Hansard -- Tuesday, March 11, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 12, No. 11 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5417

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5418
	Community Charter (Bill 14) Hon. T. Nebbeling Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 17) Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5419
	B.C. Interior Forestry Museum W. McMahon Kootenay storytelling festival B. Suffredine McDonald family independent power projects B. Bennett

Oral Questions		5420
	Fair Pharmacare program income-testing model J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Affordability of assisted-living model P. Sahota Hon. K. Whittred Regulation of barbers and cosmetologists S. Brice Hon. G. Bruce Drug courts and mental health courts L. Mayencourt Hon. G. Plant Gravel extraction from Fraser River J. Les Hon. S. Hagen Future of B.C. Rail J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid

Petitions		5422
	J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		5423
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2003 (Bill 6) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins K. Krueger

Reporting of Bills		5432
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2003 (Bill 6)

Third Reading of Bills		5432
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2003 (Bill 6)

Committee of the Whole House		5432
	Income Tax Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 7) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5434
	Income Tax Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 7)

Committee of the Whole House		5434
	Auditor General Act (Bill 9)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5434
	Auditor General Act (Bill 9)

Committee of the Whole House		5434
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 11) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant Hon. R. Coleman Hon. K. Falcon L. Mayencourt

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5438
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 11)

Committee of Supply		5438
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Abbott Hon. L. Stephens

Second Reading of Bills		5445
	Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 15) Hon. G. Collins

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		5445
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation Hon. J. Reid K. Manhas K. Krueger B. Penner D. MacKay B. Lekstrom D. Jarvis P. Wong

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Today I would like to introduce two gentlemen who are in the gallery. These two gentlemen are here to be present when we introduce Bill 14 in a little while. First is Frank Leonard, who is the mayor of Saanich. He's also the first vice-president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and chairs the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C. With him is the executive director of the UBCM, Richard Taylor. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I know that this morning the member for Vancouver-Hastings made the announcement of the birth of a daughter to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but I think it is important today for us to remember that this is one of the most joyful times anyone can have. I think we should all send our warmest love and best wishes to Jenny Kwan and her daughter.

Thank you to the Premier. Yes, I did announce it this morning. I talked to Jenny — to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — about an hour ago, and they have named their daughter Cee-Yan, and she's a beautiful, black-curly-haired young woman.

I do note that the same day that she was brought into the world, though, there was an event — I don't know what you'd call it…. The member from Comox was also brought into the world on the same day. I would call that a day of celebration as well. Happy birthday.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to be able to introduce two relatives who are in the gallery today. We've all heard of economic refugees, and we've all heard of war refugees. I would like to introduce some weather refugees from the cold town of Sarnia: my Uncle Bill and Aunt Jenny Kapteyn.

B. Belsey: I have the pleasure today to introduce three people that are visiting us from Prince Rupert: Mr. Bill Parmar, who is the president of the Prince Rupert and District Chamber of Commerce, as well as the past president of Rotary; his wife Anita; and his daughter Pamela, who is studying at the University of Victoria. Would you all please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: We are joined in the gallery this afternoon by some hard-working folks from the legal services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General: lawyer Laurie Solway; some articling students — Leslie Baskerville, Elizabeth Meyer, Ann Roberts, Jeff Van Hinte and Aaron Welch; and two co-op students — Daniel Morton and Simon Owen. They are here enthusiastically hoping that a little democracy will break out on the floor of the chamber in the next few minutes. I would ask all members to make them very welcome.

J. MacPhail: Today being quite an auspicious day, we're joined by an old colleague of all of ours — a former colleague, not old: Corky Evans. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Lekstrom: Joining us in the House this afternoon are two friends of mine and workers for the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. They advocate on behalf of motorcycle rights across British Columbia. Joining us today, we have Adele Tompkins, who is the executive director, as well as Shannon McNeney, who is the administrative coordinator. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me to introduce to the House several people that work with the Ministry of Energy and Mines, who are here today to receive their commemorative medals for the Queen's Golden Jubilee. They are Ross Curtis and his wife Loraine; Patrick O'Rourke; Gerald German; and Ron Smyth, accompanied by his wife Ruby, his mother Lucy Smyth and his sister, Avril Ridley. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Stewart: Joining us today from Pitt Meadows, we have the chair of the municipal insurance association. Would the House please make welcome councillor Janice Elkerton.

V. Anderson: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming two distinguished B.C. educators: Bob Lindsay and Stanley French of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association.

T. Christensen: Many members in this House will know my very hard-working and capable constituency assistant, Min Sidhu. Another thing we all know is that elections are about numbers. Not to be outdone, although my congratulations go out to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and her family, my constituency assistant Min on Friday, March 7 welcomed

into the world her and her husband Sid's third daughter. It's my privilege to welcome one of my newest constituents, Dilan Kaur Sidhu, who was born last Friday.

Hon. G. Campbell: Since we're celebrating today, I think it's important for us to recognize that this is International Women's Week. It is important for us to celebrate the contribution that women have made to our country, to our history, to the society we live in — women in history, like Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Irene Parlby. The Famous Five are memorialized in bronze on Parliament Hill in Ottawa for the contribution they made in changing the status quo and making the world a better place for all of us.

This is a time to celebrate Mary Ellen Smith, who was first elected to this Legislature in 1918 and was indeed the first Speaker of this Legislature.

We can remember the first woman mayor in Canada, Mayor Norah Arnold, from the city of Prince Rupert in our great northwest.

Nellie McClung is buried here in Victoria. I'm sure you'll all recall her motto, which was "Get the job done and let them howl." She is now buried here in Victoria, and her gravestone says that she is loved and remembered.

Of course, it's a British Columbian who sits as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin. Here in B.C. the head of the RCMP E division and M division is Beverley Busson. Of course, our first woman Lieutenant-Governor, Iona Campagnolo, today sits in Government House and presides over our province.

It is always important for us to remember the contribution of all British Columbians, but this is a special time for us to recognize the contribution of the women of this province who have made this such an exceptional place for all of us to live.

Hon. T. Nebbeling presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Charter.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I'm pleased today to present the community charter. It's been a long time in the making, and as a consequence of much work that has been done by many stakeholder groups, we have created the most empowering local government legislation in Canada.

Today we are fulfilling our commitment in the New Era document regarding the community charter by honouring a long-standing request of local governments. In 1991 the Union of B.C. Municipalities introduced the bill of rights for local governments. The principles of this bill of rights have directed the creation of the community charter.

From the beginning of this legislative process we have worked with the UBCM and other stakeholders. Their input was invaluable, as was the work of the Community Charter Council.

We've also received a tremendous amount of input from local governments, from business sectors, from labour groups and from many individuals. The result is today's community charter. It is concise legislation, balancing enhanced municipal powers with increased public accountability. Local governments will have greater autonomy to make decisions on the delivery of municipal services. This is for the benefit of their citizens. Municipalities are in the best position to make local decisions for their citizens and for their communities. They are the level of government closest to the citizens, and the community charter reflects that.

In short, municipalities can be more responsive and proactive. With the community charter, they are now active leaders in shaping the destiny of their communities. Innovative local governments are key to a solid economic base for our entire province. Strong local governments are key to the revitalization and economic growth of British Columbia.

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

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. R. Coleman: A decision was made at open cabinet last November to transfer ICBC's compliance operation department to government. Since the mandate of this ministry is also public safety, it is a natural fit, and I am pleased that this section is moving to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Compliance operations enforces standards for commercial vehicle carriers, vehicle inspection facilities and weigh scales. Its mandate is to reduce the instance and severity of commercial vehicle accidents. The operation will become part of our future integrated traffic

enforcement strategy. The amendments to this bill transfer these functions to government, streamline services and enhance public safety.

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

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

W. McMahon: One of the things that enshrines the history of Revelstoke is forestry. The contribution it has made to the growth of this community is so great that it is impossible to measure. As our economy grows and diversifies, it is important to remember the staples that built this wonderful community.

Revelstoke is located on the Columbia River between the Selkirk and Monashee mountains at the western entrance to Rogers Pass on the Trans-Canada Highway. It is named after Lord Revelstoke, head of a London banking firm. The city incorporated on March 1, 1899.

Forestry plays an important role. In recognizing this, the fledgling B.C. Interior Forestry Museum has opened in Revelstoke. Coming into its third season at Columbia View Park, the forestry museum staff and society have managed to fill its 2,200-square-foot floor space and most of the wall space with artifacts and displays preserving the history of forestry in the southern interior of British Columbia.

Each of the first two seasons saw approximately 7,000 visitors attend the museum. To date, the society has collected 11 pieces of vintage heavy equipment including a 1956 Hayes logging truck and a 65-foot-high yarder made with surplus World War II parts. I understand this was often the case for logging equipment in the forties and early fifties.

Expansion plans are already on the drawing board for the B.C. Interior Forestry Museum. The society has received a licence for 30 acres of land for expansion to an interpretative centre, including an 11,000-square-foot replica of an early 1900s sawmill from the Kamloops area, a first nations cultural display, a logging camp and interconnected nature trails. The society is also working on salvaging a rare 1918 McGriff log loader which is mired on the beach in Galena Bay and recreating the first nations summer village, circa 1830. Through fundraising, the B.C. Interior Forestry Museum society hopes to start building trails and clearings this summer.

Forestry is the lifeblood of this province, and it's important that we continue to recognize the heritage value of an industry that has built this province.

B. Suffredine: On behalf of the community of Harrop-Procter, I want to extend an invitation. The village of Procter exemplifies the high quality of life that we in the heartlands of British Columbia enjoy. Its only connection to the rest of the world is a short, free ferry ride available 24 hours a day.

If I could use props in this chamber, I would be standing on a Kootenay storytelling soapbox. There's a story attached to the Kootenay storytelling soapbox, but I don't have time to tell it today. The soapbox is a communications tool with strict rules that, if followed, resolve conflict, simplify child-rearing and enhance spousal dialogue. The soapbox even played a role in the successful resolution of the inland ferry issue. I carry a soapbox with me as I travel through my riding. Made from wood harvested from the Harrop-Procter Community Forest, it is a value-added wood product.

The community spirit of Harrop-Procter manifested itself five years ago in the Kootenay Storytelling Festival, which is a celebration of Kootenay heritage told by colourful characters from all corners of the Columbia River basin. A former schoolhouse, a decommissioned church and a community hall are all venues for that purpose. The festival is a matter of community pride and British Columbia pride. Plans are being made for year-round performance events and a storytelling craft store to create part-time income for local residents. The storytelling executive shares the provincial goal of doubling tourism revenues by 2010.

The fifth annual storytelling festival extends an invitation to all members of this House and to all British Columbians: come to Procter July 5 and 6 to share in the celebration of our past and our future. Bring your story. We'll provide the soapbox.

B. Bennett: Today I'm telling the great story of one of B.C.'s pioneer families and one of the province's first independent power projects. McDonald Ranch and Lumber is a three-generation family business located just above the Montana border at Grasmere. John A. McDonald of Nova Scotia, a carpenter, moved up to Fernie from his job in Nanaimo to help Fernie rebuild after a fire destroyed the town in 1906. In 1923 John bought a farm at Grasmere, which he and his family worked to supply the region with apples, potatoes, beef, Christmas trees, lumber and railway ties. In 1928 with the Grasmere Valley lit only by kerosene lanterns, Jack McDonald fed the water from Rainbow Creek through a small pelton wheel to power his small sawmill and grain grinder. This IPP powered the ranch, sawmill and McDonald homes for 30 years from 1928 until 1958.

Following in his father's footsteps, Jack's son Doug, who's now 82, and his brother Andy constructed a concrete dam on Phillips Creek in the early 1980s, installed

a 600-kilowatt GE generator and 2,000 feet of used 16-inch steel gas pipe, built 10,000 feet of wood-pole distribution lines and installed the necessary substations. The government of the day told Doug that the project would cost millions to design and construct, but with a lot of hard work and innovation Doug McDonald built his Phillips Creek IPP for $90,000 and completed the circle of family history with the company and the family becoming self-sufficient again as it had been from 1928 to 1958 under his father.

Mac hydro, as the family calls it, was British Columbia's first small hydroelectric project to tie into the B.C. Hydro grid. Now Doug and Andy's sons, Barry and Cam and their own children, run the ranch and the sawmill planer business using the hydro power from Phillips Creek. Hats off to the entrepreneurial pioneer McDonald family of Grasmere, British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: When the Minister of Health Services announced his new income-testing scheme, he said that low-income seniors were protected. Can the minister tell the House today how many seniors on low incomes are worse off as a result of his Fair Pharmacare income-testing scheme?

Hon. C. Hansen: What I said at the time of the announcement is that the majority of seniors in this province would be either better off or the same under the new Fair Pharmacare program. I think when you start asking questions about how many are affected who are low-income, it comes down to a definition of what low income is. By and large, low-income seniors and low-income British Columbians will be much better off under the Fair Pharmacare program, when it comes into effect.

J. MacPhail: The minister says that it depends on what you define as low income. I'd say it's a safe bet to say seniors with a family income of $15,000 or less is a low-income family. According to a Fair Pharmacare technical briefing document obtained by the opposition, 20,000 senior families with incomes below $15,000 a year are worse off under his new scheme — according to his own document. That is 25 percent, one in four of all seniors with household incomes under $15,000 a year. Again to the minister: why did he withhold this information when he announced income testing, and can he tell us how these families will now be worse off?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the member likes to think she has sources in the ministry, and I think last week we saw her apologize for some documents she made claims about that weren't factual.

There have been thousands and thousands of pages of material generated as we have developed the Fair Pharmacare plan to make sure it is indeed fair for British Columbians. I would say there are probably over 200 different iterations of the plan that were developed and run through the software systems to determine exactly how it would affect different income groups. I would caution her on using any particular piece of information.

What we did look at in some of that was not just at the ceiling that would be there, which an individual would have to pay, but also the cash flow that some senior families and other families would be facing as well. I can say unequivocally that there is not one senior household in British Columbia earning under $18,000 a year that would wind up with a larger ceiling under the new plan than they had under the previous plan.

J. MacPhail: Wow, that sure gives new meaning to waffle, waffle, waffle. That wasn't part of the great spin or the news ads that this government is putting on over and over and over.

This is a Fair Pharmacare technical briefing document. The Minister of Health Services told British Columbians that his new scheme was fair. He produced lots of charts, graphs and case studies to help spin that story, but he forgot to include this chart — this chart right here that was prepared for him and tells the whole story.

Let's see: 25 percent of seniors with family incomes of less than $15,000…. I bet you even Liberals have to admit that seniors with family incomes of $15,000 or less are low income. Twenty-five percent, according to this, are worse off. Thirty-four percent of families with income between $15,000 and $30,000 — family income — 34 percent worse off. That's over 73,000 low-income senior families who are worse off under this new scheme — no messing around. Again to the minister: why did he say over and over again that low-income seniors would be protected when his own technical briefing papers tell him that isn't true?

Hon. C. Hansen: I recognize that the member's time is certainly stretched in her ability to fulfil her role as an opposition member, and that's obviously going to be more of a challenge now that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is away. I have offered this member a briefing on Pharmacare, and she has yet to take me up on that. I think if she had, she would understand where this document fits in. I can say unequivocally that a senior household — even a senior one-member family, a senior living on their own — earning less than $18,000 a year will pay less under the new Fair Pharmacare program in terms of their annual

P. Sahota: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. Nikkei Place in Burnaby is a 59-unit assisted-living complex for Japanese Canadians in their retirement. This facility opened up last year, and it allows its residents to live independently while providing them with 24-hour emergency care. There are many seniors who live on fixed incomes in my riding, who are concerned about being able to afford these types of facilities. Can the minister ensure my constituents that facilities like the Nikkei Place will remain affordable for low-income seniors?

Hon. K. Whittred: Indeed, assisted living is a new option of care that we are offering to the seniors in British Columbia through partnerships with B.C. Housing, the non-profit sector and the health authorities. The one in this member's riding is one that I had the pleasure of opening not long ago, along with the Premier. It is an excellent example of this new offer of care. We are concerned about this option being affordable, and for that reason, we have adopted a plan that says that no resident will pay more than 70 percent of their income for assisted living.

S. Brice: My question today is for the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. The minister is eliminating the requirement for barbers and cosmetologists to belong to their association. I realize this is a deregulation initiative, but some of the barbers and cosmetologists in my riding are concerned that it could cause a devaluation of their skills in the marketplace. Could the minister please explain to those in this field in my constituency why this initiative is being taken?

Hon. G. Bruce: The Leader of the Opposition wasn't referring to some of the other members in this House with that comment.

Hon. G. Bruce: The barbers and cosmetologists acts, brought in in 1928, are now well superseded by three other acts in the province: the establishment regulation under the Health Act, the Consumer Protection Act and also the ability to utilize the Society Act to become a self-regulating body. In our bid to remove some regulations in British Columbia — there are some 1,200 regulations in this respect — we feel that the consumer can be well protected, from a health and safety point of view, with the acts that are currently in place.

L. Mayencourt: My question is to the Attorney General. Just a little over a year ago, we instituted drug treatment courts in Vancouver as an alternative means for addicts to access the justice system and to gain access to treatment and community services that can help them out of a cycle of crime and addiction. I believe that this program is doing a lot to create a safer community in my neighbourhood. New Brunswick and Washington State have recently implemented mental health courts to offer similar options and tremendous benefits to a vulnerable population. To the Attorney General: is he considering this alternative justice model to assist the mentally ill in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, we are monitoring the drug treatment court. There are some early indications that it's doing what we hoped it would do, but we do intend to conduct a rigorous evaluation. It's also clear, though, that many people find themselves in a criminal courtroom in circumstances where they are probably there because of a mental disorder, as much as anything else. I think it's time that we began a focused conversation in the criminal justice system, involving all of the participants, about how we can deal with that.

Mental health courts have been tried in some jurisdictions with success. We're looking at that as an idea. It's early days yet, but I do think it's an initiative worth giving serious consideration to, and I appreciate the member's interest and look forward to his contribution

to that continuing discussion as we look for ways to make our criminal justice system work better for all.

J. Les: My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. The Fraser River is an important economic and environmental asset for all British Columbians. In the area of the Fraser River extending from Hope through Chilliwack, about 350,000 tonnes of gravel are swept into that portion of the river every year. It's important to remove that gravel to alleviate flooding concerns and also to improve fish habitat. Six years ago the Department of Fisheries and Oceans decided to put a moratorium on the removal of that gravel, which has a lot of my constituents and constituents throughout the Fraser Valley concerned. My question to the minister is: what has been happening lately to ensure that this gravel will be removed to improve safety concerns and to improve the Fraser River environment for fish?

Hon. S. Hagen: It certainly is a serious issue. Some of us, as a matter of fact, are old enough that we can actually remember the flood of '48. That's 1948.

It's a very serious issue. I had the privilege of meeting with many of the local mayors and also first nations last week, and I'm pleased to announce that after a lot of work — months and months of work bringing together the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, first nations, my staff, mayors and municipal people — we now have a go-ahead to remove 200,000 cubic metres in that area.

We're working to increase that for next year, because it's something that has to happen every year, or it will continue to build up. If we get water coming over the dikes…. In some cases, the water has built up so high that the water is actually seeping under the dikes, which is almost as bad for the crops. We're working very hard on doing that, and I'm pleased to announce we have the okay now to remove 200,000 cubic metres. We'll continue to work it out.

J. MacPhail: Boy, Mr. Speaker, it's probably better in these coming days to just televise the Liberal caucus meeting. It might be a little more exciting than this.

J. MacPhail: The unfortunate fact for the Government House Leader is that the public doesn't agree with him.

City councils and regional districts are demanding open public consultation with their citizens around the future of B.C. Rail. I'm sure the minister is ready for this question. The corporation projected a $61 million profit for this year. I discussed this at estimates with the Minister of Finance, and he confirmed it.

To the minister responsible for rail: why is the government proceeding with plans to privatize B.C. Rail when it's showing a big profit for government? It is proceeding with privatizing parts of B.C. Rail. Will the minister listen to those interior communities, the ones that they seem to care so much about, and ask the public what they think before she betrays the Premier's promise not to privatize B.C. Rail?

Hon. J. Reid: It was exactly because we were in Prince George discussing with people the future of B.C. Rail that we listened to them. They said the status quo wasn't working. For anybody who understands what is going on with the forest industry…

Hon. J. Reid: …in this past year, there has been an anomaly in the amount of wood that's being taken out. With that, B.C. Rail has been working with the industry to be able to accomplish that. This is not expected to be long term, and it doesn't take away from any of the problems that exist in B.C. Rail and their ability to be able to serve the…

As we've talked with the communities and talked about improving freight rail transportation for the north and for the industries of the north, because healthy industries mean healthy communities, we have said there will be a consultation process. We are working right now to finalize the details of that process.

J. MacPhail: I have two petitions to table. For the first one, I rise to table a petition that joins with the 5,716-signature petition I tabled last week that called for the government to rescind all cuts to B.C. Pharmacare — probably more relevant today.

I also rise to table a petition signed by over 750 British Columbians, which calls upon the government to eliminate the hardships caused by cuts to health care and increases to MSP and other user fees — even more relevant today.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be

debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. In this chamber I call committee stage of Bill 6.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister please explain the changes that this section brings in?

Hon. G. Collins: The normal process for the filing of the reports from ministers of state would be with the report on accountability, which is disclosed along with the public accounts. We anticipate public accounts this year to be complete if not by the end of June, then early July. We're working towards the end of June. Part of the challenge with the ministers of state in the health sector is that a lot of the data that they need in order to determine whether or not they've met their objectives is not produced by the other bodies — CIHI and other health data trackers — until later in the year. This allows for that data to be collected, verified and measured before the ministers are eligible for the recovery of the salary that was set aside earlier in the year.

What it means on their part is that, first of all, we have better data for determining whether or not they've met their targets and, secondly, that they need to wait much longer before they're eligible to receive the salary set aside from the previous fiscal year. This takes it as late as December 31. I think most of the health data should be in, in the September-October-November window — is my understanding. Then the assessment can be done, and an evaluation and report would be made at that time.

Hon. G. Collins: That's because a lot of the data collected for the health care measures outcomes are collected by other agencies. The federal government agency called CIHI…. I can't remember what the acronym stands for, but it's the health data tracking….

Hon. G. Collins: Yeah, thank you. The Canadian Institute for Health Information. That information isn't available until later in the year, so they're going to have to wait until such time as we can get that data. That's what is driving that change.

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining us in the gallery today are 45 grade 11 students from the great school of Walnut Grove Secondary in my riding. They are accompanied by teacher George Kozlovic and Stewart Masi. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: I have a series of questions around gas tax increases. Perhaps the minister could explain this section. I'll read this section out, the explanatory note. This section "increases by 1 cent per litre the amount of tax to be collected within the area prescribed under the Build BC Act." Is this an increase of 1 cent?

I just want to, if I may, extend the welcome to the students from Walnut Grove Secondary. That used to be my riding in 1991 to 1996. I lived about half a block away from the school, so I wanted to extend my welcome as well. I hope they enjoy their visit. It's not going to get a lot more exciting here today, but you're welcome here anyway. You never know, though.

In response to the question from the member opposite, on April 1, 2000, and June 1, 1999, the previous government made some changes to the tax at that point in time. We subsequently found out — i.e., not too long ago — that the regulations required to put it in place were never passed. The legislation was passed, but the regulation was not passed. In an effort to go back and clean that up, we're now making a change to the legislation to do that — to make that legislation effective at that date. We're really cleaning up an error that was made some time ago. There's no increase over and above what's been there since that period of time — i.e., this tax has been collected over that period of time. It's just that the regulation was not in place to allow it to happen.

J. MacPhail: So there is no increase in the tax. Perhaps the minister could point to the section that identifies the increase of 3.5 cents per litre.

J. MacPhail: On section 3, what is the amount of that fuel tax that goes into the Build B.C. account now?

Hon. G. Collins: I'll try and get that number for the member. This is just retroactively doing what's been in place for a period of time, but I can try and find that number for the member. I'm sure staff is watching, and we'll try and get it in here as quickly as we can.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I was asking is because I want to know whether the act still confirms that this is a dedicated revenue source.

Hon. G. Collins: Nothing in this section will change what was there previously. All it does is validate what's been happening for the last period of time.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. So nothing changes in terms of it being a dedicated revenue source?

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell the House how many corporations are affected by the change in the threshold amount for the corporation capital tax?

Hon. G. Collins: I remember having a similar debate in opposition with the Minister of Finance at the time. They made a threshold change. In the debate where I was asking how many and which ones, I was told at the time that not only was the minister not able to say which ones, but the minister couldn't say how many because it might indicate which ones. It is a tax issue, and we're not able to disclose which entities would fall within that category.

I think the budget explanation stated that there were a number of small financial institutions as well as credit unions that would be affected by this threshold change. I think that's the extent to which I'm able to comment for the member.

J. MacPhail: In my research, I thought that this was a different clause than what we debated before in terms of that the section…. The one that we used to debate was around….

Hon. G. Collins: I understand the comment by the member that what we debated had to do with the larger financial institutions. These are the smaller ones, but the same principle applies.

J. MacPhail: I hope at some point the minister and I will change our responsibilities so they'll know we're not debating by hand signal.

J. MacPhail: Would the minister please explain this? The explanatory note says that the section "removes provisions made redundant by the addition of section 21.1 to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act by this bill." It's changes to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act.

Hon. G. Collins: As the budget stated, there were…. The surveyor of taxes charges a fee to a number of taxing authorities as part of the taxation process. We're trying to streamline that. There are some areas where the surveyor of taxes currently doesn't charge a fee. We're anticipating they will start to charge. There are areas where they currently charge a fee that the fee will probably go down in an effort to manage that.

So, there will be no net change in the revenue involved. We're trying to do it on a more equitable basis. There are a whole series of sections of this bill that impact that. Let me just try and give a couple of examples if I can. This section 12 eliminates the opportunity for them to charge the fee to the GVTA. The same will happen for the Islands Trust Act in section 16, under the Local Government Act in sections 18 and 19, the Local Services Act in section 20 and the University Endowment Land Act in section 50. What we are doing in section 46 is giving all of those opportunities under the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. It's really just moving the authority from one act to another. In three entities, there will be the opportunity to charge those fees in order to recover the cost of the process. Those are B.C. Transit, the hospital districts and the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C.

J. MacPhail: Is this change needed because of any other legislation — for instance, the community charter?

Hon. G. Collins: No. We're just trying to streamline it, put it into that one act and clarify it — as well as making it more equitable — so those collections of fees reflect the services that are provided without generating any new revenue.

J. MacPhail: This is an increase of another tax by 0.4 percent. It increases the tax payable in respect of

property insurance and automobile insurance by 0.4 percent — so from 4 percent, now payable, to 4.4 percent. How much is collected prior to the tax increase, and how much will be collected after the tax increase?

Hon. G. Collins: We currently collect about $210 million. The change will result in approximately an additional $14 million.

J. MacPhail: There have been people who suggest that this should be dedicated. I'm sure the minister has been lobbied by those who would suggest that this should be a dedicated tax, particularly in the area of…. I think I've received lobbies — and I use that in the most positive sense — from municipalities and firefighters. Is this going to be a dedicated tax increase?

Hon. G. Collins: No, it will not be designated to any specific purpose, although it does help offset a lot of the costs that we have on the firefighting side, particularly forests. Some of the forest fires are caused by people or by houses catching fire or by automobiles catching fire by the side of a highway — those sorts of things. It will help government's general revenue. Obviously, there are pressures in general revenue around firefighting. I suppose one could tangentially link them, but it's not a dedicated tax.

K. Krueger: I wish to speak to section 17 and inquire of the minister. We have a Lafarge Canada plant in the constituency of Kamloops–North Thompson. It was built a number of years ago, and when it was built, Lafarge built a bridge across the South Thompson River, which is a real boon to my constituents — an excellent bridge. They gifted it to the public for a dollar, which is a very much appreciated gift and very useful for a lot of my constituents. The city of Kamloops, in that day, returned the favour by throwing out a taxation corridor, as I understand it, to encircle the plant and make sure that in future it would contribute to the coffers of the city — which is not uncommon, of course. The plant currently pays about $400,000 a year in taxes, and they do not receive a whole lot of services in return.

People have settled around the plant and complained about the dust and particulate matter in the atmosphere. Lafarge eventually, in collaboration with government, went to considerable expense to construct a dust containment shed so that problem would be ameliorated. They haven't had to pay tax on that shed because it hasn't been included in their assessment up until now. There was some dispute over that, and Lafarge took it to the Property Assessment Appeal Board, the Supreme Court of British Columbia and eventually the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The outcome was a confirmation that, as I say, up until now they didn't have to include that shed, which really has no other purpose than to protect the environment and resolve the concerns of the neighbours. They wouldn't have to pay tax on the shed unless a change like this one is made.

I've had some expressions of alarm from Lafarge. The plant in Kamloops is viable, but it's been somewhat marginal in recent years, particularly because of the terrible slide that the economy took during the 1990s. In fact, we went from the best-performing to the worst-performing economy in Canada, and there wasn't nearly as much construction in British Columbia demanding their products as there would have been if the economy had continued as a robust economy.

Obviously, my concern is my constituents' concern. There are dozens of my constituents who work at that plant. They're family-supporting jobs. I'd hate to see it disappear. I'm told that this will add to their taxes about $150,000 a year, and it's going to put the viability of the plant into question. I wonder if the minister could response to those concerns.

Hon. G. Collins: I appreciate the comments by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, and I appreciate him bringing this issue to my attention personally. There are three sections. Section 17 is the first one that starts that process. There are two others in the bill, as well, that are intended to deal with the same issue. It was always government's intention that the property be taxable and the improvements be taxable, but that the equipment contained within would not be part of the assessment. That was government's intention right from the start.

I understand the comments made by the member. The way the legislation is drafted, for those years they were assessed — but this had been in dispute — there would be no tax owed — i.e., this is not retroactive. It is not intended to go back and force a tax payment for those years in the past. So in that regard, they will not be impacted by it.

This legislation is intended to come into force December 31, 2003 — so for the 2004 taxation year — and it is to clarify what government's intention had been all along. I understand that what triggered this legislation is, in fact, the appeal and the court case that went through the Supreme Court. So government's effort here is to try and clarify the legislation to make it clear what it is government is trying to achieve.

I take the comments of the member to heart, however, on the impact…. I certainly would be glad to hear from him, as I expect I shall, as well as from the business as to how this may impact them. We review taxation policy on an annual basis obviously, and certainly if there are big problems…. However, it is the intent of government to pass this legislation. I would be more than happy to meet with the member and anyone he would choose to bring along to discuss the issue and see if there is some fairness issue that needs to be dealt with. I'm more than open to that, but it is the intention of the government to pass the legislation. It will not come into place until December 31 of this year, so there is some time for us to do that. I just want to caution the

member, as well as the individuals impacted, that that is in fact exactly what government is attempting to do. I understand they may be uncomfortable with that, and I'm certainly more than happy to discuss it, but we are going to proceed with the legislation at this point.

K. Krueger: I appreciate the minister's commitment, and I'm sure my constituents will want to take him up on that and have a meeting about this matter. Obviously, I have the same concerns with sections 45 and 51, just to put them on the record. I won't interrupt the debate further with that point.

J. MacPhail: Section 21 is the 3.5-cents-per-litre tax increase imposed by this government. It's split into two. I just want to get, first of all, the facts on the record. It says that one will be a 1.25-cent-per-litre increase in tax payable on purchased gasoline. That's under section 21. But I also see that section 23 — I'm just worried about votes here — increases by 1.25 cents per litre the tax payable on purchased motive fuel, so we're up to 2.5 cents. Where is the other increase of 1 cent per litre?

Hon. G. Collins: Sections 21, 22 and 23 deal with the 1.25-cent-per-litre tax that previously was designated to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. As the B.C. Ferry Corporation changes its structure as a result of core review and becomes an authority, rather than receiving a direct fuel subsidy from tax revenue from fuel, they will enter into a service contract with the Crown in an effort to provide the services. They'll be paid in the form of a contractual payment. That will be much more transparent. It won't be buried in the Crown. It will actually be transparent. It will be there. It will be an agreement to contract between the Ferry Services corporation and the government of British Columbia.

What was previously there in the form of a 1.25-cent fuel tax revenue stream will disappear, and that will go into government's general revenue. In turn, government will issue them a cheque for the services they render. Sections 21, 22 and 23 just comb through the previous legislation and reverse that 1.25-cent-a-litre that was sent directly to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and it's section 24 where we start to get into the new tax revenue, the 3.5-cent-per-litre increase.

J. MacPhail: I beg your indulgence here, Mr. Chair. We're combing through sections here. Section 25 actually removes the tax for the raising of revenue for the purposes of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation on purchased gasoline or motive fuel. I assume section 25 removes it and sections 21, 22 and 23 add it back into general revenue. Is that…?

J. MacPhail: In the estimates of the Ministry of Finance we had a discussion about the service contract. At that time the auditor general still hadn't signed off on the whole concept of a service contract demonstrating enough independence or being enough of an indication that there be no subsidies flow, and therefore the corporation would then be permitted to borrow privately and not have the debt on book, on the government's books. It seems to me that removing the dedicated gasoline tax to the B.C. Ferry Corporation is jumping the gun. What happens if the auditor general comes out with a rule that indeed the corporation is not independent enough of government? Does the minister still plan on proceeding with the service contract?

Hon. G. Collins: It is a hypothetical. We still anticipate that the core review of B.C. Ferry Corporation and the new governance structure will take place effective March 31 to April 1. We continue to work through that. It's a fairly complicated structure, and there's lots of back and forth. I don't anticipate at this point that we should have any big problem with that, but as the member knows, there are always lots of details with the drafting of the legislation that would take it into effect to make sure that government is achieving the end result.

Regardless, however, of what the final determination is — in-entity or out-entity — or what the legislation actually looks like, it is anticipated that this is a better, more transparent way of funding the Ferry Corporation, rather than through the designated taxation revenue stream. There will be a contract in place. The Ferry Corporation has that with government, and that will be their revenue stream as opposed to the revenue through the gas tax.

J. MacPhail: Section 24 is the section that increases gas tax on motor fuel by 3.5 cents a litre. I want to explore this a little bit. We did explore some of this in the Ministry of Finance estimates. I don't plan on going over it again except to confirm what I gleaned from the Ministry of Finance estimates, which is that this will be a tax dedicated to improving roads and bridges, and that there will be a separate accounting of these expenditures reported annually.

Now, I want to just ask the minister whether…. There is GST on gas tax. What is the revenue increase to the federal government from this increase on provincial gas tax?

J. MacPhail: Okay, so we could say a quarter of a cent, just to…. How much does that raise annually? We know that this increase in tax will cost people $211

million, I think, annually. What is the GST increase that goes to the federal government?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm just doing the math in my head, but I think it's about $20 million a year roughly.

J. MacPhail: We already know that hundreds of millions of dollars go to the federal government from British Columbians in gas tax revenue. Has there been any discussion with the federal government by this provincial government about the $20 million extra that will now be paid by British Columbians to the federal government as a result of this gas tax increase?

Hon. G. Collins: We have been discussing with the federal government, since probably days after the last election, a series of agenda items, one of the largest ones being the federal funding of transportation infrastructure. We continue to do that. This is a small component. We're not just looking for $20 million. We're looking for a lot more than that from the federal government, because the member is correct. The federal government brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in tax revenue related to fuel, and we get almost nothing back — and historically certainly have not.

We have been in negotiations and discussions constantly with the federal government. We're starting to see some benefit from that with the announcement of the federal participation in the improvements to the Kicking Horse Canyon, as well as the border infrastructure transportation initiative which was announced. There are others where we think the federal government should and very likely will end up being a partner, and we're going to continue to pursue those very aggressively, as we have for the last almost two years.

J. MacPhail: This is going to cost, as I said already, about $211 million out of people's pockets, and it is going to be a dedicated tax to a particular function. The minister just said those particular circumstances were less than transparent when applied to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. How is this different?

Hon. G. Collins: I didn't say it was less than transparent. I said I thought that having a service contract, which outlined what they were doing in regard to the funding they were receiving, was more accountable and transparent. Previously, they received a flow of revenue into the Ferry Corporation based on the fuel tax, and there was no sort of response of what they were accountable for in regard to providing services for that money. I just think this is a more open way.

The Transportation Financing Authority is a creation that's been there for some time. The money will go into the Transportation Financing Authority, which has a mandate, and they will have to live within their mandate. They obviously report out annually, in an annual report, as well. Certainly, in the estimates process there is opportunity for members to ask the minister who deals with the Transportation Financing Authority questions with regard to the details of that. I think this is a very clear way. It's how the revenue went there before, and it will continue to go there.

J. MacPhail: I do plan on raising these issues with the Minister of Transportation in estimates.

I just want to talk a bit about the effect of this gas tax increase. What is the increased cost to government in terms of this gas tax increase?

Hon. G. Collins: I don't have a number in front of me. I know there has been some speculation with regard to that and transit, etc. Gas price volatility certainly fluctuates up and down beyond a 3½-cent range, so it would be difficult, I think, for the purposes of trying to estimate the cost of this on the various ways that government accesses fuel and to try and quantify that. To a certain extent, it could be lost in the general fluctuations and the forecasts for gas prices, so it's difficult to quantify.

For example, I remember that the day before the announcement was made, gas was 82 cents. It fluctuated up and down between the day the announcement was made and the day it became effective on March 1, and it has fluctuated up and down since then. I've just sort of anecdotally been watching the price of gas, and I've seen it as high as 88 or 89 cents. I've seen it down into the high seventies since then, so it has been fluctuating up and down. Obviously, there's a 3½-cent new tax that's in there somewhere as well, but it has not been a steady increase in the price of gas. It's been up, and it's been down both before and since the tax was levied.

I do know — and the member raised it in question period — the impact of this tax on transit costs, for example. Certainly, there is that impact, but there is also just the price of fluctuations of gas. We're in this odd situation right now where as a result of some of the challenges in Venezuela and the disruptions in their production as one of the large OPEC producers and, as well, the anxiety over what may or may not happen in Iraq possibly in the next weeks, the price of gas has gone up substantially.

There are lots of things at play, and it would be difficult to try and take a snapshot of a week or even a couple of months and say that's the measure we should be taking and that we should run some long-term numbers based on that. I anticipate that if the problems in Iraq resolve themselves, probably — one way or the other — there could be increases, but there could also be decreases in the price of gas.

Certainly, the last time there was a conflict in the Gulf, the price of oil went up dramatically, then declined quite precipitously thereafter and levelled off for a long period of time. The economics are such that it's very difficult to forecast. If we could, we'd probably both make a lot more money than we do now. That 3½

cents is well within the normal price fluctuations of gasoline. To my knowledge, and I can check, I don't know that individual agencies or individual school districts have yet made a long-run forecast of what the impact of the 3½ cents might be.

J. MacPhail: Actually, it has nothing to do with the price of gas. Whether gas goes up or down, everybody either benefits or is harmed by that. Price would be different without this gas tax increase. It's separate and apart. Just the same way the government has been able to calculate that revenue of $211 million extra will flow each year from that gas tax increase into the coffers, surely they must be able to calculate how much of that $211 million is being paid by government.

I'm not talking about agencies. I believe our vehicle fleets are governed by one agency, so budget has…. Well, not budget. That's not a good example because that's consumer pay. Trucking companies have been able to calculate how much extra this is going to cost; taxi companies have. I'm just asking the minister. He could calculate how much revenue he gets. Surely he must know how much he has to pay of that revenue.

Hon. G. Collins: It's also based on volume, and the price elasticity of gas would have to be taken into consideration as well. We don't know, for example, for sure how the market's going to respond to a 3½-cent-a-litre gas tax. Much like when you raise the tobacco tax, you can do a very straightforward, straight-line mathematical calculation — which is what I'm assuming many entities have done — which says: "We bought so many litres last year; we're going to buy so many litres this year. Add 3½ cents to that per litre, and here's a number." I know that's probably how they've done it.

As I mentioned, the price of gas goes up and down, and that's based on elasticity. It's based on how people respond to the market. It's based on international oil prices — all of those things like local supply, local competition. At least, that's the theory behind it. It's difficult to determine. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but we do a calculation that is based on what the overall sales are, what the revenue increase might be. Probably in there is some adjustment for price reaction.

Certainly, if I can use tobacco again as an example, we raise it this year by $2 a carton. You can't assume that you're going to sell exactly the same number of cartons of cigarettes and exactly the same amount of loose tobacco and do a straight-line calculation and come up with a number, because people's behaviour will respond to that. Maybe fewer people will use it. There may be other things; they may use less. All those things come into play. You do the best estimate. It's a forecast of what you think. Certainly, our revenue forecast for the gas tax is just that. It's a forecast. It's $211 million this year. I can almost guarantee you that it won't be $211 million; it will be something above it or below it. If we get really lucky and hit it right on, that would be great, but that rarely happens. It's a forecast.

How might the various entities in the broader public sector calculate their costs? I anticipate that most of them, probably including the trucking industry, have done a straight-line calculation based on the volume they purchased in the past. With all other things being equal — that is, the price of gas would remain the same — do a 3½-cent increase to the volume that you bought last year and you get a number, but markets don't necessarily respond that way.

J. MacPhail: I certainly hope the minister isn't obfuscating. It sounds like he is, because if he isn't, then it's only bad news for him. It means that the $211 million that he's relying on to build roads and bridges in this province may not be there. It's different.

I agree with the minister about the comparison to cigarettes, only to the point that there's elasticity of demand. This government has gone on to link other things to the collection of this tax. When you collect cigarette taxes, the government hasn't then said: "Oh, by the way, and then we're linking increased taxes to provision of cancer surgery." They haven't done that. In this particular case, they have.

The only money being invested into roads and bridges in the interior and the coast comes out of this fund, so it better be accurate. If it isn't accurate, it means fewer roads and bridges will be built. I can't accept the fact that the minister doesn't know an estimate of how much of this $211 million in extra taxes will be paid by the government. I'm talking out of the CRF. I'm not talking about out of anything else. I'm just talking about out of the fleet of vehicles that this government uses on a day-to-day basis from ministries.

One other thing. It ain't good news if the elasticity of demand because of a gas tax increase means people are going to use less fuel, because I expect that people in the transportation industry aren't going to get on a bus to ship their stuff. I don't expect that tourism operators are relying on increased public transit so that people can come and visit their destinations.

Let me carry on, then. Clearly, I'm not going to get an answer from the minister about how much of this is direct government expenditure. We did have the calculation when MSP premiums were increased. Everybody else could figure it out exactly, and there's elasticity of demand there as well. I'm just taken aback by that work not being done.

Well, let me ask the question, then, about elasticity of demand. Tourism. It's a major part of the economy — 4 percent of GDP and 7 percent of employment. What studies has the minister done in terms of the impact of this gas tax increase on tourism?

Hon. G. Collins: We made a decision that the infrastructure deficit that was there needed to be dealt with. Government made a decision to invest fairly heavily in infrastructure in the years ahead. It made a decision that we were not going to leave a debt behind as a re-

sult. So, the value of the 3.5-cent-per-litre gas tax revenue is going to be plowed, penny for penny, into the building of that infrastructure in an effort to make sure we don't have a debt.

There are many benefits that could accrue to a whole bunch of people as a result of this. The trucking industry had a study that said the delays at the border alone cost them $60 million a year. We are now investing in border infrastructure as part of the agreement with the federal government. That's where part of these revenues will go. We hope that will save the trucking industry $60 million a year once they're complete.

The tourism industry as well. I would guess that tourism — buses that move around in the city of Vancouver, for example, if you want to deal with density issues…. Once these infrastructure improvements are in place, they may find that their fuel consumption actually goes down because they'll have greater flexibility and greater ability to move. That may be. These are long-run investments.

You could take an example of some of the other ones, the safety improvements. Kicking Horse Canyon is an example of a fairly major infrastructure change that will improve safety, and that improved safety certainly is a positive message for the tourism industry as well. There was a horrific accident involving a tourist bus not too long ago in that part of the province. I know at that time the tourism industry said that's a highway that needs to be improved. That is something that has to happen for them in order to continue that industry in a safe way.

There are all sorts of benefits that are clear and anecdotal but that are difficult to quantify. I think that the overall benefits not just to tourism but to the mining sector, to the forestry sector, to just about anybody who is using the highways and roads of the province — on a safety side as well as potentially on a fuel consumption side, as well as on wear and tear on their vehicles — are immense. I think there are lots of benefits that are out there. They're anecdotal. They'd be very difficult to quantify, but they're there.

J. MacPhail: Two out of the three examples the minister gave there were infrastructure investments in the lower mainland. It's my understanding that this tax is being used for areas outside of the lower mainland. Is this money being used to do border crossings in the lower mainland?

Hon. G. Collins: There is a whole series of infrastructure projects that are on the list, which we're trying to achieve. There are rural and remote roads. There's maintenance. There are upgrades. There's looking at bridge infrastructure, as well, outside the lower mainland. I — and, I think, the minister — said at the time that over the next three years, we are going to be collecting approximately $650 million from this flow of revenue, and we are going to spend every dollar on infrastructure. We're going to try and lever additional investments from private sector partners as well as from the federal government, in order to ensure that we can maximize each dollar we spend. Through the raising of the 3.5 cents, $650 million are going to be invested. There is a hope for an additional $1.7 billion in contributions from other partners. Those will be dispensed across the province, based on the transportation infrastructure needs that exist now.

J. MacPhail: For the record, the previous provincial gas tax of 11 cents per litre all went to transportation infrastructure as well, so that's not a change. Throughout the entire 1990s, British Columbia was the only province, I think, to spend 100 percent of its fuel tax revenue on transportation infrastructure. None of it went into general revenue. While I acknowledge the fact that that trend will continue, it's not a new trend.

Well then, I'm curious. Yesterday I saw the list put forward by the Premier for transportation infrastructure at the provincial congress. Border crossings were not on the list, and no lower mainland projects were on the list. Is the minister now saying that some of this money may go into the lower mainland? I'd be happy to hear that.

Hon. G. Collins: It hasn't been determined that all of it, or none of it, will go into the lower mainland. The agenda is to take these dollars and invest them on the priorities of the province, to try and leverage additional sources of funding from the federal government and from private sector partners, and to maximize the value for the dollars we get. If the member wants a fuller briefing on the plan, then obviously the place to do that is in the estimates of the Minister of Transportation — or, I know, the minister would be more than happy to provide an individual briefing for the member. As well, there is a fair bit of information on the government website as a result of the rollout of the transportation infrastructure plan, which may answer a lot of the questions that the member might have.

J. MacPhail: I will be following up with the Minister of Transportation in her estimates. I'm going by the commitment the government made that this money would be spent in their rural strategy and interior strategy. We were also told that tolls may be an option in the lower mainland. Just as recently as yesterday, I saw the Premier's list of what infrastructure was going to be built. He related it to exactly the same figures that the Minister of Finance has just suggested.

I just want to read two things into the record. In December 11, 2001, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise said: "We are a government that stands for reducing taxation, not increasing taxation. Increasing taxation does not fit in with our new era of hope and prosperity for British Columbians." That was then; this is now. From the MLA for Cariboo South, February 18, 2003, responding to this gas tax increase: "I don't know. I would hope that we don't see too many more increases in anything." Has the minister received any feedback from businesses — small, medium or large — on the gas tax increase?

Hon. G. Collins: I wouldn't say I've received a copious amount, but then they probably wouldn't send it directly to me. It would more likely go to the Premier or the Minister of Transportation. I have seen a number of letters from individual businesses, as well as associations, saying the investment on infrastructure is the right thing to do. They're glad we're not leaving a debt as we build it, and they're glad we're paying for it as we build it. I think it's fair to say that nobody likes to see any tax go up — anytime, ever. I would put myself in that category as well, although I think this one is something the majority of British Columbians understand. They certainly are aware that we do have a deficit in infrastructure. We've underfunded it over a long period of time — not underfunded, but over a long period of time there have not been the investments in it to either keep it current or expand it in such a way that continues to be a source of economic strength for the province and safer as well. So we continue to do that.

We did get some positive responses from industry. Obviously, as the member mentioned, the trucking industry was upset about the cost, but the trucking industry is also going to be one of the chief beneficiaries of the improvements as well. So, as I said, I think people understand the benefit. I understand and accept that people don't ever like to see any tax raised at any time. But we decided that if we're going to make these improvements, we were going to pay for them.

J. MacPhail: Section 27 provides for tax exemptions for fuel in prescribed circumstances. Is this an addition to allow for the prescription of exemptions?

Hon. G. Collins: Yes, it is. It's designed to allow for an exemption for marine gas used in turbine engines. The member will recall, in July of 2001, that when the government brought in its economic and fiscal update, it provided a bunker fuel exemption or removed the tax on bunker fuel. That was in response to the shipping industry and, as well, the cruise ship industry in particular. There is a new generation of ships being developed in the shipping industry, which use turbine engines and actually are far more environmentally friendly — is my understanding. They felt that an exemption that was given to bunker fuel should be provided to them, as well, for competitiveness reasons, and we agreed.

J. MacPhail: This section repeals the special account known as the working capital account. For the House, could the minister explain what it was and what replaces it?

Hon. G. Collins: This account has been inactive for a number of years. Ministries now receive funding directly for capital asset acquisitions themselves. It's no longer needed; therefore, it's being repealed.

J. MacPhail: So it's just that the work that the Purchasing Commission did around capital is no longer there. But other purchases continue?

J. MacPhail: It's hard to tell from either the explanatory notes or the act, but it looks like this particular section, which amends the social service tax, excludes from taxes…. Oh no, that's not the one. That's 41. I'm fine with 41, the bird seed. Section 40 now includes items for taxation. Am I correct? Maybe the minister could explain the clause.

Hon. G. Collins: There are exemptions in place right now in the mining industry for certain products

that the industry uses. The aggregate industry, which is gravel mining, gravel quarrying, has asked that they be provided with similar exemptions in the spirit of fairness, and for the same reasons we've applied it to the mineral industry. We agreed, and therefore we're providing that exemption here as well.

J. MacPhail: So to be clear…. It's an interesting drafting. Under clause 40, the third line, it's got bolded there, "…and substituting…." Everything after that is now exempt from the social service tax payment?

Hon. G. Collins: The act used to say it didn't include these things. The act, as it was previously written, had a list and a comma and said, "but does not include…" and a list of things. What we've done is take out the wording that says, "but does not include," so this latter list, which was excluded, now gets attached to the first part of the sentence, so they're all included in the exemption now. I hope that explains it.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I think it does. Just to be clear, building and construction stone, marble, shale, clay, sand and gravel used to pay social service tax, and now they don't. What was the revenue stream on social service tax from these items in '02-03 approximately?

Hon. G. Collins: It would not be a great deal. We think it's probably a hundred or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not in the millions at all.

J. MacPhail: Section 43 adds a power to make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which the commissioner must impose a penalty under a particular section. This is under the Social Service Tax Act. What's the reason behind this addition?

Hon. G. Collins: It's really a redirection of where the liability lies. The way it worked in the past is a contractor, on behalf of a customer, may go and make a declaration that they're exempt. If they fail to do that or if they actually weren't exempt, then the penalty would be assessed to the contractor. We feel that's inappropriate. Penalties should be assessed to the purchaser, because it's their declaration that needs to be made. Rather than having the penalty applied to the contractor, the penalty must be applied to the original purchaser.

J. MacPhail: This is a transitional provision for revised ministerial accountability rules in relation to anticipated federal health care spending. The Minister of Finance and I discussed this in estimates. It deals only with transitional situations for ministerial accountability for Minister of Health Services and Minister of Health Planning. What the section basically does is say that once the budget comes down, the money from the federal government, a new service plan or new estimate will be introduced, and it will be on that basis that the Minister of Health Services and Minister of Health Planning will be held accountable under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. I'm curious to know what the status is of those discussions with the federal health care moneys and what happens if there's no agreement, in terms of this fiscal year.

Hon. G. Collins: Well, there is an agreement between the first ministers that there will be a certain amount that flows. The questions that we are dealing with now are: how does the money flow, and when does it flow? We're working on the details right now, and as I mentioned, the federal government would like to be able to flow it all in this fiscal year for their purposes.

Hon. G. Collins: Sorry, no — well, probably 2003-04. They want to put it out the door as quickly as possible. They're moving from a cash to an accrual basis next year, so they want to get it out as soon as they can.

We've made it very clear to them that we have some very clear rules in this province around how that works. We're moving to GAAP in a legislated way, and therefore that model won't work for British Columbia. We advised them of that. I know I advised the Minister of Finance of that repeatedly. I know the Ministers of Health did. I know the Premier did, as well, and received assurances from the Prime Minister as well as the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Finance that they would work with us to try and develop a way that would work for the province. Those discussions are ongoing.

I think we've identified what the various options might be. The reality is that at some point, the federal government will have to determine how it plans to proceed. We have been involved in lockstep with them, trying to make sure they understand our accounting needs and how it would have to work in British Columbia.

I've spoken to the Minister of Finance. I've passed other messages. There's been correspondence to the deputy minister and to the Premier. There have been a lot of people involved in this. At this point, as I said, I think we've identified a couple of options. We'll have to wait and see what the federal government's response is to that. I believe we should know that fairly soon, within the next couple of weeks or so.

J. MacPhail: There is no issue about more money flowing in the B.C. provincial fiscal '03-04. Money will flow?

Hon. G. Collins: That's correct. We assume it will flow. The challenge we have is that it might all flow in '03-04, and then you see a big spike in money that we would find very difficult to spend wisely. I doubt the Health ministry couldn't spend it. I'm sure they could find a way to spend it, but I doubt it would be spent wisely if $1.3 billion were to come in one year. What we're trying to do is say that that money should be done over three years as the deal and the commitment were, and really what we're sorting out now is just the accounting. There will be additional funds in '03-04. We just don't know the amount yet.

Hon. G. Collins: As I mentioned, the Premier and the Prime Minister have spoken about it a couple of times. They certainly spoke at the time when the ministers were meeting. Officials are involved from the Premier's office, from the Ministry of Finance. As well, I'm involved when necessary. It's a top priority for the government obviously. It is a large amount of money. It's very crucial to the health planning and to the health delivery in the province that it flow in a way that makes sense and that is useful to improve health care outcomes. That, as well, is the goal of the federal government: to improve health care outcomes. What we're really discussing is the accounting treatment of it. As the member is probably aware, sometimes those can get pretty technical and frustrating, but we continue to pursue it at the highest levels.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 59 standing in my name on the order paper.

           [SECTION 59, by deleting the proposed subsection (1) and substituting the following:
           (1) In this section:
             "government" includes an improvement district, a municipality or a regional district under the Local Government Act or the City of Vancouver under the Vancouver Charter;
             "tax Acts" means the
               (a) Corporation Capital Tax Act,
               (b) Hotel Room Tax Act,
                (c) Insurance Premium Tax Act,
               (d) Local Government Act,
               (e) Logging Tax Act,
               (f) Motor Fuel Tax Act,
               (g) Social Service Tax Act,
               (h) Taxation (Rural Area) Act,
               (i) Tobacco Tax Act, and
               (j) Vancouver Charter.]

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2003, reported complete with amendment.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; K. Stewart in the chair.

J. MacPhail: At second reading I noted that my discussion was not necessarily around using the tax structure to encourage business, but a discussion around what else indeed needs to be done to assist these industries, so my questions will flow from that.

Section 3 deals with the tax credits for animation and digital effects. Of course, this is a very competitive global market. We're doing well in British Columbia in this area, though. My question here is the status of the industry, in terms of what the industry suggests this tax credit will do for them.

Hon. G. Collins: Both Quebec and Ontario have similar tax provisions. They're not identical, but they're similar. We made a commitment as government that we would maintain the competitiveness of our taxation

system in the province. That's what this is intended to do. It's to put those industries on a level playing field so they can compete. It's a new area; it's a growing area. We have some great expertise and some talent here in the province. We want to keep that and grow that business. Certainly, as the film industry gets more and more technically advanced…. A larger and larger component of just about every movie has some animation or visual effect, so we want to make sure that we don't find ourselves in a position where we're not competitive with other jurisdictions based on what they're doing.

J. MacPhail: Is there anything about this tax credit that applies separately and apart from animation and digital effects?

Hon. G. Collins: Section 3(a) is really the digital animation and visual effects. Section 3(b) applies to all the tax credits, and it clarifies that all preceding years' labour expenditures are included in the calculation. It's a cumulative expense, as to how they determine this tax, so they want to make sure all the previous years are included in that. It's really just a technical clarification of the legislation that was there before.

J. MacPhail: But my understanding is that this tax credit is expanding to include the animation and digital effects industry.

Hon. G. Collins: This section actually takes a previous tax credit and adds digital animation and visual effects to it, yes.

J. MacPhail: I'm curious to know, and the reason I'm asking that is…. Mr. Chair, I'm voting in favour of all of these sections, but because sections 3 through 10 deal with the animation and digital effects industry, I'm curious to know what discussion there has been with the industry about how the regional production services tax credit will apply. What is the regionalization of this industry?

Hon. G. Collins: Previously the tax credit applied only to domestic production. It now applies to international production as well.

J. MacPhail: I'm just trying to get a sense of where this regional tax credit would apply. I know there have probably been discussions with the industry, just in my own experience in this area. The industry lobbies for this and says how it will work. Where will there be a regional application of this tax credit?

Hon. G. Collins: The regional tax credit is generally outside the GVRD, so it's to try and add a further incentive to make regional film production more competitive as well. A lot of it happens, as the member will know, in the lower mainland. We believe there are plenty of opportunities to extend that industry outside the lower mainland into the rest of the province, and the regional tax credit is designed to do that.

J. MacPhail: The minister and I have had discussions about the value of the dollar as it applies to our various industries, and I was very interested in the perspective of both Dr. Lipsey and Dr. David Emerson yesterday at the provincial congress on the value of the dollar and how it relates. Both of them seemed to think that a higher dollar in the long run was good. Dr. Lipsey certainly suggested there would be more pain in the short term than did David Emerson.

I just note for the minister that I'm not convinced that the short-term pain won't be a killing pain. If a short-term pain kills off something, it doesn't matter that it's short term. It's deadly. I fully understand the argument that Dr. Lipsey was making about productivity and the fact that we have to be highly productive and that the low Canadian dollar masks that.

I just make my point here that regional tax credits mean nothing if a high dollar wipes out the industry. I share only great hope that industries expand, and I share great worry about an interest rate policy that allows for a higher Canadian dollar, combined with other aspects, that may be a short-term killer.

Hon. G. Collins: The member and I have had that discussion in the past, and I was present for the discussion and the debate as it took place yesterday at the provincial congress and for the comments by the member opposite, by Dr. Lipsey as well as by Dr. David Emerson with regard to interest rate exposure and the impact on our economy. It's a fact, and those industries that are extremely competitive are even more subject to the whims of interest rate fluctuation. It's something I know they take into consideration.

I also know the film industry can move very quickly in choosing locations, and certainly we have to be mindful of that. It is something that I think all industry, as well as all workers in an industry, should keep in mind. It's always in the best interests of everybody to be as flexible and as productive as they can be. It certainly puts you in a better position when the weathers of change or, in this case, interest rate fluctuations start to bite and have an impact. One should never assume the Canadian dollar is going to stay in the mid-sixties. It could change. You should always be prepared to be as efficient and productive as you can be to ensure that those winds of change don't set you off course.

I am mindful of the comments the member made. I am also mindful of and I have conveyed, and will in the future continue to convey, the position of the province with regard to interest rates to the governor of the Bank of Canada when we meet with him or his staff periodically throughout the year — that they must be mindful of British Columbia's economy, not just Ontario's economy, in determining what the impact of inflation and the impact of interest rates are. Certainly, this industry is an example of one that is very much subject to those kinds of fluctuations.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 7, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; K. Stewart in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 9, Auditor General Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; K. Stewart in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: We're awaiting the arrival of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, so perhaps the committee can just recess for a few minutes.

J. MacPhail: This amendment to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act provides for the application of generally accepted accounting principles in advance of the requirement established by section 23.1 of the act. As I recall, section 23.1 of the act says that the GAAP principles have to be in place and used by 2004-05.

Hon. G. Plant: My understanding is that the commencement date for section 23.1 of the BTAA is April 1, 2004. The effect of this amendment and the next section is to speak to the application of that requirement in respect of the timing of different documents. I'm in the member's hands unless she'd like a slightly larger explanation.

J. MacPhail: I'm just curious to know. This amendment apparently provides for it to be applied earlier than '04-05. My reason for asking the question — it's just for information — is that the budget for '03-04 is already done. How do you apply principles earlier than '04-05?

Hon. G. Plant: Let me read the note that has been prepared for the assistance of ministers with respect to this section and section 7 to see if it answers the member's question:

As I said earlier, the commencement date for section 23.1 is April 1, 2004. The commencement date was intended to ensure that all government documents pertaining to 2004-05 and future fiscal years would be in compliance with GAAP. However, the timing for the implementation of the section does not coincide with the timing for release of certain government documents.

The effect of this amendment is twofold. The amendment provides for the application of GAAP in advance of the commencement date for certain speci-

fied documents. For example, the 2004-05 estimates, which will be tabled in February 2004, will need to be in compliance with GAAP. That's the "earlier than" part of it.

The amendment also provides an exemption from the application of GAAP for documents released after the commencement date but pertaining to fiscal years prior to 2004-05. For example, the '03-04 public accounts, which will be released in June '04, pertain to a prior fiscal year, and those will not be required to be prepared in compliance with GAAP if these sections pass.

J. MacPhail: I take it then, basically — and I'm not smiling for any reason other than that it's not the minister's responsibility, so I understand him referring to written notes — that we want GAAP to apply to the '04-05 budget. So, if there's anything that occurs prior to April 1 that has to do with '04-05, it will be GAAP-able, and anything after April 1 that applies to '03-04 won't be GAAP-able.

J. MacPhail: This is a section that broadens the definition of "emergency" to include events or circumstances that involve only one person, and clarifies that volunteers are persons registered under the Emergency Program Act for the purpose of responding to a disaster or emergency. Why is this change necessary?

Hon. G. Plant: I will defer to the Solicitor General, who is arriving for the purpose of assisting the member.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, the broadening of the definition of volunteer is to ensure that they are protected under section 18 from liability and to ensure that in small events, like searches and what have you, they're protected. So we've actually broadened the definition of volunteer.

J. MacPhail: Why is the change necessary to define an emergency as just applying to one person?

Hon. R. Coleman: Mainly because when legal people got a hold of what the broader events were with regard to how emergencies were defined, it just wasn't felt that it protected people on single-subject events, like single searches in the mountains where you're searching for a single person in the mountains. Some people were interpreting that that wasn't a broader event because it wasn't a larger emergency, so it had some effect on our volunteers in search and rescue as far as their protection from liability and that type of thing.

J. MacPhail: Section 29 amends the Hotel Keepers Act. Actually, Mr. Chair, sections 29 and 30 deal with the Hotel Keepers Act. I just need information. I'm not going to be voting against it. This refers to the relationship between an innkeeper and a peace officer. Could the minister please explain the necessity for this change. What are the implications of it?

Hon. G. Plant: Sections 29 and 30 of this bill make some changes to the Hotel Keepers Act. The general objective is to clarify some of the authority around who has the right to make sure that hotel guests are free from disturbance by undesirable non-registered and other guests.

The tourism industry has apparently been asking for this clarification since about 1999. The idea is to help the industry in this way to perhaps encourage investment in the industry. It would be a fact of some interest if this lack of clarification was actually a reason for the success or failure of the hotel industry in British Columbia, but I'm sure it's an important part of their business.

The minister who is directly responsible for this has arrived. Section 29 amends the definition of innkeeper because there was some inconsistency between the types of accommodation that were attached to the definition of "innkeeper" and the definition of "inn" under the act. There was an inconsistency there which is intended to be addressed in this bill, mainly by simplifying the definition of innkeeper to just "the keeper of an inn." The more important amendment is to sections 6, 7 and 8 of the act, and I wonder if I could defer to the Minister of State for Deregulation, who is the lead on this.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am actually replacing the minister responsible, who couldn't be here to speak on this. I'm happy to do this in his stead, and I will do the best I can on short notice. As the Attorney General just said, it amends the definition of what an innkeeper is, but, primarily, what it also tries to do is address a concern that the hotel industry has had for many years, having to do with unruly guests. In the past the only ability the hotels have been able to have is to evict non-paying guests of their hotel. This will change that to allow the innkeeper to evict paying guests of their hotel. It's an important distinction. They didn't have that ability before. So I think that summarizes it.

J. MacPhail: The reason why this one caught my attention is because one often has to be careful what one wishes for. It seems to me that someone who's

wanting to attract people to your industry and then threatens them — a paying guest — with a fine of not more than 2,000 bucks if they have a beer and sing loud might be a bit of a problem for the industry. Not having any personal experience with that kind of behaviour, I'm just surmising what could happen.

Yesterday I heard this weird story on radio about a bylaw in place in West Vancouver that said that anybody making any noise at any time, if there were a complaint raised, then had to stop making that noise. Some poor jazz band had to stop practising in West Vancouver because their neighbours were upset by that.

J. MacPhail: Exactly. A lot of provinces would have to shut down with that kind of…. Of course the bylaw was thrown out. The person — the family, the band, the jazz band leader — challenged the bylaw, and it was thrown out.

It does seem to be a particularly heavy hand of regulation, and I worry about the application of it. Is there a history of this kind of legislation existing elsewhere in other parts of the free world?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, in fact, this is something that the industry has actually been asking for. In fact, there have been approvals by the British Columbia Lodging and Campgrounds Association, the Yukon hotel association — of which you would be aware — and of course the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police.

I will say that Alberta and the Northwest Territories are places that currently have very similar legislation. Having been to Alberta, particularly during the Stampede, I can assure you that noise is something that they've become well accustomed to dealing with. What I think you'll see here is that it allows the innkeepers to use good judgment, and any good-quality innkeeper will want to ensure they have an establishment in which the noise levels are not so audacious that it's going to drive away other people staying at their hotels.

In the past, as I said, they never had the ability to actually deal with this because they could evict only non-paying guests. So what often happens in these situations, member opposite, is that there will be an increasing level of noise, and there will be concern by the innkeeper that this could be followed by property destruction, etc., but it hasn't yet hit that point. They've received a flood of complaints from other guests in the facility, and they want to be able to have the ability to act on that and to ask those people to desist and, if they do not desist, then have the ability to evict.

J. MacPhail: My next question may be appropriate for the Attorney General; I don't know. It's under the same section but talks about peace officer powers. It seems to me that this section says if a guest is making a ruckus and the innkeeper thinks it's appropriate that the guest be evicted, then the peace officer has the right to arrest without a warrant the person who fails to comply with the eviction. Is this standard?

Hon. G. Plant: This is not that unusual. I think part of what these two provisions do — will it become sections 6 and 7 — is that they not only give the innkeeper the ability to respond directly to disturbances of the peace, but they also ensure that there are circumstances where the innkeeper can call police and get the police to help. The fact that the peace officer has the authority to arrest without warrant in this provision is not unusual.

Part of what these provisions are trying to do is operate preventively. Whether that's the way they'll operate, I guess time will tell. The fact that a peace officer will have the power to arrest without warrant a person who fails to comply with or is suspected on reasonable grounds of failing to comply with a request is not, I think, unique in the statutes of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: To the Minister for Deregulation: did the industry talk about refunding their room charge if they get evicted, or is it you play, you pay?

Hon. K. Falcon: That scope wouldn't come under the act. That would be up to the individual hotel keeper to decide whether that's appropriate.

L. Mayencourt: My question is just one. I'm seeking some clarification. I have a number of what we term SRO hotels within my riding and within the downtown east side. I wonder if I can get some clarification on how this particular act deals with those SROs. Or are they covered by the Residential Tenancy Act? Who draws that line, and where is that line?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member raises the issue really of the interface between the Residential Tenancy Act and the Hotel Keepers Act as it relates to single-room occupancy. I think that's the correct term: single-room-occupancy rooms. The Hotel Keepers Act applies to situations where there is a licence to occupy a premise that is given on a temporary basis, and the Residential Tenancy Act deals with tenants. That includes hotels, for example, that are being used as a place of residence where the room charge is less than $20 a day, which would certainly capture all of the circumstances that the member is currently bringing up.

Presently, under the current Residential Tenancy Act, the landlord has the authority to evict a tenant who has unreasonably disturbed other tenants, who has seriously impaired the safety or other lawful right or interest of the landlord or other tenants or who has caused extraordinary damage to the rental unit or resi-

dential property. In summation, I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard for bringing up that issue, because I think it will clarify that concern about the overlap between those two acts.

J. MacPhail: This deals with the Livestock Act, dogs causing injury or damage. The Attorney General offered me an explanation of these changes that I would just like put on the record, if I may, for I think it does clarify the situation.

Hon. G. Plant: This section is related to section 32. The effect of section 32 is to repeal all of the Livestock Protection Act, which is a statute that was first passed in 1875 to provide for the control of dogs in rural areas and prevent dogs from becoming a nuisance to livestock. The Livestock Protection Act is considered to be redundant. Our government's view is that we can repeal the Livestock Protection Act without undermining the authority that exists in other legislation including, for example, the Local Government Act to allow local governments to control dangerous dogs.

This one provision that is in the Livestock Protection Act now, which has to do with dogs causing injury or damage, has been pulled out of the Livestock Protection Act and will be put in the Livestock Act ,and gives the authority or the power to somebody to kill a dog if a person finds the dog running at large and attacking or viciously pursuing livestock. The view of government is that that authority continues to be useful in the context of livestock protection, so while the rest of this outdated statute is being repealed, this provision is being maintained in substance.

There is, as I told the member in my discussion with her about this, a minor technical change, I suppose. What is the equivalent now of 11.1(2)(b) is expressed more broadly, and the right of someone to kill a dog if the person finds the dog running at large is expressed in the existing Livestock Protection Act in terms that say that this right to kill may arise if the person finds the dog running at large and attacking or viciously pursuing a person, I think, or another dog. We're changing that, narrowing it, to limit it to livestock.

It's not, perhaps, the most profound transformation in the social contract that has been brought to the fore of the Legislature of British Columbia in the last century, but we are trying to strip out some of the redundant statutes in the statute books. Section 32 does that, and this section that we're now discussing preserves one part of that old statute that we think still serves some public purpose.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and my hope is that the cow being chased by the dog doesn't end up on hotel property where the innkeeper would have to make a choice between the cow or the dog in whom to evict — or shoot.

J. MacPhail: This section of the Motor Vehicle Act expands the categories of out-of-province students who are exempted from licensing and insurance requirements. I note, though, that there are also changes in section 42. It seems to me that if you read 41 and 42 together, what one giveth is taken away in 42, but I could be reading it wrong.

Hon. G. Plant: I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent of these provisions is to expand the scope of the exemption from licensing and insurance requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act, which currently is available for out-of-province students attending public post-secondary institutions, to make it available to out-of-province students who are attending private post-secondary institutions designated for student financial aid, provided that those students still have a valid out-of-province licence and insurance. I think the intent is to say that the exemption that's currently available for students who are at public institutions should also be available for students who come to British Columbia to study at private post-secondary institutions.

J. MacPhail: This section re-enacts a section of the Motor Vehicle Act that says psychologists, optometrists and medical practitioners aren't liable for reporting a patient's medical condition when the condition makes it dangerous for the patient to drive a motor vehicle and the patient continues to drive after being warned of the danger.

By the way, I support this section, but I know that this is controversial — to the extent that I think also section 230…. Well, let me ask this of the Attorney General. I won't presume. Is there an obligation, on that basis, on psychologists, optometrists and medical practitioners to now report their patients to the motor vehicle branch if the medical practitioners think they are not capable of driving?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's there now. The obligation is for the practitioner to say to the person: "You don't drive because of this condition." If the person then drives, it is the obligation of the practitioner to notify.

J. MacPhail: Section 67 amends the Water Protection Act, and it specifies the Fraser watershed. Now, I think the Fraser watershed is being singled out here, and I'm curious to know why.

Hon. G. Plant: If the member will indulge me for a moment, I'll take advantage of the note that has been prepared for me on this.

The Water Protection Act prohibits bulk water removal from British Columbia and also prohibits large-scale transfers of water between major watersheds of the province. The problem is twofold, I think. First, the GVRD apparently takes water from reservoirs in two major watersheds. The Capilano and the Seymour reservoirs are in the coastal watershed, and the Coquitlam reservoir is in the Fraser watershed. The water is actually transferred between these watersheds via something called the westerly transfer project.

This is the second part of the problem. Since the construction of this project began before this act was passed, the operation of this project is apparently grandparented. However, any modifications to it or construction of a similar pipeline that would transfer water between major watersheds are contrary to the act, and this impedes the GVRD's ability to plan for infrastructure upgrades. It's an unintended consequence of the operation of the transfer restriction in the Water Protection Act.

The proposed solution, which is in front of us, is simply to amend the definition of the Fraser watershed in paragraph (a) of the definition of major watershed in section 1 of the act, so that the Fraser watershed includes the area both inside and outside the boundaries of the GVRD that is drained by streams and their tributaries contained in whole or in part within the boundaries of the GVRD. As a result, the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs will be in the Fraser watershed for the purposes of this act, as is the Coquitlam reservoir, and for the purposes of the act, no prohibited transfer between these major watersheds will occur.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that the GVRD requested the amendment, and government has been working with the GVRD with respect to this issue. I believe that is the extent of the consultation that has taken place with respect to the initiative.

I should point out that, although it may have gone without saying in my last answer, the amendment will have no impact on environmental protection. It will not affect the general ban on bulk water transfer out of the province. It is unique and does not, therefore, significantly affect any other major watershed defined in the act. Its operation is limited to the very, almost technical objective that I attempted to give expression to in my previous answer.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Plant: I call estimates debate. For the information of members it's the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to do women's equality, but perhaps I could just ask the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — it will just take five minutes — about the change in status of the Royal B.C. Museum and the implication for his budget.

Hon. G. Abbott: The bill that has completed first reading in the House will move the Royal B.C. Museum from a special operating agency, where they need to come to government for special partnerships, arrangements or even changes in the admission fees for special events like the Chinese dinosaur exhibit that's coming up. By moving to a Crown corporation or Crown trust model, the ability of the board and the

executive director of the Royal B.C. Museum to make those kinds of decisions is enhanced. Certainly, this is a change that the museum and its board have been looking for, for about a decade.

The bill that's before the House captures those changes and, I think, puts the Royal B.C. Museum on a better footing in terms of being able to attract bequests, endowments, contributions and donations in the future, because it moves it a step further away from government than what it was as a special operating agency.

In terms of the impact on the budget, I think the changes are intended more for the long-term development of the museum as opposed to any short-term budget issues. Those short-term budget issues were resolved, as I think the member knows, through an agreement between her former government and the museum about three years ago, I think.

There's a schedule that's a part of that agreement, which sees a gradual reduction in the funding from government to the museum. This change in the status of the museum is certainly going to be useful in terms of the museum moving forward and achieving its goals, notwithstanding that funding reduction in the short term.

J. MacPhail: Some of this will need to be discussed with the bill before the House, so I'll leave that in terms of the implication of ownership of artifacts and all of that, to that stage.

In terms of the budget of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, there's a flow — sorry, I don't have my estimates book here — of around $12 million from the minister's budget to the Royal B.C. Museum. Beyond that funding, then, is this new special operating agency a permission for the Royal B.C. Museum to set its own admission rates, etc.? They don't have to come to cabinet for that?

I guess if we were going to continue this discussion, I might want to move the vote with respect to the Royal B.C. Museum, but we'll leave that for another time. I think the member and certainly myself will want to get better prepared for that discussion. We can do it a little bit later in the estimates process.

The short answer to the member's question — and it's a very good question — is that yes, the change from special operating agency to Crown trust will be one that…. Again, I'll use the example I used earlier, the Chinese dinosaur exhibit, which is a very costly exhibit to bring in. A lot of the excellent materials are, in fact, being brought in from China. It's very expensive to mount the exhibits, so they need a higher admission price to manage that. Cabinet had to approve that higher admission price. With the new status, the cabinet would not have to approve. The agency itself would have the authority to do that.

While I have the floor, let me clarify a point from a question which the member for Vancouver-Hastings raised earlier today. I apologize to her because my answer wasn't as complete as it should have been, but I can provide her with that now. She asked earlier about the downtown east side target area and empowerment zone. The staff was familiar with that document, but the document was, in fact, entitled DESTA'NEZ, which is an acronym based on those words. The report from DESTA'NEZ has been discussed at the staff level, and it has now been referred to the city of Vancouver, who are going to be giving their consideration to it and presumably bringing forward any recommendations they may have to the management committee of the Vancouver agreement.

J. MacPhail: Those are my questions on the Royal B.C. Museum for estimates. We'll have more discussion when the legislation is debated.

For the Minister of State for Women's Equality, I want to begin with the UN report of the committee to end discrimination against women.

The Chair: Just one second. I just want to know if the minister would like to have some opening remarks and introduce the staff.

Hon. L. Stephens: I'd like to begin by introducing the assistant deputy minister, women's policy branch and child care, Kaye Melliship, who is here today; the Deputy Minister of CAWS, Bob de Faye; and the director of women's policy, Elise Wickson, who is here as well. I'd just like to say how much we appreciate the hard work they do for our ministry and certainly for the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to begin by telling the committee that we have met all of our 2002-03 service plan initiatives and that our government is making progress in the areas we've identified as our priorities. We've maintained and protected the budget for transition houses, Stopping the Violence programs and the Children Who Witness Abuse programs, and we are developing a safer community strategy that will improve women's safety in their communities. We'll be talking a little bit more about that in the weeks to come.

We are in the final stages of a long-term child care strategy that makes sure our child care programs are stable, predictable and sustainable for the future. We are also working across government to address the systemic barriers faced by women in this province. For example, we have established and created a new best-practices guide to gender analysis that will be distributed to all ministries to help guide policy work. Now, this new best-practices guide to gender analysis is much more user-friendly than one that has been in the past. There's less tape, and it certainly means that the likelihood of it being used will be much greater than the quite cumbersome document that was here previously.

We've taken on many projects over the past year, and I'd like to review some of them with you now. In the 2000-03 service plan I committed to developing a provincewide perspective for the delivery of women's

services, including an inventory of all services that are available for women and used primarily by women. We've produced this directory and launched it as part of our celebrations for International Women's Day that we held last Thursday. For the first time, a wealth of information on the programs and services the government of British Columbia provides for women has been gathered together in one place. The reason we have chosen an electronic form is that we can update it on a regular basis and it doesn't become outdated, as paper directories tend to do.

This particular registry, I think, is going to be extremely helpful for women who are living in the rural and remote parts of the province, which makes it difficult for them to access information. It certainly makes it difficult for them to access government services. This directory will go a long way in letting them know what is available in their communities. This on-line directory has more than 80 listings and services for women, including parenting and child care, women's safety and security, services for immigrant and visible minority women, women with disabilities, housing, women's health, and employment, education and training. Because it is all available on line, women who are living in these parts of the province have access 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

In terms of victims services, in June of last year my colleague the Solicitor General announced funding for 24 additional victims services programs and a new crisis line to improve services for victims of crime. That new line provides crisis services to victims of family and sexual assault 24 hours a day, seven days a week, as well.

In housing, in December my colleague the Minister for Early Childhood Development and myself announced the opening of a new building in partnership with the YWCA, B.C. Housing and the downtown east side of Vancouver. The building will offer programs for vulnerable women and children, including housing and maternity care for pregnant women and their children and for women who are dealing with substance abuse problems. The centre will also offer emergency licensed child care, so that mothers can take part in support and training programs and look for work. Emergency child care allows them to focus on rebuilding their lives while knowing their children are in a safe and healthy environment.

For aboriginal women we continue to face significant challenges in the areas of health, poverty, education and violence against women, and we are working with the aboriginal community to help solve these problems. In January the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and myself announced $800,000 in funding initiatives to assist economic revitalization and to improve the health and well-being of residents in the downtown east side. This project with the coastal health authority is the result of our government's partnership in the Vancouver agreement with the city of Vancouver and the federal government.

We are providing support to contribute to aboriginal healing, with special emphasis on health issues for aboriginal women, children and families. Part of this money will go to employing four outreach workers on the downtown east side to make sure that women living in the downtown east side have access to these services and are aware of what services are there for them.

The ministry is providing funds for a number of other projects specifically on the downtown east side, and enhanced supports will also be put in place for prenatal and postpartum women struggling with substance misuse. Other workers will be hired to help at-risk youth and families fighting addiction and mental health issues.

Our government has also provided $48,000 to the women's centre in the downtown east side for an additional support worker, who will provide crisis intervention and conflict resolution and maintain a safe environment for women. Women's Services is also working closely with the Vancouver coastal health authority; the federal Secretary of State for Status of Women, Jean Augustine; and the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre to expand service under the urban aboriginal strategy.

Our government is helping first nations women take leadership roles in their communities, and through the Premier's leadership we established the first citizens forum and doubled the First Citizens Fund from $36 million to $72 million. This fund provides loans to help fund first nations businesses. As well, government will provide guidance every step of the way as a new business establishes itself and grows.

This First Citizens Fund business loan program makes funding available for aboriginal businesses, and last year aboriginal women were partners in 40 percent of the businesses in the program. Women also make up the majority of those accessing the First Citizens Fund student bursary program. Sixty-eight percent of the students are women, and 73 percent of those who complete the program are women. This is very significant, because there is a direct link between education and earning potential.

This year we've also provided funding to the B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society to improve provincial child care services for first nations children, and we will continue to work with the aboriginal communities to make sure that we in fact have the services they need to build a strong child care system. These funds are used to provide specific training and support for child care providers to first nations children.

In health, the provincial government is taking steps to improve women's health through a three-year provincial women's health strategy and women's health plan. I'd like to take this time to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Minister of Health Planning for recognizing the important issue of women's health. He has been very instrumental in working through some of the outstanding issues we're going to try to resolve in terms of women's health. This strategy will identify some priority areas for the future work and will guide

future planning, as well as suggest indicators and measurement tools for gauging success.

We're also working with the Minister of State for Mental Health to address the issues of substance misuse for women in transition houses and the community at large. Mental health is also an issue that continually comes forward in transition houses. Many more women are presenting issues around mental health and substance abuse in our transition houses. Though that is not the mandate of transition houses, we are trying very hard to accommodate those women, and we're looking at developing a strategy to do that.

Midwifery. B.C. is just one of three provinces in Canada that offers midwifery programs. Our government is funding student spaces and start-up costs for a four-year midwifery program at the University of British Columbia. Women entering this midwifery profession are part of our commitment to increasing the number of health care providers in the province. We're also sponsoring a bursary program for student midwives. The new maternity care workers will be encouraged to work in rural and remote communities through a student loan forgiveness program.

We've increased funding for the provincial health authority to provide 230,000 mammograms this year — an increase of 5,000.

It's also important to note that female nurses and physicians in British Columbia are among the highest paid in Canada. We have committed $21.5 million this past year to recruit, retain and train nurses, and we are almost doubling training spaces for physicians. This is extremely significant for women, especially when you realize that women make up more than half of all master's students and 37 percent of all PhD students and the fact that, again, women living in the more rural, remote parts of the province struggle to get adequate health services, particularly in prenatal and neonatal care.

Our economic agenda includes women, and under the Premier's leadership we are growing our economy, and women are benefiting. Thirty-six percent of women in B.C. own and operate their own business, and that's more than anywhere else in Canada. BusinessWoman Canada has reported that four out of five young people who start businesses are women.

Another key indicator is the education statistics. In B.C. 81 percent of all young women graduate from high school, compared to 73 percent for young men, and these women are going on to university. Across B.C. some 23,000 women are enrolled in undergrad and graduate studies, compared to almost 19,000 men, so there's a big success story for women in education.

However, young women are not taking their place in non-traditional training positions. Only 6 percent of students in apprenticeship programs are women, and only half of them are training for non-traditional roles. We know that the shortage of skilled workers in this province, and indeed across Canada, is going to become more acute as time goes on, and we have to make sure that women have access to these kinds of jobs, which are generally high-paying ones that will certainly be able to be self-sustaining jobs for them and their families. We have more work to do in this area.

In terms of child care, we certainly recognize that women are going to own their own businesses or participate in the workforce, and because of that, child care is an essential tool. Our government has taken important steps to make sure that child care programs are stable, equitable and sustainable for the future. We have consolidated the child care subsidy program under the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. This will mean more efficient and effective service delivery.

We've heard from many people in the community that the child care services in the province were fragmented, and we're trying to do our very best to make sure we bring together those programs that, in fact, will work better. We'll make sure we don't have the kinds of unintended consequences that sometimes occur when we have programs that are fragmented. We recognize that the child care subsidy helps low-income parents obtain and keep jobs, and as a result, we've raised the income threshold for parents. Because of this change, 3,000 children will begin receiving a subsidy, and 6,000 children will receive an increase in their child care subsidy in May, for a total of 9,000 children who will benefit from this one initiative alone.

We've also reorganized the way we help fund child care. Our new child care operating funding program will provide stability and fair and equitable funding among licensed child care providers; provide choice for parents by providing up to 1,400 additional child care providers, about 800 of them family-based providers, for the first time; and contribute to increased availability, affordability and quality of child care across British Columbia. The new funding program means that government will fund more child care spaces than ever before.

Under the current program, the province supports funding to about 45,000 spaces. Under the new program, funding will be provided to about 70,000 spaces — an increase of approximately 25,000. The new program is a more streamlined funding mechanism that reduces red tape as well.

In terms of capital funding, since June 2001 the government has provided $1.8 million to create and maintain more than 1,000 child care spaces in British Columbia, and we are redesigning the capital funding program to respond to the needs of providers and reduce the red tape. These changes will be announced very soon, but I can tell you that they will go a long way to helping communities provide the number of spaces and the kind of child care spaces that are required all across the province.

We are redesigning our quality enhancement program to replace the CCRR program. This new program will make sure that child care providers have access to a network of support, professional development and training.

I'd also like to comment on the federal announcement in their last budget of $935 million that will be

going to regulated child care across Canada. We are happy to have our share, approximately $25 million, for the '03-04 year. We are hoping to get that agreement with the federal government finalized this week. That is good news again for child care.

What we've been doing in terms of child care is to build a sustainable system, one that we can build on, one that we can improve over time as finances become available. What we've put in place is the structure to do that.

In conclusion, in '03-04 we will continue to work to build safe, healthy communities for women, for children and for all British Columbians. Thank you very much.

J. MacPhail: No. I was halfway through my opening question, and I was out of order.

It was very interesting to hear the minister read off the issues affecting women and the government reaction across ministries. I do want to, as the minister has acknowledged, begin with the UN report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Of course, this has brought attention to British Columbia. This B.C. Liberal government has received a report card from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

This government has been singled out recently for its policies as they affect women. My colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke to this issue on March 4 in a member's statement, and she mentioned that the UN committee had identified British Columbia's government as introducing regressive policies that have had a negative impact on women. I want to be clear that the time frame that was examined by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is the time frame that applies to this B.C. Liberal government's term, and no other period.

I want to take some time right now. We can begin our discussions around this report and draw some attention to some of these policies that the government has introduced, which have had a negative impact on women in this province. This will be the point from which I'll be discussing these matters with the Minister of State for Women's Equality. What she has to say about these changes that her government has brought in and their impact on women's equality in the province….

The B.C. committee to end discrimination against women summarizes these policies in a report to the UN entitled B.C. Moves Backwards on Women's Equality. It's a comprehensive review on how the government reforms are in contravention of international agreements to which B.C. is a signatory.

We'll start with some of these reforms and how the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women judges them. The first reform brought in by the B.C. Liberal government that the committee addresses is the elimination of the Human Rights Commission. Here's what the report says:

I'm curious to know what the minister's response is to that. I'm curious to know whether the government itself will be making a response to this UN report. Let's begin with the first charge in it — that the elimination of the Human Rights Commission has undermined the role of women's equality, the equality of women in this province.

Hon. L. Stephens: As the member well knows, we will not be making separate representations to the committee meeting in terms of the human rights. Again, I think the member knows we have been restructuring the human rights in the province. Although that fifth report notes optimism of previous governments regarding new and unique administrative structures put in place in 1997, the structure, we believe, has failed.

The current administrative structure is too complex. It's expensive, it's not efficient, nor is it accessible. The review and consultation demonstrated a need for reform. So new legislation has passed and will be proclaimed early in the year. Protections have remained unchanged.

Direct access to the Human Rights Tribunal will be more effective and more efficient. The new system will be in accord with the Paris principles — independent from government, diverse membership and adequately resourced.

J. MacPhail: Well, the UN report actually acknowledges the changes that the government has made and suggests they're inadequate because of the removal of a central institution relied on by women. I would only make this point — that this government's elimination of the Human Rights Commission threw out the baby with the bathwater. The complaint from some, whether legitimate or not, that it was inadequate from an efficiency point of view or an administrative

point of view…. Instead of correcting those problems, this government threw out the baby with the bath water, and therefore women are left with absolutely nothing. That was the complaint, and the minister's response doesn't address that.

The second issue that the UN committee dealt with is that legal aid has been reduced and provided only for criminal law matters. The report says: "The government has cut funding for legal aid by 38.8 percent." They go on to say: "Legal aid is now only available for criminal law matters, Young Offenders Act matters, mental health reviews, restraining orders and child apprehensions. No services are provided for family maintenance or custody disputes, except where there is evidence that violence is involved." I go on to quote from the UN report: "Direct services for poverty law matters, employment insurance, employment standards, welfare and disability pension claims or appeals have been eliminated." That's the charge against or the negative review by the UN of this government's activities. What is the minister doing to address these concerns?

Hon. L. Stephens: In British Columbia we have the third-highest level of legal aid funding in Canada, and we have long had one of the most expensive legal aid plans in the country. Even after the shifts that have been made, British Columbia will still provide a significant level of funding in the country, behind only Ontario and Quebec. Legal aid will continue to be provided to adult and young offender criminal matters and cases involving domestic violence, child protection matters and some family law cases, as well as mental health.

The government and the Legal Services Society are exploring some approaches to dispute resolution outside of the courts. I think this is something that certainly the previous government was looking at — how we can increase and strengthen the mediation processes — and this is something that I feel very strongly about as well.

Outside of legal aid, the Attorney General's ministry is spending $25 million on family justice services such as the family justice centres, the family maintenance enforcement program and mediation. I can tell the member that we are working, and I particularly am working very hard, to address the mediation initiatives and hope that we can keep people out of court as much as possible. This is an area that I think is much more beneficial to women than going through the justice system.

J. MacPhail: It's my understanding that funding in that area has been cut as well, and there's no new money there to make up for the legal aid cuts. Perhaps the minister could tell the House what legal aid services are taken up by women this year as opposed to last year. Secondly, the $25 million that she talks about — that's not new money. That's ongoing money, and in fact that pool of money has actually been cut as well.

Hon. L. Stephens: We do not have with us the specifics that the member asks for in terms of numbers. We can get those numbers for her. In terms of legal aid, I'm sure that the member is well aware that the Ministry of Attorney General is responsible for all of the programs around legal aid. I'm sure he will be more than happy to answer her detailed, specific questions in terms of legal aid services.

J. MacPhail: Well, I thought maybe this minister could answer those questions, because it was okay for her to stand up and take credit or at least acknowledge all of the other work that's going on across the rest of government in terms of mammography and things that have nothing to do directly with her ministry. When it's news that she wants to claim credit for, it's fine to talk about other ministers' activities, but not where the cuts that this government is making are actually doing harm to women.

Just for the minister's information, I actually looked at the estimates and tried to find out how much is being spent on legal aid at all, and you cannot find it. This government has removed the line with the specific information about how much funding is being allocated for legal aid — again, more information that's being removed from the public record.

Let's go on to talk about the elimination of poverty law assistance that disproportionately affects women. The B.C. report has this to say: "The elimination of poverty law assistance disproportionately affects women, who make up the majority of poor adults. The end to legal aid for poverty law matters will effectively deny legal representation to the most vulnerable women in matters that affect their ability to pay for food and shelter for themselves and their children." Perhaps the minister would know: where are poor women supposed to go on matters that require legal assistance? Where do they go now?

Hon. L. Stephens: In the communities around the province, there are certainly services available for women to access legal aid. The family justice centres are certainly some of those places. The changes to the social programs that have been made over the last couple of years should be evaluated over the long term to allow time for the benefits of some of these overall sustainable management initiatives to be realized. I think that the member may feel a little differently when some of these shifts we have made prove to be in the best interests of individuals, and women in particular, over the coming years.

J. MacPhail: What, then, is the wage gap now between women and men in this province?

Hon. L. Stephens: I think it depends on what stats you look at. If you look at StatsCan's report that was out just yesterday or the day before, it's clear that varying factors take into consideration the wage gap. When you look at women and men who have never married and have no children, the wage level is relatively equal. If you look at women who work part-time or who have

children and don't work as many hours, there is most certainly a wage gap. There are various factors that come into play. However, having said that, I think we do have to make sure that everything we can possibly do, and that can be done, to address pay equity and the wage gap is undertaken by government.

J. MacPhail: Every year there's been a stat reported about the wage gap, and I understand there are elements that make up that statistic. But what is the statistic for this year in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Stephens: The latest figures we have are for 2001. This is for women working full-time. The number is 73 cents for every dollar that men make.

Hon. L. Stephens: According to StatsCan, Canada-wide it's about 64 cents to every dollar that men make. Having said that, the ministry will be moving forward with some pay equity initiatives in the near future.

Hon. L. Stephens: The Nitya Iyer report that came forward on pay equity…. We have been working with the Minister of Labour and the Attorney General to formulate a response and a strategy to look at what we may be able to do in terms of education, awareness and looking at whether or not pay equity — which of course is in the Human Rights Act — is in fact being carried out in British Columbia. We're looking at some ways that we can gather some research and look at how we can educate business and the general public on what pay equity is, what it means and how important it is to women.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could refresh the House's memory on how old that report is. When was it tabled?

J. MacPhail: So we have a report that's 14 months old, and the minister is still looking at initiatives, looking at education, looking at providing information. Is there any more substance to that after almost 14…? We're heading into 14 months since the report has been tabled.

By the way, I just want to note for the record that the minister got off the hook on a lot of criticism at that time, because this report was seen to be fair and balanced and quite assertive in its recommendations. However, it's 14 months later, and nothing's been done on the pay equity report — nothing. I expect that the minister probably will have the heat turned up on her again for doing nothing around this.

Can she provide a little more substance to the individual recommendations of the report and the action taken by her government?

Hon. L. Stephens: We have been working diligently, as I said, over these last number of months to develop that strategy. It is now complete, and the member opposite just needs to stay tuned. We will be making announcements over the next little while.

J. MacPhail: It isn't me that needs to stay tuned, Mr. Chair. It's not me who needs pay equity; it's the women of British Columbia that need pay equity.

What did the minister do for International Women's Day? What did the government do?

Hon. L. Stephens: There were a number of initiatives that were undertaken. The one that I think is particularly meaningful is that we've developed a women's directory of services. It's an electronic directory that is delivered through B.C. Connects. It's a directory of services of government used primarily by women. This is of course available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and the women around the province have access to a variety of services. That was the major initiative. It's one we've been working on for a while.

Secondly, we invited a number of women who are from the arts community, from the sports community, from the business community, from local government, from women-serving organizations, from a very wide cross-section of women — leaders in their communities from around the province…. The Lieutenant-Governor co-hosted an event at Government House. It was a nice luncheon. The member was invited. It's unfortunate that she couldn't be there. It was well received, and women who were there appreciated the opportunity to get together, to network with one another, to celebrate the advances and the achievements that women have made over the last number of years, and to reaffirm and rededicate themselves to the systemic barriers that still exist, to identify what some of those are and to work to break down those barriers.

J. MacPhail: Yes, the Lieutenant-Governor hosted a luncheon in Victoria. I expect that women around the province would not say that that's exactly a government outreach for women on International Women's Day.

Over the course of the last decade — 12 years, anyway — the celebration of International Women's Day has been a moment of significance in this province, where huge achievements are marked. Last year the government did absolutely nothing. This year the Lieutenant-Governor hosted a luncheon for people here in Victoria.

Noting the hour in terms of this committee work, I move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003, be read a second time now.

I am pleased to stand before the House to begin second reading of the Unclaimed Property Amendment Act. This act fulfils a commitment made by the Ministry of Finance in its 2002-03 service plan to divest itself of its responsibility for managing unclaimed property.

The ministry has developed a new model for the delivery of this program. The government will retain its governance role. The approach to the regulation of unclaimed property will remain the same. Owners of unclaimed property will continue to be protected by this legislation, which requires holders of unclaimed property to make reasonable efforts to locate owners. Only the method for delivering the program will change.

The program will be delivered by a non-profit organization acting as the administrator of the program. The administrator will have the same responsibilities that government has now to unite owners with their unclaimed property. The administrator will conduct location efforts, maintain and advertise a public database of unclaimed property, and assess and pay out claims. The administrator will also be responsible for monitoring compliance with the act by non-governmental holders.

The act allows the administrator to distribute the unclaimed funds in excess of those properly paid out to provincial charities. In this way, communities throughout the province will benefit from unclaimed property that could not be returned to its owners.

Finally, the act will clarify four existing provisions in the act with respect to the obligations of non-government holders of unclaimed property and permit the voluntary remittance of unclaimed property that became unclaimed prior to the effective date of this act, July 1, 2000.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Reid: The Premier, during his state-of-the-province address, outlined the steps we were taking to open up B.C. through transportation investment. It has been essential to our moving forward that we have provincial funding that will be secured for transportation for the next three years for improving and expanding our transportation system in all regions of the province.

Our goal for opening up B.C. is, obviously, for the safety reasons that are important to all of us, but also for increased economic activity for the more reliable movement of goods and services. That means the expansion of job creation. Again, that's looking at the benefit of all regions in British Columbia.

We do have a heartlands economic strategy. Part of the plan in that strategy is to address the rehabilitation of our existing highway system, which has been deteriorating over the last decade and is very important to address. We're also going to be increasing our investment in our rural side road system and continuing our investment in oil and gas resource roads. All of this will total $609 million over the next three years.

As well, we're meeting the government commitment to paving the road into the Nass Valley with our $52 million investment in the Nisga'a Highway. Provincewide, the government has committed to increase the spending on our side road system by $75 million a year over the next three years.

During my provincial tour last summer I heard from British Columbians in every region of this prov-

ince about their transportation priorities. There isn't any area I went into that people didn't have transportation concerns. Our new service plan outlines the procedures to address those priorities, which include a safe and reliable highway system, improved key transportation infrastructure that supports economic growth and trade, and sustainable financing for transportation projects, with fewer regulations and streamlined procedures to reduce cost and encourage economic activity.

I think it is very important to make note of the regional transportation advisory committees that the government is in the process of establishing. Those regional committees will be advising the ministry on the priorities in their region, and we'll be collecting information and interacting with people of the region on those priorities.

Another use of the regional transportation advisory committees is also the longer-term visioning process and the ability to be looking always for better ways to increase that economic growth and to look at community needs. As we're looking long term at a multimodal integrated transportation strategy for the province, it will be very valuable to have the input from those committees.

We are looking at having partnerships with the private sector, with major projects that are now under development. We also will continue to take advantage of the federal-provincial cost-sharing programs as we stretch each of our dollars dedicated for transportation. Just recently we announced with the federal government $211 million for border infrastructure improvements, and that's part of a working partnership with the federal government.

Our number one priority, which we stressed with the federal government and they have respected, is the improvements to the Kicking Horse Canyon, and we've announced a joint project of $125 million to upgrade the Park Bridge. We will have new bridge and maintenance contracts which will save the province approximately $26 million through reduced labour costs, and those contracts will be tendered between now and March 31, 2005.

We are prepared to meet the challenges of the future. We have a plan in place for dedicated funding. We have projects underway. We have partnerships we have established. We look forward to renewed activity throughout this province and also safer and more dependable travel on our transportation systems.

K. Manhas: The minister, in her speech and in her service plan, mentioned that improving and expanding transportation infrastructure to improve and open up economic opportunities in B.C. is one of the priorities of the ministry.

My first question is: what steps is the ministry taking to encourage private partnerships in the area of transportation?

Hon. J. Reid: Thank you very much for that reminder. With me today I have my deputy minister, Dan Doyle, and I have Sharon Moysey, executive financial officer, as well.

Private partnerships, I believe, have a very important place in delivering infrastructure projects in the province. This last fall we passed the Transportation Investment Act, which outlines a framework for moving ahead in partnerships. It details how the public good will be protected when the province enters into partnerships and also the restrictions that would be placed on activities by a partner and how that would be encapsulated in a contract in advance that would be transparent for people.

We had a conference last July that attracted worldwide attention; people are very interested in investing in British Columbia. We are very encouraged by that. We have a number of projects that we're looking at being delivered through private entities. Right now, as the member knows, we deliver our maintenance contracts through private sector delivery services, so the ministry is no stranger to this way of doing business. We believe there are some other advantages to help us in this. The government has developed Partnerships B.C., which oversees the process of developing the partnerships and is also able to take unsolicited proposals and help work those through the system.

K. Manhas: The minister mentioned unsolicited proposals. Will the ministry be open to private roads that are built privately, namely that create a type of public good, such as transportation improvements, focused on creating economic opportunities?

Hon. J. Reid: We certainly have heard from people all over this province with ideas they've had for infrastructure development — from the north from people associated with different industries right down to the lower mainland with opportunities that people see could be developed in the future.

Most of these ideas are fairly complex in the working out of any new road system. There's a number of factors to be considered in looking at a proposal for a new road. Some of those factors would be the costs and how those costs would be borne. There would be environmental concerns and the environmental assessment process that would have to be used, depending on the project. We would have to look at concerns that might exist with natives who would have certain interests in those areas. We would also have to look at the safety aspects and the use of those roads and, again, referring back to the Transportation Investment Act, how standards and safety standards have to be maintained by the province, as is expected by the people of the province.

We are willing to discuss with people their ideas. We will try to get them to do as much of their homework as possible on these ideas. We certainly have a lot

of work ahead of us with the priorities — the safety projects already outlined — but I certainly will always be open to talking to people about new ideas and new opportunities for the province.

K. Manhas: I've been working with a group of investors who have brought forward a very interesting public-private proposal. The basics of the proposal would be to link Coquitlam, to the south, to areas of Crown land that are north of Coquitlam. It would not go through Port Moody or Anmore, but would be linked into Coquitlam's city area. The proposal is to build a two-lane road with passing sections possibly all the way to Squamish. It would go through no watersheds and is a consortium that includes the native bands in the area.

The proposal is to access Crown lands that have recreational value, that have economic value, to the north of Coquitlam. One of the possibilities that has been brought forward is to create ski-resort potential on one of the mountains that is equivalent in its physical properties to a resort like Whistler.

I would just like to get the minister's view on if this is something the ministry would be open to looking at. It is something that is supported by the municipality of Coquitlam, and it would create immense economic opportunities for not only the entire Tri-City area but for the province and for the lower mainland.

Hon. J. Reid: We are aware of this proposal. It is a very interesting proposal. There are a couple of different facets to this. Because part of the proposal is the use of Crown lands, it is asking the province to enter into an arrangement that, indeed, is being participated in by the province. It's not just a strict matter of somebody saying: "We're willing to put a road in. We're willing to put the money up, and we're willing to work with logging companies to recoup that money." There is a request for provincial resources into this. As a result of that, it would require that this go through some type of public process.

I think it's early on in the stage right now because of the nature of working with the issues around ski hill development and around Crown land issues. It's important the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is involved and integrated into the discussion, because those are major issues that would have to be resolved. I would say yes, it's an interesting proposal; it's a multi-ministry proposal. I would say the proponent still has some more work to do to resolve some of those issues and be able to approach government with some of those larger issues settled. At the end of the day, we still have to look at some form of public process, because this proponent is asking for the province to participate through the Crown lands aspect of it.

K. Manhas: Just to be clear. That is something we would be prepared to explore. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Reid: We are exploring it. We have been talking with you, and we're quite willing to have those discussions and help the proponent out with sourcing information. At the same time, I do expect that a proponent in a situation like this would be taking on the bulk of the investigative work and would be putting their proposals to government. Again, because there is a request for government involvement, there would have to be some sort of public process. We aren't there yet, because obviously it is much too early in the process.

K. Manhas: Moving on to another topic, could the minister outline what role the ministry would play in moving forward key transportation improvements in the lower mainland area?

Hon. J. Reid: In the lower mainland, with the road infrastructure, there is a role for TransLink to play in the development of that infrastructure, and there is a role for the province. Where the province has jurisdiction, we have been very active and very involved in seeking funds, for example, with the border infrastructure program that was just recently announced: $211 million worth of infrastructure that will greatly improve the border crossings in a number of ways. As well, we've got $30 million that was announced for what's called the SHIP funding, which, again, is a federal partnership looking at ways of improving designated roads.

There's a federal program we apply to for those projects, and if we're successful, then they fund. Certainly, we have a very keen concern in the lower mainland. I just wanted to remind the member that TransLink plays a large role in this.

K. Manhas: We've heard the minister make several statements on the importance of transportation initiatives in the heartlands. I certainly understand the importance, and I think my constituents understand the importance, of transportation improvements in that area and how they will affect the economy of the entire province. I have been asked about several other issues on transportation, gridlock and transit in the lower mainland, and I believe that well-running cities are also important to the economy of the entire province.

My question is to the minister. I understand that TransLink plays an important role, and I know the ministry is working closely with TransLink. What can the minister tell my constituents to assure them that improvements to road and transit in the lower mainland, and in my community of Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam, are still a priority for the province and are still being considered and, even though they are in TransLink's jurisdiction, that they are a priority for our government as well?

Hon. J. Reid: Certainly, the movement of all transportation modes is important to this government. The movement of goods and services throughout the province doesn't stop at any boundary, whether a TransLink boundary or any other. We are very con-

The member is right. We do work with TransLink, keeping our eye on that bigger picture. We are in the midst of renegotiating an agreement with TransLink, because there is an outstanding commitment for rapid transit. We will work with them on that, as time goes on. That's part of the provincial commitment. As well, the impact of what we're doing in the lower mainland in better movement along the ports and along the borders will reach to every area and every section of the lower mainland.

K. Krueger: The minister's office and I have had a number of dialogues, as have the minister and I, about the reaction ferries on the North Thompson River. I think we have a pretty clear understanding of what our plans are for both of them, but there is constant rumour and speculation in some of the communities that have relied on these services in the past, so I wanted to have the government's intentions on the record.

Perhaps we could deal with the McLure ferry first. These ferries used to be very common up and down the North Thompson River. I understand there were nine of them at one time. I'm told they are a really unique technology that's 3,000 years old, designed by Egyptians, with very few changes in the technology over the years. They are very serviceable but increasingly made obsolete by roads. We have two of them left on the North Thompson River of the original nine or perhaps more. As I say, McLure is the one I'd like to canvass first. I wonder if the minister could confirm, on the record, what our plans are for McLure.

Hon. J. Reid: The McLure ferry is one of those very unique ferries, as the member said, that exists where there is a viable alternate road. The ministry, in looking at its service plan over a year ago, looked at a number of these ferries and had to make a decision on their future. Where there was a viable alternate road, we decided that that ferry service no longer needed to be supported by the government and we made the decision that that service would be discontinued.

We also recognized that there could be local interest in operating those ferries. We actively pursued that interest to see if we could find people who would like to take on the service, and we'd be willing to cooperate with them in every manner possible in order to achieve that. We are moving towards a request for proposals on the McLure ferry, and as I said, we'll do everything we can to work with any party who might be interested in operating that ferry.

K. Krueger: The ministry has set aside some funds, I know, to upgrade the road we are viewing as an alternative. It hasn't been receiving very much attention over the last decade. The Kamloops side of it — the south end of Westside Road, that is — is in much better shape than the north end, but even the south end isn't in great shape. It has broken pavement with a lot of potholes and so on. With the north end, my constituents would argue with the government as to whether or not it's actually a viable alternate road. Driving it, I would have to pretty much agree with them, so I've been very pleased with the commitment to work at upgrading the road.

I met with three senior people from the Ministry of Transportation a couple of Fridays ago to talk about how to decide what to do first. I was pleased with their plan, which is to have a consultation with the people who use the road and decide, since we obviously can't catch up everything at once, what order to do things in.

I made the mistake one day, having taken a Corvette in the North Thompson Fall Fair parade, of thinking that since I had my wife with me, it would be a romantic thing to travel back on Westside Road in the Corvette. You travel a little bit north of Barrière, cross the river, and then you double back. I was quite ashamed of what I'd done to the Corvette by the time I got to the McLure ferry.

We do have a lot of work to do, and I want to put on the record for my constituents, too, that the ministry is well aware of that, is well aware that there are some safety issues and intends to work diligently over the coming years, as finances permit — using, perhaps it could be said, the funds that would have been used to run the ferry to make sure the road is upgraded instead. I wonder if I could have the minister's comments on that.

Hon. J. Reid: The member has stated it very well. Yes, we are committed to upgrading that road over time. It is important that people know that road is going to be there for them, it's going to be safe, and it's going to be in a condition that indeed makes it a viable alternate route. We are going to be working with the local residents, because we cannot do all the work all at once, as the member stated. As we make those decisions about how we're going to proceed with the work, that input will be very valuable in that process.

K. Krueger: Over my years in opposition I often reproached the previous government for its failure to use day labour on some of this type of work. There are people up and down the valley and, I'm sure, through rural constituencies all around the province who have ranches and farms and so on. They have equipment that in the more distant past government had rented from them for at least some of the construction season each summer. The income helped them to be able to afford the equipment and to replace it on their farms and ranches. They've been very disappointed not to have any government involvement. I don't think they had much at all for the decade of the previous government being in power.

Again, I was pleased in my meeting with these senior representatives of the Ministry of Transportation locally to hear they were willing to consider using day labour rather than necessarily rolling this work into the

private maintenance contract for the coming years. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. J. Reid: We are always looking for the most economic way to do an excellent job on the roads. Certainly, in some instances, using local equipment would be the most economic way. As the member has stated, we will be looking at it in this situation to see if it makes sense on this particular project.

K. Krueger: Forgive me if I missed this and the minister commented on it earlier, but I'm wondering if we have a date yet at which the requests for proposals for the McLure ferry are likely to be issued.

Hon. J. Reid: I don't have that particular date with me right now. We have been working on it, and I will get that information to the member very, very shortly.

K. Krueger: I had some worried input from constituents recently who somehow had acquired the belief that the ferry was going to be demolished if it wasn't taken over by a private operator by March 21. Obviously, I'm certain that isn't the case, and I wanted to have the minister's reassurance on that on the record.

I know it's an orderly process that we contemplate. I've spoken with a number of senior people in her ministry about it, and my understanding is that we'll do the RFP and see what the response is. We've had a tremendously high level of interest from the Whispering Pines Clinton Indian band, who, in developing their own economic viability, have an excellent motocross track and excellent rodeo grounds and indeed do a lot of things where the people who presently enjoy these activities have been using the ferry. They are one of the proponents who have demonstrated a very strong interest in maintaining the service for the time being. They're also working on some things with the federal government, including, potentially, a bridge and a run-of-the-river independent power production project.

K. Krueger: The member for Chilliwack-Kent is always very enthused about those. It's nice to hear his applause.

Again, if we could just have some assurance on the record of how the process will flow. I thought March 21 might have been a date that someone had heard the RFP might be issued. Then there will be time for a response, obviously, and time for some consideration of those responses. I've been assuring my constituents that the acetylene torches will not show up on March 21. I don't know where the "demolition" word came from, but I had never heard it mentioned by government previously — disposal of the asset to a viable operator, potentially, but never demolition.

Hon. J. Reid: Certainly, our first choice would be if there is a successful RFP and I have met and talked with band representatives. We have encouraged them in their process and, certainly, extended whatever help they need in order to be able to develop their proposal, which we've done with other groups as well. We do want to encourage people if they see there is viable activity there.

We will get a time line to the member. I'm not sure where the March 31 date came from, but as he says, there will be a process where we put out the request. People have time to respond to it. Then we will have to take time to evaluate, if there's more than one, and be able to make a decision and move forward from there. Obviously, that will take a matter of months, but we will provide the member with a time line so that he will be able to give that information to his constituents.

K. Krueger: Despite last fall's round of rumours that the ferry was going to be hauled out of the water and never used again, it actually ran all through the winter, since the river didn't ice up. Part of the present round of rumours is that even if we are going through the RFP process, we're going to discontinue the service. My understanding is that the service will continue while we work through this process. I wondered if the minister would confirm that.

Hon. J. Reid: Yes, the service will continue as we work through this process to its conclusion.

K. Krueger: My thanks to the minister on that. It will give my constituents reassurance.

The Little Fort ferry. We went through the same initial process, the request for expressions of interest. There, the roads on the other side of the river are much less viable than the ones at McLure. I wondered if the minister could confirm the status of the Little Fort ferry on the record.

K. Krueger: My understanding is that the operation of the ferry will be included in the private sector maintenance contract when that is renegotiated rather than necessarily having the arrangement that we've had in the past.

Hon. J. Reid: I'm very pleased the member is so very well informed on these issues. Indeed, it will be part of the maintenance contracts. We believe that will be a very efficient way of operating the ferry going forward.

K. Krueger: The minister is proving to be a woman of few words, but happy words for my constituents.

The issue of the Tod Mountain Road, the access road to the Sun Peaks ski resort, is one that I've canvassed many times in estimates over the NDP years and one that my constituents expect me to bring up in this debate. I exchanged some correspondence earlier with the minister about this.

The road was probably fine for Tod Mountain when the ski hill was developed by a volunteer club,

which ambitiously spent all its money running a lift right to the top of a very high mountain and didn't have any money left to build any place for people to warm up. There was a tiny ski patrol shack at the top, and skiers would get off this lift almost frozen to death, sometimes in tears, and have nowhere to warm up and didn't have that much fun. The mountain had some financial difficulties.

Along came Mr. Ohkubo of Nippon Steel in Japan, a partner in the Doppelmayr company, a person who had always wanted to own a ski hill but didn't want to compete with his customers in Japan where he installs the lifts. Mr. Ohkubo bought Tod Mountain, named it Sun Peaks and committed that he would put $40 million into developing it.

He did this through a very respectful process. We have a number of very active first nations bands, very successful people, the Secwepemc people, all up and down my constituency. He met with them and came up with a memorandum of understanding about proceeding. Many of them have been involved in economic joint ventures along the way. It's been a tremendous development.

He didn't stop at $40 million. He's gone far beyond that, I think, with his partners. It's $350 million now that has been injected, and the sky's the limit. It's looking great, and it's a very successful resort. That has been very hard on the road, because now we have skiers pounding up and down the road all winter and construction equipment up and down all summer. It was never built for this kind of traffic.

Again, that's one of the many things that didn't get tended to in the decade of decline in the 1990s even though revenues were flowing to government because of all this development and the taxes people were paying on their investments, their material and their equipment. From the point of view of people in Sun Peaks, it's all pay and not much service. They're quite patient, and nobody is beating the door down over this presently, but people are concerned about when we're going to be able to bring about some upgrades to the road, particularly from a safety point of view but also from an economic and a fairness point of view.

K. Krueger: I wondered if the minister could sketch out any preliminary details. I know the province's transportation plan is not in place yet and is being worked on. I don't expect a great deal of detail, but I wonder if the minister could offer some assurance to my constituents at Sun Peaks of the future of that road.

Perhaps we should recess until we're finished with the vote in the other House and the minister has time to respond.

The Chair: That is a division call. If we could recess for a few minutes and come back.

Hon. J. Reid: The question we left with was Tod Mountain Road and the condition of the road, the concerns moving into the future. Certainly, we're concerned about maintenance on the road, and we'll continue to be diligent in that area. The member raises a very good point — that is, the need that continues to exist beyond what has already been announced and moving into the future. The question is: how do we raise projects up in priority? How do we assess that priority, and how do we determine where to put what will always be scarce resources?

I'd just like to take a moment to talk about regional transportation advisory committees and the role they're going to be playing in the future. As the ministry can identify certain, for example, safety issues — any particular spot on a highway where usage might change or there might be recurrent events that have to be addressed…. When we look at larger projects and have to assess them in the context of limited funding, regional transportation advisory committees will be representing the regions of the province. They'll be brought together as volunteers to weigh the different factors — the economics, the benefits, the other community interests — and look at it on a regionwide basis. Those committees will then report back directly to me, actually.

This will be an opportunity, on an ongoing basis, to make sure the decisions being made and the priorities being assessed truly are the priorities of any given region — as the member says, to be able to take advantage of economic opportunities, to be able to reflect the needs in the region. This is one of those projects that, beyond the maintenance, I would suggest fits very well into that category. Those committees should be up and running by the end of March and into April. They will be receiving information and learning about the different needs and competing interests in the given region. I would suggest that's a very good place to take this kind of an issue.

K. Krueger: One last question, then, on that subject. There was a tragic loss of life this past winter where a young man had moved up to Sun Peaks from Vancouver and acquired employment. He was doing very well and was living in a bed-and-breakfast at the base of the mountain. He was returning from a shift where he had done very well and made $200 in tips in a single shift. He was happy. He was coming down to pick up his girlfriend, and he never arrived. His body was found many hours later in a search. He'd gone off a curve and died in the rollover accident that ensued.

Since then, I've had a lot of inquiries from people who live up there about guard rails, including inquiries

from people who would like to contribute, if necessary, to the cost of installing more guard rails on some locations like that. I wonder: is there a process in place where people can actually voluntarily contribute to transportation needs? As for the second part of the question, some issues like that are more, I would say, routine parts of maintaining a roadway and being cognizant of safety issues that come to be identified. I think everyone is assuming, obviously, that we intend to move forward on those sorts of things in the regular way without necessarily any major new cost to it, but that is somewhat the cost of doing business.

Hon. J. Reid: I think the member is actually talking about several things here. Initially the discussion was around the increased use on this road and what sounded like a much more major upgrade. If we are talking about a spot where there is an accident, as I said earlier, the ministry does look at safety improvements all the time and is looking at ways of being able to improve that safety.

Whenever there is an accident, we do look at the specific circumstances and how that's going to be addressed. That is ongoing work in the ministry and, in this case, would be included in that ongoing work.

The larger question of the upgrade of the road and of greater capacity is the future consideration of how do we prioritize that and when would we forecast that for. I think there are two different issues. Certainly, safety issues are something that is ongoing work. This one would be included in that with a very sad tragedy that happened and, of course, is very hard to think about and contemplate.

The other question the member asked, about people participating in road works, I would refer generally to the use of partners that the province has. We partner with municipalities. In some cases, we partner with private industry, and even where we are looking at adopt-a-highway, it can be partnering with a non-profit group. Generally speaking, there is opportunity for partnerships.

I would say with what we are referring to here with the seriousness of safety issues that, really, that's the ongoing work of the ministry.

B. Penner: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to debate our illustrious Minister of Transportation today.

I'd like to preface my brief questions with a bit of an update on a conference I attended late last week in my capacity as president of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. I had an opportunity to give a presentation to a group in Calgary, Alberta. It was a meeting organized by the Canada West Foundation, and it was entitled Building the New Dream.

At that meeting I had the pleasure of conversing with John Dyble, an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Transportation here in British Columbia. What we heard was that speaker after speaker lamented the lack of ongoing federal commitment to highway infrastructure in Canada.

In fact, this point was made a number of times: Canada is the only large industrial nation without an ongoing, systematic federal funding program to pay for highway and transportation infrastructure. Certainly, the United States, through their various transportation programs — the latest one totalling, I think, $250 billion over six years — is miles ahead of us — and that's in U.S. dollars.

B. Penner: Well, we're kilometres behind, and they're miles ahead. We heard all about that. That was a major focus of that conference. We looked at energy, pipelines and the lack of adequate interconnection with electrical grids east to west.

Preston Manning's, the former parliamentarian who organized the conference, key focus though, I think, was on transportation. I took the opportunity at that meeting to say there is a province in Canada that is doing something about transportation and, yes, we're demonstrating leadership and taking some political flak over introducing an increased gas tax levy to help fund this initiative. But, the fact is that British Columbia is showing leadership in this area. It was clearly recognized at this meeting of about 160 private sector leaders from western Canada that transportation improvements are absolutely essential to maintain our quality of life and our standard of living and to improve the economy.

Preston Manning's comment was the problem is that politicians respond to the polls and that time after time, when surveyors go out and ask Canadians what their top issues are, they say things like health care, education and, perhaps, safety or policing or the justice system. He said in his experience when he was Leader of the Official Opposition in Canada, he rarely recalled seeing transportation in the top 20 — never mind the top ten — items of interest to Canadians. He believes that is one reason why the federal government has been reluctant to embark on a sustained, thoughtful, long-term approach to transportation infrastructure funding.

As a result of that conference I know the Canada West Foundation is embarking on a series of speeches across Canada. I think today Preston Manning was in Victoria speaking to the chamber of commerce, trying to raise the profile, reporting out that this conference concluded last week that Canadians need to invest more in their highway and transportation infrastructures so that we can maintain our standard of living and try to catch up to the United States.

B. Penner: Those were my brief introductory comments and reporting back to the minister.

I can also report this: in the state of Alaska they recently elected a Republican governor who has just proposed, as of Wednesday last week, about a 13-cent-per-gallon (U.S.) gasoline tax increase in order to help open up Alaska by building more roads to rural and remote communities. I note that works out to about 3 or 3.5 cents per litre. Mind you, those 13 cents are in U.S. funds, and it probably works out to more than 3.5 cents per litre Canadian, as I think about it.

I thought the minister might be interested to know that there are those things happening around us. I'd like to thank her for the border improvements recently announced in the Fraser Valley, because, again, the more we can facilitate the flow of goods and legitimate travel, the better off we all will be from an economic standpoint.

My question: can the minister tell us if there is any reasonable prospect of improving what I believe is a dangerous section of road between the Annis Road overpass on Highway 1 in eastern Chilliwack and the Bridal Falls area, Highway 9? This is a section of Highway 1 where, since 1996, the RCMP have told me there have been 56 or so accidents involving 54 personal injuries and two fatalities just in a couple of kilometres section there where there are a series of S-turns on the highway. I believe that the Ministry of Transportation has looked at that section of road and concluded that the accident rate per kilometre is 55 percent higher than the provincial average for four-lane divided highways in the province. All of that, to me, is fairly compelling empirical evidence that that is a dangerous section of the highway, and if there is any opportunity to seek improvements to it, I would certainly welcome it.

Hon. J. Reid: This is a piece of road that has been identified as needing work. I have had the discussion with the federal government about participating in this, and we'll continue to pursue the opportunity to find the funding to be able to make those improvements. It is a priority for the ministry. I'm not able to confirm at this point in time whether we've got that partnership.

B. Penner: I just thank the minister for that answer. I know I've been into her office a number of times on this particular section of highway to talk to her about the need for improvements on that section of highway, and I thank her for her ongoing commitment and work. I hope we can look forward to some kind of an agreement in the reasonably near future to fix that section of highway.

D. MacKay: I attended the provincial congress yesterday in Vancouver. When we spoke about the highway infrastructure upgrades to the province, I have to say I was somewhat disappointed in that Highway 37 north was not included on the map that was portrayed for everybody to have a look at. Given the connection and the routing of Highway 37 north just west of Hazelton to tie into the Alaska Highway, I was, as I say, a little disappointed to see we weren't on the list there for the priority upgrade.

Again, in all fairness, having the driven the road on the weekend — I drove up to Dease Lake on Friday and returned on Saturday, and on the return trip, over the 450 kilometres of Highway 37 that we travelled on, I think we only met 45 cars — it's not a heavily used highway. I must say, the highway was in pretty good shape considering it was wintertime. As a matter of fact, it was in excellent shape.

The fact that we did not make the priority list for upgrades…. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the future plans are for ongoing upgrading on Highway 37 and if in fact there are plans to keep that highway and improve it.

Hon. J. Reid: I want to confirm that indeed that highway is an important link in the province's transportation system. There has been some repeated investment in that highway in the last number of years. Moving forward, I would suggest to the member that, again, with the competing requirements for transportation that indeed he's brought to my attention, as well, this is one of those projects that needs to be reviewed by the regional transportation advisory committees, along with some of the other projects the member has talked to me about, to help determine that priority regionally and be able to offer that advice back to the ministry.

D. MacKay: Well, thank you. I'm glad we're still on the radar screen for that part of the province given the fact that we have a great deal of resources up there in the mining industry as well as the forest industry to help with that highway system up there.

I'd like to go back to Burns Lake, if I could, for a moment and ask if the south side of Francois Lake is part of the resource road upgrade infrastructure. Does it have a different designation? Are we planning to do any upgrades to Southside Road to improve the huge volume of wood that is presently travelling on that road with the pine beetle infestation? Are we planning to do some major upgrades to that road this summer or in the immediate future?

Hon. J. Reid: It's very, very important that wood gets to market, that we have a transportation system which enables that. We have begun the work with the Ministry of Forests and will continue the work with the Ministry of Forests to make sure we are able to accomplish that.

D. MacKay: If you just follow up on that one, and then I'll have one final question. It's my understanding that we did a great deal of crushing this past winter to be used on that Southside Road structure. Are we going to proceed with that this summer?

Hon. J. Reid: I think it is very important for the member to get detailed answers to the entire program

in his area for this next year. I offer that we will take the member, sit down and go over in detail the program for his area and be able to answer all those questions.

D. MacKay: My final question is an extension of the Southside problem we've had and the movement of the wood from Southside over to Burns Lake. Of course, I'm going to talk about the Francois Lake ferry. Given the fact that we're still looking at the privatization issue, I wonder if the minister can tell me when the requests for proposals will be out and how long down the road do we expect before we'll have an answer as to the go-ahead for a new, larger-capacity ferry, which I believe is one of the issues we're looking at. When can we expect a decision on this finalization of the privatization of the ferry?

Hon. J. Reid: We're looking at the requests for proposals for the end of March — it's very important that we move ahead on this — and certainly have talked with the member numerous times about the importance of being able to provide the capacity on that ferry and that system to be able to look after the needs of not only the community but the industry.

B. Lekstrom: I have a couple of questions for the minister regarding highways, something that we've had many discussions on, particularly over the last 20 months. I'd like to start by thanking the minister for coming to Peace River South and our region and getting a firsthand view of the challenges we face up there with our transportation needs and the backlog that has to be dealt with.

A couple of questions. I'll go to the first one. It's dealing with what we call the South Taylor Hill. It's a portion of the Alaska Highway that…. Having travelled that piece of highway since probably the mid-sixties and, as a child, going up there in our family car and having to drive around holes in the road that had slid away, and so on…. Forty years later we're still facing the same challenge. It's been a challenge not just for the residents but for industry travelling that road, for our ability to promote economic development.

Can I get an update from the minister on what's taking place with the South Taylor Hill and the proposal that has been talked about to fix that portion of the Alaska Highway?

Hon. J. Reid: This is a popular subject with the member, and I actually remember it well from my visits to the Peace country. We are going ahead with this project. We are looking at the construction of a 1.23-kilometre realignment near Taylor, which is south of Fort St. John, to move the highway away from several active slide areas. It's my understanding that those hills tend to want to slide, and so it's been a reoccurring problem. We're going to have to work diligently to see that this work is undertaken. Tenders are being submitted, and we anticipate the work scheduled would be completed in 2004.

B. Lekstrom: That is terrific news, and news that I know will be welcomed by my constituents in Peace River South and from Peace River North cooperatively.

I have another question. Many of the challenges we face with our roads, which were built in many cases 50 and 60 years ago, are how they were built and, particularly, the width of the roads with the new equipment and the grades of our ditches. Many of our ditches have been set at a 2-to-1 slope, which is a very steep slope. The grade is somewhat of a hazard should anyone enter the ditch, and with our winter conditions, that does happen when we're trying to drive on the roads with the wide loads that are coming down there — with the oil industry and the advancement in agriculture.

Can the minister tell me if there is some work afoot to address the issue of road widths in the Peace country to accommodate the movement of some of this wider equipment that's available to industry today? The other side of that is along with the ditch slopes. What's taking place with the 2-to-1 grades? Are we trying to improve that?

Hon. J. Reid: The member has been very active, as has been the forerunner to the regional transportation advisory committees, which was the rural roads task force of the Peace River and the South Peace area, in bringing these concerns to the attention of myself and the ministry and working towards a solution here. We are moving to adopt a new standard, and that standard will be a nine-metre road width, with the slope on the ditch being either a 3-to-1 or a 4-to-1 slope. I believe that will address the concerns that have been raised.

B. Lekstrom: Again, thank you to the minister. It will address the concerns bang on. Our road widths have to be widened. With these new standards, I think it's, again, welcome news for my constituents.

I had another question regarding the regional transportation committees, but you have addressed that with one of the previous questions.

Just in closing, I want to thank the minister, not only for visiting our area and recognizing the needs. We've heard for many years from governments of the past. They've recognized the needs and never followed through on that recognition. I want to thank the minister and all of your staff for not only recognizing it but finding the resources to invest in what we think is the backbone to economic development in our province — the transportation infrastructure. With that, minister, I thank you for your answers.

D. Jarvis: Minister, it's me again, and guess what I want to talk about. For many months now we've been going back and forth in regard to the confluence of roads, if that's the expression to use, at the end of the north quadrant of the Second Narrows Bridge. I appreciate the position you're in and the fact that you have a lack of moneys and dollars to do the proposed expansions of everything you would like to do for us. But it

seems like every day now, every time a councillor — I have about four living in my riding — goes into a council meeting…. They have to go in there at around 5 o'clock, at rush hour, so they always get up in the council…. I think they end up sending you petitions, as well, about things that need to be done.

Nevertheless, I've explained to most of the people over there that that area is going to be, I would assume, looked after come July 2 if we get the Olympics. Theoretically, I believe that to be part of the access for the load going up to the Sea to Sky Highway, so something would have to be done in that area. That's one question I want to ask you.

The other one is a question of an access road from the Dollarton Highway onto the Upper Levels Highway, which is there now. I've been advised by your staff that it's a dangerous road and they don't want it there. Then subsequently, due to another financial situation where they were trying to make an exchange of property with the district of North Vancouver…. The Squamish band was putting in a mall there, the Seymour Mall, and they're now advertising for all sorts of big-box stores, etc., etc. They want access out the same way as is there now. Your staff has said that is possibly the only way we can go because of lack of dollars and cents.

My concern is the fact that they're going to repeat what they've already said is the worst thing they could do as far as the danger to traffic coming off the bridge and getting off to the side roads and then more traffic coming onto the Upper Levels Highway. They are going to go ahead with it.

I was wondering if she could tell me if that is the actual case that's happening. Are we going to continue with the same poor design that's there, except beef it up a bit and make it a little prettier, I guess, in order to accommodate the Squamish band so that they can get access and egress into their shopping mall?

Hon. J. Reid: The member talks about two separate issues, but actually they're part of the same issue. That's the problems at the north end of the Second Narrows Bridge. Indeed, that area does have to be worked on. We've been trying to work on a partnership with the municipality and with the first nations there to maximize the dollars available and to get a workable plan. We are still pursuing that. We're not there yet. We're still pursuing that, because it does need to be done.

The member talks about the development. I suppose it's in progress. There is an existing access, and the member is correct. That existing access would continue to be used, but keep in mind there has to be a long-term reconfiguration of that area.

Again, the answer to both questions is yes, there is a problem there. It's part of the same problem. There does have to be a plan. That does have to be reconfigured. We are looking for partnership aspects to bring everybody's dollars together and develop a plan that's going to be workable for everybody to accomplish that.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate what you're saying, and I thank you. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but it's been sort of the same process that we've been told about before, that it's going to be a three-way partnership. Actually, it was a three-way partnership before, between the GVRD, the district of North Vancouver and the provincial government. Now I guess the GVRD is…. I don't know where they are now, but it's now the Squamish band, presumably, because they want that access. We're required as a government to give it to them, from what I understand from previous arrangements back in the mid-eighties.

It's a difficult thing to try to get over to everyone, especially when the district of North Vancouver doesn't have any money and the GVRD doesn't have any money. They don't expect to have any money in the near future. The GVRD has said that on the pecking order we're five to ten years away from the North Shore, as far as they're concerned. All their direction is going to be on the airport and the Mary Hill and all that area.

It leaves me in a quandary. It is getting worse. It really is. I'm not just trying to be a politician saying that. Every day they're just dumping loads and loads of people through the ferry system onto the highway there. It's now starting to get really busy every night. When accidents occur — and I think I've said it to you many times before — there's just no way to get an ambulance back and forth across the highways to the hospital, into the Seymour….. Early in the morning, if there's an accident or a serious heart attack or something, you just…. We don't even have ambulances over on that side, so we don't have a system where we can be of help in that sense. That's another thing I'm working on somewhere else with another ministry.

I'm just wondering. The fact that we're just waiting to see if our financial picture is going to improve…. That could be years and years and years down the road. What I really want to know is: if we get the Olympics — and we'll know on July 2 — at that time will this area then suddenly become the access to the Sea to Sky Highway? I believe it will, because I can't see you putting all those 700-odd buses over the Lions Gate Bridge. Is there a magical figure out there — July 2? Will the whole future possibly turn around if we get the Olympics, or are we just going to go with the same picture as we have it now?

Hon. J. Reid: This has been a frustrating issue for the member. It has been a money issue, and I do believe that we now will be able to move ahead to find the solutions, because the province does have more money available than it had before. It doesn't completely close the gap, but it does reinvigorate the discussion.

I think part of the solution is still going to be a solution that works with the municipality. I would suggest that the member, as the people from council would like to talk about this…. We do need the cooperation of the municipality, because the province has some land that it wants to use the value of to contribute to this project,

and it wants to optimize the value of that land, and that certainly is working with the municipality. So we do need to get focused back on a solution for this project.

I think the question the member asked was: do the Olympics bear positively on getting this done? I think my answer would be: with or without the Olympics, this has to get done. We certainly don't want to put it off with the suggestion that 2010 is an acceptable year. This needs to be done sooner rather than later. It does have to be a priority, and we certainly will, as we continue our efforts, involve the member so that this time next year we will be having a different conversation around this project.

D. Jarvis: That's good news to hear. I will go to the municipal council and the members and start talking to them about it and see if we can get some kind of agreement. Your staff and I have discussed before what the proposed changes are as far as that land goes.

Just very quickly, I wanted to know if your staff could meet me sometime during the week of the 17th on the North Shore with regard to the Upper Levels Highway. As you go up — and I appreciate it's part of the Trans-Canada — where the Lynn Valley exit is, I understand it was your staff that was up there working, clearing brush and trees on the road. That is, as you go up the Upper Levels Highway where the second Lynn Valley exit is, south of there they've cleared all the trees out. I've just received a petition — and I think I've talked to your office before on it — with regard to a sound barrier or something along that line, because it is affecting all the houses right adjacent to the highway there. If you could have one of your staff meet me next week when I'm in my riding all week, I'd be pleased to go up with them.

Hon. J. Reid: Yes, the member has brought that to our attention, and we'll be happy to arrange that meeting and have that discussion.

K. Manhas: I apologize to the minister for the interruptions between my last questions and these ones.

The minister mentioned the province's outstanding commitment to rapid transit. The province had previously committed a sum of money towards SkyTrain to Coquitlam Centre in the northeast sector. The remainder was to be covered by TransLink. Since then, TransLink has reassessed their plans. They've changed the routes they're looking at, and they're looking at different options. I'd like to find out from the minister if the province's outstanding commitment will still apply to whatever options or routes TransLink chooses to pursue to connect rapid transit to the northeast sector.

Hon. J. Reid: The member knows there is renegotiation going on with TransLink around the province's commitment. We certainly work with TransLink. The province always has its own obligation to make sure the tax dollars committed are being spent wisely. I'm not sure how else to answer the member's question other than to say that whatever proposal they bring to us we still have to examine in light of whether this is a good use for the contribution the province makes.

K. Manhas: I just have a couple questions remaining. I'd just like to tackle some of the public-private partnerships that are being discussed by TransLink in the lower mainland area. There's been discussion for quite some time about a new crossing of the Fraser River to replace the Albion ferry. This is something that is quite important to constituents and business people in my area to access the south shore, the Fraser Valley and U.S. markets.

There are two major concerns, and I'll deal with them separately. The first is to fully utilize the potential of this new Fraser crossing. I brought this up with the minister, and I want to get it on the record. There needs to be improvements to the capacity of the Pitt River Bridge. Currently, the Pitt River Bridge is the only way to access Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge from the northeast sector — from Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and everywhere else — by land. It's already at capacity. Once the Fraser River crossing is in place to access the south shore and Langley via Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, there will be even more demand for using that bridge. From the perspective of my region, from businesses and constituents in Port Coquitlam, it's going to be imperative that whatever new crossing is looked at for the Fraser River, that at the same time as part of the same private-public partnership, we look at improvements to the Pitt River crossing to ensure that we fully utilize the economic potential of that road for businesses on the north side of the river connecting to the south side of the river. I'll deal with that first and let the minister respond.

Hon. J. Reid: In looking at the north and south Fraser perimeter roads and another crossing of the Fraser River, we do, as the member suggests, have to take a systems approach. There's a lot more to this. We have to look at where traffic flows and where new pressures will be put on the systems. Certainly, the Pitt River Bridge is part of that investigation. It's too early to say yet how that is going to be worked out. We certainly will be involving the member in up-to-date discussions, but this is still in very, very preliminary planning stages. We will just have to follow up with this in the months and even years to come, because this is a very large project.

K. Manhas: The second concern I'd like to bring up on the record, which has been brought to me by members of the business community in my region, is the issue of alignment of the new Fraser crossing. The concern is to ensure that whatever new crossing is put in place will fully utilize the new improvements being made to border crossings so businesses in that North Fraser region will have good access to the U.S. markets, and that whatever bridge is built, it is built in coordination with one of these new sets of improvements. It

might be the Pacific Highway improvements to 176th Street or whatever improvements are…. I don't want to preclude where this would actually be linked up, but it is important to businesses in my region. It has been brought up to me that this bridge be used as a link to our other projects and improvements, so that there a straight access to U.S. markets.

Hon. J. Reid: To reference back, my previous answer was about the systems approach. Certainly, it is absolutely integral — what the member has said about access to borders, the movement of goods and services and being able to optimize the money that has already been invested. For that reason we are working closely with TransLink as they develop their plans. They are working on an approach to the bridge. That is something they are going out discussing with communities. And, I certainly would suggest that anybody interested participate in that process because I know that's coming up in the discussions TransLink will be having with communities.

Yes, I reaffirm we do see that as a very high priority to make sure those flows take place, to make sure those routes are optimized, and we are working closely with TransLink to achieve that.

K. Manhas: The final thing I'd like to bring up today are issues around transportation and access along the Mary Hill bypass. I understand that is part of the North Fraser perimeter road. There have been comments in the local media made by Mayor McCallum, the mayor of Surrey, who is also the head of TransLink about potential toll improvements to the Port Mann Bridge. I think that is a positive for my community.

I'd just like to bring onto the record that there are issues in the northeast, in my community, with very large backups already accessing the Trans-Canada. The Mary Hill bypass has very large backups in the morning rush hours just to get on the Trans-Canada heading east. I'd just like to bring on the record that whenever these improvements are put in place, they are a positive thing. But they also need to be coupled with improvements to the existing corridors of the Trans-Canada Highway from Coquitlam through to Vancouver because that is a major issue. That is a major impediment to business locating in the Coquitlam area because of traffic backlog, and I'd just like to get that on the record.

I'd also like to thank the minister and the ministry's staff because I have been working with them quite a bit on trying to ease the traffic backups. They have looked at measures to change timings at lights and to change the traffic on-ramp timings to allow for the ease of movement along the Mary Hill bypass, which is a provincial road, onto the Trans-Canada.

But I understand your ministry is looking at a long-term vision for the re-design for the Cape Horn interchange. I think that is a very important issue to constituents and residents in my community. The proper design of that and integration into a solid access into the city will be a very important economic initiative for the people in my constituency.

I'd just like to end by thanking the minister for her help and work and for her ministry's work at working on these issues over the long term.

In respect of the 3½-cent motor fuel tax, which organization is going to monitor that?

Hon. J. Reid: The funds go in to the BCTFA. It is the auditor general who is the auditor for the BCTFA.

Hon. J. Reid: I'm not completely clear on the question. With the projects, often we do have to purchase land to complete the projects. That is part of the normal process.

P. Wong: How much is the fund available to be used for administrative purposes?

Hon. J. Reid: The ministry operation itself is not taken from that fund, but the costs of any particular project being delivered through that fund would be part of that.

P. Wong: Since the amount is pretty huge, is there any committee or any person responsible to deal with the investment of the fund during the period of time and with the money in fact retained by the BCTFA in excess of the need?

Hon. J. Reid: Involved with the functions of the BCTFA is the provincial treasury, Ministry of Finance. The B.C. Investment Management Corporation is involved with any of the funds that need investment, as other provincial funds are.

P. Wong: Is the fund prepared to invest in any other non-core assets, or does the BCTFA own any non-core assets?

Hon. J. Reid: There are still a few Ballard shares and Hillsborough warrants. Other than that, the BCTFA is all transportation investment.

P. Wong: Is there any fund available for municipality roads for the interests of safety, improvement and maintenance of these kinds of roads?

Hon. J. Reid: These funds are not available for municipal roads. These are all for provincial roads.

Hon. J. Reid: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

	YEAS — 65

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Roddick	Wilson	Lee
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Campbell	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes		Manhas

	NAYS — 2

Nettleton		MacPhail