Hansard — Thursday, October 27, 2005 a.m.


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Committee of the Whole House		1301
	Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13)
	B. Lekstrom
	Hon. J. Les
	J. Brar
	B. Ralston
	C. Trevena

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1310
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	C. Evans

Hon. C. Richmond: In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call continuing estimates debate on the Ministry of Transportation and in this chamber, committee stage of Bill 13, the Civil Forfeiture Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; H. Bloy in the chair.

B. Lekstrom: I would like…. Just a question to the minister under part 1, "Interpretation," I believe is what you've called…. Under "Definitions," under section 1, "instrument of unlawful activity," I'd like to read this and just see if the minister can enlighten me: "'instrument of unlawful activity' means property that…(b) is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that is intended to (i) result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or (ii) cause serious bodily harm to a person."

The question I would have…. The issue is "likely to be used." Whose interpretation is that? Is it the police officers' when they pull an individual over, for instance? I guess it's a bit of a concern, and I'm just looking for some explanation that we're presuming guilt with that kind of wording.

Hon. J. Les: For the benefit of the member, I would say we always need to keep in mind that these matters are ultimately adjudicated by the courts. Obviously, there is a judgment call at some point when a police officer is involved in making the original determination and then further when the director of civil forfeiture applies to the court for an order to forfeit. But the likelihood of these being instruments of unlawful activity would have to be determined by the courts based on a balance of probabilities.

B. Lekstrom: Possibly just a follow-up question to the minister. Could the minister tell me: is this new wording that we're looking at when we're dealing with civil matters in our courts, or is this existing wording that we're now encompassing, as well, within the new Civil Forfeiture Act?

Hon. J. Les: I would point out that, obviously, this is new legislation in British Columbia. However, it is legislation that is, in the main, patterned after what is available and has been available for several years now in the province of Ontario. This concept is very much a part of that legislation as well.

B. Lekstrom: I'll make it very clear. I am supporting this piece of legislation. I think it's a worthy cause, and I think the intent is very much appreciated by probably all British Columbians — what we're trying to accomplish here.

Just a further question. Possibly under the Criminal Code, and I'm not sure if this minister can answer this today…. The way it is worded is wide open for interpretation. I do have another question under part 2, "Forfeiture Orders" that relates to this as well.

Although this is a new piece of legislation, and all wording could be interpreted as new, is there anywhere within the Criminal Code system right now — and I believe there is, but I'm looking for clarification — that allows this type of activity to take place where if something is deemed likely to be used to engage, you have a presumption of guilt prior to a conviction? Could the minister explain if that's there today in any other statutes? If that's possible, I would appreciate that.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chair, I would point out that this concept is currently part of the Criminal Code but as it relates to proceeds of crime. In this particular bill, it relates to instruments of crime, but I think there is a certain synonymous nature to both of those provisions.

J. Brar: I just need your help to understand this process, Mr. Chair. I do have some general comments to make at the beginning — I don't know whether I'm permitted to do that — and some general-nature questions which are applicable to the bill.

Mr. Chair, as stated in my previous response, I support this bill, Bill 13, because I believe that we need to be tough on crime, and once….

The Chair: Member, your opening statement should relate to section 1, though.

J. Brar: Okay. And once proclaimed, this bill, including section 1, is intended to serve the government as a tool to seize the proceeds of unlawful activities and use the proceeds as stated in this bill to assist victims of crime and crime prevention.

People have from time to time expressed their concerns to me with regard to the proceeds of unlawful activities, whether it's related to drug crime, white-collar crime or serious frauds.

Similarly, I just read a story yesterday in the newspaper, for example, that I will tell you. This was written by David Baines. It states — and I would like to quote from that: "Given the frequency of serious frauds that occur in this province, and the infrequency of reasonable redress, I have sadly concluded that in most

cases…British Columbia…provides no more protection of the public than your average banana republic."

Therefore, I do have a number of questions on section 1, and I would like to start asking those questions directly, through the Chair.

In its submission on Ontario's civil forfeiture bill, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association referred to the forfeiture of instruments of unlawful activity as being fundamentally unfair and recommended that the part dealing with instruments be removed. So I would like to ask the minister: has the government considered the opposition of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to this bill?

Hon. J. Les: We, in the process of arriving at this bill, certainly consulted with the Civil Liberties Association. We are very cognizant of their issues and concerns. I would like to say, first of all, that I am not unsympathetic to those concerns around civil liberties. What we have strived to do in this bill, of course, is to arrive at an appropriate balance of the concerns of civil libertarians with the rights of victims in society and, also, the rights of the public generally to expect the return of those assets that have been gotten by unlawful means. We have consulted with the Civil Liberties Association, as I've said. We have taken their concerns into consideration, and we think that where we've arrived at is a reasonable balance.

J. Brar: I am pleased to note that the minister, in fact, consulted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I would like to know why the government chose not to follow the recommendations made by them — on what basis?

Hon. J. Les: Again, as I've said, we have consulted with the Civil Liberties Association, and as happens often in a consultation process, accommodation can be reached in a number of areas. In fact, after our discussions with the Civil Liberties Association, we made adjustments, for example, in terms of the effect of the bill on uninvolved parties and in one or two other areas. Clearly, we have not been able to accommodate all of the concerns of the Civil Liberties Association because, as I've said, what we needed to do was to strike a reasonable balance, and I think we have successfully been able to do that. So we consulted and we accommodated where possible.

J. Brar: I would like to ask if the minister could provide some information as to what he was not able to accommodate from their submission and why.

Hon. J. Les: We're having a little difficulty here. We think we are on section 1 of the bill. I am not sure how the member's question is relevant to that particular section.

J. Brar: We are talking about section 1, which is the definition of "instrument of unlawful activity." Just a few seconds ago, the minister responded to my question when I asked: "Did the minister consult or take into consideration the Civil Liberties Association's recommendation?" The minister said, yes, they did; they made some accommodations, but at the same time, they were not able to accommodate everything. So I stand here corrected if the minister thinks this is not a true reflection of the answer.

I'm asking simply the follow-up question to the response from the minister. That is: what was the minister not able to accommodate when it comes to section 1, definition of "instrument of unlawful activity"?

Hon. J. Les: I would say this to the member. I'm sure that he can have a discussion with the Civil Liberties Association at any time of his choosing. The discussions that were held with them and my staff, and government generally, are not up for debate this morning. It is the bill that is up for debate.

J. Brar: I would like to move on, but I definitely would like to make a comment here for the record. We are having discussions and debate about the definition. I'm talking about, under section 1, "instrument of unlawful activity." I'm talking about the recommendations and submission by the Civil Liberties Association and asking what the minister was not able to accommodate, because that's what the minister responded just a few minutes ago. If the minister is not, at this point in time, able to respond to those things, maybe we'll deal with it later on.

I would like to move on. The definition of "instrument of unlawful activity" is very, very important. Why? I want to make sure that this bill is, in fact, an accurate and effective tool for seizing proceeds of unlawful activity. It's an extremely important part of the definition.

Let me give you one example here as to why it is hugely important. If a gang member is using his family car, of which he is the sole owner, to conduct unlawful activity for financial benefits, will that car be forfeited to the government under Bill 13? Further, I would like to explain…. What will his family — for example, his spouse and children — do for transportation once his car has been forfeited? Is it fair to punish them for his unlawful activities?

Why I'm raising these questions, Mr. Chair, is that usually what happens in families is that families have one car, and it goes under one name. In this situation it could happen with this person who is a gang member. I would like to ask the minister to respond to those questions.

Hon. J. Les: I'm sure there would certainly be situations where, in the case that the member cites, the car would actually be forfeited as an instrument of unlawful activity. However, if the car was registered in the name of a spouse, for example, and it was proven to the satisfaction of the court that the spouse was, in fact,

an uninvolved party to the alleged unlawful activity, then there are provisions in the act — the save harmless provisions, if I could call them that at the moment — for those to apply.

We have specifically designed the bill so that uninvolved interest holders are protected, and that would be one example of where the car, possibly, would not be forfeited. Also, the courts have discretion. Where they consider it to be in the interests of justice, they can also make exceptions and provisions so that uninvolved interest holders — i.e., other family members, potentially — would not be affected by these forfeiture provisions.

J. Brar: I would like to read this from the act: "'instrument of unlawful activity' means property that (a) has been used to engage in unlawful activity…." Now, it's very interesting to note the minister is telling me that if that car is under the name of his wife, it will not be forfeited. That's what I understand from his response.

So I am totally confused here as to why this definition, which states: "'instrument of unlawful activity' means property that (a) has been used to engage in unlawful activity…." I would like to have some further clarification on that.

Second, I would like to have a follow-up question on that one to the minister. That one is: if that car is jointly owned by the husband and wife, will it be forfeited?

Hon. J. Les: I think I was fairly clear in my earlier answer, but I will go it through it again. In the case the member cites where a car is being used for unlawful activity, and the car was actually registered, let's use the example, in the name of the spouse — if that spouse was truly an uninvolved party, not in any way involved in the unlawful activity, the court would very much have the discretion to take note of that and to not have the car forfeited. If, on the other hand, the court found reason to believe that the spouse was not an uninvolved party, then the car could be forfeited.

As I also pointed out, the court also has it in its discretion to find that is not in the interests of justice to have such an asset forfeited. So there is a range of possibilities. The court may, for example, also order the automobile to be forfeited but half of the proceeds to go back to the uninvolved spouse. So there's a range of opportunities there for the court to ensure that the appropriate solution is found.

J. Brar: Let me come to another example or scenario. This is about a person who happens to be a drug dealer who rents a house from individual A. The landlord goes out of country — probably for a long vacation, maybe for four months — and therefore, is not able to inspect the house on a regular basis. Looking at the opportunity, the tenant starts the grow operation and, by doing that, makes a lot of money. Now, in this situation, as per my understanding, the landlord is, per the law, an uninvolved individual. Can that house, under any circumstances, be forfeited for the drug dealer's activity in that house?

Hon. J. Les: I would simply say this. The way the member has framed the question and posed the set of circumstances, I think it's fair to say that the landlord he cites would actually be an uninvolved party to the unlawful activity. Therefore, the property would not be subject to forfeiture.

J. Brar: We see a lot of the grow operations and a lot of other things happening, particularly in rented properties. I would like to ask if the minister can provide some examples as to under what circumstances the property of the landlord could, in fact, be forfeited for the actions of the tenant.

Hon. J. Les: I think it's fair to say that the director of civil forfeiture would have to be able to establish that there was direct or indirect involvement by the landlord in the unlawful activity. In terms of what might constitute such direct or indirect involvement, if a landlord were renting out a particular premises that would normally rent, for example, at $1,000 a month, but the director was able to establish that, in fact, the house was being rented out at $10,000 a month — and I am told there are actually examples of that — then I think it would be fair for the director to attempt to establish that the landlord was involved in the unlawful activity either directly or indirectly.

J. Brar: I will move on, again, to the instrument of unlawful activity, part (b). I really have trouble understanding this part of the section because it reads that "instrument of unlawful activity" means property that is likely to be used — which is something to be used in the future. The impact this could have on innocent people or law-abiding citizens concerns me, because it's very, very subjective judgment, as it reads from section 1.

Now, to start with, can the minister define this for me as to what the instrument of unlawful activity is that is likely to be used? Any example.

Hon. J. Les: It's, of course, a very hypothetical discussion. But it would seem to me that if there was equipment, for example, that could be used or would be used for the establishment of a grow operation, and absent any evidence at all that there was a proposed legal use of that equipment and those assets, the director of civil forfeiture would have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that indeed the intended use for that equipment was unlawful.

J. Brar: Can the minister provide any example of it? This is a description of the "likely to be used" instrument — what the minister explained. Can the minister provide a specific example of the instrument likely to be used? I would appreciate that.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chair, I think I attempted to do that in my previous answer when I talked about the grow-op equipment. As I said, absent any evidence to the contrary, the director of civil forfeiture would have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that there was a substantial likelihood of unlawful activity.

J. Brar: Let me ask my own specific example.. I was talking about the gang member in the past…. To the minister: if the gang member owns two vehicles rather than one and his unlawful activity required the use of one vehicle, how will the court determine which of the two vehicles is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity which has yet to occur? Will the director apply for both or one? If one, which one?

Hon. J. Les: The difficulty, of course, with the construction of entirely hypothetical situations is that there are many scenarios that could evolve out of that. The basic principle to remember is this: these decisions would be made by a court after application by the director of civil forfeiture based on the balance of probabilities.

J. Brar: It's a very interesting response, Mr. Chair. As I understand this bill, it is the responsibility of the director to collect the information and to make his or her case. I understand that when it goes to court, the judge at the end of the day, after looking at all the evidence, is going to make a determination.

My question is pretty simple. To the minister: under his direction, is the director going to apply for one of those vehicles or both? That's what I'm asking. What is the director going to do? It is a very, very subjective part of the definition of the instruments to be used in unlawful activities.

Hon. J. Les: Again, the director of civil forfeiture would have to have evidence to satisfy the court that one car or the other — to relate it to the member's question — had been intended for use for unlawful activity. If the director was able to satisfy the court to that extent, then obviously he would be successful. It is up to the director, in assembling his application to the court, to do so — based on evidence that the court would find acceptable.

J. Brar: Let me put this question in a different context. We are talking about something which is likely to happen or be used in the future. I can understand that collecting evidence could be much simpler for something which has happened in the past. We're talking here about something which is going to happen or likely to happen in the future — the instrument which is likely to be used for unlawful activity.

So I would like to ask: does the minister feel that this is very, very subjective — an open-ended definition of the instrument of unlawful activity?

Hon. J. Les: I guess I would disagree with the member opposite in that I would not characterize the provisions of this bill as being open-ended and subjective, at least in terms of the operation of the bill. The courts look for processes that are specific and evidence-based. There must be clear evidence that would move the court to make an order for civil forfeiture. That, I think, is incontestable, and I think the member needs to keep in mind that all of these processes are going to be the result of a court decision, at the end of the day, based on clear evidence.

J. Brar: I do have a serious concern about this. First of all, I would like to explain my situation. I'm not talking about the bill as a whole. I am talking about one particular part of section 1 — that is, instrument of unlawful activity, part (b). That's what I'm talking about. If you read the language of that it says that an instrument of unlawful activity is likely to be used. We're talking about the future. We're talking about something which probably may happen, and it may not happen. As I understand this language, this English, it means this is hypothetical. So I want to understand that from the minister. Not only me, but all members of this House want to understand how this is going to be defined.

I would like to ask a different question on this one. My concern on this one is that this is so open-ended; this is so subjective. I would appreciate if the minister could stand up and say how and why it is not subjective and open-ended.

I think because it's so open, it could be abused. This particular definition could be abused against some law-abiding, innocent citizen. So I want to make sure that does not happen. My question to the minister is: can he give us assurance that this particular section 1 definition — instrument of unlawful activity, (b) is likely to be used — will not be used against innocent, law-abiding citizens? So can he give us some assurance on that one?

Hon. J. Les: Again, let me reiterate. The purpose here is to ensure that when the director of civil forfeiture comes before the court, he has to clearly prove on the balance of probabilities to the court that the assets that he proposes would be forfeited were, in fact, to be used for unlawful activity. It is up to the courts to make that determination based on the balance of probabilities. So I would submit to the member that there's a clear process laid out here. It is a legal process. It is conducted in a courtroom, and I think the rights of potentially uninvolved and innocent parties are going to be well protected in that process.

J. Brar: I would like to once again re-emphasize that I do understand that the judge is going to look into the evidence and, on the basis of the balance of probabilities, make his or her determination. I'm not talking about that part, though. That's the last step.

I'm talking about the first step taken by the director of this program, where the director is going to collect information about this instrument likely to be used — collect information and make his or her case. That's what I'm talking about. So I would like to ask this question a different way, if the minister can become maybe more specific and objective on this. What steps and process is the director going to use to collect evidence about the instrument likely to be used for unlawful activity?

Hon. J. Les: The member's question is actually out of order. We are dealing with section 1. His question relates to a later section of the bill.

J. Brar: Mr. Chair, I need your help here. I am talking about section 1. We can certainly carry on that question to the other section. We need answers.

We are talking about the definition of an instrument of unlawful activity. What I'm asking is how the director is going to define that this particular thing is an instrument of unlawful activity. That's my question. So I need your help on whether or not that question is related to this section and why. Should I proceed, or…?

The Chair: Member, perhaps we could ask the minister which section he is referring to, as to where this is an appropriate question.

Hon. J. Les: I believe the member should refer to section 22 for a discussion as to how the director of civil forfeiture would go about his duties.

J. Brar: Just for the record, I want to make sure that the process in the procedure for the collection of evidence and determining instruments of unlawful activity will be discussed and debated under section 22. I will move on.

Here's the other thing I want to bring for this debate here. The definition of unlawful activity appears to be extremely broad. In their submission on the Ontario legislation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association suggested that "the definition of unlawful activity be confined to the most serious offences." I would like to ask the minister: did they consider that recommendation from the Civil Liberties Association, and if they did, what was the final outcome?

Hon. J. Les: Just for clarification, I should say this to the member. Our discussions were with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. He has referred several times to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I just want to make that distinction for accuracy. The result of those discussions is the bill that is before us.

J. Brar: I appreciate the comment made by the minister. I did mention the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, because this law is taking some directions from the Ontario bill. That was all the discussion between the Ontario government at that time as well as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. But I think the concerns are similar, whether it's the B.C. Civil Liberties Association or the Canadian.

I would like to move on, on this one. I will ask one more question on the definition, if the minister could explain what was the intent behind this particular language. The instrument likely to be used — what is the purpose of this? I can explain that. What is the intent behind the language about the instrument which is likely to be used in the future? What was the intent? What are we trying to do here under that particular part of the definition?

Hon. J. Les: I note that the member seems to be going back to a previous discussion. However, I just wanted to make the point that the definitions that have been used…. In fact, the entire act is there to act as a preventative measure. The act, as much as anything else, seeks to remove the motivation that would lead to criminal activity or unlawful activity. I think the numerous references that the member has made in terms of the instruments of unlawful activity clearly point in the same direction: those instruments that are likely to be used in the commission of unlawful activity. Clearly, we are removing the incentive and the motivation of unlawful activity.

B. Ralston: I have a question, again, on the same clause: instrument of unlawful activity — clause (b). The minister has said that this legislation is modelled on the Ontario act. Has there been a judicial interpretation of that section of the Ontario legislation that might assist this discussion?

Hon. J. Les: We are not specifically aware of whether that exact question was at issue or, in fact, was determined by the courts in Ontario, but we are aware of specific cases where the instruments of unlawful activity were included in a forfeiture case in Ontario. The matter was decided in favour of forfeiture. Indirectly, these matters have been at play in those cases. If we're able to find any cases where the matter was, in fact, specifically addressed and decided by the courts, we can certainly get that information to the member.

B. Lekstrom: I believe the minister has addressed this somewhat, but again, it will relate back to an instrument of unlawful activity under section 3(2): "The director may apply to the court for an order forfeiting to the government property that is an instrument of unlawful activity." Just a question on that. That forfeiture…. I believe I've got this. I'll give you an example.

Somebody's driving around a neighbourhood, possibly late at night. The RCMP have reason to pull that

vehicle over, whether they be speeding or involved in something. They find tools that could be used for break and enters, for example — maybe a crowbar, screwdrivers or so on. Is it my understanding that the RCMP have the ability to confiscate that at the time it's held until, as this section reads, a forfeiture order could be obtained? Not that it would be worth a great deal of money, for the resale issue. Is that the intent of what we're talking about under 3(2) here?

Hon. J. Les: One thing members of the House will want to keep in mind is that there is, of course, always the possibility of another set of proceedings, criminal proceedings, under which assets might be seized as evidence for those criminal proceedings. Clearly, that's not part of this process. If it's determined that civil forfeiture proceedings are in order in the type of case that the member cites, then the director of civil forfeiture would have to obtain an interim order so that those assets would, for example, remain in British Columbia, so that they would be available for forfeiture at the conclusion of proceedings.

J. Brar: We are talking about section 3, under which "(1) The director may apply to the court for an order forfeiting to the government…." Now, as I read it, there's no explicit constraint on the director's discretion to initiate forfeiture proceedings. My question is: from where and from whom will the director receive directions with respect to initiating such proceedings? Will he or she receive directions from the Attorney General, from the Premier, from the public? How will it work? Will the decisions to initiate forfeiture proceedings simply be up to the director?

Hon. J. Les: In fact, the provisions that govern the actions of the director of civil forfeiture are laid out in parts 5 and 6 of the act. Again, I'm not sure that this discussion is appropriate under the section we are currently debating.

For the broader question of what would give rise to the director of civil forfeiture taking action and who would direct that director in taking those actions, I would simply make an analogy. Who directs the police in their day-to-day duties? It is clearly the laws and the statutes of Canada and British Columbia that they know they must enforce and uphold, and similarly, the director of civil forfeiture would be acting pursuant to this legislation when it is passed.

J. Brar: Well, I appreciate the response the minister has just explained to me, and I understand the rationale, but I'm not convinced of that. Let me tell you why. In Ontario, and we are modelling this bill based on…. I'm not saying we're just making a copy of that, but we based this model on taking a lot of directions from the Ontario bill. The Attorney General initiates forfeiture proceedings under Ontario civil forfeiture legislation. Why has this government not allowed that process to take place?

We definitely need some explanation there as to why this government thinks that not seeking any approval from the AG will make it more effective, more appropriate, more workable and will also provide protection to, again, the innocent citizens of the province.

Hon. J. Les: Although the construction of the legislation is slightly different in that it mentions the Attorney General in that province more explicitly, the operations of the act are delegated from the Attorney General. The Attorney General in Ontario is not involved in day-to-day decisions with respect to the operation of their legislation, although the personnel within government who are responsible for the operations of the act, of course, have access to advice from the Attorney General's ministry. That is, indeed, what would occur here in British Columbia as well.

The director of civil forfeiture would be able to access advice on an ongoing basis from the Attorney General's ministry, but that, of course, does not mean that the Attorney General or other members of government would be directly involved in those proceedings by initiating those proceedings or in any way involved in the ongoing processes leading to the submission to the court.

J. Brar: So if I understand correctly, we are basically following the same directions as in Ontario for this particular purpose. The act will do exactly the same things as happen in Ontario?

Hon. J. Les: The effect is exactly the same. The director of civil forfeiture and whatever his or her counterpart is in Ontario have to act according to the rule of law, act according to the statute that gives rise to their powers and act always with advice from the appropriate personnel within the Attorney General's ministry.

J. Brar: Just to close on this particular question so that we are absolutely clear. The director responsible for this act — will he or she take approval from any minister or not?

J. Brar: Now, it's very important that…. I understand the autonomy of the director in this situation, but at the same time, I can understand that we do give autonomy from time to time to different civil servants, which is not a bad thing. But I would like to make sure, again, that the accountability part is taken care of so that the application of this bill is done for the purpose for which we have this bill and also so that the innocent people are protected at the same time.

Will the director provide reasons for initiating any forfeiture proceedings, and if the answer is yes, will those reasons be made public?

J. Brar: Okay. Will the director provide any list of reasons for initiating any action on his part of forfeiting any property? If the answer is yes, will that list of reasons be made public?

Hon. J. Les: It is clear that in the investigative stage there is a need for confidentiality in those investigations, but I would point out to the member, and I think this is obvious to all of us, that the court process is an open process and that the court has to have reasons before it to make appropriate decisions. I can't imagine that a court would render any decision without having the appropriate list of reasons, as the member refers to it, being made available to it. I think the normal operation of the courts would provide for an appropriate level of public disclosure.

J. Brar: I'm still not sure about…. Will that information, or all the reasons collected by the director, be available under the Freedom of Information Act at any stage?

Hon. J. Les: In all these processes it's important to remember that other provincial legislation applies as well. In this case — and, I think, relevant to the member's question — it is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that applies as well. That act is in force and in effect in British Columbia and ought not to be breached as well.

I think all of these statutes taken together provide for a good balance in terms of openness and transparency while at the same time protecting personal and private information.

J. Brar: There could be situations where, in any given situation, court proceedings are on against an individual or a group. My question is: will the director initiate forfeiture proceedings even if criminal proceedings are in progress in relation to the same matter?

Hon. J. Les: The situation that the member brings forward is possible in theory, although one could, I think, readily imagine situations where if the two cases, both the criminal and the civil, were to proceed together, it might act to compromise the criminal proceedings. In that case I think it is unlikely that the director of civil forfeiture would proceed.

As I said earlier, the director of civil forfeiture will, I think, on an ongoing basis, be taking advice from staff within the Ministry of Attorney General. I think that would assist greatly in terms of the timing of those proceedings.

J. Brar: Under section 6, the court's discretion to refuse or alter a forfeiture order is limited to only if the forfeiture is not in the interests of justice. My question is: what does "not in the interests of justice" mean in this situation?

Hon. J. Les There are a number of avenues from which I could approach this matter, but in any civil forfeiture proceedings the court will, of course, have the application of the director of civil forfeiture before it as well as any evidence or statements from the responding party. It will weigh that evidence and will, in the court's discretion, make a decision. Whether or not the interests of justice have been served is, in fact, up to the court's discretion, and it will take that into consideration.

One of the member's colleagues, in second reading debate, used an example which I think might be helpful here. It was the teenager selling pot from an upstairs bedroom. Had the director of civil forfeiture, in a hypothetical case like that, proceeded to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings, my guess would be that the courts would find that selling mom and dad's house simply because junior had been fooling around upstairs would not be in the interests of justice.

J. Brar: Of course, the judge is going to look into the evidence and decide, based on the evidence, whether the director's case has some weight or not. But this, to me, is a special term which says that if it is not in the interests of justice…. That's what I'm trying to understand. The case could be refused if you don't have enough evidence, if the evidence doesn't speak for itself. But this is a different term used in this particular act which says that if it is not in the interests of justice, the justice can refuse the case.

I would appreciate it if the minister could provide some explanation on that one as to what it is, what it means and how it's going to apply.

Hon. J. Les: Well, I think, using the example that I've just suggested — if you want to expand that slightly — there can be cases where someone in that house is carrying on an activity that would make that property subject to forfeiture as an instrument of unlawful activity. The court is always going to ensure that the remedy sought is appropriate to the circumstances, and it needs to have available to it some reasonable discretion, which is what this section provides.

J. Brar: Can the court refuse or alter a forfeiture order if the order is not in the public interest?

Hon. J. Les: The language that is used in this section of the act is whether or not it is "in the interests of justice." I think the terminology that the member used — whether or not it is in the public interest — is almost analogous to that terminology. If a court were to determine that a particular decision may not be in the public interest, I think the definition of whether or not

J. Brar: Can the court refuse or alter a forfeiture order if the order would be overly punitive?

Hon. J. Les: Let me point out, first of all, that the intent of this legislation is not to be punitive. Issues related to punishment are the purview of the criminal courts. Clearly, this is civil legislation. It is certainly within the discretion of the court, though, to limit the actions sought by the director of civil forfeiture. I would refer the member to section 6(b), which clearly says that the court has the ability to "limit the application of the forfeiture order."

C. Trevena: I just would like a clarification on 9(1) — that this order can happen without notice to a person. So the procedures can happen without the individual being told about this — the 30 days? I'd just like clarification on that.

Hon. J. Les: In response to the question from the member: clearly, if the director of civil forfeiture is to conduct his responsibilities effectively, he will need provisions that will ensure that the people subject to civil forfeiture will not be able to abscond with the assets. But recognizing that proper notice is required, the provisions here are limited to 30 days, after which there is a requirement for appropriate notice.

I underline again that if there's an apprehension there might be an application for forfeiture, there would be, I think in many situations, a likelihood that assets would suddenly disappear. So there needs to be an effective mechanism in place to allow those assets to remain in place while the proceedings occur.

C. Trevena: To the minister again: thank you very much for your explanation.

What, then, is the reason for point 9(3) that there can be one or more extensions to an order? Again I'd like clarification, because as I read it, this means that it could happen indefinitely without the individual knowing about this — that the order could indefinitely be extended.

Hon. J. Les: That section would come into play only at the discretion of the court, and it sets out very clearly the conditions under which a further order might be given. I would refer the member to (a), (b) and (c) under subsection (3), which clearly lays out that there has to be evidence of an evasion of service or where the subject is unable to be located in spite of reasonable efforts or other exceptional circumstances — again, at the discretion of the court.

C. Trevena: Can the minister perhaps give some examples of what exceptional circumstances might be? It seems very vague.

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I would like to point out that the concept of exceptional circumstances is not vague. The term "exceptional" is indeed very clear. We also need to remember that people who are involved in unlawful activities often can be very, very creative, and in an attempt to anticipate unlawful creativity, this section has been included. Again, it's at the discretion of the court to determine what might be, in appropriate circumstances, considered to be exceptional.

J. Brar: This section talks about the uninvolved interest holders. My question is related to the protection which this bill provides to landlords. I would like to ask the minister to tell us: will the property owner be put in the position of forfeiting his or her real estate property because he or she happens to be a landlord for a property used illegally, despite best attempts at proper lease supervision of that particular piece of property?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite clearly refers to a landlord who was completely uninvolved and had no knowledge of any unlawful activity, and in those circumstances, that property would not be subject to forfeiture.

J. Brar: I understand that. In this situation the landlord who is not involved — although the court has to decide about this — will not be part of any proceedings, as indicated by the minister.

I would like to ask another question on this same section. That is, will a landlord lose rent money if it is proven, after going through the court proceeding, that the tenant's payments had been procured from illegal proceeds?

Hon. J. Les: I would point to the member that the bill seeks very clearly to set out protections for people who are uninvolved in these unlawful activities. In the specific case that the member has talked about, where a landlord is receiving the normal amount of rent and is entirely uninvolved in the unlawful activity and is unaware of the unlawful activity, I think it is fair to say that those rent payments that have been made would not be deemed to be proceeds of unlawful activity.

J. Brar: Just to clarify that. This, in fact, has been clearly indicated by the court — that the rent money

was actually the result of criminal activity. But because the money has been paid to the landlord in that situation, as I understand from the explanation by the minister, the money will not be taken back, although it will be defined as proceeds from illegal activity.

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, in the hands of the person conducting the unlawful activity, those moneys are proceeds of unlawful activity. But when there's a further transaction that takes place with an uninvolved third party — such as the rent paid to a bona fide landlord who is uninvolved and unaware or whether the person involved in the unlawful activity goes to his local Safeway store and buys groceries — again, that third party who receives the money will not, at that point, be in receipt of proceeds of unlawful activity. Although, as I said, in the hands of the person who has engaged in the unlawful activity — he is in possession of proceeds of unlawful activity…. There are protections in the act that protect third parties who receive, in various transactions, a part of those proceeds for otherwise lawful reasons.

J. Brar: I have one more question on this one, just a follow-up question based on the explanation I got just now from the minister. I understand the rent situation. Although the money is defined as proceeds from the unlawful activity, because the landlord is not part of this unlawful activity, the money will not, therefore, be taken back.

But let me put another example on this one. If a person who made a lot of money through unlawful activity buys a property from individual B — who does not know anything about who this individual is and from where this individual brought the money — at a substantially higher rate than the market rate, could that property be part of the process of forfeiting the property by the director?

Hon. J. Les: Using the situation that the member has spoken about, clearly, the home in question would be subject to forfeiture, because it would have been acquired with the proceeds of unlawful activity.

He raised the question of the buyer, in this case, of this home having paid considerably more than the market value. Whether those proceeds, in the hands of the seller of the house, would be subject to forfeiture would depend entirely on the director of civil forfeiture being able to prove that there was some involvement by the vendor of the home.

J. Brar: Just to close off this one. It is a possibility that in this situation an innocent seller could actually become a target under this act. That's what my understanding is — if the minister could clarify that.

Hon. J. Les: I think the act has numerous provisions within it for the appropriate and, I think, fairly robust protection for third parties. The court must have before it evidence that clearly lays out the involvement and awareness of third parties before their assets could be forfeited by the courts.

J. Brar: One of the key sections in this bill is section 16, which talks about the standard of proof. In criminal proceedings they have a standard of proof that is much different than the standard of proof of this one, which is…. In criminal proceedings we have a standard of proof that is very, very high, which we call beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard one has to prove in order to get somebody convicted.

In this one the standard we are going to use is a standard which is much different. I won't say that this could be substandard, but it's much different. It could be pretty well perceived…. It is actually perceived by many professionals and individuals as much lower compared to the standard of proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of proof that we have in this one is the balance of probabilities. That's one difference there.

I understand what we're going to achieve by doing that, but there are people out there, including the Civil Liberties Association, who don't feel very comfortable with this particular standard of proof which has been set forth in this particular act. They're concerned that this standard of proof, again, could hurt some innocent citizens.

I would like to ask the minister: what kind of consultation and analysis was done before the minister decided to set the standard of proof for this one, which is the balance of probabilities?

Hon. J. Les: Precisely. I would like to respond to the member, but noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

D. Chudnovsky: Good morning to the minister and to his staff. I could have sworn that informally a minute ago, the minister said that it was $849 million. I guess the people of the province have saved $20 million. That's terrific.

Early in September there was a press report that Mr. Dobell would be providing services to the government. Among those services: high-level liaison between the government and the RAV project, and support in transportation-related elements of the Asia-Pacific gateway program. I wonder if the minister could confirm that report, and if so, tell us a little bit about what Mr. Dobell's responsibilities are.

Hon. K. Falcon: Indeed, Ken Dobell has been providing some exceptional support, frankly, to the ministry. There are a couple of really key areas that he has been focusing his attention on. One was the port of Prince Rupert. As we moved through the process of entering into the arrangement with the port of Prince Rupert, there was a significant amount of due diligence involved. Mr. Dobell has been involved in that plus, I would imagine, doing some very important liaison work with the federal government.

The other area that he has been very, very heavily involved in is the Pacific gateway initiative. I think the results of his extraordinary efforts in that regard, particularly liaising with the federal government, have brought about the very major announcement that we saw last week in which $590 million as an initial down payment over a five-year period was announced by the federal government for the Pacific gateway initiative.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if the minister could tell us: for whom does Mr. Dobell work?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Dobell is hired under contract through the Premier's office. But he did undertake work for the Ministry of Transportation on these strategic files, and we will presumably receive an invoice for that portion of work that he has done for us on these files.

D. Chudnovsky: When Mr. Dobell is working, for instance, on the Prince Rupert project or the gateway project, who directs his work?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Dobell works very closely with my deputy minister in terms of the ongoing liaison on the work that he's doing.

Hon. K. Falcon: His boss, naturally, is the Premier's office where he has his original contract. When he's doing work that relates to my ministry's operations, naturally he's reporting through my deputy minister and, obviously, ultimately to myself.

D. Chudnovsky: With respect to the work that he is doing on Ministry of Transportation projects, are there ongoing meetings between Mr. Dobell and ministry staff, or between Mr. Dobell and the minister? Could the minister give us a sense of that relationship, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, I would say both. There are ongoing meetings between me and Mr. Dobell, and also with my deputy minister and Mr. Dobell — primarily my deputy minister, naturally, because I have other obligations. But I, too, have been involved in certain meetings with Mr. Dobell relating to the files I indicated.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps just to give us a sense of how that work takes place, if the minister could give us, just in general…. I'm not looking for anybody to look through their PalmPilot, but just for a sense of how often, since Mr. Dobell has come on the scene to provide support in these areas, he might have met with the minister and how often he might have met with ministry officials or the deputy.

Hon. K. Falcon: On the port of Prince Rupert, staff have been meeting with Mr. Dobell on average, usually, about every two weeks. Those are meetings — not including phone calls, obviously, which are probably much more frequent.

On Pacific gateway: typically on a weekly basis. I personally have met with Mr. Dobell several times on gateway. My primary interest in meeting with Mr. Dobell is to ensure that we are both messaging the same kind of requests and information to the federal government with respect to the priorities of the provincial government and ensuring that we're both singing off the same song sheet, so to speak. That, as I say, has proved very valuable in terms of the response that we

have been able to attract from the federal government and obviously, also, in the benefit of coordinating our own efforts.

D. Chudnovsky: If Mr. Dobell's responsibilities are to the ministry, why would there be a situation in which there wasn't singing off the same song sheet? Is he receiving direction from anywhere else?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure what the member means by that question. What I'm saying is that when we're dealing with the federal government on the files that are germane to the Ministry of Transportation, it's very useful to both of us that when I'm speaking with federal ministers regarding the Pacific gateway, and when he is speaking with the federal bureaucracy with regard to Pacific gateway…. It is instructive and useful that we both be messaging the same kind of information. That's why we stay in touch, certainly, with my staff on a very regular basis.

But when necessary, he and I, to ensure that we're both singing off the same song sheet…. I think the results speak for themselves: a $590 million contribution to the province of British Columbia.

D. Chudnovsky: The point that we on this side would want to explore with the minister, and perhaps we've already explored it…. If that's the case, then that's the case. But it seems unique that there would be an individual hired by and through the Premier's office who would then have responsibilities under a ministry. What I'm trying to explore is: from whom did the marching orders come, and how is that coordinated?

If the Premier's office is hiring someone to do work, one assumes that the Premier's office has responsibilities that they expect that individual would carry out. If, then, that individual is working within and under the ministry…. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the line of command is and how that works.

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't know that this is unusual or unique at all. Frankly, this is an individual who has an unbelievable capacity for work. This is an individual that has a skill set that is second to none in terms of his knowledge and understanding of the workings of the federal government. He is, no doubt, working on a number of files for the Premier's office. We are able to take advantage of his skill set on a couple of very specific files in the Ministry of Transportation. He works very closely with my staff, as I say, and he's accountable to us for our files that we're working on with him.

Frankly, the other work he's doing…. I couldn't even tell you what it is. I imagine the Premier's office will be able to during estimates, but I can tell you that the results that we're getting from Mr. Dobell and the Ministry of Transportation on the files on which he works have been nothing short of exceptional.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps — not perhaps; for sure — I'm not as clear as I need to be. Does Mr. Dobell receive direction from the Premier's office on transportation-related matters?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can say to the member that I'm not aware of any direction he receives. The only person I imagine that would receive direction would be me, and I've received no direction recently. Naturally, I'm always in touch with the Premier about what our common goals are as a government in terms of achieving some objectives on the transportation side, but I can't enlighten the member any further on that point.

D. Chudnovsky: I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about the elements of the gateway project and some of the policy decisions and strategies that may or may not be used as we work through that. For instance, let's look at the Pitt River replacement bridge. Is it the intention that the new Pitt River Bridge be tolled?

D. Chudnovsky: It's my understanding that the Golden Ears Bridge will be tolled. Could the minister help us understand why one and not the other?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member probably knows, I'm not responsible for the Golden Ears Bridge. That is a project being delivered by TransLink and the GVTA. What I can tell the member is that the province of British Columbia has a tolling policy. It's on our website. The tolling policy lays out very clearly at what times the province will consider the use of tolls. Specifically, I'd point the member in two directions in regards to our tolling policy.

The first is it must be new infrastructure. It cannot be an existing facility; it must be new infrastructure. There must also be a free, relatively accessible untolled alternative available for the travelling public. By way of example, the Sea to Sky was considered as a tolling possibility but didn't meet the tolling guidelines that we had as a government because there wasn't a free, easily accessible alternative available for those who, for whatever reasons, may not wish to pay a toll.

D. Chudnovsky: Just so that we're clear: with respect to the Pitt River Bridge, is it the view of the minister that that project won't be tolled because it fails on both counts or on one count to meet the criteria?

Hon. K. Falcon: It fails on the one count, being that there's no free, easily available alternative for folks to use that would not be tolled.

D. Chudnovsky: Trying to get a sense of what these criteria mean on the ground…. So the replacement of a bridge is seen as new infrastructure as opposed to…. Well, not as opposed to anything. The replacement of a facility is new in terms of the criteria that you've set out for an acceptable place where a toll could be used?

Hon. K. Falcon: The replacement of a new or a different service that provides greater improvements, demonstrable improvements, to the public in terms of increased traffic volumes, increased safety benefits, etc., would be the criteria by which we would make that decision.

D. Chudnovsky: Not entirely 100 percent totally clear, but we can explore it a little bit more. Perhaps the answer is that there is a continuum of decisions that need to be made as opposed to a break, but I'm just trying to understand as best I can this decision-making, and it's relevant as we begin to look at some of the other projects and possible projects.

Just for instance, one of my hobby horses is the Pattullo. Jeez, I think you guys should start thinking about that as opposed to some of the other issues. But the Pattullo…. If we were to somehow be able to engineer an extra lane or something onto that bridge, would that meet the criteria for a change to new infrastructure that would then allow for tolling to take place under the criteria that the minister has laid out?

Hon. K. Falcon: Two points. First, the Pattullo Bridge isn't under the jurisdiction of the province. As the member is probably aware, it's under the jurisdiction of TransLink. But the underlying premise of the member's question really comes down to if it is providing a significant expansion of capacity, then it's something that would be allowed under the tolling policy. But, again, the premise in it would be, I think, clear to everyone else. I'm not sure a single lane would be enough to be described as a significant expansion of capacity. That's something that we would have to look at on each and every circumstance. I think the public would view a significant expansion of capacity in a manner that would have to be just that.

D. Chudnovsky: I'd like to — once again, I have this habit of digressing, but I think it's worthwhile at this point — talk a little bit about tolling in general, and the justification and theory of tolling — demand management on the one hand and perhaps, I guess, revenue on the other hand.

Let's start with that. Let's begin with that question. From the ministry's point of view, what is the reasoning for tolling? The minister — I've been monitoring his statements rather closely over the last couple of months; that's my job — is musing more and more about tolling. So I think that we on this side would like to have a better understanding of what the general concept is at the ministry with respect to tolling. What are the justifications for it? In general terms, when does the ministry anticipate the use of tolls, and what are the purposes of using tolls?

Hon. K. Falcon: One of the reasons we developed a tolling policy is, first of all, so that we could guide the government on when it would be appropriate to consider the use of tolls.

I can tell this member as an environmentalist — someone who's a proud environmentalist, someone who believes in trying to encourage people to get out of their cars, to use alternatives like cycling, etc.; it's why we started our cycling program — that in terms of allocating more appropriately the cost of driving to the travelling public, I personally am in favour of the concept of tolls, as long as they're consistent with our tolling policy and as long as it is clear — at least, this is the view of this minister — that when the asset has been paid off, the tolls are subsequently removed.

The one thing I would remind the member of is that actually — in the history of British Columbia, under one of our great Premiers, W.A.C. Bennett — tolling was how much of the infrastructure was built — whether it was the First Narrows bridge, the Second Narrows Bridge, the Oak Street Bridge, the Massey Tunnel, the Pattullo Bridge, the Okanagan Lake Bridge or the Nelson Bridge. All of these structures were tolled at one point, and then the tolls were removed later by the government of the day.

It seems to me that part of what we have an obligation to do as a government in looking at any project that provides new or much-improved and expanded capacity is to examine tolling as one of many TDM measures, or traffic demand management tools, because I think it's the responsible thing to do.

This member talks of me musing about this. Actually, the member should know that I have spoken about this from the very beginning, ever since I've been talking about the gateway project. I remember that on the first day of the election campaign I was in a radio debate with a former councillor from Vancouver, Gordon Price, and a university professor whose name escapes me. We had that very discussion. As somebody who thinks very long and hard not only about the importance of dealing with the infrastructure challenges we face as a province but also a lot about the environment and about impacts on the environment, I think it has to be something that we consider in the range of tools that we have available in dealing with issues like demand management.

D. Chudnovsky: I thank him for his answer. It is entirely consistent with what I've heard him say. I didn't mean to suggest, from my comments, that this is something new — although, as someone whose job it is to follow the comments of the minister, I need to say, minister, that I've noticed it a lot more lately. But fair enough.

If the purpose of tolling is environmental and demand management, then why say upfront that when the facility is paid for, the toll is removed?

Hon. K. Falcon: Because I happen to believe that the public is maturing and is willing to look at the concept of tolling, but I don't think the public has any appetite for government to continue to collect tolls well beyond the time at which the assets or the improvements have been paid for. That's a personal belief of

this Minister of Transportation. I think it's very difficult to justify why you would continue to do that.

If you are going to justify that, then I think you have to have a good explanation for the public. I'm not saying that the minister is forever locked into that, but that's the philosophy of this particular Minister of Transportation.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister will recognize, I hope, a contradiction in his position. We live with contradictions, but I hope that he will recognize that on the one hand he argues for — not the possibility, more than the possibility — the policy of tolling as a demand management tool and, therefore, as a tool for protecting the environment. On the other hand, he says: "But when it's paid for, we can't continue the toll."

I wonder if the minister might enlighten us as to how he squares that circle. There seems to me — at least on the face of it, for what it is worth — a contradiction. If demand management is the policy direction, and if that is justified because we're concerned about the environment, then what justification is there for ending that concern at a particular point in the future?

Hon. K. Falcon: One thing I remind the member of is that tolling is one of a range of tools that are available in demand management. There are other options that we will be looking at and discussing as part of our public consultations. Those include, as the member should be aware, additional HOV lanes, the extension of HOV lanes, the possibility of dedicated commercial lanes and, of course, tolling. All of those are traffic demand management tools.

I think the member and I could have a most interesting philosophical discussion about when the appropriate time is for tolls to be removed. Presumably, the member would argue that they should never be removed. But this minister happens to believe, when you've got tolls in place, that once the asset is paid off, it is the responsible and right thing to do to remove the toll, and the public would not have to continue paying it.

D. Chudnovsky: I would ask the minister not to presume anything about what my position on tolls is. If he'd like me to sit on that side and ask me questions, well, I'm ready to do that anytime, but right now we're investigating what the government's and the ministry's point of view is on these questions, and we'll continue to do so.

The question arises — and I think I hear the minister's answer, but I'd ask for some clarification on it: why consider tolls as a demand management measure only on new infrastructure? It seems to me an obvious question. It appears from the answers that the minister has provided for us up till now that the answer to that is entirely political, but I may be jumping to conclusions, so I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit about that.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as the member knows, we have a tolling policy that we gave much thought to. One of the principles that underlies it is: we believe that to justify the use of tolling, the public must see significant user benefit. I recognize that there are those who can make arguments for tolling existing infrastructure, but that would be inconsistent with our principle of tolling, which says there must be significant user benefit.

Is that a political decision? Largely, I imagine, it is, but I think it's a political decision that's founded and based on something that is very reasonable. It's founded and based on what is, in fact, the historical experience in British Columbia. As I pointed out to the member, whether it was the First Narrows, the Second Narrows, the Oak Street Bridge, the Pattullo Bridge, the Massey Tunnel…. All of those projects that were tolled at one time under the great leadership of a builder of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, also followed the principle of subsequently removing those tolls. I think that is an appropriate experience to follow.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm glad he rescued himself. He was in danger of presenting a tautology, which is: the policy is the way it is because we have a policy. So it was good to hear that he went further.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, sadly, it's not. We've collected about $600 million in revenues on the Coquihalla. Total costs are just over $1 billion, so we still have a ways to go before the Coquihalla costs are fully accounted for.

D. Chudnovsky: We spoke last night a little bit about the South Fraser perimeter road. Is it the expectation that tolls will be collected on that facility?

Hon. K. Falcon: We did look at a tolling option on the South Fraser perimeter road, but after extensive analysis, it was determined that tolling would not make sense on the South Fraser perimeter road. There is a whole number of factors that go into how you arrive at a decision. Typically, it's based on traffic volume, etc. In that case we will not be tolling on the South Fraser perimeter road as a result of the investigations undertaken.

D. Chudnovsky: I wonder if the minister could give us a little sense of some of those considerations that he mentions. The reason that I ask this question, among others, is that it's my sense, and I think the minister suggested this last night as well, that the South Fraser perimeter road is a key element in the gateway.

For instance, in my experience, having spoken with many of the what are euphemistically called stakeholders — a lot of folks out there who do a lot of different things in our community and come from a lot of different directions — it's my sense that while there are elements of the gateway proposals that are somewhat controversial, there is a consensus of support and a kind of push for the South Fraser perimeter road. It's one that I think we're all very, very interested in.

Sorry for the long preface. But what were those considerations that the ministry used in deciding not to go for tolling on the South Fraser?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's comments with respect to the sense of widespread support for the South Fraser perimeter road. I would agree with the member.

You know, one of the things that I found as Minister of Transportation, especially when you're speaking about a large, strategic investment program like gateway…. You will find, not surprisingly, that there is a little bit of picking and choosing that happens. People will say: "Gee, I like that part, but I don't like that part, and I don't like that part, but I sure like that part." Often that is community-based too, where some of the communities will say, "Gee, I certainly like this part, where we'll receive a benefit, but I'm not sure I like the other part there, where maybe we don't receive a benefit, but we just would like to argue against it," or what have you. That is not at all unusual. But I am pleased to hear the member confirm what I have certainly heard, too, with respect to the South Fraser perimeter road.

The issue of tolling. There are really two big issues, I think, at a high level that would help the member understand why tolling on the South Fraser perimeter road doesn't…. Though it is something that was certainly looked at and explored, and in fact, I was somewhat hopeful initially that it might be an option that could be considered….

There are two big reasons, primarily, why that doesn't make any sense. The first was that by the nature of the proposed South Fraser perimeter road, there are so many potential access and egress points on and off that road that you would have a severe amount of leakage in terms of people's ability to avoid paying the toll. So that makes it very, very difficult to actually administer and enforce. It's also not something that would be easily solved because part of what you're doing when you're undertaking a major road improvement like that is working with the local communities to make sure the roads work well in terms of the local road networks.

The second reason is that the traffic studies indicated that what the toll on the South Fraser perimeter road would cause, in addition to that kind of leakage, would be a significant portion of the traffic to relocate onto the local road network, and Surrey and Delta in particular. That, then, would obviously not achieve one of the benefits that we would look for in a major road improvement like that, which is to actually improve things on the local road network.

D. Chudnovsky: The proposed Port Mann twinning and widening of Highway 1. I take it that that project is anticipated to include tolling. Is that the case?

Hon. K. Falcon: Tolling would be one of the traffic demand management tools that we will take forward as part of the public consultation, but it will also be looking at other potential options, either in isolation or instead of or even together, depending on what the nature of the consultations and the nature of the information tells us. That would include extension of the HOV lanes out to Langley. That would include additional HOV lanes as a possibility, and that would include things like dedicated commercial lanes, which is another possibility.

One thing I would say, now that we've moved onto the Port Mann Bridge twinning, is that this is an issue the member probably knows I feel pretty passionately about. I happen to believe that this is a very important project that is going to be necessary to secure the economic future of the lower mainland for a generation. The reason is that this corridor is the most important commercial corridor in the province. This is really the entranceway for the rest of the country to get their goods to our ports by truck — along that corridor. It is how we are able to move the goods from our ports to our marketplaces by truck, particularly on Highway 15, which goes through my riding, actually, to the Douglas border crossing, the fourth-busiest border crossing in the country.

If you can imagine this: up until now, when we've been undertaking some work on widening Highway 15 to four lanes, there were two lanes on Highway 15 to the fourth-busiest border crossing in the country, which is nothing short of shocking. That's the situation we found ourselves in.

Today we have a situation where, on the most important commercial corridor in British Columbia, with the highest traffic volumes in the province by a long shot — 127,000 vehicles a day, over 10,000 trucks each and every day — we are trying to take all of that volume, and we're trying to put it over a structure that was built in 1963 at a time when the population of the GVRD was about 800,000 people — today it is closer to two-and-a-half million people. We know that over the next 20 years, we will see a population the size of New Brunswick relocating into the lower mainland, adding about a million more people into the lower mainland.

If we are at all serious in British Columbia about being a gateway province, a gateway corridor to North America, if we are at all serious about taking advantage of the growth in traffic that we know is coming from Asia — a 300-percent projected increase in container traffic from Asia to North America — and if we want to realize the opportunities of trying to get some more percentage of that traffic here in the lower mainland…. As we discussed previously, and as the member knows, every 1-percent increase in container traffic that we can redirect to B.C. ports represents $250 million of economic activity and 4,000 new high-paying, largely unionized jobs in the province.

If we are to realize that opportunity, we must have the infrastructure to be able to move those goods out of the ports. It's not enough to have them stack up in the ports; we have to be able to get them to the marketplace.

As I've said before, if the public wants to have any kind of inkling of what it would be like for this province not to make those kinds of strategic investments, they need only look at what happened during the trucker dispute, when there was a clog in the ability to move goods from the ports. The economic chaos that that resulted in was, I think, a good early-warning indicator for us in the province to recognize that for all the arguments that are out there against doing anything on the Port Mann, and believe me, I know all of them….

For all of those arguments from the folks that say, "Just build more transit. You don't need to be adding infrastructure," I always say this. How do those people answer this fundamental question: how do we actually move trucks along the public transit? Do we stack them on top of the light rail? I haven't seen that done anywhere. How are we going to take those 10,000 trucks and allow them to get through what is today about 13 hours a day of rush hour congestion across the Port Mann Bridge?

How do we possibly explain to our younger generation that is looking forward to the same kinds of benefits that we have in the economy of British Columbia and say: "No. Actually, it is adequate for us to be a gateway province to North America and say that we can compete with the best around the world when the most important bridge across the most important commercial corridor has exactly two lanes going east to west"? That is a fascinating argument for me. It is a fascinating argument.

This member is from Vancouver. This member benefits from the fact that Vancouver over the years actually has a whole number of bridges, including eight lanes on the Granville Bridge; the Cambie Bridge, six lanes; the Oak Street Bridge, another six lanes; multiple bridges — I believe there are eight of them; I will double-check with my staff — going into Vancouver into the Burrard peninsula with multiple, multiple, multiple lanes.

And yet in the area of the fastest economic growth and the fastest population growth on the most important traffic corridor in British Columbia, we have exactly two lanes going east to west. I say to the member opposite that I hope he will work with us to recognize this incredible shortcoming, as many of his colleagues do, so that we can move forward together and fix for a generation and secure for a generation the economic future of British Columbia.

I apologize, member, for that long answer, but as the member knows, this is an issue that I feel is so fundamentally important to the economic future of the province — and important in a way that goes way beyond the community surrounding the bridge. This is actually important in northern British Columbia. This is important in the interior. This is important for all of those rural communities that need to get their goods to market and to have some assurance that they can get their goods to market efficiently and down to our ports so that they can get to their markets, or by truck down Highway 15 to the marketplace.

All of that is actually important to them, too, just as it is important for us in the lower mainland that we invest the billions of dollars we have invested outside the lower mainland in rural British Columbia. Although we may not see the benefits every day, we reap all the benefits in terms of the increased exploration activity in the oil and gas sector, the increased forest activity, the increased mining activity and all the other economic benefits that accrue from the strategic investments we're making in improving our road networks right across the province.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, I pressed some button, didn't I? The minister wasn't kidding when he said that he was passionate about this issue, but I would want to focus back on the question that I asked, which, as I recall, was: were there going to be tolls? I think I heard the minister say: "Yeah, maybe. It's one of the things that is being considered."

I should just parenthetically say that I'm quite familiar with the Port Mann Bridge. The minister is right: I live and have lived in Vancouver for 28 years. But I worked and have worked in Surrey for 25 of those 28 years, in the school system, and drove across the Port Mann Bridge many, many, many times. What's clear and important to note is that there are genuine and real frustrations — real challenges with respect to congestion on the Port Mann Bridge. Anyone who looks at this issue certainly has to start with that assumption and start with that understanding: that the problems are real and that they need to be resolved and that government has to take the lead in resolving those. There's no question about that.

We certainly on this side of the House understand and are sympathetic with and respectful of the concerns that commuters and residents on both sides of the bridge have about that congestion. Also, the minister makes a very good and legitimate argument about the movement of goods. None of which is to say that a particular or a series of particular projects or strategies are the right ones. Our job — and the minister's job — is to weigh the possible solutions to that real problem and try and figure out the appropriate strategy. We will certainly participate in that discussion and debate as it continues. I want to ask about that discussion and debate in a minute but, before that, ask about the way in which the minister situates the potential or possible twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the potential or possible tolling of that bridge within the two criteria that he described before as justification for tolling.

So what's the free alternative that is posited by the ministry with respect to the possible tolling of the possible Port Mann Bridge?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is where the South Fraser perimeter road comes in. That would be the free, non-tolled alternative east-west connector that would allow those folks that do not wish to utilize, were there to be a toll considered on the improvements to the Port

Mann Bridge…. They would have the option of taking the South Fraser perimeter road, which would connect them up, of course, with the Alex Fraser or the Pattullo bridges as alternatives. That was also one of the reasons…. There was a series of them in addition to the leakage challenge that the South Fraser perimeter road engendered and in terms of the other impacts in the local road network that was engendered. The other one was the fact that government would also have to think about what tolling would mean on both of those situations and how they would impact each other.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, in theory, but in practice I can't imagine taking seriously the notion that the Pattullo…. I mean, it's just beyond me that one would posit the Pattullo as a free alternative to the potential for there to be tolling on the potential Port Mann twinning. It's worthwhile, and I would ask the minister and the ministry on the issue of the Alex Fraser…. It's a notion that's being posited that the Alex Fraser is a free alternative. It would be interesting for me to have a sense of what the guidelines are — in terms of distance, time — when we look at this notion of a free alternative. Perhaps those are already formally…. Maybe the ministry has rules and guidelines or maybe not?

Hon. K. Falcon: These are exactly the kinds of issues that will form part of the public discussion that needs to go on when we get an opportunity early next year to go out to the public and start to have these discussions. It's just very important to hear from the public, because you know, much of that will be sort of from a person who lives in the area. What is considered a reasonable alternative to them, really?

I live in Surrey, obviously. Is it reasonable for me to drive and use the Alex Fraser as an alternative? With the new South Fraser perimeter road that can get me there much quicker, it strikes me that it would be a reasonable alternative if I had a particular objection to paying a toll, were one to be available, which I, personally, wouldn't. But nevertheless, that will form the basis of exactly the kind of public discussion we want to have. I do want this member to know that, actually, I am really looking forward to public feedback, because I think these are very, very important issues.

I do want to say in sincerity to the member that I appreciated his comments with respect to the Port Mann. I know he was sincere in stating that we all recognize there is a challenge. But there are legitimate voices that need to be heard as we have this discussion — the legitimate voices — and I have always said this: I agree with many of my critics. It might be surprising to the member, but I agree with the underlying premise of the objection of many of my critics as to why they're concerned about twinning the Port Mann Bridge. I agree with him to the extent that if we were planning on doing it the in way which they envisage, they would be right. In fact, I would be standing over with them saying that this is the wrong thing to do.

But we're not planning on just building a bridge, adding the capacity and letting it fill up over whatever period of time that may take. We're asking: how do we achieve the economic objectives that are so important to securing the economic future of British Columbia? How do we put in place a demand management tool? I apologize to the viewing or listening public for using what must sound like awfully fancy, esoteric terms, but traffic demand management tools are just ways of recognizing that we don't want to just allow everyone to get on the bridge and go use it. We want to find a way to bring about changes in behaviour for those that use the car as their primary method of transportation. We want them to consider alternatives.

The member will know that one of the great frustrations I have is those people who say: "We must do more transit. We've just got to build more transit, minister. How dare you talk about adding more infrastructure? That's just an outrageous suggestion." As someone from Surrey — and I know the Chair sits here probably listening with great interest too, because she also shares the same community — the frustration we have is there hasn't been public transit across that corridor since 1986. Why hasn't there been? Because it's so congested that no transit can keep a schedule. So it's impossible to run transit across the corridor.

I grew up on the North Shore in Vancouver. I am always fascinated when I go give speeches at any of the chambers on the North Shore. They come to me, and they typically will say: "You need to fix the Lions Gate Bridge, for goodness' sake. Do you know how long we have to sit in traffic? I sit in traffic, sometimes, for an hour in the morning. It's terrible." I say to them: "Well, listen. I grew up on the North Shore. That is not traffic, I'm sorry to say. It ain't traffic." It's slightly inconvenient; you might spend an hour of your morning going to work. You may spend an hour and a half in the afternoon coming home — maybe even two hours each way. It's the same with the George Massey Tunnel. It is nothing like the Port Mann Bridge, where we typically look at 13 hours a day.

I guess what I'm saying to the member is that I appreciate his comments, and I appreciate the role the member will play and continue to play in raising the objections, legitimately, of those who are concerned about how we do this, making sure we do it in the right way. But I do want to say this: the restoration of public transit across that corridor is very, very important to me. It cannot be done today. Part of the twinning will allow us not only to restore public transit but also to include things like what we call transit queuing systems, which will allow traffic queue-jumpers. We allow the buses to get that advantage over the commuting traffic, which I think will be something that will be very important.

I look forward to this debate. In fact, I am energized by this discussion, because I do think there is a way that we can actually move forward in a manner that respects the legitimate concerns of people who are concerned about adding infrastructure while at the same

time meeting all of the environmental outcomes, which we all want to see; improving the movement of goods, which we all want to see to secure our economy; and making sure that this is done in a manner which will ultimately enjoy, I believe and predict, widespread support.

I might add, though, that there is already widespread support. I think an Ipsos-Reid poll that I read in the Province suggested 87-percent support in the lower mainland for the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. But frankly, this isn't about public opinion in the sense of: "Let's poll and see what the right…." This is about doing the right thing, and the right thing is making sure that we incorporate some of the issues that the member opposite will no doubt be advocating on.

D. Chudnovsky: If I hadn't come to know the minister so well over the last few days and to understand his passion, I'd think he was just trying to use up my time and keep me from asking more questions. But I know that's not the case, because we see, on the face of it, that he has tremendous passion for this idea.

I just want to mention — I wish I had time, but we don't — and to ask about the details of the consultation process. Maybe I can just ask the minister and his staff if they could provide for us, as soon as possible…. I don't want to get into it now, because I've got other things to say, but if the minister…. Perhaps there's a document, or they could prepare a document for us to give us an understanding of what that consultation process is going to look like. I'm conscious of a whole number of other questions we have to get to.

Has the government determined the structure of the project, should the Port Mann twinning and the Highway 1 widening go ahead? Is it anticipated that this will be a P3? Have there been any discussions to now with any organizations, companies, corporations about the possibility of taking on a P3 in this area?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's too early to make those kinds of decisions. We would have to go through the public consultation process, get a clearer sense of what the definition of the project would be. Once we have that information, that's when we would actually start to look at procurement and the alternatives that would be available for procurement.

D. Chudnovsky: So there have been no discussions with any possible companies or corporations.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm just saying that no, I haven't had those discussions. I'm sure staff have been pitched. They say that they regularly hear about people that are always pitching ideas about what they would like to do and how they'd like to get involved. That's not uncommon when there's any discussion in the ministry about considering any improvements anywhere.

D. Chudnovsky: I think, if I recall correctly, that the minister said yesterday that by the end of the year…. I think I understood that he said two things would be coming before the end of the year. I stand to be corrected. One was the results of the technical studies that have been done in anticipation of the possibility of this project. The other was — I can't remember the phrase that the ministry uses — the general plan as to what the project might look like. Am I correct that both of those things will come before the end of the year? To add to that question: will we see all the studies that have been undertaken by the ministry?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. What I said was that the project definition report, which encompasses all of those studies we talked about the other day…. The answer is yes, we will share all that information. I think it's important that all that information be out there, because it informs the public discussion. We will share that, not only with the opposition but with the members of the public.

D. Chudnovsky: Minister, if I may, I'd like to posit some guidelines of our own around what might be measures by which a decision as to whether this is an appropriate project might be made. I want to suggest to the minister that there might be four — well, there might be more, but I want to suggest four — guidelines, criteria, measures, if you will, that would be appropriate, it seems to us, in helping make the decision as to where to go on this project. I'm wondering if the minister would respond to these four.

Here they are. The first criterion, guideline or measure, it seems to me, that we need to use to determine whether this is an appropriate project would be: does it solve the transportation congestion problem? Can we be assured, or can we be as assured as you can be when you are proposing a project, that the immediate congestion problem is solved? That's guideline number one that I put to you as something that we need to measure the project by.

A second one would be: what impact such a project would have on land use patterns and, specifically, on the livable-region strategic plan, which is, of course, the regional land use policy. That would be a second measure or guideline that I would suggest would be useful in helping us to determine whether this is an appropriate project.

A third would be: what impact would the project have on the ALR? We know that over the last number of months there has been, to put it in its most neutral terms, pressure on the ALR in the valley. A third guideline, criterion or measure I would posit would be that one.

A fourth one would be: what impact would such a project have on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions?

I would ask the minister what his views are on the appropriateness of those — again, call them criteria, measures, guidelines, whatever you want — as ways for us as a community, for the ministry, for all of us to determine whether, in fact, this is an appropriate direction to take.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member posited four questions which, obviously, we could spend an enormous amount of time on. I'm willing to be guided by the member, but one thing I can tell the member is that these are exactly the kinds of questions that we will engage in as part of the public discussion when we speak about the potential twinning of the Port Mann Bridge as a project.

I think the first question he posited was: "Does it solve the problem?" The answer to that is very straightforward. We wouldn't be doing it unless we believed it solved the problem. The whole purpose of actually going through this exercise is that we are trying to solve a problem. God help us if we come up with a solution that doesn't solve the problem. So I think the member should derive some comfort from the fact that everything we will be doing will be in consideration of trying to solve the problem.

He talked about the impact on land use planning and the livable-region plan. Well, the member knows very well that this is always a challenge, because land use planning is a responsibility of municipalities. The member also knows that when the livable-region plan was brought in, in 1996, it was to be renewed every five years. It still hasn't been.

There has been a significant departure not only from the high-level goals of the LRP but from what is actually happening in many municipalities. This won't be a surprise to the member opposite, but the fundamental underpinning of the livable-region plan was the idea that you would have concentrated town centres and that that was where the jobs would be driven to. As a result of the jobs being driven to these concentrated town centres, therefore, and by investing in public transit, we would naturally be able to move people around, and we wouldn't need cars.

The challenge is that that's not what's happening at all. In fact, there's job shrinkage in the town centres, and we've got a massive job expansion outside of the town centres, whether it's in business parks or whatever the case may be, throughout the entire GVRD. Obviously, those are big challenges.

The trip-traffic patterns have changed very dramatically, as the member knows from the studies that were just released from TransLink. For example, they showed — which, I think, would be of great interest to the folks in Vancouver — that only 27 percent of the traffic crossing the Port Mann Bridge actually ends up in Vancouver. The great fear of many of the residents, particularly on the east side of Vancouver, is that this will bring a wave of people into Vancouver, but actually, that's not what traffic patterns are doing.

What is happening is that the jobs and the people are moving out to the northeast sector and out to south of the Fraser, so the trip-traffic volumes are changing. In fact, over the next 20 years we're going to see the percentage of traffic crossing that corridor to Vancouver drop to 22 percent. Those are very, very important statistics to be aware of, because they help inform the debate that we're going to have as we move forward and engage in public consultation.

For example, when the mayor of Vancouver comes up with what he feels is a brilliant idea of running light rail from Vancouver to Abbotsford, well, it's a fascinating idea but completely uninformed by the facts. It would be the single largest waste of money you could possibly envision, because it's not dealing with where people are actually going. So these are all important parts of what will be informed.

The member talks about the impact on the ALR. Let me say this. I see no impact on the ALR. Will there be pressure on the ALR? There's always pressure on the ALR. But I will say that I give credit to the members opposite, because their government was the one that introduced the agricultural land reserve. I think that was actually a good decision — farsighted.

As the member knows, under the Agricultural Land Commission there are protections to ensure that that land is not impacted by the inevitable pressures that are received. It is part of all of our responsibilities to ensure that the integrity of the ALR is maintained and that there is no net loss to the land that is available for agriculture, and to protect the very important work of our farmers.

Finally, on air quality — greenhouse gas. This will be a much larger discussion that will also be taking part with the public, but I can say one thing with certainty. Air quality is not improved when you have cars idling on the Trans-Canada for 13 hours a day. That's just today. We know from the studies that have been done by TransLink and others that that is only going to worsen. If memory serves me correctly, it will be up to 18 hours a day, certainly within the decade. I think it's actually closer — within five years.

Quite aside from the fact that that's also our most important commercial corridor, to anticipate cars idling there for 18 hours a day is unthinkable, in my view. Here's the other challenge with that. There is an impact on all of the local roads too, because what happens when you get a chaotic traffic situation like that is that people don't want to sit in traffic for unparalleled lengths of time. If they don't have the public transportation alternative across that corridor, guess what they do. They start rat-running through communities. So all of the communities, some of which are opponents of this — Burnaby, for example — will wake up to find the great joy of having cars roaring through their municipal streets trying to avoid the congestion on the Trans-Canada.

I thank the member for bringing up those four points, because those are exactly the kinds of information that will inform the opinion. But the member did leave out two points that I thought were noteworthy and, frankly, a very big oversight. I'm sure it wasn't on purpose. The member missed the economy, and the member also missed public safety.

Those are two very, very important issues, and on public safety let me say this. The Sea to Sky Highway — a lot of people think of that as an Olympic project.

That is a public safety project. That is a corridor that, unfortunately, had over 300 vehicle accidents a day, and even recently we've heard of additional unfortunate fatalities on that stretch of road. So those improvements are very much driven by safety.

I see the member glancing at the clock, and I apologize. I'll try and be more concise, but I want to say that safety is a big consideration in that corridor. Particularly as you get longer traffic queuing; you have more accidents, and public safety is at risk.

The second — on the economy. I talked about the opportunities with the Pacific gateway, the opportunities of increased container traffic from China. We have to make sure we don't ignore the important economic aspect of that corridor. So thank you, member, for those questions.

D. Chudnovsky: To the minister: I apologize for looking at the clock. It has nothing to do with his answers. It has much more to do with our planning here on this side — well, maybe a little bit to do with his answers.

First, in response to the minister's comment with respect to the economy…. Certainly on this side, we haven't left out the economy. It's part and parcel of item one which I put forward, which is: are we going to solve the problem? The problem is congestion, and that has an impact on the economy, as the minister rightly pointed out earlier on. So that's not the case.

The safety issue is an important one and a good suggestion, and I'll certainly take that into account as we move forward with our work on attempting to understand the policy and program direction here.

I want to unpack some of the things the minister said, just to make sure that I understand them and that we put our perspective forward. The minister said, with respect to the first criterion that we put forward, that of course, the whole point is to solve the problem. We certainly understand that.

Our point is that we will expect and will be looking carefully, as will the public, at the technical studies and the plans put forward to determine whether in fact they are convincing that the problem that has been put forward — which is a real problem and one which we acknowledge and experience — is going to be solved by this proposal. Yes, of course, we take it for granted that the ministry wouldn't be moving in this direction if it did not believe that it was trying to solve the problem. The question is: will the problem be solved? And we'll be looking carefully at that, as will the public.

On the second criterion that I put forward, which is the issue of the livable-region strategic plan, I have to say that the minister's response caused me to pause. I look forward to the opportunity in the public process, because there won't be much more time today, to debate that at some length. I think what we heard the minister say was to move away from a livable-region strategic plan — maybe in sorrow, but nonetheless move away from the livable-region strategic plan. Frankly, I think we need to be doing everything we can to reinforce and support and deal with the problems of the livable-region strategic plan, rather than saying: "Gee, you know, reality has moved away from what is included in that plan."

It's my understanding that that plan is a consensus plan, and no doubt, as with all plans, there are problems and there are times when we don't achieve what we had hoped to achieve. But I hope that I didn't hear the minister saying: "Well, that's the way it goes. It was a good idea in its time, but we're moving away from that."

With respect to the ALR, I know what I heard the minister say is contradictory. On the one hand, he says there will be no impact; on the other hand, he says there will be pressures. Well, the question is, precisely: will the implementation of the possible twinning of the bridge increase those pressures? And what can we expect the impact of those increased pressures to be? That's a completely legitimate question for people to ask, and a completely legitimate expectation of the public is that the ministry will have some answers to those questions, rather than say: "Well, it won't have any impact because there is an ALR." Well, no — not good enough, in my view.

There is an ALR. It's under pressure. Are we going to increase that pressure, and as a result of that increased pressure, will the integrity of the ALR be threatened? I think that's a question that we have to canvass in some detail.

The minister didn't go into as much detail — not meant to be a criticism…. The minister didn't pursue the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and air quality in quite the detail that he did with some of the others, and we're limited in our ability to canvass all of these questions in the depth that we might want to. I would only say that in the work that I've done in this area, this business of idling traffic as opposed to more cars is not…. Yes, of course we don't want thousands of cars idling and creating air quality problems. But it's my understanding from the work I've done that a bigger problem than idling cars is more cars running, with respect to air quality. That doesn't mean you don't build a bridge or you do build a bridge.

We have heard from those who support the project over and over again, "Watch out; there are going to be more and more cars idling" — absolutely a problem. But that doesn't take into account the fact that if the project goes ahead, if the bridge is twinned and if the highway is widened, there will be an increased number of cars, in absolute terms, and that's a bigger problem when it comes to air quality. Again, it's worth a discussion. Got to get to the science; got to have the consultation. But that in and of itself is not convincing for this member. We do certainly look forward to the consultation process.

That will take me to the last little bit of my questions. Then I'm going to ask the member for Nelson-Creston, who has some things he wants to do before the lunch break…. But I just want to talk about this business of consultation a little bit.

Last April the GVRD passed a motion asking for answers to a list of specific questions. I've got the questions here, but I'm sure the minister and his staff are well aware of them. Has the minister provided answers to those questions?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not totally positive which letter I received. I think I get some on a reasonably regular basis from them. I think we indicated in response to them that there's a whole bunch of work that we're doing, and all of that work, of course, will be made available as we go through the public consultation.

At a staff level we consult on a regular basis with GVRD staff — what kind of consultation process we should use, etc. — as we go through this process. We presented to all of the affected municipalities that are involved in gateway, whether it's Vancouver or Burnaby or Surrey or Langley or whatever. We also, of course, have opportunities at what's called the MRTAC — which I believe stands for Municipal Regional Transportation Advisory Committee — which is a committee made of staff representatives from throughout the lower mainland. So those are avenues which we can utilize.

To the first part of the member's comments, just on the issue that we dealt with before. I think when it comes to the issue of the LRSP, it's important to note that one of the challenges I have as minister is this. We've got a document that communities are theoretically beholden to, but in practice something very different is happening.

As the Minister of Transportation, I have to deal with, in large part, the reality of what is actually happening out there — not necessarily agree with how it happens or why it happens, but the fact that it does happen. But I do want to really emphasize that nothing in the LRSP says that strategic infrastructure investment is not appropriate. In fact, as the member probably knows, the South Fraser perimeter road is consistent with the LRP. The extension of HOV lanes to Langley is consistent with the LRP. Many aspects of the gateway program are consistent with the LRMP.

In terms of the greenhouse gas–air quality issue, I do think I will be very interested in hearing from folks in the environmental community. No doubt they will be clamouring long and loud to ensure that there are tolls on this bridge. This is something that I have always believed that every environmentalist who is serious about being an environmentalist would be supportive of, so I'll look forward to hearing about that. But I don't, and nor do the member's comments, discount the impact that 13 or indeed 18 hours a day of idling traffic would have on the environment. It would be, frankly, not at all helpful. In fact, it would be disastrous.

I think the member would also recognize that not having public transit along that corridor is disastrous. I really believe that when I say it. I mean, my God, how can we possibly say to all the people who often don't have realistic options, because jobs no longer are just from 8:30 to 4:30…? Many people have to make trips back and forth on a regular basis. To think that they haven't even got a public transit alternative across that corridor is, to me, just totally unacceptable and totally inconsistent with anybody that believes in the reduction of greenhouse gases or the improvement of the environment.

Of course, as the member knows, one of our great goals as government is to make sure that we do have the most exceptional environmental outcomes that we can possibly have in the province, and I take that very seriously. Everything that we do in this ministry — whether it's our environmental fund, whether it's the cycling initiatives that we have underway, whether it's the Port Mann Bridge and the restoration of public transit along that corridor — is consistent with that.

I will keep it short, because I know the member is also very aware of the time. I thank him for bringing those points up, and I do look forward to the public debate we'll have on those issues.

D. Chudnovsky: Just to refer specifically to the questions from the GVRD about which I was speaking, there was a GVRD motion on gateway from April 1, 2005. I know it was forwarded to the ministry. If I could just perhaps ask the minister and his staff: has there been a formal response? If in fact the ministry has responded by writing or whatever, I just ask that that be provided to us.

Hon. K. Falcon: We have informed the staff that the questions they've raised in their resolution will all be addressed as part of the project definition report, which will be released later this year.

D. Chudnovsky: Let me just finish and then turn it over to my friend from Nelson-Creston by saying that we are very eager to see the public consultation process on this project. We think that it's very important — there is no question — but that there are differences of opinion in the community on this issue. Our approach will be to listen carefully, and we encourage the minister and his staff to engage in the widest possible consultation.

I would remind the minister of something that he said last week in the House on the issue of parking stalls, which was that even in a situation where he disagreed, he was very respectful of the process of consultation with the municipal governments. I thought the minister was very forthcoming and correct in taking that stand. So we look forward to the consultation process. Now here comes the member for Nelson-Creston.

C. Evans: So we are, for the interests of people who might not have watched heretofore, in the estimates of the Minister of Transportation, where we get to talk about all the things that the Ministry of Transportation does for the budget year 2005.

Before I ask my questions, hon. Chair, I just wonder, so that I know how fast to do this: when do you want to adjourn?

C. Evans: In ten minutes. Okay, I'm going to try to do this kind of quickly.

Firstly, I would like to say thank you to the staff. I know several of the people that the minister brings here today, and I like those people. I just want to put on the record that I went to the UBCM and was very surprised to hear the mayors and councillors from all the towns that I represent complimenting your staff, especially Jacques Dupas, the regional manager. I thought it was so odd to have municipal government complimenting the Ministry of Transportation, who historically people have tended to criticize. So congratulations to the minister for doing a good job in terms of who represents him.

I would like to ask questions about the Creston bypass, the inland ferries and something I hear about in rumour called the north-south corridor. But I'm going to put all of that off to the spring estimates, when I think there will be time for more philosophical questions. And as I advised the minister yesterday in a two-minute statement to try to give him a heads-up for what was on my mind, I would like to limit my questions in this ten minutes to the question of the Needles bridge.

I want to start by thanking both the Premier and the Minister of Transportation for their announcements concerning the bridge on the Arrow Lakes in 2004 and 2005. Because of the Chair's comments about how much time we have, to fit this in, I am going to skip all of my thoughts about the history of the bridge….

Maybe I will just skip to asking the minister: when the minister and the Premier have been discussing the excellent idea of a bridge at the narrows on the Arrow Lakes, what has been their rationale? Is it history, the commitment from the '50s? Is it traffic flow? Is it economic development, or a combination of all three?

Hon. K. Falcon: The primary thing that we've heard from the regions — and indeed from our former MLA in particular, who used to camp on my doorstep over this issue — was the economic benefit that would accrue as a result of providing what they felt was a far greater accessibility that could have some very positive economic impacts for the region.

C. Evans: That's a great answer, minister. I was listening with fascination to the minister's comments earlier about the importance to the economy of transportation linkage. Earlier, people were canvassing the question of the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, and the minister was pointing out that the economic promise of the future needed to be shared with all the regions. Certainly, that is true in the Arrow, and I think, historically, that was kind of the rationale for the Coquihalla. That's kind of the rationale, besides safety, for the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler. I appreciate that our region should be included, with the issue of the Needles bridge.

That brings me to the specific question involved, which is: where are we in the tendering process for the Needles bridge?

Hon. K. Falcon: We've got a big challenge with the Needles bridge — and I want to be very upfront with the member about this, because this isn't an issue where I think we need to toy around with the folks in that area — and the challenge is that the costs have gone from what was originally anticipated at about $49 million now up to $68 million.

As a result of that dramatic run-up in costs, one of the things we tried to do was go back and look at whether we could, through…. There's not much you can do in terms of design change, though we look at some of that. But could we, for example, construct it using more concrete and less steel and try to manage that number down to a figure that would be — let's put it this way — easier to explain and justify to the taxpayers? Obviously, when you're allocating scarce resources, you've got to have a business case for making that justification. The challenge is that we got that information back, and we can't do it.

What that means, and what I've said to the community, is that I've got to go back. I have a responsibility to look at the business case. We're keeping our commitment that that's part of our ten-year plan, and we will move forward on the Needles bridge. The issue will be one of timing and when that happens.

Really, at a cost of $68 million, to put it in perspective for the member…. Here I am as the Minister of Transportation, and I have to look at priorities and how we make decisions. So as an example, another bridge that we're all familiar with, which also was hit with cost escalation, was the William R. Bennett Bridge. The William Bennett Bridge is now a $144 million bridge. The difference between the two…. You could make the argument: that cost has gone up, so why would you move forward with that and not move forward with one immediately? In other words, why not do them both at the same time? The honest answer is that with the William Bennett Bridge, we have about 50,000 vehicles a day across that bridge. There is a very strong, compelling business case for making sure that that moves forward immediately, given the traffic volumes and given that it is the most congested area in the province outside of the lower mainland.

The challenge I have for the Needles bridge, in terms of moving it forward immediately as part of our ten-year plan, is that what we're looking at there is about 800 cars a day. The challenge with that is, in effect…. What I face from a business case perspective is that I've got, essentially, a potential bridge — the Nee-

dles bridge — that costs about 50 percent of what it would cost to build the William Bennett Bridge for dealing with Z\b/ of the traffic volume.

What I want that member to know, though, is that that doesn't in any way lessen our commitment to having this bridge built, but it does impact the timing. I feel strongly, in the environment we're in and with the run-up in costs we've seen on the concrete-forming and steel, that what I want to do is wait until we can, hopefully, see some softening there. Once we see the softening in the prices that go into the structural components of a bridge, then I think the business case will be borne out and be more defensible than it currently is today. I hope that answer is helpful to the member.

C. Evans: It is good. I want to put on the record that I don't see any competition whatsoever between a bridge in Kelowna and a bridge at Needles. In fact, the business case for the bridge at Needles is largely to take advantage of the economic development in the Okanagan. We see it a lot like the roads that you've been discussing with other members in the lower mainland as an economic generator, which is precisely what I think the words "business case" mean. What is the investment, and then what is the return?

We are not in competition with Kelowna. But the bridge in Kelowna or Sea to Sky Highway or ferry costs that we might be contracting to build — they will all be impacted by the cost of concrete and steel. I hear the minister saying that at $49 million, he was comfortable. So can I ask, just so everybody will understand: if we could build it for $49 million, would it be part of the 2006 construction agenda?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't want the member to mischaracterize the comfort level I felt at $49 million. It's not that the member was particularly comfortable with that, but I was prepared, and we as a government were certainly prepared, to say: "You haven't got the business case."

The member mentions the Okanagan bridge and the lower mainland. It is very, very different. You have enormous traffic volumes. You've got 127,000 a day on the Port Mann Bridge; you've got over 50,000 a day on the William Bennett Bridge; you've got the Sea to Sky Highway with 16,000 to 20,000 vehicles a day. It is a very different situation.

The situation with the Needles bridge was more of a "build it, and they will come." That's really the essence of the business case, and that's not an illegitimate sense. We shouldn't take away from that, because there is a lot of truth to that. But it is a less sturdy basis on which to move forward immediately in a high inflationary environment that we're in right now on the structural side.

So the answer to the member is that were we to see those costs start to go down again to where the business case can be more justified, yes, we will move forward. I don't see any prospect of that happening in '06, member. I think we're probably looking further out, but it will be within the ten-year plan that we put together and that we committed to doing with respect to Needles bridge.

C. Evans: I'm totally aware of the time constraints, so I'll make this the last question. The minister's answer was a little bit more complicated, but that's probably my fault for not asking a straight enough question that could get a yes or no.

Minister, there are a whole bunch of people watching us, and some of those are very creative people. If they thought that you would build it — we, collectively, would build it — for $49 million, they'd start putting their heads towards how to get the price to $49 million or how to find money elsewhere. My very simple question is: had the tendering come in at $49 million or if people could figure out how to get it built for $49 million or to raise additional funds, would it be part of the 2006 construction agenda?

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, I'm not going to engage in speculation, but what I will tell the member is that that's exactly what we did. We actually went back and said: "Is there any…?" You are limited to the extent that when you're going to build a structure there across Lower Arrow Lake, there's not a lot of flexibility in terms of what you can do to reduce costs.

We looked at every possible way, whether it's by scope…. Of course, you can only go so narrow. You're going to have to have at least the two lanes there. We looked at using more concrete and less steel — all the kind of ways we thought we might be able to get that number down. We just couldn't, to be very candid with the member.

I know there are a lot of folks listening there. What I'm saying to those folks is: "Look, we made a commitment that that would be in our ten-year plan." I have to tell those folks honestly that because of the inflationary pressures we're now seeing on the structural side of things, we cannot justify, in a business case, moving forward on the early part of that ten-year plan. But I do see it happening in the latter part of the ten-year plan.

C. Evans: Thank you to the minister for those answers. I'll go home, we'll talk to lots of people, and I'll see you in the spring.

D. Chudnovsky: Forgive me for adding one last question, which shouldn't take very long, I don't think.

The last I heard the minister talk about the proposed twinning of the Port Mann and the widening of Highway 1, he was talking about a projected date for completion of 2012-2013. Does that continue to be his best guess?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's difficult to speculate. That's why I'm always reluctant to do that. I think that is a realistic time frame, but so much depends on factors like whether there would be any federal support and all those kind of issues that come into play. What I

have said to the public is that that's why we continue to move forward with all the environmental assessment work, public consultation work, etc.

I want to thank the member opposite for all of the questions we've had thus far. I look forward to speaking again after lunch.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY