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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 3
[ Page 15127 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Hon. D. Lovick: In the gallery today is Mr. Tom Thompson. It may not be a name well-known to everybody, but it is certainly a well-known face. Tom has been an employee working at these buildings for 27 years, since 1973. He's sitting in the gallery today at my urging. He is shortly to be retiring, and I think it would be absolutely appropriate if we acknowledge that. I would just point out that Tom was very diffident and very reluctant to tell us anything about himself, but I would offer this observation. We as politicians all assign particular meaning to the expression "the fixer." We all know what a fixer is. Well, Tom is
Interjections.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most of my colleagues would love to be known as "the fixer," but what the heck. In the case of Tom Thompson, however, this is a guy, quite frankly, who is the absolute handy person personified. He can do everything. Those of us who have seen him, whose offices he has visited, will, I am sure, agree with that. I'd therefore like to ask all my colleagues to join me, please, in wishing Tom a very happy retirement. Also, thank you so much for all the good service you've provided, Tom.
[1410]
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd just like to add the best wishes from this side of the House for retirement. We appreciate the work that you and the people that work with you do. I don't know if it was your doing or not, but thank you -- my computer finally works.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the gallery is my constituency assistant, Amar Randhawa. I would like the House to please make him welcome.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I have two different introductions I'd like to make. First of all, in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Miriam Jentink. She is here with her father, John Kooiman, who is visiting from Alberta. Would the House please make them welcome.
I'd like to add to that, to tell the House of -- and have the House join me in wishing two people well -- two folks who have worked in the precinct for us and with us: Peter Robbins and Sandy Wharf.
Peter Robbins recently retired, as members may know, as the director of the Legislative Assembly's Hansard services. He had a distinguished academic career, with a PhD in political theory from the London School of Economics, and taught political science at UVic. I'm one of his ex-pupils -- this was a very important part of his life, I'm sure. Among Peter's many accomplishments, he was also a silver medallist in rowing. During his 20 years with Hansard, he played the role of editor, researcher, deputy chief and then chief. He provided significant editorial expertise, and I know that the staff and all of us knew him as a respected friend and a very valued colleague.
Secondly, Sandy Wharf, who was the administrator of assembly services, has just accepted a position in the office of the ombudsman. She was here 11 years with the Legislative Assembly and was enormously helpful -- to some extent, I think, along with Tom -- in helping MLAs sort out many of the logistical issues about their offices, equipment, supplies and services. She was also the coordinator of the legislative internship program for a long time and will be missed, I know, by all the folks in that area.
I would like us all to wish both Peter Robbins and Sandy Wharf well in their new careers.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have two introductions to make today. Visiting us are two people from the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses. They are Linda Moyneur, chair of the board of directors, and Donna Higenbottam, the acting executive director and registrar. I'd ask the House to please make them most welcome.
The second introduction is an individual, Steve Palmer, and his assistance dog Yofi. Steve has travelled down-Island from Campbell River to raise funds for the treatment of post-polio syndrome and to meet with me later on. Would the House please make them most welcome.
C. Clark: I am delighted today to be able to introduce to the House someone who used to work for the B.C. Liberal caucus as the researcher for the Ministry for Children and Families and, hopefully, helped make the minister's life a little bit uncomfortable during the estimates period. His name is Kevin Moorehead. He's just back from South Africa, and I'd like to welcome him back to beautiful British Columbia.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to make a number of introductions today. First, I'd like to introduce my daughter Cara and her friend Sean Baker, who are visiting the Legislature today. Cara is just finishing her second year of her political science program at UCC, and she is looking forward to seeing theory become action and practice on the floor today.
[1415]
I'd also like to introduce some friends in the gallery today, including Margaret Ross, her son Kenzie Ross, and their friends Nicola Werkerle, Judith Walker and Nicolas Magri. Would the House please make them all welcome.
Hon. J. Kwan: Visiting us today is Nathan Allen, my executive assistant, who came out of the student movement from SFU -- a hard-working young person with lots of energy and enthusiasm. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.
B. Penner: It's my privilege today to make two sets of introductions. First of all, visiting the precinct today is the Mount Slesse Middle School grade 8 band class from Chilliwack. Over lunchtime they were serenading passers-by with their wonderful music. During the course of speaking to them and listening to the music, I met a number of American teachers from Los Angeles, California. I'd like to introduce Lois Brasov, Ashley Iorga and Persida Brasov, who are here taking in our proceedings today. Would the House please make them welcome.
Oral Questions
EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT MINISTER
AND GOVERNMENT CHARTER FLIGHT POLICY
C. Clark: While the Premier was down in Washington yesterday, we revealed that the Minister of Employment and
[ Page 15128 ]
Investment has a preference for chartering private flights between Victoria and Vancouver. I don't quibble with the minister's ability to charter flights. But the government's own policy says that when ministers charter flights, it must be on routes where no other scheduled flight is available or when it's cheaper, not on routes where there are 75 flights a day and it's going to cost the taxpayer twice as much.
Well, now the Premier's back. He's had 24 hours to think about it. We'd like to know what he's going to do to discipline the Minister of Employment and Investment and his very expensive tastes.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has a very short memory. I was here yesterday. And I am quite visible, actually -- quite visible.
Hon. Speaker, the policy of the government speaks for itself. If the hon. member has questions of a particular minister with respect to his ministerial responsibility, those questions should be asked.
C. Clark: The questions were asked yesterday. If the Premier was here but didn't feel like answering them, I'm surprised, you know. I mean, here he is today mounting this vigorous defence of his Minister of Employment and Investment. So all I can assume is that the Premier believes that the minister has not broken the government policy on chartering planes. If that is correct, will he stand up now and tell us that this Minister of Employment and Investment, this minister with the very expensive tastes, continues to enjoy this Premier's absolute, 100 percent full confidence?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has been in the House for some time, and I assume that she knows the rules of the House. If the hon. member has specific questions of a specific minister with respect to his or her ministerial responsibility, those questions will be answered.
The Speaker: The Chair did give that caution yesterday and would caution members again to abide by the rules of the House.
C. Clark: Well, it is in the Premier's area of responsibility to enforce these rules. The rules on ministerial travel and enforcement of them surely come down to the Premier's leadership. If the Premier cannot stand up and give a vote of confidence to his Minister of Employment and Investment, you have to wonder what he's still doing in cabinet, particularly given the record, the pattern of behaviour, that we've seen from this minister. This is the same minister who tried to give a $25,000 contract to one of his chief leadership campaign strategists and was recently called down by the Premier.
Will the Premier take the opportunity today -- because everybody else in British Columbia is questioning this minister's judgment
[1420]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is on a flight of fancy, of course, at this point. The hon. member continues to ask questions about something that occurred some time ago, which the hon. member has made public. I have said that the policy speaks for itself. If the hon. member believes that that policy has been violated, I would like to hear about it.
FUNDING FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
G. Hogg: During the last election the NDP campaigned on a promise to "maintain the current funding formula for independent schools." On December 15 in Prince George the now Premier reaffirmed that position. Can the Premier explain why his government has now chosen to break the funding promise that he made to parents and children of B.C.'s independent schools?
Hon. P. Priddy: Because it is the responsibility of the Education minister and an Education question, I've chosen to stand to answer that.
The question of independent school funding and maintaining the kind of per-pupil ratio that has been established, which is 50 percent of the per-pupil cost in the public school system, has actually been maintained. Let me tell you what the change has been, hon. Speaker. We are in the third year of a collective agreement with the BCTF. In the first year of that collective agreement the additions had not to do with salary dollars; they had to do with the government's commitment to reduce class sizes in kindergarten-to-grade-3, to add non-enrolling teachers and to have some recommendation around teachers on call -- all of which I expect people would support, including having smaller class sizes for children in kindergarten-to-grade-3.
Hon. Speaker, in the first year of the collective agreement, independent schools received none of that. It was funded outside of the per-pupil ratio. In year 2, which was last
Interjections.
Hon. P. Priddy: Not shell games. In year 2
Interjections.
The Speaker: Could the minister wrap up, please.
Hon. P. Priddy:
The Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock with a supplemental question.
G. Hogg: With respect, it has changed things. A ministry official has said that it represents $2 per student in the independent school per year. The government gave its word. It gave its word to the parents and children of the independent schools, and now it has changed its word. The word didn't come with exceptions or loopholes or caveats. The word was the word, and it was a straightforward commitment. Is the Premier now prepared to break that commitment? Is he prepared to renege on the longstanding funding policy, which has been in existence for independent schools since 1977?
[1425]
Hon. P. Priddy: The addition to the education funding this year benefits both independent schools and the public
[ Page 15129 ]
school system, given that their amount is based on 50 percent of what people get in that school district. In year 3 of this contract, which is the first year there is a salary increase, it goes both to the public school system and to the independent school system. There is no backtracking whatsoever on what the Premier may have said. The class sizes are not issues that were part of the independent school funding. Their funding remains the same percentage.
G. Plant: The minister can play shell games with where the money is going, but the fact is that the minister and the government are breaking the promise they made to the parents of British Columbia as recently as last December. When you piece out the details of this particular shell game, you see that according to this new funding arrangement, public schools will receive funding in four areas that independent schools will not. Two of those include reducing K-to-3 class size and increasing services like counselling, librarians and special education.
So my question for the Minister of Education is: can she explain why reducing class size and improving services is a good thing for public schools but not a good thing for the independent schools of British Columbia?
Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, perhaps the member is suggesting that whatever is negotiated by any union should then automatically be given to anybody else in the province who doesn't happen to be part of a union.
The reduction in class size, which is a commitment to smaller class size, was part of an agreement -- a three-year collective agreement -- with the British Columbia Teachers Federation. So parts of those did not apply to the independent school system. But the salary increase, which many people might suggest that if bargained by a union should not necessarily go to non-union members, is indeed being passed on to the independent school system. They benefit from the funding increase, and they benefit from the 2 percent salary increase.
G. Plant: Well, it's the same old game. When the government gets caught with something, they justify it by: "Oh, it's not really this kind of an increase." They parked it over in some other place where they're hoping that no one will see it. The fact is that independent schools will be shortchanged by the new funding formula, and this is what the minister has to know.
This isn't just a policy decision that she can make on the back page of a collective agreement. This is part of the law. It's part of the Independent School Act; it's part of the regulations under that act. My question for the minister is this: which way is she planning to solve the problem created by the law? Is she planning on sneaking in a new regulation to change the law at 4 o'clock some Friday afternoon? Or is she planning on just running roughshod over it and hoping that no one will get caught -- that she won't get caught -- breaking the laws that she has established and that she has purported to follow for all these years? Which is it?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think it's interesting that we are standing here having a discussion about how much more the independent schools are going to get under this budget, when this Liberal opposition has voted every year against the Education budget. And I've never heard that it's because they wanted more money.
USER FEE FOR KAYAK BUSINESSES
I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, this is just another example of how this government says one thing and does quite another.
Kayaking is creating hundreds of new tourism jobs. However, this government is planning to drive those new jobs out of this growing industry by introducing a new fee that could cause small kayak businesses thousands of dollars every year. Last year, when the government threatened to introduce this fee, the Tourism minister said: "I'm very concerned, because it's an unacceptable situation to have small operators paying large fees."
Well, with the long-weekend season starting tomorrow, can the Tourism minister tell us if he's still concerned? Does he now find that it is acceptable to allow these job-killing fees to proceed?
[1430]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member brought up the issue of kayaking, because this weekend there will be more kayakers than ever out there kayaking. We have a tourism industry that's grown by 5 percent. It's one of the fastest-growing tourism industries in the world, and we're going to be world leaders in ecotourism.
One of the problems was that the users of Crown land have to pay some amount of money to use that land. That's only fair. But they shouldn't be asked to pay too much money or excessive fees. So we're looking at that, and we've made efforts to keep the fees down as low as possible. I've gone to bat for the kayak users, and I'm happy to tell the hon. member that we're doing very well. Kayaking is booming in the province. Watch this weekend.
DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister Responsible for Rural Development. After years of promising decentralization and more power for local governments, last week the Leader of the Opposition flip-flopped yet again and promised that a Liberal government would operate out of the centre of government, which is Victoria. This latest statement is yet another case of the opposition leader saying one thing to a big-city audience and saying something quite different to a rural audience. The only consistent thing about the opposition leader is his inconsistency.
Can the minister tell this House what he is going to do to bring more decision-making, authority and control to the rural areas of this province outside of Vancouver and Victoria -- not less, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Order, minister. Members, noting that the light has gone on for question period, I would ask the minister to make a brief response.
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I can't believe that the hon. member is quoting the Leader of the Opposition saying that
[ Page 15130 ]
he would centralize government in this day and age. What would happen to the people of the Peace? Would he kill the Fair Share? What would happen to the people of the Kootenays? Would he kill the Columbia Basin Trust? Would there never be a Premier's summit in Kamloops or on the Island? Hon. member, as long as we govern, we'll continue to decentralize and not
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. The bell ends question period.
The member for Richmond Centre rises.
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, I am disgusted by the display we just had here a moment ago. The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head had the floor, and you ignored even a supplementary by her.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. That was not a point of order. Supplemental questions are at the discretion of the Chair.
Tabling Documents
Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to table the annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for 1998-99.
Hon. D. Lovick: I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee of Selection for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament. Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Lovick: I seek leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
[1435]
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I now move that the report be adopted.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In this House, we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
(continued)
On vote 34: ministry operations, $297,814,000 (continued).
G. Abbott: We are returning to our discussion of issues around the forest worker transition program. In the long and occasionally painful process this morning we did sort out some issues around the discussion of this matter, and we have had sundry discussions since then about it. Obviously there is a legal action that has been commenced, and it is clear to me now what the implications of that are.
Further, what we want to be discussing here this afternoon are issues of a factual character. I think it is important that we make this point clear: there are a number of public policy considerations around the way in which the forest worker transition program evolved in its management of the taxation issue. While the select standing committee may well deal with that after some point in time in a comprehensive way, I hope that the Chair and the minister can appreciate that Ministry of Forests estimates are the sole opportunity for the official opposition to hold the Minister of Forests and the minister responsible for FRBC accountable for the public policy issues around the forest worker transition program.
[1440]
I will endeavour as well as I can to try to keep my questions of a factual character. I am sure that at some moments, I will lapse into questions which the minister might consider to be of a sensitive nature from a legal perspective, and that's fine. He can respond accordingly, as was done this morning. I will endeavour as well as I can to ensure that the questions are of a factual character, and the minister can, I hope, respond accordingly.
So with that I want to again move to some questions around that. I'm not sure whether in retrospect the minister might like to address some of what I think were factual questions from earlier today. I think there are a couple that are of particular importance in terms of how this issue was managed. I obviously won't go through all the questions that we talked about, but I think it is important for us to understand how this issue was managed.
Obviously there were discussions as the program was taking root about whether the benefits associated with that program would be taxable or not. Obviously there were, because the FRBC executive made the decision to go to an accounting firm to get their view as to whether the benefits would be taxable. The accounting firm in question, Doane Raymond, further contacted Revenue Canada, it appears, to see whether in fact Revenue Canada might share the view of Forest Renewal B.C. that the benefits would not be taxable -- or would be non-taxable, I guess, is the other way to put it.
The point at which there appear to be some clouds settling over this
Hon. J. Doyle: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his further understanding of the legal ramifications that he was made more aware of during the lunch-hour. I'd like to thank him for that.
As far as the question that he asked, the correspondence was in writing.
G. Abbott: And how long after the letter of October 9 was it that the correspondence went out from Doane Raymond to Revenue Canada?
[ Page 15131 ]
Hon. J. Doyle: I believe it was the same day.
G. Abbott: When did Doane Raymond receive a response from Revenue Canada?
Hon. J. Doyle: September 11, 1997.
G. Abbott: So there was a long period of time, somewhere between something like October 10, 1996, and -- did the minister say? -- September 1997. What happens during that period? Is there follow-up by Doane Raymond with Revenue Canada? In the block of materials that we secured through FOI, there's no indication of follow-up on anyone's part. What happens during that period?
[1445]
Hon. J. Doyle: There's nothing in the record to do with that period of time -- the dates that we mentioned a minute ago.
G. Abbott: It sounds as if our record, perhaps, is as complete as the record at Forest Renewal B.C. Effectively, Doane Raymond writes the letter, and there doesn't appear to have been any follow-up by letter between October 10 and September 1997, when apparently there is a formal response from Revenue Canada. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: I can't speak for Doane Raymond. There's nothing on the record that I'm aware of.
G. Abbott: Was there any verbal or e-mail follow-up between Forest Renewal B.C. and Doane Raymond with respect to what progress was being made in the resolution of that matter?
Hon. J. Doyle: My answer to this question would be the same as the last time -- same as the last answer.
G. Abbott: That answer is that between October 1996 and September 1997, a period of about 11 months, there was no follow-up between any official of Forest Renewal B.C. and Doane Raymond to ascertain what response should be made around the issue of taxability of benefits. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: There's no record. At the same time, I cannot speculate as to whether there was any other communication.
G. Abbott: As was noted this morning -- and again, I want to explore this because I think it's important -- the memo in early January and a subsequent discussion at the unit directors' meeting in March '97
How was Forest Renewal B.C. coping internally with the insecurity or the lack of clarity around the taxability issue? We'd had an initial thought from Doane Raymond; we'd had an initial response from Revenue Canada that it would be taxable. Obviously there was a good deal of doubt about whether it would be taxable or not. We don't seem to have had any follow-up. How then did the agency, Forest Renewal B.C., resolve that they would treat it as non-taxable? How was that conclusion reached when one would have thought, on the surface of things, that the safer route would be to assume that it was taxable until further clarification was provided by Revenue Canada?
Hon. J. Doyle: In November of 1996, Forest Renewal British Columbia advised its delivery agents to tell clients that the accounting firm's finding was being reviewed by CCRA -- or Revenue Canada, as we agreed to call it this morning -- and that taxes might be owed at a future date. Payments, in any event, would not be subject to deductions at source.
[1450]
G. Abbott: There does appear to have been that directive. But it also appears -- and again, I'll welcome the minister's comments on that
"About six to eight months ago, we requested a ruling from Revenue Canada on whether or not the income support we pay to clients on the [forest worker transition program] is taxable income. I was told that you were coordinating this. Have we heard anything back? It is getting fairly urgent -- if they do say income support is taxable, we will have to implement a system to process about 3,000 T4As quick like a bunny in order to have them ready in January."
[J. Cashore in the chair.]
The response to that came in another e-mail later in the day from Katherine Rowe to Jacqui James: "This has a huge significance for the program, so as soon as you hear for sure, please let us know. Is there any way we can follow up with Revenue Canada directly?" And Jacqui James to Katherine Rowe: "I recently contacted the CA firm who was dealing with Revenue Canada, and I have been informed that the tax partner I was dealing with has retired and the new one starts in a few weeks. However, they have received an answer from Revenue Canada very recently, and it doesn't look like we can avoid issuing the T4As."
As well, we find indications at a number of points that there was considerable inconsistency in the advice that was being provided by unit directors or program officials to the recipients. Is that a suggestion that the minister would agree with?
Hon. J. Doyle: I'd have to say it's not appropriate for me to comment on that, and it's pure speculation.
G. Abbott: There are some other issues, I think, that we need to look at here in terms of questions. There is a memo of January 19, 1998, which looks at some of the pros and cons around how to proceed with this matter. I'll quote briefly from it here. It says: "Various options to try to support clients in a non-taxable manner have been explored with Doane Raymond, including the concept of providing the workers with forgivable loans. However, their advice is that no feasible non-taxable alternative exists."
[ Page 15132 ]
The memo then goes on to discuss some of the options: "Accept the September 17 Revenue Canada interpretation, as recommended by Doane Raymond on January 6, 1998. Pros: Avoids confrontation with Revenue Canada, who closely scrutinizing" -- actually it's just an error in grammar here, for scrutinized -- "this situation."
Another pro: "If revision of client support policy is delayed, the number of clients that could be ultimately affected would continue to grow as time goes on. So acting now will prevent the problem from getting any larger." This is January 19, 1998.
[1455]
Is it the opinion of the minister that that occurred? Was the issue resolved at that point in time, so that the issue would not grow larger?
Hon. J. Doyle: The issue was not resolved at that time, and any comment I would make would be pure speculation.
G. Abbott: It would seem to me that it is implicit from the agreement-in-principle that was released on March 29 that certainly the issue was not effectively resolved in January of 1998, more than two years before the so-called agreement-in-principle of March 29, 2000. Given that, the agreement-in-principle applies to participants in the program after January 19, 1998. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct.
G. Abbott: The third and last of the pros in terms of that option about accepting the Revenue Canada interpretation is this: "Producing the required T4As in a timely manner for the 1997 taxation year can be done quickly and with minimal cost to the program." I understand that those T4As were not produced. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Doyle: T4As were not issued; but T5007s, which are the statements of social services payments, were released.
G. Abbott: Given that the recommendation of this policy discussion was option 1 -- i.e., accepting the September 17 Revenue Canada interpretation, as recommended by Doane Raymond -- why were T4As not issued?
Hon. J. Doyle: It's not appropriate for me to comment on that.
G. Abbott: For my clarification, this in on the advice of your legal staff.
Hon. J. Doyle: That's right, hon. member.
G. Abbott: I will move on. Again, for the edification of the readers and the record, the recommendation contained in this discussion reads as follows: "Option 1. It is unlikely that Forest Renewal will be able to successfully challenge Revenue Canada's interpretation, and moving now will mitigate somewhat the consequences of the interpretation on program clients and the corporation."
[1500]
Who did the recommendation go to as a consequence of the completion of this report? Again, so we all know what document we're dealing with, this is a memorandum submitted by Katherine Rowe -- who was, at that point, coordinator of adjustment services -- to the executive, I presume. Can the minister advise who the recommendation went to?
Hon. J. Doyle: It was a briefing note to the vice-president of communities and workforce.
G. Abbott: Was it, then, the responsibility of that vice-president to make a subsequent decision around the recommendation, or did the recommendation fall to the consideration of a larger group?
Hon. J. Doyle: It's inappropriate for me to comment on that.
G. Abbott: Was the recommendation accepted?
Hon. J. Doyle: No.
G. Abbott: Can the minister advise the reasons why it was not accepted?
Hon. J. Doyle: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that.
G. Abbott: The reasons, then, will have to remain obscure for this period. I'm not going to carry on the rather lengthy discussion we had around that this morning. We'll secure what we can here.
The cons, the reasons why not to proceed, are interesting here too, in assessing the options in this paper. We've talked about the first option, which is accepting the Revenue Canada interpretation. The second option, which was not recommended by Ms. Rowe, is to maintain the status quo. Among the reasons cited as cons, or reasons against the option of maintaining the status quo, is, for example: "Negative reaction from clients and stakeholders in this case would likely be greater than the reaction in option 1." The final con that's provided is: "Challenging Revenue Canada's interpretation would have to be done through a judicial process and is not likely to be successful."
Again, based on what seems to be a pretty clear understanding here that maintaining the status quo was not something that was likely to survive judicial consideration, why would the option recommended -- i.e., accepting Revenue Canada's interpretation -- not have been adopted?
Hon. J. Doyle: I feel it's inappropriate to comment further on this.
G. Abbott: I think that given that response, it's probably not useful to continue any further questions along that line or with respect to that memorandum.
I will move on to, again, a letter from Gary Wong, who is the director of the Vancouver Transition Centre. As I recall, this is to Christine Lattey -- the vice-president, I believe -- from Gary Wong, director of the Vancouver Transition House. This is dated February 5, 1998. I won't quote the whole thing, but I should quote portions of it that I think certainly have some important significance from a public policy perspective.
[1505]
[ Page 15133 ]
Mr. Wong says, among other things: "This matter has now been under review for in excess of a year." Again, he's writing on February 5, 1998. Certainly that is correct. Again, to quote: "In the event that income support was deemed taxable, I suggested a contingency plan to provide workers with payments to offset their individual tax consequences. I understand a similar offer was made to directly pay taxes to Revenue Canada, but it was rejected by them."
Could the minister advise, first of all, whether in fact an offer was made to pay taxes directly to Revenue Canada, but that proposition was rejected by Revenue Canada?
Hon. J. Doyle: There's nothing on the record, so I can't confirm yes or no.
G. Abbott: Again, the question I have is whether an offer had been made by Forest Renewal B.C. to Revenue Canada to pay debt taxes directly. I'm understanding from the minister's response that no one is aware of whether FRBC made a proposal to directly pay taxes to Revenue Canada. Or is it not clear whether Revenue Canada rejected such a proposal?
Hon. J. Doyle: I can't confirm or deny, because there is nothing on the record.
G. Abbott: So to try to boil that down into a sentence: the minister does not know whether Forest Renewal B.C. made any proposal to Revenue Canada around directly paying taxes.
Hon. J. Doyle: Correct.
G. Abbott: Obviously you wouldn't know whether Revenue Canada rejected it either, given that we don't know whether there was a proposal. Fair enough. Perhaps the officials can endeavour to ascertain whether there is anything to that. When the select standing committee gets around to their discussion of this at some later point, that might be an issue that some further light can be shed on.
The other part of the quotation from Mr. Wong was: "In the event that income support was deemed taxable, I" -- Gary Wong -- "suggested a contingency plan to provide workers with payments to offset their individual tax consequences." Was that a suggestion that was considered by Christine Lattey and/or discussed with any agency officials?
[1510]
Hon. J. Doyle: I can't speak for Christine Lattey.
G. Abbott: Can the minister speak for Forest Renewal B.C.?
Hon. J. Doyle: There's nothing on the record, so I can't speculate on it.
G. Abbott: I just want to be clear. The question is around
Hon. J. Doyle: Forest Renewal has no record of any documents being sent to them.
G. Abbott: Mr. Wong goes on to say: "I cannot stress enough the potential liabilities at stake should FRBC not live up to what workers had been told. We receive phone calls daily requesting updates on this matter and can assure you workers are not taking this matter lightly."
In the informed estimation of the minister, is the suggestion that Mr. Wong is making correct -- that workers had been told something other than that the benefits would be taxable?
Hon. J. Doyle: I'll repeat what I said earlier. In November 1996, Forest Renewal advised its delivery agents to tell clients that the accounting firm's findings had been reviewed by Revenue Canada and that taxes may be owed at a future date and that, in any event, payments would not be subject to deductions at source.
G. Abbott: Is the minister satisfied that that instruction was clearly received by the delivery agents and that subsequently the delivery agents have passed that on, in a clear and unambiguous manner, to the recipients of the program?
Hon. J. Doyle: That would be speculation, and I feel it's inappropriate to comment on that.
G. Abbott: We may come back to that at an additional point here, but we'll leave it for the moment.
Mr. Wong also goes on to state: "I cannot accurately comment on the legal liabilities arising from actions taken by workers, but assume they may have a case. Very much at stake are the credibility, integrity and competency of staff, delivery agents and FRBC." Was the view of Mr. Wong around legal liability something that was shared by the corporation as well?
Hon. J. Doyle: It's inappropriate for me to comment on that, hon. member.
G. Abbott: I'm sorry; I had a bit of a distraction there. Could I impose on the minister to repeat his answer? Thanks.
[1515]
Hon. J. Doyle: Hon. member, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that.
G. Abbott: I'll therefore move on in my useful way.
One of the last points that's made by Mr. Wong in his letter of February 5, 1998, is this: "Failing this" -- and that is the implementation of some alternative measure -- "I would find myself in the position of being unable to continue as program manager and will be tendering a letter of resignation." Could the minister advise as to whether in fact Mr. Wong did submit his resignation, or does he continue with Forest Renewal B.C. today?
Hon. J. Doyle: Mr. Wong did not tender his resignation to FRBC.
[ Page 15134 ]
G. Abbott: The latter part of the question was: is he, then, still in the employ of FRBC, and in what capacity?
Hon. J. Doyle: Chair, through you to the hon. member -- who is having a chat again with his good friend and neighbour there -- Mr. Wong was never an employee of FRBC. He was a contractor. His employment ended on March 31, 2000.
G. Abbott: I'd like to move on to some other documents here, then, as well, if I could. This is a document of the forest worker transition program entitled "Income Tax Communication Strategy," and it is certainly one of the more interesting documents that we received through freedom of information. It's interesting not only because of the formal written portions of it but also because someone has, apparently usefully, handwritten in some notes critiquing -- or self-critiquing -- the document itself.
For example, we see that issue No. 1 in the "Income Tax Communication Strategy" says: "Current clients will raise concerns about tax payment and may demand that Forest Renewal cover the cost." The recommended response is: "Forest Renewal is unable to cover tax expenses for individual clients, as any additional payment to or on behalf of the client will be considered additional taxable income for that client -- i.e., attempting to pay the tax for the client will create a larger tax bill for the client." By the way, this memo is from February 2, 1998, well in advance of the proposal from Revenue Canada that we saw in 1999.
Does Forest Renewal still maintain that such a payment on behalf of the client would be considered additional taxable income for the client? Or had there been any discussions with Revenue Canada around that point at that time?
Hon. J. Doyle: It would appear at the time that payments to recipients would be taxable.
[1520]
G. Abbott: The minister's response, as I understand it, was that as of February 2, 1998, the corporation did believe that if it attempted to step in and pay the additional tax, it would be construed as additional income and therefore taxable. I think the operative words there are "at that point in time." Obviously at a later point Revenue Canada clarifies the situation and says they would allow it. Is that a fair summary of the situation?
Hon. J. Doyle: Revenue Canada did not clarify that payments to individuals would not be taxable; however, under the terms of the agreement-in-principle we've spoken about today, they have said payments from FRBC to Revenue Canada would not be taxable.
G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that clarification.
I mentioned the handwritten notes that were added to the document in question. I think it's clear from the context that they're notes that were certainly added before the documents went out.
I'll just note the one in response to that particular one. It says: "That's not the real reason we haven't decided yet whether or not we will pay directly to Revenue Canada or provide funding to clients so they can pay. The issue is the potential total cost and where FRBC would get the dollars to cover." That's the end of the handwritten addition to this communication strategy recommended response. Does the handwritten comment reflect the view of the corporation with respect to that recommended response?
[1525]
Hon. J. Doyle: That is pure speculation. I can't comment on that.
G. Abbott: The second recommended response to the issue of current clients raising concerns about tax payment is this: "Forest Renewal and its agents did advise most clients, verbally and in writing, that the income support received by a client may be considered taxable income by Revenue Canada." Then the handwritten note below that is: "Very inconsistent -- this won't save us!"
Is it the view of Forest Renewal B.C. that most clients were advised as set out in this recommended response?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.
D. Jarvis: As you know, I'm from the North Shore, and I've got two constituents that both have taken part in the forest worker transition program. Then, all of a sudden, they were told they wouldn't have to pay the taxes and all the rest of it -- that it was tax-free or non-taxable. Now they find themselves with fairly onerous tax notices from Revenue Canada and all the rest of it. What would you feel that we could advise them? How should we approach this?
Hon. J. Doyle: If the member wishes to give us names or addresses, we'd be happy to send a package to the clients he has as constituents.
D. Jarvis: Can you explain again to me, because I wasn't listening to the prior if you have mentioned it before, what this sort of package contains? They are sitting there with large pending tax bills owing to Revenue Canada and no income coming in. They know that they would probably have been far better off going on unemployment insurance. Could you explain to me what this package that you would be sending them -- when I give you their names -- would consist of, and if it's going to be of help or just a notice as to what they may expect possibly down the road? Or is it just more promises?
Hon. J. Doyle: The package that we would propose to send to your constituents would contain information on the agreement-in-principle, which provides assistance with provincial income taxes and interest charges, plus the information from CCRA or Revenue Canada, with whom the clients may be able to set up a payment plan for the federal taxes owing.
[1530]
D. Jarvis: Would there be any indication in there as to what they may expect as far as return? Are there any guarantees or promises that they may be getting, say, 25 cents on the dollar -- or what it is -- for what they owe?
Hon. J. Doyle: We can't comment on that until the agreement-in-principle, which I said earlier today has been 85 percent worked out
R. Coleman: I think it safe to say that FRBC blew this one, and it's time somebody fixed some things around here.
[ Page 15135 ]
I want to ask the minister a couple of questions about some of the correspondence I've had on this and ask if these representations from FRBC to displaced forest workers were in actual fact true. A Mr. Lucas from Mission writes me:
There are two questions. First of all, at any time did FRBC ever inform a forest worker in British Columbia that they were to claim the amount of money that they were receiving for the forest worker transition program as a bursary on their income tax?"I'm a displaced forest worker being retrained and helped from the Forest Renewal B.C. program. As such, I received $6,000 of income support for the 1998 tax year -- 15 weeks at $400 a week. FRBC informed me and issued a T4A indicating that I was to claim this amount as a bursary and that it was not taxable. My wife and I completed tax returns as instructed and filed as usual for 1998. I then received a letter in mid-1999 stating that Revenue Canada had decided that the income assistance paid by FRBC is taxable, and I have subsequently been reassessed.
"For the $6,000 of income assistance I received for the 1998 tax year, I now owe $2,372.46 in tax and $137.80 in arrears. Combined, the amount owing is $2,510.26, meaning that I was taxed a total in excess of 40 percent on income support payments that I understood as being pretaxed. I refer to pretax because I was told this is how FRBC came about the figure of $1600 a month -- $400 a week -- for income support. I was told by FRBC that the original amount proposed was $2500 per month pretax, later lessened to $1600 net of tax at the creation of the program."
Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is no.
R. Coleman: I guess I'll go back to Mr. Lucas this afternoon and tell him that that portion of his correspondence to me is absolutely incorrect and that FRBC never told him that. Obviously Mr. Lucas, who has written in here that he was told by FRBC to claim it as a bursary, is mistaken. Would I be correct in my assumption?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.
R. Coleman: On the second portion of this particular notice of objection that Mr. Lucas copied me on, he refers to being pretaxed because he was told by Forest Renewal B.C. -- the same people who he says indicated it should be a bursary -- that the original amount was $2,500 pretax, later lessened to $1,600 because it was net of tax. I wonder if FRBC can advise whether at any time during their calculations, when they decided how much forest workers were to get, that number was adjusted because it was either taxable or non-taxable within their minds.
Hon. J. Doyle: That's speculation.
[1535]
R. Coleman: Let me read this again, because I think there's something that's called not speculation when I'm reading the minister something: "I refer to pretax because I was told this is how FRBC came about the figure of $1,600 per month -- $400 per week -- for income support. I was told by FRBC that the original amount proposed by FRBC was $2,500 per month pretax, later lessened to $1,600
Hon. J. Doyle: I'm not aware of the discussion or of any discussion of this nature, and it's pure speculation.
R. Coleman: I'm aware that the minister isn't aware of this discussion, because he's a new minister. I'm also aware of the fact that he may think it's pure speculation. But he does have the chief executive officer of Forest Renewal B.C. and staff in this Legislature today, and I'd like to know if at any time they calculated -- and how they decided -- how much money an individual was going to get in income support and if at any time the decision on the amount of money to be given was based on what it would have been net after taxes under normal circumstances. I'm sure that the staff that are present should be able to provide that minister for that question.
This is not speculation. It is a straightforward question that says: if you're going to give somebody $1,600 a month, and you're writing a business plan around a forest worker transition program, and you're saying we're going to give this person $1,600 a month because that's what they need to live on, net, while they're retraining
Hon. J. Doyle: We looked at what the program could afford and at compatibility with funds paid under similar programs like EI. The whole question of whether or not it was taxable was referred to our accountants for advice.
[1540]
R. Coleman: And when did you get the advice from the accountants on that?
Hon. J. Doyle: October 9, 1996.
R. Coleman: So in October 1996 you got advice from your accountants on the forest worker transition program payments for people. And I would assume that at that time, given the position of FRBC, you had the position that those payments were taxable in the hands of the people who received the benefit. They weren't a bursary of any kind; they weren't an education fund of any kind. They were strictly income that was taxable in their hands and had to be declared as income to Revenue Canada.
Hon. J. Doyle: The accountants' advice that we got was that it was not taxable.
R. Coleman: I may not have heard that correctly -- so, I mean, let's find out if I did. The minister says they got advice from their accountant that the payments under the forest worker transition program were non-taxable. If they were told in 1996 that they were non-taxable, when were you told they were taxable?
Hon. J. Doyle: I feel it is inappropriate for me to comment on that.
R. Coleman: Let's go back a step, then, to the accountant. Obviously you don't want to comment on when you actually found out it was taxable.
[ Page 15136 ]
This is unbelievable. Wait until I get into some of this correspondence in a minute and explain to the minister how you've affected some people's lives.
Maybe the minister can tell me this. You got advice in 1996 from an accountant who said that the payments under the forest worker transition program were non-taxable. You took that advice, and you applied it to your program. Two questions, I guess, would be: who was the accountant, and how much did that advice cost you?
Hon. J. Doyle: The accountant was Doane Raymond, and at this time we don't have the figures as to what it cost.
R. Coleman: Unfortunately, I didn't catch the name of the accounting firm. I wonder if the minister could just repeat it.
Hon. J. Doyle: The accountant firm was Doane Raymond. That's the best I can do, with my accent and with a cold.
R. Coleman: So we get advice that it's non-taxable; later it becomes taxable. But I'm not allowed to know, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, when we found out this was taxable, evidently, because the minister doesn't want to give me that information.
I guess the next step is just to go back to Mr. Lucas's letter for a second. There has to be some responsibility on somebody's part. Maybe somebody from FRBC can explain this to me. One of the comments that I picked up in a letter from Mr. Lucas is this: "The decision to tax the income comes at a time far too late for me to explore other options for lessening taxable income -- i.e., RRSP."
[1545]
If this was 1996
F. Randall: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Randall: In the gallery today are approximately 40 grade 10 students. They're here and accompanied by their teacher, Dierdre Moore, and there are three or four other adults with them. They're from Cariboo Hill Secondary School in Burnaby-Edmonds. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Doyle: Chair, the answer is no. Clients who entered the program in 1998 were advised in writing that the funds may be taxable as soon as they entered the program. In addition, Forest Renewal sent them a letter with their 1998 tax slip, advising them of the difference in opinion between FRBC and Revenue Canada re the tax status of the funds.
R. Coleman: In the letter you said that there was a differing of opinion. Did you actually tell your clients which opinion FRBC thought was correct?
[1550]
Hon. J. Doyle: The answer is yes.
R. Coleman: And which opinion did you give them?
Hon. J. Doyle: That income support is non-taxable.
R. Coleman: Let me get this straight. In 1998 you sent a letter with their T4s, or whatever form it is that you send out with regards to the forest worker transition program, that said that there is a differing of opinion between FRBC and Revenue Canada on the taxability of the payments they are receiving. And then you continue on and say that you believe your opinion is correct. Is that correct? Is that what I just heard the minister tell me?
Hon. J. Doyle: There was a difference of opinion, and clients were advised to seek professional tax advice.
R. Coleman: But in the letters, in the differences of opinion, did FRBC say at any time that they thought their difference of opinion was the right difference -- the right opinion?
Hon. J. Doyle: No, FRBC did not say that.
R. Coleman: Then maybe the minister would like to go back and rephrase his previous answer, in which he said that you did. Less than seven minutes ago the minister said that in the letter of opinion that you sent the people in 1998 -- or whenever you sent that letter -- you expressed that FRBC expressed the opinion that they were correct in assuming that it was tax-free. I see some of the staff members over there shaking their heads, hon. Chair. But the reality is that if we go back in Hansard, I think you'll find that's what the minister said.
Hon. J. Doyle: I'd like to make it clear for the record. FRBC advised that it had an opinion; it did not say the opinion was correct.
R. Coleman: What a wonderful game we play with people's lives. We send them a letter and say we have an opinion. Revenue Canada has an opinion. You -- this person who's on a transition program from a forestry job, who's getting retraining, who's on a limited income -- should go seek professional advice.
Does the minister not feel that it was the responsibility of the payee -- which is Forest Renewal B.C. -- to provide that clear, concise, sage advice to those clients who were receiving money from the taxpayers of British Columbia that was collected through stumpage and run through a Crown corporation?
[1555]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. J. Doyle: The fact that there was a difference of opinion was why we felt it was prudent to put clients on notice.
R. Coleman: In 1996 we have an accountant advise us that it's tax-free, and I'll give the minister the dates. In Septem-
[ Page 15137 ]
ber 1997, Revenue Canada told you it wasn't. I had people in tax years 1997, 1998 and 1999. In two and a half years I don't have anything but an esoteric letter that says: "Maybe go check the advice, because we have one opinion and somebody else has another. We're not taking responsibility, but we've got 6,300 people that we're going to put on some form of assistance. And then we're going to leave you with a tax bill."
I just want the minister to understand how this affects some people, and I have some more questions. This is just one quick sample:
"I am hoping that you will review this unfair situation created by dishonest FRBC. I am a 46-year-old widow" -- widow, hon. Chair -- "whose late husband attended courses sponsored by FRBC. He was told at the time that he would be issued an education deduction receipt for the moneys they paid for his courses and the subsidy he received while attending.
"My husband died in November 1999 from glandular cancer. On November 12, I received an assessment" -- that's four days later -- "on his 1999 income tax return from Revenue Canada along with a bill for $6,200. The accountant appealed and got it down to $4,700. After funeral costs and other things, there is still $4,700 outstanding."Here's somebody whose husband thought they were playing by all the rules, had the information and still got taxed.
I want to give you another one. There is a gentleman here who actually gives the name of the staff members who told him that it was tax-free. It says here:
So in the letter of December 16, 1997 -- and I assume that there would have been a few of them go out in December 1997 -- did FRBC say that an official ruling had not been made? Or did they actually say an official ruling had been made, and this is being misquoted to me?"So let's go back to the beginning. When I first applied at FRBC for my training course I was told by Mark Buchanan, who worked for FRBC, that the money was to be tax-free assistance. I did receive a letter from FRBC dated December 16, 1997, saying that Revenue Canada had not made an official ruling as to whether income was to be deemed taxable."
[1600]
Hon. J. Doyle: As an example, hon. member, for the Pacific region in December 1997, this is the kind of eligibility letter FRBC was sending out to clients: "Revenue Canada at this time has not made an official ruling as to whether income and our training support are to be deemed taxable. Please be advised of this when planning the financial area of your training."
R. Coleman: So in September 1997, Revenue Canada gives you a ruling that this is taxable income, and in December 1997 you send out a letter saying that Revenue Canada has not necessarily given you a definitive ruling. Your ruling in September of 1997
[1605]
Hon. J. Doyle: It is the feeling of myself as minister and the legal advice I have here that we have been cooperating with the members opposite to the best of our ability. But we are now getting into areas where it is inappropriate for me to comment, given that this matter is before the courts.
R. Coleman: I don't actually know why that would be. We're talking about a letter from December 1997 that's on the public record. We're talking about the advice of an accountant in 1996 which was in the public record half an hour ago. We're talking about the fact that in the fall of 1997, Revenue Canada made a ruling. Revenue Canada told FRBC in the fall of 1997 that the money was to be taxed, but they didn't tell their clients that.
Let's move on, then. Obviously we've known about this long enough. How about January 27, 1999? In 1996 we get the ruling from your accountant; in September 1997 we get the ruling from Revenue Canada. Now we're talking from September 1997 to two and a half years later, into January 1999.
Let me quote to the minister: "For 1998 we recommend you report the training support amount shown for the T4A slip as a 'bursary' on line 130 of your tax return. You should report the income support shown on the T5007 slip as social assistance on line 145 and deduct it on line 250. You may also be able to claim a tax credit for tuition education amounts on line 323." It also goes on to say: "However, Revenue Canada may reject the claim of income support as social assistance and advise you that they are assessing this as taxable income." The ruling was in 1997, and we're still sending out an esoteric letter in 1999 to these people, who are relying on somebody for some form of advice.
What bothers me even more about this letter is that less than half an hour ago I asked this minister if at any time FRBC had referred to, or told its clients to refer to, these funds as a bursary. I was told no. Now I have a letter from January 27, 1999, written by a representative, Christine Lattey, vice-president, communications and workforce for Forest Renewal B.C., referring to it as a bursary. Would the minister please tell me why I was told less than half an hour ago that at no time had FRBC referred to these funds as a bursary?
[1610]
Hon. J. Doyle: To clarify my past answer, we have never advised clients to report income support as a bursary. It is the income support that was reassessed by CCRA, or Revenue Canada, in November 1999, not training support funds.
R. Coleman: So what the minister is telling me is that at no time
Hon. J. Doyle: I'd ask if you could repeat the question, please.
R. Coleman: Okay. "For 1998 we recommend you report the training support amount shown on the T4A slip as a 'bursary' on line 130 of your tax return. You should report the income support shown on the T5007 slip as social assistance on line 145 and deduct it on line 250." The minister a minute ago said -- I believe this is what he said
Hon. J. Doyle: We never advise clients to report income support as bursaries. It is our understanding that bursaries are taxable under the Income Tax Act.
[ Page 15138 ]
[1615]
R. Coleman: Let me get this straight. You called it a bursary for training support, and it's your understanding that that's taxable. You weren't sure whether this income support was taxable, but Revenue Canada thought it was. In September 1997 and when you sent out your correspondence prior to January 1999, did you advise your clients that the bursaries were taxable -- because your understanding, you said, is that they are taxable -- and that any bursary that was received was taxable when they got it, when they received it, when they got their forms? And then it was later on
Did you advise the clients of FRBC and the forest worker transition program, starting in 1996 right through to 1999 today, that the bursary portion of their package received from Forest Renewal B.C. was taxable? As the minister said a minute ago, his understanding is that it's taxable.
Hon. J. Doyle: We did inform clients we agreed with Revenue Canada that training support could be considered a bursary.
R. Coleman: So we did advise that you agreed that training support could be a bursary. When you did that, did you also tell them what the impact on their taxable income was of calling it a bursary?
Hon. J. Doyle: No, and we advised them to seek professional tax advice.
R. Coleman: And when did you receive that professional tax advice to decide not to tell these people this?
Hon. J. Doyle: Maybe you didn't get me last time. We advised the clients to seek professional tax advice.
R. Coleman: That wasn't my question. My question was
You had the advice
[1620]
Hon. J. Doyle: We issued T4As for training support. This indicated that the funds were taxable. Bursaries were never in dispute, and we issued T4As for training support for all years of the program.
R. Coleman: So at no time did FRBC tell anybody that the total assistance, including the bursary, training assistance or whatever you wish to call it today
[1625]
Hon. J. Doyle: Here's an example of what we were writing to clients in November 1996: "Forest Renewal British Columbia advises its delivery agents to tell clients that the accounting firms' findings are being reviewed for Revenue Canada and that taxes may be owed at a future date and that payments in any event will not be subject to deductions at source."
We followed that up on February 5, 1997: "Forest Renewal again advises its contracted agents and delivery agencies that they must advise clients that no ruling has been received from Revenue Canada and that clients must be advised of potential tax liabilities associated with participation in the program."
This was also provided to clients who entered the program: "Please be advised that all income and training support you receive from the forest worker transition program is subject to federal tax, not that Forest Renewal B.C. or its designated agents may not deduct income tax from its client-supported payments."
R. Coleman: Will the minister tell me how, through its contracted agencies, it measured that follow-up with clients?
Hon. J. Doyle: I can't comment on that, because it would be speculation.
R. Coleman: Let's go back here for a second. Why wouldn't it have been in a contract with contracted agencies that follow-through of information would be able to be measured in some way or another, when FRBC was asking for information to be passed on to clients relative to tax deductibility of either the income or the bursary portion of the funds the worker is receiving? The minister said earlier that the contract agencies were advised to do this. If they were advised to do this, how did FRBC know they did it? And how did they report back to FRBC that they had actually done it?
Hon. J. Doyle: I can't comment on that.
R. Coleman: Maybe the minister can clarify to me why he can't comment on how they would measure the application of a contract for communication by FRBC to clients.
[1630]
Hon. J. Doyle: I cannot give you a definitive answer at this time. Any response at this time would be speculation on my part.
R. Coleman: With regard to FRBC, would the minister be able to advise this House whether the contractual arrangements between the contractors and FRBC had any clauses based on performance?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.
R. Coleman: If there were performance clauses in those contracts, how did FRBC measure their performance?
Hon. J. Doyle: We received regular reports on program activity. All contracts were also subject to audits.
R. Coleman: Did those audits include the communication programs of the contractors to the clients?
[1635]
[ Page 15139 ]
Hon. J. Doyle: We certainly did know what written correspondence was provided to the clients.
R. Coleman: That answer goes back to the question about five questions ago, when I was told that it was pure speculation if we knew whether or not we communicated the information relative to tax deductibility to clients. Now, hon. Chair, I'm being told that we do know what communication was going to clients from contractors. So let's go back to the original question: did the contractors advise the clients of the tax provisions on the bursary and on the income assistance portion relative to the money they received from Forest Renewal B.C. in the forest worker transition program?
Hon. J. Doyle: Services began in October 1996. The first clients were deemed eligible in October 1996. Client eligibility letters contained an advisory regarding income tax between June of 1997 and March 2000.
R. Coleman: I just want to be clear on the answer, because there was something going on over here for a second. Did the client or the contractor receive that advice in the summer of 1997?
Hon. J. Doyle: The clients.
R. Coleman: Was that communication given through the contractor or directly from FRBC?
Hon. J. Doyle: Both.
[1640]
R. Coleman: So all clients in the forest worker transition program were advised by FRBC relative to the tax deductibility.
Hon. J. Doyle: Due to program delivery structures, clients were advised by contractors in some areas of the province and by Forest Renewal staff in other areas where Forest Renewal staff deliver the program.
R. Coleman: That takes me back to question 3 -- back three -- and that is: did Forest Renewal B.C. measure the communication from Forest Renewal B.C. when they advised the contractors to ensure that the contractors passed on that correspondence and that advice to the clients? Can FRBC tell us today that they are sure that every person in the forest worker transition program received that communication either from FRBC or from a contractor and that the contractors followed through at the same level of efficiencies as FRBC did?
[1645]
Hon. J. Doyle: We cannot say that all clients received written advice, as we cannot vouch for 100 percent accuracy in the mail system. We can say with confidence that material was sent out to all clients who participated in the program.
G. Abbott: I've been listening with great interest to the discussion that's going on, and I'll just interrupt it for a moment to remind the minister of some of the material that I had furnished previously. There is, for example, the unit directors meeting policy discussion of March 25, 1997, which reads: "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."
I have to assume that when we are talking of unit directors, these are folks with some influence and some control over what's going on in the program. Further, we have again
So obviously there are two examples -- one from '97 and one from '98 -- where there clearly was inconsistency in the messages going out. Is that not correct?"Near the end of December 1996, we were advised that the taxability of income support was in question. We were told that the information provided was based merely upon the opinion of a 'tax expert' and the issue was under review by Revenue Canada. Accordingly, we advised workers of the potential tax consequences from that time forward.
"Prior to this, I had personally made presentations to groups of workers stressing the non-taxability of income support. It was a critical issue raised by workers at every meeting. Irreversible career decisions, having lifelong impacts, were made by workers based on the information we provided."
Hon. J. Doyle: All clients did receive notice with their income tax slips as soon as Forest Renewal became aware of Revenue Canada's opinion on income support.
G. Abbott: Would the minister care to table the information slip that was provided to the workers effective
[1650]
Hon. J. Doyle: If the member could clarify just what he wanted delivered to him -- the question of a minute ago
G. Abbott: The minister said that immediately upon Forest Renewal B.C. receiving the opinion from Revenue Canada that those benefits were taxable, workers were advised -- I think he said with their T4 slips -- that the benefits would be taxable. Could the minister table for my consideration or information the information slip that went along with the T4?
Hon. J. Doyle: It is my understanding that the member has a copy of this letter with the freedom-of-information information he received.
G. Abbott: Thank you; I may have. I am merely asking the minister, in this era of openness and transparency that we've apparently launched into -- though it hasn't been reflected in our recent debates -- to provide me with a copy to ensure that what we have is unsevered and complete and reflects reality. I would just like him to do that.
Hon. J. Doyle: I would be happy to do that.
G. Abbott: I'll look forward to receiving that, because we are looking forward to seeing whether what's contained in there is of the clear and unambiguous nature that has been suggested. I'll invite my colleague to resume his discussion.
[ Page 15140 ]
R. Coleman: On this side of the House, I'm disturbed that we cannot measure the communication relative to something that affects people's lives -- there are 6,000 people under the forest worker transition program -- to make sure with certainty that they got the information in a timely manner when they should have had it to make financial decisions with their lives. I guess I'm not surprised, considering that the auditor general talked about a Crown corporation that spent $1.3 billion before its first business plan was actually implemented.
I am disturbed, however, that the tenor of this debate is that in 1996 we get our advice; in 1997, Revenue Canada tells us no. In December 1997 we send out a letter that says: "Maybe, could be, should be, whatever. It could be, maybe, someday down the road
This Legislature doesn't sit next week, hon. Chair. Given a portion of this debate this afternoon and that even more lives that have been affected -- bankruptcies, marriage breakdowns, people who've lost loved ones and received tax notices afterwards, people now facing personal bankruptcy, all of these ails coming out of this transition program and its tax deductibility
Hon. J. Smallwood: I seek leave to do an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's my privilege to have my daughter Natalie Smallwood and her partner Jason Greenwood with us today. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
[1655]
Hon. J. Doyle: We have a solution under the agreement-in-principle. As I noted earlier today and, I think, yesterday, 95 percent of clients who've contacted FRBC since March 30 of this year have said that the AIP -- agreement-in-principle -- meets their needs.
R. Coleman: When your back's up against the wall and anything -- anything -- would look good to you, I suppose it would meet your needs.
My next series of questions relative to this is reflective of some of the correspondence. Before I do that, though, I'd like the minister to comment, if he would, on what he feels about the fact that the contractors' communications cannot be measured to the fact that people actually received this communication from the contractors in the field.
Hon. J. Doyle: I'll repeat what I said earlier. We certainly did know what written correspondence was sent to clients by the contractors.
R. Coleman: I guess we will live to debate this another day, given the time. I know that my colleague from Shuswap has some additional questions. But you know, it was a bursary; it wasn't a bursary. We did know; we didn't know. We had advice; we didn't have advice. We don't want to tell you the advice; we didn't want to tell you when we told the client we had advice. We didn't ever say definitively; all we said was probably, maybe -- whatever. We left these people high and dry.
The comments you get back from people are comments like I read earlier. Or someone writes you and says: "You know, I just got kicked in the stomach. I can't afford to pay this. I don't know what I'm going to do." People say: "I'm going to lose my home," or "I'm losing everything." It's all because somebody dropped the ball. There's a Crown corporation in this province that ran a program and sent out esoteric information to people and had advice and didn't efficiently move on it. These people are out there still with the ball dropped, and all we can get are these bland answers. I'm disappointed, and I plan to be back here after the break, going right back over this again until we get some definitive answers.
At this point I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from Shuswap, who has some other questions he'd like to ask today. But frankly, hon. Chair, when you get
[1700]
Hon. J. Doyle: We must remember that 80 percent of the people who completed this transition training have got full-time jobs today, thanks to this training. Also, since March 30 when the AIP was announced, 95 percent of the people who contacted Forest Renewal with questions about the AIP said at the end of those conversations that they were satisfied with the AIP.
G. Abbott: To follow up on my colleague's point, the issue here is not whether the program was successful or unsuccessful. The issue here is that effective almost with the start of this program, there were serious doubts about the taxability of the benefits associated with the program. That much is clear; there's no doubt. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that there were doubts right from the beginning about the taxability of this issue. Does the minister agree with that?
Hon. J. Doyle: Yes.
G. Abbott: So the point here is that right from the beginning -- right from July, August, September, October 1996 -- as the program was being developed and gets underway, there were doubts about the taxability. The problem is -- and the AIP that the minister keeps talking about is implicitly acknowledging this -- that despite the fact there were doubts about it right from the start, there was never a resolution of that issue right through until the present day, right through until 1999-2000. There are still doubts about the position of FRBC around this issue and indeed doubts about the government's position around this issue.
It is absolutely mind-boggling that an issue that is in doubt in 1996 cannot be resolved in a way so that clients get clear, unambiguous, informed advice about what they should do. My colleague made a very good point about if people
[ Page 15141 ]
have an informed understanding of what their tax situation is, they can make adjustments so that they minimize the impact of that on their personal circumstances. Again, I don't think I'm any wiser now than I was at 10 o'clock this morning about why -- somehow between October of 1996 and January, at least, of 1999 and even later in 1999 -- people were still not getting a clear idea that they're going to get nailed for taxes. If people know, they can take steps to offset it. If they don't know, they are thrown to the wolves -- i.e., Revenue Canada. Is that not the case?
[1705]
Hon. J. Doyle: The text is unclear. However, Forest Renewal did provide clear warning. For example, in eligibility letters we stated: "Please also be aware that all income and training support you receive from the forest worker transition program is subject to federal income tax. Forest Renewal B.C. or its designated agents may not deduct income tax from client support payments."
G. Abbott: You know, we kind of go around in circles on this. We have done that a number of times now, gone round and round. Again at bottom here is that we knew there was an issue in '96. You know, doggone it, lots of times I probably think: I wish Revenue Canada wouldn't tax me for that. But if they say it's going to be taxable, then I ought to be prepared to pay my tax on it.
It seems to me blatantly unfair to think that clients of this program would not expect to take the advice of the large government agency providing them with the advice we see in the letter of January 27, 1999. "
Again, to somehow shuffle off a problem that was created by either neglect or incompetence or indifference or a lack of understanding
You've got to know that. You've got to know that if it was an issue in '96, sometime very quickly after '96 -- if not in '96 itself -- there's going to be some definitive conclusion to that, so you can give people proper advice. Is that not the case?
[1710]
Hon. J. Doyle: We have given you all of our records through FOI, and I have attempted to answer all of your questions on those records within the restrictions imposed on me by the fact that a legal action has begun on this matter.
G. Abbott: On that happy note, we have agreement between the opposition and the government to adjourn at 5:15, so I gather that Committee A has reported out. I do want to serve notice at this point that we have many more questions with respect to the forest worker transition program taxation issue. Subject to availability of staff, we'll be expecting to take it up at 2 p.m. on Monday, May 1.
With that, I move 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. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might seek leave to table two reports.
[1715]
Leave granted.
Tabling Documents
Hon. D. Lovick: I wish to table, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Labour, the Workers Compensation Board annual report for 1999 and the annual report of the appeal division of the WCB for the 12-month period ending December 31, 1999.I would now move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 2 o'clock on Monday, May 1, 2000. I would now wish all members a happy and restful time. I hope I get a few days off. With that I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:16 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:43 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 46: ministry operations, $464,471,000 continued.
K. Krueger: The minister and I were dealing with some issues arising out of my constituency just before the lunch break. I just capsulized
[ Page 15142 ]
Valleyview and Juniper Ridge in my constituency. The laudable goal of the exercise is to improve the efficiency and safety of the Trans-Canada Highway through British Columbia, and I think everybody buys into that.
The point I was making is that there are many areas east of Kamloops where the highway is far less efficient and far less safe than it is through Kamloops. There are a couple of inexpensive safety initiatives that could be undertaken in Valleyview; for example, a traffic light at Oriole Road. I want to advise the minister on the record that I received no complaints in my office about the speed of Trans-Canada traffic through Valleyview. Certainly, if there are safety reasons to make some changes such as an additional light, I think that they should proceed, because safety is paramount. The efficiency of the highway is far better through Valleyview than most of the rest of the Trans-Canada travelling east from Kamloops.
[1445]
The minister said, in response to my questions earlier, that there is no money available and that future work will be contingent, as I understand it, upon federal funds forthcoming through an infrastructure program. He said that he doesn't expect it to be anytime soon and that the earliest these changes would happen was seven to eight years from now.
What I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is that the uncertainty around this issue is causing substantial economic harm to people in Valleyview, both owners of residences and owners of businesses. Because of the prospect that the community may well be chewed up by these highway changes, massive interchanges and so on being put in, people are probably less likely to purchase homes in Valleyview and businesses are less likely to establish or to expand. This is a real travesty if that uncertainty will hang over Valleyview for decades now.
I would like the minister to answer the question, if he would: when the ministry does achieve funding for the upgrades on the corridor from Cache Creek to the Rockies, what priority level would Valleyview be? That is, would Valleyview not be the project that would follow projects like Three Valley Gap, Kicking Horse canyon, Salmon Arm and other areas where they don't have 80-kilometre speed zones or the likelihood that traffic will not be impeded?
Hon. H. Lali: First of all, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for making representation in this chamber on behalf of his constituents. That's good to see, and he does that on a regular basis. I want to thank him for those efforts.
Where I would differ from the hon. member is his comment where he said that the turmoil is being caused by the planning process. I totally disagree with the hon. member. I would turn around and say that the planning process is actually working quite fine. We had the corridor management plan that's been put out to the public for comment, and this was the kind of dialogue that we had expected to occur. Far be it from the ministry to come in with a plan and then tell the local residents: "This is the way we're going to do it -- no changes." That's not how we're doing it. We have the corridor management plan and rightfully so. It's been put out to the public so that people can comment on it. What you're seeing in a democratic province like ours is people exercising their right to their views. And they are differing views.
No decisions have been made. I've made that clear to the hon. member priorly. When we get to that point, obviously, the concerns of the local MLA as well as the local leaders and the people who are the users will be taken into consideration.
Vis-à-vis his question regarding when the funding is made available, I just want to say that the federal government obviously has not come through with the funding. We're still continuing to work with them, to lobby them for funding in a major way. Last year we had $25 million worth of work done on the CCR, and roughly $25 million worth of work will be done in this year's budget as well. That's without any federal participation. Obviously, if the feds were to come in and participate, we'd have to match them dollar for dollar on the CCR.
Also, in terms of the program, unless there is substantial funding made available by the federal government to cost-share, we're not going to see anything, in a major way, taking place on the CCR -- not just in Kamloops but across the entire length of Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. However, we are doing some of the minor work that is direly needed on that stretch of highway. We started a couple of years ago, and we're continuing with that, in terms of some of the other work that the hon. member across the way mentioned.
K. Krueger: Just before we leave the subject, then, I'd like the minister, if he would, to answer two questions. Will the ministry consider adding a traffic light at Oriole Road, to deal with the safety issues? And if and when that federal funding comes through, does the minister not agree that it's likely that the higher priority, with regard to safety and efficiency issues areas of the Trans-Canada Highway east of Kamloops, will be dealt with before Valleyview is dealt with?
[1450]
Hon. H. Lali: To the first question about Oriole Road, I will ask my deputy to talk to the regional staff, put it into the priority mix and see where it comes out. On the second part, it is safe to assume that the major portions of the work, in terms of priority, would be east of Kamloops. He is correct on that.
K. Krueger: Moving, then, to a different area, I'll just be very brief. Each year in estimates, since I've been an MLA, I've raised the issue of the difficulties on Highway 5 north of Kamloops -- from Heffley through to Little Fort -- where there are very few passing lanes. Traffic tends to build up in what ministry staff refer to as platoons, behind slow-moving recreational vehicles and behind trucks. This highway is very often used by heavy traffic and by tourist traffic as an alternate because of difficulties with the Trans-Canada. It's getting busier all the time.
I know that the ministry has worked on that as a priority at some level. We have had a couple of passing lanes added. I've made the point before that this government had promised a $2.5 million project in Little Fort, the Little Fort bypass, which I always felt was unnecessary and an inappropriate use of funds if they could be better used -- or if they were available to be used -- for more passing lanes on Highway 5.
I'd like the minister to comment about the immediate plans for four-laning parts of Highway 5 or, at least, passing lanes. In particular, there is a very dangerous area known as the Preacher Hill curves. Local people know them as pig corners. The reason they call them that is that a truckload of pigs flopped on the corners, and the pigs ran away, and apparently a lot of farmers ended up with pork in the freezer as a result. It is kind of a humorous way that people refer to it,
[ Page 15143 ]
but it's a dangerous situation. There are so many truckers unaccustomed to the highway and those curves. Even though there are warning signs and so on, they continue to flop. One almost flopped on a recreational vehicle this past year. It's an ongoing miracle, actually, that people aren't being hurt more often or killed at that location.
The local CUPE president for school bus drivers, Larry Bancroft, wrote an urgent letter to the government reinforcing what I've been saying -- that we have to deal with this issue. We would dearly love to hear that pig corners, or the Preacher Hill curves, are going to be fixed this year. Is there a prospect for that?
Hon. H. Lali: First of all, I just want to point out that we did one passing lane between Heffley and Avola -- a $1.7 million piece of work there. Obviously further work does need to be done. Near Little Fort, the bypass is not a high priority for us. However, in terms of priority there is Preacher Hill, or the pig corners, as the hon. member mentioned. There is some money in this year's budget for survey work this year so that we can do some work in the future.
[1455]
K. Krueger: Is there a possibility that we could elevate that priority -- given that it is a very dangerous situation and has been repeatedly raised to the government -- and accelerate the process rather than simply do surveying this year? I think it's been surveyed many times.
Hon. H. Lali: It is a priority. There is a possibility to elevate it. But I just want to give a word of caution there. A lot of projects across the province, especially in the Thompson-Okanagan region, are also in the priority mix for funding in the future. I know a number of members -- some on this side of the House, some on the other -- have issues and would like to have those issues prioritized. I do want to make a commitment to the member that it is a priority. We'll put it onto the priority list.
L. Stephens: I have a few questions to ask about one particular initiative that is going forward in my riding, and has been for a couple of years now. That's the 200th Street interchange. It is under construction, but it has run into a couple of roadblocks. What I'd like to know is whether or not the BCTFA is monitoring this situation very closely and how involved they are in trying to make sure it proceeds as quickly as possible.
Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for that question. We are monitoring that whole situation extremely closely. There is an issue between the developer and the municipal government there. We are encouraging both parties to come to a resolution.
I also want to remind the hon. member that we have legal contracts in place with a developer, the municipality and BA Blacktop. We are encouraging the parties to come together to find a solution. If not, then we will obviously enforce those legal contracts.
L. Stephens: As the minister knows, this is an important initiative in my riding. Yes, it is true there are difficulties between the municipality and the contractor. It doesn't look like it is going to be resolved anytime soon. It has to do with the community neighbourhood plan, which has to be worked through the process and worked through the public hearings and so on.
I would just ask one more question on this issue -- whether or not the ministry has a time line or whether or not they have a date in the contract where certain performance requirements must be met.
Hon. H. Lali: There are legal performance requirements in place. We expect the project to be substantially completed by the end of the calendar year and fully completed by the end of the fiscal year.
L. Stephens: I want to move on to the performance plan that the ministry provided to us this morning and, specifically, to the strategic goals. No. 2 says: "Improving people and goods mobility in rapidly growing urban areas and along strategic corridors." I think the ministry would agree that Highway 1 is a strategic corridor and runs through the Langleys. The ministry has a traffic management program for the Highway 1 corridor and the lower mainland, and I understand that there is a pilot project to the tune of $5.6 million in spending this fiscal year. Could the minister tell me what that project is, where it is and what it consists of?
Hon. H. Lali: It's using computer technology to make our transportation system run more efficiently. Also, the purpose of the intelligent transportation system is to expedite the clearance of accidents and breakdowns that occur between Lynn Canyon and 160th Street. It's to prevent secondary accidents from occurring as a result of any initial accidents from breakdowns and to provide information to the public on this computer system.
[1500]
L. Stephens: The traffic management program and the objectives and performance measures in improving mobility that are part of the information here
Hon. H. Lali: One of the things at the Port Mann upgrade is the associated Cape Horn interchange improvements, which actually improve traffic as it's flowing westward. In terms of costs, we would have to add another $10 million to that to make a reversible lane. But I think that any of the benefits that accrue as a result of the fifth lane on the Port Mann would be reversed because, first of all, the bridge is too narrow. Secondly, to actually physically remove the barriers back and forth would take too long, thereby magnifying the problem we had to begin with. One of the things to remember is that the same people who travel westward and then eastward may not get the benefit in the morning crossing the bridge, but they do get it in the evening when they're returning home after work to be with their families.
[ Page 15144 ]
[1505]
L. Stephens: It's not the answer I was looking for, but it is an answer. Yes, the minister acknowledges that it takes money, and yes, it certainly does. I think we need to look at other ways to facilitate traffic over that Fraser River because the kind of development that we're seeing in the valley right now is only going to increase, and we're going to need a lot more capacity in the future.
That brings me to the road-rail overpasses that we're looking for in Langley. I know the minister is well aware of this. The ministry announced some community transportation grants earlier this month. It appears that this particular initiative, or one like this, could fall under that criteria of grants. It certainly should fall under the criteria of partnerships with the city, with the BCTFA, perhaps with the federal government -- and with the rail lines.
Those trains are getting longer. They're now taking up to 11 minutes to clear some of these city streets; they're two miles in length. I think the minister knows that we have a number of rail crossings through Langley city. The emergency vehicles
Those are some of the issues that we'd like the minister to turn his attention to. I know the city has been in contact. I know there has been communication back and forth, but it's reaching a point where something does have to be done. The longer we wait, the more expensive it's going to be. I'd like to know if the minister has turned his attention to trying to find some way to expedite an initiative like this, either through the grants participation of the ministry or through a BCTFA major project -- looking for those kinds of partnerships with other entities.
Hon. H. Lali: We are looking at the possibility of a partnership on the Glover Road crossing, and then we will be also in contact with the municipality regarding any future plans. I think the member, in terms of talking about some of the grants, is referring to the IWP -- the Infrastructure Works Program -- with federal-provincial-municipal cost-sharing on that. I think that's what you are referring to, but I don't think it fits into any one of the three grant programs we've got: ATAP or NITP or the cycling network program.
L. Stephens: Well, this particular news release has "B.C. Transportation Financing Authority" at the top, April 11, 2000. In it the minister announces community transportation grants. This makes no mention of partnerships. It's a cycling network program, air transport assistance program, HOV regional road program, newly incorporated territories program. So that's where this is coming from. It's obvious from some of the initiatives that have been announced that a road-rail overpass in Langley, I think, would fit very nicely with this particular community transportation grants initiative.
[1510]
I want to move on. This may be a Ministry of Transportation issue, but if it is, I'm sure the minister will tell me. It's the bypass, but it does tie in with the Highway 1 road network. What we have is that at Highway 1, we have the 232nd Street exit. People come down 232nd, down the bypass and on their way down to the ferries -- and I know the minister knows this route well.
What it means for us on the bypass is that ICBC decided to put a barrier right down the middle. We have businesses both on the north and on the south side, and what we have managed to do is convince the ministry not to put in the barriers at the moment. What they have done is put in no-left-turn signs all the way along the bypass. I think they've got 96 of them there for the businesses that are affected. What we are trying to do now is to convince the ministry to reduce the speed limit. We're also going to try to have it decommissioned as a provincial highway, because it really isn't. It's more of a community street, and we should really treat it as such. To have a barrier along there isn't going to reduce the accidents, and it certainly isn't going to make doing business along that stretch any easier either.
I would like to know whether or not the ministry is thinking of using that particular corridor as a south corridor to Highway 99 and to the ferries and to the border crossing. The federal government is doing a huge, extensive upgrade to the Douglas border crossing that will dump an awful lot of cars down in that area. I think there's got to be another link between highways 1 and 99. And 232nd Street, through the middle of Langley, is not appropriate. I would suggest that 176th should be the jumping-off point from Highway 1 down to the Fraser docks, 99, the ferries and the border crossing. It would be much more feasible for goods and people movement as well.
I'd like to know what the ministry's plans are for that kind of a corridor -- whether or not they can alleviate this bypass problem that we have now and make sure that we don't get a barrier and that we can get the speed limit reduced and treat it as an ordinary street without the barriers that we're currently facing.
Hon. H. Lali: On the first part of the member's question regarding left turn lanes and barriers, that's a ministry operations question, appropriately canvassed under the ministry estimates. However, in terms of the other question that was raised, we're not going to be using the 232nd Street route. Rather, the whole idea is to take the east-west traffic -- a lot of which is currently using Highway 10 -- onto the South Fraser perimeter road, rather than doing any sort of improvements to Highway 10 to make that into a South Fraser perimeter road kind of situation. It's to actually divert the traffic to SFPR.
[1515]
L. Stephens: I'm pleased to hear that. I think it makes much more sense to do it that way, certainly -- looking at the Surrey side as opposed to the Langley side. I thank the minister for those comments, and I'll be back for the Transportation estimates to talk about the bypass.
V. Roddick: What I'll do, if it's all right with the minister, seeing as how we're short on time
First and foremost is something that the Delta Farmers Institute has been trying for some time. We want to take the trucks off Highway 10. Here is an inexpensive and easy thing to do: please direct the trucks from the ferries to Highway 99, down Highway 99 to 91, along Highway 91 and over the Alex Fraser Bridge, and vice versa on the way back. Make Highway 10 no trucks, especially the part from Highway 17 certainly to the overpass of Highway 99. That's one.
[ Page 15145 ]
Two, traffic gridlock. Like my colleague here, only this time we have someone that should be able to help us -- i.e., the federal government
The Vancouver Port Corporation. The federal government, despite that it says it isn't
The next point is the tunnel. We obviously aren't going to get a new tunnel. Something that you could do -- again, which is not a huge expense -- is first of all to paint it white so we can see. Secondly, the lights are all there. Make the ones at the bottom of the tunnel, where there's no light getting in
Please remember during all this that in Delta South, those roads -- and I say roads, not the streets or the highways -- were initially built by the farmers for the farmers. And those roads are still in use and being used more and more all the time. They were built as transportation for the farmers and for dikes. A lot of them are more than a hundred years old, and they can't take all of this modern traffic.
[1520]
So please don't forget the farmers and their equipment in any plans for Delta South, which contains 22,000 acres of prime farmland. They depend on their road system to get around. The reasons these things were built in the first place was to get goods and commodities to the markets.
I just have a couple of quick questions from the briefing package. In the first one, you mention high occupancy vehicles three and above only. Why is this different from Highway 1, which is two? Why can't we have the same occupancy for the HOV lane as Highway 1?
Number two is the radio electronics upgrade, Alex Fraser site. Could you just let us know what new equipment that is? It doesn't really state to us what it's going to do for Delta South. Then, electrical projects, the future upgrade of the Highway 99 lane control system. Is that the counterflow lane? It is great if you're going to upgrade that. We desperately need that. We know that it's not as easy as the Lions Gate Bridge, because you really do have a barrier in there when you're in the tunnel. But it is something that we would really appreciate. The question here is -- and I've asked this before, and nobody's been able to
Four is the cycling network projects. Now, these are really worthwhile projects in their own right, but there's a lot of expense to running this down 52nd and joining up with Arthur Drive. Maybe, if you're looking for cash, you could put this one on hold and do the signage situation on Highway 10 and put some of these moneys towards painting the tunnel. Presumably the lights will only require a switch, so that shouldn't be any cost. But the paint is a cost of the tunnel, and painting it. I think that from a safety point of view, this is far more important to the constituents of Delta South than the bike lane -- which is important, but safety comes first. My last question is
Hon. H. Lali: There were a number of issues and questions that the hon. member raised. I've asked my deputy minister in the past, and will continue to do so, to continue to work with the municipality and the local government on a number of these issues. I won't be able to provide answers for all of them, because some of them have to be canvassed under the ministry. Others I can give answers to here and also write some of the information to the hon. member as well.
[1525]
There is an origin-destination truck study that we will be doing with TransLink to answer the hon. member's question. In terms of lobbying the federal government, we've been doing that for several years to try to get the federal government to come on board with some funding. We will continue to do that. I appreciate the hon. member's support on that.
The issues of the lane control, the radio upgrade and the paint in the tunnel are obviously ministry issues. We will canvass those under the ministry estimates. Also, on the issue of the computer, all I can do is get ministry staff to actually give you a briefing and, if you would like, a site visit as well, to be able to show the member exactly how the lane-control system works and perhaps how the technology works as well, and where the computer is located.
The cycling network grant is something that actually the municipality had requested. We can't arbitrarily change that and put the money into painting the inside of the tunnel or towards the lighting or anything else. This is something that the municipality had requested and is something that we can't just change arbitrarily.
J. Reid: I have a bit of a puzzle. I'm not sure whether it belongs in this discussion or later on with ministry estimates. I am not sure whether funding has been overlooked for this or whether funding is available. It has to do with the new inland highway on Vancouver Island. There has been a problem where there are certain areas of the new highway that aren't covered for emergency road services such as Jaws of Life. These fall outside the bounds of any fire protection district. We haven't been able to find anyone taking responsibility or providing funding to be able to look after some of these issues. First of all, I want to find out whether this belongs under this discussion or not, and then I will follow up with the details.
Hon. H. Lali: Actually, this issue is probably better served under the ministry estimates. I want to point out to the
[ Page 15146 ]
hon. member that Jaws of Life and emergency services are not something the Ministry of Transportation and Highways looks after -- rather, the Attorney General and the Ministry of Health, in conjunction with local government. That's something that perhaps should be brought up in another ministry's estimates.
J. Reid: Thank you, hon. Chair. I will continue with the ministry estimates on this, because having gone through many other ministries on this, as I say, it's a puzzle. There are still some pieces that have yet to be answered, so I will continue later on.
J. van Dongen: I just have a few quick comments and a couple of questions. First of all, I want to acknowledge our good working relationship with our district office, particularly with the manager, Barry Eastman.
[1530]
Also, I am working with the ministry on an old file in Courtenay that involves some old issues and some new issues. Certainly the staff of the ministry there have been very helpful. I want to mention them on the record: Dan Doyle, ADM; Svein Haugen with the Vancouver Island Highway project; Mike Proudfoot in Courtenay; Leanne Johnston, who is with the AG's ministry; and the property negotiator David Aberdeen. They have all, I think, been very helpful in trying to work this case through.
We've made a fair bit of progress. The problems go back 15 years, and I am hopeful that we can get some closure to that case.
I wanted to ask, first of all, about Highway 11. This is a relatively short piece of highway between Mission and Abbotsford which has gone through some parts of the planning phase and public consultation. I know that the ministry keeps traffic numbers. The one question I had was: is the ministry recording accidents on that highway and analyzing the cause of those accidents? I know that the police collect that data, but does the ministry actually get that data and analyze it in terms of the cause?
I should also say that there's a camera, one of the intersection cameras, at Harris Road and Highway 11, which also provides additional data. I wonder if the planners are also using that data.
Hon. H. Lali: The accident history that the hon. member has mentioned is a part of the corridor study. We don't collect our own data, but we rely on the data from ICBC and also from the RCMP when we're looking at this.
J. van Dongen: I just wanted to be sure that that data was being captured and being used in the planning process. Certainly there are some accidents, for example, that happen at Harris Road and Highway 11. I don't know why they happen, because that's a pretty modern intersection. That's not the worst part of the highway. But I think it's useful data.
I wanted to ask a particular question. We have a situation that I've been talking to the district office about, and I am not sure if the minister and senior people are aware of this. I've been approached by the owner of the duty-free store at Huntingdon-Sumas crossing. This is on Sumas Way, otherwise known as C Street. They have a problem there in terms of access to their store, which is created when trucks back up waiting to get through customs. There's a point along there where the highway is only one lane wide. Currently there is a property for sale -- a run-down house, basically a bare lot now -- that would allow widening of the road at that point to two lanes.
That's really the issue that I want to focus on at this point. I realize that there is federal involvement there. There's a number of issues there. There are obviously long-term border crossing planning issues. But that property is for sale right now. It's on the market; it's listed. It seems to me that, collectively, whatever agencies are involved there should certainly be looking at acquiring that property. It's my understanding that the TFA or the ministry have not been prepared to look at that at this point. I think it would be a good opportunity to consider that.
Hon. H. Lali: We are aware of the issue. I think the member knows that we can't really talk about it publicly, but we'll take that hon. member's comments under advisement.
J. van Dongen: Just one last comment: Garry Dickinson, who owns the duty-free store had, the last time I talked to him, questioned the amount of money that was being spent on 264th Street. There's a project there that is just finishing now, where there was an extra lane added -- I presume it's a truck lane -- between 8th Avenue and 16th Avenue. But it's being done at a fairly high cost and he questioned the rationale for it. I don't know that I need it today, but it's an issue that came up. I wonder if the minister could take a look at that -- particularly in terms of our discussions on this Huntingdon crossing. What is the rationale for that expenditure on 264th?
[1535]
Hon. H. Lali: We had a paving project there, and it was decided to add on a truck lane as well. In terms of the economies of scale, it saves the government a lot of money, because it's cheaper to be able to do that when you have a couple of projects rolled into one.
J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for his answer. I've got a little bit of paper here on the Huntingdon border crossing, and I'll pass it over to the minister. It gives him some of the thoughts that the owner has and I think some backup to the idea of looking at that property. So I thank the minister for his answers.
R. Masi: Before I get to my main topic, I would like to compliment the minister and the Highways officials and people involved there on the Nordel project. It's underway now. I understand that the diggers are digging and the completion date is somewhere near in the fall -- and a job well done by everyone there.
The other thing I'd like to comment on and perhaps compliment the Highways ministry on again is the signage changes. More or less in the whole area of the Alex Fraser Bridge, on the approaches, I can now find my way home to North Delta from Vancouver without any trouble at all. I think you're all to be complimented for those changes. It was a bit confusing before, and now I think it's well straightened out.
Today I'd like to ask a few questions on the South Fraser perimeter road. The particular area I'm speaking of here would be the North Delta stretch, which will be perhaps a future alternative to River Road. Today the situation there is
[ Page 15147 ]
quite serious, and I'm sure you are aware of it. In the Annieville area and the Sunbury area of River Road, there are roughly about 2,000 trucks a day that rumble through the neighbourhood. We get complaints in my office about homes being shaken up and foundation cracks. A very serious one, of course, is the school crossing situation on River Road and just the overall general dangerous conditions there.
River Road is the responsibility of the municipality, and I know that they are doing some improvements on it. But I think the residents there and the residents of North Delta generally would like an update on the progress on the South Fraser perimeter road.
Hon. H. Lali: We recently had an open house regarding the South Fraser perimeter road. I also made a presentation to council in the area. There is some concern regarding the alignment by the municipality, and a lot of work still needs to be done. We will come back at a future time to the councils regarding what options may be available.
[1540]
We don't have a partnership agreement in place yet. There's also the difficulty in terms of the financing. We're trying to continue to work with the federal government. It was quite disappointing that in the federal government's recent budget that they announced in February, there were no moneys set aside for the South Fraser perimeter road or any other Highways or transportation-related project in British Columbia.
The one announcement they made was at the start of the year 2002-2003 for any kind of funding. But that was Canada-wide only -- $150 million. If we went by population alone, we might get about $15 million or $16 million in British Columbia. That's nowhere near what our needs are in terms of the national transportation infrastructure that we want to build in British Columbia. So there are some issues that are still ongoing, and we're working on those.
R. Masi: I'm glad you brought up the point of funding. I'm somewhat disappointed to hear the lack of progress in cooperative funding with the federal government. Is there any move to work with the regional governments on funding?
Hon. H. Lali: We are working with TransLink -- municipalities of Surrey and Delta and other partners in the region -- to make sure that this would happen. We have a steering committee in place, with member participation, in order to put together a package. Also, we're working with the Gateway Council and its members to put pressure on the federal government to continue the lobby to access some funding. I appreciate the hon. member's comments that he's also disappointed in the lack of federal funding. I'd be more than happy to work with the hon. member and any other member opposite to lobby the feds to access more funding for projects in British Columbia.
R. Masi: As I stated, the residents
[1545]
Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the hon. member that no final decision has been made. I want to be clear about that. We're also looking at some of the options, including moving the alignment a little closer to the water. When we do that, then we have environmental and archaeological concerns that need to be dealt with. I also want to point out that the tunnel option and looking at the widening of Highway 10 are not very promising.
R. Masi: I put that question forward because the question was put to me by certain groups in the area, and I think they certainly deserve an answer.
My last question would be: in terms of the area west of Highway 91, west of the possible junction with a new south perimeter road, will the road touch or be somewhat involved with Burns Bog? That's another concern of the neighbourhood. Or if not, where will it go?
Hon. H. Lali: The project does not entail going west of Highway 91, nor does it envision touching any part of Burns Bog.
B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to commend the minister's staff in the Penticton region, Mr. Bill Bedford, and Jeff Wiseman in the Grand Forks district. They are very, very helpful when it comes to problems or projects that we need to look at.
The first area of concern -- not really concern -- is the Apex ski hill road that you've got for an upgrading project. I know that the new owners of Apex have put $4 million or $5 million into the ski hill. They're trying to make it a year-round resort. The top section of the road has deteriorated quite substantially over the years, and I notice that there will be some upgrading now. What I'd like to ask the minister is: how much upgrading will take place? And will this will continue over the next couple of years, so that they can make it a year-round resort?
Hon. H. Lali: This year we're spending $300,000 for upgrading and paving some of the deteriorating sections of the ski hill. We'll keep on doing that in future years when the need arises to do some upgrading.
B. Barisoff: It's good to hear, because I'm sure that if the owners of the hill can have the commitment by the minister that this will be an ongoing project, they'll continue upgrading that portion of road. I'm sure they'll be prepared to continue putting money into it.
Of course, my next -- Highway 97, and I think I've brought it up every year since I've been here -- is the McAlpine Bridge issue. I think it's probably the only wooden bridge on a major highway in British Columbia. And the Vaseux Lake corners
[1550]
Hon. H. Lali: As far as the McAlpine Bridge, it is still in pretty good condition and did not make it to the top of the
[ Page 15148 ]
priority list for replacement. On Vaseux Lake, the topography in that area is of such a nature that it would make it too expensive to do something in that area.
B. Barisoff: Going along with this same question on Highway 97, I was at a meeting in Peachland two or three weeks back where Sen. Ross Fitzpatrick indicated to the group there, in his opening remarks, that he would be lobbying the federal minister to declare Highway 97 a federal highway. He felt very strongly that the federal minister would approve the designation of making Highway 97 a federal highway, and it would be incumbent on the provincial minister to put that same designation on Highway 97. And if that was the case, then Senator Fitzpatrick said we might be more apt to get federal funding, along with a push from the provincial minister. Could the minister give me an indication of whether he's prepared to go along with that and designate Highway 97 a federal highway?
Hon. H. Lali: Actually, I just want to clarify to the hon. member that there are no federal highways. The feds don't own any highways; we have a national highway system. For Highway 97, 100 percent of the costs are borne by the provincial government. I'd be more than happy to support any efforts to make Highway 97 a part of the national highway system. But at the same time, it does not guarantee us any funds from the federal government.
Almost 25 percent of the national highway system of this country is in British Columbia. Last year we got $1 million, and for three years in a row before that we received $6 million a year from the federal government. Meanwhile, they take $700 million a year in fuel taxes out of this province. So there hasn't been any kind of move by the feds to try to put money in, in the last four years. Making Highway 97 a part of the national highway system will not automatically guarantee that there will be funding available. Having said that, I'd be more than happy to support the notion of making Highway 97 a part of the national highway system.
B. Barisoff: It's actually great to hear that the minister indicated that he will support the idea of making Highway 97 a part of the national highway system. With that commitment by him and, I'm sure, the commitment by the Okanagan MLAs
While I'm on my feet, I might ask the minister
[1555]
Hon. H. Lali: As I mentioned earlier, some of the bigger projects are actually fairly expensive and costly and at this time would not be something that would be feasible. However, we're willing to look at some of the lower-cost solutions to make sure that the safety of the travelling public is looked after.
B. Barisoff: I think that those probably
The other major project, which actually runs through the minister's riding also, is Highway 3 that goes the Hope-Princeton and all the way through the southern Trans-Canada through Keremeos, through to Osoyoos and up to Grand Forks. There's a number of sections in there that I'd like to ask the minister to look at, in particular the one between Midway and Greenwood, which I think some upgrading has been done to. If there's any upgrading being done there
Hon. H. Lali: There are a number of smaller projects on Highway 3 and also in the area in the member's riding that we are doing. We're not tackling some of the bigger money items in terms of the work that is being done. That's something that we'll obviously have to consider for the future.
But unfortunately, at this time, as I mentioned in my opening remarks this morning, we haven't started any major new project in this year's budget. It's basically finishing off some of the major projects that have already been started or had already been announced. But we haven't made any announcements or started anything that is new and major anywhere in the province.
There are a number of
[1600]
B. Barisoff: The only briefing package I got was that one. There was one other item that I just might touch on. There was something in the briefing package that passed by somewhere, which said something about Road 20. It said Highway 20 and Highway 97, Road 20 -- some intersection. It said Oliver. I couldn't put the two together; this didn't seem right.
Hon. H. Lali: I can understand how something like that might happen. I'll just give him a side story here. We were driving to Kamloops last week with my children, and my eight-year-old looked at the road and said: "Papa, it says Surrey Lake, but we're not in Surrey." What had happened was, I think, that there might have been some confusion that came as a result
B. Barisoff: It certainly had people asking me about it, and I couldn't figure it out. I thought that living my life there and not figuring out what was happening, I had to ask the question to make sure it happened. I'd like to thank the minister for the answers.
The Chair: Member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Sorry. My apologies, member. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour on vote 46.
D. Jarvis: No apologies necessary. In fact, I'm probably going to ask some questions for the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who happens to be in another meeting.
[ Page 15149 ]
Anyway, Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, this morning
Hon. H. Lali: Just for the hon. member's information, May 26 to 29 is not a long weekend in Canada. It's a long weekend in the United States.
First of all, I just want to point out to the hon. member that the staff of the BCTFA and the people who work in the BCTFA are professionals. They're here to serve the public in the best manner they know with the training that they've had. Nobody -- and I can assure you of that -- in the TFA has gone out of their way to purposely mislead anybody in the public, at least not the member opposite making that assertion. I want to defend my staff, because they're highly professional, hard-working and very honest. There was never, ever any attempt by anybody to try to mislead anybody. So I think the hon. member may want to withdraw those remarks.
[1605]
Having said that, we had always
D. Jarvis: Actually, Mr. Minister, I wasn't really trying to accuse you of misleading or anything like that. I was referring to the calls that I'm getting and the letter that I got today from people who are involved in the tourist industry in the general area, who feel that from the original bridge alliance SPEAC pamphlet that came out
Nevertheless, I appreciate that you are under pressure because you are late on the project. Instead of starting in January, due to situations -- the weather and all the rest of it
The question I also want to ask on that
Hon. H. Lali: The rehabilitation of the Lions Gate Bridge is something that the municipalities on the north side had wanted. This is what they wanted, and this is what we are delivering. We always said that there were going to be weekend and nighttime closures.
I also want to point out to the hon. member that in terms of additional traffic, yes, there will be additional traffic on the Second Narrows Bridge. But it will be during the nighttime closures and also on the weekends, when the traffic flow is actually lower than it is during the business or daylight hours. The bridge will not be operating at overcapacity during those nighttime closures or on the weekend. That is the impact.
I want to point out to the hon. member that 85 percent of the traffic that normally travels over the Lions Gate Bridge will still, even during the construction, continue to travel over the Lions Gate Bridge.
[1610]
D. Jarvis: I gather from the tone of the minister's voice that he thinks that I am challenging him. All I'm doing is trying to get information. I appreciate the fact that government finally saw fit to at least do a repair job on the bridge for us. Next year, if
Anyway, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to ask the minister a couple of other quick questions. Seeing that we're on the bridges, are you continuing with the repairs? Are they finished now with regards to the widening and preparing and strengthening of the Second Narrows Bridge?
Hon. H. Lali: As far as the travelling public is concerned, they will not be impacted. There's some seismic work that needs to be done, but that's underneath the bridge, so it won't affect the travelling public.
D. Jarvis: On behalf of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, I'd like to ask a few questions with regards to work that's going on -- I assume it's under the TFA -- and that is in regards to a funding for bicycle paths that you've just put through or approved on the Second Narrows Bridge, on the south side from Wall Street and that. But I'm more concerned as to what is proposed or being done on the North Vancouver side in the lower road areas.
Hon. H. Lali: The cycling network program is an application-driven program, where the municipalities make the application. So in this year virtually every application, I'm assured, that came forward from all over the province was funded. On the north side, there's one small one that we've got that was funded, but there were very few applications, if any, that came forward, I think, other than this. There's a lower-level road bike route, Cotton Road, in North Vancouver. It's between $7,000 and $8,000 in terms of the project. It's not a lot. Again, it's something that municipalities and regional districts can apply for, and it's an application-driven process.
D. Jarvis: I thought that there was a plan to put a bicycle encircling
[ Page 15150 ]
Hon. H. Lali: The project the hon. member is talking about is something that the local government did not apply for. Obviously if it's going to come forward next year, great, we'll put it into our priority mix.
D. Symons: Regarding the Lions Gate Bridge again, when it was decided to go for this rehab job on the Lions Gate Bridge rather than a replacement of the bridge, I know at that time the ministry was talking about $70 million as being the cost of the project, and your bids came in closer to $100 million. I'm wondering if there have been any change orders, because we've certainly had some changes in the order that things have taken place, particularly regarding the causeway. I wonder if there'd been any change orders or additions that can have cost implications to that project.
[1615]
Hon. H. Lali: Other than the Vancouver causeway, which the hon. member mentioned, there have been no other change orders.
D. Symons: I might ask what the cost implication of that was. But I'll go on to the next question as well, because it relates to the questions asked earlier regarding the closures of the bridge. One American bridge organization, Surespan, put their bid in. One of their features -- I think it probably gave them a leg-up over the others, because I gather that the low bids were somewhat similar to each other -- was the fact that they would have fewer closures than their competitors. That was partly through this flyover system they planned to use. If something didn't work, they would have a way of bridging the gap and having the bridge open in daytime and not closed over a 24-hour period.
I'm hearing now that that system may not work quite as well as they had anticipated, and therefore there may be more problems -- that in one closure period they are not going to be able to lower a section, raise a section and put it in place. They may indeed have to go to the flyover and attempt that. What was going to be done in a nighttime might take two or three nighttimes to do now, and that may extend the period of time that the project will take and also extend the number of times you'll have to have closures. I'm wondering if you could comment on that.
Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the hon. member that the temporary spanning structure he talked about is not going to be used. I think there are some problems with the wind factor involved in it. It's going to result in a few more nighttime closures to be able to complete the task. I again want to reiterate that the project will be on time and will be on budget.
D. Symons: I'll skip this one and go on to the next. The province's cycling policy calls for a minimum of 3.7 metres for shared cycling-pedestrian facilities. That will not be the case on the bridge deck that's currently being worked on. The sidewalks on the bridge are only going to be two metres, so since you have a policy of 3.7, you seem to be breaking the policy. Or since you are putting this on the outside of the current structure, it would seem that you could add a metre on there without too much difficulty, but there would be a cost, I suspect.
[B. Barisoff in the chair.]
Hon. H. Lali: Again, I want to clarify it for the hon. member. The 3.7 metres is for new facilities. This is actually rehabilitating the existing structure. Also, going beyond what we are currently doing would have added too much weight to the structure and would have added immense costs to the bill as well.
[1620]
D. Jarvis: I would like to just ask a couple of real quick questions here about a proposed extension of Highway 43, which, for your information, is an existing sort of forestry road. It's quite a proposal that I've seen here. And with regard to pushing it through to the Kananaskis Highway into Calgary, the people in the Elk Valley have all
When I scanned it quickly, what was really interesting was the medical emergency aspect of it. From Elkwood to Calgary, it now takes an ambulance -- if it's an emergency -- three and a half hours to travel down there. But if this road had been put through, a two-lane road, they would now be looking at approximately an hour and a half into Calgary for emergency purposes. With the medical plan in this province the way it is, you can't really expect to see a hospital
Hon. H. Lali: We have heard of it; nothing is actually being done on that. It is very, very expensive with too few benefits.
S. Hawkins: I have a few issues to canvass with the minister. The first one is the one I rise on every year, and the minister accuses me of wanting to spend more money in the riding.
Interjection.
S. Hawkins: Yes. I get that accusation every year when I bring up the bridge. But what I'm trying to do every year is get the minister and his government's commitment on what they are actually doing with the bridge. I wonder if the minister can tell us what the status of the floating bridge is at this time. Perhaps, at the same time, he can tell me how much money to date has been spent on design. By that I mean the total design from when the bridge was first conceived.
Hon. H. Lali: It's an ongoing issue that the member has mentioned. As you'll recall, when I became minister, we had spent some moneys there. We'll get the figure as to how much money's been spent while I am answering the other part of the question.
One of the things was that there were proponents from Kelowna of a submerged tunnel scheme, and so we spent some time analyzing the option of rehabilitating the bridge versus a brand-new bridge versus this tunnel option. I believe it was towards the end of October I made the decision that we were not going to go with the tunnel option -- that the two options that were basically available would be rehabbing the existing structure or building a brand-new one. I made the decision at the time that we would, actually, build a brand-new bridge beside the old bridge. Then once the new one is completed, we will take down the old one.
So far, by the end of this fiscal year, including the moneys coming forward this year, there will be a total of $7.7 million
[ Page 15151 ]
that will have been spent on the whole public process, the design and the planning. I believe the figure for this year that we will be putting forward on that is $1.26 million.
I am actually coming up to the Okanagan again to talk to the folks in the local area; I will be interested to hear their views.
We have $1.25 million in this year's budget for that.
S. Hawkins: Can the minister clarify for me whether the seven-odd million dollars that he mentioned includes the design concepts for the old four-lane -- when they were going to add a lane to the old bridge?
Hon. H. Lali: In the past, we have done preliminary design work, and what we will be doing this year is, actually, some detailed design work on the bridge.
S. Hawkins: Is the money for the preliminary design work included in the seven-point-odd million dollars? I see affirmative nodding over there. So that is the total amount of money that has been spent on design since the upgrades were conceived for the bridge.
I want to move now to Highway 97 between Peachland and Summerland. There were some improvements undertaken for that road. I believe there were some wildlife fences put up, but as far as I know, there are still safety concerns on that highway. I would like the minister to comment on whether there is going to be any more improvements made on that road and what they will be if there are.
[1625]
Hon. H. Lali: The ministry has undertaken some safety improvements consisting of roadside barriers and high-reflectivity signing as well as wildlife venting, which was also installed in a partnership with ICBC and local organizations. More barriers will be placed in warranted locations this construction season. The ministry is also continuing to look at the potential of constructing additional lanes along sections of the highway to provide safer passing opportunities and to reduce driver frustration.
The member is correct. Peachland to Summerland is an area that deserves attention for funding from the provincial government. I will be leaving in a couple of weeks. I don't have my schedule with me. I'm going in to meet with the local municipal leaders of Peachland, Summerland and Penticton to work with them to see what some of the areas are that we could perhaps put into the priority mix for funding in upcoming budgets. I'll be looking forward to talking to them in a couple of weeks.
S. Hawkins: I'm wondering if there are any plans to straighten out any of the curves that are of particular concern on that road.
Hon. H. Lali: We haven't developed any specific plans. That's also actually part of the process to meet with the local leaders. I'll be meeting with Sen. Ross Fitzpatrick as well. I've talked to him on the telephone. I also had a brief chat personally with him in Kelowna several months back. I know this is an issue that's important to the members opposite and to the Senator and to the ministry as well. That's the reason for me to go in there to meet with the local leaders and identify some of the hot spots and then see what we can come up with.
S. Hawkins: When we were in estimates last year and when we met with the minister -- I believe it was in November in Kelowna -- I reminded him again that he had promised, made a commitment, to give me the accident statistics for that roadway. I'm also wondering if the minister or the ministry compiled a list of priority projects with respect to safety and where this one fell on that list.
Hon. H. Lali: On the Peachland to Summerland section, the average annual daily traffic is 11,025, and the summer annual daily traffic is 13,110 vehicles.
Sorry, you were looking for the accident statistics. I'm sorry; I'd like to apologize to the hon. member. I didn't realize we had made that promise. We'll have to get the statistics from ICBC and then pass them over to the hon. member or to the critic.
[1630]
D. Symons: To the minister again, on the issue of the highway between Peachland and Summerland. There have been fatalities there, and I have a list of them here. You have the advantage over us, in that behind you, you have a gentleman who has what's called a briefing book. When we ask a question, he comes through there and hands you the paper that has the answers or the outline of the material. I'm running a few years late. We would have liked to have had those briefing books and had the same advantage, since basically briefing books are put together for what's happening within the ministry. In a sense, the opposition is part of government too and should be welcome to that material, but we haven't got it yet.
But I do happen to have a copy of the 1997 briefing book, in which they talk about that particular section of Highway 97. It comments in the part under "consultation" that a preliminary design was completed in 1992 -- the upgrading to four lanes. What the minister is doing this year on that particular section is what I can call minor little upgrades of a portion of it, but you're not four-laning. You've had plans sitting around since 1992. We've had eight years to deal with that problem, and you're really making very minor changes this year to address the issue of the fatalities and the danger of that particular section of Highway 97.
Hon. H. Lali: In 1992 the four-laning plans were deemed to be far too expensive for the benefits that would have been derived. Also, it entailed a fair bit of blasting to be able to achieve that goal. Having said that, that's not to say that there aren't safety issues on that stretch of highway that need to be addressed. They do need to be addressed, and that's one of the reasons why I am going to the Okanagan to meet with local leaders to identify what some of those hot spots are.
S. Hawkins: I know the minister is aware of a coroner's report dated January 30, 1997. Coroner Larry Achtem wrote the report. I want to quote from it, if I can, because I know the ministry understands how important it is to upgrade this road and to make it safer. The coroner's comments at the end of this report say:
Both sides of the House recognize what a significant issue safety is with respect to our highways. I'm going to ask the minister again: does the ministry compile a list of priorities for safety projects? And if they do, can we see that list and see where this particular stretch of Highway 97 is on that list?"The 18-kilometre stretch of Highway 97 between Summerland and Peachland is a narrow, winding, undivided, dangerous section of highway. With the population increasing in the South Okanagan, the volume of traffic on this highway is also increasing. With these factors in mind, any untoward element such as vehicular fault, driver error or, as was the case in
[ Page 15152 ]
this particular occasion, bad road surface conditions combined with poor tires, the possibility of accidents increases dramatically."
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. H. Lali: We don't have a list of priorities for projects that are based solely on safety, although safety is one of the major concerns when prioritization takes place. There is no list that exists with safety as the issue and a list of priorities.
S. Hawkins: Can I ask the minister what judgment they make, then? How do they decide that a project is a priority? This one has been coming up year after year, as long as I've been here. I've only been here four years, and I know it's been a priority certainly for the Okanagan for the last eight years, nine years or ten years. I would ask the minister: how do they make the judgment that one project is a priority over another?
[1635]
Hon. H. Lali: The basic business case that is made to do a project takes into consideration the economic and social benefits as compared to cost. That's how it's derived.
S. Hawkins: What kind of social benefits?
Hon. H. Lali: The reduction in health costs due to an increase in the safety of a particular stretch of road is something that we determine under the social benefits, as well as improved access for folks and also timely access to health and educational facilities by individuals.
S. Hawkins: That doesn't help me out too much. I don't know what weight each of those is given. Again, I don't really understand how the ministry makes judgments based on
I'm going to move
I'm going to move now to the four-laning of the Merritt part of the connector. I understand that the original design had been rejected three times by the Agricultural Land Commission. I understand that the ministry has now proposed another design to four-lane the six kilometres of Highway 97 from Aspen Grove towards Merritt. I'm having difficulty understanding the new design. I understand that the new design follows the same stretch of road, only it's going to be four-laned.
Last year the minister stood here and told me that the main reason four-laning was required was because of safety, because right now the speed changes from 110 kilometres to 90 kilometres. That's what I was told. He said that if it was four-laned, it was for safety reasons; it was to improve safety. Now the new design follows the same winding road, and the speed still changes from 110 to 90. So I don't see any improvement in what is being proposed.
Perhaps the minister can stand up and tell me how the design that's going to follow the existing road is going to improve safety and why that project is more of a priority than the one that we were just discussing, which is the 18 kilometres of highway between Peachland and Summerland.
Hon. H. Lali: Just a comment that the hon. member made regarding the previous good question in terms of the social benefits
[1640]
On the issue of the Aspen Grove four-laning, we've canvassed this issue quite thoroughly. Last year not just the hon. member across the way but a number of hon. members across the way asked basically the same question. We canvassed it quite thoroughly at that time, but I'd be more than happy to canvass it again with the hon. member today.
First of all, I just want to clear the notion
Again, to clarify for the hon. member, I stated -- yes, correctly -- that safety was an issue in terms of four-laning at Aspen Grove. But I also said to the hon. member that it was not just the speed on either side that was going from 110 kilometres down to 90 kilometres an hour on that stretch of road. But for the record, the second part of that, which the hon. member may have inadvertently left out, is that the highway also went down to two lanes during that 14-kilometre stretch. Too many people were actually taking the chance of passing on solid double lines, and that's how the accidents were occurring. People were getting injured and killed as a result of that, when accidents occurred. The latest one
So we've gone from a 110-kilometre standard which was originally envisioned by the prior design and which would have entailed a four-lane divided highway with frontage roads, down to four lanes but staying primarily within the right-of-way that we have presently -- fence to fence, as we call it -- with some minor deviation, especially along the S-curve where we would do either a land purchase or a land swap, in some areas, with the ranchers on either side of the six kilometres that is envisaged to be done within the $10 million that I announced.
I also want to further clarify for the hon. member that we have a four-lane highway stretching practically all the way from downtown Vancouver to Kamloops, which is one phase of the Coquihalla system -- through Merritt. The other one, obviously, is from downtown Vancouver through to the Trans-Canada Highway -- the Coquihalla system to Merritt -- and then the connector to the Okanagan that is four-laned, with the exception of the 14 kilometres at Aspen Grove that was left
[ Page 15153 ]
two-laned. At that time, I think the member will recall, I said that the plan is to start to eliminate the two-lane section in Aspen Grove -- six kilometres right now -- with the funding we have available, so that we can have a safe four-lane highway stretching all the way from Vancouver to Kelowna on the one side and then also to Kamloops via Merritt on the other side. That was something I had actually told the hon. member last year.
S. Hawkins: I am having difficulty understanding how our funds are being spent. The minister does mention that there is limited funding, and we all know that. I am having trouble understanding how the ministry prioritizes projects. In the Okanagan we have a highway between Summerland and Peachland where we can show that the accident rates are significant, and safety is a huge consideration.
I want the minister to tell me how the decision was made to spend $10 million four-laning the six kilometres from Aspen Grove to Merritt and not spend money to improve the highway between Peachland and Summerland. Just because it was envisioned years ago that it would be four-lane between Vancouver and the Okanagan
[1645]
Hon. H. Lali: It's actually not the ministry; it's the TFA that does the prioritization of this. That's just a technical item; I'm not trying to disagree with the hon. member.
In terms of how the priorities are set, I have to agree to disagree with the hon. member across the way. The implication that the hon. member made last time -- which is coming clearer this time -- is that something is within my constituency, and that's why it took precedence. One could also argue that the hon. member, when she gets up to speak, is lobbying on behalf of her constituents. I think that's a job that we all must do as elected officials -- be able to effectively lobby on behalf of our constituents. So I think both of us could be accused of the same thing, hon. member.
But in terms of the priority, again I just want to put forward to the hon. member that in terms of accident rates both Peachland-Summerland and also Aspen Grove would fit within the provincial average. I quite clearly put forward on the table to the hon. member last year that as minister, I was looking at the four-lane Coquihalla Highway system which emanates right out of Vancouver, and the only section between the Okanagan and Vancouver that was left two-lane was the Aspen Grove section. Long before I became an MLA in '91, I argued publicly that that section should never have been left as a two-lane. It should have been four-laned, because the traffic does not miraculously disappear. The same amount of traffic that comes out of Merritt goes on through there, except all of a sudden you've got a two-lane section.
So we have a freeway system. We want to have four-lane from Vancouver all the way to Kelowna. Then all of those other areas that the hon. member is rightfully lobbying for, we can extend from there. But obviously we've got that 14 kilometres that has been left two-lane. There is a history of accidents that have taken place, and a number of people have been killed.
S. Hawkins: The minister is right. I do have a responsibility to stick up for my constituents. But you know what? I recognize that I am a provincial legislator as well, so I have to look at priorities across the province. I'm having a great deal of difficulty with this issue, because the minister tells me it's the TFA that decides. Well, the TFA puts its plan to the board. And you know what? The board's made up of the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development; the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and Minister Responsible for Rural Development; the Minister of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers; and the member for Alberni. They are all NDP members. So I have to wonder, again
We have limited funding for improvements in this province. The minister points out that at one time it was envisioned that there would four-laning from Vancouver straight to the Okanagan. Well, that's fine. But at a time when there is limited funding, I want to know how those decisions are made. The critic tells me that between Peachland and Summerland we get three times more traffic than that six-kilometre portion the minister is going to spend $10 million on, and the accident rate is higher on the 18 kilometres from Peachland to Summerland.
The minister hasn't given me any comfort on how the decisions are made and how the safety and social impacts -- or whatever he was mentioning as social factors -- are weighted. I don't know what's given greater weight. I would think that health and safety would get greater weight. If in the future it was envisioned that we would four-lane between Vancouver and the Okanagan, that's fine. We'll do it when we can afford it. I think we can't afford to leave a road like Peachland to Summerland the way it is. It's just too critical at times. We're getting more and more traffic; we're getting more and more tourism. We've got a lot of elderly drivers.
[1650]
As a provincial legislator, when I look around the province and see roads that are critical, I expect the money to go there first. I'm sorry, but I don't see the six kilometres between Aspen Grove and Merritt as being as critical as this one, according to the stats that I've seen. If the minister can explain to me, instead of telling me that the TFA puts forward the plan, and that's what you go by
Hon. H. Lali: Well, I would think the hon. member across the way
A Voice: Heaven forbid.
Hon. H. Lali: I don't think I need to give the
The Chair: Through the Chair, minister. Minister, order. Bring the debate through the Chair, minister. Thank you.
A Voice: You want to get at it? Let's get at it. You can do it; make the first move.
[ Page 15154 ]
Interjection.
Hon. H. Lali: Yeah, you do it. Can't handle the heat, can you? You can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
A Voice: I can take anything you can hand out.
Hon. H. Lali: You're a bloody hypocrite. Anyway
Interjection.
The Chair: Hon. minister, would you take your seat for a moment, please.
Interjection.
Hon. H. Lali: Yeah, do it -- just do it.
The Chair: Minister, come to order.
Hon. H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Take your seat for a minute.
R. Neufeld: Where's your thick skin, buddy?
Hon. H. Lali: I think I just hit a raw nerve of the member for Peace River North across the way.
The Chair: Hon. minister, would you take your seat for a minute, please.
Debate in this committee above all needs to be relevant to the minister's office, on both sides of the floor. I would call the minister's and the member's attention to decorum and general scope of debate. If we could keep the debate to the ministry and the minister's responsibilities and let the personalities exist outside of the room, I think it would go a long way to developing decorum, protecting decorum and extending debate in this room.
Hon. H. Lali: To continue on with the question that the hon. member asked, the recommendations come forward from staff of the BCTFA. They go forward to the board of the Transportation Financing Authority, then on to Treasury Board and then on to cabinet. There is a process of checks and balances that is in place. We have the time-honoured position in this province, with the democratic institutions that we've got set up, as to who gets to be on what board. Whether one party or another is in office is irrelevant to this discussion.
The overall budget under the TFA this year is $485.5 million. Aside from the $10 million for the Aspen Grove four-laning, we have $475.5 million to be spent across the entire province. We've got projects in ridings of the members opposite. The 200th Street Langley interchange has a couple of Liberal MLAs, as well as the Mount Lehman interchange which I announced recently. All these are multimillion-dollar projects. Again, there are a couple or three ridings that are represented by members of the opposition. South Surrey interchange is another one that is represented by an opposition member. The Lions Gate Bridge has benefits that will accrue mostly to members who reside in the ridings north of the Lions Gate Bridge. Again, those are all occupied by members of the opposition. It's the same thing with the Port Mann Bridge. Funding that we made available affects not only NDP but also Liberal ridings.
So if the member wants to argue any kind of a point that somehow there's unfairness because Liberal ridings are not getting their share of the funding, that is an unfounded implication that the hon. member
[1655]
S. Hawkins: That's not what I said.
Hon. H. Lali: Hon. member, you'll have your chance to speak as well. That is something that is totally unfounded. The hon. members across the House can take a look at the plan last year and this year to see that there's major funding going into the ridings of the members opposite.
Again, in terms of the statement that the hon. member made, the accident rates for highway sections between Summerland and Peachland are actually below provincial norms. The accident severity ratio is actually close to the provincial average. I'll just leave that.
The existing two-lane section from Aspen Grove to Garcia Lake has an accident rate that is marginally higher than the provincial rate. So that's there.
R. Thorpe: I was sitting here, and I heard my colleague from Okanagan West clearly say that priorities should be established on health and safety issues. I know my colleague, in my absence, asked some questions about the very dangerous sharp curve just north of Summerland and south of Peachland. The coroner has written on this issue a couple of times after unfortunate deaths. What I really want to know is: did the authority actually do a review and case study of that situation when they made their decision to put up a little bit of signage and reflectors and not do roadwork there?
Hon. H. Lali: I think it's a little more complex than the hon. member wants to make it out be. It's actually something that could be canvassed under the ministry estimates, but I'll answer it anyway. That was something that could be done immediately, in terms of the reflectors and signing. The ministry decided that we would just go ahead with it, whereas some of the other major work that needs to be done -- especially in terms of four-laning between Peachland and Summerland -- requires rock removal, and that requires a fair bit of blasting to take place. A lot of planning needs to be done before you do something major like that. But in terms of the reflectors and the signage, that was something that could have been done immediately, and the ministry acted upon that.
R. Thorpe: Just so the minister is up to speed with what's happening in the ministry, the reflectors actually went up this week.
My question, which I thought was fairly clear, was
[ Page 15155 ]
Hon. H. Lali: With regard to Peachland and Summerland it's ongoing work that we are doing, and we will continue to do that. I don't know if the hon. member was present at the time, but in a couple of weeks' time -- I don't know the exact date -- I am going into the hon. member's constituency to meet with the mayors and councils of Peachland, Summerland and also Penticton, specifically with a view to Peachland and Summerland issues on that 18-kilometre stretch and generally about other Highways issues that may exist within the area of those three cities that I mentioned. I'll be down there to talk about what may or may not need to be done between Peachland and Summerland and see if we can't put that into the priority mix for funding in ongoing years.
[1700]
R. Thorpe: I'm pleased the minister is going into that important part to look at the highways. Of course, if I was to ever receive an invitation from the minister to attend those meetings with them, to show a partnership of working together to solve people's problems around safety and social issues, I think that would show, hon. Chair -- and I'm sure you would agree -- a very kind gesture to the people, especially as we are about to celebrate Easter and are on the eve of Passover. I look forward to the minister's invitation. But my question to the minister is: did you do an analysis of why you could not do that work right now? I believe the answer should be yes. If you did, could I please have a copy of that analysis, which said this was not a priority at this point in time?
Hon. H. Lali: To assure the member, if I didn't think and the TFA didn't think that Peachland-Summerland was not a priority, then obviously I wouldn't be going in there to specifically talk to the mayors and councils in the regions about those issues. I mean, that's why I'm going in there. It's a meeting that my office has called to set up to talk to the folks about those issues.
In terms of some of the work, there has been some preliminary analysis done on that stretch of highway. It's an ongoing process, and we'll continue to do the work. Any information we can supply to the member we're more than happy to do so.
In terms of the hon. member's request to receive an invitation to join me in those meetings, I'd be more than happy to do so. I think he knows that I have a reputation of working with members opposite. Both the member for Okanagan East and the member for Okanagan West were in a meeting that I called with the mayor and council and regional district chair in Kelowna on the Kelowna bridge issue. They were there. I have worked closely with the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and also with Fort Langley on their particular issue, 200th Street -- as was the case with the two members from the Abbotsford and Matsqui areas, who are both Liberals. The member for Peace River South has accompanied me on a couple of occasions when I've made announcements. I'd be more than happy to have the hon. member participate in those very productive meetings that we will have.
R. Thorpe: I thank the minister for that. I look forward to receiving a copy of the itinerary, so I can make the necessary meeting arrangements to be there with him.
The last question before I turn it back to our critic is
Hon. H. Lali: That is the plan. I tabled it in the House at 10 a.m. this morning.
R. Thorpe: So this is all of the detail. There's no comprehensive detailed plan back at the authority. This is it. Is that correct?
Hon. H. Lali: We have a lot of detailed documents, but this is the plan that we are putting forward, and that's the one I tabled in the House.
J. Weisbeck: Last year about this time I presented a petition to the House after a fatal accident occurred on Highway 97 at Duck Lake. I guess the petitioners were asking for a centre median and some guard rails to prevent this sort of accident from happening. A couple of nights ago another death occurred on the stretch of Highway 97 at Wood Lake, where somebody apparently crossed the midline, went off into the lake and, of course, perished. I was wondering about the status of upgrading, what sort of studies have been done in that area, what it would take to get some guard rails, particularly on the Wood Lake side, and also to satisfy the original petition of guard rails and a median in the Duck Lake area.
[1705]
Hon. H. Lali: I appreciate the hon. member raising that particular issue. I will take it under advisement, and I'll actually get my staff to talk to the regional folks there to talk to the hon. member about the locations.
J. Weisbeck: One further question. On the situation on Highway 33 outside of Rutland, we have a long hill with two lanes. I was wondering what status that road has as far as passing lanes and the upgrading of that.
Hon. H. Lali: On that stretch we don't have any plan to actually put in a passing lane; however, there is repaving that is going to take place. It's a fairly substantial amount of paving that will take place.
J. Weisbeck: As you're aware, Okanagan East does share the concerns with the bridge. There is a rumour running around in my riding that they're going to take the three fast ferries and weld them together to create a new floating bridge. I was wondering if the minister could
Hon. H. Lali: Actually, the fast ferries are the responsibility of another minister; I'm only responsible for inland ferries. Maybe that might be something the critic is going to put forward.
Anyway, hon. Chair, noting the time
Motion approved.
The Chair: Have a good weekend, folks.
The committee rose at 5:07 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada