering these funds." That's March 25, 1997. Could the minister advise whether FRBC made the commitment to cover the tax payable? And were the rationale and options with respect to that prepared by Barb Pley?
Hon. J. Doyle: I said that I wouldn't be answering questions on this issue. But I said earlier on that 60 days after the court case, I'd be more than happy to have a briefing or discuss this issue fully at that time.
G. Abbott: Again, this question is of a purely factual nature. The unit directors' meeting account goes on to say: "Another consideration would be to include a comment in the letter of eligibility to clients that the income tax may be payable on income received under the program. Barb Pley is reviewing a letter that has been prepared by Peter Ferris to this effect." Could the minister advise whether the Ferris letter did go out?
[1140]
Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. member, I'll get back to my last answer. The official opposition and government, in the com-
[ Page 15115 ]
mittee in the other room in this building, agreed that 60 days after the court case there could be a full briefing on this issue; it could be fully canvassed at that time.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order. The committee is an entity of its own, and the committee decision has no bearing on the rules of this House whatsoever. Members in committee can decide to do what they want within that committee. What we're governed by in this chamber is past precedence over hundreds of years. Clearly, if the member is asking factual questions that don't have a bearing -- a potential severe and substantial impact -- on the court case, the minister is certainly more than free to respond to them. I hope he doesn't try to shelter himself by a committee of this House that has made a decision of its own accord. It has no bearing in this chamber whatsoever.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Proceedings in select standing committees have no bearing and should not have a bearing on matters in the House -- unless, of course, that's reported to the House.
Hon. J. Doyle: I will again say that I as Minister of Forests and the Ministry of Forests are more than happy
G. Farrell-Collins: What the committee may or may not have decided -- and it appears that that's in some dispute also -- has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the rules of this chamber -- none whatsoever.
The minister may choose to adopt a practice and an argument that he need not respond to questions, but there is nothing in the standing orders that defends the minister's position. He can take that position if he wants, but I can tell you that the member can continue to ask those questions as many times as he likes, in as many ways as he likes, as long as he's within the rules of the House. The minister can try to make up separate rules to protect himself from those questions, but the rules do not defend the minister's need to answer those types of questions. I would ask that the minister respond fully and openly to those questions, as long as he's not causing substantial harm to the court case that either is or is not before the courts at this time.
Hon. J. Doyle: It is my opinion that we came here this morning to discuss the agreement-in-principle, and I'm more than happy, as I've said more than a couple of times this morning, to discuss the agreement-in-principle as fully as the members opposite would like.
G. Farrell-Collins: We are here today to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, within the broad parameter of what those may be. From time to time, by courtesy, the members of the opposition will give indication to the government on what areas will be discussed. But there is no limit to those areas. If the minister is unprepared and doesn't have the staff here required to answer those questions, then that's one thing. But if they're here, then certainly the wide parameter of questions available are available to the members to ask -- and the minister is available to answer them. If he wants to somehow restrict that artificially for some reason that he's uncomfortable with, then perhaps he should describe that to us and see whether or not it's relevant.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I've just overheard parts of the point of order, and I think it may have implications for other debates in this chamber. Therefore I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of members opposite for a very brief recess so that I might consult with the minister, and we can get to the bottom of this matter and perhaps solve this problem -- if that's agreeable.
The Chair: I call for a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 11:45 a.m. to 11:53 a.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. D. Lovick: I chatted briefly with the Minister of Forests and his staff, and I understand that the issue is that the minister has been given legal advice that there are certain questions he ought not to answer. The opposition is, of course, entirely within its right and its purview to continue asking questions that it thinks are important, germane and fall within the purview of the ministry estimates.
The point, however, I am advised, is that the minister's staff are advising him that there are certain things that he cannot answer. You are allowed to answer in terms of factual-based information, and he will continue to do so. The point I would make, from a parliamentary procedural point of view, is just that of course the opposition has the right to ask all the questions it so wishes. But it is ultimately the minister's prerogative in terms of how those questions will be answered, and that becomes, of course, a point for legitimate debate.
I'm hopeful, Mr. Chair, that the minister will continue to answer the questions to the best of his ability. But I would simply ask the opposition to respect the fact that he has been given advice that he ought not to answer certain questions because of legal matters.
G. Farrell-Collins: I welcome the comments by the Government House Leader. However, I think the test is somewhat more severe than that. The test is that to answer a question or to discuss a matter that's before the court -- and in order for this House not to permit that discussion to take place -- there needs to be a "real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings."
[1155]
I obviously am not privy to the legal advice the minister is receiving. However, I think it's important that, from the debate that I've been monitoring, the vast majority of the questions the member -- from what I can tell -- is asking are mere factual questions that seek a factual answer. There should be no difficulty whatsoever; they're in the public domain. They're letters, etc., and will not prejudice, in any way that I can see, the case in any real and substantial manner.
However, if the member in his questioning stumbles across an issue that the minister believes would, in a real and substantial way, damage the proceedings that may be before
[ Page 15116 ]
the court, then I think it would be helpful to the House if he were to stand and say that and then limit the answer that he's going to make. Of course, when he makes that comment to the House, he should be mindful of the requirement for accuracy to that statement. It can't be used as a broad shield to avoid answering uncomfortable questions.
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't disagree with the points made by the member opposite. Indeed, I think the minister will be guided by that. However, I would clarify that we aren't talking here particularly about a sub judice instance; that's not the issue. To receive legal advice as a minister that one ought not to answer particular questions because one has received legal advice not to do so is not the same as a sub judice ruling. Let's recognize that there is a clear distinction between the two.
Having said that
G. Farrell-Collins: Again, I think the Government House Leader is expanding the scope. There is no requirement in this House at any time that a minister answer any question. However, he or she may suffer the results of that. However, to merely rely upon legal advice that it's inconvenient or uncomfortable or perhaps not in their best opinion that the minister answer the question is not sufficient reason to use this type of ruling. If the minister believes that something is a problem that will, in a real and substantial way, harm a case, then he should say so.
However, the legal advice the minister is giving is legal advice from a lawyer. This House is a court too; it's a high court. This House has the right to ask those questions, and the minister can refuse to answer them if he so wishes. But I might advise that if it becomes clear that the minister is using that as a shield to avoid answering difficult or perhaps embarrassing questions as a result of policy decisions the government has taken in the past, then it certainly provides an opportunity for the opposition to take the minister to task for doing just that.
Hon. D. Lovick: Now I'm really wondering what the point of this dispute is. The Chair hasn't issued a ruling saying that the opposition isn't allowed to ask these questions; that's not the point. Rather, the question is whether the minister is answering the questions. It seems to me, guided by precisely the point that the Opposition House Leader presents, that the debate can continue. I don't think there has been a ruling, nor is a ruling being asked for at this point. There may have been some confusion a few minutes ago, but there isn't now. The minister will continue to answer questions to the best of his ability, guided by the advice of his staff, and will, of course, suffer the consequences -- whatever those might be. I would hope that ends the matter of the point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: It ends the matter, with one exception. The fact is that the member who has been asking those questions
The Chair: The Chair would like to clarify that I asked a member to move on if he would, in favour of avoiding repetition. Of course the member is free to ask the same question as many times as he chooses.
[1200]
Hon. J. Doyle: I have great respect for this House and its deliberations. I've been here nine years. I'm more than happy to answer questions, as I should be as Minister of Forests, on items to do with my ministry. But based on legal advice that the ministry has
The Chair: Noting the time, member.
G. Abbott: Noting the time is an important point, but I hope this one is as well. I have great respect for this House and the institutions of government as well. I think there are some critical public policy issues that have to be resolved around the forest worker transition program. We can't use the shield of some possible future legal action to decline to discuss important public policy issues. I think that what I've just said is actually consistent with what the Government House Leader has said -- that important public policy issues need to be discussed in here unless there is some overt, obvious, overwhelming reason why it would prejudice the legal position of the Minister of Forests.
Hon. J. Doyle: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
On vote 46: ministry operations, $464,471,000.
[ Page 15117 ]
The Chair: On the vote.
Minister, before you start, could I get you to introduce your staff for the purposes of the Hansard record. And then the floor is yours.
Hon. H. Lali: Thank you. Sitting to my right is Blair Redlin; he's the CEO and president of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Sitting behind me to my left is David Marr, the executive director of program development and monitoring. Mr. Frank Blasetti, immediately behind me, is the senior vice-president of project development and implementation. Sharon Moysey, to my right behind me, is the executive director of management services and is also the corporate secretary. With us also, in the gallery, is John Doyle; he is the director of communications. Beside him are Elaine Galbraith and Brenda Bulmer; they are both executive assistants and are responsible for putting together these binders, and a great deal of work went into that. At this time, hon. Chair, I'd like to thank you. We're here once again with our estimates. I also want to give my greetings to the hon. critic across the way.
The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are continuing to seek new efficiencies to ensure that B.C. gets the best value for our transportation dollars. We will not be undertaking any new major projects this year, but we are continuing a number of ongoing works. In 2000-2001 we are not just concentrating on main routes. Our highway dollars are widely disbursed. Many will go towards secondary routes that directly benefit rural communities.
I would like to touch briefly on a few highlights for the coming year, and I look forward to answering members' questions in a few minutes. In the coming year the BCTFA and the ministry will undertake a capital investment program to address B.C.'s highway infrastructure needs. Our $485.5 million capital plan will not only protect our road assets but will also help to develop regional economies, such as agrifood in the interior, oil and gas in the Peace and tourism and service industries across the province. Many of this year's projects continue the good work arising from community summits in Prince George, Kamloops, Castlegar and the Cariboo and, most recently, the summit held in Courtenay for Vancouver Island and coastal communities.
Other proposals for this year's workplan came from local governments, from business and also from industry. As part of a broader partnership, this year we will embark on the third year of improvements to address deteriorating infrastructure in the north, particularly in the Peace River region. In 1997-98 the province had allocated $23.5 million for capital works on highways in the northern regions of British Columbia. This year we are investing almost $110 million in this important region. That level of investment will rehabilitate secondary roads, side roads and resource roads -- works designed to support the economies of our northern communities. It will improve safety and driving comfort for individual communities, area residents and also tourists.
[1015]
B.C. is also moving to support the growth of our increasingly important northern oil and gas industry. We have launched a five-year program of investments to support the oil and gas industry in communities in northeastern British Columbia. Over the next few years the province plans to invest a total of $100 million directly into road and bridge works that service the oil and gas industry. Those funds will be allocated to projects that will give government a direct return on that investment in the form of incremental royalties, provincial sales tax and land sales. In northwestern B.C. the seven-year program of upgrades for the Nisga'a Highway to the Nass Valley is entering its second year. It will provide much needed year-round access to remote villages and will open the area up to new investment industries and tourism.
Moving on into the Kootenays, I would be remiss not to mention our Kootenay Lake ferry project underway in Nelson. The new 80-car, 250-passenger ferry, the Osprey 2000, is being built at a temporary site in Nelson using skilled tradespeople from the local area. This project is on time and also on budget. Water trials and crew training will start by the early summer.
From the Kootenays to the west coast, we are paying particular attention to the Trans-Canada Highway corridor. The management plan for the Cache Creek to the Rockies section of that highway has been developed over the years. The plan has helped set investment priorities for the route. We intend to start on the most urgent of these priorities this year. I will announce a series of improvements on this corridor in the coming days.
Moving to the lower mainland, there are a number of worthwhile projects underway this year. This year we will see the completion of the Lions Gate Bridge project; that will provide motorists with a wider, safer and more reliable crossing. In addition, the BCTFA will continue its important partnership with the Vancouver International Airport to construct a new crossing of the Fraser River for improved access to the airport.
This year we'll also see progress on two other projects that involve the BCTFA and municipal partners. In Langley a new interchange will be constructed at Highway 1 and 200th Street with the township of Langley. At Mount Lehman Road and Highway 1 the city of Abbotsford will team up with the TFA to build a new interchange there. The Port Mann Bridge project will continue, including seismic upgrades and the addition of a fifth lane for eastbound HOV traffic.
The Vancouver Island Highway will also be the scene of continuing activities this year. The start of construction on the last length of highway connecting Courtenay and Campbell River was celebrated this February. The Miracle Beach connector construction began this month. Both will open in 2002.
For the BCTFA the year ahead will be continuing work on partnerships projects with municipalities, private developers and other government agencies. Through its partnership initiatives, the BCTFA is able to develop a new transportation infrastructure in a highly cost-effective manner.
Maintaining our highways is also important. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates it will invest close to $314 million in payments to maintenance contractors this year. This will create more than 5,000 direct and indirect private sector jobs. Under the auspices of the road and bridge maintenance accord that was signed last October, we have completed negotiations with interested contractors to extend existing contracts for three years. This move will save up to $25 million over five years. Once all the contracts have been signed, the details will be made available.
This fiscal year the ministry is spending over $33 million to improve our existing highway and bridge infrastructure. The BCTFA is investing a further $146 million for preserva-
[ Page 15118 ]
tion, replacement and minor capital improvements throughout the province. This year's rehabilitation program in B.C. will improve the service of 2,310 lane-kilometres of road. This will include projects such as resurfacing Highway 16 between Tête Jaune and Robson Park and Highway 3 from Wardner to Kikomun Road. Bridge works include projects such as the replacement of the Gates Creek Bridge in Pemberton, the Doyle and Glover Creek bridges on Highway 4, the Wabi Bridge on Highway 97 near Chetwynd.
[1020]
A seismic retrofit program continues this year, with about $8 million going to ensure bridges on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island can withstand a serious earthquake. This work will include seismic upgrades on the Pitt River Bridge in Port Coquitlam, the Mission Bridge in Mission and the Nanaimo River Bridge on Vancouver Island.
Finally, the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles is now entering its third year of operations. The superintendent's office sets standards for driver medical fitness and with regard to dangerous drivers.
Hon. Chair, I am proud of the program that we have laid out for this year. It will create jobs and bring new opportunities to communities throughout our province. I will be pleased to answer any questions from members.
The Chair: Richmond Centre, on vote 46.
D. Symons: It's interesting. I usually respond to many of the opening statements. Rather, I think today I won't take the time to do that, because I believe every member who is elected to this Legislature very quickly begins to learn the importance of the highways and transportation system in British Columbia. Certainly we have no argument over the opening comments that the minister has made. Some of our concerns might be on the way the programs are developed, rather than the actual programs themselves.
I would like to start off, then, discussing issues relating to the Transportation Financing Authority, which has become, over the years, a major funding source for much of the work that's done by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I note that this year the TFA will be financing approximately $465 million of highway projects or related projects in the province for this coming fiscal year. Last year it was $490 million. So over those two years we have close to $1 billion that has been spent through the TFA, or funding that has come through the TFA, rather than through the consolidated revenue fund, for these highway projects. The received dedicated revenue from the sources that have been given to the TFA for that was $170 million last year, when there was a 3-cents-a-litre fuel tax. That fuel tax has now been increased in this budget to 3-1/4 cents, so they will now get a little over $200 million this year.
I am wondering if the minister might be able to give me any other revenues, besides the gas tax and the car rental fee, that the TFA has dedicated to it. Are there other revenue streams or other moneys that come into the TFA to help finance these projects?
Hon. H. Lali: We also generate revenues through land sales -- about $2.6 million net. Through partnership projects, it's a half-million dollars -- Mount Washington, for instance. Also, with third party partnerships on the Mount Lehman, there was about $20 million raised there -- Mount Lehman-200th Street. In '97-98 there was $10 million on the sale of Ballard shares.
D. Symons: A question I was going to bring up later was on the sale of Ballard shares. I wasn't sure if they have been sold or not. Have you retained some of those shares? Initially I think you put about $8 million into Ballard shares, and knowing the way the shares have gone, you realized quite a profit on that -- or quite a capital gain would be the proper term to use. How many of those shares have you sold? How many have you kept for future investment?
The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, I'll remind Committee A that it is your committee, and the rules that the House has adopted is that debate will go through the Chair.
[1025]
Hon. H. Lali: Through the sale of 169,000 warrants we made $11.8 million. Today the TFA is holding the remaining warrants, valued at $4.1 million on March 22, 2000. Sorry, the actual profits on the sale of the 169,000 warrants was $10.5 million, not $11.8 million.
D. Symons: Not a bad profit. The reason I was asking this question is that if we look at excluding those that are
We find that the revenues that you have annually for the TFA run about 40 percent of the spending the TFA does each year. I'm looking at the consolidated revenue fund. This is what you primarily dip into to get your funding. In a sense you're getting it from gas tax that's dedicated to the TFA. They've increased that now to 3-1/4 cents. We also have other people that are now dependent on the fuel tax around the province for their funding. There's 1-1/4 cents per litre that goes to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. There are 8 cents and a sizeable portion of the gasoline sales that take place now going to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. We have those other pressures on the fuel tax as a source of revenue for operating or paying for different services around the province.
I'm wondering how long the Transportation Financing Authority will be able to keep going back to the government and saying: "Give us another half-cent or cent or so on the fuel tax." Eventually you're going to run dry in that. Is there a cap on the debt that the TFA may have? Is there a limit to the times that you can keep going back and getting more of the fuel tax dedicated?
Hon. H. Lali: Certainly now we have enough to pay for our expenditures. In the future government can determine what level to set that at. The capital expenditure limits are set by government, through the Treasury Board, as part of the financial management plan every year. But there is no statutory kind of a cap if that's what you're looking at.
D. Symons: I wonder whether there was the potential for some of the problems that B.C. Ferries ran into with the fast ferry project, where spending kept going and there were caps, but they had to keep moving. You don't have a cap per se put on what you can do; you just simply look for approval each year. But there is no figure set, I would gather from your answer.
[ Page 15119 ]
I wonder: does TFA, separate from the Treasury Board or anything, have a debt management plan or a fiscal management plan as such? It didn't seem to be part of your
[1030]
Hon. H. Lali: As the hon. member knows, future governments set the future limits for the capital plan. It's done on a year-to-year basis. If the member is looking for some sort of a future five-year plan for limits and that, it's obviously not available. The Treasury Board does that on a year-to-year basis. But there would be no problem for us this year in terms of the comparison that the hon. member made to B.C. Ferries. We were able to actually look after it handsomely on a year-to-year basis.
D. Symons: I guess either I was unclear in the question I asked, or there was an avoidance of answering the question I asked. That was: does TFA have a fiscal or a debt management plan? Would that plan, then, be available to members of this House?
Hon. H. Lali: There was some misunderstanding, not an avoidance. Yes, we do. We will share it with the hon. member.
D. Symons: I thank you, and I look forward to seeing that.
Over what time period is the Island Highway to be amortized?
Hon. H. Lali: Over 40 years.
D. Symons: Now, if we assume that interest rates don't go through the roof, what amount are you projecting will have been paid for principal and interest by the time that debt is retired 40 years hence?
Hon. H. Lali: All of it.
D. Symons: I'm looking for an amount of money with a dollar sign attached to it.
Hon. H. Lali: The project is $1.2 billion. All of that plus the interest will be paid off in 40 years. Obviously we can't have a projection of what the interest rates are going to be five, ten, 20 or 40 years from now, but certainly the principal plus the interest is what it would be.
D. Symons: Surely when you're entering into a program that's a billion dollars in size, and you're going to pay for that program through debt payments and amortizing the principal, you project into the future as to the costs of that. Because you have to decide the business of whether you're going to pay it up front and not have those extra costs -- or the best way of financing it and completing the project. Surely you must take that into consideration and have a figure, making some assumptions, which might change due to interest rate changes. Surely you've made some assumptions and come up with a rough cost of what that highway will be when the debt is finally paid.
[1035]
Hon. H. Lali: We don't separate by projects. Rather, it's the entire plan of the TFA that is taken into consideration, including the short-, medium- and long-term debt. On the long- and short-term borrowing, the rates for the new and the floating-rate debt seem to be 7.1 percent and 5 percent, respectively. We also get advice from the provincial treasury on all of this.
D. Symons: In a sense, you have sort of a rolling horizon, I suspect, on your borrowing and debts. Your borrowing and paying off and what not are all moving along at a given rate. Maybe I could rephrase the question. I think you have about a $1.7 billion debt at the current time. If we take that debt that you're now paying off, could you give us an idea of what that's going to accumulate to over the 40-year period that you seem to be amortizing? Forty years is a long time, and even small rates of interest over that length of time begin to add greatly to the final cost of the project.
You just have to think: if you have a 30-year mortgage on a house, after those 30 years you end up paying, really, two and a half times the cost -- and that's staying at a 5 percent rate -- of paying for the house with cash, if you could pay it up front. I'm curious now. Over a 40-year horizon, that figure begins to grow exponentially. Have you no idea, for the expenditures that you're doing now, of what the final costs -- since these are being debt-financed -- are going to be for those projects? It appears from what you're saying that you have no idea what it's going to cost in the long run.
Hon. H. Lali: Obviously we can't predict the future for interest rates. We have approximately a $2 billion debt, and the annual interest payments on those completed projects is $106.7 million. We get our advice from the provincial treasury, which wants us to have the fixed and floating rates. Actually, 70 percent of this is locked in, and 30 percent is floating. The hon. member says that in the future, because of debt financing, we are going to be paying for these costs over the next 40 years.
But he must also recognize that there are many, many advantages and benefits that are accrued by building our infrastructure today in terms of helping to move the economy of this province, whether it's the oil and gas up in the northeast, the agrifood industry in the Okanagan, the logging industry or people just trying to access health and educational facilities. To try to compare the long-term debt and the debt financing, you have to take a look at the benefits of the infrastructure that is put in place as well.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for the answer. I'm not disagreeing that spending money now can certainly have a financial benefit over a period of time through the spinoffs that happen because of the infrastructure you put in. But I would also think that somewhere along the line, it would be fiscally responsible that you do a comparison between various ways of providing that infrastructure and various ways of paying for the infrastructure. One of them would be to determine, if you are going to do it through debt financing, how much that's going to cost.
We will have a problem, I think. This is the concern I've been leading up to. We will have a problem. Right now you have about $2 billion worth of debt. You're working on a 40-
[ Page 15120 ]
year horizon, so between now and 30 or 35 more years, you're going to be increasing more debt because you have to do more capital spending over that period of time. You can't say: "Well, we've achieved a certain cap" -- as I was asking about earlier -- "and we just won't do anything from this point on."
[1040]
You're going to have 35 more years of paying the debt we currently have, plus all the other debt that we're going to be accumulating in those intervening years. Somewhere along the line you'll reach a plateau, where the money going out
Hon. H. Lali: One has to pay for the infrastructure one way or the other. I think the hon. member knows that leaving some of the expenditures for a later date will obviously magnify the costs that will come the way of the ministry and the TFA. The auditor general does not support highway spending or spending on other long-service infrastructure being expensed as it is being incurred. As a result, the province is capitalizing the assets, and this better matches costs with the period over which benefits are received. It's a well-established policy for measuring financial results. While this concept is new to the public sector, it is routine in the private sector. We pay when the benefit of the project is being accrued.
D. Symons: We'll move to a slightly different topic. I wonder if the minister might give me the
I'm wondering if you could give me the total that's now in the sinking fund that you've had -- not just for this year -- and also the net capital debt that the TFA is presently carrying.
Hon. H. Lali: The total in the sinking fund is $73.2 million. Also, at the end of '99-2000, the net capital debt is $1.83 billion.
The Chair: Member for Okanagan-Penticton on Bill 46 -- or vote 46, rather.
R. Thorpe: I was going to say, hon. Chair, that we're moving along quite quickly here, aren't we?
The Chair: Well, summer is coming, members.
R. Thorpe: Is that a sign of how many more bills there are to come?
The Chair: No comment.
R. Thorpe: With respect to the performance plan, could the minister please advise what the current status is within BCTFA -- the current status of the implementation of the enhancing accountability for performance initiative and the accountability matrix.
[1045]
Hon. H. Lali: The 2000-2001 performance plan is the most up-to-date summary of enhancing accountability for performance. I'd just like to read:
R. Thorpe: From that answer, unless I missed something, is it fair to conclude that you're really just starting performance measures now? When I look through this performance plan, I have a hard time"Overall, the BCTFA is well positioned to respond to the requirements of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Many of the functions of the organization were established to ensure that capital investment in British Columbia highways takes place according to a best-practices approach -- one that assures accountability.
"The strategic goals of BCTFA capital investments will be measured in terms of the combined transportation, social and economic benefits they achieve. This includes benefits during and after construction.
"Specific details of how the outcomes of individual initiatives will be measured against specific performance criteria will be developed on a program and project basis and will be elaborated on in the next year's performance plan. Regular reporting of the actual results will be included in the BCTFA's annual report."
Hon. H. Lali: Regarding performance measures, since '96-97 performance measures have been reported in the TFA quarterly financial reports and also in its annual report, with year-to-year comparisons where they're applicable. Table 14 outlines the performance measures established from the BCTFA in conjunction with the Crown corporations secretariat. Some of the examples that were done
All the other ones I'm going to read out are annually as well: gas tax revenue as a percentage of total revenue; total revenue as a ratio to the current portion of debt; proportion of projects completed this fiscal year as scheduled and on budget; proportion of capital expenditures by delivery method -- for example, day labour, design build, design tender, etc. -- and performance of innovative delivery methods and processes relative to a traditional approach. There are a lot more on this list, but we've been doing this either quarterly or annually.
[1050]
D. Symons: I request that the minister make available to me the list of things he mentioned -- the reports and so forth -- that come out in various time frames, so that we might be able to avail ourselves of those reports when they do come out.
Hon. H. Lali: Okay.
R. Thorpe: If this in fact is the 2000-2001 performance plan, then why are the specific performance measures that you're going to measure yourself against during the coming year not included and detailed in this plan?
[ Page 15121 ]
Hon. H. Lali: It's not reporting on the past but rather how we're projecting into the future. In terms of improving safety, the success of these strategies will be measured on a sample basis against performance criteria established for selected projects. The proportion of projects completed this fiscal year as scheduled and on budget will also serve as a performance measure. Also, in terms of increasing cost-sharing, overall performance of this strategy will be measured by indicators such as employment creation, actual production or commercial activity, financial results compared to forecasts and projections, and amount of infrastructure realized relative to the amount of BCTFA funding commitment.
R. Thorpe: Maybe because these are the first estimates to get going here
Are there specific performance measurement goals that you have established now with respect to your business plan for the year 2000-2001 -- yes or no?
Hon. H. Lali: In this document, we have the nine performance codes that are listed on page 5. In each case, we also pinpoint in here how we're going to do that. At the end of each one of these subsections, if the hon. member would turn to page
It's the same thing with the economic and employment benefits. It tells you in this document what the performance measures are going to be for each one of those goals."The performance of strategies to increase BCTFA's cost-effectiveness will be measured by assessing the performance of innovative delivery methods and processes in comparison to the performance of traditional approaches, as well as the proportion of capital expenditures itemized by delivery method. All projects will be examined in the light of authorized capital budgets and expenditures, broken down by program."
[1055]
R. Thorpe: Well, in fact, it doesn't say that, and it doesn't show that. If, hon. Chair through to the minister, you were serious about complying with the bill before the House and in fact with the deputy ministers' matrix on accountability, you would know that you should have clearly established what you're going to measure yourself against before you start down the road. That's why it's called performance measures.
So my question, through the Chair to the minister, is: do you have a list now of predetermined performance measures you're going to measure your organization and some of your projects against? Do you have those performance measurement criteria in place now, so you can measure your performance -- yes or no?
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, in the debate that happens, "through the Chair" is the way I would suggest a sentence be phrased. Rather than "would you," it would be "would the minister." That's how it works. I have chaired this committee for some time in the past. That's the protocol, the standing orders and the rules of the House and as the members' rules require. I would ask that those rules be respected in this House.
Hon. H. Lali: We have been doing this for many years. This is a summary document. I think what the member is looking for is on a project-by-project basis. We're doing about 500 projects. Obviously you can't list 500 projects with the performance targets in a small document such as this. So we have been doing it. If the member wants it for individual projects, that's available, but certainly not in this particular document, which is a summary document.
R. Thorpe: I appreciate your guidance earlier. Yeah, it would be great if the minister could provide that information to us on a very timely basis. What we are really trying to do here is
Also, with respect to strategic goal No. 7, could you please expand upon the public-private partnership in how you look at that, what you are assessing and where you are going in the coming years?
[1100]
Hon. H. Lali: We are trying to make better use of our land assets. We do value engineering and also value analysis. We are trying to measure the success of the public-private partnerships as well, through indicators such as employment creation, actual production or commercial activity, financial results compared to forecasted project projections and amount of infrastructure realized relative to the amount of BCTFA funding commitment. We are also using a design-build-develop processes here as well.
R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could advise
Hon. H. Lali: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Again, I would appreciate getting that sooner rather than later. You know, I don't like to get all this mail in July and August. The month of April or May would be good.
Just in that, hon. Chair, through you to the minister, do you see -- and perhaps you do, because it's one of your seven strategic goals -- as we move forward, that public-private partnerships will become an increasing part of doing business in the things that you folks do?
Hon. H. Lali: Most definitely. We have capital constraints, and we can end up building more infrastructure through the use of P3s.
R. Thorpe: Just one last thing. I want to just make sure I heard the minister correctly. I believe the minister said that because of capital constraints you believe this is the way we have to move. I just want to make sure I heard that correctly.
Hon. H. Lali: That's correct.
[ Page 15122 ]
D. Symons: Just going back to what we were talking about before on strategic goals, on page 5
So you have a percentage now that's that; do you have a percentage figure that you hope you will have achieved a year from now and another percentage point shift for that two years from now? That's what we're sort of asking for: besides the fact that you have these goals, do you have benchmarks so that each year you can see whether you are moving toward that goal, whether you're standing still, or indeed whether you're falling back?
[1105]
Hon. H. Lali: We're not trying to put into place a certain figure or a percentage of what we're going to do. We do it on a project-by-project basis -- complete one and go on to the next one. But we are beginning to see an upward trend in the use of P3s. It's building projects all over the lower mainland. It's working out quite well so far, so we're seeing that upward trend continue, and that's one way to do projects in the future.
D. Symons: I'm gathering, then, through the Chair again, the answer about having benchmarks to measure your progress by
Under the capital assets expenditures in the estimates book, schedule D1, for TFA there's the $485.5 million for roads, bridges and ferries, but also there is another column there that says $16 million, and its labelled under "Other." So I'm wondering what those expenditures might be for -- the major ones; I don't want the small ones. The major portion of that $16 million that's labelled as other than roads, bridges and ferries -- what might that be?
Hon. H. Lali: That $16 million is an estimate of the amount that we feel
D. Symons: This is money you are carrying forward from the last fiscal year into this fiscal year, and it will then go for roads, bridges and the other good things that were mentioned in the $485 million.
C. Dansereau: Yes.
D. Symons: Thank you for that clarification.
In the estimated summary accounts on page 4 of the estimates book, TFA had a $3 million surplus in the year that has just passed, but it's estimating a $1 million deficit in the coming fiscal year. If that's the case, then I'm wondering whether this slight quarter-cent lift in your revenues on the fuel tax sounds like it may not be enough, if indeed you are going to end up with a deficit at the end of the year. Are you going to have to go back to that consolidated revenue trough of the fuel tax and ask for more before very long?
[1110]
Hon. H. Lali: That was a very conservative assumption that was made in the budget document, but according to our board, we are going to be working toward a surplus of $790,000. That's the target that we are going to be aiming for.
D. Symons: It's interesting that the plan you are working toward and the plan that's in the recently released blue book estimates documents
Does the Transportation Financing Authority have a major projects planning horizon? And how many years is the horizon that you're working on for your major project planning?
Hon. H. Lali: It's 20 years for the investment strategy, but if there are specific projects, we do that on a year-to-year basis.
D. Symons: I wasn't looking at the investment strategy. I was looking at
If you're looking at a 20-year fiscal plan, you must have something that's going to go with the fiscal. You don't have a fiscal plan unless you have a project. As a matter of fact, if we go to page 4 of your performance plan, under "Mandate" you've got "planning comprehensive long-term highway investments," but I assume that those long-term highway investments involve a project. Do you have a planning horizon that you're doing the projects on? If so, how many years is that?
I'll just ask a series more, so you can answer them all at once here. What are the major projects in that plan? I assume that you could tell us what you're looking at doing in the near future. Are they prioritized? Again, which project may be at the top of that list of the things to come?
Hon. H. Lali: The plan is the investment strategy. We do those on a quarter-by-quarter basis. We've had one in the lower mainland. There's the Okanagan quarter plan, Cache Creek to the Rockies and Highway 11. I think the member knows that in terms of specific projects, that is done on a year-to-year basis through the process of Treasury Board and cabinet approvals, and he knows how the debt management plan is set. In terms of doing something for long-run planning, we have the investment strategies in place on specific corridors.
D. Symons: The minister mentioned projects that are currently in place, and I guess I'm looking for ones besides the continuation of those. The Trans-Canada Highway one will be
[ Page 15123 ]
a long-term project, I guess, until you get that whole thing completed. Surely there will be other projects that aren't currently on tap that you're going to move into after a period of time. That's the sort of thing I thought you might have in some plan in your planning horizon. You keep talking about the fiscal year, looking at the money side of it. If you're looking at the money, you must also be looking at things you have in mind to spend that money on, and I really didn't get the answer I was looking for there.
Rather than go through that again, I'd like to move on a little bit to your major highway performance programs. One of them you have in there is the John Hart Bridge up in the Prince George area. I gather you're having some problems with foundations relating to that particular bridge. I wonder if the minister might give us an idea of what's happening with that project, how much it may add to the cost of that project and how it may affect the completion date of that project.
[1115]
Hon. H. Lali: The John Hart project is being implemented through the ministry, so perhaps it would be better if we discussed it under ministry estimates.
D. Symons: We will come back to that one this afternoon, then.
The Kootenay Lake ferry is currently under construction, and it is being funded through the TFA. It was to cost $20 million, I believe, when first announced. Does the most recent cost mentioned, $22.7 million -- the most recent I've heard, anyway -- include the $3.5 million that's going to be for terminal improvements? Was that cost the total cost of the project, including terminals?
Hon. H. Lali: The terminal costs are actually separate, and they come through the ministry. They were never a part of the project.
D. Symons: It's interesting, because the Nelson Daily News of January 18 of this year certainly would seem to give the impression that the terminal was part of the $22.7 million, and the minister is saying otherwise.
The budget was based on a class D estimate and includes a contingency amount. I'm not sure what a class D estimate is. Maybe the minister could inform me as to what that is. I'd be interested in knowing how much was in the contingency for that particular project.
Hon. H. Lali: The class D estimate is actually a planning-level estimate, with a high range of variance. The contingency on that project is $600,000.
D. Symons: The vessel was to be completed on June 30 this year, and you mentioned in your opening remarks that that particular project
Hon. H. Lali: The project will be completed on schedule. The first test runs will be in the summer, and they should be operational towards the end of the summer.
D. Symons: The initial announcements regarding the ferry were going to have it in service this summer. You're saying that it'll be somewhat late summer then, I suspect, if that's the case.
During the construction of this particular vessel, there have been some changes made to it, and some change orders have gone there. There was a change request at No. 2 -- since they seem to be numbered that way -- that indicated that the low bid had come in over the $18 million that has been estimated for the project. Could you give an idea of what that low bid was? You were looking for an $18 million low bid; obviously it came in over that.
Hon. H. Lali: That's more appropriately done through the ministry estimates. We'll do that later.
[1120]
D. Symons: Sorry for the delay, hon. Chair. I have to keep notes of things that come here or there, and this seems to be one of the theres. It's one of the problems, I guess, when you have a Transportation Financing Authority that has its tentacles, so to speak, into the Highways ministry -- to separate out the two as to where one asks questions relating to them.
They may want to duck this one as well. I gather that it was decided that the larger engines and legs were needed. I'm curious how much that particular change might have added to the cost of this particular project -- from the bid to cost that first came in.
Hon. H. Lali: We'll have to get back to the hon. member with the details, but I may assure the hon. member that there are no attempts to duck anything here. It's in the past; we do the TFA first. There are some issues that the hon. member brings up in the TFA that appropriately belong under the ministry estimates, and we always get to those issues under the ministry estimates. There's no attempt by anybody to duck anything. I think the hon. member knows quite well that in terms of tendering, that's not done by the TFA. That's done through MOTH, and the staff from MOTH are obviously not here.
D. Symons: We will get to these later on, then. So if there's a change order, as there have been three different change orders go through on this particular project, then where do I direct the questions relating to the costs of those change orders?
Hon. H. Lali: The change orders are appropriate, and we will get back to the hon. member on that. I just don't have the information here.
D. Symons: I will go through the change orders at once, so you'll have a complete list of what I'm after, rather than going through each one here and getting the same answer.
The total amount of the additional overruns that might occur because of these change orders was one of the questions. What portion of the Osprey work is being done by Vancouver Shipyards, and how much is being done by Maglio Industries? So if you might give me an idea of the proportion of the cost of that vessel that's going to be local to Nelson and the other part done in North Vancouver. Would that be, again, one that's here or there?
Hon. H. Lali: Again, I'd like to apologize to the hon. member. We'll have to get back to the hon. member on that particular. A lot of these details are actually, again, more appropriate through the ministry, with the ministry staff here.
[ Page 15124 ]
D. Symons: They changed No. 3, and I'll just read it off: "They removed the repowering of the Balfour from the project scope." The initial project that was scoped out, costed out and bid on included a refurbishment of the current ferry. That part was removed, which is basically saving money on the project. So when you say the project may be on budget
I'm wondering how much had been budgeted for that work on the Balfour. Will the re-engining and the leg work that's been done to the Balfour now be costed out in this year's ministry budget as a rehabilitation? Again, is that a Highways one, and will it come under rehabilitation? Indeed, if it's rehabilitation
Interjections.
The Chair: The member still has the floor.
D. Symons:
[1125]
Hon. H. Lali: Because it's not capitalizable, it's not a part of this particular project in terms of the work that the hon. member
Is it rehab and that? The information is that it's actually not from rehab; it's from the operations budget of the ministry. It would be more appropriately canvassed under the ministry estimates than here.
D. Symons: I will do that and talk to change request No. 3 -- the project funding agreement change request -- for that particular project. It says: "Delete the proposed modifications of MV Balfour from the approved project scope, in accordance with prior discussions between the ministry and the BCTFA." So it does seem that it was included at one time, and you're now saying it wasn't. There's some discrepancy between what the change order was that was requested to take that out of there and what the minister just told me.
Hon. H. Lali: It was put in the scope by error. What the member is seeing is paperwork to try to remove that error.
D. Symons: That is a most interesting response, I would think, since this change order went through on December 8, 1999, well after the project was underway. If it went through an error, it must have been bid on at the time the bidding was taking place. You would have the bids out and the financing for this all arranged well prior to December 8, 1999. So somewhere or other there seems to be a great deal of discrepancy between the answers I'm being given by the minister and the reality of the facts in the documents that relate to that particular project.
Hon. H. Lali: It was not bid on that way. Actually, the TFA staff should be congratulated for actually finding the mistake and then removing it. I want to assure the hon. member across the way that it was not bid on that way.
D. Symons: Then I suppose the minister will be quite willing to show us the original bid documents and what they were. Certainly the impression is that you left it for more than six months until you made the change order. That seems peculiar -- if it came in at that particular period of time, when you noticed it way back as you were doing the bids -- why you would end up not having the bid written that way. You'd have to do a change on something that you say wasn't there in the first place. I'll wait and see what the original bids that you're now going to supply so that will clear this matter up in my mind.
I would also like to read into the record, because the fate of one of the NDP members from the Nelson area lies in the success of this project. He's quoted in the Nelson Daily News of October 26, 1999, as saying -- and he's referring to this particular boat-building project there: "Any failure is my own alone, and any successes are those who built the boat. So give me a hand, okay?" That was said by the member for that particular area. He promised that it would be built on time and on budget. I have an impression that neither of those will end up being the case.
Hon. H. Lali: I want to assure the hon. member across the way that the project will be on time and on budget, and it'll be a great ferry by the time it's all finished. It'll form part of the transportation network in the Kootenays area. I'm sure that not just the people who live there are looking forward to this ferry being completed. I'm sure the hon. member is also looking forward to the completion. If he happens to be on his holidays or even on a political trek down that way, he may have a chance to cross on that ferry once it's completed and take a look firsthand for himself how wonderful this ferry's going to be. It is on time, and it is on budget.
[1130]
D. Symons: I have ridden on the Balfour, and I will no doubt sometime ride on the new ferry. The ferry itself is not the issue here. The issue is indeed whether it will be on budget and whether the budgets have been fudged somewhat by taking things that were a part of it at one time -- that seemed to be, in the way these change orders are written. There seem to be changes made that would reduce the total overall costs of the ferry project by moving things to Highways rehab or something of that sort. But we'll come back to that in the Highways estimates later this afternoon.
I wonder if we might look at some of the lower mainland capital plan as, I think, they're outlined also in the performance document you gave me. You've got in the lower mainland projects last year -- and I'm going back to last year for a moment
Hon. H. Lali: We'll have to investigate the $30 million figure that the hon. member has pointed out. I know the budget that we had mentioned was $25 million over five
[ Page 15125 ]
years. There's an intelligent transportation system pilot project that we put in place from Cape Horn to Lynn Canyon on Highway 1. But as far as $30 million, we'll have to investigate what the member is actually referring to.
D. Symons: I'll pass on the information for the minister. "March 3, 1999. For immediate release. Building Better Highways Supports B.C.'s Growth Opportunities" -- a news announcement that the minister made at the Hotel Vancouver ballroom a year ago.
He made another news release this year, roughly at the same time, at the Hotel Vancouver as well. In this one, under lower mainland projects, you have total investments of over $99 million in Vancouver, Coquitlam, Richmond, Surrey and so forth "to contribute to relieving traffic congestion and making the region's roads operate more efficiently. This includes funding for a new highway and new high-tech highway transportation systems" -- which are almost exactly the same words as a year ago. So I am wondering whether the $33 million mentioned in last year's announcement and part of this total investment of $99 million made in this year's investment are indeed the same money. I believe the minister may have answered that a moment ago, when he said it's over a five-year period.
I'm just curious. In these news releases, when we read about new investments of $33 million, there wasn't any comment that it wasn't $33 million for that fiscal year. So when we find the numbers in the next fiscal year, are we using the same money over and over again?
[1135]
Hon. H. Lali: There's no repeating of any of the numbers. We spent $99 million in the lower mainland last year on a variety of projects: Lions Gate, the Sea Island connector, the South Surrey interchange, HOV lanes, etc., to just name a few. And the figures again for this year, for '99, in the lower mainland are not repeated from last year. It's continuing work on the Port Mann and the Lions Gate Bridge as well. So there's a number of projects that are being considered.
Again, in reference to the $33 million, if the hon. member wants to send us a copy of that release
What we had said was that it was $25 million for the traffic management program over five years. So obviously there's some either miscommunication or discrepancy here. I am just asking for a copy of the release, so that my officials can take a look at it.
D. Symons: We're passing a copy of your own news release over to you so you can familiarize yourself with it. The part I was looking at is tied in with the news release that you did this year at the Vancouver Hotel also. It talks about total investments of $99 million in Vancouver under lower mainland projects. The minister mentioned that a moment ago. He referred to last year, but it is in this year's announcement. The end of it says, "This includes funding for new high-tech highway transportation systems" -- which is the wording used at the very end of that news release I just passed over to you.
Could you tell me how much of this year's $99 million in total investments in the Vancouver area is funding for these new high-tech highway transportation systems and whether indeed the money here is also part of that $33 million mentioned in last year's announcement? That's all I'm trying to clear up -- whether that $33 million
Hon. H. Lali: In order to clarify the situation for everybody, we are willing to send the hon. member a list of all the projects last year and what projects are being proposed for this year, as well, so we can do a proper analysis of that.
D. Symons: I was simply asking for the clarification on the funding for new high-tech highway transportation. You don't have to give me the whole list of everything, although I've requested that under another venue that you've probably got as well. So you will be giving the other stuff. But it's this high-tech one I was interested in, because it was mentioned last year as a $33 million project and has rolled in this year into a total investment of $99 million. I'm just trying to separate that out a little bit on the high-tech. I'll appreciate the minister getting back to me on that.
We discussed this a little bit in the briefing we had on the South Fraser perimeter road. That was part of the reason for an earlier question I asked relating to the business of having a project plan over a period of years, when I was saying: "What's your horizon for project planning, and where do things fit within that planning?" One of the projects that's certainly of interest to many people in the lower mainland is the South Fraser perimeter road. I'm wondering if you have some sort of concept of where that's going to fit into highway construction -- when that plan may begin to move into actual construction.
[1140]
Hon. H. Lali: The estimated cost is around $400 million for the South Fraser perimeter road. The hon. member knows that obviously the provincial government cannot go into this project alone and needs the participation and cooperation of many partners, not the least of which is the federal government. Actually, in their recent budget they brought forward some very disappointing news that any transportation moneys that they are going to free up won't be until the year 2002-2003, which doesn't help us any. We also have to have all of the partners on board including the BCTFA, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the municipalities of Surrey and Delta, TransLink, the GVRD and Transport Canada. They are all trying to work on implementing a financial strategy, so it's not something that we can go at alone.
K. Krueger: Several years ago the ministry launched what they called corridor studies. What I want to focus on is the Cache Creek to the Rockies project. If the minister prefers to deal with this in ministry estimates rather than TFA, perhaps I should find that out right now.
Hon. H. Lali: If the hon. member wants to talk about the corridor strategy and budgets and that, he can talk about it now. Anything other than that would come under the ministry estimates.
K. Krueger: Well, I do want to talk about budgets and the ongoing planning initiative. The people involved in the Cache
[ Page 15126 ]
Creek to the Rockies project, apparently because Kamloops is the first red light from their point of view coming from Vancouver and heading to Alberta -- this even though they're certainly diverting up the Coquihalla when they say that, rather than following the Trans-Canada
The ministry has had a very high-profile series of meetings within the city of Kamloops. The unfortunate result has been a lot of ill will between two major communities in my constituency: the one known as Valleyview and the one known as Juniper Ridge. The ministry staff, in their own minds, have boiled down their options to what they call two leading contenders: one being a bypass from the Peterson Creek Bridge to the Skelly property, going around Valleyview on a bench below Juniper Ridge, which many people feel is an environmentally sensitive area; or major changes within Valleyview itself -- which, if they were actually all built, would pretty much destroy the character of that community and occupy a great deal of the narrow valley bottom through Kamloops, purely with servicing the east Trans-Canada Highway.
The dollar figure discussed for either option is around $80 million. I'd like the minister to tell us whether the ministry actually has set aside $80 million or has any plans at all to do that in the near future; and if so, why that project is being considered as a priority over the many other areas of the Trans-Canada Highway between Kamloops and Alberta, where there are 50-kilometre-per-hour speed limits, frequent road closures and tremendous difficulties with the geography such as Kicking Horse canyon, Three Valley Gap and others.
[1145]
The Chair: Minister -- with an eye on the clock.
Hon. H. Lali: I would actually just make a little correction for the hon. member. Kamloops is not the first red light from Vancouver; actually, it's the fourth one. There are two in Hope and one in Cache Creek -- which, incidentally, just fall into my riding. Just a little footnote for the hon. member.
In terms of the options that are put forward in Kamloops, with the Valleyview area and the price tag that the hon. member has put on that, obviously we haven't got the money set aside. Anything we do that is going to be done in a major way on Cache Creek to the Rockies
I think the member must appreciate the fact that the ministry or the TFA have not come in -- the government hasn't come in -- and said to Kamloops: "Here, this is what we are going to do whether you like it or not." We had a corridor management plan done on Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies; we put that out to the public for comment. These are just a couple of the options that have been put forward. We're in the consultation process, and as I said, in terms of commencement, this project is about eight years distant from here anyway. So we're doing our work in terms of meeting with the residents and businesses, as well as the municipalities and the first nations, to try to get a sense of what would be palatable for the people who live in the community of Kamloops and surrounding area.
Obviously no decision has been made. We're not going to be making a decision any time soon, because we're in the consultation process, and we want to be able to do it in a way where all parties can live with the solution that can have the least amount of disruption. I want to give that assurance to the hon. member.
K. Krueger: The problem with all of this, though, is
[1150]
Hon. H. Lali: Being an eternal optimist, I'm hoping that the federal government will come up with their share of the funding sooner rather than later, so we could get to doing something in a substantial way on Cache Creek to the Rockies, including Kamloops, within the ten-year period that we're talking about. A lot of it rests with the federal government in terms of what shape and size the program would be on the CCR. It has a major component funding from the federal government, and it's an area where, in my opinion, they have abrogated their responsibility for far too long. It's time they actually started coughing up their share of the national transportation system, and I know the hon. critic across the way agrees with me. That's something we're looking at in the long-range plan.
Hon. Chair, noting the hour -- it's ten to 12 -- I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada