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

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		1325

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1325
	Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 15)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16)
	Hon. W. Oppal

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1326
	Tri-City Spirit of Community Awards
	I. Black
	Social and environmental responsibility of Victoria businesses
	C. James
	Democracy
	J. Rustad
	Punjabi Canadian Roots Club in Merritt
	H. Lali
	Paths and Pathfinders program
	R. Hawes
	David Cameron Elementary School
	M. Karagianis

Oral Questions		1328
	Potential closing of mills in B.C.
	C. Evans
	Hon. R. Coleman
	D. Routley
	K. Conroy
	C. James
	C. Trevena
	Protection of mountain caribou
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	M. Farnworth
	Government contracts with Maximus
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. G. Abbott
	H. Lali

Reports from Committees		1334
	Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, first report
	A. Horning

Committee of the Whole House		1334
	Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13) (continued)
	J. Brar
	Hon. J. Les
	C. Trevena
	B. Ralston

Report and Third Reading of Bills		1340
	Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13)

Committee of Supply		1340
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology
	Hon. M. Coell
	G. Robertson
	C. Wyse
	B. Ralston
	C. Trevena
	N. Macdonald
	R. Austin

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1351
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	Hon. K. Falcon
	S. Fraser
	C. Wyse
	G. Gentner
	N. Macdonald
	H. Lali
	D. Chudnovsky

C. James: It is my great pleasure to introduce a very special guest to this House today, someone who isn't unfamiliar to everyone in this chamber, having spent five years here representing the people of Kamloops from 1996 to 2001 — Cathy McGregor. Cathy did an exceptional job as Minister of Environment during that time and is an instructor with the education faculty at the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. I ask all members to join me in making her most welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I would like today to pay tribute to two amazing women. One is Sheila Orr, our former colleague representing Victoria-Hillside, who I think served this province with enormous heart and distinction. Also to Debra Bell, an extraordinarily fine aboriginal artist who very kindly has just created this lovely scarf. I ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

D. Cubberley: I just would like to add a couple of words to those of the Leader of the Opposition regarding Cathy McGregor, someone I had the privilege to work with during that period of time when she was here.

She was Environment Minister, and I want the House to be aware that it was Cathy who spearheaded the container deposit refund system in British Columbia, along with other product stewardship initiatives. That system, as you may know, is the gold standard for other jurisdictions. It got bottle glass out of the blue box, which opened the blue box up for recycling other products, and it got containers in general out of our landfills.

H. Bloy: It gives me a real pleasure to introduce a strong advocate for women in this province — Norma Eaton, who is head of the B.C. Cosmetology Association and has been working hard on behalf of that association for over 18,000 members around the province. Would this House please join me in making her welcome today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know I'm probably one of many members on this side of the House who would also want to pay respects to Cathy McGregor. There she is, over here.

She is very well remembered. A few of us were talking the other day about memorable moments. I know we don't talk about press gallery dinners here, but the former member did win an outstanding performance Oscar for some very memorable performances in that particular venue — outstanding.

I'd like to introduce an old friend of mine from my university days. He taught me, so I'm amazed he is still teaching, actually, after all those years. In fact, it's quite unusual that he actually looks younger than me now, despite having taught me. Paddy Smith is here. I know, because he recently taught my son some political science at Simon Fraser, that he continues to teach there. He also — and I don't know if that's why he is here — has been a motivating and coordinating force for the legislative internship program these past few years — something I was a part of 30 years ago, which is still doing well today. Please welcome Paddy Smith.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to notice in the gallery today two constituents of the member for Nanaimo-Parksville now but good friends of mine and two outstanding small business people from Nanaimo — Jack and Mickey Daniels.

J. McIntyre: I'm delighted to introduce to the House today Ms. Edith Tobe, who is head of one of the local Squamish conservation societies — in effect, the streamkeepers society. I had the pleasure of actually meeting her this past Sunday at the opening of the Upper Mamquam independent power project, so we had a chance to exchange views.

I know I spoke with her at the time of the unfortunate spill in the Cheakamus River this summer, but she and others in the community have been working tirelessly on the remediation that's going on in the Cheakamus River. I hope the House will not only make her feel welcome but thank them for the great efforts they're making in Squamish to deal with a tragic situation.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm pleased to be joined by 15 nursing students from the University of Victoria, one of whom is a longtime constituent of mine, Sandra Rathbone. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

G. Robertson: I just wanted to welcome to the House today Paddy Smith and Kennedy Stewart, two professors at Simon Fraser University in the political science department. Please join me in making them welcome today.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 15 be introduced and read for a first time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: Bill 15 supports two amendments to Ministry of Health legislation: the Health Authorities Act and the Vital Statistics Act. The first amendment excludes nurse practitioners from the bargaining unit established under part 3 of the Health Authorities Act for registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses. Part 3, sections 19.1 to 19.93 of the Health Authorities Act addresses health sector labour relations.

With this amendment, a registered nurse who is also authorized to practise as a nurse practitioner by the College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia will be excluded from the nurses collective bargaining unit under the Health Authorities Act if he or she is working in a job for which that authorization is also a job requirement and actually providing services as a part of that job, which under the Health Professions Act a registered nurse cannot provide unless he or she is also a nurse practitioner.

The amendment does not impair the right of nurse practitioners to form a voluntary association that may discuss employment-related matters with health sector employees. It also does not prevent a union representing nurse practitioners from requesting the Minister of Labour to exercise his authority under section 19.5 of the Health Authorities Act to create a new bargaining unit for nurse practitioners.

Nurse practitioners are required to operate in a manner more consistent with that of other largely autonomous professionals such as physicians, dentists and others. It is this reason — the high level of professional independence and autonomy — that has led us to this step.

The second amendment adds a new section to the Vital Statistics Act. This is necessary because the current regulation-making authority in the Vital Statistics Act does not adequately support large-scale information-sharing nor does it provide adequate privacy protection.

We are moving ahead with this amendment now because the Vital Statistics Agency wishes to provide information about vital events from its database to Simon Fraser University. This would enable the university to develop its database for the purposes of health population research and education.

I move that Bill 15 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005.

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

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 16. Bill 16 essentially amends various statutes and makes a number of minor housekeeping amendments. It specifically amends the following statutes: Business Number Act; Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act; Credit Union Incorporation Act; Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Land Act; Land Title Act; Legal Profession Act; Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act; Oil and Gas Commission Act; Partnership Act; Private Career Training Institutions Act; Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; and Public Service Act.

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

Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

I. Black: Earlier this month the tri-cities Society for Community Development held their annual Spirit of Community Awards. First held in 1997, this celebration is an opportunity to honour ten individuals from our community who are community builders and to appreciate individuals who mentor and model actions that create healthy communities. These ten citizens exemplify the values and dedication that help make the tri-cities the best place in B.C. to live, work and play. Like every year, this year's recipients come from all walks of life and a broad range of ages, but they have in common key admirable traits.

They teach by example. They value a balance in their lives which promotes the health of themselves, their family and the community. Their actions are motivated by altruism and respect. They welcome diversity of ability, culture and age. They encourage and support the vision and dreams of others, and they encourage others to expand their vision.

For example, Beth Hong has been heavily involved in her high school community as well as serving the city on the Coquitlam Youth Council and the Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee. Hazel Postma has been a workplace leader at Eagle Ridge Hospital, building a strong and effective working community that benefits staff, management, patients and families.

This is just a brief taste of the accomplishments that were recognized on October 6. The recipients list also recognized Stephen Unser, Jisuk Hwang, Colleen Talbot, Blossom Broussard, Katrina Lennax, Ted Kuntz and Niall Williams. Please join with me in celebrating

these community leaders who consistently seize the opportunity to enrich the lives of others.

C. James: I rise today to celebrate the achievement of local businesses in the Victoria and Greater Victoria area. First, I'd like to talk about an exciting project called Clean and Safe Block by Block. This is a partnership between local police, the city of Victoria and the Downtown Victoria Business Association. Working with inner-city social agencies, this program aims to assist marginalized people in the downtown area while working to enhance community safety and revitalize the downtown core. Clean and Safe Block by Block was recently awarded the Solicitor General's crime prevention and community safety award for their efforts in improving our community. I'd like to congratulate them for their award and their efforts to make downtown a safe and inclusive place for everyone.

I also want to congratulate three businesses based right here on the lower Island, who were recently recognized for their contribution to social responsibility and environmental sustainability at the 12th annual Ethics in Action Awards. This year's winners have proven themselves to be leaders in corporate social responsibility.

Shady Creek Ice Cream Co., located in Saanichton, sells high-quality ice cream products. As active participants in the Values-Based Business Network, their operations are based on the triple bottom line, accounting for fiscal factors as well as social and environmental ones. Frontrunners Footwear is a Victoria business whose founder, Rob Reid, pioneered Runners of Compassion — a charitable organization that raises money to aid a wide variety of social causes. Rob is also the man responsible for the new Terry Fox statue that many of you will have seen at Mile Zero. Finally, Elite Earth Friendly Cleaners, based in Victoria, is the first chemical-free dry cleaner in British Columbia.

Would the House please join me in congratulating these local businesses for their leadership and dedication to the community and wish them continued success.

J. Rustad: I rise today to talk about participation in democracy. Today in B.C. voter participation is only 57 percent, compared with 70 percent 20 years ago. Federally, the numbers are just as concerning. Among youth voters, participation is only 27 percent. People today often forget why we have the freedoms we enjoy — the freedom to voice our opinions and the freedom to vote. They often take for granted what some have fought and died to protect.

It's important to remember what some people went through so that we might have the freedom that comes with democracy. From the First World War, R.F. Knight of the Royal Engineers wrote: "We went across a piece of open ground, and they turned a machine gun on us, but thank God I had the presence of mind to lie down, or I should not be telling you this. After our side had found their position, we started shelling, and it was hell with the lid off, what with the gasping for breath and expecting to be blown to pieces."

Many people went through this hell so that we might be free. In the words of J. Hunt:

In this Year of the Veteran, let us remember the sacrifices that many paid for our freedom. Let us remember it and celebrate the gift of democracy that they have given us. All of us should consider this and do our part in reminding people and encouraging participation in the greatest gift anyone can give: the freedoms that come from a truly democratic society.

H. Lali: The Punjabi Canadian Roots Club is a new club in Merritt, and I'm a proud member. A number of us talked about starting a Punjabi club back in the mid-1990s. In 2003 my good friend, Charanjit Randhawa, made a great big push. Then four of us, including Charanjit, Saug Sekhon, Surinder Momrath and me, met in 2003 to map out our goals and objectives. There are 12 of us in the club right now.

Our goal is to promote the Punjabi language and culture while not losing sight of our great Canadian heritage — rather, participating fully in Canadian society. Our first president was Rasaad Sikh Khan, whom we affectionately referred to as the million-dollar man, followed by Peter Samra, who is running for city council. Our current president is Harbinder Hara.

We, including our spouses and children, support multicultural initiatives in the Nicola Valley such as the annual multicultural society fundraising dinner. We wholeheartedly participate in Canada Day celebrations. Our kids perform Punjabi bhangra dances there. Plus, our club sponsors the annual tug-of-war competition, which we resurrected after a 30-year hiatus, at the July 1 event.

The PCR Club worked closely with the school board to support Punjabi classes in the schools. The club works closely with the Merritt Sikh Society, which manages the affairs of the Sikh temple, and also works with the Merritt Rotary Club's annual fundraiser for the eradication of polio.

We hold annual fundraisers at Vaisakhi and at New Year's. At our last Vaisakhi event 450 people attended. Erik Norgaard, a lifelong resident of Merritt and owner of Ardew Wood Products, told me that that was the

largest fundraising dinner he had ever gone to in Merritt. The money raised has been donated for tsunami victims in South Asia, eye operations in India and to the Merritt food bank. Also, we collected clothing and blankets for the victims of the fires in the Louis Creek and Barriere areas.

I want to thank this House for giving me the opportunity to highlight the great work of the Punjabi Canadian Roots Club of Merritt, and I also take this opportunity to honour the other members in the Punjabi Canadian Roots Club who take valuable time out of their lives to help in charitable events.

R. Hawes: This being Women's History Month, I'm going to risk entering foreign territory to talk about Paths and Pathfinders, an excellent program operating in the district of Mission. Paths and Pathfinders is an honour roll of the powerful women who helped build Mission by forging the paths that made the community what it is today. Every year, using Mission archives, a group of volunteers select six women to join this prestigious group, and 2005 marks the tenth anniversary of Paths and Pathfinders. The 30 honourees selected to date include mayors, councillors, nurses, teachers, businesswomen, native healers and even a hug therapist.

This year as one of the token males attending the celebration tea, along with several hundred women, I realized just how formidable some of these women are and how much they scare me. For example, Flo Erskine, one of this year's selections, is a hug therapist. She believes there is no evil that cannot be overcome with a hug. A few years ago on a sister-city exchange to Oyama, Japan, the rather staid and reserved mayor of that city was forced onto stage with about 200 others to perform the chicken dance while his city was transformed into a giant hug-fest. Such is the power of hug therapy. When Flo says, "Dance," everyone dances. When she delivers a hug, you smile. You just can't help it.

Incidentally, when you cannot deliver a hug up close and personal, you can send a hug over long distance by placing….

R. Hawes: Oh, that's even better. But you can send a hug over distance by placing your forefinger and thumb on both hands together and interlocking them. That's how you send a hug by distance. I urge all members of this House to become advocates for a Path and Pathfinders program in their own community. They're going to find an army of powerful women who built the paths that made our province what it is today — the best place on earth.

I stand in the House today to talk about a very unique program that is occurring in David Cameron School in my constituency. I'm going to read from their mission statement, because it explains it all very well:David Cameron Elementary School supports a unique, caring and cooperative learning environment for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. It aims to foster the development of children of all cultures and needs. The programs offered and values modelled promote respect, celebrate diversity and encourage an active learning process. It is anticipated that each child will become a self-directed, lifelong learner.

The school was specifically built to accommodate the needs of hearing-impaired and deaf students. For example, many of the things that we are probably unaware of, those of us that have all of our hearing faculties, are things like carpeted floors to calm ambient noise, television monitors throughout the school to give visual announcements, and wide visual corridors so that those who are hard of hearing can see and hear what is going on around them at all times.

The school right now is host to 17 children who are currently going through this program. This is, of course, a middle school, and there is a keen desire in the Western Communities for a new secondary school. It is the hope of these students that in fact this school will be built with these same amenities.

This school, in fact, attracts students from all over the region who specifically go to this school because of these amenities that are offered. The unique thing about adding them into the school design as it's being built is that it's very cost-effective. It's actually a very low-maintenance addition to any construction project.

At this particular time, I think there is an opportunity here for us in the Western Communities to design our secondary school with these amenities. In fact, it would be an attractive option for deaf and hearing-impaired students from all over the south Island.

C. Evans: On Tuesday in the House the Minister of Forests, in an estimates process, advised the House that he expected further mill closures in B.C. I've seen this process in my own constituency, in Salmo and Nakusp and Kaslo. It's not an intellectual process; it's a smashing-up experience for a community. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many more mill closures his staff are expecting.

Hon. R. Coleman: We would hope for none. The indication from industry is that they feel there are some that they are having some concerns with, with some corrections. Those that have indicated to me that they're looking at those possibilities would obviously want to look at their workplace adjustment first and make whatever public announcements they would do or deal with them with regards to that issue as they went forward.

The challenge, as the member knows, is that we're facing some situations, particularly in pulp, where we have an oversupply of pulp worldwide. The prices are down dramatically. Pulp mills are very concerned about their competitiveness. I'm waiting for some outcomes from the Competition Council with regards to pulp, which I should hope to see by the end of November, as well as a Competition Council report on forestry, which could help us guide some of the adjustments we may be able to make to rebuild the competitiveness on some of the issues with regards to it.

The other aspect of it is, of course…. I was speaking to one of the CEOs of a major corporation today, who advised me that the Canadian dollar has just actually hammered them because of how high it's gone and how that really affects their ability on the production side. So there are a whole bunch of factors, and I don't actually have an answer of how many mills, where, when and how.

C. Evans: The words that the minister uses are appropriate for sort of a public policy discussion, and I understand them. But they don't help at all for people to be able to cope with the situation. The minister hasn't said how many, but he did say staff were working on it. So I assume staff knows precisely which towns, communities, mills are in trouble.

I wonder if the minister would name those towns which his staff find most threatened at present.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I won't. These companies are working, hopefully, for opportunities to stay open and are looking at competitive opportunities. I am certainly not going to scare people in individual towns, where I might speculate how things are going. If the member knows in his own riding…. There are a number of people in the business in his own riding and in ridings adjacent to him that are under significant pressure because of the millions of dollars they have sitting at the border in a softwood lumber agreement that we have no control over.

Tomorrow we are getting a de minimus decision that we are expecting out of the United States, which may change some of those economies of scale and those opportunities. We don't know what will happen tomorrow, but there is a significant decision supposed to come down tomorrow. It could go one of three ways. We have no control over that either.

Certainly, one thing I know for sure is that we've sat down with our folks in our ministry, and we've said we're going to take a look at the coast, and we're going to look at the coast quick. We've asked the people at the coast to come back with their solutions. They have. We're processing them now.

The people in the southeastern part of the province, which is a part of the member's riding, are seeing a significant pressure because of how — in the case of value-added — they're actually taxed with the countervailing duty. It really does disproportionately hurt them, because they don't get priced at first mill. They actually get at the value-added…. So there are challenges, and we're trying to work through those.

C. Evans: The minister is correct. I do have mills in my constituency — I think maybe seven of them — and I get at what my job is. It's to get up every single morning and see to it that in spite of the countervail, in spite of the value of the American dollar, in spite of environmental conditions — in spite of all of it — I'm supposed to work all day long until night to see to it that they keep running and the communities stay alive.

What are you doing every single day to protect those communities that find themselves at threat?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm up every single day too, and I'm trying to find a solution in an industry that is facing some significant difficulties, not all of which have been under the control of the people of British Columbia.

I've sat down with those companies and looked at opportunities. I've already made pricing adjustments for them. I have adjusted things to do with stumpage. We're already looking at other aspects of the industry so we can do some innovative things for them.

We have been attracting investment into British Columbia, but it is not going to be easy, hon. member. Don't stand up for a second and think I don't believe in your community — every community in the province. I'm the one person who believes that this isn't a sunset industry. I believe there is a future in forestry, and we're going to work together to build it in British Columbia.

D. Routley: In recent years the CEOs of TimberWest, Weyerhaeuser and Interfor travelled this province petitioning the communities and this government for changes to the Forest Act, concessions from employees and adjustments to our regulations that would help them reinvest in sawmills in this province. But now in today's Vancouver Sun, there is an article where the president of TimberWest is calling for more mill closures.

Again, to the Minister of Forests. This government knows and has known for some time about these closures and has not attempted to mitigate the impacts to our rural resource-dependent communities. My question is: has the minister spoken to the president of TimberWest, and can the minister tell this House what mills TimberWest plans on closing?

Hon. R. Coleman: I regularly meet with people in the forest sector. The first thing I did when I became the minister was start phoning everybody in every company that I could get onto a list to have one-on-one conversations about forestry, and I continue that dialogue.

I will shortly be meeting with the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, which includes a number of the companies like the company the member mentioned. They have not identified to me mills that they're going to close. They have identified to me what they think may be short-, medium- and long-term solutions to assist the industry.

I have committed in estimates to the member for Cariboo North that I'd be looking at those, that we're actually moving on them as quickly as possible, that some information has already moved through the ministry and that we're going to work to find solutions.

What I said to the member for Cariboo North and I say to the members across the other side of this House is that we need to fix forestry in B.C. We need to do it together. We need to work together to do it. This isn't something about pointing fingers at anybody. I can tell you that the international markets have as much pressure on forestry in British Columbia as anything else, and we need in British Columbia to build a long-term strategy. We are going to do that and should be doing it together.

D. Routley: Indeed, our job is to point the finger at a government whose policies have led directly to this circumstance. TimberWest knows that mills are going to close on this coast.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Listen to the question, and everybody listen to the answer.

D. Routley: TimberWest and this government know that mills are going to close on this coast. This government knows that mills are closing all the way across this province. My question to the minister, again, is to state that you have an obligation, sir, to the people of British Columbia to tell us specifically which mills, which communities need to be supported and how you will mitigate the effects. To the minister again: how many and which mills are closing down in whose small communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: Like I said to the member for Nelson-Creston, that is up to the companies. They work through this with the ministry. But let me tell you something. We're coming with a very, very tight strategy that is going to give some changes to the coast that we can put it back into a balance with competitiveness. The challenge, the coast tells me, is this — and like I said earlier, one of the CEOs told me today: the Canadian dollar is killing us. At a 64-cent dollar where they were a few years ago, our companies were very competitive in the marketplace. But in an 80-some-cent dollar, just do the math and see what it does to your production.

But let's not get up and talk about the negativity, frankly. Let's get down to the fact that if any company chooses to shut a mill in British Columbia, they will sit down with the ministry and discuss it. At that point in time, when we think it is appropriate, obviously they would let the public know.

K. Conroy: My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. All rhetoric aside, it's unfortunate that I think I'm quoting the minister when he says he doesn't want to scare people in their own town, as you just said. Can the minister confirm that at the UBCM convention, he spoke with the mayor of the village of Midway and mentioned offhand that he was sorry to hear that the sawmill that the village relies on as its core economic engine was closing?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's not exactly what I said to the mayor of Midway. I said that I'd heard there were concerns for the mill in Midway, which is a Pope and Talbot operation, that they were doing some assessment on over the next few months. I didn't specifically say to the member that the mill was going to close.

K. Conroy: Again to the Minister of Forests and Range. I have a letter here from the mayor of Midway dated October 7, 2005. In that letter the mayor expressed his "extreme dismay to learn from the minister about the impending closure." The mayor indicates that the sawmill is the economic base of the village and that "its demise will have horrific consequences that go far beyond the village's capacity to mitigate alone."

This letter from the mayor was a formal request for immediate assistance. What has this government done since the date of this letter, October 7, to mitigate the impact of the potential mill closure and to save the village of Midway from becoming a ghost town?

Hon. R. Coleman: The company, long before that, approached us with some concerns about their fibre supply and some concerns about their operations and how they would gain efficiency between two mills that they have in the area — one in Grand Forks and one in Midway. They also just recently purchased a mill up in Fort St. James, I believe — somewhere in that area. They had some concerns on fibre supply and issues like that. The ministry has been working with them to try to solve those problems for them over the last couple of months. We haven't come to any final conclusions for them, but we have been working with the company all along.

The mayor wrote me that letter, sure, and that's how he couched what I said to him. But I certainly said I had concerns about Midway because of the issues that have been brought to my attention by the company. I've been working with the company, and so has my ministry, to try and find solutions. We'll continue to do that.

C. James: We clearly heard the minister state that communities will be facing mill closures. We also heard the minister state today that companies will sit down with the ministry and with the minister and discuss those mill closures. It appears, according to the letter, that the minister knew something about the closure of the mill in Midway, so I think there's a very simple question to the minister on behalf of communities in British Columbia.

How many more towns can expect a surprise call from the minister just before their community gets hit with another mill closure?

Hon. R. Coleman: The minister doesn't actually announce mill closures. It's companies that make the decisions about their mills, not us. When I was in the discussions with the critic, he asked about the future. I said there were concerns about some possible future mill closures coming at us. I'm trying to be honest with both sides of this House on the fact that the industry has told us there are some significant pressures in British Columbia on specific types of product and paper and that sort of thing.

While that's happening, at the same time we're about to see four pellet plants go into construction in the Cariboo because we've awarded a timber supply to C.H. Anderson. We have one of the largest OSB plants in the world opening up in January in Fort St. John. At the same time, the market is adjusting, frankly, on the investment and what products it's going to deliver to the marketplace. As that takes place and in the history of forestry, there has always been changes and movement within the industry. So I can't tell you for sure which mills will be there five years from now or not.

I can tell you this. We need to give them the competitive advantages so all our mills can make the right decisions to get the return on capital so they can invest in the future of forestry.

C. James: With respect, the government may not be the ones who announce the mill closures, but the people of British Columbia and of communities expect the government to do something to assist those communities when the mills close.

Again, through to the minister: what is your government doing right now to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that we've seen happening in this province in other communities to communities in the future whose mills may be closing, according to your comments, minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're doing everything possible. As a matter of fact, we've probably come further on getting a national position on softwood with our colleagues across the country in negotiations in the last couple of months than we have in the previous ten. We're continuing a dialogue, frankly, that's going to hopefully have some long-term solutions with regards to where we sell our product.

Eighty-five percent of the forest products in British Columbia go into one marketplace — the U.S. market. The U.S. dollar has gone from 64 cents to well into the mid-80s. Ask anybody in the forest sector, and they'll tell you that their best competitive edge is a 75-cent dollar or less. They will tell you that. They'll tell you that because that's a real cost pressure on them. That's something we can't control.

What we can control is when they sit down with us, like they have in the last couple of months, and give us information about what kind of adjustments can be made. We'll get on with those adjustments so we can do what we can do for them to make them competitive.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to ask the Minister of Forests and Range: when will those communities receive that call from government that they are going to help them move on?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're hoping it doesn't happen, frankly. We're trying to find a structure that doesn't.

I'd like to know, under the NDP from May 1999 to May 2001, which minister phoned and told the companies that Kootenay Veneer Products Ltd. was closing, that CIPA was closing, that Youbou at TimberWest was closing, that PG Specialty Wood Products was closing, that Pacific Precision Wood Products, Somass Furniture Manufacturing, Nettletons, Merritt and Lumby were closing.

If the industry is in flux, we're doing everything possible. We're moving forward for the future of this forest sector, so get on board and work with us, and build a future for this industry in British Columbia.

C. Trevena: Again to the minister: we aren't talking about the past. We're talking about our future economic development.

C. Trevena: Nobody on this side of the House denies that there are challenges in our forest industry, but what we want to know is what the government is doing to address those challenges.

Hon. R. Coleman: We're doing something that the NDP didn't do — that is, actually getting the information from industry, looking at how we do our costing, looking at how we could attract investment, and doing it in concert with the industry and the people in the bush. We're certainly not doing it by going to Prince George and, out of the blue, announcing a jobs and timber accord and saying that we're going to create

21,000 jobs in forestry that never, ever appeared under the previous government.

S. Simpson: The report, Mountain Caribou Recovery Options, was released this week. It presents options, quite frankly, that are unacceptable and at odds with the work of the Forest Practices Board and with others in this province in regard to mountain caribou, options that say, "Let the caribou expire" — either quickly, through a conscious decision, or more slowly, through what's being called a maintenance program, a program that we know from evidence will lead to the extinction of the caribou over the next 20 years.

We are the stewards of the last significant herds of mountain caribou in the world. The future of the last 1,700 animals essentially rests with us. Will the Minister of Environment commit today to set aside the options report until the mountain caribou science team has reported out? And will he call on that science team to expedite its work so that we can get down to real alternatives for the mountain caribou?

Hon. B. Penner: I haven't had a chance to actually receive the options report that the member refers to. But it's true: this government has taken action in terms of species at risk. We set up the species-at-risk coordination office, and we funded that last year. They're spending almost $1 million studying the issues of mountain caribou alone. In addition, we've established a moratorium on new commercial recreation tenures in the mountain caribou habitat zones, as well as providing variances to the Kootenay-Boundary land use planning process in the Revelstoke process on March 26, 2005.

We have set up an independent scientific panel that includes experts from the United States, Alberta and British Columbia to bring to government a range of options. I think that is the report the member is referring to. It's a draft report. It does not represent government policy. But the actions that I've just referred to — in terms of spending a million dollars studying mountain caribou, setting up the species-at-risk coordination office — stand in stark contrast to what that party did when they were in government.

I have a copy of the letter from a previous Environment Minister, stating that they had no intention of passing species-at-risk legislation.

S. Simpson: Well, I find it interesting to listen to the minister talk about how diligently the government is working to protect the mountain caribou, so possibly we could fix a little of the mixed messages and confusion coming out of that side of the House. While this minister is telling us this, about how he's going to deal with these matters, his colleague the Minister of State for Mining is quoted in the Globe and Mail saying some very, very different things.

On June 27, 2005, the Minister of State for Mining said: "Frankly, I am prepared to stake my position publicly that this herd is doomed and should either be moved or written off. Government should not be throwing good money after bad."

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Possibly the Deputy Premier could tell us who actually speaks for the government on this issue — the Minister of State for Mining or the Minister of Environment?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've just indicated, the government has taken a range of actions in terms of protecting mountain caribou — things that the previous government never even dreamed of doing. It is the policy of this government that we are looking at options for how we can best preserve and protect and maintain the herds of mountain caribou.

I was trying to explain last time that that stands in stark contrast to a previous Minister of Environment named Moe Sihota, who wrote a letter dated February 13, 1996, in which he states quite frankly, "We have no intention of doing that," referring to species-at-risk legislation. This government did pass legislation to protect species at risk, and we're taking action, unlike that government.

M. Farnworth: From the comments that we've heard today from the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment, one thing is clear. It doesn't matter whether you're a small mill town or the woodland caribou, under this government you are on the road to extinction.

Given the comments that the Minister of State for Mining made about pouring good money after bad, will the Minister of Environment commit — before these recommendations are adopted — that the scientific studies will be allowed to be completed and that at the end of the day, science will make the decision and not the comments of the Minister of State for Mining?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've already indicated, this government set up a scientific panel that is operating independent of government to go out and collect the best data available. They are putting together a range of options for government to consider. That panel is comprised of individuals including scientists from the United States, Alberta and British Columbia, and they are looking at a range of options. That draft report does not represent the view of government.

D. Cubberley: A question for the Minister of Health: why did the government certify Maximus Inc. on April 1, 2005, to take over full responsibility for MSP and Pharmacare information services when the company was clearly not ready to implement the contract?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for the question. The issue of B.C. Health Information Line and its

efficiency and effectiveness for the public in British Columbia has been an issue here for going on 20 years. It has been a long-term source of dissatisfaction.

I know the members reflexively oppose anything that is related to outsourcing, but I've got to tell you that what we have done in the contract with Maximus is actually drive way better results than have ever been the case in British Columbia before.

I know it is probably unfair, actually, to say that the NDP, during their ten years in government, didn't do anything about the B.C. Health Information Line, because that's not true. Back in 1998 they actually shut it down one day a week so that they could try to manage the balance of the work that was done by HIBC.

What we have been seeing under Maximus is continuous improvement in the results. I am still not satisfied, frankly, with the results of Maximus, but there are severe penalties in that contract that drive better results.

D. Cubberley: Well, effectively, under this minister, Maximus has shut down the service many days a week. You know, Maximus has been in charge of these services for five months. For each of these five months the company has been levied fines for failure to meet contract obligations. We don't know exactly how much it has been fined. But is it not true that starting this contract with Maximus before it was ready to go saved the company a fortune in penalties in their contract, the government was spared a political embarrassment going into an election campaign and British Columbians, especially seniors, have been paying the price ever since?

Hon. G. Abbott: It always both astonishes me and amuses me how quickly the members opposite ascend that grassy knoll of conspiracy theory every time they find something about the objective world that they can't agree with.

In this case it is very clear. What we have seen from Maximus is continuous improvement in results. In June there was an improvement over May. In July there was an improvement over June. In August there was an improvement over July. In September, it appears, they actually met their service level requirement of a three-minute turnaround. I'm delighted by that. It is the first time in 20 years that anyone has met a goal in relation to this service.

H. Lali: One thing that is demonstrably clear is that the minister is misinformed. Wait times for seniors who are trying to get information are not measured in minutes; it's measured in hours. Seniors are not getting their medicine on time.

I want to quote from a release by Rudy Lawrence, who is a spokesperson for the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C. He says: "Seniors are put on hold for longer than an hour when calling to inquire about their medical coverage, and that's only if they can navigate their way through the complicated voice mail system. Others who try to communicate with MSP through the mail say it takes forever to get their letters acknowledged. We have heard horror stories about piles and piles of unopened mail sitting around for weeks."

Seniors are not getting the service they deserve from Maximus or from this government. My question, again, is to the Minister of Health. Does the minister believe that it is appropriate that seniors should have to set up their own hotline because of the failure of this government and Maximus to provide adequate service?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't think we need to set up a toll-free line to find out that there has been 20 years of dissatisfaction with this service. What the public expects is good service. They're starting to get it under the very rigorous terms of the contract that we have put in place.

Now, it's always interesting to hear from Mr. Lawrence, because he and his organization are remarkably well connected to the B.C. Citizens for Public Power, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the B.C. centre for policy alternatives, the B.C. Health Coalition…

Minister, would you just take your seat for a second. When there is quiet, you can continue. Continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may ascend the grassy knoll of conspiracy theory for a moment, they're also linked to a shadowy political organization known as the B.C. New Democratic Party. So there are linkages everywhere here in terms of the criticism.

The fact of the matter is: we are driving better service. If the member doesn't like better service, then I guess we could go back to what we used to have.

C. James: Today in the gallery I would like to introduce Mr. Johnny Fong, a prominent business leader and dedicated community leader in British Columbia. He also has Mr. Mason Loh with him, who is a former SUCCESS chair and a community leader. They also have guests with them, and I would like the House to please make them most welcome.

R. Lee: I would also like to introduce some of the guests in the gallery today. Together with Mr. Johnny Fong is Ming Son Chu, Linda Qi, Feng Qi, James Soo, James Chen and Chung Ping Wong. Would the House join me to welcome them.

A. Horning: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for the first session of the 38th parliament. I move that this report be received.

A. Horning: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Bill Pr401 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 13, and in Committee A, continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Transportation, for the information of members.

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

J. Brar: I would like to go back to the question that we left before the break. This is about section 16, of course, about the standard of proof. The concern here is that when it applies to Bill 13, the standard of proof which has been set is what we call the balance of probabilities as compared to beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, in many people's view, this is a much lower standard as compared to beyond a reasonable doubt. So my question to the minister is: what were the factors to decide for this particular act that the standard of proof will be the balance of probabilities?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chair, I would point out to the member that the standard of proof known as the balance of probability is consistent with that applied to civil actions generally. It is also consistent with the standard of proof that is contained in the similar legislation in Ontario and the three prairie provinces.

J. Brar: The concern I have is this: in criminal proceedings the Crown must prove a person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been enshrined as a part of the presumption of innocence granted by section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So my question is: how does this government respond to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this particular issue?

Hon. J. Les: I would underline for the member that what we are talking about here is civil law, not criminal law. The quotation from the Supreme Court of Canada that he cites is clearly related to the standard of proof in criminal proceedings. It is the case that the balance of probabilities is used in all civil law, as far as I'm aware, in Canada. It is certainly the case that it is the standard of proof that is available in all other similar legislation in Canada.

J. Brar: Just for clarification, I understand that this section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as per the minister's statement, only applies to criminal law, not to civil law. Is that what the minister is saying? What I'm saying is the minister just said now that the standard of proof in civil court always — or in the majority of cases; something like that is the language used — is balance of probability. What I'm asking is…. The Supreme Court of Canada indicated, according to section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been enshrined as part of the presumption of innocence granted under the Charter. Are you saying that section of the Charter does not apply to the civil court standard of proof, which is balance of probabilities?

Hon. J. Les: The standard of proof known as proving beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply in civil proceedings.

J. Brar: Let me put it this way: is the standard of proof, which is balance of probability under this act, in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or is there any contradiction in this one?

Hon. J. Les: Similar legislation elsewhere in Canada has survived a challenge under the Charter. I would suggest to the member that, based on that precedent and others, this legislation is very much in order under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and should that not be the case, I would leave it to the courts to determine otherwise.

J. Brar: I will move on to the next question on this, which is pretty similar to what we have been talking about until now.

The Civil Liberties Association stated that it is not acceptable for the power and resources of the state to be marshalled against a person and then for the state to do nothing more than prove a case on a balance of probabilities. It further stated that: "The prerequisite for such action against any of our citizens is a court finding beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed by an identifiable offender and that the offender owns the property in question. Only a set of circumstances of that kind, in our view, would justify the kind of state-instigated procedures for seizing citizen property."

So I just wanted to ask the minister: have they taken into consideration the concern of the Civil Liberties Association which suggests that the standard of proof in this situation, probability — that beyond reasonable doubt is better than this one? Have they consulted that part — why they took the position of balance of probability as compared to the other one?

Hon. J. Les: We are certainly aware of the position of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. We have considered their submissions with respect to this bill. As the member knows, this bill has been in the public domain for quite a number of months. In that consultation process we came across a variety of different points of view and positions, and with respect to the position taken on this particular matter by the Civil Liberties Association, all I can say is that respectfully, we disagree.

J. Brar: Has the government consulted with the legal community, and what is the position of our Attorney General on this bill?

Hon. J. Les: In the course of considering this bill and bringing it before the House, we have consulted widely, and the result of that consultation is the substance of this bill that we have before us today.

J. Brar: Again, under the Criminal Code, a court may find a person to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, or NCRMD. An NCRMD finding means that the defence has proven that the person's mental disorder made him or her incapable of appreciating the nature of and quality of the criminal act and incapable of knowing that the act was wrong. Where such a verdict is rendered, the accused cannot be found guilty or convicted of the offence in question.

Yet section 17 of this bill would allow the government to bring forfeiture proceedings against a person who has been found NCRMD. My question is, as it relates to section 17: what is the objective of this provision — section 17?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the member raising this issue. I think it is an important one, and it is perhaps one that draws a very clear line around the fact that this is civil legislation. The proceedings that the member refers to in terms of someone who may not be criminally responsible would relate to criminal proceedings. In fact, it is often the case, or it does happen, that someone — by virtue of mental illness, for example — is found not criminally responsible, and for that reason, a verdict of not guilty can ensue.

However, that still leaves the case that unlawful activity may have happened. It is the position put forth by this legislation that one ought not to benefit from that unlawful activity. In that case, it would still be open to the director of civil forfeiture to follow that through and seek an order of the court to seize assets that were either the instrument of or the proceeds from that unlawful activity.

J. Brar: Does the government feel that it's fair to forfeit property from a person who is mentally disabled — under these circumstances which is defined in this act?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, this bill includes scenarios where the court can exercise its discretion. We have already discussed earlier under previous sections where the court has options available to it such as taking into consideration what is in the interests of justice. We earlier discussed, as well, the situation involving uninvolved parties.

In a situation like this, clearly, if the member wants to put it in the context of, is it fair, I guess you could also look at the reverse of that question: is it fair that someone…? Although they may have been mentally ill at the time of the commission of certain activities, is it fair that they should be allowed to remain in possession of the fruits of those unlawful activities?

J. Brar: My difficulty understanding this section of the act is pretty simple. This person is mentally disabled. That has been proven in the proceedings of the court. What we are saying here is…. What I heard from the minister is: the director may still apply for seizing his or her property under those circumstances.

My question is: if somebody is mentally challenged or disabled, how can the director make a case of providing evidence that this person committed an unlawful activity when the person was mentally incapable?

Hon. J. Les: I think it's important to recognize here that although the type of situation that the member cites would involve someone who, at the time of the commission of the unlawful activity, may have been mentally ill, nonetheless, if the director of civil forfeiture were to proceed, he would have to assemble all of the usual evidence to the satisfaction of the court that unlawful activity had actually happened, and would seek to forfeit property as a result.

I think the member also would want to keep in mind that whether or not the perpetrator of the unlawful activity was mentally ill, someone or some people were still victimized. So I think in the interest of justice, generally, it is still very appropriate. Although someone was mentally ill and therefore did not suffer criminal consequences, it is still very much in the interests of justice, in my opinion, to ensure that that person is not able to retain the proceeds of unlawful activity.

J. Brar: I'll just make the comments for the record on this particular section, 17, and then move on to the next one. What I hear from the minister is that yes, the director of Bill 13 will proceed with actions, seizing property of the people who are mentally disabled or who have been defined by the court as mentally disabled — that it will happen. I understand the second part of the definition, but the answer is that it will happen.

So my comment is that this person has been basically defined by the court under the criminal justice system as incapable. Therefore, that court cannot penalize this person because of his incapacity for thinking straight about the act and about the laws. But what the minister is saying here is that under this act, which is Bill 13, the director will still proceed, taking action, seizing the property of the person who is mentally challenged.

So that's my understanding of this. With that understanding, I will move on to the next one.

J. Brar: Section 18 is one which I think is an extremely important section of this bill. Not that other sections are not important, but this is an extremely sensitive and important section of this bill. This section actually allows, under the act, for seizing a property of a person who has not even been charged under the Canadian justice system. That's the intent of this particular section.

I would like to start with asking the minister: doesn't this section represent an end run around the Canadian criminal process?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, this in no way represents an end run around the Criminal Code of Canada or any criminal proceedings. This leaves it up to the court in a civil action to make a determination, and I would point out that in the first sentence of section 18 it says: "…an unlawful activity may be found to have occurred…." So again, that's left up to the court's discretion if the appropriate evidence is presented to it by the director of civil forfeiture.

J. Brar: This is a very interesting question here. How does this section accord with the presumption of innocence and crime in section 11 of the Charter, if it allows the government to forfeit the property of a person who has been found to be innocent in a criminal court?

Hon. J. Les: Although the reference that the member made in terms of a presumption of innocence clearly relates to criminal law, this is civil law that we're discussing today. Let me try an example.

The member, coming from relatively the same part of the province as I do, will recognize that marijuana grow operations are a significant problem. I have seen and heard about cases of people being charged with running a marijuana grow op and being acquitted, sometimes on a technicality. With that acquittal in criminal court, however, the fact remains that an unlawful event still happened, unlawful activity still occurred, and it is quite within the ambit of this legislation for the director of civil forfeiture then to take note of the commission of that unlawful activity and to proceed civilly under this legislation to attach the proceeds and instruments of that unlawful activity.

C. Trevena: I, like my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, see this as very central to this piece of legislation, and I, too, am very concerned about it. I understand what the minister has been saying — that this is civil law; it's not criminal law. But it is civil law that is dealing with the profits from criminal activities, so drawing that boundary I think is a little difficult.

If a person has not been charged with an offence, what sort of guidelines will the director have in following up, in taking action on it and taking it to this civil proceeding — if someone has not been charged with a criminal offence?

Hon. J. Les: In response to the question, it is clear that in every proceeding under this act the director of civil forfeiture is going to have to assemble information that is satisfactory to the court. Each of those cases, of course, will differ. The facts and the evidence in each of those cases will differ, but ultimately, the courts have to be able to arrive at a place on the balance of probabilities to determine that unlawful activity took place.

It may be that in some cases it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to find someone to charge and ultimately convict criminally, but that doesn't mean that it would

be impossible to come to a conclusion that unlawful activity had occurred and that the proceeds thereof and the instruments thereof should be forfeited.

C. Trevena: We all have faith in our criminal justice system, I hope. I'm also concerned about the fact that if someone has been acquitted through our criminal court system, which we have faith in, that they can then be effectively tried again in civil court. I'd again like clarification on how we can get to that stage.

Hon. J. Les: I want to thank the member for the question. As I think we all know, as criminal cases go in the criminal courts, there are a variety of reasons for acquittals being issued by the court. They can be as varied as, for example, a case takes too long, and the judge finds that in the interests of justice in criminal court, an acquittal is appropriate. We've already talked earlier about how an acquittal can be arrived at in the case of a person who is deemed to be mentally ill. There are a variety of situations like that and other technicalities, as well, whereby a court will rule for acquittal. However — I return to what I said earlier — it still remains that an unlawful act was committed, and it is still open, then, to the director of civil forfeiture under this legislation to proceed to have the instruments and proceeds of that unlawful activity forfeited to the Crown.

C. Trevena: Thank you, minister, for that. I hear what you're saying. I don't like the answer, but I hear what you're saying.

I have one last question on this section. In the description of "person," does this include companies, corporations, businesses as well?

J. Brar: This is very, very important, as I mentioned in an earlier section of this bill. I want to know what kind of consultation process took place to make sure that section 18 is in line with the standard laws in the country. Can the minister explain if there was any consultation process for this and, if there was, who the stakeholders or the list of organizations were?

Hon. J. Les: Again, I can reassure the member and members opposite that we consulted widely on this legislation, including the Bar Association, the Civil Liberties Association and the general public. As the member will know, this bill was introduced originally as an exposure document, I believe in April of this year. It has enjoyed, I think, the benefit of considerable input from a variety of sources. We made a few changes to the bill in considering it this fall before it was brought to the House as a result of that consultation. Section 18 that we are discussing today also enjoyed the benefit of that consultation and input. I think, certainly on this side of the House, we are comfortable with this legislation and with the provisions of section 18 as a result.

J. Brar: How long was the consultation process? Is it possible to get a copy of the list of the organizations and individuals who have been consulted in this process?

Hon. J. Les: It has not been our practice to keep a list of all the parties that we have consulted on this legislation. I have indicated earlier to the member some of the groups and associations with which we have consulted. The bill has been widely available in its earlier form since last April, so I would suggest to the member that that has provided a generous opportunity to the public and others who wished to comment on the bill.

I am aware that it received a relatively — or actually a very — positive response from the broader community. On the basis of the feedback that we did receive and on the basis of advice that we received consulting within government and the Attorney General's ministry and Crown counsel and other places, we've brought the bill before the House. So I think it has enjoyed good consultation and a good level of awareness.

J. Brar: I missed the point, probably. What I hear, basically, is that the minister received quite good feedback from the general public as well as from some organizations, probably individuals and probably some submissions as well. My understanding is that the ministry and the department must have a list of people who made a submission for this bill. So is it not possible to have that list? Is there any list? Or is there no list of those individuals' organizations?

Hon. J. Les: I've already identified for the member a number of the groups from which we have received input. Further to that, of course, we have our own legal counsel within government, and as the member I'm sure would recognize, that would constitute privileged legal input that really is not for me to disclose here this afternoon.

J. Brar: I will take it that we don't have a list available of those people with whom the consultation was made, or who made the submissions for this particular bill.

I will move on to the next question. Was there any in-depth analysis done of similar laws in other jurisdictions, and can the minister provide some description of that?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, the member opposite is correct. We looked at a variety of legislation in a variety of different jurisdictions. As I indicated in my second reading comments, we are aware of legislation in Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States. Frankly, we found it more useful for our purposes in government in crafting this legislation to look at the other Canadian examples.

We certainly became aware that there is civil forfeiture legislation in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I think it's fair to say that we found

the legislation in Ontario more useful to us. So we did a good analysis of that particular piece of legislation, particularly more recently given the fact that it already withstood a court challenge. We made some changes to the Ontario legislation that made the legislation more suitable to us here in British Columbia.

In summary, I would suggest we looked at a variety of different kinds of legislation, and what we have arrived at here in British Columbia is, I think, what is most suitable for our circumstances here in this province.

J. Brar: I appreciate the answer offered by the minister. My deep interest, as indicated by the minister, is that the province…. That's a very similar jurisdiction we have and we can learn from — that is, Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The minister pointed out that after the homework or the announcement, this government chose to follow more the Ontario model, which, you know, sometimes makes sense, but I would like to know on what basis this government chose the Ontario model as compared to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?

Hon. J. Les: To the member's question. After looking at the various pieces of legislation in other provinces in Canada, it became obvious to our staff that the Ontario legislation was preferable.

First of all, Ontario had put an extensive amount of work into developing their legislation — some significant work done that we thought was well-founded. We also saw aspects in other provinces' legislation that we found not as desirable. For example, the legislation in Manitoba provides for civil forfeiture to be an act or an action that is driven by the police. We favour the model where we utilize a director of civil forfeiture over a police-driven process.

Again, reviewing the legislation, we found that Ontario — because of the significant effort and research that had gone into their legislation, and also by virtue of the fact that their legislation was more exercised than similar legislation in other provinces — was, for us in British Columbia, the preferable model to follow.

J. Brar: I appreciate the response. The minister mentioned one thing which is more specific to my question. In Manitoba, for example, their act is driven by the police as compared to the director of civil forfeiture in British Columbia. On that particular example, can the minister explain what the benefits are of having the director of civil forfeiture as compared to handing it over to the police?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I suspect the member will readily agree that if you have a director of civil forfeiture available in the province, you're going to get more consistency in the administration of this act than if you have a variety of police personnel engaging this act all over the province.

I think it's also important to remember, and I would underline again, that this is civil legislation, and the police are most often involved in criminal investigations. I think that having the civil forfeiture legislation driven by a director of civil forfeiture, as opposed to police authorities, helps to draw the line between civil law and criminal law that I think is important to preserve in this piece of legislation.

J. Brar: I have a more technical question. I understand that we do already have existing the Criminal Code, under which the government can actually seize property. But for that the person has to be, of course, charged and convicted. This law is different from that one. My question is this: if both section 490.1 of the Criminal Code and Bill 13 can be applied in a particular case, which legislation will the government use for forfeiture purposes? How will the government make that decision?

Hon. J. Les: Let me say first of all — and I would seek your guidance, Madam Chair — that it seems to me that we are discussing section 18, and a lot of this discussion, I think, strays considerably from what I see in section 18. Perhaps we could get back in order at some point.

To the question of the member about proceedings under section 490 of the Criminal Code and proceedings under this bill, I would remind the member again that this has nothing to do with criminal proceedings. Any action under this legislation would be completely separate and apart from any criminal proceedings. There is no overlap; there is no conflict.

J. Brar: I'm not, of course, a law student, but I see here very clearly one thing that I want to mention. First of all, I appreciate the minister indicating that this probably is out of it, but he still continued responding to my question. I appreciate that. I think I deserve asking the follow-up question on that one.

What I'm saying here is simple. I'm not talking about an action of the government against the criminal activity of an individual. I'm talking about seizing property. Now, the federal Criminal Code allows the same thing, but under that, one has to go through charges and conviction, and then that court applies to the person. At the same time, this Bill 13 can do the same thing to people who have not been charged at all.

My question is: if there's a person in British Columbia who has been charged and convicted, will this government apply Bill 13 or the federal law in that situation?

Hon. J. Les: I'm trying to cooperate with the member in his rather wide interpretation of section 18 of this bill. To his question, however, it would certainly be possible, in the event that someone had been criminally convicted, that there would be a separate proceeding under Bill 13 for the director of civil forfeiture to commence an action under this bill to obtain an order for civil forfeiture.

That certainly would be quite possible in the event that under the criminal proceedings section 490 that the

member refers to, there was not an application to forfeit any proceeds or any instruments of crime that had been established. There is certainly the ability, then, for the director of civil forfeiture in the province to make an application to the court for forfeiture of the unlawfully obtained assets.

B. Ralston: My question to the minister is this: is it contemplated that the director will be a person very much like the assistant deputy minister, criminal justice, in the Attorney General's ministry, who will have independent jurisdiction to act and to make decisions about whether or not to proceed with forfeiture cases?

B. Ralston: Should the legislative scheme pass, what specific level in the public service is it contemplated that this person would be hired at?

Hon. J. Les: There are still some ongoing discussions with respect to that question, but the intention is to have the director of civil forfeiture reporting directly to the deputy minister. So I think that gives some indication as to the relative placing of that position within the public service.

J. Brar: One of the questions we left when we were talking about some of the sections earlier was about 22. The discussion was about the instrument likely to be used. So my question at that time was…. I'm going to repeat that question now because at the time that question did not fit well under that section. It was indicated by the minister that the question falls under section 22. So I'm following that.

This is about the section 1 definition under what we call the instrument "likely to be used." The question is: what process will the director of the Civil Forfeiture Act use to establish the case for future activities, and which instrument is to be used? Is there any process or are there steps to be taken to ensure that, you know, the case is made that's accurate and that does not hurt any innocent individual?

Hon. J. Les: I think the member opposite would be aware that every proceeding in a court of law is unique, and it is, frankly, not possible for me to suggest a cookie-cutter set of proceedings or procedures that a director of civil forfeiture would use. Clearly, at the end of the day, for an application to the court to be successful, the director of civil forfeiture would have to assemble information, facts and evidence in such a way as to be able to successfully convince the court that unlawful activity had occurred and that there were instruments of unlawful activity, to the satisfaction of the court, so that his application to the court would be successful.

I think it would be perhaps less than useful for us today to try to construct a scenario or a blueprint that would apply to all cases. I don't think that that works, frankly. Every case is going to be unique and have its own set of circumstances that will require different approaches by the director of civil forfeiture in terms of satisfying the courts that in fact the evidence is there to make an order.

J. Brar: Just a very quick follow-up on that one. I can understand it if we don't have that process or vision at this point in time, but I certainly disagree with the fact that there is no process at all and the director could go and do whatever — looking at the situation and what needs to be done.

At the end of the day the accountability is essential in this situation, and the director is accountable not only to the individual but to his or her job — to do things under certain criteria. I would suggest that there should be some direction somewhere or expectation to make sure that in the cases initiated in those situations where an instrument is likely to be used — because that's the difficulty that I have, to understand that — that there are some procedures and some steps to follow on those ones.

B. Ralston: I have a couple questions on this section. In section 27(1)(e) it refers to "other prescribed purposes." Is it contemplated that such forfeited moneys or proceeds might be paid out for family maintenance enforcement orders? It's not obviously in the legislation. Is it contemplated that that might be something that might be covered by a regulation?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, the section is worded as it is so that we do have flexibility going forward to distribute proceeds in an appropriate way. I can say to the member that any distribution under the provisions of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act has not been contemplated to date. The member perhaps raises an interesting opportunity, but we do not have a position today as to whether or not that would be either appropriate or possible.

I have another question relating to section 27(2). In 27(1)(a) it refers to payment for compensation of eligible victims, but in the next subsection, (2), any other payments, (b) through (e), are only with the approval of the Minister of Finance. So I'm sure the minister is familiar with the debate about traffic fine revenue and

how, using usually largely municipally funded police resources, revenue is gathered by the provincial Crown and not distributed back to the municipalities.

I'm wondering what assurance the minister might be able to provide that this is not contemplated as a cash cow for general revenue but, rather, that these other heads, (b) through (e), will be taken into account and payments will be made in accordance with the priorities set out in the act — rather than simply sending the money to general revenue.

Hon. J. Les: I think the way we have set up this legislation clearly indicates the intent that the moneys forfeited would accrue, as is laid out in one of the previous sections, into a civil forfeiture account. Therefore, these funds will be accounted for separately and, I think — obviously, as a result of that — very transparently so as to enable the public to determine on an ongoing basis that, in fact, the money is being used generally for the types of purposes that are laid out in this act.

Hon. J. Les: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 13, Civil Forfeiture Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call estimates debate, Committee of Supply, of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Hon. M. Coell: It's with great pleasure that I rise to present the 2005-2006 spending estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff that are accompanying me here today. I have my deputy minister Moura Quayle and assistant deputy ministers Tom Vincent, Arlene Paton, and Ruth Wittenberg. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of all the staff in the ministry who have worked hard to prepare for these estimates and also our post-secondary partners.

Today is a good day to reflect on our past as we focus on the future of post-secondary education in British Columbia. Many of you may not be aware of the modest beginnings of our post-secondary education system, so please allow me a brief time for an overview of some of the important events that set the stage for the direction in which we head today.

You may or may not know that the original teacher-training facilities in this province were the model and normal schools. In 1908 the provincial government of the day opened the normal school. Its mandate was to train teachers in the norms or standards of educational theory. Next door, practical experience was obtained through the model school which was built in 1905 and served as a regular elementary school until 1963. Prior to the normal and model schools, teacher education was informal, despite the pressing need for teachers to improve their skills to meet the demands of a growing province. Within a decade the University of British Columbia was established as the province's first public university.

Today these milestones are but a memory of our humble beginnings. They were great and important moments in time for us. To capture the true essence of why higher learning has adopted its modern character, we must look at what happened in 1962 when the McDonald report on higher education came out. The report carried two significant recommendations aimed at decentralizing education: to establish more universities outside of Vancouver and to create local two-year colleges throughout B.C. that would provide a broader, more diverse range of programs than existed at that time.

These two basic recommendations have stood the litmus test of time in British Columbia. They explain to a large degree how our system evolved in the manner it did. The fact is that post-secondary education is key to a strong, knowledgable workforce that drives our robust economy of today. That report's recommendation reinforced the reasons these opportunities should be made available to people in every region of the province.

Last year, in 2004-2005, we reached new heights: 300,000 students, including part-time and full-time, enrolled in public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. That's the highest number we've ever had in this province. So 2005-2006 brings even greater promise as we continue to implement our six-year strategic plan, leading up to 2010 and beyond.

Our strategic investment plan for post-secondary expansion is a driving force in attaining our government's first goal: to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. The plan focuses our collective efforts in the pursuit of a number of major commitments.

First and foremost, we must deliver an excellent public and private post-secondary education system that meets the needs and aspirations of British Columbians.

We have already taken or are undertaking a number of important steps to meet that commitment. We have limited tuition fees to the rate of inflation, beginning in September. We continue to provide a comprehensive financial assistance system for students, and we are strengthening B.C.'s network of universities, colleges, institutes and on-line learning.

We are doubling the annual number of graduates in computer science and electrical and computer engineering within the next five years. We are increasing the number of medical school graduates and expanding post-secondary programs to graduate more care aides, licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. We are planning to maintain and improve the Knowledge Network.

We are also providing programs to support and complement our industry training system in lockstep with the Ministry of Economic Development.

The provincial government has committed to expanding our economy by developing a highly skilled workforce. In order to succeed, students need quality, accessible post-secondary education. The Ministry of Advanced Education's 2005-2006 budget builds on our commitment to enhance post-secondary education for students while balancing that need with taxpayers, and 2005-2006 is the second year of a six-year strategic plan which will create 25,000 new student spaces by 2010. This represents average annual seat growth of more than 2 percent at an average cost to government of $9,200 per space.

To accommodate those new spaces, we have allocated $800 million in capital funding over the next three years.

We're investing more in post-secondary education by increasing our ministry's base budget of $1.83 billion. Our strategic investment plan will ensure the province has the ability to meet the social and economic needs of British Columbians. As well, we have put in place an accountability framework identifying the key performance measures of our post-secondary system. We continue to develop and improve this accountability framework for the ongoing betterment of the post-secondary system.

Ultimately, post-secondary education is a shared fiscal responsibility. From the beginnings, our commitment has been to ensure that the appropriate balance of cost is achieved among students, institutions, taxpayers, government and the private sector. Education is a good investment, but to compete, British Columbia's post-secondary system must ensure students are provided with world-class learning opportunities. We must be cost-competitive to ensure our students have the same ability as other Canadians to enjoy access to high-quality post-secondary education.

To maintain our position in the marketplace, the provincial government will increase funding to the post-secondary system by $62 million in 2005-2006. As well, operating transfers to institutions will be increased by a minimum of $120 million in a three-year budget planning period, ending in 2007-2008.

Today in British Columbia tuition fees are close to the national average. In 2005-2006, undergraduate students in British Columbia's public universities are paying an average of $4,574 for their tuition. That's lower than Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Only Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec are lower, and Quebec is actually higher for British Columbia students wanting to study there.

Now that balance has been restored to tuition rates, they are comparable to other provinces. We have taken the action to stabilize tuition rates for students and their families so they can plan for the future. To protect students this year, we have limited the tuition increase to 2 percent, based on the 2004 B.C. consumer price index. We worked in cooperation with the public post-secondary institutions to put in place a tuition-limit policy for this year, and it made sense to me to implement the tuition limit through policy guidelines rather than through the heavy hand of legislation.

Our message to limit tuition increases was heard and understood by the public post-secondary sector, and I was pleased by that. While most institutions are increasing tuition by 2 percent this year, several have decided not to increase tuition at all. These include Capilano College, Vancouver Community College, College of New Caledonia, Northwest Community College and the Institute of Indigenous Government. As a government, we are fully committed to the tuition limit.

Once again, now that B.C.'s tuition fees are at the national average, we are limiting future increases to the rate of inflation. Tuition represents a portion of the cost of education in British Columbia at our post-secondary institutions. For every dollar paid by students in tuition, taxpayers contribute approximately $2. Thanks to public support, half of B.C. grads finish without student loans today. Other students use debt to fund their education. British Columbia's comprehensive, flexible student assistance program relieves financial pressure for students in need so money is not a barrier to higher learning.

The budget update of 2005 provides $450 million in funding over the next three years for student financial

assistance programs, including loan reduction for students most in need, grants for students with disabilities, debt relief programs and loan forgiveness programs.

Over $300 million is also available annually for B.C. student loans. In addition, the B.C. loan reduction program was introduced in the past year, in partnership with the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation. This new program will forgive a portion of the provincial debt each year for eligible students who successfully complete their studies. Additional enhancements will be introduced soon.

The province is also reducing the parental contribution for B.C. loan limits. This change will make it easier for students from middle-income families to go to college and university. We are also allowing students to claim up to $300 a year for computer-related expenses, increasing students' access to technology.

Where it makes sense, we help students overcome debt by creating opportunities to work in underserved communities in British Columbia. This includes loan forgiveness programs for nurses, physicians, pharmacists, midwives, speech therapists and other professionals who deliver publicly funded core services in underserviced areas of the province.

Students who invest strategically to earn their qualifications will end up ahead of the game, and I'll give you one example. Tony Burton has just graduated from a one-year certificate program at Malaspina College. As a result, he walked right into a $50,000-a-year job with NorskeCanada as a pulp and paper worker. This is what he told the Nanaimo News Bulletin: "I invested $5,000 in tuition to get a $50,000-a-year job. That's what I call a good investment."

More and more people in B.C. are thinking the way that Tony does, which is why in 2004-2005 the Ministry of Advanced Education put in place the six-year strategic investment plan to create 25,000 new seats in our post-secondary institutions by 2010. In the first two years we've funded 7,417 full-time-student-equivalent spaces in B.C.'s post-secondary education system, including 4,200 in 2005-2006. The total number of new spaces will increase to a total of 16,205 by the end of 2007-2008. Our commitment is to ensure that students with a "B" average or higher have an opportunity to pursue a university education.

In addition to seat growth at post-secondary institutions, we have created a web-based gateway called BCcampus. BCcampus enables students to take courses anywhere in the province to complement what they are learning at their home institution. Enrolment in BCcampus on-line courses in 2004-2005 was more than 10,000 — four times the number of students enrolled since 2002. I call that a great success.

Let me tell you about just one of the many BCcampus students whose lives are changing as a result of on-line learning. Sylvia Stephens lives in Greenville, a Nisga'a village of 650 people in the Nass Valley, 90 miles away from the nearest college, which is in Terrace. When she was a little girl Sylvia was sent away to residential school in Edmonton. She lost her home, her family and her culture. A few years ago, when she was in her early 50s, Sylvia decided she needed more education, but she wasn't willing to face those losses again. "I want to know my grandchildren," she said. So three years ago, just about when BCcampus was launched, Sylvia began taking on-line courses. By her count, she's finished close to 30 courses now at Northwest Community College and another half-dozen at BCIT.

She's done the entire applied business certificate on line. She's now preparing to start her own business, a mini–art gallery with traditional Nisga'a arts and crafts for tourists, combined with a convenience store and a fast-food takeout that doesn't exist in her community. Right now she's enrolled at BCIT in performance management courses through BCcampus and is working on convincing family members to get their educations on line as well. "It empowers you," she says. "No one can take it away from you once you learn something."

Greater access means more options for people to pursue their hopes and dreams. We are leveraging our investment in post-secondary education to ensure future generations benefit from a top-notch education system in British Columbia. Greater expansion of the post-secondary system is essential to meet society's needs.

By 2007-2008 the provincial government will allocate nearly $6 billion to the Ministry of Advanced Education's budget. To help offset the cost to students, three-quarters of this, or approximately $4.5 billion, will flow directly to public post-secondary education — approximately $1.5 billion per year beginning in 2005-2006. Another 14 percent, or $843 million, will flow indirectly in the form of debt service and amortization for the capital projects being funded by provincial taxpayers.

In three short years we have made meaningful, positive and significant progress. In Surrey and the Fraser Valley we are in the process of adding a total of 8,000 new spaces at Simon Fraser University, Douglas College, Kwantlen University College and the University College of the Fraser Valley. This growth includes the creation of the SFU Surrey campus and the new trades and technology campus for Kwantlen University College in Cloverdale, currently in design.

In the southern interior post-secondary enhancements abound. The new UBC Okanagan created access to a major research university quickly and cost effectively. To help fill skill shortages in the region, the new Okanagan College is expanding post-secondary training opportunities. Progress is ongoing and aggressive.

This spring we passed legislation to create the Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. Thompson Rivers University offers a comprehensive range of programs to meet the education and training needs of that region. Thompson Rivers University also has a mandate to provide learning opportunities for students through distance education and flexible degree completion options. As well, we have adopted a multiministry approach to overcome shortfalls, particularly

Advanced Education is helping the Ministry of Health develop a ten-year plan to recruit, train and retain more health providers for British Columbia. Capital investments of $134 million and additional operating funds have already been allocated to the University of British Columbia, University of Victoria and University of Northern British Columbia. By 2009 we will have almost doubled the annual number of medical school graduates to 224 from 128.

The world is moving at great speed. Innovation is essential, challenging jurisdictions everywhere to carve out a piece of the knowledge-based economy. We believe research holds the keys to our future: an innovative-based economy, a better health care system and an environment sustainable for future generations. The B.C. knowledge development fund and the leading-edge endowment fund for B.C. leadership chairs and regional innovation chairs are important initiatives.

Our research commitments are already supporting a range of important work, including sensory regeneration of the spinal cord, oceanographic research, forest genomics and forest products manufacturing, wireless communications, cancer research, and early childhood behaviour and development. Our reputation for excellence in life sciences is known around the world, especially since the Genome Sciences Centre unravelled the genetic code of the SARS virus in just one week.

Over the next five years hundreds of millions of additional dollars will be committed to research and innovation in British Columbia. We plan to enhance our quality of life, strengthen our society and economy and create a better environment. Today top researchers and students are choosing B.C. because they know it's the best place to further their goals.

To be truly successful, we must enlist the support of all people, including and engaging aboriginal students in post-secondary education. All of our institutions use some of their annual operating grants to deliver aboriginal programs. On top of that, the ministry's aboriginal special projects fund will provide $1.8 million in 2005-2006 to support the programs around the province that help aboriginal learners start and finish post-secondary studies.

Since 2001 the provincial government has supported approximately 150 projects, worth a total of $7.8 million in aboriginal special project funding. Over 3,000 aboriginal learners have benefited from this funding. The primary purpose of this program is to increase participation, success and retention rates for aboriginal learners in British Columbia.

As well, two of British Columbia's six regional innovation chairs are dedicated to aboriginal early childhood development to support research into culturally appropriate services. The chairs are also raising greater awareness of the importance of children's early years in aboriginal communities.

We expect private institutions to offer quality that is comparable to their public counterparts. In November of 2003 we extended degree-granting privileges to private and out-of-province public institutions. We want institutions to offer quality programs while protecting the rights of students. That way, we maintain a strong reputation for British Columbia degrees.

We must take the steps necessary to ensure students benefit from their education so the they can continue to attract tens of thousands of international students each year. International education contributes significantly to the quality of our students' education. It enables our graduates to learn about other cultures and to develop skills needed to work in other countries, including our trading partners.

Our institutions are involved through activities such as student and faculty exchanges and the recruitment of international students. As well, the Ministry of Advanced Education will be developing a scholarship program to enable B.C. students to study abroad and foreign students to study in B.C.

Closely related to quality assurance is transferability, and in this regard B.C. is fortunate. Our transfer system is recognized as one of the most comprehensive and effective in North America and has been built over decades. A paper by the Higher Education Policy Institute in England goes even further, stating: "British Columbia has taken the California model and developed it into what is possibly the most extensive and sophisticated credit accumulation and transfer arrangement in the world."

The arrangement has long been a godsend to students like — and I'll give you an example — Glen Leonard, who was awarded last year's Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship. Glen won the QE II because he was the province's top university graduate going on to further his studies in a Commonwealth country. He earned his honours bachelor's degree from UBC and was accepted at both Oxford and Cambridge universities. In fact, Cambridge offered him to go directly into a PhD program.

Glen got his start at Capilano College in North Vancouver, where he completed his first two years in English literature. A community college was an ideal choice for Glen, who had dropped out of high school after finishing grade nine and appreciated both the excellent instruction and the supportive environment of a smaller institution.

"At Capilano College and at UBC the level of academic standard was exceptionally high, preparing me thoroughly for Oxford and Cambridge," Glen says.

It's stories like Glen's that are ringing endorsements of the good work occurring throughout the post-secondary system and within the Ministry of Advanced Education. Together we are training more students than we ever have before. We're making a record investment in facilities on our campuses. We're limiting tuition rates to that of inflation, and we're doing our part to improve the health care system, training more nurses and more doctors. We're making important investments in research and innovation, and we're bringing out the best in people through hard work and the dedication of the entire post-secondary system.

I would like to also thank the parents, the faculty and the staff who help make our students' dreams come true. Through their cooperation, the students of this province are realizing the true value of an investment in post-secondary education.

With that, Chair, I look forward to comments, remarks and questions from members of the Legislature.

G. Robertson: I'd like to start with my thanks to the minister and staff for being here today, and I look forward to the process ahead of us, going through the estimates process and better understanding, on behalf of all British Columbians, what this government's commitment is to higher education.

I'd like to start out with some questions on access and affordability, specifically around tuition. The minister mentions the tuition-limit policy and guidelines around tuition. What we've seen over the last four years of this government is tuition nearly doubling around the province for students between 2001 and 2004. We saw enrolment dropping at ten of B.C.'s post-secondary institutions last year. I think it definitely reflects that students are lacking confidence in unpredictably rising tuition. That cost is definitely a barrier, if you consult with students, to their pursuit of training and education.

The government — and I'm sure the minister recalls this clearly from last February's throne speech — committed to legislate a cap on post-secondary tuition and to limit tuition to the increase in the rate of inflation. Instead, we have a tuition-limit policy. We have guidelines and what I can only suppose amounts to an honour system with the institutions. The tuition this year that was supposed to be 2 percent — well-publicized since school started this year — was a 2.9-percent increase in the province, which is almost 50 percent higher than the 2 percent these guidelines were intended to fix it to.

My first question to the minister is: when can students expect the government to fulfil its promise and actually legislate a cap to ensure that students can be confident of the cost of their tuition being fixed to the rate of inflation?

Hon. M. Coell: The member raises a couple of questions. If you combine the private sector with the public sector, you get the 2.9 percent. We are able to cap the public sector at 2 percent, which is what we did. The private sector has the ability to raise and change their rates on their own. So we did cap at the rate of inflation, which was 2 percent.

When I was asked to be Minister of Advanced Education, one of the first things I looked at was the commitments we had made. I looked at the commitment for the 2-percent cap, and I had a choice of either bringing in legislation or talking to each one of the institutions and seeing whether they would agree on a voluntary basis to cap their tuition fees. They all did. I believe five of them are actually at zero, and the rest of them are at 2 percent.

What I wanted to do was develop a relationship with the institutions and with the faculty and students so that if we were able to work in a cooperative way, I didn't need to do legislation. I had the opportunity if the institutions didn't agree or didn't want to participate in that direction. I referred to the heavy hand of legislation, and that's there if necessary, but I don't think it will be necessary. I believe we have the cooperation of all our partners in keeping tuitions at what we would like to see, at the national average, which is about where we are now.

G. Robertson: I'm still very uneasy about the fact that it's relationship-based and guidelines-oriented. The reality is that students have no certainty here. There was a lot of pressure put on this government by students over the last several years, I believe, many of them whose ability to pursue full-time schooling evaporated as they had to work. They could not access and keep up with the rate of tuition increases we saw over the last few years.

The government's commitment in the throne speech, the promise to actually legislate that, was a very clear promise and statement to students that they would, in fact, enshrine in legislation rather than count on relationships and guidelines. When the minister speaks of the heavy hand of legislation, I think it depends on whether the legislation is created for people, to benefit people such as students, knowing that their education and costs are going to increase by a predictable amount — versus having alternate reasons to strip rights or be punitive, which is legislation that I think this government has chosen to focus on over the last number of years.

I don't see this as a heavy hand. I see this as reliability. Many of the students that I've spoken with in my role as critic continue to ask, first and foremost, when they can expect that promise on legislation to be delivered.

Hon. M. Coell: I understand where the member is coming from. I think what we've committed to do for this term of government is to keep the tuition fees at the rate of inflation and then to add in moneys as necessary to the universities to keep them whole. We want to develop partnerships for a number of reasons.

The building on the campuses is unprecedented, and the request for 25,000 new spaces will be developed. We want to work with each one of our institutions to make sure that we're getting the most out of the investment. I think, from my perspective, the partnership is very important. I could have brought in legislation, but I think the building of the partnership and the trust amongst partners is more important, while making that commitment to students that they would for this government's term in office see the rate of inflation reflected in tuition fees.

G. Robertson: Will the minister make a commitment to the students of this province that if the in-

creases to tuition by the public institutions is greater than the rate of inflation, the minister will pursue legislating that cap as promised?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm very optimistic that that won't be necessary. But as I said earlier, if institutions wanted to raise above what the government request and government policy is, there is the opportunity to bring legislation in to do just that.

G. Robertson: The ministry, in the figures in front of me, projects that the amount of post-secondary education fees collected per FTE, full-time-equivalent, over the next three years will increase. Will the increase per FTE…? This revenue item — will it be reduced in order to budget for whatever tuition fee freeze or tying that tuition increase to inflation…? Will you increase the FTE revenue that comes in?

Hon. M. Coell: I think you'll see revenues go up as we start to see the 25,000 new students join the campuses. That revenue will go up, but individual revenues will not go up more than the rate of inflation during that time.

G. Robertson: I'm not quite clear on that. I'm curious if the ministry will reduce the revenue item in order to budget for the cap to inflation. In other words, the FTE…. The fees revenues that are budgeted for — do they specifically account for a 2-percent increase in tuition? Or if the tuition moves beyond or above or below that, will the budget per FTE be adjusted in like fashion?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll answer it the best I can. If I need to be more specific, I will.

What we've committed to do with the universities is to, over and above what the rate of inflation is…. Sometimes the cost to universities will be more than that. Like, a medical school rate actually could be more than that, but they're going to keep medical school tuitions at the cap of 2 percent. What we as government will have to do is make up the difference, and we're committed to doing that and to working with the university sector and also the college sector to identify their needs and to add in that money in the budgets that come forward.

G. Robertson: When you say you "add in that," based on that…. Is there a provision for that in the budget that we have in front of us?

Hon. M. Coell: There was a commitment made by the previous minister of $15 million over and above that, and that was a starting point to let the institutions know that we were serious. Then we'll work with them to find a number that is agreeable to them and to us at the end of this year and going into the next year as well.

G. Robertson: Thanks for that. I am going to pass the torch here to the member for Cariboo South for some questions and to some of my fellow MLAs on this side for questions specific to their regions. I look forward to coming back for more questions when we next meet in the House.

C. Wyse: Minister, I have one specific question for you with regard to the nursing program in Williams Lake. First, I would draw the attention of the House, as a reminder of the statement that was made by our colleague from Bulkley Valley–Stikine in talking about health in the northern part of the province. Both of us pointed out in our presentation the increased retention for health care workers when they have received their training in the area where we hope to have them locate. We know that from the great success with UNBC.

For the minister's information and reminder, of course, there is already an existing one- or two-year program for nursing that is run out of Williams Lake through TRU university. I would go on to point out further information here simply to assist in building my case. There is a shortage already of health care providers — nurses, specifically, in this case. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in this shortage hitting us in North America — B.C. in particular — in three to five years, which happens to be approximately the education period of time for nursing. The city council of Williams Lake is in support of this program being expanded to four years.

With that backdrop, hon. minister, my question to you is: does your ministry intend to provide the necessary funding to expand the nursing program to four years for the Williams Lake campus portion?

Hon. M. Coell: Since 2001 we've actually increased the number of nursing students by 2,500, and our commitment is to continue to increase as need be. I quite agree with the member. When you are able to take courses closer to home or at home, you're likely to stay in that area, and that's specifically what we're trying to do. At Thompson Rivers University, of course, you could do the first two years in Williams Lake and then go to Kamloops for the second or the third and fourth year.

I think what will happen over time is that they'll assess that. It's not something we would force them to do, but they would have the funds necessary to make that change if the demand were there. It's very much up to the university to make that decision, but it's something I think you're seeing with the Thompson Rivers University. They're going to be reassessing how much of each program they can deliver at different campuses. I agree that if you could do all four years in your home town, that would be the best of all worlds.

C. Wyse: I appreciate your response. I guess I would also share with you the information that the local community is beginning to develop and further strengthen their case with TRU for that. I guess I'm serving notice that next year we'll be looking for those

funds to be appearing in your budget, and I will be looking for your affirmative support at that time.

B. Ralston: I have a couple of questions that concern Simon Fraser University–Surrey campus. In a recent meeting with some senior officials from Simon Fraser, they advised of their enrolment projections up to 2015. The anticipated enrolment in 2015 is 5,000 students. It's approximately 2,000 or so right now.

Now, my question to the minister is — I just wanted to confirm that, and secondly: is the minister of the view that what would seem to me a very slow rate in the growth and the enrolment of the SFU Surrey campus, which is consistent with the funding allocation, I'm advised…. Does that remain the ministry's target for 2015?

Hon. M. Coell: I think that's within the planning parameters. The year 2015 is quite a distance off, but I think what they're doing is planning for that date. The ministry will continue to monitor and work with the university as we get closer to that date to make sure they hit their targets. They may not hit them all in one year. It may be a slow year one year and a heavier year the next year. I think it's a viable target.

B. Ralston: As the minister, I'm sure, is aware, there's another post-secondary education institute in Surrey: Kwantlen University College. I'm wondering if the minister regards that enrolment projection as sufficient to meet the growing needs of the city of Surrey, which is widely reputed to be the fastest-growing city in the country, certainly in the province — closing in on 425,000 in population. Certainly, the projections for the region south of the Fraser over the next ten years project rapid growth in the population.

My question to the minister: is he prepared to contemplate a further request from the university that would accelerate the enrolment in the Simon Fraser University at the Surrey campus beyond the projected 5,000 for 2015?

Hon. M. Coell: What we're planning for right now are the six years. I guess, as we — or whoever is minister at that point — get to the six years, then they'll be looking out at the next. In the strategic plan there are 8,000 seats available in Surrey, in the Fraser Valley area. But you're right. Of all the parts of the province, that is definitely the fastest-growing. It's the fastest-growing with young people of college and university age as well.

B. Ralston: Just to continue — and I appreciate the minister's comments — what we were advised in this meeting was that in terms of post-secondary enrolment per capita within the region, perhaps because of the lack of spaces, that percentage is lower than most other regions in the province, which would probably not be what one would expect, and particularly among young men aged 18 to 25. So again, what would be the mechanism, staying within the six-year projection, for accommodating a request from Simon Fraser University–Surrey to expand beyond the projected enrolment that's presently funded?

Hon. M. Coell: It's actually a good question because I've been asked it by a number of the institutions. When the initial allocation was made as to how we thought the 25,000 would be put out there, some people said: "Well, I think I can do better." What we're seeing is that buildings are built on campuses for the influx of students over the next few years. Some are saying — and I think SFU is one: "We could do more." I think what we'll have to do is balance that off around the province with the other 26 institutions as to who can do more. Maybe there will be some shifting around, but it's probably too early to say because you're just beginning a process.

As I was saying, there's about $800 million worth of building going on campuses. A lot of that's labs and classrooms. Once they're built, then we can put the students in them. It's an important question, because I think it's one that we'll have to review as to who can deliver more, quicker, within that six-year period. As I say, quite a few of the institutions have said they can do more, which is great.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that response, and I understand…. Obviously, the jurisdiction and the purview of the minister is provincewide, but I have that assurance from SFU Surrey that, indeed, they can do better. They're willing to do better, want to do better, and they're just looking for the resources to do that. I will probably take that back to them with those words from the minister, and I thank the minister for that.

I suppose the other area I wanted to briefly canvass in these few minutes that are allocated to me would be the future of Kwantlen University College. As you may be aware, there is a debate, initiated by the board of directors and their president, contemplating the change from the university college status to university simpliciter. What we've been told — again, in a briefing — is that from the perspective of the board and the president, it would have a couple of effects. One would be to not change the curriculum content at all; secondly, to involve no diminution of the trades component of the programs offered; and thirdly, to attract more foreign students because the cachet of calling an institution a university apparently has…. It's more marketable, I suppose would be the crasser way to put it.

Is the minister aware of that consultation? Does the ministry take a view on it, or is that something within the autonomous purview of the board and the president of the institution?

Hon. M. Coell: I've met, actually, with the board chairs and the presidents of the university colleges and had that discussion with the three institutions. The province takes the position that we would want to see a business case and an academic case from each one of them for a change. I think the member makes a very

good point. We don't want to see the college portion, the trades portion, denigrated in any way. We want to see that increased because of the need for a skilled and educated labour force.

We haven't said no. We've said: "Bring us the academic case, the business case." I know that all three of them are looking at that — looking that maybe they could partner with other institutions. There are two options now. You've got the Thompson Rivers University model. You've also got the UBC Okanagan campus model.

There are a number of things that I think they're thinking about. What I've said to them is: "Look at an 18-month, four-year, eight-year horizon for any changes." I'm looking forward to working with them. They have some very good ideas on what they can do to improve education and education systems within each one of the university colleges.

B. Ralston: The view has been expressed to me that it's not obvious — the connection between university status and an active, aggressive trades-training program. There's also, I understand, within Kwantlen, a number of entry-level and remedial programs — English as a second language, English for adults re-entering the education system. It's not at all obvious how those are compatible with the aspiration to be a university, however laudable that may be in that sense. In the assessment of the ministry, will the ministry be considering those factors in deciding whether or not to support a change to university status or not?

Hon. M. Coell: I think we would be looking at that. We want to see an enhancement. When I met with the three chairs, I said that as a province, what we want to see is how you can show us you can do both better. That was why I suggested there are possibly partnering opportunities or changes to structures — to think outside the box, and I think they will.

Everyone I met with has a real keen desire to see advanced education advance, so I'll wait and hear back from them as they start to develop some plans for changes. One of the things we have to be pleased with, and it happened long before my time as minister, is that the system has developed into a very tightly integrated system and is respected all over the world as a system that works. If there are ways to do it better, we're interested in looking at them.

B. Ralston: Just to conclude, one of the concerns that has been expressed to me was about what was a previously fairly well-defined and articulated system, in the sense that the colleges had a role and then students would enter the university entry stream, but with the creation of UBC Okanagan and Thompson Rivers University, there was almost a third tier created.

To some extent, there's a feeling that other colleges may feel the pressure to attempt to convert to university status to take advantage — the perceived advantages — of university status in the Thompson Rivers model, obviously, or the UBC Okanagan model. The system, previously relatively stable and articulated in that way, is, because of those decisions, more unstable in the institutional sense, in that institutions are looking to those examples in a way they would not have considered in the past. That may introduce an unhealthy institutional rivalry that may not serve the students in the province very well in the long run.

So I'm wondering…. Sorry, I apologize for a bit of a rambling question, but that's sort of the norm, I suppose, for these proceedings. I'm wondering if the minister shares that concern or has any comments to offer on that.

I think one of the things we have to be open to in British Columbia as our population grows — and our need for different types of educated people in the workforce — is change. That's why I said to the university colleges that we're not opposed to change. If you can do something better, if you can bring more money into the system from the private sector — I think it's one of the suggestions that they can — we would be open to looking at that.

I think what we want to do is make sure the cooperation that has been built up there — really, over 30 or 40 years — in B.C. between colleges and universities for the transfer programs remains and is strengthened. That's where I would be coming from as the minister responsible: to make sure that the cooperation is there, that they see themselves — the colleges, the university colleges and the universities — as all the same players. They're all there to benefit students.

We ourselves and the faculty and the boards and the presidents are all there for one reason. It's to make sure the students get the best, highest-quality education they can. If they can come forward with some ideas that will do that, we'd certainly be interested in looking at them.

C. Trevena: I'd just like to ask the minister again…. It's a couple of constituency issues. I have written a letter to the minister about this issue, but I wanted to have the opportunity to ask in person. I understand the minister has made a commitment to look at post-secondary education in the North Island, and I wondered, really, what terms this review is having.

Hon. M. Coell: I got your letter yesterday, and I will respond to it quickly.

What we have asked is that the review go in two phases. We'll do the first phase and then the second phase, so there will be money available for both of those phases made in the request.

C. Trevena: It's good that there is commitment to post-secondary education for the North Island, but we do have North Island College already operating there. So I wondered what role this review is going to have in relationship to the work that North Island College is already doing.

Hon. M. Coell: Maybe I could get a little clarification. Is the member wondering what role North Island College will play and what the two-phase study would be as to how more effectively we can deliver post-secondary education on the northern end of the Island, because of the rural characteristics of that area?

C. Trevena: Just to clarify, it's to see whether North Island College will actually be part of the structure, or whether it is looking at bringing in other alternative providers of post-secondary education to the North Island.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess from my perspective, it's basically a grass-roots organization that wants to do this needs assessment. I would hope they work with North Island to see what can be delivered through the resources of North Island College.

C. Trevena: On North Island College…. I know that each college has autonomy in how it handles its budget. It gets a set amount of money and then uses it as it will. That being said, North Island College has reduced its service delivery in the North Island and has centralized it in a campus situation, closing a number of small centres that were very well used and, really, very needed for people who wanted to upgrade and have access to post-secondary. So I really did want to know whether the minister could give any commitment to working towards making sure that these small centres did reopen.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not sure I could give that commitment. I really want to wait and see what the study comes back with as recommendations. I think there are a couple of options that I know they'll be looking at — on-line learning and the BC campus model. The other structure is…. I think that we have to look at the overall workings of the college. Is it working better now, or how can it be improved?

I think I need to wait to see what the study recommends before we can make any commitments.

C. Trevena: On-line learning is very useful in this day and age, and it does give access to education for many people. North Island College has been a leader in that, in making sure people can access that. I'm pleased to see that this is something you are committed to. But I wondered if there is also a commitment from the ministry to invest in providing people with, literally, the hardware — the computers, making sure that there is high-speed Internet — and also making sure that people are able to use the computers, because we're sometimes talking about people, as well, who don't have computer literacy or have low literacy.

Hon. M. Coell: In the strategic investment plan, there is a number of new student spaces for North Island College, and I'll just get the member that number. Then, with that would be the funds necessary for either classroom settings, computers or whatever is needed to deliver those spaces. I believe it's around 200, but I'm not quite sure if that's the allocation for the northern Island. I'll get that number and get back to the member.

C. Trevena: It's not really just an issue of the spaces. It is actually an issue of getting the computers so people can do the on-line learning in their own communities. So what I was asking was whether there was a commitment from the ministry to make sure we get the computers, the high-speed Internet and the upgrading of computer skills for people in those communities?

Hon. M. Coell: I have that number for the member. Actually, 250 spaces will be allocated, and I believe the number per space is about $9,200. That would give the college the funds to expand the programs the way they want it. I'm sure, once the study is done, they may have some different directions on what they would want to do — whether they would have a place for someone to drop in to use a computer or…. There's a whole range of on-line services that you could have. I'm quite anxious to see this study — both parts — to see what we can do in the north Island.

C. Trevena: I have sort of a broader question that I think may relate to other members' questions as well, as well as the critic's questions. Obviously, post-secondary education funding at the moment is done on the basis of the number of students who are enrolled in the college. We're seeing a decline in student numbers because, I'm hearing from students, of the increase in tuition fees — that many people who would go for just basic upgrading can't afford to go. In my constituency we have people who, because of the centralization of North Island College, can't physically access the facilities. Single mothers and so on just really can't reach the centres.

What I wondered is: is the ministry looking in its six-year strategic plan at possibly alternative funding mechanisms for rural post-secondary education?

Hon. M. Coell: Thank you for the question. It's actually timely, because one of the things that we did with the universities and the tuition cap was look at what the difference is between the actual rate of inflation and what their actual costs are. We are coming to some agreement with them on what that is, and we'll fund that.

We're going to start a similar process with the colleges. The member is quite right. There are a number of colleges that are not seeing the growth that they would like, and there may be some reasons for that, and we want to see if we can help them to do that. I think there are many factors for that.

One is that the economy's booming and some people have put off education because they can get a job. Others may be moving to universities from colleges. There's a whole range of reasons, I think. But what we want to do is to make sure that the colleges get the help

they need, because they're going to be a very, very valuable part of training trades as well. This study will go on, probably, for the next couple of months and then give us some idea of what we need to do to help them to start to see an increase in enrolment again.

The other thing that the member mentioned was adult basic education, and actually, North Island is one of the few that doesn't charge for that. So, you know, that's a great thing for them to be able to do. I guess they're absorbing the costs somewhere else in their college, but it's very good for the people of the north Island.

C. Trevena: My last question. North Island College is, at the moment, one of the most reasonably cost colleges in the province, but it has been seeing a decline in student numbers, and it's seen students dropping out and students stressed, largely — talking to both students and faculty — because of the issue of tuition fees and the fact that many people just can't afford to go.

I'd like to really repeat a question that my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview raised, and that is the issue of tuition fees. I wanted to know whether the minister could give a commitment on making sure that tuition fees were kept low and that issues of inflation were built into the fact that students really can't afford to go to college at the moment.

Hon. M. Coell: The commitment we've made is that during this term of our government, tuition fees would be at the rate of inflation and that we would work with the universities, the university colleges, the colleges, BCIT and the institutes to try and backfill where their need is over and above that. I think one of the problems is that if you don't do that, the quality of education starts to decline within the institutions because they've got to find that extra money from somewhere. So we're working with them, and I think this review of the colleges will actually help them and us. I guess North Island College's tuition in '04-05 was zero and in '05-06 it's 2 percent. That's the area.

N. Macdonald: I just really have one question, and it's very similar to a question that you've answered recently. Most of the detailed questions will come from the critic.

What I want to do here is…. During the election a student spoke to me at school and asked a question, and I said: "Well, if you feel strongly about it, you have to take it further. Come to the public meeting." They did, so I'm just going to put the question to you, and I'll allow you to phrase it so that they can read it.

Basically, it is around tuition. Her question was: "The average is $27,000 in terms of how much money a student now is going to come out in debt." It's not unheard of, the community she's from, to have up to $30,000. These are the figures that she's using and while the average might not be accurate, certainly that's a reality. So I just want you to answer her. Can you give her some assurance that you're aware of that and that you're working to not only cap tuition fees but looking at lowering them? If not, then maybe explain why that's impossible.

Hon. M. Coell: If I give you a little bit lengthier answer, I apologize. One of the things we've done is a change in direction in that the loan forgiveness comes at the end. So you borrow the money, and then once you've finished, you have a reduction. I can give you a couple of examples. If a student this year applied…. Or they don't even have to apply. We actually access their file if they've completed that year of university and reduce by a quarter what they borrowed, rather than giving them a quarter up front. Once they've completed, they get the quarter down. That varies, so someone with dependents would actually get a lot more than that.

One of the other areas that we've done is to say, okay, there are occupations in the province where we'll actually absorb the entire cost of your loan. Like, if you're a doctor and you're willing to go work in rural B.C. once you've graduated, we're going to absorb your loan; if you're a nurse, the same; if you're a pharmacist, the same. We've structured the loan program differently, and a lot of the other provinces are doing the same.

We're aware that 50 percent of students graduate with no loans; 50 percent graduate with — in some cases, as the member said — significant loans. What we want to do is encourage people to complete, and on completion, reduce that loan — a loan reduction or a grant, as you would call it. We're going to continue to work with that.

As I said, some occupations.… It was recommended that we do that for occupations where we couldn't get people to move to rural B.C. or stay there once they'd come down from Cranbrook or Fort St. John to go to university. We would like them to move back, and we'll actually reduce their loans by 100 percent if they do that.

N. Macdonald: Then just one other question: that applies, of course, to institutions that are outside of the province as well? Regardless of the institution that they go to, if it's outside of the province, this same sort of thing would be available to them?

R. Austin: I just wanted to ask a few questions that are more specific to northern institutions — specifically, Northwest Community College, where I come from; and CNC; and the one in the northeastern part, the Northern Lights. I'd like to know if the ministry tracks the percentage of student spaces that are unused on a regional basis.

R. Austin: Could the minister please tell me if there is a large difference between the southern institutions, the interior and the three northern institutions?

Hon. M. Coell: We've noticed recently that the northern colleges are having a harder time filling their spaces, and there are probably a number of reasons for that. That prompted us to do the study that I mentioned a little while ago to see what we can do to help them do that. As you would know, there are a number of reasons for that. I think youth employment rates can be tracked to the number of people going to colleges in northern, more rural areas. We want to get to a place where if there are other things we need to do with the colleges, as we've done with the universities, to enhance their ability to attract students, we want to be able to do that.

R. Austin: Does the ministry have any specific plans or ideas that they would like to put forward as to how to encourage people to go to the northern institutions?

Hon. M. Coell: At this point we've just embarked on the study, actually in the last few days. We completed the ones with the universities and BCIT over the summer and in the early fall. Then we'll be sitting down with the colleges starting now, working through to see what we can do for next year.

R. Austin: I'd like to suggest that one of the causes of the inability for a number of students to enter these institutions is that…. Certainly in my area of the province we have lower literacy levels than are acceptable in most areas. Can the minister tell me whether there are any plans to increase programs to help with these lower literacy levels in northwestern British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: A couple of things. We've doubled the literacy cost-share grants to $1.4 million this year. We're looking at a potential of an aboriginal strategy, as well, for rural British Columbia for, sort of, retention and completion of adult basic education and then college and university transfer as well.

I think a good example would be…. And I really understand where the member is coming from, because the north lobbied, for what seemed like decades, for a medical school at UNBC. That's there so that people from the north can get their training there and stay there. I believe it will work. The nursing initiative as well, making sure…. Like we were talking earlier of nursing in Williams Lake and the Thompson Rivers, those are there so people don't have to come down to Vancouver to go to UBC or UVic, so those sorts of things.

I think we just have to continue to build on those to make sure that there are funds. With the 25,000, some of those seats stay in the north and get developed into new programs. I'm quite optimistic that the scholarship programs through things like Ike Barber will allow people from the north to get the education they need.

As I say, the study with the colleges should be completed early in the new year. That will give us some direction for the next year, when we hope to see more students enrol in colleges in rural B.C.

R. Austin: Does the ministry track the levels of student support services to see if there's any correlation between what each institution is delivering as support services and the relative success or lack of success of the students in each institution?

Hon. M. Coell: I think, in general, every one of our institutions has support services for aboriginal people — a lot of energy in the campuses I've been on for making those a welcoming place for aboriginal people, whether the support services are right on campuses or within the student union buildings and those sort of things. I think that the advanced education sector does a lot for support for aboriginal people.

R. Austin: I wasn't meaning specifically just for first nations people. I was meaning, in general, support services such as peer tuition to help students, social workers to help when students are going through a crisis — that kind of thing.

Hon. M. Coell: I think about half of the $9,200 that comes from government to each institution for its base…. Staff tell me about half of that actually goes to support service, whether it be counselling, financial aid services, library, career prep — those sorts of things. So there is a built-in…. I think one of the things that I've noticed in my short time in the ministry is there's a real desire for institutions to retain the people. So when they start, they don't just do two months, get a student loan and then withdraw. That's not in anyone's best interest.

Everywhere I have been I've seen a lot of support services to hold on to those people who might, you know, be their first time away from home or whatever reason, not feeling comfortable on a campus.

So as I was saying, the aboriginal support services are there, and we've increased those, but institutions themselves have developed all sorts of mechanisms to make people feel welcome and at home on campuses.

R. Austin: But the ministry, then, doesn't have any statistics that they use to track the percentage of dollars that are used to provide those support services with the student success that each institution has?

Hon. M. Coell: Individual institutions will track that. We track it through the student outcome surveys, and we're seeing quite a high commitment. I think that probably goes on for quite a number of years — that students are finding that they're getting what they need out of the institutions.

R. Austin: Of course, the problem with that survey is that that just tracks the statements of those who have

made it through the system and who have succeeded. It doesn't necessarily account for all of the students who might have dropped out as a result of there being a lack of services. Maybe the minister would like to speak to that, just for a second.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, we've just done a number of studies on people who have dropped out and why they've dropped out. We're in the process of analyzing that, and I will get the member a copy of both surveys so you can see the difference between those who stayed in and completed and those who dropped out and the reasons why. This is for adult basic education.

R. Austin: Noting the hour, I would like to move that this committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

S. Fraser: Thank you very much for hearing from me. I'll be brief, with a couple of issues I think everyone will be up on.

Alberni-Qualicum has a few significant issues in transportation that have been reported on lately. I know there was a report done on Highway 4, dealing with some potential and alternate routes. The Horne Lake connector was one of the main issues that has been looked at for a number of years. I've seen some of the report that has come out, and I understand it was a $40 million to $50 million estimate.

Then in my discussions with Highways, there was some discussion of the amount of traffic over the highway. There was a formula involved. There was a cost-benefit analysis done, and there was some question about whether or not that's a feasible option. Just so the minister knows, and I'm sure he does, there is still significant interest in an alternative route. I myself was on the highway twice this summer when it was shut down for a number of hours at a time due to highway accidents.

There's worry of a potential natural disaster and what will happen with only a single route through from the Qualicum side to Port Alberni and vice versa, and also beyond that, too, to the west coast and back. If the minister could just let me know where we're at on that? I'll then have a supplemental, if that's possible.

Hon. K. Falcon: I can speak to this at a fairly high level. The last time I was in Port Alberni, I had a meeting with a number of folks from the community that talked about that.

The challenge is exactly like the member indicated. The cost of an alternative route would be somewhere in the $40 million to $50 million range. That is an extraordinarily expensive option, and we don't believe that the business case or the direct benefits would justify that kind of investment at this time.

We are going to continue focusing on the improvements we're making to Highway 4 to provide additional passing lanes and provide safety improvements. While I recognize that the member makes some very valid points in terms of alternative access and how that would be nice to have, it is not something that will be happening in the short term.

The criteria for making the decision when the critical mass is reached, where the cost benefit is there to justify the costs through the benefit of use…. Can you give me how that is determined? I assume there's a formula, and if there is a formula, are there also other factors that can come into play besides just the numbers on traffic?

Hon. K. Falcon: The kinds of things we would look at would be things like traffic volume; traffic mobility, which is tied into traffic volume; safety; economic development benefits. All of those would come into play.

I would guess that over the last five years, we've probably invested about $10 million in improvements to Highway 4. Over the next few years we will have, frankly, another fairly substantial range of additional improvements to try and improve Highway 4. But as I said, the challenge with the alternative-route option, as attractive as it may appear on the surface, was that the traffic demand is still relatively low to justify it. It wouldn't deal with the traffic patterns, based on our understanding of where the traffic is moving to.

S. Fraser: The issue of the future budget for Highway 4. In the immediate future that precludes this option, from what I understand, but is there a point where we can be looking at where there will be enough volume? Is that anticipated, or is that sort of work done in your studies?

Hon. K. Falcon: Looking forward, sort of looking in the future, we don't see that the traffic volume increases will be to such an extent that it would justify consideration of a $40 million or $50 million alternative route. What we do anticipate over the next few years is that we will be investing several millions of dollars in additional improvements that will very much have a safety benefit for that area.

I know there are some intersection improvements. There are other locations, like Whisky Creek and Pratt intersections, and road upgrades, shoulder improvements, resurfacing — those kind of things — that when you add them on to the $10 million that's been invested over the last five years, will make for some substantial improvements for the folks in that area.

C. Wyse: My first question is with regard to a rail-transfer plan. Are there any plans to support the village of Ashcroft's proposal for an inland container port? If not, could it be included in the plans for the overall transportation network?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. We did receive a package of information from the mayor of Ashcroft, a very well-thought-out package that was forwarded, and I did have a look at it. I advised the mayor, as I do all the other….

There are a number of communities that are interested in their communities being a potential site for an inland port. One of the things I emphasized to all the mayors was that this is not a decision that will be made primarily by government. Government hardly is the one to decide where an inland port should be. I think government can help facilitate, working with the industry advisory group that we have as part of our gateway advisory group, made up of stakeholders from the rail, from the airports, from government, etc.

We think we can play a valuable role in laying out the decision matrix. It will be a decision matrix everybody can see in terms of what the land availability is, what the relationship is in terms of rail, all those kinds of things, so we can have all of the respective communities that feel they would be a good location for an inland port to be able to have their proposals put in place. It can go into a decision matrix, and a decision can come out the other end, although not everyone will be happy.

Everyone can't be happy, obviously, in a process in which there can only be, perhaps, a single winner, but I think everybody can agree that the process was not just fair but seen to be fair. That's where we're going in terms of that whole question of an inland port.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the response from the minister. I would like to advise the minister that I have a series of questions coming up now on specific roads in Cariboo South.

My first question. Murphy Lake Road has been destroyed by logging. My staff has spoken with the area manager, who says it is in terrible shape and can't be repaired due to lack of money. What is the minister willing to do to repair the road to make it safe for the dozens of residents of Murphy Lake?

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to assure the member that staff are aware of the Murphy Lake Road situation, but I do want to tell the member candidly…. In fact, I was visiting the Prince George office in the summer and met with staff to talk about some of the anecdotal stories like this that I'm hearing.

One of the challenges we really face, collectively as a government, and an issue that we are continually raising with my colleague the Minister of Forests is that the heartlands road rehabilitation budget is under tremendous pressures as a result of the beetle kill. As the member knows, in the Prince George area and in the Cariboo that increased truck traffic is just murderous on our roads.

As a result of that, for example, on a road where we may not be looking at having to rehabilitate a road typically in seven to ten years, we are having to go in there after a couple of years or a few years and invest dollars back into that road because of the pounding they take with a huge volume of truck traffic. Many of these roads, of course, are side roads. They are not roads that are typically used to having that level of traffic, and as the beetle harvest moves to a new area, we start to see the same problem.

What I can tell the member and what the members of the Murphy Lake area should be made aware of is the fact that — I don't want to say, "We hear your concern," but — we actually hear their concern. We are also trying very, very hard to make decisions and try and deal with the worst roads first and sort of go through the process. I guess I would have to say to those folks to try and be patient, and we're working through this.

We're trying to work with the federal government to get some additional dollars to help with some of the outcomes that are a result of the beetle kill — to help us with things like this. Roads would very much be a part

of that, and I'll continue to work with my colleague the Minister of Forests in that area.

C. Wyse: I appreciate your candidness, and I accept your offer of working with you and your office. The cooperation that both the hon. members for Cariboo North and South have received from both your ministry and the Ministry of Forests staff has been very good, and in part, it's upon their advice that I'm here raising some of these questions directly.

The next one falls along a similar line. It's the Pressy Lake road. I will read, in part, from correspondence I've received back and from your ministry staff: "IRL has funding available each year for upgrades to roads such as these. In addition, the ministry does have rehabilitation funding for side roads, although it's considered among many other roads across the Cariboo district and prioritized based on several factors, including road condition and volume of use. We have also included the road for potential future upgrading as well."

With that response, my question to you on this one is: will the minister ensure that the Pressy Lake road be upgraded next year, as it is in terrible condition?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer for Pressy Lake is very similar to the answer for Murphy Lake in the sense that we'll have a better sense after the winter season too. That's when we do an analysis of the roads, and it helps inform us better, in terms of which ones are worst, to start making our improvements on the basis of taking the resources we have and allocating them to dealing with the worst first and moving through that.

I couldn't say for sure whether that would happen next year. It will partially, in large part, depend on our analysis of the roads after the winter season. Then we'll have a better idea, and perhaps we can talk about this again in the spring of next year.

C. Wyse: Carrying on with the list of roads. I go back to around election time. There were discussions and points brought forward that besides the possibility of four-laning Highway 97, there are other issues in the Cariboo with regard to the side roads and issues of this nature and other highways in our area, so I appreciate your patience in bearing with me.

Going to the Bridge Lake area: again, similar sets of circumstances around the Deka Lake area and specifically the Higgins Lake road. The Judson road is also in extremely dangerous condition during the spring runoff, with huge areas of potholes, heaving and mud. I would then go on to the Mahood Lake road from Higgins Lake road and the Burgess Lake corner down to Sulphurous and Hathaway lakes, as some huge frost heaves still need to be repaired and are getting worse by the day and breaking up the pavement.

Again, it's another area within Cariboo South that my question comes back to…. And again: the plans for the roads in this area?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's question, and fortunately, I've got a little bit of information on these roads. One thing I should say, though, just in case: there's a whole series of roads. I should warn the member that I'll do my best to sort of answer specifics, but we do have over 42,000 kilometres of roads we're responsible for, plus 24,000 kilometres of side roads, so I may not have information on every single one. I don't say that out of disrespect, just that….

The ministry and our maintenance contractor have expensed over $1 million in the last ten years doing some paving and regravelling of various side roads in the Deka Lake area subdivision. We know the ratepayers still have some concerns with the conditions of the roads, but it goes back to the comment I made earlier about how we have to make decisions based on the context of the entire region and sort of try and prioritize.

Over the last four years this ministry has been concentrating our efforts on upgrading the Bridge Lake North Road, the main route to the local resorts and lakes in this area. Lake service via the Bridge Lake North include Deka, Sulphurous, Hathaway and Higgins Lake. I hope this is being helpful — is it, member?

Hon. K. Falcon: Okay. Over a million and a half has been expensed on Bridge Lake North Road paving and realigning over the last four years, and our ministry maintenance contractors staff will continue to monitor the condition of the Deka Lake area roads to ensure that they remain in a safe and passable manner according to ministry specifications.

In terms of future improvements, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I want to just emphasize that these will have to be made in accordance with overall needs and how things look, then allocating in terms of vehicle usage and population and all the other things that come into play.

C. Wyse: Meaning nothing but full respect, I bring the issues forward here in this forum because the increased logging truck traffic, as you have referred to, with the beetle kill, the roads that aren't built for this type of standard and the increased volume in the area, has left an acceleration of deterioration of road conditions in this part of Cariboo South. As I've already mentioned, we have talked with local staff both in 100 Mile House and in Williams Lake about these items. I'm directly doing my responsibility, as I know that you understand, in bringing them forward here.

I'm going to mention here, with no question attached, that my next area would have been the Bridge Lake Highway 24. There are concerns with the continu-

ing upgrading and paving in that road area, and I'm simply going to leave that on record and mention it with you, because I think your response would just naturally flow out of it.

I'm going to go to my last question, and that is: what action does the minister plan to take to ensure that his ministry or Interior Roads is able to respond effectively to mowing vegetation in service area 16 so that the area residents' safety is not compromised again next summer?

Somewhat as a background to that, the weed as well as the hay crop was exceptionally good in our area. The roads were not plowed. The staff went out and checked upon these items, and they agreed that they weren't done. It isn't a matter simply of safety, as you're aware of, for the vehicular traffic and for animals running out on the road. Also, in this part of the community the sides of the road serve as the sidewalks for kids going to schools. With the vegetation and the way it was, it was a concern for safety in both of those sets of circumstances.

The understanding that I have from the research is that the penalty aspects for the work not being done would be inadequate, if my information is correct. The service contract would simply not provide for the bonuses being provided for the service contract for this work not being done. That's my question, if you remember it.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member bringing this forward. You know, a few years ago, as a result of the fiscal discipline we were imposing on all ministries — the member may recall — we had to eliminate virtually all mowing that was not directly safety-related. Boy, I'll tell you: it's incredible the amount of feedback you can get on one issue that is seemingly so small in an overall budget. This certainly would be one of those issues. As the situation improved and we re-tendered some of our maintenance contracts and were able to achieve some value, we reintroduced mowing.

Essentially, the way it works, member…. You didn't quite have it right there. Essentially, the way it works is that they get paid if they're mowing. This is for what we call non-essential mowing; it's not directly related to safety. If they're not doing the mowing, then they're not getting paid, as opposed to being penalized.

What I would suggest on the specifics of the case the member mentions…. If there is an example the member has, or even plural examples, where the member feels that there is a direct safety-related issue associated with a lack of mowing being done in a certain area, then I would very much encourage the member to bring it directly either to my attention or to the district staff, and we'll make sure we deal with that. On the whole range of issues we deal with in this ministry, the one thing I have very little tolerance for is anything that is going to have safety-related issues. We try to deal with those very aggressively.

C. Wyse: Simply for the record, we did it in the order of meeting with the local staff, corresponding with them, having written responses from your staff. I'm raising it here specifically because of the safety concerns. I apologize to the minister because I gave you the question first and then I gave you the story after. My question was: what would you be doing to ensure that the same situation doesn't occur next year? My apologies for having done it in the reverse order.

S. Fraser: Another issue in my constituency is north of Qualicum along the Island Highway. There's quite an increase of population. It's known as the Cochrane Road area. I know your ministry has received letters regarding the access from this growing community to the highway. There is quite a drive involved now. There are a few kind of back road routes available that I know are being looked at.

Of course, the main request that I get through my office is to access directly to the highway, some sort of a ramp potential there. I know that there's reluctance to interfere with highway flow by having more intersections along the highway, but there is a significant community developing there. If the minister could comment first on that — what he's aware of and where we're at with that.

Hon. K. Falcon: The Cochrane Road issue is really a fundamental issue, where they want a direct connection to the highway, and one of the things we are trying to avoid doing is providing additional connections onto the highway. In fact, when the Island Highway was built, there was an access agreement with the regional districts that, essentially, said we would minimize new accesses onto the highway, because we didn't want it to turn into what the old highway was like — where you had driveways and accesses all along the highway, which has a huge impact on mobility.

While they're not happy about hearing that answer again, that is the right answer, and we will continue to work with them so that they can work with their local road network to access the intersection, which is just down the road, as the member knows, so that they can access that successfully. Though I realize that it may not be the optimum answer they'd like to hear, it is consistent with the access agreement we have signed, as I say, with the regional districts to try to minimize repeated accesses onto the highway.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the answer, and I know that the issue is a difficult one. I appreciate the position you're taking.

The regional districts, of course, are being solicited in the same way my office is, so they're feeling the pressure, and there is an argument for improved access area — safety also. Certainly, there are school bus issues. There's a number of environmental issues. You have to drive a lot further.

The current alternative route, if you will — I don't know if you've seen it — is a pretty sketchy route, and

it does go through some private property. The access is not really full-time. I'm not sure which alternative you're referring to. I did a little bit of a tour there about a month ago — if you could help me with that.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's difficult for me and my staff, not having all the details here. I think the member probably appreciates that we can't make policy decisions on the fly. What I can say to the member is that we will, and our staff will, work with the developer and the regional district to try and resolve this. But again, it will be resolved on the basis that we are not going to provide additional direct accesses onto the highway.

The prior government invested over $1 billion on the Island Highway, and part of making that investment is ensuring that it works. The way we ensure that it works is to ensure that we do have the mobility we need on the highway and that we don't allow it…. You know, in the highway business, it's sort of the death by a thousand cuts — that everybody wants direct access onto the highway, but every time you provide a new access, you create enormous problems.

In fact, the member will be interested to know that in my own riding I come up against this. I'm up against this, actually, where I have people that are, if you can imagine, constituents of mine who owned farms, etc., that are losing their direct access as we widen Highway 10 and Highway 15 and can't understand why the Minister of Transportation, who's their MLA, won't fix this problem so that they can have that direct access. I use exactly the same arguments in my back yard that I'm now using with the member. I totally understand why folks would prefer that, but I hope the member will understand that there's a bigger picture we're serving to protect here.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the candid answer, and I do appreciate all the sides of this. It's very difficult. I lived in North Van for a while and Deep Cove with that highway issue there and the access, you know. You don't want to…. Your analogy is good — by a thousand cuts.

However, could the minister maybe elaborate, just to finish off, then, on how the ministry will be working with the regional district and developer to improve the access as is? Is there a budgeted amount for that? What role can the ministry play to make this work?

Hon. K. Falcon: Typically, what happens in a situation like this is that our district office will work with the developers involved. We typically require the developer to pay a good portion, if not all in some cases, of the road improvements that will be necessary to accommodate the development, of which, after all, they are the big beneficiaries. These are negotiation processes that we go through right across the province in multiple situations.

Obviously, I can't predict or even speculate on an outcome, but I do know that staff are very, very good at working with the various stakeholders to come up with a resolution. It may not be a resolution that makes everyone happy, but generally speaking, we tend to come up with resolutions that keep most people happy most of the time.

The Island Highway is important to a lot of people. I do get calls, and I support the naming of the highway, considering that it goes past Cumberland, the Ginger Goodwin highway, as has been suggested by a number of people. Maybe that can be considered in the future.

G. Gentner: I'm from Delta North. Probably, we're the centre of the universe, and it comes in trucks. I know that the minister earlier talked about his universe from a parochial perspective and that he lives in an area that's inundated with trucks, but I have to differ with that.

The minister stated that there are 10,000 trucks on the Port Mann today. He's also stated that there are four lanes, I believe. Well, I think that in 1999 a previous government turned it into five lanes. In Delta North we now have over 4,000 trucks a day on two lanes running through a residential area, so this issue is of a fair amount of importance to me and my constituents, when you take into consideration that the real Trans-Canada Highway between the Orient and Montreal runs through Delta. I have to put that on the record.

The minister mentioned that there is great congestion and no transit on the Port Mann, and it would be almost impossible to think that we could do it because of the congestion. However, there are some things called queue jumpers that work very effectively. I've been in the business of transit for 20 years, and they have been very effective. They're now being used on the Alex Fraser Bridge, enabling people to go from the airport in Vancouver to South Surrey.

To be more specific, I want to get back to the south Fraser perimeter road, which I believe could be in the order of $800 million. My understanding is that to date there has been $50 million spent on planning and land acquisition. My question to the minister is: how much money has been spent for land acquisition at this time?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a comment on the member's suggestion on queue jumpers. The member should know that actually, queue jumpers won't work on the existing Port Mann. The reason is that the feeder roads are so congested that queue jumpers are just not an option. In fact, TransLink knows this very well. That's why they haven't even bothered to try moving forward with that approach. You've got all the queue roads that are so congested on to the Port Mann. It just wouldn't make any sense nor have any effect. I just thought I'd point that out for the benefit of the member.

In terms of the land acquisition, it's probably about $25 million of the $50 million thus far in strategic land acquisition.

G. Gentner: If I have it correct, $25 million of the $50 million has now been spent on land acquisition. How much has been spent for acquisition of land in North Delta at this time?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have a specific figure for you. We have been acquiring some land around the Tilbury industrial park area. What I can tell the member that might be helpful to him is that the way we make decisions on strategic land purchases is that we try to acquire those pieces of land that are up for redevelopment and, were they allowed to continue with that development, the future cost of acquiring the lands would be substantially more. That's where….

I must tell the member that I often receive letters from folks up there that say: "Come by my house today, please. I've heard you're building this road, and we'd appreciate it if you could acquire this for us." That's not the way it works. The way it works is that when we see a property that is subject to redevelopment where there is going to be a future substantial increase in costs, then that's what we consider a strategic acquisition.

G. Gentner: Between the area of the so-called bubble zone, Mr. Minister…. The bubble zone is known as the area underneath the Alex Fraser Bridge to Elevator Road, a portion of which is of substantial environmental concern, of course, to the residents. What is the budget in the works, the costs we see in completion of that road?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member would probably appreciate that until we finalize the design work, etc., it's difficult to nail down a number. I think, hopefully for the assistance of the member, an approximation would probably be somewhere in the $100 million range, though I caution the member that that is just very much a high-level approximation, which won't be known until we do a lot further work.

The other thing I would mention: the member makes a good point about environmental sensibilities. When we enter into the environmental assessment process, which likely will be the spring of next year, one of the things that the environmental assessment process does do is identify what those environmental sensibilities are. It also helps bring forward some solutions to the environmental issues that are identified.

One thing I can tell that member with a great deal of confidence is that in this ministry, we bend over backwards when it comes to dealing with environmental impacts, to the point of where…. Admittedly, I have people laughing at me sometimes about the fact that we — on the Sea to Sky, for example — will build culverts for potential endangered frogs that we're not even sure exist there. But because there's even a risk they may be there, we will go through a huge amount of effort to ensure that we have the highest possible environmental standards in place.

G. Gentner: I thank the minister for giving us a base point relative to some costs here. If we know it's about $100 million, we know that it's either going to be a two-lane highway or a four-lane highway. Could the minister please comment.

G. Gentner: The question would be, therefore: are we looking at a terraced road on the escarpment along the riverfront, or are we looking at a four-lane continuous road structure?

Hon. K. Falcon: We have been involved in extensive discussions with the municipality and their staff, looking at the terraced escarpment option right above the railway tracks.

G. Gentner: I appreciate that answer. Therefore, the question that would have to be raised…. The ministry obviously has an idea of the impact. How many properties will be impacted here — resident?

Hon. K. Falcon: The challenge, member, is until we get through some of the environmental assessment work, the archaeological work and some of the design work, it's very difficult and, frankly, not helpful to speculate, except to say that there will be some impact. But at this point I couldn't tell the member with certainty until we get a lot of that work done.

G. Gentner: It's been mentioned we're looking at a $100 million expenditure between this area. How much of that $100 million will be going for the acquisition of property?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have that answer. It would be impossible to actually have that answer until, as I say, we're able to do some further work. That's what we're working on with the municipality, trying to actually get a lot of that work done. Once we have some of that design work done, once we get into the environmental assessment process and sort of understand what the environmental sensibilities are, we'll have a better idea of a number around that. Perhaps by estimates in the spring of next year we might be able to talk about that a bit more.

G. Gentner: The Delcan study started back way back, I believe, in 1992, so this has been on the shelf for some time, this project. We do know, through Mr. Proudfoot and his wonderful work through gateway, that there will be definitely some properties impacted — primarily, anywhere between 14 to 20 on the far westerly part of the North Delta escarpment along the Burlington spur. Can the minister tell me whether or not there has been some discussion in negotiations with property owners along that area of road?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't, nor will I, talk about any details of discussions. There have been some discus-

sions with some of the residents, but I think the member would well understand why I'm not going to get into any kind of details of those discussions.

G. Gentner: Fair enough. I understand negotiations are in camera; I appreciate that. But I'd like to know the criteria on which this negotiation is undertaken. Are we looking at fair market value? If so, how do we derive a fair market value? Is fair market value based on the value of the residence, or are we looking at some aesthetics — namely, that of vistas?

Hon. K. Falcon: We have a lot of experience around this area in our ministry. We always pay fair market value. There is a whole range of processes involved, which I rather doubt we have time to explore, but I can tell you that they include the use of independent appraisers and that the Expropriation Act provides lots of protection for folks who don't feel they're being dealt with fairly. There are appeal mechanisms for them to go through, etc.

Should the project be determined to go ahead, all of that, of course, would be in play.

I do want to make sure that this member knows…. The member is right when he talks about how this project has been talked about forever. It has. This government has actually moved forward, finally, from talking to actually getting and investing some very serious dollars in the gateway program to get to a point where we can demonstrate — to the federal government, in particular — that this is a project that is realistic and would solve a lot of the concerns the member has indicated, particularly with respect to the thousands of trucks a day that run along River Road, at great discomfort to the members of his constituency.

Of course, I think our investment in the work we're doing there will make this project real to the federal government and, hopefully, bring them to the table so that we will actually be able to announce that we are going to go ahead with this project. It'd relieve a lot of uncertainty in the communities, of people wondering, "Will it or won't it go ahead?" etc., and then, of course, we'll have that process to negotiate with all of the affected homeowners, should there be any.

G. Gentner: The minister seems to indicate to me that this project is uncertain now and that it's not going ahead. I'd need some assurance here from the minister that this is a go, that this has a green light and is going to happen.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I said before, and I'll say again, that this government will go ahead and this project will move ahead, in terms of beginning construction, when we get participation from the federal government. I will not go forward on projects and make an $800 million commitment without knowing that we've got partnerships. I've been clear on that from day one. If the member hasn't heard that, I'm sorry to hear it, but I have been very clear on that from the very beginning.

We've committed almost $300 million over the next three years to advance work on the gateway program. Different stages of the gateway program proceed at different paces of activity.

As the member knows, the Pitt River Bridge construction will be moving forward. That will be completed within a matter of years, but there is a lot more work we have to do on south Fraser perimeter road and on the twinning of the Port Mann, etc. We will move forward on the environmental assessment work and public consultation, but we do not make a commitment that the project is underway until such time as we have the funding in place. I am quite sure that the member would not want government to act otherwise.

G. Gentner: I understand the conundrum we have here with all the potpourri of different projects that are necessary. However, there are so many projects that have jumped the queue on this one — the Sea to Sky, the Pitt River Bridge, twinning the Port Mann, RAV, etc., etc. Yet the major corridor of goods movement from the Orient to the Atlantic through this country at this time is going through my neighbourhood.

You know, I have to ask the question again, when it comes back to the appraisal that's been done for residents, residents who are living in very uncertain times, that we will not only see fair market value…. These are residents overlooking the Fraser River, overlooking a beautiful Burns Bog, overlooking incredible architecture called the Alex Fraser Bridge. They have been grossly mistreated, in my estimation.

I want to return to this, because I need some assurance here, when we talk about fair market value, that we are talking about not only a comparison of a house in, let's say, Whalley versus a house along River Road. This is very important, prestigious property. I'm hopeful. I'm asking the minister if fair market value will take into consideration these people's vistas.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I say to the member: you know, we've been through this kind of thing in this ministry for decades and decades. I want to tell the member that whether a house happens to sit on the Fraser River or the house is located in Whalley, there is value to each of those homeowners, regardless of whether one has a view of the Fraser River or not. I can tell you we will be just as fair with a homeowner in Whalley as we will be with a homeowner that happens to sit on the Fraser River in Delta North.

I don't appreciate, frankly, the suggestion that houses in Whalley are somehow less valuable or not worth as much to the owners as the houses in Delta North. I am going to presume the member did not mean to say that, but that's exactly what he said. I'm going to assume that the member said that in error.

I will repeat what I said to the member, and there are only so many times I can repeat it. This will be my last time. We will pay fair market value for the properties, wherever they are located. There is a process in place to determine what fair market value is that in-

volves independent assessments and independent appraisers. If anyone has any objection to fair market value, there are entire processes available to them under the Expropriation Act.

G. Gentner: My question to the minister is this…. There are many residents in North Delta living in uncertain times. They've been waiting. They don't know when they should put a new roof on their house. They know this is coming. They don't know if they should put more money into a furnace. They're living on edge. My question to the hon. minister is this: when are we going to see the completion of this project through my community?

Hon. K. Falcon: Chair, I have to say that we're here to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation, and the line of questioning is becoming repetitive. I have answered this question on several occasions — about the need for federal funding with respect to this program before the program will go ahead.

Apparently, this member advocates a view that would not be unfamiliar, I suppose, because in government, that's what they would do: launch into projects without the proper financial commitments, without the proper business case, without the proper work being done. Our government doesn't operate that way. We won't be doing that.

I say to the member again that when we have a commitment of federal participation to help in the cost of this program, that's when this program will go ahead. In the meantime we will undertake the design work, the engineering work, the public consultation and the environmental assessment.

G. Gentner: Recently the federal government, through the Pacific gateway strategy, has announced $590 million to deal with this congestion — our problems here on the Pacific. How much of that $590 million, therefore, is going towards the completion of the south Fraser perimeter road?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is that we won't know that yet, because the federal government has created an advisory committee. We will have provincial participation on the Pacific gateway advisory committee. Their job is to identify and prioritize some of the potential investments that those dollars can go towards.

What I can say to the member is that of the $590 million that has been committed, the federal government did commit, I believe, $89 million towards the Pitt River Bridge. They did commit $30 million towards the issue of at-grade-level rail crossings, and they did commit $2 million — which I think is a very important, at least, sort of moral commitment — towards the environmental assessment work that will be undertaken on the south Fraser perimeter road. I imagine that they wanted to ensure that the announced Pacific gateway advisory committee will have the opportunity to look at projects like the south Fraser perimeter road and be able to make a determination as to whether that's the right place for them to drop some of the balance of the dollars available.

G. Gentner: I mean, $600 million is a lot of money. I'm relieved to know that we in North Delta received $2 million for environmental assessment.

How much did your ministry ask the federal government for, from this $600 million Pacific gateway strategy fund, for the south Fraser perimeter way?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's interesting, you know. I can tell this member that as Minister of Transportation there has been no one that I know of who has been advocating louder and longer and more vociferously for the south Fraser perimeter road and the gateway project.

I have been arguing for this program ever since I became Minister of Transportation. I have raised the profile of this program probably no more than only one other person, and that's the Premier of our province. I have advocated while I was on my trip to China with the federal Minister of Transport. I can tell you that I spent an enormous amount of time with the minister, with maps, identifying exactly what the south Fraser perimeter road was. We did that with their staff too, because — I think the member would probably understand — sometimes a lot of these folks from Ottawa don't have a really acute understanding of what the lower mainland is all about.

One of the things I worked very hard on, as did my deputy minister, was to go through a process of educating them as to how important the south Fraser perimeter road was, how it connected with so many of those important gateways — like the CN intermodal, like the Tilbury, like the Sunbury, like the Surrey-Fraser port, like the Deltaport — so that they could understand the larger picture of how important that was to the Pacific gateway strategy. I think as a result of that…. I can assure the member of this, because he asked the question directly. Have I asked him? I have asked him not once but repeatedly — that I need the federal government to come to the table on this project, that it's very important for this project. If it is to go ahead, the federal government has to come to the table financially.

I have pointed out very carefully to the federal government what the Canadian interest is in this. Canada's interest is, of course, the Pacific gateway, but also the Deltaport expansion. I reminded him that it would be absolutely unjustifiable, in my view, for the residents of Delta to allow that expansion to go ahead without the south Fraser perimeter road, because I think the increased volume of truck traffic would be untenable.

That's the position of this Minister of Transportation, that's the position of the province of British Columbia, and I think that's the position that resonated very much with the federal government. The short answer: I have asked for the dollars from day one. The member should know that.

I also believe that with the setting up of the federal advisory committee…. It is my hope and my belief that that committee will act expeditiously within, hopefully, a matter of months to take a look at a lot of the analysis that has already been done. We will certainly share with him from our ministry and with that advisory committee so that they are able to make quick decisions in terms of where to invest those dollars. I can say to this member that I feel a heightened sense of optimism that the south Fraser perimeter road will fulfil every category of analysis and meet every possible analysis in terms of being a priority project.

G. Gentner: We still don't know when the completion will be — 2010, 2020, 2030. We just don't know. It seems to be put on the back burner over and over again.

I do understand the need to educate people in Ottawa, as said by the minister here. When I see him, I will tell the hon. Minister Emerson that he needs a little education on what British Columbia needs here. I've talked to him many times, and our minister there is on top of British Columbia issues.

As our residents in North Delta wait for this major cross-goods road — I mean, the real trans-Canada highway from Deltaport to everywhere else in Canada…. My residents are losing their homes. We are looking at structural damages from the beating of trucks going by. Hon. Chair, you have to understand that it's the corporation of Delta that's paying, with assistance from TransLink. I'm asking the minister: are we going to see some compensation for residents who are undergoing structural damage in their homes because of this major corridor running through their neighbourhood?

Hon. K. Falcon: That would obviously be the responsibility of the corporation of Delta. I imagine the member is free to take that concern and the concerns of residents to them. You're talking to a Minister of Transportation who lives in a riding that has the busiest highway — one of the busiest in the province — leading to the fourth-busiest border crossing in the country, so I'm well aware of the movement of trucks. If there are structural concerns that some of those individuals have, I would encourage them to speak to the mayor and council in Delta.

G. Gentner: Yes, I will tell my residents that the major corridor for goods movement running through the neighbourhood is the responsibility of Delta. I do want to ask the minister: relative to the Deltaport railroad grade separations, how much of that money is actually going to be funnelled into helping North Delta? Is it just going out to somewhere out in the port?

Hon. K. Falcon: The federal government is part of the announcement on the Pacific gateway, the $590 million. There was a provision for $30 million for grade separation on certain rail lines. We don't know where those will go. I can tell you that we will work with the federal government and provide information to the federal government in terms of trying to identify — because some work will have to be done — which locations would derive the maximum benefit in terms of the province and in terms of the movement of goods and traffic, etc. That's work that will be ongoing, and we will cooperate with the federal government to identify where those locations are. At this point I couldn't tell the member. I guess I just couldn't prejudge where those decisions will lead.

G. Gentner: I presume these improvements will be somewhere out in the spit, by Roberts Bank. I have to ask the question: with the grade separations to the rail, what's going to be the added value to the downsized B.C. Rail assets?

Hon. K. Falcon: Candidly, I have no idea what that question meant. I'm not even sure what relationship it has to my estimates, member, to be honest. Maybe you could rephrase the question and ask it, and I can try and understand what relationship it has to the estimates that we're undergoing right now.

The Chair: Member, the estimates we're dealing with are under Vote 40, dealing with the Ministry of Transportation. I would ask if we would stay on track dealing with the estimates.

G. Gentner: Yes, hon. Chair. The question is…. This money, the new-found money from the feds into grade separation out there in south Delta — namely, the Deltaport — is going to increase the values and assets of the B.C. Rail spur line.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said to the member before and I will repeat again, the member is presupposing he apparently knows where the dollars are going. I'm fascinated by that, because I was clear on the fact that we actually don't know where those dollars are going — that we have to engage in some work with the federal government and do the kind of homework that would actually make determinations about where that $30 million would best be placed. We haven't done that work. Until we do that work, the member is engaging in speculation, and I won't engage in it with him.

G. Gentner: My understanding is that the south Fraser perimeter road consultative process is about to begin in February. Could the minister explain to me — there is money being spent towards that — what type of consultation with the residents that will include?

Hon. K. Falcon: The public consultation will involve meetings with stakeholder groups, with community groups. It will involve open houses. We will have, as we always do, our website available for folks to make comments directly on the website. There will be an opportunity for individuals to send in written submissions. Virtually every aspect of public consultative process will be employed, as we always do.

G. Gentner: I'm going to try and re-go here. The consultative process — are we talking about an information process? Are we going to have a real dialogue with the community, with questions in a town hall–like setting so residents can get some answers?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, of course we will. In fact, I would refer the member to the southern part of the Delta riding, where we've been undertaking open houses and public consultations with — the last time I checked — well over 1,600 people in attendance, with very widespread participation, great feedback. Really, a very strong consensus emerged as a result of that. It will be no different in the north, nor will it be different anywhere else in the province where we undertake public consultations.

G. Gentner: There's been great discussion relative to access in North Delta to the new — as you called it — tiered road, terraced road along the riverfront. Do we know at this time…? I know that the ministry has proposed Terrace and Brook roads as options. Can you tell this forum, hon. minister, where that access will occur?

Hon. K. Falcon: At this point, I'm led to understand that the municipality of Delta does not wish us to provide access. If that's the position of the municipality, that's likely to be the position of the province.

G. Gentner: I'm quite pleased to hear that statement. Going back to the southern portion of the south Fraser perimeter way, what option is this ministry looking at? Is it seriously going to consider the corporation of Delta's proposal to upgrade Highway 17, or is the ministry seriously — which I believe it is — going to go ahead with the east Ladner bypass?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member knows, we are examining all the options that are available, including the municipality of Delta's option. The member may be interested to know that at the public consultations, I believe it was 87 percent or 78 percent…. We'll get the figure for you. It was a very high percentage of the residents of Delta who did not support the option.

Hon. K. Falcon: So 78.5 percent did not support the option that the municipality of Delta was preferring. They supported the other bypass option. Again, we continue to do our work and to study all those options. At the appropriate time we'll make a decision about what the correct route option is. As I say, the turnout from the community was quite impressive and very strong in terms of their sense.

One of the things we find with these projects is that a lot of people come with preconceived notions, until they start to look at all the facts and see what everything would look like and what the impacts would be in their neighbourhoods, etc., etc. I think that's exactly what happened on the Delta South portion of the public consultative process. No final decision has been made yet, but certainly, some very, very good feedback has been entertained.

G. Gentner: Would the minister not agree that the ministry's preferred option is the bypass?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as I said to the member, we have yet to make a final decision. I will be candid in telling the member that there was tremendously strong public support for that option. There are very strong engineering and traffic evaluations that were done that certainly lend support to that option. But you know, we have to look at the other options too, because there are always pluses and minuses in every potential option. We need to study all those very, very carefully before we arrive at a final decision. We haven't yet arrived at that point.

G. Gentner: Interesting predicament we have here. Some numbers suggest the residents are 78 percent in support of a new freeway running through farmland, which is opposed to what the elected Delta council suggests. This is not speculation. Delta council is on record preferring the present status quo and upgrading Highway 17. If Delta council is steadfast in that position, can the minister tell this side whether or not his ministry is willing to invoke Bill 75?

I'm just fascinated by this line of thought by this member. I'm curious to know from the member whether he feels that listening to public participation is something that's important or not. I rather gather that it is. I would think the district of Delta would feel the same way.

Again, we haven't made a final decision. We will work with all the stakeholders. I have a very good relationship with the mayor of Delta. I meet with Mayor Jackson on a regular basis. We talk about the issues of mutual concern for both the province and the municipality.

I have no doubt that ultimately, however the decision is made, we will all recognize and agree that the process we went about to reach a decision was a fair

process. It was a process that was open to everybody, and every stakeholder had their say.

At the end of the day…. This member's going to perhaps learn this over his time in government. Every time you make a decision, there will be some that applaud the decision and some that criticize the decision. That's life in government, and that's life in politics.

The rules I always guide myself by are that I want to make sure the decision is made on the basis of facts, that we all agree that they're facts and that the facts guide us in making the right decision based on all of the elements we typically think about in terms of safety, mobility, traffic volume, economic development. That's what we've done in the past, that's what we'll do today, and that's what we'll do in the future.

G. Gentner: I gather from the minister's comments that under no circumstances will Bill 75 be invoked upon any stretch of a new highway system in Delta.

G. Gentner: I thank you for that. I see he is now doubtful of that statement, and he's proposing to use that, possibly. Let me ask him again: if Delta does not agree with your proposal, are you willing to invoke Bill 75?

Hon. K. Falcon: I must say I'm enjoying this. Though it has nothing to do with my estimates, I'm enjoying the opportunity to engage in this far-reaching debate. But as I said to the member before, no, there is no intention of using Bill 75, no requirement to use Bill 75, no need to use Bill 75. We are working through a process with great cooperation from all the stakeholders, including the municipality of Delta, and this member is obsessed with the idea that there is a controversy here where none exists.

What we're doing is working through a process to actually do something this member is on record as saying should have been done a long time ago. That's exactly what we're doing. We're actually trying to deal with something that should have been done a long time ago. Your government, this member's party, was in power for ten years and had every opportunity to move forward with this project if it was that important. Nothing happened.

So here we are. We've been in power now since elected in May of 2001. We are moving forward with major financial commitment. We have just heard the announcement of the federal government saying that they're contributing $590 million to the Pacific gateway program. That is a huge commitment. We will move forward on this project just as fast as we can responsibly move forward, subject to making sure we cut no corners in terms of environmental assessment work and the public consultative process. I'm very happy with how that process is unfolding, and there is not a possibility that I could even envision that we would need to use Bill 75 with my good friend the mayor of Delta, or whoever the mayor or council may be after November.

We will work forward in a cooperative way, as we always do. We may disagree on aspects of parts of the decisions, or whatever. That's not uncommon. I run into these disagreements with communities all the time. West Vancouver comes to mind. But I think that one thing we will always do is make our decision on a very solid foundation of facts coupled with public input, and I'm comfortable with that.

G. Gentner: The sands of time are running by very quickly. If the minister cannot answer this question, it's not because he doesn't know. It could be because it's shared by another ministry. Relative to RAVCO…. First of all, my interest here is with the money that's been loaned from the B.C. Investment Management Corp. What role did the minister play in asking the investment corporation to assist in this project?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member will be pleased to know I played absolutely no role. The member is referring to a pension fund. The member should know that pension funds regularly invest in major transportation projects. In fact, the member should know that many of these funds that invest in these kinds of P3 opportunities are union pension funds, because there is an opportunity for them to achieve a stable, secure rate of return. I understand that the Caisse de dépôt out of Quebec is also investing dollars in that. That's a decision that they make independently.

I have absolutely no role to play in that. The British Columbia Investment Management Corp. provides the fund management services. They're totally independent of government. I've never had a conversation with them. I can't even foresee a circumstance where I would ever have a conversation with them. I'm pleased to see they're making a decision that will ultimately benefit not only British Columbia but also many of their unionized pension members who will benefit from the very thoughtful strategic investments they're making.

G. Gentner: I want to briefly go…. One of my critic roles is Crown corps, and there is one that has been very quickly put to rest. Of course, that's B.C. Rail. I want to ask about disposition of assets relative, in particular, to my riding or outside of my riding that of the B.C. Rail Properties Ltd. — in particular, that of the B.C. Port Subdivision lands in south Delta. Can the minister tell me, or tell this side, when he's going to complete this transaction or disposition of that asset?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's a very good question. The Port Subdivision disposition is tied into our B.C. port strategy. As you know, the Premier announced a B.C. port strategy for British Columbia. As a result of that announcement, we are doing some work on the bigger picture of our ports and what we need to do to energize and create opportunities in our ports, particu-

larly with the growth of container traffic — 300 percent over the next 20 years — coming out of Asia.

The short answer is that in the short term no decisions will be made there because it is part of a broader discussion we're having with regards to our overall port strategy. But I can say to the member that should the decision be made to engage in disposition, the number-one issue for this Transportation Minister will be to ensure that the very important principle of fair, equal and open access to each of the three railroads — BNSF, CN and CP — is maintained.

G. Gentner: My understanding was that originally the port subdivision properties were to be sold and completed by December 31, '05. Now it's been put back for the short term to '07. My question to the minister is: has that sale been cancelled, or has that sale been postponed?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's exactly as I said. We postponed it because we are working on a B.C. port strategy, and we want to ensure that the decisions we make are informed by the broader work we are doing with regard to the strategy to ensure that we capitalize on the great prospects we have in British Columbia to become not just in name only but a true gateway to North America for Asia. So our decision will be informed and guided by some of the broader work we're doing with the B.C. port strategy, and that is why that disposition date has been moved — so we are able to do this work on the port strategy, which will inform us on some of the other decisions we'll make with regard to strategic acquisitions. Or excuse me — the dispositions. Is it night time again, Mr. Chair? No, it's not.

G. Gentner: Interesting retort. It certainly didn't stop the sale of B.C. Rail in general when there was some port development to occur on the North Shore, where some properties are still held by the province. Can the minister give us any indication whether or not this postponement has anything to do with an impending lawsuit?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, I don't know what the member is talking about there. I have told the member exactly what it has to do with. It has to do with the broader work that we're doing on the B.C. port strategy. That's what's guided that decision. It's the only thing that's guided that decision.

G. Gentner: No lawsuit relative to inside trading has anything in bearing to the fact that this whole venture has been postponed?

The Chair: Minister, before you answer that, I wonder if you could introduce your new staff member.

Hon. K. Falcon: Because a couple of questions here started up on B.C. Rail, Kevin Mahoney from B.C. Rail has joined us, Mr. Chair.

Hon. K. Falcon: I haven't got a clue what insider trading lawsuit the member is referring to. Perhaps the member could inform us as to what this lawsuit is. I've never heard of it.

G. Gentner: I'm going to leave that one alone, because it is obviously a sensitive part for this government. We will return to it another day, probably sometime early next spring.

I have one last question as to the transportation process. The revised mandate of BCR was supposed to be ready. I'm wondering when. According to the service plan, the minister was to give a clear direction to BCR regarding its new mandate. When will it receive it?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would encourage the member to actually go to the service plan of BCR. He will find all the information he would like there. The only thing that's changed is what we just discussed, which is the disposition of the assets that the member opposite mentioned. I already gave the rationale for that, which is because we have a broader B.C. port strategy that we're working on. Until we complete that work…. That will better inform us as to how to move forward with the disposition issue.

G. Gentner: Thank you for your time. Just a question of information. The next estimates I deal with will not be your ministry. It's relative to Partnerships B.C. That is, of course, the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road up in the northeast, a resource road. Would the Minister of Energy and Mines be of some benefit if I were to take it to his estimates?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. He's the lead minister on the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan, which is the award-winning P3 undertaken for the benefit of the oil and gas sector. I would encourage the member, if he could, to relay that question through to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

N. Macdonald: To the minister: first, thank you to you and your staff for the opportunity to ask some questions. It'll be very quick. It's around the Trans-Canada Highway.

First, as I said in the Legislature, and I'll repeat again, the Kicking Horse project is very much appreciated and very positive. We look forward to the continuing involvement there and the continuing work. As I also said in the Legislature, I don't think I need to make the case to you around the economic or safety shortcomings of the existing Trans-Canada Highway. I know that other members of your caucus…. For a long time you would have been made aware of the shortcomings of the road.

The question I have is just one simple one. What sort of plans do you have to address the shortcomings of the Trans-Canada? I'm thinking here of from where the Coquihalla leaves off all the way to the border?

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to thank the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke for his kind comments on the Kicking Horse. As the member probably knows, the reason that project went ahead was because the Premier travelled to Ottawa and made it clear to the federal government that this was the single most important priority for British Columbia in terms of transportation. It wasn't the Sea to Sky. It wasn't the gateway project. It wasn't all the other things we had. It was actually the Kicking Horse Canyon.

The member probably knows that if you are the federal government — and it looks at potential projects where it gets a benefit — the Kicking Horse Canyon would be very low on the list in terms of the raw politics of making that assessment. So I appreciate the member saying that, because it is a very important goods-movement corridor, as the member well knows, and it is very important from a safety point of view.

I would just note in passing that every time I'm up there, I always have the pleasure of meeting with the former Minister of Transportation, now the mayor of Golden, Mr. Dan Doyle — or sorry; Jim Doyle.

Hon. K. Falcon: There's a slip of the tongue, yeah. I'm sorry, Dan Doyle, wherever you are. I think he's in Australia right now.

The Trans-Canada Highway. I appreciate the member raising this issue. I met with a number of mayors from communities up and down the Trans-Canada, as the member probably knows, spearheaded by the mayor of Revelstoke. The mayors were really looking for a joint federal-provincial commitment to invest in a long-term upgrading of the Trans-Canada Highway right from Kamloops to the Alberta border.

I note that the member for Kamloops is also present, and no doubt he will share this as being a very important priority, particularly with respect to portions of the Trans-Canada through the member's riding. Hoffman's bluff comes to mind.

One of the things we have done is that I have written to the federal Minister of Transport and said that British Columbia is prepared to enter into a long-term, ten-year — because we know this isn't going to be fixed overnight — financing commitment on the Trans-Canada Highway if the federal government will join with us. That was the request that came out of the communities, and that is the request we put forward to the federal government.

I will say in the absolute most honest candour to the member that I do not hold out high hopes for the government committing to that. The reason is that they get the same request right across the rest of country. I always sort of visualize myself sitting in the federal government position. It's like me in my position, with the municipalities all having their priorities. I think that what is likely to happen….

There is a group that is also lobbying for highway improvements across the country, for the federal government to make long-term financial commitments to the highway system. They point out that there is $6 billion worth of gas tax that they pull out of the provinces, and they put back about $450 million. I believe it's the figure that they use. I don't vouch for those figures. One of the essential points they make is that they want the federal government to commit on a long-term basis to investment in the national highway system, and I can tell this member that that is something I agree with.

I think it would be very helpful if, instead of on an annualized basis just sort of dolloping out bits and pieces here, the federal government did make a long-term commitment. That would tie in beautifully with the way our province handles highways, in that we set out a ten-year plan, and we have three-year service plans where we roll out funding on a sustained basis to provide some certainty and commitment.

I'm sorry, member, because I'm probably giving you a very long-winded answer, but I thought it was a very important question. I appreciate the member raising that. I hope we can work together to try and get the federal government to make that kind of long-term commitment, because we can't do it all on our own.

We very much appreciate the federal government participation, by the way, on Kicking Horse Canyon. I shouldn't let this opportunity pass to say that there are areas like the Kicking Horse where we have got federal participation that is absolutely instrumental in allowing us to move forward. Hopefully, they will continue that commitment on the balance of the Trans-Canada.

N. Macdonald: I'm happy with everything that's been said there. The federal component is very important in working with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and that mayors group. I think the approach they've put forward is really reasonable. I'm glad that you see it the same way. It has always been politically difficult to bring the federal government in — as you say, for them to see the payoff for it politically. But it is important.

I think that spreading it over ten years is a reasonable approach, so I'm happy to hear that. Certainly, anything that can be done to move that forward in a bipartisan way I would be very pleased to participate in. Thank you for your answer.

H. Lali: I just want to point out to the hon. minister opposite that there was a young fellow who became minister in the late 1990s who sat where the minister is sitting now. Now that that young fellow is an old fellow, he is in opposition on this side. I'm glad to see that the Premier has seen the wisdom of putting another young fellow in that seat over there.

Having said that, I recognize staff sitting beside you and behind you. I must say that in the three years that I had the honour and pleasure of being the Minister of Transportation and Highways, these folks sitting beside you and behind you did an excellent job. I'm sure they're continuing to do that. I want to pay my respects to the public service and the job that they do.

H. Lali: Of course. Oh yes. How could I forget? My former ministerial assistant is now an MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin. So it is good to see everybody again.

I just want to finally give some credit to the federal government, who are actually coming on board by providing some dollars for our national highway system. Kicking Horse Pass was mentioned by the minister. The minister will recall that when I was minister at that time, British Columbia wrote a paper to get some of the gas tax moneys channelled towards the national highway system in the late 1990s. We presented the paper to all of the transport ministers across Canada at our quarterly meetings. I'm happy to see that some of the money is actually beginning to flow back to British Columbia. The federal government had been taking at that time, I think, $780 million per year in gas taxes. I think there was a three-year period where we averaged less than $6 million a year back.

If we're getting some money back, it's a good thing. After taking billions and billions of dollars out of the system, the feds are finally coughing up to the idea that they have to start coughing up some money to take care of their share of the responsibility for the Kicking Horse Pass and other areas. The south Fraser perimeter road, for instance, is another one of those where the feds have to come to the table and put up some moneys, because the blame can't entirely be put…. Not the blame; that's not the right word. The responsibility can't all be given to the municipality of Delta, because it's not all municipal traffic that uses the south Fraser perimeter road. There is provincial traffic, and there is also national traffic. The province of British Columbia and the federal government both, in addition to Delta, have a responsibility for doing something with that.

I want to ask a question. It's more regional based. During the '90s — and I imagine this is still how things are done; perhaps the minister can enlighten me — there was a formula worked out in terms of how the funding was worked on a regional basis for capital and capital rehab programs. You had population on the one side. You had the amount of infrastructure in the way of lane-kilometres and bridges that were also in a particular region. The funding was usually somewhere in between the two. The odd time it might be skewed, as we had done that in the north, because in the north the economy was lagging.

I would like the minister to explain how capital and capital rehab funds are allocated on a regional basis, if that same formula is still used.

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I want to thank the member and former Minister of Transportation for his kind comments, especially his recognition of the fact that this ministry does seem to have, as I know he would appreciate…. We just seem to have some of the best staff in probably the entire civil service. They just happen to gravitate to the Ministry of Transportation — at least, that's my selfish view of the world. I'm sure the member probably experienced the same kind of feeling while he was minister.

I must point out that the only thing that concerns me about this member is that he refers to himself in the past tense as being young. I still look at this member as young but am bothered by the fact that he appears to be a slightly better dresser than I am, and this causes me great angst. However, I'm learning to deal with it.

I want to thank the member for that question. The formula hasn't changed much in terms of the rehabilitation portion of the budget. It's still based on the same criteria that the member will recall — needs criteria that are, essentially, made up of traffic volume in lane-kilometres. Those are the two key ingredients of determining the needs.

It has been supplemented by the heartlands program, which was dedicated to ensuring that we invest more resources in rural British Columbia. I must tell the member that I've always been very proud of the fact that over the last few years — I'm going to use approximate numbers — of the approximately $2 billion-plus that have been invested in the road network in British Columbia, over 80 percent of that is outside of the lower mainland. That was in recognition of the fact that a disproportionate amount of wealth…. It's always news to the folks in the lower mainland, but still, I think the latest figure I've looked at is that two-thirds of the wealth of the province is still generated outside the lower mainland. I think it is too easy for many of us to forget that fact. So we have tried to redirect resources back into rural British Columbia in recognition of the contribution they make to the province.

In addition to rehabilitation dollars, they're supplemented by the heartland dollars , which is dedicated funding directly for rural British Columbia, and also the HOGRRS program, which is the heartlands oil and gas resource road project funding we have that is specifically directed into northeastern British Columbia to maximize the potential returns from the oil and gas sector. That program has also been successful in terms of achieving the kind of economic return for the benefit of all British Columbians that we had hoped it would.

H. Lali: Thank you for that response. Because of limitations of time, I'm going to save a lot of my questions for the spring, when we have a little more time and I, also, have a little more time to be prepared. As you know, having been re-elected, it takes quite a bit of time to set up offices and stuff like that. So I'm not going to ask for any kind of specific figures or anything

like that in terms of the region-by-region breakdown. Perhaps that could be done at a later time.

When the NDP was in office for the second term in the late '90s and I had the good fortune to become minister at the time, we more than doubled our capital and capital rehab budget over an average of the previous three or four years. One of our emphases, obviously, was the northern roads initiative, where we had, actually, more than doubled the investment in that area.

There was also another avenue we put in place, which was a five-year, $102 million fund specifically for the northeast sector in order to improve the roads for the oil and gas sector there. I was wondering if the minister could tell me, generally, the level of capital and capital rehab projects that went into the area traditionally described as the area north of Hope — if, in the last four years, those funding levels kept up to the levels of the last three years of the New Democrat mandate.

Hon. K. Falcon: The program that the member describes sounds very similar to what we're doing with what we call the HOGRRS program. Forgive me for the acronym, but I think the member probably recognizes it's the heartlands oil and gas road rehabilitation strategy.

We are averaging about $24 million a year on the HOGRRS program, to use rough numbers. That is a very safe figure to use. In addition to that, of course, we have the $75 million a year in the heartlands road program, dedicated exclusively to heartlands, and about $146 million a year on the road rehabilitation side.

H. Lali: By just a quick calculation in my head, it seems that the investment for rural British Columbia has dropped significantly from the years in the late 1990s when we made a conscious effort to actually increase the funding for those areas. Again, like I said, I'll have more to say about some of it when I have a chance to sit down with a calculator and start crunching away at some of these numbers.

I wanted to ask the minister if he could tell me, in terms of corridor management plans…. Again, in the late '90s we instituted, at that time, plans for capital and rehab projects and tried to do it on a corridor basis to see if we couldn't actually either create circle routes or look at entire highway systems — for instance, the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 97C, Highway 5, Highway 3 — you know, the major highway corridors. I would like to ask the minister: what sort of planning is done on a corridor basis in the ministry today?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member will no doubt understand that I have to take him up a little bit on his comment before he asked the question, about the amount of investment.

We appreciate that finally, in the late '90s, the government saw the importance of the highway system and did invest some additional dollars. That's true, but I don't want to leave the member with the misunderstanding that it's dropped since then. It is up, no question, and I'll be happy to provide all the numbers to the member to confirm that fact. That's something that, frankly, we all should be happy about — the fact that that spending continues to go up. One of the things that the members will hear from rural B.C. when they speak to their communities and their mayors and councils is that there probably hasn't been a time where communities are as happy with this ministry and this government's road program as they are today. That's certainly the overwhelming message that I've heard at the last two UBCMs, at which I've met with most of the mayors and councils.

In terms of corridor management plans, we are continuing with corridor management plans. We've expanded them to include Highways 16 and 97. There may be others, to be honest. I can probably get you a list. I just don't recall off the top of my head what those are.

In terms of the circle routes — I appreciate the member raising that — the member knows that we've established nine circle routes in British Columbia.

Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who understands how important those are.

We've included, in this budget, $700,000 to promote these themed circle routes and to ensure that the travelling public becomes more aware of them and the opportunities that these routes provide — to ensure that the travelling public, particularly vacationers, gets an opportunity to see every part of this great province.

H. Lali: I guess I want to congratulate the minister and this past government again for continuing with this whole idea of circle routes, which this hon. member, when he was minister, started back in the late 1990s.

Again, what I'm hearing from people is completely opposite from what the minister is hearing, in terms of how much investment for capital and capital rehab is taking place in rural British Columbia. I'm also hearing and seeing differences from the results that were there in the late 1990s compared to what is actually happening on the ground level there, on the road level, when you compare the two.

Certainly, the quality…. This is, again, no black mark against the reputations of any of the folks who work for the Ministry of Transportation itself. But it is a reflection on the government. They just haven't paid the kind of attention that needed to be paid, because for some reason…. I think, obviously, that they have been putting a lot more investment into the lower mainland and the Sea to Sky Highway than they have been, actually, in rural British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, in the late '90s the biggest complaint the ministry used to get — I remember even mayors and councils of towns used to get that, as well, from folks who were travelling the province — was: "There's too much construction going on. There are too

many delays. Why can't they do the construction at night or some other time?" My experience, and the experience of the people who talked to me, is totally different from that of the minister. I know it's his job to defend the government and their plan, but the reality on the road is that there's less investment taking place now than there was in the late 1990s.

The case in point I want to talk about…. I'd like to ask the minister what the plan is for the rehabilitation of the three phases of the Coquihalla highway system.

Hon. K. Falcon: In terms of the Coquihalla Highway, obviously, that rehabilitation is just an ongoing effort, as the minister would know from his years of being Minister of Transportation.

One thing I can tell the member that might be helpful is we now measure pavement conditions. This is something we started doing. It's a very scientific way of determining the quality and condition of the pavement, not only on our major roads but also on side roads. I can tell the member I'm pleased to say that the percentage of highways in good or very good condition, including the side roads, has increased each and every year over the last three years.

The final thing I would say to the member that I'm sure the member is very happy about…. In spite of that member's win, he'll be pleased to know that third phase of the Okanagan connector — the four-laning from Courtney to Garcia — is underway, as that member knows, and we'll complete the four-laning, which I know that that member wanted to see.

H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I'm beginning to wonder if somebody has leaked one of my documents to the minister opposite because he keeps answering a question that I'm going to ask later.

Again, I want to thank the minister and the ministry for completing that section of Aspen Grove to Garcia Lake, the seven kilometres that were remaining — four-laning that. I know Radio NL's Angelo Iacobucci likes to call it Lali's loop, and then you've got the mayor calling it the Lali's alley. But anyway, they can call it whatever they want. As long as they've got my name attached to it, that's fine.

I asked the question specifically about the Coquihalla system. When I left office in February 2001, at that time there was a document that had come forward from the ministry that we needed to have an investment over a three-year period of $42 million to put two-inch overlay on all three phases of the Coquihalla Highway system, because they had been patched, repatched, seal-coated, hot-in-place remixed. All sorts of things had been done over the system so that it was now time to completely rehab, with the two-inch overlay, all three phases of the Coquihalla Highway.

Now, obviously, I live in Merritt, and I drive all three phases, and I haven't seen that happen. Yes, I have seen some work that has taken place, but I haven't seen the complete overhaul of the Coquihalla highway system. My question to the minister is: when is this going to happen, and how quickly can the residents of the Thompson-Okanagan expect that investment to come forward?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not aware of the document that the member refers to. I was chuckling to myself thinking, gee, that sounds awfully a lot like a document the roadbuilders would be suggesting. But I could be wrong on that.

One thing I can tell the member is that…. I drive that road all the time too. I actually have a family member that lives just up past Merritt, in Lac Le Jeune, so I drive that road on a very regular basis. I can tell the member that we're very satisfied. That road's in very good condition, both in terms of driveability and in terms of safety, and we continue to make improvements to that road on an ongoing basis — rehabilitating that road.

As recently as just a number of weeks ago I was driving that road, and again — I always think about these things when I'm driving them — I was very impressed with the quality of the road. Frankly, I don't see any scenario in which it would require an overlay from end to end. I think that would be an enormous misuse of dollars and not at all necessary, given the very good condition that that road is in.

I've been chugging a fair bit of water here. I wonder if I could have just a few-minute recess, with the forbearance of my members opposite.

H. Lali: Perhaps some of the BCTFA archives would still be available for the ministry. The minister may want to have staff look through some of that documentation, because that had come forward as a memo when I was minister, that an investment was needed for $42 million — roughly $40 million, give or take a couple of million dollars — over a period of three to four years because each phase of the Coquihalla was built two years after the other.

Phase one would have been dealt with first, which is Hope to Merritt. The second phase was Merritt to Kamloops. Obviously, it would be two years later. Then two years after that would be the Okanagan connector. I would just recommend that maybe the minister might have staff look for those documents in the BCTFA.

I want to talk for a few minutes about the constituency of Yale-Lillooet, where I'm from. Yale-Lillooet has always had the highest amount of road kilometres of any constituency, and the same thing with the number of bridges. Practically every major highway goes through Yale-Lillooet: Highway 97C, the Yellowhead

Highway, the Coquihalla Highway, as well as the Trans-Canada and the Hope-Princeton Highway 3 all the way to the Crowsnest Pass. We've got a lot of investment that the ministry has historically made. I was wondering if the minister might provide some numbers of capital and rehab dollar figures over the last four years.

Hon. K. Falcon: We don't have those figures at our fingertips. If the member likes, I can pull together those figures and get them to him.

I was wondering if the minister could tell me what plan the minister may have for the Coquihalla Highway system for the future. We talked about the past and what may or may not have happened to the $40 million question, but I'm talking specifically about what sort of plans are in order for the ministry for the three phases of the Coquihalla Highway and perhaps some other areas of Yale-Lillooet, as well, in the way of roads and bridges.

Hon. K. Falcon: There's an enormous amount of things going on in the area that's encompassed by Yale-Lillooet, the member's riding, and I'll just give a few highlights. Obviously, we'll continue with completion of the Okanagan Lake connector to four lanes, which will then finally make the entire Coquihalla Highway an uninterrupted four-lane system. We'll be doing more rehabilitation work, of course, on the road network, certainly on the Coquihalla, much in line with what we've discussed. We have rehabilitated many of the bridge decks along the Coquihalla. The member has probably seen that happening. We'll continue to do that as the situation arrives. Our common goal is just to make sure we keep the Coquihalla Highway and that corridor in very good and driveable condition.

We're also doing some fairly major rehabilitation work on Highway 99, east of Lillooet to Highway 97. As the member probably knows, we've got a plan over the next five or six years to replace the single-lane bridges on Duffey Lake Road to two-lane bridges so that we can improve the ability to flow traffic there in preparation for the 2010 Olympics, in the hope that we will see some more people travelling from Whistler through other great parts of this province.

H. Lali: I've just got a couple of comments on this aspect of the roads and bridges here, before I move on to the next question. I don't specifically need an answer from the minister, but I'm just going to make the comments for the record, so that the minister is aware.

Obviously, on the Hope-Princeton Highway the winter conditions can get pretty rough. Some road resurfacing needs to be done there. I think there's been a fair bit of seal-coating and also hot in-place that has been done over a number of years. There's been some overlay that has been done as well. That's an area of concern for residents in the area.

As well, the road between Merritt and Princeton took quite a beating over the winter, with a lot of frost heaves. The road got broken up quite a bit. I know there's some patchwork that has been done there. There's also been some pavement work that has been done, but that's another road that historically has required some investment to keep up, obviously, because of the number of logging trucks that use that particular highway.

I very much appreciate the minister's comment that the Duffey Lake Road and also Highway 99 are going to see some attention, because those were also areas that required some investment. I would also point out that with the Olympics the idea is to create a circle route from Whistler through Pemberton and through the Duffey to Lillooet. Of course, you have the Trans-Canada that comes out through the Port Mann Bridge, Hope, up to Lytton.

Then that area between Lytton and Lillooet, Highway 12, is an area of big concern. There's the Texas Creek slide, with a lot of rocks that fall there. If we're going to get a lot of tourists, a lot of folks coming in and using that corridor, then I think that circle route needs to be completed. So I would ask the minister to have some attention paid there.

I have a question. I just want to turn to a taxi review which was done in the late '90s, the Stan Lanyon report. There were 56 recommendations in the Stan Lanyon report. I was wondering if the minister can update me and let me know how many of those recommendations were acted upon.

I have to apologize, because we don't have the policy person with us that we would rely on to deal with that question. I wasn't aware that there would be a question coming on that. It's not your fault. It's just the case that it wasn't anticipated.

What I can tell the member with respect to the taxi industry is that we have left the taxi industry virtually untouched in terms of the regulatory model that currently governs it — the economic regulatory model that has governed the taxi industry for many, many years.

One of the things that we heard when we were going through a review of what was formerly the Motor Carrier Commission, now the passenger transportation branch…. What we heard loud and clear from the existing taxi owners, many of whom I know, as I'm sure the member does…. The message coming from them was essentially the message: "Leave it alone. Don't deregulate or make changes to this system." Even though I would probe sometimes and say, "Are you sure you're happy with the existing model, because it's got some real challenges," on balance, they would say to me: "Well, you know, there are some things that maybe we could do." But as that member knows, you make one change here, and it pleases somebody here, but it upsets somebody over there. The overwhelming con-

In reference to the Stan Lanyon report, I must apologize, member. I don't have that report, nor do I have the person that could give me clarification on it.

One of the questions I would have asked if the individuals were here — and perhaps that information can be supplied later…. Recommendation three in the report was: "We recommend that there be an automatic review of taxi fares every two years." I just want to know if that is being done.

Recommendation 13 was: "We recommend that there be a single regulatory authority for the licensing and regulation of the taxi industry. We further recommend that the structure of the Motor Carrier Commission be changed to include a taxi division charged with licensing and regulation as well as policy and planning." Basically, the industry was asking for a one-stop shop. I just want to know if that has been done as well. I don't need to know that right now, but for your records so that your staff can provide that information later.

This is basically my final question. The hon. critic is going to take over after that. My final question is that there is a TaxiHost program that is in place. Obviously, the Lanyon report had recommended that it be adjusted somewhat and added onto. What's happened is that there is now a requirement for a TaxiHost 2. What's happening — and I've had so many of the owners and the operators who have been talking to me over the last couple of years — is that it's very onerous on the industry, on the drivers.

The whole idea was to improve the drivers so that they're more knowledgable about everything and know how to actually treat customers as they come in and all of that. There was a lot of education that was involved in it. What's happened is that because of the exam that is involved…. As you know, most of these drivers are of South Asian origin. A lot of them have a problem with writing and then passing an exam, even though they may not know all the information and the education that is involved. They're able to soak that all up.

What's happening on the other side is that there are fewer and fewer new drivers coming into the system, specifically because of this. You're going to find a shortage of taxi drivers in the immediate to the long-term future if this persists. I was wondering if the minister would revisit that and work something out with the municipalities, as well, to see that this is not onerous.

TaxiHost 1 — it was great to have that. TaxiHost 2, if it's for educational purposes, they should be able to take that course and be recognized for having participated in it. But the exam is actually driving drivers away from the industry, and it's going to be a problem.

I'd like the minister to comment and perhaps state for the record if he's willing to change that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's comments. The member probably knows that as an MLA from Surrey, I have very many good friends who are taxi drivers and who are in the industry, and there's nobody that appreciates and understands, perhaps, more than I — or maybe the member and a few others — just how hard these folks work in trying to make a living and in doing a job that at times can be very risky. But they do it with great enthusiasm and great effort, and they deserve kudos from us in that regard.

The issue that the member has raised is one I've heard before. I take taxis a fair bit, so I have an opportunity to speak to drivers. I guess the difficult balancing act, of course, is that you have organizations, municipalities and the airport that want to ensure a certain level of service is provided to visitors. No doubt the taxi drivers are all eager to ensure that there is a correspondingly high level of service being provided.

I think the member is correct. We have to make sure that as we go through this, we do it in a way that is sensitive to the challenges that many members of the South Asian community are already dealing with in terms of their language skills and their literacy skills. What I will say to the member is that I will gather some more information, try and get some more details regarding this, take a look at it and see if there's a way we can come forward with something that can help deal with what I think is a legitimate concern within the taxi industry.

Hopefully, together we can help come up with some solutions that can deal with the concerns raised by the taxi drivers — while also recognizing that as we get closer to 2010, we all are going to be raising the bar in terms of the level of service that we hope to provide to our visiting tourists and to folks that take the time to visit British Columbia.

H. Lali: Before I sit down, I want to thank the minister and also the minister's staff for the questions and answers here today. I also want to extend an invite to the minister. The next time he's going through Merritt on his way to Lac Le Jeune, please give me a heads-up. I'm sure the mayors and councils in Merritt and area would love to meet with you, if you can spare some time. We can talk about some highway issues and give you some good old Merritt hospitality.

D. Chudnovsky: In the course of the discussion between the member for Yale-Lillooet and the minister, the minister commented on the clothing of the former minister, and I was reminded of a roast that was given for a well-known retiring union leader who was moving on to another position. It was said of him that he knew more about the dress code than the Labour Code. Enough said.

We'd like to finish as quickly as possible. There are a few little odds and ends that I wanted to dispense with. I wanted to….

I won't ask for answers to these. I've gotten correspondence from a resident of West Vancouver, C.L. Sleeman, with respect to…. Some of it is copies of letters to the minister, and that relates to the cleanliness of the highway at the base, the south end, of Sea to Sky. There has been some correspondence, and I wonder if I could ask the minister and his staff just for a report on where that issue is at.

Secondly, I wonder if we could ask the minister and the ministry that we be provided with a number of documents — maintenance schedules, capital and capital rehab schedules by region and by constituency — if those could be the annual and the three-year outlook and the five-year outlook. I know I'm asking for a lot of stuff, but I understand that this has been done before. I'm wondering whether that could be provided to us as well.

Okay. Just to finish up, I want to say that it was, I think, a year or a year and a half ago when we started this process together. I said that I was new at it. It's been a very, very useful and interesting and, from my point of view, productive process. Not nearly enough time — that's probably due to my inexperience, but I'll be better in the spring. I learned a lot, and I know that my colleagues appreciate the information that we were able to glean from the minister and his staff.

We look forward to continuing that dialogue and debate. There's no doubt that from time to time we see things differently, but if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be worth going through the process. Don't bother having the meeting if everybody agrees to start with.

I wanted to finish by thanking the Chairs, the staff, the minister and, through him, his staff for what has been a very useful few days.

I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Transportation and ask leave to sit again. Or no, we're not asking….

D. Chudnovsky: I make the assumption that the minister will provide the information we asked for. Maybe I should….

D. Chudnovsky: I should sit down? I'm in a rush to go. Come on. That big guy — who was he? — the minister of something or other, said we should hurry up.

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